OK, so your response is to twist facts that you're too uneducated to put into proper context, so they fit your selfish nonsense.
You have absolutely no idea how tax policy supposedly causes oil prices to rise, especially since as I said, most of the end-user cost is pure profit (hence the refining argument is also BS), and our pump prices are lower than anywhere else in the civilized world, but you're sure it's true.
Your response about American oil reserves is an echo of exactly what I said. The poorly written right-wing op-ed you Googled gives a bunch of numbers but it doesn't cite any of them. It corroborates my initial claims about why extracting those barrels doesn't make environmental or ecological sense, but it doesn't explain why those reasons aren't valid other than promising some sort of free lunch if we just let corporations do whatever they want.
Further proof that the article's claims are bullshit is that these same issues apply with gold and silver. Nevada has a ton of silver reserves and there's still some untapped gold in California, but no one makes a point of getting to it because it's not economically viable. All that means is that the market is working as intended.
The GAO report, which you didn't read, says that 1) the laws were driven by low air quality and 2) their findings are entirely correlation-based. So to change things up means we must sacrifice air quality (why? so we can be miserable like the Chinese and wear gas masks wherever we go?) and since the findings are correlation based (the "supply argument" falls flat when one considers that most of the cost is pure profit and these companies flatly refuse to build infrastructure) there is no reason to believe that gas companies won't just continue to play the shell game.
Mexico is right next door and has no regulation but they refuse to build refineries there either. Why should they, when they can convince dumb Americans like you to let them sacrifice our health, safety, and national security so they can continue to cash in without having to make any investment?
The argument that opening up domestic oil will tide us over while we make the transition to other fuels is asinine because the point of doing so would be to reduce fuel prices, which would increase our dependence on oil. Obviously if the price of oil begins to rise then other fuel sources become more attractive. If the price of oil falls then oil becomes more attractive, justifying continued investment in oil-based infrastructure. Like a lot of people who squawk about the free market because they think it will somehow get them a free lunch, you don't understand the extreme basics of how it works. All the market blather amounts to is pandering to disloyal Americans who refuse to make sacrifices for their country and want everything, for free, right now.
The biggest proof it's all bull is why the hell would we build refining stations if the goal is to move AWAY from oil? If the issue is fuel standardization then why not just standardize on electric? The moment that electrical infrastructure starts to appear, demand for oil will drop.
30 years ago no one had a PC, today everyone does, same with LCDs, HDTVs, etc. Were we building more vacuum tube factories? The "transition" argument is garbage. Clearly this isn't about supply or demand at all, it's about corporate greed and American ignorance.
Quote:
One state forcing all the others into a certain state of affairs by strong-arming multiple industries is the antithesis of the "laboratories of democracy" idea
That's politics. QQ your side lost. Disloyal libertarians hate America and don't care about anything other than their own greedy selfish asses.
Quote:
electric cars are finally being built that aren't complete crap
Electric cars have been fine for decades. Electric motors are the most proven of proven technologies and haven't changed in a century. The only part of the electric car that has ever been problematic is the battery and that hasn't been a serious consideration since the development of NiMH batteries. Now that lithium-ion technology is widely available (and anyone who knows anything about chemistry or physics understands why that is the acme of energy storage), fully optimized electric cars are superior in most respects to gas-powered cars (better acceleration, smoother handling, more responsive, lighter, quieter - their only weakness is a lack of horsepower which doesn't matter for most users).
None of that matters however because American industry is determined to not do anything to rock the boat. Why should they? Why challenge powerful interests by introducing cars that don't need the fuel (or replacement parts etc) hawked by the companies that control the country, so any dolt can power up his car by plugging it in?
And why do you think electric cars were "complete crap"? Ever driven one? Have you even ever seen one? They have amazing acceleration (tap the pedal and the car silently takes off at full speed, like an upsized toy racer) and the ride is much smoother.
This is much funnier when you see it from my father's point of view. He walks about in fear of electric and hybrid cars.
The only reason you believe they are crap is because you get all your ideas from right-wing media. Why don't you go test-drive a hybrid? Seriously, you could go to the local dealer and try it out.
(The drive is actually kind of surreal and takes some getting used to.)
Quote:
Cheaper crap in the here and now isn't just for own personal enjoyment. When we bring the cost of any good or service down, it expands the pool of people capable of enjoying the benefits of those goods and services...you know, poor people.
Wrong. Again you talk about the free market but because you are uneducated you have no idea how it works.
The rule of pricing is to charge what the market will bear. If oil costs go down that will have absolutely no impact on end-user prices - most of the end-user cost of oil is pure profit therefore any reduction in production cost will only increase profit margins. Competition doesn't apply because oil production is run by cartels and you can't very well just start your own oil company. The only common theme to what you say is right-wing propaganda sold on the expectation of a free lunch.
In sum, your response is pretty much the same as the Communists talking about collectivized agriculture. It's a shitty system that everyone hates and gets terrible results, while other countries have solutions that work, but one is just determined to warp every fact to fit the ideology. If you point out the system doesn't work they will spout quotations from the Little Red Book or right-wing memes.
Meanwhile the EU continues to prosper but these ignorant, selfish, lazy, disloyal Americans are determined to drag this nation down to the level of a third-world country, in search of that free lunch.
PS: Another important economic factor all this ignores is the health and infrastructure costs associated with gas-powered cars such as building gas stations (which are toxic waste sites that are costly to clean up), health problems (everything from asthma to cancer), and even maintenance of roads and buildings (vehicle emissions are corrosive). If you doubt the latter is a serious issue, you can google "melting" statues in Greece or Italy, which have lower emissions laws than the rest of the EU (or US).
All those costs would disappear if oil prices rose, auto companies were (again) forced to by the government to do things they don't want to do, and Americans went electric. Within a generation, there would be substantial savings.
