Politics

[deewayne2003]

Do a little of your own research on this. Compare Pioneer’s production to that of OPEC. Pioneer can figuratively be replaced by a tweak of OPEC’s valve. OPEC would not seem to gain anything by collusion with Pioneer.

Oh, and by definition, OPEC is a price fixing organization. US companies have huge safeguards in place when dealing with them.

Yes OPEC is the definition of a price fixing organization and thus why it's a cartel by definition; and for clarity we're not just talking about Pioneer but Exxon/Mobile as well. Furthermore yes OPEC is massive compared to Pioneer, so your "valve tweak" comment is spot on in regards to production, however if you believe that small players wouldn't conform for profit gains then well.... you've already made up your own mind.

My point being in all of this is that my opinion is that we are not so much dealing with inflation but corporate pricing strategy.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

“Drill baby, drill!”- T. Boone Pickens

More oil on the market would force the price down.

Not true about woman not driving alone.

Maybe my info is outdated, but what about Iran?

 

[mdwest]

More oil on the market would force the price down.

Maybe my info is outdated, but what about Iran?

While incredibly strict in many ways... Iran is actually fairly progressive in regards to women compared to some other Islamic countries in other ways..

For example, women in Iran can drive.. they can hold public office (most public offices, but not all).. they can work in pretty much any industry they want to... they have a fairly robust fashion industry with a number of internationally known female models, etc..etc.. women also have access to education (they actually have an extremely high literacy rate for women comparatively to other countries in that part of the world)...

But.. the same country is known to persecute women incredibly aggressively for being dressed improperly in public.. women have no legal protection against domestic violence.. they must ride in the back of public transportation like buses.. cannot become judges or President.. and cannot travel abroad without consent of their husband/father.. (among many other restrictions/limitations)..

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Yes OPEC is the definition of a price fixing organization and thus why it's a cartel by definition; and for clarity we're not just talking about Pioneer but Exxon/Mobile as well. Furthermore yes OPEC is massive compared to Pioneer, so your "valve tweak" comment is spot on in regards to production, however if you believe that small players wouldn't conform for profit gains then well.... you've already made up your own mind.

My point being in all of this is that my opinion is that we are not so much dealing with inflation but corporate pricing strategy.

So do you think that Biden's cuts to US oil production was not about "saving the planet" but more about making oil companies happy? I hadn't thought of that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Doubleplay]

I think the thing you have failed to mention or take into account is how cities developed in this country vs Europe for example. Cities in Europe are much more densely populated than in the USA. The reason for that goes back in time to the land outside of cities being owned by the wealthy in Europe.

The promise of the USA was that anyone could own land and it was such. This led to less densely packed cities initially. It required therefore more transportation to get into cities in which these more rural people came to sell their products. This was of course by horse and cart early on but this gave way to automobiles.

This was not the case in Europe and the need for public transportation developed. And to the point that owning a vehicle in some places is more of a pain than what it is worth. The city in the USA that most resembles Europe in that regard is New York City. Most other cities in the USA do not.

More oil on the market would force the price down.

Maybe my info is outdated, but what about Iran?

They can drive wherever they want by themselves.

 

[Doubleplay]

So do you think that Biden's cuts to US oil production was not about "saving the planet" but more about making oil companies happy? I hadn't thought of that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

You are terribly misinformed about some subjects. I don’t give a sh..t about Brandon but we are at our highest historical levels as far as oil production.

 

[WAB]

Yes OPEC is the definition of a price fixing organization and thus why it's a cartel by definition; and for clarity we're not just talking about Pioneer but Exxon/Mobile as well. Furthermore yes OPEC is massive compared to Pioneer, so your "valve tweak" comment is spot on in regards to production, however if you believe that small players wouldn't conform for profit gains then well.... you've already made up your own mind.

My point being in all of this is that my opinion is that we are not so much dealing with inflation but corporate pricing strategy.

My point was that collaboration with Pioneer would have little to no effect on OPEC’s ability to impact oil prices. Pioneer is simply not big enough to significantly enhance OPEC’s market capabilities.

It is also important to note that, despite their size, OPEC does not have anywhere near their historic capability to influence the oil market. The market has simply become too transparent.

I know it’s popular to believe that American oil companies are run by nefarious swindlers. The facts simply do not support that conclusion. These are corporate execs answering to diverse shareholders and operating under significant regulatory oversight.

 

[cash_tx]

Not a bad idea to chill out to this music for awhile before and after visiting the Politics forum. ;-)

 

[Doug Hamilton]

You are terribly misinformed about some subjects. I don’t give a sh..t about Brandon but we are at our highest historical levels as far as oil production.

Actually you are the one that's misinformed. I am well aware that oil production is up, now. It was cut in half during Brandon's first week. This raised the price and made it more profitable to extract oil from more difficult properties. Where have you been?

 

[Tanks]

Actually you are the one that's misinformed. I am well aware that oil production is up, now. It was cut in half during Brandon's first week. This raised the price and made it more profitable to extract oil from more difficult properties. Where have you been?

Doesn't seem to be cut by half in 2021 let alone the first week.

 

[Red Leg]

View attachment 606097

Doesn't seem to be cut by half in 2021 let alone the first week.

Those darned facts! People are played by both sides - left and right. Really do have to search for one's own truth.

 

[Alistair]

Let me try to explain,
There are places in the World where they are more prosperous than us and can afford multiple vehicles. Some of the Northern European countries,Japan, Gulf states etc...
The issue is not the money the issue is the lack of public transportation options in and around big to medium size cities.
There are a lot of people here who can barely afford a car and insurance who are driving because they have no other option.
And then there's the other segment who should not get behind a steering wheel but then again they are driving because they have no other option.
On top of that most people are driving gas guzzling vehicles they shouldn't drive and have no use for.
It adds up...

I think I'll dive into this one as it's a topic close to my heart, what with being one of those 'commie Europeans' now living in the states...

America is different to most other places in a few ways when it comes to cars.

Firstly, unlike most first world nations, Americans see driving as a right, not a privilege. In most nations, citizens don't see themselves as having a 'right' to drive any more than they have a 'right' to fly a light aircraft. It's a privilege that one must demonstrate competence to exercise.

America is different. In America, driving is seen as 'essential', and so any barriers to that are vigorously resisted. The US driving test is an utter joke compared to other first world countries. As such, basically everybody can drive, but the overall standard of driving is the lowest I have ever witnessed in any civilized nation. By far.

There are few restrictions on things like vehicle standards. The overall standard for 'roadworthiness' of vehicles is the lowest I have ever witnessed in a first world country (no safety testing requirement at all in most states).

Enforcement of driving laws is incredibly lax. Habitual offenses for things like drink driving are more accepted than any other first world nation I have ever been in, whilst most cops don't seem to even understand why things like tailgating or lane hogging should be ticketed, let alone bother doing so. Vehicle related deaths are correspondingly high, being closer to Russia, Pakistan or Egypt on a per 100,000 people basis than any first world country (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/road-deaths-by-country).

There are knock on effects too. If everyone is 'expected' to drive, those who do not, must not do so as they're too poor. It carries a stigma.

If everyone is expected to drive, then little investment is made in alternative transport arrangements. After all, everyone chooses to drive anyway. This is a vicious cycle. Everyone driving means no public transport. It means parking is needed. That means designing residential areas around cars. This makes it harder to get around any other way... and on it goes. Almost all American infrastructure is all contemporary with cars (except maybe some bits of NY, CHI and Philly) and is designed around it. European cities are not. The difference is incredibly obvious. Just visit London vs LA for the demonstration.

This also leads to a situation where most Americans don't even see any alternatives, let alone consider them. As an example, I was in Dallas last week for a work trip with a couple of colleagues. We wanted to go to a bar near the hotel after work one evening. Immediately they all started volunteering to drive. It was literally 300 yards away. They hadn't even considered just walking there... I wandered over, paid nothing for parking and I could have a couple beers. They seemed genuinely confused. So it seems was the city. There were no sidewalks in sight and no pedestrian crossings...

There's also the cars. This is a funny lesson in unintended consequences on the part of the EPA.

Back in the 80's CAFE ratings were introduced imposing stringent emissions ratings on passenger cars. BUT certain 'working' vehicles such as pick ups and SUVs were exempt. After all, farmers or contractors probably do need a big V8 to move their 3 tons of mulch or their stock trailer, so it's hardly fair to make them less competitive, especially as only those types of people bought such impractical vehicles anyway...

In the 2000's this was made worse when a further graduation was introduced to the regs linking them to footprint. After all, bigger cars probably do need a bigger engine with more power to make them practical.

Manufacturers had a choice. Either spend lots of money making small, efficient cars with lots of tech to hit the emissions regs... or, just make cars bigger every year whilst moving advertising spend to higher margin pick ups and SUVs which enjoyed laxer standards which were cheaper to meet.

The net result?

The F-150 is now America's most popular passenger vehicle. Cars grow larger every year.

The fuel economy of these vehicles may be awful, they may be totally impractical for 80%+ of buyers, sure, they're an objectively terrible vehicle for the average suburbanite to commute to the office in. But that doesn't matter. The advertising spend and product planning made them cool, they attract plenty of government incentives (I paid a couple grand in gas guzzler tax on my Challenger, yet a RAM 1500 gets worse mpg and pays none at all), and now everyone wants one. A triumph of marketing and poor policy over common sense. A country where 80% of the population lives in urban areas picks a full size truck as their most popular vehicle as a result of... emissions regulations. You've gotta laugh.

Source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution

 

[Red Leg]

I think I'll dive into this one as it's a topic close to my heart, what with being one of those 'commie Europeans' now living in the states...

America is different to most other places in a few ways when it comes to cars.

Firstly, unlike most first world nations, Americans see driving as a right, not a privilege. In most nations, citizens don't see themselves as having a 'right' to drive any more than they have a 'right' to fly a light aircraft. It's a privilege that one must demonstrate competence to exercise.

America is different. In America, driving is seen as 'essential', and so any barriers to that are vigorously resisted. The US driving test is an utter joke compared to other first world countries. As such, basically everybody can drive, but the overall standard of driving is the lowest I have ever witnessed in any civilized nation. By far.

There are few restrictions on things like vehicle standards. The overall standard for 'roadworthiness' of vehicles is the lowest I have ever witnessed in a first world country (no safety testing requirement at all in most states).

Enforcement of driving laws is incredibly lax. Habitual offenses for things like drink driving are more accepted than any other first world nation I have ever been in, whilst most cops don't seem to even understand why things like tailgating or lane hogging should be ticketed, let alone bother doing so. Vehicle related deaths are correspondingly high, being closer to Russia, Pakistan or Egypt on a per 100,000 people basis than any first world country (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/road-deaths-by-country).

There are knock on effects too. If everyone is 'expected' to drive, those who do not, must not do so as they're too poor. It carries a stigma.

If everyone is expected to drive, then little investment is made in alternative transport arrangements. After all, everyone chooses to drive anyway. This is a vicious cycle. Everyone driving means no public transport. It means parking is needed. That means designing residential areas around cars. This makes it harder to get around any other way... and on it goes. Almost all American infrastructure is all contemporary with cars (except maybe some bits of NY, CHI and Philly) and is designed around it. European cities are not. The difference is incredibly obvious. Just visit London vs LA for the demonstration.

This also leads to a situation where most Americans don't even see any alternatives, let alone consider them. As an example, I was in Dallas last week for a work trip with a couple of colleagues. We wanted to go to a bar near the hotel after work one evening. Immediately they all started volunteering to drive. It was literally 300 yards away. They hadn't even considered just walking there... I wandered over, paid nothing for parking and I could have a couple beers. They seemed genuinely confused. So it seems was the city. There were no sidewalks in sight and no pedestrian crossings...

There's also the cars. This is a funny lesson in unintended consequences on the part of the EPA.

Back in the 80's CAFE ratings were introduced imposing stringent emissions ratings on passenger cars. BUT certain 'working' vehicles such as pick ups and SUVs were exempt. After all, farmers or contractors probably do need a big V8 to move their 3 tons of mulch or their stock trailer, so it's hardly fair to make them less competitive, especially as only those types of people bought such impractical vehicles anyway...

In the 2000's this was made worse when a further graduation was introduced to the regs linking them to footprint. After all, bigger cars probably do need a bigger engine with more power to make them practical.

Manufacturers had a choice. Either spend lots of money making small, efficient cars with lots of tech to hit the emissions regs... or, just make cars bigger every year whilst moving advertising spend to higher margin pick ups and SUVs which enjoyed laxer standards which were cheaper to meet.

The net result?

The F-150 is now America's most popular passenger vehicle. Cars grow larger every year.

The fuel economy of these vehicles may be awful, they may be totally impractical for 80%+ of buyers, sure, they're an objectively terrible vehicle for the average suburbanite to commute to the office in. But that doesn't matter. The advertising spend and product planning made them cool, they attract plenty of government incentives (I paid a couple grand in gas guzzler tax on my Challenger, yet a RAM 1500 gets worse mpg and pays none at all), and now everyone wants one. A triumph of marketing and poor policy over common sense. A country where 80% of the population lives in urban areas picks a full size truck as their most popular vehicle as a result of... emissions regulations. You've gotta laugh.

Source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution

You need to come down to Texas while you are here. In spite of metastasizing Californians, we love our trucks almost as much as our wives and our firearms.

 

[Alistair]

You need to come down to Texas while you are here. In spite of metastasizing Californians, we love our trucks almost as much as our wives and our firearms.

As it happens I'll be in Fort Worth for all of June and July. Perhaps we can meet for a beer and you can try and educate me on the benefits of trucks. It's certainly one American obsession that continues to baffle me!

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I think I'll dive into this one as it's a topic close to my heart, what with being one of those 'commie Europeans' now living in the states...

America is different to most other places in a few ways when it comes to cars.

Firstly, unlike most first world nations, Americans see driving as a right, not a privilege. In most nations, citizens don't see themselves as having a 'right' to drive any more than they have a 'right' to fly a light aircraft. It's a privilege that one must demonstrate competence to exercise.

America is different. In America, driving is seen as 'essential', and so any barriers to that are vigorously resisted. The US driving test is an utter joke compared to other first world countries. As such, basically everybody can drive, but the overall standard of driving is the lowest I have ever witnessed in any civilized nation. By far.

There are few restrictions on things like vehicle standards. The overall standard for 'roadworthiness' of vehicles is the lowest I have ever witnessed in a first world country (no safety testing requirement at all in most states).

Enforcement of driving laws is incredibly lax. Habitual offenses for things like drink driving are more accepted than any other first world nation I have ever been in, whilst most cops don't seem to even understand why things like tailgating or lane hogging should be ticketed, let alone bother doing so. Vehicle related deaths are correspondingly high, being closer to Russia, Pakistan or Egypt on a per 100,000 people basis than any first world country (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/road-deaths-by-country).

There are knock on effects too. If everyone is 'expected' to drive, those who do not, must not do so as they're too poor. It carries a stigma.

If everyone is expected to drive, then little investment is made in alternative transport arrangements. After all, everyone chooses to drive anyway. This is a vicious cycle. Everyone driving means no public transport. It means parking is needed. That means designing residential areas around cars. This makes it harder to get around any other way... and on it goes. Almost all American infrastructure is all contemporary with cars (except maybe some bits of NY, CHI and Philly) and is designed around it. European cities are not. The difference is incredibly obvious. Just visit London vs LA for the demonstration.

This also leads to a situation where most Americans don't even see any alternatives, let alone consider them. As an example, I was in Dallas last week for a work trip with a couple of colleagues. We wanted to go to a bar near the hotel after work one evening. Immediately they all started volunteering to drive. It was literally 300 yards away. They hadn't even considered just walking there... I wandered over, paid nothing for parking and I could have a couple beers. They seemed genuinely confused. So it seems was the city. There were no sidewalks in sight and no pedestrian crossings...

There's also the cars. This is a funny lesson in unintended consequences on the part of the EPA.

Back in the 80's CAFE ratings were introduced imposing stringent emissions ratings on passenger cars. BUT certain 'working' vehicles such as pick ups and SUVs were exempt. After all, farmers or contractors probably do need a big V8 to move their 3 tons of mulch or their stock trailer, so it's hardly fair to make them less competitive, especially as only those types of people bought such impractical vehicles anyway...

In the 2000's this was made worse when a further graduation was introduced to the regs linking them to footprint. After all, bigger cars probably do need a bigger engine with more power to make them practical.

Manufacturers had a choice. Either spend lots of money making small, efficient cars with lots of tech to hit the emissions regs... or, just make cars bigger every year whilst moving advertising spend to higher margin pick ups and SUVs which enjoyed laxer standards which were cheaper to meet.

The net result?

The F-150 is now America's most popular passenger vehicle. Cars grow larger every year.

The fuel economy of these vehicles may be awful, they may be totally impractical for 80%+ of buyers, sure, they're an objectively terrible vehicle for the average suburbanite to commute to the office in. But that doesn't matter. The advertising spend and product planning made them cool, they attract plenty of government incentives (I paid a couple grand in gas guzzler tax on my Challenger, yet a RAM 1500 gets worse mpg and pays none at all), and now everyone wants one. A triumph of marketing and poor policy over common sense. A country where 80% of the population lives in urban areas picks a full size truck as their most popular vehicle as a result of... emissions regulations. You've gotta laugh.

Source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution

Of course, Europeans also think that gun ownership is a privilege granted at the whim of the government. Personal freedom and independence is a hard concept to grasp for some, even people born in the US.

 

[Corey0372]

I think I'll dive into this one as it's a topic close to my heart, what with being one of those 'commie Europeans' now living in the states...

America is different to most other places in a few ways when it comes to cars.

Firstly, unlike most first world nations, Americans see driving as a right, not a privilege. In most nations, citizens don't see themselves as having a 'right' to drive any more than they have a 'right' to fly a light aircraft. It's a privilege that one must demonstrate competence to exercise.

America is different. In America, driving is seen as 'essential', and so any barriers to that are vigorously resisted. The US driving test is an utter joke compared to other first world countries. As such, basically everybody can drive, but the overall standard of driving is the lowest I have ever witnessed in any civilized nation. By far.

There are few restrictions on things like vehicle standards. The overall standard for 'roadworthiness' of vehicles is the lowest I have ever witnessed in a first world country (no safety testing requirement at all in most states).

Enforcement of driving laws is incredibly lax. Habitual offenses for things like drink driving are more accepted than any other first world nation I have ever been in, whilst most cops don't seem to even understand why things like tailgating or lane hogging should be ticketed, let alone bother doing so. Vehicle related deaths are correspondingly high, being closer to Russia, Pakistan or Egypt on a per 100,000 people basis than any first world country (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/road-deaths-by-country).

There are knock on effects too. If everyone is 'expected' to drive, those who do not, must not do so as they're too poor. It carries a stigma.

If everyone is expected to drive, then little investment is made in alternative transport arrangements. After all, everyone chooses to drive anyway. This is a vicious cycle. Everyone driving means no public transport. It means parking is needed. That means designing residential areas around cars. This makes it harder to get around any other way... and on it goes. Almost all American infrastructure is all contemporary with cars (except maybe some bits of NY, CHI and Philly) and is designed around it. European cities are not. The difference is incredibly obvious. Just visit London vs LA for the demonstration.

This also leads to a situation where most Americans don't even see any alternatives, let alone consider them. As an example, I was in Dallas last week for a work trip with a couple of colleagues. We wanted to go to a bar near the hotel after work one evening. Immediately they all started volunteering to drive. It was literally 300 yards away. They hadn't even considered just walking there... I wandered over, paid nothing for parking and I could have a couple beers. They seemed genuinely confused. So it seems was the city. There were no sidewalks in sight and no pedestrian crossings...

There's also the cars. This is a funny lesson in unintended consequences on the part of the EPA.

Back in the 80's CAFE ratings were introduced imposing stringent emissions ratings on passenger cars. BUT certain 'working' vehicles such as pick ups and SUVs were exempt. After all, farmers or contractors probably do need a big V8 to move their 3 tons of mulch or their stock trailer, so it's hardly fair to make them less competitive, especially as only those types of people bought such impractical vehicles anyway...

In the 2000's this was made worse when a further graduation was introduced to the regs linking them to footprint. After all, bigger cars probably do need a bigger engine with more power to make them practical.

Manufacturers had a choice. Either spend lots of money making small, efficient cars with lots of tech to hit the emissions regs... or, just make cars bigger every year whilst moving advertising spend to higher margin pick ups and SUVs which enjoyed laxer standards which were cheaper to meet.

The net result?

The F-150 is now America's most popular passenger vehicle. Cars grow larger every year.

The fuel economy of these vehicles may be awful, they may be totally impractical for 80%+ of buyers, sure, they're an objectively terrible vehicle for the average suburbanite to commute to the office in. But that doesn't matter. The advertising spend and product planning made them cool, they attract plenty of government incentives (I paid a couple grand in gas guzzler tax on my Challenger, yet a RAM 1500 gets worse mpg and pays none at all), and now everyone wants one. A triumph of marketing and poor policy over common sense. A country where 80% of the population lives in urban areas picks a full size truck as their most popular vehicle as a result of... emissions regulations. You've gotta laugh.

Source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution

Many fair points!!

Another thing that I can't seem to get to the bottom of is what happened to all the true small trucks? It seems somewhere around the early 2000s the small Ford Rangers, S10s, Nissans, and Toyotas just went way and came back huge. Those small trucks with 4cyl engines and manual transmissions were/are awesome and affordable, not to mention very practical for most people who wanted the benefits of a pickup, without a full size one.

One thing I do like is the freedom that comes with owning a vehicle over public transportation. I also live in Montana, where a huge public transportation network really isn't that practical.

Your critiques of American drivers are probably far more evident to someone who has lived in Europe and here for extended periods, but you forgot to critique the behavior of Americans on public transportation as well. I can't imagine living in an American city and needing to use public transportation every day, this country is full of maniacs.

One thing that's noteworthy is how much of this country was developed and built after the widespread adoption of cars. We didn't have major cities like Europe that existed literally centuries before the car was widely adopted, a handful sure, but nothing like Europe.

 

[Corey0372]

Firstly, unlike most first world nations

Vehicle related deaths are correspondingly high, being closer to Russia, Pakistan or Egypt on a per 100,000 people basis than any first world country

Barbarism to decadence without knowing civilization....

The US may fit this description more than those other countries you listed, haha.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

View attachment 606097

Doesn't seem to be cut by half in 2021 let alone the first week.

And you don't remember Biden's first week when he signed an executive order ban new drilling on federal land and killed the Canadian pipeline that was under construction? If not you'd have to be the only person around that doesn't. Or maybe you don't live in the US? I'm also not sure how accurate your chart is.