several months ago, there was little media coverage and even less outrage over the refiners convention where a leading refiner stated (and was caught on videotape) saying that the refinery output controlled the market price, not the amount of crude oil available. the implication was, cut refinery output and raise price/gal..
when oil first started to creep upward, the leading speculative markets were the midlands texas standard oil and the brent north sea oil. the middle east and russian and south american crude remained stable bet. 35 and 40/bbl. however, the mideast and other producers are not stupid. if the market will bear the higher price/bbl, then to artificially keep their oil low makes no sense. the "gravy train" is at hand - so they raised the band. also, the "peak oil" debate (which may be the driving force behind texas fields raising prices) may have been accelerated by the forced increases in productions that are speculated to have damaged the saudi wells.
bottom line on this - imho, it is an enron situation driven by the texas refiners who want to see the prices higher to maximize the amount of money to be made on fields that may be over the hump in production.
something smells in this scenario. the prices of oil/bl are being directed by market speculators buying "futures" on what oil WILL be in six months. the driving standards for the light sweet crude just HAPPEN to be in bush country - midlands, texas - and blairland - north sea.
the middle east oil cartel is in a shambles (as has been the wet dream of the pnac crew for over a decade). by manipulating the two fields (texas midland and brent), the opec cartel has been forced to raise their prices (whether by greed or by smart business acumen) - and some in the cartel is pushing fields to the max to take advantage of the higher prices, threatening their ability to hold the market to a certain level.
also, to make anwar fields financially feasible, the price per barrell must be higher since the fields are limited and the cost of extracting would be self defeating at $20-$30/bbl.
oil is finite. the owners of the industry want to see the maximum profit for whatever is left - and they don't want to have other energy sources usurping that last drop of profit - so, we now have refineries manipulating the output to drive the costs outrageously high.
the talk of $5/gal gas in europe is not talk - it is reality. the reality of $5/gal gas in america is not a viable means to develop new energy, however. any new energy source will take decades to come online. the economic health of a country that is 3000 miles across and is dependent on trucking and air transport to move goods cannot sustain $5/gal fuel. the ripple effect on commerce - from the inability of the consumer to spend, the subsequent closure of retail businesses which will dry up the need for wholesale and manufacturing will cripple not only this economy, but the world economy.
america is the greatest consumer of foreign goods in the world - if we don't have jobs to give the income to the people who spend, the effect on the producers of those goods from europe to china will be felt like a tsunami of poverty - it will hit later than here, but it will eventually reach the rest of the world.
the dollar will collapse, the intricate dance between nations will turn into a battle for goods and currency that will tear down alliances and make nations lock resources within their own borders...
it will, in other words, be a global economic disaster - with the poorest having nothing left to lose - which is the recipe for revolution.
and it all hinges on oil...... sucks, doesn't it.
what is the solution? for one thing, break up the petroleum cartel - prohibit producers from owning refineries. don't allow third party "brokers" for energy. make utilities "public" instead of "private held corporations". increase refinery capacity - encourage other nations to build refineries and give some real competition to the petroleum multinational's stranglehold.
most of all, the entire world needs to reexamine this policy of globalization - and define it very carefully. is globalization the concept of one world, one economy - and if so, then who RUNS that economy - who is in CHARGE of that economy? frankly, i prefer free trade with healthy international regulation to prevent massive multinational control over the lives of americans, british, french, german, kenyan, argentinian, arab, chinese, .... well, you get my drift...
first of all, have you ever tried carrying large quantities of packages on a bicycle? i have. when i first moved to long island from nyc, i bought a 15 speed bike with saddle bags in front AND back. did laundry, grocery shopped, etc - using that bike.
the problem is that when people shop quantity, they CANNOT carry large bulky items on a bicycle OR even a motorbike. it requires a vehicle.
secondly, in nyc, people walk to stores and buy quantity and carry it home in wheeled shopping carts. the distance is only a few blocks. in suburban areas, the stores are miles away - ten miles from shopping centers is not uncommon. five miles trucking supplies in a wheeled cart where there are no sidewalks on major roadways is not possible. too dangerous AND most "freeways" prohibit pedestrians (so add an addition five miles to walking distance.
bus lines do not go into residential neighborhoods - just to general areas - so another obstacle to non-auto travel.
QUESTION 2:
for some of us, it is all of the included. for others, when the minimum wage combined with five other family members barely makes the basic rent and electric bills, price is the ONLY consideration. politics is a luxury of the rich or middle income - NOT of people who fight for every scrap to survive.
QUESTION 3:
yes. i DO see them buying celery, but not as often as ice cream - you see, poor people tend to weigh much more due to the cheapness of highly saturated fatty foods that "fill" the need for food while NOT nourishing the physical body. given the choice of a bag of cheese puffs that can be eaten over an extended time AND fool the body into thinking it is sated OR highly nutritional salads and veggies, most people with few funds (myself included as i eat my cheese puffs as i type) go for the long term "fool" foods.
Question 4:
yes, the multinational mercenaries DO hold a gun over the consumer's head - it is the gun of poverty - which forces people to make choices of survival over choices over politics.
it is easy to be idealistic when you are not hungry or cold or fearing the loss of shelter. when push comes to shove, if you need toilet paper and only have enough to shop at walmart, i'm betting you, too, would head for that environment rather than go without.
I shop at Wal-Mart because I don't want my next door neighbor to lose her job. She's not qualified to be a computer engineer or an airplane mechanic.
In a country where you can get a perfectly functional car for $750, and gas costs $2 a gallon, the use or non-use of cars is not a good metric of poverty. EVERYBODY has a car, except for the homeless who sleep under the bridge because there are no mental hospitals any more...
walmart employs people at below poverty level wages - exploits its employees and drives legitimate, well paying businesses out of town.
if it weren't for that walmart in your neighborhood, maybe there would be decent paying jobs from the small businesses that are now out of business AND your community wouldn't have to pick up the slack of lack of pay that makes walmart employees eligible for food stamps!
secondly, any functional car that is $750 will most likely not pass smog in states where there are air standards... and i WISH gas were only two dollars a gallon - right now, i drive expeditiously to make it back to my station that is ONLY 2.37 - where most are 2.49+ in the area for the cheapest.
and your very objectionable generalization about the homeless sleeping under a bridge because of a lack of mental hospitals is just.... well... downright ignorant.
i suggest you check out the real statistics of people who have lost housing in markets where there is little tenant protection. i personally know of a woman from china whose husband lost his job while she was working to transfer her medical degree to this country. THEY were living under a parking structure - because if the medical board knew they had no housing, she would NEVER have been certified.
housing is NOT a mental condition - it is an economic one. there are a great many people who are working members of society, mentally competent, in some cases, mentally brilliant - who, for one reason or another, have lost their jobs (silicon valley), housing (30 day i'm taking my apt back to rent it for a higher market value) or any other number of reasons - who find themselves living in cars, rvs, and other makeshift devices (like perpetual hotel rooms).
you really need to know more before you state facts....
jeeezussss! try a bit of information, next time - then add a dose of compassion and a touch of empathy, plus a great smattering of education and maybe your views will be different.
[exercise: if you lose your job today, how many paychecks are you from not being able to pay your rent/mortgage/bills... for most people today, it is two. think about it... then get back to me.]
I don't buy the "Wal-Mart drives away small business" meme, sorry. The one closest to my house is surrounded by small businesses that do the things Wal-Mart doesn't do: Muffler and glass repairs, furniture, gasoline, movies, restaurants, motorcycles, X-rated books, specialty clothing, records... If anything, I think that there is a prejudice among limosine liberals against the working poor: Wal-Mart serves the needs of customers and workers, that's why it's successful. I live in a poor neighborhood and can tell you with some authority that the people on my street don't shop at the fancy health food store downtown.
My son has one of those $500 cars and it passes the smog test just fine--as will practically any car with computer-controlled fuel injection (i.e. anything less than say 15 years old). Out here in the west where cars don't rust away, it's common to see people driving around in 20 year old cars.
I agree that the health care situation in the U.S. is a mess. That will be fixed only when people vote for representatives that support single-payer, which doesn't include the current crop of either Republicans or Democrats. Vote Green and maybe we'll make some progress.
I would claim that my viewpoint is based on a practical understanding of the reality of the working poor community.
also, the main psychiatric hospitals were closed and the mentally ill were moved into group homes and smaller, more personal facilities - where many of them just walked away. the city didn't try at all to find these patients - they simply celebrated the lack of expense of treating them - and the homeless crisis was born - for the mentally ill.
this has been the "model" for describing the homeless - that they are all mentally ill or alcoholics or drug addicts. while this may have been true in the early stages of the current crisis - this is NOT the basis for homeless today.
economic conditions have born a new class of homeless - the working poor, the unhoused, the wheeled workers, the rv communities. the extent of this "problem" is shown by the number of communities that have, in the last eight years, made it illegal to sleep in a vehicle between the hours of 1(or 2)am and 5am. communities in northern california have outlawed the parking of commercial vehicles and "housecars" on any street in their townships in an attempt to drive the structurally challenged to other neighborhoods. increasingly, towns have passed laws making it illegal for rvs to park overnight in private parking lots belonging to walmart, kmart and large box stores in an attempt to stop the "homeless" from moving into their town. in redwood city, ca, one overzealous policeman had the audacity to demand a man with an rv leave the kmart parking lot during store hours - the man had stopped to shop at the store with no intention of staying the night. needless to say, the police chief was informed by both the store manager, the man AND angry customers who witnessed the event.
so, my friend - depending on where you are and how observant you are - you may or may not see those who do not have housing. another little side effect, since housing is so tight in california (especially AFFORDABLE housing), if a person isn't living IN a house or apt, they will not be able to RENT an apt or house. more information from Freedonation.com says
Contrary to popular belief, the homeless is not lazy and dependent exclusively on public welfare. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, on average in the United States, a single worker earning minimum wage would have to work 87 hours each week just to pay for a 2-bedroom apartment with 30% (Federal definition of affordable housing) of his or her income. The rest would be barely sufficient to acquire other necessities such as food and clothing. As a result of low wages, many impoverished workers are forced out of their homes when extenuating circumstances come into play. In fact, up to 40% of the homeless are employed and working.
as for help, you mention soup kitchens, shelters - these are excellent resources for many, but for the working poor, being "outed" means discrimination, loss of job, and local harrassment by law inforcement - so you will never see working homeless at these establishments. also, you mention that there are programs in place for homeless women with children - yes there are programs for those with "dependents" - but for those without "attachments" there is nothing. the problem is so overwhelming that the families get priority and when the agencies are done, there are more families waiting. the single individual is S.O.L.
also, rents in california where there is work are out of the reach of most single older individuals who are not already housed. the entrance fee for any house/apt is first/last/one month deposit... this can top $2,500 - $3,000 easily. look at these stats from 1992...
It has been said that every human being has a primary and fundamental right to adequate food and shelter. Yet so many people in our world are deprived of this basic right. This right of feeling a warm bed at night, in a place called home.
in a paycheck to paycheck economy, this amount might as well be 2 million...
as for that $500 car? the repairs keeping one of them on the road can be daunting - so dump and buy another one when it dies - but reliable transportation, insurance, registration (which, for a 500 clunker is not much, small blessing) the problem here is that if your transportation goes and you can't make it to work, so goes your employment. too many unemployed waiting to take your place when you don't or can't show.
as for walmart, just look at the studies done in communities where a box store appears. you say that the idea of store closures is a "limousine liberal" myth? well, last time i looked,billings, montana was in a very very red state.
By JAN FALSTAD Of The Gazette Staff
Tracing David Wittman's 25 years in the Billings grocery business is like tracing the history of the industry itself.
The Billings native has been there for all the big changes in this town's grocery business: the loss of neighborhood markets, corporate chains buying and selling local stores, and Wal-Mart's arrival in Montana in 1992 with stores in Butte and Billings.
With
Last year, the Heights Kmart shut its doors, followed closely by Osco Drug on Main Street. Those stores shared the geographical bad luck of being within sight of Billings' second Wal-Mart superstore.
With that kind of churn, other grocery managers are wondering whether they will be next.
It is easy, and overly simplistic, to blame Wal-Mart, and company officials deny they go gunning for smaller competitors.
But, there's not doubting the retail giant's clout.
i agree with you that we need a single payer system or universal healthcare - the current system only enriches the insurance, pharmaceutical and private companies instead of the patients. what i don't agree with is voting green - every "green" vote is for the "greenback" snatched by the greedy - the vote doesn't simply "not count" - it DOES count - by eliminating a vote for the opposition candidate that has a chance of defeating the republican/rightwing/neocon or even MODERATE republican who votes partisan politics.
at this stage of the "game" [and politics IS a game, my friend], i don't care if the dems run the effin' donkey - my vote goes for the jackass that will vote against the current republican mantra! vote green and you've just pissed into the wind. maybe one day - but right now - you are going to get very very wet...
now, as for MY viewpoint, i think i've given you a small glimmer of where i'm coming from - there's much more - but it is late and i don't have the energy to cite and copy more - i have a virus and don't/can't afford going to the doc, so i'm having a nice glass of rose wine and kicking back for the rest of the eve --- this has worn me out - so, more later, if you need additional sources.
stay well - and keep reading - sounds like you are in my neck of the woods... i'm near the blues festival and the motorcycle/auto races [not to forget that big biker rally last weekend...] hope your area is warmer than we have - what ever happened to summer!
nite for now.
