Display:
A mix of

  • Cultural unacceptablilty.
  • "What about the rural poor???"
  • It's a vote loser.
  • The odd voice of sanity.

They don't want to face it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 06:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The rural poor argument is pretty funny: it boils down to "our system is fucked, so we can't fix it."
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 06:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Either the "rural poor" survive on subsistence agriculture, and then they can actually subsist, or they don't even have a minimal plot on land and then WTF are they doing out there in the middle of nowhere having to get food shipped to them?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 07:01:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If that's snark, it's a bit kind of rude and dismissive of people who don't have that many choices in life. Certainly not the choice of moving into towns where the cost of living is higher than the rural one they're already having trouble with. And, er... Why should people in rural areas bother making food that needs transporting into town to feed urbanites? Hmm?

This said, I agree, as others have said too, that the "rural poor" is a strawman when we're talking about the price of oil-based fuels (for vehicles or heating).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not meant as a snark. I suspect a lot of these "rural poor" just lead an "urban poor" lifestyle in the middle of nowhere, or have long commutes to the nearest town. Then there is the struggling family farm.

But I'm serious: those who barely make do with subsistence agriculture, at least can subsist. You can't eat dirt, but you can grow things in it. The urban poor can't eat asphalt, not grow anything in it.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:14:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You've lost me there...

What the hell are you talking about?

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 06:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Umm, aren't they making a mountain out of a molehill with all this rural poor malarkey ?

For starters ,the rural poor started becoming a big feature of the US landscape only after Reagan bankrupted them and then Wal-Mart finished them off by removing producer access to markets.

How many people are we talking about ? Seriously, the US is effectively empty outside the cities. Urban americans are massively under-represented in Washington because Senate and Congressional numbers  don't represent the real concentration of populations.

Yes, there is a real problem with poverty in the USA, rural and urban. They need some serious answers to some serious problems and they could do with some serious politicians to do it. But saying that you can't begin to address a major crisis confronting the whole of America cos it will negatively impact a  minority whose issues are entirely separate is the equivalent of avoiding a problem by going "Look....a kitten"

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 07:04:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1995, there were 2,288 rural counties [there are 3,086 counties in the United States (source)] in the US, constituting 83% of the land and home to 21% (51,000,000) of the population. (source)
...
Currently, rural capital is flowing into either urban areas or some 33-40% of rural counties, namely the intermountain West, the Ozarks, counties along I-80 in Nebraska, and the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.
...
Rural society is faced with various problems including the environmental degradation and overuse of water resources, the establishment and inadequate regulation of toxic waste dumps, and poverty.
It seems like a more serious problem and a larger constituency than we give it credit for. Maybe cskendrick can pitch in with some data.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 07:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a real problem and a real constituency as far as I know but driving ever increasing distances for work isn't a remotely sensible solution.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 07:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The thing that makes it harder is that the vast majority of the jobs are in cities, but housing costs in cities is very expensive.  Thus people who work in low-wage jobs end up driving long distances to get to work.

I suppose the natural outcome of this is that wages for these low-wage jobs to rise.

by ericy on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not a problem that precludes a gasoline tax, however. Or rather, it only does so if you consider a flat uniform tax the only possibility. One could envision a gasoline tax based on population density for example. Or some complex scheme with income tax credits for low-income people and small businesses who would be hit disproportionally by a regressive gasoline sales tax. The rural poor is just another tool in the arsenal of those against a gas tax. A more serious problem is the stubborn unwillingness to change displayed by the affluent or relatively affluent suburbanite and exurbanite population who believe they need to drive.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends on who gets the revenue for the gasoline tax. If the rural counties get the revenue from their own residents they can try to use if to fund policies tailored to the needs of the local population. But that's a tax-and-spend solution.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:43:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right, of course. Progressive taxes are the worst of all taxes. Shed a tear for the rural poor, but refuse any policy that might help them.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 09:32:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know how a tax on a commodity can be made progressive. Then again, I do support a tax-exempt living wage, for instance.

The rural poor are going to have to change their lifestyle like everyone else.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 09:41:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure. But maybe one could begin with those for whom change would impact access to luxuries rather than essentials. My argument is that 'the rural poor' is a false obstacle if one really wishes to implement a gasoline tax. Provisions could be made to not devastate them if that is ones concern. 'The rural poor' is more likely an argument made by those who don't want such a tax for other reasons than a real concern for this group.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 10:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On that I agree. Particularly on DKos, it seems odd to me to see blue-state (sub)urbanites suddenly worried about the fate of the red-state rural poor they so often despise.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 10:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's the liberal version of the estate tax arguement.  Disgusts me.

And don't forget Clinton on Nafta and Welfare reform...  Ooohhhh, we care so much about the poor.  Then buy a cheaper car and give the difference to charity.  Puhlease...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 06:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I realize now you were snarking...

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 10:50:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe in leaving out the snark tags. To allow extra ambiguity in statements and keep everyone on their toes. Misunderstandings are essential to honest debate. Or at least sometimes funny.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After getting into some epic shouting matches I've learnt to use the snark tags when necessary.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I avoid them, but I'm generally pretty careful about it and ready to immediately apologise and clarify if someone misses the point.

Unless I'm feeling malicious for some reason.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the multi-first-language community EuroTrib, it is particularly easy to misunderstand something.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:18:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. And one could argue that I ought to follow the conventions of this community that I am barging in on, etc. I agree with this in principle. But the snark tags are just so distasteful, and my semi-anarchist leanings might predispose me to some rudeness. After reading this blog for a month or so, it seems people here are generally not that easily offended. Tricky situation.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do as you care to, we can always use a bit of novelty. And as you write, an apology usually solves any misunderstandings that can emerge between reasonable people - which most of us here are, I think (too much, even, maybe...)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 11:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the snark tags are just so distasteful, and my semi-anarchist leanings might predispose me to some rudeness.

Nevermind - nothing I said should be taken as compulsory :-)

After reading this blog for a month or so, it seems people here are generally not that easily offended.

Well, eh, you dropped in after some mighty screaming matches were over :-) There was the ET-hates-Russians, the ET-hates-Britons, the Migeru-is-anti-American, multilinguals-exclude-us, and a number of other, usually based on serial misunderstandings. But people learned to deal with it, partly by indicating snarks if in danger of being taken as insult, partly by being offended less easily. (Myself, I am in a funny situation, having been made a frontpager with peacemaking duties, despite an on-line past that included quite a bit of flame-thrower use :-) )

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 12:23:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Semi-anarchistic, huh? Just what exactly would that mean?



guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 01:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that guy almost at origo me?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 at 08:09:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, sorry, you're the Beta male around here ;-)

The map is clickable, by the way.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 at 08:10:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
an additional "row" for your income tax?

Write in the miles you have to drive to your job.
If your income is below a certain level, you get a tax credit depending on the miles driven.

Might help during the transition period.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 12:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unacceptable, as it encourages people to drive rather than use mass transit when available.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 01:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In Germany, you can deduct a fixed amount of (Euro) cents per kilometer to drive to your job. Regardless if you use public transport or your own car.

However I offered this in the context of the current American political situation. Reading lots of diaries and comments on DKos wailing about political suicide if the gas price won´t come down. Not to mention tax increases on gas like we have in Europe. :)

In that context a tax credit for commuting might be a good idea for a limited time. Help the "poorer" people now to gain their vote for more decisive action tomorrow.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Apr 29th, 2006 at 06:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can do it in France. Capped at 40km/day, but you can claim more if you can prove special circumstances.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 03:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seriously, the US is effectively empty outside the cities

If you count the suburbs as 'cities'.

Urban americans are massively under-represented in Washington because Senate and Congressional numbers  don't represent the real concentration of populations.

If by Congress you mean the House, how are urban populations underrepresented?  House districts are basically equal in population size.

by MarekNYC on Fri Apr 28th, 2006 at 06:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are also the people who demand that a cheap alternative be developed so that life as usual can proceed.  I suppose ultimately a sense of denial - not so uch denial that oil will run out, but denial that life has to change.

I run into this in conversations with people.  They make the argument that "The U.S. is different from Europe - we cannot do things that way".  To which my answer is that we have no choice but to change.

by ericy on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:27:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Europe today is a result of many policy changes adopted as a result of the 1970's oil shocks. All the same, people on DKos keep arguing that the Democrats cannot afford to "make the same mistake Carter made".

What worries me is that I don't see European governments talking realistically about the issue, and I'm not confident that they are enacting the right policies behind the scenes. Everyone has caught the free-market liberalism bug and believe that the market will fix things without the need for policy choices.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:35:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As has been pointed out (by Jerome, I believe) doing nothing is a policy choice.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:44:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Death, starvation and (in the best case) being stuck where you are are efficient market solutions to oil shortages.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 09:12:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
According to Amartya Sen, famines don't happen in functioning democracies. It is argued that the Irish potato famine escalated from a food shortage to a famine due to the free-market fundamentalism of the Whig government, which was ignorant and unresponsive [hence not properly democratic] towards Ireland.

Do we have a valid analogy here between famine and the possible consequences of a severe oil shock?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 09:24:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BBC:
A French government report on the global oil industry forecasts a possible peak in world production as early as 2013.
by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 12:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Independent published an 8-page special in January which made it quite clear the supply crisis will is very likely to have hit by 2012. (Jerome's diary on it)

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 01:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can recognize peak oil, and still think the Oildrum's editors are oilco shills.  What they recommend is functionally identical to what Bush recommends, and the righties are delighted with it.  Unlike Jerome's plan, they make no effort to try and help lower income people get off oil.  Nope, high prices and demand destruction are their creed.  And don't actually invest in anything, just do more research.  

Any Democrat who wants to buck the tide to defend Repubs and oilcos would have to be insane.

by tjbuff (timhess@adelphia.net) on Thu Apr 27th, 2006 at 08:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series