Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Sorry, children

Here we learn how Americans are coping with the high price of gas. This kinda made me mad:

"We have stopped spending on things that aren't necessities, and we've been forced to halve our grocery bill. The kids no longer get fresh fruit or vegetables and no longer get turkey sandwiches. Now we buy only canned goods and the cheapest lunch meat possible. With the price of gas up, everything else is up... except for our wages."

Probably it's not so good of an idea to stop giving your kids fruits and vegetables...but hey, you do what you have to. The other funny thing is the headline for that paragraph, which is:

Reigning in the spending

This clearly shows CNN's liberal bias, because the correct term that the illiterate editor didn't put in, "rein", is neutral, whereas "reign" voted for John Kerry and loves Tom Brokaw.

Anyway, has the price of gas affected any of us in the blogosphere? As brian spilner would say, discuss.

8 Comments:

At 10:46 AM, Blogger RedHurt said...

unless that's what's causing blogger and my computer to go so horribly slow this morning, I'd have to say no. I do wish it were lower though. What's the point in invading Iraq if we can't turn on the oil? I mean....

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Jackscolon said...

Nice.

I would be dead if I had any kind of real living expenses. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I could totally see how it would screw a person working an $8 an hour job like me, with the exception that they pay more than $250 a month in rent and don't have the alternative of $50 an hour lessons and free excellent investment advice...

 
At 4:07 PM, Blogger BrianESpilner said...

What's the point in invading Iraq if we can't turn on the oil? That is 100% correct. "I've decided to quit smoking and start carpooling to balance out gas prices. I commute 40 miles per day, and can now share a ride with non-smokers." According to jackscolon "Want better cars? Use more gas and drive the price up!" So, I guess this is a good thing.

 
At 11:12 PM, Blogger Jackscolon said...

I thought we couldn't exchange blood for oil?

 
At 10:53 AM, Blogger BrianESpilner said...

I was being sarcastic, no, we cannot trade blood for oil. This might be kind of thread-jacking, but it relates to the topic. Jackscolon you told me if I wanted better cars I should use more gas and drive the price up, which implies I'm the only one that wants better cars. Don't you want either cheaper gas or an alternative or do you really actually enjoy paying $3 per gallon?

 
At 11:10 PM, Blogger Jackscolon said...

Sure I want cheaper gas and alternatives, I just don't think we can get both. I really don't think that gas is going to go down any time soon (reserves increase 2% a year, demand much faster), and I don't think that alternatives are that viable until the price rises to a point where the market will be forced to react. I choose not to get bent up about free market economics (not that I'm saying you are) because eventually the problem will resolve itself. Would I love it if major companies took some iniative to solve the problem? Sure, but I don't think knee jerk reactions like government mandated gas prices or the like will help. If the government wants to do something to help, they should offer some kind of economic incentive for the company that creates a viable alternative that matches some stipulated criteria (mpg, emissions, safety, what have you) in the form of *gasp* a sizeable tax break for said company. (and please don't argue that a tax break for the rich here is out of line. doing something along these lines might solve the problem, helping the poor's ability to serve fruits and vegetables (respectively), rather than some kind of economic welfare band-aid aimed at the poor that increases dependency without getting at the root cause).

Consider your thread totally jacked Charles! (with your permission.)

 
At 9:53 AM, Blogger CharlesPeirce said...

Eh, I've had jacked-er threads.

For the most part you're right--instituting a price control on gas is completely not the solution. Just because it's something we all use doesn't mean it's not a commodity--no one has the "right" to $1.50-a-gallon gas.

 
At 12:16 AM, Blogger Jackscolon said...

I found a better example: "Waiter and actor Greg Foshay of Studio City, Calif., said he bikes and walks as much as he can and even started riding the train a year and a half ago to save money on gas, which averages $2.93-a-gallon nationwide. But he still drives to auditions." Am I supposed to feel sorry for this guy? Next they'll be saying we should subsidize artists... What? We do that already?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home