Almost everything is made from oil, made by machinery that requires oil, and transported by oil as either gas or diesel fuel. Not to mention products that have oil or are oil based.
Now, granted for every Barrel of Oil I think we use about 20% of that crude for Gasoline and then I think its like 10% for Diesel and Heating Oil so that leaves 70% left for everything else we use it for per barrel. So not only does the cost of Fuel increase and food prices increase from Transportation costs but also because Oil is used on other products as well. It one viscious cycle.
Oh I paid $68 for regular and I had about a 1/4 of a tank already. Yes, I drive a truck 2001 F150 and its a guzzler but I use it at work everyday.
Ok, what's your principle here? No one should be hungry? No one should be rich? Both? The fact of the matter is that people were starving when oil was $10 a barrel. Furthermore, the logical extensions of most of your posts created some of the worst periods of human starvation in civilized history. Your post above is great for a bumper sticker, but not for any kind of reasoned debate about economics.
Oil is a limited commodity for which better alternatives now exist. Rising oil prices will help those alternatives come to market more quickly and will lead to the first great industrial leaps of this century, promising better and cleaner energy for both the rich and poor.
The fact that some people are "going hungry" and some people are "getting rich" is constant fact of human history. You can either sit there and bicker about which people are getting rich or going hungry, or you can recognize the paths by which greater numbers of people get rich and smaller numbers of people go hungry.
The problem with that in a class based society is that in order for some to get rich many need to be poor. There is a finite amount of resources, for the most part, and you cant' have an increasing number controlling more without many feeling the affects. Its simply a matter of supply.
And the numbers back that up, as minimum wage hasn't risen in over 40 years, relative to inflation, as a smaller number of americans are owning more and more of it, as the middle class is shrinking, while the lower is growing. The upper class have seen exponetial increases in pay checks while the lower and middle have stagnated or risen a few percentage points. In 2000 some 400 families in the US owned 90% of it. You can't have more people getting rich and at the same time have fewer people in poverty, the reverse is actually true.
Its simply a metter of resources. What right does exxon have to the resources of Venezuela? Shouldn't the resources benefit the area from which they are extracted? Seems to be a much more common sense approach to resource distribution, instead of having a small minority benefit from the majority's labor, as it is now.
The problem with that in a class based society is that in order for some to get rich many need to be poor.
In terms of economic classes, yes. However, "poor" as you're using it is a relative term. Obviously if there are rich, there will be poor. But poor isn't necessarily even a bad thing. I'm poor compared to Bill Gates, but I'm far richer than many kings who came before me. "Poor" is best measured in absolute terms relative to one's survival, not in terms relative to ones neighbors.
There is a finite amount of resources, for the most part, and you cant' have an increasing number controlling more without many feeling the affects. Its simply a matter of supply.
Very much so, yes. But you're treading dangerous grounds in this context. "Resources", for instance, are not as limited as they might appear. Oil may be a limited resource. Energy, however, is not (at least for practical purposes).
There are two ways to make people rich. The first is done by taking existing resources from one population and give them to a poorer one. The second is done by creating new wealth and ensuring that all have a chance to partake.
My problems with many of your posts, including your previous one, is that they are stuck in the first path detailed above. That path, in history, has proven to be the worst way to make people wealthy. The latter way is the way most of us in the West have become wealthy.
And the numbers back that up, as minimum wage hasn't risen in over 40 years, relative to inflation, as a smaller number of americans are owning more and more of it, as the middle class is shrinking, while the lower is growing.
You're kind of all over the place here. The minimum wage is not really an anti-poverty tool as most minimum wage earners aren't in poverty. Secondly, the minimum wage contributes to inflation, so it seems silly to introduce inflation into a justification for raising it.
What you're saying here is that the average American is poorer today than they were 40 years ago. And that statement is so laughable I'm not even sure where to begin. Real per-capita GDP in the 60s was in the ten thousands. Today it is in the forty thousands. Now, certainly one may argue that the poor are still poor. But in absolute terms, there are very few poor people in the United States.
Furthermore, one may certainly claim that today's distribution of wealth is unfair -- I think that's without a doubt, at least to some extent. But the idea that it is unfair from any kind of historical perspective is a little funny. Middle and lower America still own a lot of this country's wealth. Much can and should be done, but there is no middle/lower class crisis in this country from a historical perspective.
The upper class have seen exponetial increases in pay checks while the lower and middle have stagnated or risen a few percentage points. In 2000 some 400 families in the US owned 90% of it. You can't have more people getting rich and at the same time have fewer people in poverty, the reverse is actually true.
This is a false function and your data is wrong. The top 10% (4 million people) do own 71% of this country's wealth. It's certainly not 400 families owning 90%. Also, just because someone is getting richer it doesn't have to mean someone is getting poorer. This is silly quasi-Marxist bullshit and, if it were true, no one would ever have gotten rich in the first place because we'd all still be trading sticks and wampum.
Its simply a metter of resources. What right does exxon have to the resources of Venezuela?
None, really.
Shouldn't the resources benefit the area from which they are extracted?
The resources should benefit whomever owns those resources.
Seems to be a much more common sense approach to resource distribution, instead of having a small minority benefit from the majority's labor, as it is now.
That "common sense approach" gave rise to some of the most ridiculous and foolish protectionist economic policies in world history. Simply look at China or India's trade policies in the 19th and 20th Century and what it did to their wealth as opposed to what their current policies are doing. This kind of thinking leads to rampant nationalist protectionism which is one of the best ways to ensure that your country will remain or become quite poor.
Comments
Heating Oil, Propane, Gas, Diesel, Kerosene, Artificial Limbs, Heart Valves, Food Preservatives and Packaging, Plastic Bottles(water,Shampoo etc..), Shoes,Toothpaste etc.......
Now, granted for every Barrel of Oil I think we use about 20% of that crude for Gasoline and then I think its like 10% for Diesel and Heating Oil so that leaves 70% left for everything else we use it for per barrel. So not only does the cost of Fuel increase and food prices increase from Transportation costs but also because Oil is used on other products as well. It one viscious cycle.
Oh I paid $68 for regular and I had about a 1/4 of a tank already. Yes, I drive a truck 2001 F150 and its a guzzler but I use it at work everyday.
www.seanbrady.net
The problem with that in a class based society is that in order for some to get rich many need to be poor. There is a finite amount of resources, for the most part, and you cant' have an increasing number controlling more without many feeling the affects. Its simply a matter of supply.
And the numbers back that up, as minimum wage hasn't risen in over 40 years, relative to inflation, as a smaller number of americans are owning more and more of it, as the middle class is shrinking, while the lower is growing. The upper class have seen exponetial increases in pay checks while the lower and middle have stagnated or risen a few percentage points. In 2000 some 400 families in the US owned 90% of it. You can't have more people getting rich and at the same time have fewer people in poverty, the reverse is actually true.
Its simply a metter of resources. What right does exxon have to the resources of Venezuela? Shouldn't the resources benefit the area from which they are extracted? Seems to be a much more common sense approach to resource distribution, instead of having a small minority benefit from the majority's labor, as it is now.
In terms of economic classes, yes. However, "poor" as you're using it is a relative term. Obviously if there are rich, there will be poor. But poor isn't necessarily even a bad thing. I'm poor compared to Bill Gates, but I'm far richer than many kings who came before me. "Poor" is best measured in absolute terms relative to one's survival, not in terms relative to ones neighbors.
Very much so, yes. But you're treading dangerous grounds in this context. "Resources", for instance, are not as limited as they might appear. Oil may be a limited resource. Energy, however, is not (at least for practical purposes).
There are two ways to make people rich. The first is done by taking existing resources from one population and give them to a poorer one. The second is done by creating new wealth and ensuring that all have a chance to partake.
My problems with many of your posts, including your previous one, is that they are stuck in the first path detailed above. That path, in history, has proven to be the worst way to make people wealthy. The latter way is the way most of us in the West have become wealthy.
You're kind of all over the place here. The minimum wage is not really an anti-poverty tool as most minimum wage earners aren't in poverty. Secondly, the minimum wage contributes to inflation, so it seems silly to introduce inflation into a justification for raising it.
What you're saying here is that the average American is poorer today than they were 40 years ago. And that statement is so laughable I'm not even sure where to begin. Real per-capita GDP in the 60s was in the ten thousands. Today it is in the forty thousands. Now, certainly one may argue that the poor are still poor. But in absolute terms, there are very few poor people in the United States.
Furthermore, one may certainly claim that today's distribution of wealth is unfair -- I think that's without a doubt, at least to some extent. But the idea that it is unfair from any kind of historical perspective is a little funny. Middle and lower America still own a lot of this country's wealth. Much can and should be done, but there is no middle/lower class crisis in this country from a historical perspective.
This is a false function and your data is wrong. The top 10% (4 million people) do own 71% of this country's wealth. It's certainly not 400 families owning 90%. Also, just because someone is getting richer it doesn't have to mean someone is getting poorer. This is silly quasi-Marxist bullshit and, if it were true, no one would ever have gotten rich in the first place because we'd all still be trading sticks and wampum.
None, really.
The resources should benefit whomever owns those resources.
That "common sense approach" gave rise to some of the most ridiculous and foolish protectionist economic policies in world history. Simply look at China or India's trade policies in the 19th and 20th Century and what it did to their wealth as opposed to what their current policies are doing. This kind of thinking leads to rampant nationalist protectionism which is one of the best ways to ensure that your country will remain or become quite poor.