PAID $3.45 FOR GAS TODAY...

...and apparently that's cheap for regular grade. This evening I saw it as high as $3.56 for regular.

Gee, it wasn't even 4 months ago that I paid "only" $3.09. But oh yeah, the head of OPEC told us that oil prices aren't set according to supply and demand. They're set according to a "common understanding" that we, the rabble, have to be brought low financially while they enjoy record profits. Isn't that nice?

Maybe we should start a cartel and do some things according to a "common understanding." Like make them quit gouging us. Just an idea...

OPEC HEAD: OIL PRICES HAVE "NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND..."

...rather, the price of oil is the product of a "common understanding," says one Abdalla Salem el-Badri, the secretary-general of OPEC. Here's the quote from the AP story, so it's clear I'm not paraphrasing or spinning:

"'Oil prices, there is a common understanding that has nothing to do with supply and demand,' el-Badri said on the sidelines of an energy conference in Rome."

This little tidbit comes to us in a story about the national average gas price hitting $3.50!

It's interesting that the head of OPEC tells us that the price of oil has nothing to do with supply and demand, yet this AP article attempts to justify the new record oil price of $117.83 with the following factoids:

-"Militancy and lawlessness has [sic] grown in recent years in Nigeria's south,
and attacks on oil infrastructure have become common."

-"Nigeria is a major supplier to the United States. Attacks there in the past two years have cut nearly a quarter of the African country's oil output."

-"Crude oil also rose Monday after the 150,000-ton tanker Takayama was attacked off the coast of Yemen as it headed for Saudi Arabia."

-"In Mexico, oil production slipped 7.8 percent in the first quarter to 2.91 million barrels a day as output at the country's traditional oil fields wanes, state oil company
Petroleos Mexicanos said."

-"In Scotland, workers at Ineos PLC's 196,000-barrel-a-day Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical plant have threatened to strike for 48 hours from April 27 over changes to an employee pension plan."

Hmmm...all of those sound like reasonable excuses for the price of oil to go up. However, the head of OPEC, of which Nigeria (which, as you'll recall is a "major supplier" to the U.S.) is a member, just told us that supply and demand have nothing to do with the price of oil.

What Is This "Common Understanding?"

If you're like me, you probably wonder what "common understanding" the head of OPEC is talking about. Also if you're like me, you really already know what the understanding is but search for just the right way to accurately express it. Well, search no more, for here it is, from the Boston Herald:

"[Peter] Beutel [a Cameron Hanover analyst] estimated that the 25-cent gas
increase over the past two weeks takes about $100 million out of American
consumers’ pockets each day, funneling money away from other purchases."

There it is, the "common understanding" among OPEC members that truly determines the price of oil--$1,400,000,000 dollars transferred to the already obscenely wealthy. That's $1.4 BILLION sucked out of our pockets in just 2 weeks! And that's only an "estimate!" It could be even higher! Who doesn't "understand" that? If you could make an extra $1.4 billion in 2 weeks without the hassles of providing better products, better services, or any of that jazz, wouldn't you do that? Of course you would! Now you "understand!"

OPEC Is A Cartel...

...and by their very definition, cartels are formed to regulate prices:

"car·tel Audio Help /kɑrˈtɛl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kahr-tel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. an international syndicate, combine, or trust formed esp. to regulate prices and output in some field of business."

Or better yet, from the same link:

"car·tel Audio Help (kär-těl') Pronunciation Key
n.
A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members."

Just one more--they get more damningly accurate as you scroll down the page:

"cartel [noun]
a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service; "they set up the trust in the hope of gaining a monopoly" [syn: trust]"

Great cartel article here. Gotta go night-night--I think the point is abundantly clear, i.e., that we're being raped economically and it's on purpose, it's by design and the people who we elect to supposedly look after our interests are just letting it all happen.

PAID $3.04 FOR GAS TODAY...

...and a place down the street was selling it for $3.06. These prices have sparked some discussion on the Hattiesburg American forum, and I reproduce one of my posts there below:

All I'm saying is that the previous inflation-adjusted record average gas price was in 1981, when Reagan was in office and there was a war going on in Iraq. That same month, this is what happened:

"...U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks."

The declassified memorandum that details all this is here.



Reagan was also shot that month.

The new inflation-adjusted record average gas price has now been achieved during Bush's term. And strangely enough, there's a war going on in Iraq.


Coincidence? Not bloody likely.

I'm not at all saying that Democratic presidents haven't had their share of foibles--LBJ lying us into Vietnam, Truman using the atom bomb even though he knew Japan wanted and was trying to surrender, etc.

But I'm saying that when wars in Iraq converge with Republican presidents, we seem to get record average gas prices. And interestingly, in the case of both records, in '81 and '07, men named George Bush were either president or vice-president.

Also, not exactly sure what 1977 gas lines kenjutsu is referring to. The first Arab oil embargo was in 1973, when Nixon, yet another Republican, was in office.

There was of course the energy crisis of 1979, due to the effects of the Iranian revolution, and there were gas lines then.

"Back in the 1973-1974 period and in 1979, folks waited for an hour or more on gasoline lines that at times stretched for miles, and people could only buy gas on alternate days, depending upon whether their license plate ended with an odd or even number. The federal government even printed gas-rationing coupons, although they were never used."

Gas prices "climbed throughout the 90's?"

Gas prices, according to kenjutsu, began to "climb throughout the 90's." He notes that this started in approximately 1992, the last year Bush I was in office.

As ol' Ronnie Raygun said--"Trust, but verify":

All prices listed are for U.S. regular grade gasoline:

1/6/92: $1.04
12/28/92: $1.06
1/25/93: $1.05
12/27/93: $0.99

Point taken? No? OK, let’s skip ahead a few years...

5/26/97: $1.20
7/28/97: $1.16
1/5/98: $1.08
3/23/98: $0.99
1/4/99: $0.91
12/27/99: $1.26

I think we can conclude that the price of gas didn’t ONLY “climb throughout the 90's.” The price FLUCTUATED.

Gas prices under Bush

Lowest gas price of Bush admin.:
12/17/01:$1.04

Lowest price since beginning of Iraq war:
5/12/03: $1.42

The price of regular has not been that low since then. And since March 14, 2005, gas has never been less than $2.

Where’s the data come from? From the Energy Information Administration in good ol’ Washington, D.C.


Under “Area,” click on “United States.” You have to have Excel or an Excel viewer to see the chart. All data above was taken from the first column.

EXXONMOBIL BREAKS RECORD--AND BACKS OF AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

So ExxonMobil has now broken its previous record, which was the all-time high for any company in history in quarterly profits:

By any measure, Exxon Mobil’s performance last year was a blowout.

The company reported Friday that it beat its own record for the highest profits ever recorded by any company, with net income rising 3 percent to $40.6 billion, thanks to surging oil prices. The company’s sales, more than $404 billion, exceeded the gross domestic product of 120 countries.

Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.

The company also had its most profitable quarter ever. It said net income rose 14 percent, to $11.7 billion, or $2.13 a share, in the last three months of the year. The company handily beat analysts’ expectations of $1.95 a share, after missing targets in the last two quarters.

Like most oil companies, Exxon benefited from a near doubling of oil prices, as well as higher demand for gasoline last year. Crude oil prices rose from a low of around $50 a barrel in early 2007 to almost $100 by the end of the year — the biggest jump in oil prices in any one year.

It's simple, really. They made more because they charged us more for something we have to have. They didn't make the gas any better, they didn't serve us any better or anything. They just charged us more.

Why are we upset about this? I'll tell you why...

At the Hattiesburg American forum, a poster asked "Why are we upset that the big oil company makes record profits?" Here's my reply:

"Why are we upset that the big oil company makes record profits?"

1. We're upset because they charged us more for the same exact product and the same exact service.

2. We're upset because gas is something we must have.

3. We're upset because higher gas prices mean higher prices for everything. ("Diesel price rise has ripple effect on goods," LA Times)

4 We're upset because the value of the dollar keeps dropping while prices keep rising.

5. We're upset because of record credit card debt, negative savings, and declining wages. (An earlier post about all that can be found here)

6. We're upset because of record debts and unnecessary wars that threaten to collapse our economy.

7. We're upset because we're about to borrow from ourselves (or the Chinese) to "help" ourselves buy some more over-priced gas or goods made in China, which only fuels (no pun intended) #6 (and #5).

8. We're upset because we know the world is nowhere near to running out of oil--the supply is being suppressed while demand only increases, jacking up the price.

9. We're upset because the president makes out with oil-rich dictators who won't cut us a break on oil prices, so we agree to sell a dictatorial regime that maintains a state of war with Israel a bunch of weapons because we love democracy so much (which only fattens the bottom line of defense contractors who then have that much more money to lobby with, allowing the whole sick cycle to continue ad infinitum).

10. We're upset because we have very few alternatives to get us out of this mess--even if we buy hybrids, we still have to pay inflated prices for all the goods that are trucked to market because of high gas/oil prices.

11. We're upset because the "free market" has allowed many industries, including the oil industry, to consolidate in fewer and fewer hands (now only 6 "supermajor" oil companies), whiich reduces competition and the incentive to fix any of the problems mentioned above.

12. We're upset that none of the American oil companies, including ExxonMobil, would help out with discounted home heating oil for Americans. Luckily, Venezuela's Citgo stepped up to the plate to help out.

If I left anything out--and I'm sure I did--please add your reason we're upset to the list.

PROFIT OVER PEOPLE (PART THE UMPTEENTH)...AND THE "IRAQ EFFECT"

Three stories caught my eye today. They all have something in common--trying to minimize costs while sacrificing people's livelihoods.

Here's the first one about Citigroup eliminating 17,000 jobs--yes, 17,000:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc. (C.N: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Wednesday it would eliminate 17,000 jobs, or about 5 percent of its workforce, in a broad restructuring designed to cut costs, boost profit, and bolster a lagging stock price.

An additional 9,500 jobs will move to lower-cost locations, including two-thirds through attrition, meaning 8 percent of the bank's 327,000-person workforce will be affected by the restructuring."

I assume that "lower-cost locations" means somewhere outside the United States. And so it continues, the quest for profit over people.

Here's the second one, about Walter Reed hospital:

"In addition, the Pentagon made problems worse by ordering a hold-down on costs and expenses — dubbed "efficiency wedges" — even as Walter Reed began experiencing an influx of thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan."

The "hold-down on costs and expenses" means that profit takes precedence over caring for wounded soldiers. The move to privatize services at Walter Reed led to the exodus of many long-time employees.

And the third one, about Jefferson Davis County Schools in Mississippi:

"PRENTISS, Miss. -- The Jefferson Davis County school system is cutting 16 teaching positions in order to save money.

Superintendent Wayne Fortenberry made the announcement at a school board meeting Tuesday.

Fortenberry said that the teachers, who were let go based on seniority, are part of a reduction-in-force plan designed by state financial adviser Diane Day."

Iraq Effect, Fucked-up Priorities and the Triumph of the Corporatocracy

I'm not really sure how this fits into my little thesis here or if it even does--obviously there's not a corporation involved in this story, so there's not really a profit motive to cut jobs. But I suppose the connection to the other two stories is this--fucked-up priorities.

By which I mean, this school story is a perfect example of the "Iraq effect"--the sense created by the myth that we're doing a good thing "helping" people overseas yet our own children and communities go wanting. The conservative choir, directed now by John McCain, is always singing the tune called "But what about all the good things we're doing in Iraq?" By which they mean painting schools, building hospitals, insuring universal health care, and creating a haven for the corporatocracy.

The problem is, we're spending so much friggin' money to be in this unnecessary war that has only exacerbated terrorism and completely defeats its own supposed purpose, that Jefferson Davis County schools has to lay off teachers, which means classrooms that are more crowded, courses that aren't offered, etc. So Iraqi schools supposedly get painted and we have to lay off teachers.

And all to save money! Money that's going right down the shitter and into the hands of Halliburton and Blackwater and who the fuck knows who else in the wasteland of Iraq. Don't forget the pallets of billions of dollars in cash that just disappeared. Could some of that money been used to keep teachers at Jefferson Davis County schools?

The Crux of The Biscuit-round and round it goes

That's called "fucked-up priorities." That's how the school story is connected to the corporate stories--war is a racket for the corporatocracy which steals money away from our schools, our communities, and our future to make a buck off a protracted, ill-advised, immoral war that not only doesn't make us safer but also puts us in danger.

And then that profit is used in turn to eliminate 17,000 jobs and bid for services at veteran's facilities...and round and round it goes.