Gas prices are crazy

[brenthutch 383]

Not really, in this town they are all tooling around in big Cadillacs, Lincolns, BMWs and Audi SUVs.

[murps2000 86]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

It is.
It has a three liter turbocharged straight six assisted by a 48 volt hybrid system.  Does zero to sixty in under six seconds and can tow 8000+ lbs.

What kind of mileage can it get?

[mbohu 77]

Clearly, this is not the place for reasoned analysis--and nor is pretty much any other place online, but is everyone really satisfied with their diatribes of "my side is right", "your side stinks..." or rather: you are "woke" commies (has there ever even been such a thing??) or racist fascists?
Anyone interested in trying to figure out what's actually going on?
Regarding inflation: I'd say it's completely valid to argue either side of "is Biden or the current government doing a good job reacting to the current economic situation?" Personally, I don't see neither genius, nor abject failure--but the real, scary truth for most people must clearly be that the all powerful president of the United States simply does not have much power to do anything about this. Here is a chart of current inflation rates, by country:

 

The US is pretty much smack dab in the middle--doing a little better than the EU on average (again, in my opinion the most reasonable point of comparison). Who is most "successful?" China! So...we want to be more like them???
As for gas prices: Same applies here: They are up everywhere, but comparing them is even more pointless without a whole lot of additional information.

I really wonder if most people are actually aware of the fact that these things generally don't mean sh..t in regards to which side is right, and just use it as cannon fodder anyway, because actually understanding stuff and looking for solutions is difficult and boring--or if most people actually think that this stuff proves their point...just like they write it. (seems hard to believe, to me)

Another case in point: Ukraine: It's true that an invasion by a mentally ill dictator (Putin) cannot be tolerated and must be responded to in the strongest terms. It also seems to be true that the russian government is highly corrupt. Yet, if you just look back a little into historic articles--let's say in the New York Times--the same was true for Ukraine, and no: It wasn't just when the pro-russian leaders were in power...and yes: There were a series of articles about neo-nazi groups in the Ukraine, and their reach and almost popularity. These articles stopped right after Russia's invasion, because they don't fit the currently convenient narrative. These groups also seem to be very much involved in the resistance against Russia now.
So: It's complicated, a complete mess, and never an easy story to be used to prove that MY SIDE IS RIGHT and YOU OTHER FOLKS ARE CRAZY AND EVIL.

But, boy, is that a boring piece of information...

[Phil1111 908]

3 hours ago, mbohu said:

...Another case in point: Ukraine: It's true that an invasion by a mentally ill dictator (Putin) cannot be tolerated and must be responded to in the strongest terms. It also seems to be true that the russian government is highly corrupt. Yet, if you just look back a little into historic articles--let's say in the New York Times--the same was true for Ukraine, and no: It wasn't just when the pro-russian leaders were in power...and yes: There were a series of articles about neo-nazi groups in the Ukraine, and their reach and almost popularity. These articles stopped right after Russia's invasion, because they don't fit the currently convenient narrative. These groups also seem to be very much involved in the resistance against Russia now.

So: It's complicated, a complete mess, and never an easy story to be used to prove that MY SIDE IS RIGHT and YOU OTHER FOLKS ARE CRAZY AND EVIL.

But, boy, is that a boring piece of information...

Russian disinformation has a deep reach inside of the US right social media. American discourse of politics is limited to domestic because its so polarized. Also Americans mostly don't care about the rest of the world unless the issue is painted as security.

As far as inflation is concerned. Imagine if the US had no domestic oil. Imagine the inflation if the US dollar was not the world de facto reserve currency.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Imagine if the US had no domestic oil. Imagine the inflation if the US dollar was not the world de facto reserve currency.

That would be a "New World Order".

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

American discourse of politics is limited to domestic because its so polarized.

Yes, for sure. But to me this (polarization) isn't even the main issue (plus it's one that an individual cannot do too much about.)

What annoys the bejeezus out of me, is the way that it seems most people's thinking and arguing works online. It starts from the exact opposite direction of where--in my opinion--it should start from.

It looks like here (and on most forums and social media) the starting point is: What belief do I already hold, and what tribe do I belong to (that could be just "left" and "right" but it could also be a bit more differentiated)--then: What does this tribe believe about a specific issue--Then: What arguments support these beliefs--Then: What facts support these arguments--then: Who is on my side and who is on the other side--Then: Let's argue with them, using the facts and arguments that support OUR side...and so on. Most arguments used are a rehashing of arguments you find everywhere else already, so they also contain no new thought (or very little); arguments that support different conclusions are either purposefully ignored (maybe rationalized by thinking that it is so much more important that OUR side wins, because the other side is so evil or destructive--because quite a few people enjoying this type of argument, I know to be very intelligent...so I know they are aware of the arguments and facts that don't fit their narrative--but they ignore them or don't admit they are aware of them)

This is done by BOTH (or all) sides, including MY side (and it annoys me even more when done by "my side")

Wouldn't it be soooo much more interesting to try to understand an issue FIRST, to try to bring together the various facts and influences and opinions that make up the issue. Something like "how exactly is the price of gas in our country determined? What are all the factors that go into it? etc." Of course the complexity of just this one "simple" issue is staggering.

We may learn something beyond "it's the president's fault" or "it's the oil companies' fault". Something actually useful. That may then lead to a better argument about "what CAN Biden even do, what IS he doing, how effective is it, and is he even trying to solve this for our benefit, or is he even in a position to do anything at all?"

I am not saying that this would be the NICER, goody-two-shoes, koombaya way of doing things. I am saying this would be the much more INTERESTING and intellectually engaging thing--and maybe eventually even the more EFFECTIVE thing, if we actually are interested in solving anything, rather than just WINNING for our tribe. But hey--it seems most people think that's boring.

[Phil1111 908]

5 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Yes, for sure. But to me this (polarization) isn't even the main issue (plus it's one that an individual cannot do too much about.)
..... if we actually are interested in solving anything, rather than just WINNING for our tribe. But hey--it seems most people think that's boring.

It worked up until MAGA-trump moved into the discourse. It moved out with the exit of John McCain, John Kasich, Adam Kinzinger, Jeff Flake. With the defeat of Liz Cheney.

Up until four years ago there was discourse.The discussion of facts and compromise in public by political leaders. Public and private. The democratic party has no had a purge of any sort like the republican party has. The result has been a dramatic swing to the right for republicans.

and the facts bear this out. But as you state, fact matters little. Facts are boring.

[mbohu 77]

33 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The democratic party has no had a purge of any sort like the republican party has. The result has been a dramatic swing to the right for republicans.

Yes, but the entire "left versus right" lens is not very useful and again, looks at the entire thing as if it was a competition between 2 sides (like a duel or a sports competition) where we are only interested in which side WINS.

For example, there are interesting things to find, even in the trumpist camp, that could actually lead to useful explorations, even for a super-lefty like me. Take their extreme distrust of large corporations (well, at least pharmaceutical and tech companies). Something that has been championed by the left for some time. We could actually find a way to sort out in what way we agree here--but it's completely impossible to talk about, because when righties bring it up, we accuse them of being covid deniers (in case of pharma companies) or people who use "free speech" to hide their desire for saying racist stuff (in case of social media/tech companies) and when lefties bring it up, they are accused of wanting to implement an anti-capitalist system (which of course would have to look like the soviet union or north korea--because, naturally, they are the ONLY alternatives to completely uncontrolled capitalism). In reality, both sides have an intuition that we are being screwed by these companies and the people controlling them...but we can't really talk about it properly.

To come back to "left" versus "right": What EXACTLY do these terms actually mean? I can think of at least 3 different ways to define them, that each would make up a different axis of political orientation.

[billvon 2,380]

28 minutes ago, mbohu said:

To come back to "left" versus "right": What EXACTLY do these terms actually mean? I can think of at least 3 different ways to define them, that each would make up a different axis of political orientation.

Good question.

It literally goes back to the French Revolution, when the fairly authoritarian president (who represented the king) presided over the Assembly.  Those loyal to the King, and those who preferred to maintain the older religious monarcy, sat on the right (they were literally "at his right hand") and the revolutionaries sat on the left to stay among like-minded members.  A deputy of the Assembly described it this way: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp."  Thus the general divisions - the right supporting traditional authoritarian rule, slavery, religion and conservative social values, and the left representing "liberté, égalité, fraternité"  - were established literally by where they sat in the Assembly.

In the late 1800s the left took the name "republicans" since they favored a republic over a monarchy.  This tradition took hold in the US as well, and during the Civil War, the republicans were what we think of now as democrats - the city people who opposed racial divisions, favored immigrant protections, supported organized labor and wanted to spend federal money on infrastructure (namely, a rail project to connect the East and West.)  The democrats were the country folk who relied on slavery for their livelihood, and supported it for economic reasons.

In the early 1900's, as unscrupulous carpetbaggers flooded the American South and needed to "fly a flag" they pretty much had to choose republicanism, since they had won the war.  As they established their empires they adopted the racial divisions, religious fervor, states-right stance and respect for authority that made it easy to govern and control a racially-divided South without interference from DC.  Democrats, meanwhile, started to support labor in bigger cities in order to court their vote.

By the 1950's the two parties had completely reversed ideologies, and the new "republican right" in the US took on the causes of segregation, state's rights over federal rights, opposition to organized labor and respect for authority.  That has continued to this day.

So you have three axes:

Republican vs democrat.  This changes the most frequently as both parties adopt wedge issues to appeal to centrists.  As an example, gun rights are an individual right, and as such are supported by "pure" liberals.  But the republican party has adopted it and made it part of their core beliefs.

Left vs. right.  This is a combination of political party and philosophy and is becoming sort of outdated, since it doesn't describe anything unique.  And it describes political positions that change with time.

Conservative vs liberal.  This is a philosophical axis that determines things like "should traditional tools and methods be maintained in the face of progress?" and "should individual rights trump government rights?"

Nowadays we have three de facto parties - democrats, republicans and trumpies.  Many republicans try to apply a litmus test to all their candidates; you have to support Trump to be a republican.  But since he maintains so many stances that are opposite those of the republican party, there are more and more never-Trumper republicans out there who support the more traditional party values.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, mbohu said:

For example, there are interesting things to find, even in the trumpist camp, that could actually lead to useful explorations, even for a super-lefty like me. Take their extreme distrust of large corporations (well, at least pharmaceutical and tech companies).

But there is no extreme distrust of large companies. There is feigned distrust of large companies that do not behave Trumpists want them to behave.

Trump had a push to deregulate markets and companies if their line of work helped his tribe, such as environmental deregulation. At the same time there was a push to regulate other companies more, such as media platforms.

 

[BIGUN 1,049]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

more and more never-Trumper republicans out there who support the more traditional party values.

Well written, Bill. The number of Republicans that wish to see a "Unity Ticket" continues to grow. My concern is that he makes it on the ticket and the number of R's who will not vote or will cast a dissenting vote. 

[mbohu 77]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

Good question.

It literally goes back to the French Revolution,...

Yes, thanks. I was aware of at least part of the history. Interesting details in respect to Republicans and Democrats in the US.

Again, I think it is much more useful to start looking at this by completely ignoring the history and political parties, because if you start there, you run the danger of identifying with a tribe/party FIRST and then tending to adjust your opinions to what matches the party's position on them.

 

If we start at the bottom, let's say with "values" or philosophies, then there are a few things that sometimes (but not always) fit into the right-left dichotomy.

The first is one you mentioned: Progressive (=wanting change and progress, stepping on the gas, so to speak) versus Conservative (honoring the past, careful and distrustful of change, and sometimes even wanting to go back to the past, or even believing that progress is an illusion and history is static or circular at best)
--but right away, we find that this does not fit the current political reality perfectly, as there are some parts of "the left" who find their golden age all the way back in the pre-agrarian-revolution times (extreme environmentalists do, and the extreme end of the woke crowd as well--because that time was supposedly pre-exploitation (of nature and of anything not white male) ) So it's not a perfect match.

Then there is: Authoritarian versus Libertarian (or Liberal) I always thought the Right was pro authoritarian ("law and order") and the left liberal. But in some respects this has now reversed, or at least been totally confused. Generally you find aspects where the American right is much more authoritarian, but also where the left prefers authority over freedom (for some time the left was for more control economically and more freedom socially...but even that is not a defining faultline anymore)

Then there is one I think lies pretty deep psychologically and still mostly applies:
Internal versus External causation. Do we see problems and solutions as existing primarily internal (the evil person shooting people, the lazy person being homeless because they aren't disciplined enough, etc.) or do we see problems and solutions primarily on the outside (lax gun-laws, or a system that does not support disenfranchised groups and drives them into poverty, etc.)
Mostly, this matches right versus left pretty well. (And of course it should be obvious that neither side has 100% of the truth here)

There is also Individualist versus Collectivist (which is similar to the above but not 100% the same) and this at first seems to match the right versus left divide, but when you look a little deeper into the religious right (which professes individualism but practices collectivism in their religious affiliations) it gets complicated here as well.

So again, we could use a much more nuanced set of scales (or we could just look at every issue individually, anyway)

 

[mbohu 77]

16 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

But there is no extreme distrust of large companies. There is feigned distrust of large companies that do not behave Trumpists want them to behave.

Not really true in my experience from talking to some pro-Trump people. (I am not talking about Trump himself, of course. By any estimation he is simply a narcissist who couldn't care less about anything but how it affects him--and quite a few of his fans agree with that estimation, but they don't care, because they like what they think he will do)

There are at least some who were driven to him by a feeling that they have been screwed by "the system" (or they would say: "by the elites") and that he will get back at them, to their benefit (or if not to their benefit, so at least to inflict pain on the elites as well.)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 minutes ago, mbohu said:

There are at least some who were driven to him by a feeling that they have been screwed by "the system" (or they would say: "by the elites") and that he will get back at them, to their benefit (or if not to their benefit, so at least to inflict pain on the elites as well.)

Sure, but that isn't an inherent distrust of large companies. Why else would they support a leader who constantly will tell you what a large company he built. I have also not seen a single Trumpist call for the dismantling of oil companies. In stead they blame Biden.

So no, I don't see a true distrust of large companies. I see some large companies being used as a boogeyman. And some companies large and small are indeed evil.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

6 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

...So no, I don't see a true distrust of large companies. I see some large companies being used as a boogeyman. And some companies large and small are indeed evil.

^This.

The Trumpettes hate 'Big Pharma' as an excuse not to get the vaccine. 
They still want their Viagra, Oxies and all the stuff that keeps them alive.

They also hate "Big Tech" because FB & Twitter don't allow them to have 'free speech', which is a euphemism for 'spreading lies and hatred'.

 

Banks? Oil Companies? Car Companies? 

Those all got bailed out and the Trump fans just cheered (they weren't "Trump Fans" at the time of the bailouts, but they were the ones who became them). z

 

The divisions and animosity goes back before Trump. He just saw it and exploited it.

Remember McConnell on Obama?
"We will do anything we can to oppose Obama, even if it hurts the country". (that may not be the exact quote, I did a quick search and came up empty)

And, while it wasn't a truly representative sample, Politifact found that Rs lied twice as much as Ds, and Ds told the truth twice as much as Rs (there's a difference between lying and telling the truth for ad claims).

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/study-politifact-says-republicans-lie-more-164943

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Back to gas prices, Biden is now planning to release 15 Million Barrels from the reserve with more on offer this winter. The reserve will still have close to 400 Million barrels remaining so no big deal, except at the pumps. That's a good thing. It's anathema to many but I think it's past time to start releasing twice that a year while ramping up US production to both replace stocks and add more to US and our Allies markets. AGW is real but so are brick walls.

[airdvr 197]

Spending the week in Palo Alto.  I have a hard time understanding how gas prices can be $3 more than at home in Ohio

[wmw999 2,116]

Different formulation, more taxes. But the air as compared with 50 years ago is WAY better. Part of health cost.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,903]

21 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Spending the week in Palo Alto.  I have a hard time understanding how gas prices can be $3 more than at home in Ohio

The rivers are not flammable in CA?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

44 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Back to gas prices, Biden is now planning to release 15 Million Barrels from the reserve with more on offer this winter. The reserve will still have close to 400 Million barrels remaining so no big deal, except at the pumps. That's a good thing. It's anathema to many but I think it's past time to start releasing twice that a year while ramping up US production to both replace stocks and add more to US and our Allies markets. AGW is real but so are brick walls.

Considering how much we distrust large companies, it would make sense to pass legislation that would require large oil companies to donate a portion of their profits in kind to replace the oil reserve.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Considering how much we distrust large companies, it would make sense to pass legislation that would require large oil companies to donate a portion of their profits in kind to replace the oil reserve.

Fine by me. For that matter shoot their dogs and steal their kids bikes, whatever it takes to get the job done in real time.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Fine by me. For that matter shoot their dogs and steal their kids bikes, whatever it takes to get the job done in real time.

Leave the dogs out of it. Shoot a damn cat instead, they are assholes.

[ryoder 1,381]

11 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Leave the dogs out of it. Shoot a damn cat instead, they are assholes.

I've never had a neighbor's cat barking at all hours of the day and night.

[okalb 78]

30 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Leave the dogs out of it. Shoot a damn cat instead, they are assholes.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

50 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I've never had a neighbor's cat barking at all hours of the day and night.

At least we are all in agreement about stealing their kids bikes. I'm starting to get a little wet eyed; you guys are the best.