Political Theater

Posted on April 18, 2012 by SkepticalMan

Today I see an incredibly new and different article, John Beohner says, Obama “checked out” last labor day.

Maybe he has, I personally don’t think so, but I can see where someone might make the argument that our President has dedicated at least a fair portion of his time to his re-election campaign. My question is, what do we expect? Congress has been worse than ham handed, actively obstructing anything that even resembles a policy position held by the President. Heck, I’m gonna trot out McConnell’s old statement that Senate Republicans’ primary goal is to ensure a one term Presidency for Obama.

And now John is gonna call him out for fighting for himself and his constituents? Give me a freaking break. Congress has been by and large checked out for years now. Hardly able to do any actual work for the country; instead relying wholly on the divide and conquer model. They use divisive language to wind people up, they pretend that 50% of voters is “the whole country,” they simply refuse to come together on anything.

It is infuriating to see this nonsense again and again. I want to try to understand this from John’s perspective, but it is difficult. I can only see it as a stunt to play to the base. It’s like telling one group, ‘stay at home moms should have the dignity of work,’ and another group, ‘being a stay at home mom is noble and hard work in and of itself.’ I know that talking out of both sides of your mouth is a finely honed skill of politicians, but jeez. All of this back and fourth is for our “benefit,” but not for our benefit.

I know some people think there is value in gridlock and certainly there are times when gridlock can be useful, but this level of gridlock is not helpful. It would be so much better for us if we would actually work together. Some aspects of conservative plans are very good and some aspects of liberal plans are very good. The only real solution is a hybrid because it minimizes the problems while maximizing the benefits. Unfortunately, we have a ton of people running things that simply don’t get it. Maybe they do get it, but there isn’t any value in getting it for them politically so they pretend not to get it.

Which is worse, being unable to see the value of compromise or ignoring the value of compromise to serve your own interest? For me it is the latter, simply because a discussion can be had with someone who doesn’t see something. Someone who knows something is true and yet perpetuates a lie to serve their own interest is only manageable if you can discern their interests and beat them at that game.

I guess that is where we are at. Unfortunately, no one seems to be able to actually identify the secret interests and address them. Or, the interest is something like destroying the career of a rival. Obviously, no one is interested in rolling over and letting someone see to the end of their career.

Recently there were two competing and offsetting bills circulating in congress. One was the “buffet rule” tax increase for the wealthiest among us, the other was a tax reduction for small businesses. Two separate bills, 1 billion dollars difference in the offsetting cost/revenue. Neither made it, but both probably should have.

The Republicans block the buffet rule, but some how pretend that Democrats should just allow the tax reduction bill through. Seriously, you poke someone in the eye and then expect them to do something for you? That kind of action tells me one of two things, either the Republicans are insane or they didn’t actually want to get the tax reduction for small business through. Because they can’t all be insane, the only logical solution is they didn’t actually care to get the tax reduction through. They just wanted to be able to use that as a talking point against Democrats.

Political theater is all that we get right now. It is game playing at the highest level and if we didn’t actually need some changes, if people weren’t struggling so much, it might actually be funny to watch. Right now, we need people to actually govern and stop this trash.

The rich people don’t create jobs, people buying stuff create jobs. The businesses that produce products and services consumed by the people buying stuff supply the jobs created by the increase in consumption. Rich people may spend a lot of money, but the amount of buying power supported by a single millionaire cannot be that much greater than those with far less.

Why would I say that? Well, the millionaire is going to save a hearty portion of that money, they are going to buy food and other standard goods that everyone buys. The millionaire may buy a few more luxury goods than a single less well off individual, but I think if you take the aggregate of consumer purchases, you would see far more buying power exercised by the bottom 97% than the top 3%.

It makes sense to give some tax breaks to business because that can help control prices for consumers and reduce costs for the business. It also makes sense to increase taxes paid by the wealthiest people; especially if we are going to reduce taxes on business. It seems like a no brainer to me, buffet rule and small business tax breaks, the numbers are almost the same, they offset with a slight advantage in revenue and yet, we get neither.

And why? These politicians must think we are all too stupid to understand the game their playing or they simply know we have no other choice. It’s not like I’m going to vote for someone who has previously held positions that are miles from my own simply to make some sort of point. That’s the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. What really needs to happen is a message from voters that we want these guys to work together on actual solutions.

I guess the hard part in that statement is realizing that a solution doesn’t come from only one source. It seems like people are so polarized they can’t recognize a reasonable hybrid solution when it comes from a “rival.”

A good example of this is the health care law. It did borrow concepts from conservative and liberal plans. It didn’t do enough to reform health care, but it does help manage costs for the individual through the mandate. The mandate isn’t unprecidented in and of itself, but it is arguably unprecidented at the Federal level. I can see that it does go up against states rights. I can see reworking that portion to put the onus on the states to either implement a mandate, like car insurance, or come up with an alternative.

Perhaps I’m not asking enough questions here. What about the political process inspires confidence? Why can’t we get some consistency from these people? I understand that crafting policy is more an art than science, but some of this is just ridiculous. Am I really expected to believe that guys like Paul Ryan are serious about balancing the budget and supporting the constitution when they put out a budget that slashes social aid programs and increases defense spending when we are already spending more on defense than ever before?

I think Paul is inconsistent because he is only working with his interpretation of the constitution to craft his budget. It seems like he has a very narrow view of the preamble and isn’t interested in other views. I bring up the preamble because it distills the essence of governments role as envisioned by the much vaunted framers.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These terms can mean quite a few things to quite a few people, but that is why we usually depend upon our elected officials to fully comprehend the neuance of each aspect. We don’t need to dig into the full document to get the general intent, the preamble provides that sufficiently.

So what does this mean?

Establish Justice is fairly clear, at least in the context of our modern legal system. It may not be perfect, but we do have a system that establishes justice. At a slightly more philosophical level, the establishment of justice may get interpreted as a system that provides some sort of social justice or equality among the people who the government is said to represent. In that case, we may end up arguing that a flat tax is the most fair, but that same logic would potentially make a case for a federal mandate of health insurance. That is, if we interpret the establishment of justice as including social justice.

Insure domestic tranquility may be a bit more nebulous. What does this really mean? I think it means the government is responsible for establishing reasonable practices that placate the majority to prevent widespread discontent. From my perspective this includes many of the social services, such as welfare and medical coverage. If huge numbers of people are starving and homeless, they will take what they need to survive. I think there is also a case to argue this identifies other things like emergency services and disaster relief.

Providing for the common defense certainly speaks to defending the populous from threats, both external and internal. This seems fairly self explanatory, but there may be some interpretations of this clause that give it more weight than others might. In any event, it clearly indicates governments role is one of defense.

Here is where it starts to get even more interpretive. Promote the general welfare; what the heck does that even mean? It seems a bit inclusive of the previous statements, insuring domestic tranquility certainly promotes the general welfare, so does providing for the common defense. I get a twinge of recognition when I apply some utilitarian thinking to this clause. The general welfare seems to be a majority driven idea. I suppose this is how we get into the debates over “America” wanting x, when it is only 50% of the voters that voted that way. The general welfare must be more than 50%.

Promoting the general welfare seems like it should be palatable to at least 75% of the people. What, that’s a huge majority, we can’t get 75% of the people to agree on anything? I’m sure we could get 75% of the people to agree that, in general, the sky is blue.

I think we’ve been mired by the dogmatic principled ideology of a two party system. The political climate of the last 40+ years has rewarded strident adherence to strict party lines. In a few land mark situations ranks have been broken and in those few instances, the “general welfare” has been promoted because the needs and wants of the voiceless were considered when crafting policy.

Finally, the government is tasked to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Clearly this is a call to keep this country free and maintain the safeguards which allow “freedom” to reign. Unfortunately, we have different interpretations of freedom. Freedom is a huge topic, but just to address it briefly; in order to support all of these clauses freedom seems like it must be interpreted as the freedom to do as you choose while inflicting the absolute minimum possible negative impact on others. This means, you are free to drink all the booze you want, but once you make a choice that can or does negatively impact another, you lose that freedom. We know from past experience that driving while intoxicated is dangerous to everyone else.

All of these clauses should be looked at with great care. It seems clear to me that the clauses are listed like this to show them as being intertwined. It seems like the intention is, provide for defense, but not at the cost of liberty; insure domestic tranquility, but not at the expense of the general welfare. Each clause informs, supports, pulls against, and stands beside the others.

This seems like a very large burden, how could the government possibly balance all of these things? I wish I had a good answer, but the only thing that comes to mind is compromise. Start from these things, discuss what they mean for you, for your constituents, then debate the differences. Once we know where we stand as similar and different on how these clauses play out, then we can start to work together to craft policy that actually supports these fundamentals as comprehensively as possible.

This is the framework for governance. It should be the first resource consulted when taking the measure of a bill. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive codex which defines the exact interpretation of each item. I’m sure there are many pieces of literature, but is any of them official and used as the official interpretation? If so, why do we have so many freaking problems finding common ground?

Maybe it’s just more political theater. We should refuse to pay for the show, it’s not well written and the plot is predictable and uninspired. Vote, but stop watching the spin up. I know it’s hard, I have a hard time turning it off, but if enough of us vote with our eyes, maybe the message will get through. “We want government that governs, not government that plays games.”

Disclaimer: I know I focused more on republicans in this, but that’s simply because they have provided more ammunition lately. I know democrats have played their part in this, but at this point it doesn’t matter who started the fire. Simply, the house is burning, we need to put it out, not throw more fuel on it.

~SH

Selfish Judgement or Realistic Concern?

Posted on April 17, 2012 by SkepticalMan

Sometimes when someone attempts to give you “advice” it comes out in a hideous judgemental way. ”You need to fix that!” ”You’re doing it wrong!”

Now, there isn’t anything wrong with explaining alternative ways of doing things, or suggesting something, but if you catch yourself saying something like the above, even silently, stop yourself. No one appreciates that. Even if you’re my boss, I don’t appreciate it, although in the boss – employee scenario at least the boss has some authority.

It is absolutely beyond the pale to take this course with someone you have no authority over and frankly have no idea about their life. If they aren’t complaining to you, aren’t asking for advice, and aren’t negatively impacting you… mind your own business. Keep that noise to yourself. I don’t need your judgement and I guarantee you can’t live my life for me. Just because I’m doing something differently; if I’m happy with the results, who are you to tell me I need to fix it. Get over yourself.

Normally I’m a fairly even tempered person, but I despise this type of in your face judgement. I know we all make some judgements about others; it’s part of our process to assimilate information and compartmentalize. I get it, but these types of cold reads aren’t meant to be shared. They are meant to inform your immediate reaction to an unknown situation.

If you feel compelled to offer this type of useless “advice,” ask yourself why. What about your life makes you think you need to cast judgement upon someone that you presumably know? I can do it for you, but I shouldn’t have to. I will though, because I value our relationship. I will discern the cause for your behavior, but only because you cast it upon me. I had no desire to disect your experience until you forced me to excuse your behavior.

Maybe you think the situation or the choice that I’ve made inconveniences you? Ask yourself, who is really being inconveineced? Did you call me asking for a favor and because I warned you that I would possibly be unavailable to assist you with that favor during a specific one hour window you suddenly had judgement. Is that really the problem of my choice? Perhaps there is something else going on. Maybe you see that you’ve made bad choices and are concerned that I may make the same bad choices? I’m happy with how this is going and your out of context judgement is absolutely valueless to me. The only thing it does it make me irritated and potentially damage our relationship.

I wont let it affect our relationship, but if I hear this phrase again, I’ll be sure to communicate to you how valuable I think that is. ”Fix that,” doesn’t help anyone. It is a useless criticism that doesn’t inform learning. If you actually want something “fixed,” first it needs to be broken, and then you actually have to identify a method for the fix. So you’re gonna leave that up to me, but you know it’s broken? Give me a break, maybe literally, cause then I’ll have something to fix, ffs….

I see this all over the freaking place too. People cast judgement left and right and it informs the way they communicate with one another. When you enter a conversation in confrontation mode, it puts the other person on guard. They get defensive and tend to pull away. If you’ve got a problem with how someone is living their life or something they have in their head, ask yourself, why is that a problem? There is a difference between a child being endangered due to parental negligence and a happy healthy child having a different bed time routine than you’re used to.

This goes back to the whole conversation about finding our shared experience before sharing your “insights.” There are certain things I find scary, for instance, people who believe so strongly in religion that they refuse modern medical treatment for themselves and their family. It’s only scary to me because the children in that scenario don’t get to make a choice and can definitely be harmed by the choice of their parents.

I get that literal interpretations of certain texts drive people down this road and they believe they are doing their children a service. Maybe I’m doing a little bit of judgement here, but I do get frustrated that the kids don’t get to make their own choice about medical care in this scenario. I don’t think that’s right because the parents want to be free to make their own choice, but don’t give their children a chance to have that same freedom.

Obviously, there are many things our kids can’t be free to choose for themselves, but isn’t there a difference between eating cat food and refusing life saving medical treatment? Either way, I’m simply diverting into a side note to add context to the overall theme. It really isn’t important for this conversation (another time perhaps).

You know, sometimes, this type of judgement is very easy to dismiss. For me, most of the impact is related to the person and context. Sometimes a random on the internet can get me worked up because they just so happen to catch me at a bad moment or pinpoint something that triggers a chain reaction in my brain. The worst is when a person that is normally not like this and highly respected decides to take this path. If I don’t value your opinion, I probably don’t care that much if you judge me.

When I have to deal with this, I get very frustrated. I almost feel like a computer that is having a persistent error. Half of my computing power is diverted to determining the validity of your judgement. The process is like scanning a disc for problems. I have to check all the sectors, align the data, and output whether your terribly expressed opinion is valid in the context of my life. If I could simply dismiss you, I would, but there are times when that just isn’t possible or even a desirable outcome, although I may dismiss your opinion and tell you to keep future ones to yourself.

We are all a work in progress, none of us have all the answers. Some of us have more answers than others, but we should all have a lot of questions. Ask why before telling why. Ask how before telling how. Consider the context before you pull the trigger on your statement. I know it can be hard. It requires a lot of internal processing and may not always be possible, but if we at least attempt to do this sometimes, it will happen more often and become easier.

~SH

Above the Din?

Posted on April 12, 2012 by SkepticalMan

Again and again we clash, allowing ourselves to be divided, provoked, outraged, disgusted… trolled. Stop.

Yesterday at least a handful of people proved themselves incapable of having any sort of discussion about an important topic. A law came to pass in Tennessee. A law that apperantly has come to pass in a number of other states. I read the Senate version of the law and frankly, it’s not a big deal. The machinations of commentators made it a big deal.

Read the bill, it essentially clarifies that teachers are okay to allow and engage with students when religious counter arguments are brought up to specifically, but not limited to, scientific topics being discussed during the normal course of class. The bill does not force teachers to teach that creationism is an equivalent explination to evolution. The bill does not tell teachers they must dismiss climate change science. The bill does not even tell teachers they must include religious concepts in their circulum and as far as I can tell, doesn’t even give teachers the right to do so.

Honestly, I thought this was already okay. If a student who believes strongly that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, brings that up in class, shouldn’t the teacher be able to teach the student the difference between creationism and evolution as it pertains to the scientific method?

Further, why is religion in public schools bad? I don’t think it is. Now, lets not confuse the issue. There isn’t a place for religion in science class, no, it belongs in Theology, but if it gets brought up, the teachers role is to teach. Teach the kids the difference, if they refuse to accept it, well, you can offer an extra credit project to the entire class. Tell them to do research from peer reviewed scientific sources and provide a three page paper on at least three points of argument and counter argument. That is critical thinking!

Not just that, but if you talk about religion in school it opens the floor to discuss the different religions in the world. Honestly, I thought this was already happening as well. I remember classes learning about other cultures, but I guess the religion subject was more or less glossed over. So maybe my perception is wrong.

Do I need to say it? If we teach religion in public schools it needs to be comprehensive, that seems obvious to me and no where in this bill does it give preferential treatment. In fact, it goes so far as to say that it does not give preferential treatment.

One thing that isn’t clear to me, regarding the bill, is whether or not a teacher could still be moved or replaced for simply being a bad teacher. What do I mean by this? Well, I mean a teacher that teaches creationism as science. That shows the teacher simply does not understand the scientific method and frankly shouldn’t be teaching science. They might make a great Theology teacher, but not science.

I mean that seems like a gross exaggeration and I wouldn’t presume to say a teacher would even do this, but that would be the only thing that isn’t clear to me regarding the bill. I don’t hail the new law as a testament to our progress as human beings, but it certainly did not deserve the ridiculous level of vitriol espoused by some.

That’s really the trouble, the internet mentality has taken over. It has permeated practically every level of our national discourse, so much so that our elected officials regularly treat each other like forum trolls. I’ve heard and read some things recently that point to a systematic approach to tweaking peoples buttons by those who can use the passion for gain, but you know what? Your reactions are your own. Whether someone in a position of power is using words that trigger visceral emotional and physical reactions or not, we need to be able to recognize each other as human beings and deserving of at least a modicum of respect.

When we bucket people, we de-humanize, we allow ourselves to write those people off as worth less and it makes the process of division easier. Why are we divided? So what, you believe one thing and I believe something else. Does it really matter that much to you? Are you really so sure that I’m a bad person and you’re righteous simply because we have this one difference? Yeah it’s a big difference, but not that big, not so big as the things we share.

I mean, I see a lot of people just hating others without even attempting to know them. You hate me because I don’t believe like you. You hate me because I’m different. Some people think it’s fear based, others think its genetics. It’s probably all of the above. We’re wired to gather in groups of similarity and keep out difference. I get it, but why? It’s an old survival mechanism and it really isn’t very necessary in our modern world.

I’m not going to invite you over, in fact, I don’t really want to spend that much time with you, but I don’t need to hate you because you’re different. There is a point where we should be able to shut that instinct down or over rule it. I’m not saying you have to only be friends with people who hold different views from you, but I’m saying before you respond with your instinct, think, what does this person really want? They don’t want to kill religion, they aren’t out to destroy America, they aren’t plotting a World take over. They want what we all want, things to get better, they want people to have good lives and plenty of opportunities.

We all want our own lives to be good and have opportunities, we are all selfish, that’s okay. It isn’t bad to be selfish. The problem comes in when you allow your own wants to override the common decensy. It makes it easy to dismiss someone as a thug, amoral, evil, and so you can just not care about their wants and needs at all, because they don’t count. Don’t allow yourself to be dragged down that road.

I started to write something about this yesterday and I realized; right now a lot of people are not in a state of mind to rationally discuss something like this Tennessee law. We need to take several steps back from the brink, stop allowing ourselves to be spun up, and see each other as generally sharing the same goals. We all want our families to be happy and healthy. We all want to do good work. We all want to feel fulfilled. Start from there and then maybe we can start to have a real conversation about the tough topics… maybe.

Until then, we need to remind ourselves of the old adage, if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

~SH

George, What Were You Thinking?

Posted on April 6, 2012 by SkepticalMan

Obviously this is a hot button issue right now. People are heavily divided over Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Unfortunately, the reality is getting lost by those who seek to defend George.

I will agree, I don’t think George went out that night with an intent to kill Trayvon. I will agree that it was within George’s rights to carry a concealed weapon. I will even agree that it is possible that George felt like his life may have been in danger, but I will not agree that it was not his fault.

George made some serious mistakes that night.

First, he went on an observational patrol as a volunteer with a loaded lethal weapon. Yes, it is within his rights to do so in Florida, but that doesn’t mean it was a good idea. If you carry a gun, what is it for? The only thing a gun is used for is shooting. So what did George plan to shoot? Well, I do believe he didn’t “plan” to shoot anything, but he wanted it, just in case. Just in case of what? Well, George was looking for trouble, that’s what people in his position do right? Neighborhood watchers go out around the area and look for signs of trouble. So he knew that could be dangerous and wanted protection, an understandable position. Unfortunately for Trayvon, or any other person George suspected of trouble, he chose a lethal form of protection. George could have easily brought a taser, stun gun, mace, or even rubber bullets to defend himself from a would be trouble maker, but instead he brought a weapon that is much better at killing than repelling.

Second, he put himself in a position to be attacked. Now, you might say, well, he was simply trying to keep the neighborhood safe. I don’t doubt that, but he did continue to follow Trayvon, even after he was asked to stop by the police dispatcher. Have you ever heard of the theory of scientific observation (I think that’s what it’s called)? You know, the idea that results are changed simply by observing. That is absolutely what happened here. By following Trayvon, George clearly made Trayvon feel threatened. Ask your self, what would you do if you had someone you were sure was following you and you felt like you had no where to run? Trayvon didn’t know this guy. Unintentionally, George was creating a scenario in which Trayvon felt trapped.

Third, he got out of his car. Why on earth did he get out of his car? To get a better view? George, if you felt this strongly about the person being a bad guy, you were clearly inviting trouble by leaving the relative safety of your vehicle. There was absolutely no good reason to do that. Aside from getting a better view, the only other logical reason was to confront Trayvon and get some answers. Whether it is true or not, it makes more sense to me than getting a better view given the known information.

Perhaps I am having a hard time seeing things from George’s point of view because I wouldn’t do the same thing. I’m not a neighborhood watch kind of person. I protect what’s mine, but I don’t go out of my way to get involved in other stuff. I have called the police to report things that I think look bad, but I don’t go and get involved directly. Perhaps that makes me a coward, perhaps that means I’m letting evil triumph, but I’m not so sure. Yeah, I admit, it would be pretty amazing to defend someone I don’t even know; there is a significant part of me that admires the courage it takes to put yourself in harms way. Unfortunately, even with proper training, it is easy to make the wrong call or escalate a situation without intent.

I don’t know what it’s like for police officers, but my understanding is, they first try to de-escalate a situation and attempt to avoid using deadly force if at all possible. That is what really is frustrating about this situation. If George had just done his report, even just stayed inside his vehicle, Trayvon would most likely be alive today. The situation was escalated by Georges actions and Trayvon’s reactions.

I mean honestly, would you let some random person following you in a car stop you, question you, and possibly even detain you? Hell no. I mean even if the other version is correct, that George was attacked by Trayvon, how do we know what Trayvon was feeling at that point? I think anyone of us would have felt very threatened and many of us would have run and hid, but there is a certain number of us who would have fought.

It’s easier for me to put myself in Trayvon’s shoes, because I can see myself as the “suspicious” person walking on the street. If someone were following me in a car at night, my heart would have been pounding so hard, I wouldn’t have been able to think straight, much less hear the person on the other end of the phone.

So from my perspective, the onus is on George to explain himself, why he acted in this way. He took on the responsibility of carrying a concealed fire arm. He took on the responsibility of finding trouble. He put himself in harms way, he found harm, and wound up killing someone. It is on him to explain things. Even if he didn’t intend to kill someone, he did. Even if he felt his life was threatened, he has to know he brought the danger on himself and as a result he took a life. That is something he has to live with and he should feel very sorry for the steps that he took to put himself in the position to take that life.

While it will mean little now, he should tell the Martin’s how sorry he is for taking their son’s life and at least explain the situation to them.

At this point, I don’t think George can receive a fair trial. His peers are already polarized either completely for or completely against him. It’s not up to me to say whether it is self defense, but I do know this; if I were backed into a corner and felt like I literally had no way out other than through you, I would go through you or die trying. That’s just how I’m wired and I think most humans are the same. So it is absolutely conceivable that they both felt like they were in a life and death struggle. The difference is, it sure seems like George put himself into that struggle while Trayvon was pulled in.

That’s where I’m at. We don’t know all the details, but that is what it seems like to me. I’ve reserved any comments until now, but I just had to ramble some to get this out of my head.

I feel terrible for Trayvon’s family, I cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child and loved one. Absolute devastation is the only thing that comes to mind. Part of me also feels bad for George and his family, because I give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not intend for this and he must feel horrible about the outcome. If he is anything like me, he’s probably feeling pretty sick right now, torn up about his choices, agonizing, wishing he could do things differently. I hope he is, it’s the least he could do right now.

~SH

Subsidies, Taxes, and Consumer Burden

Posted on March 29, 2012 by SkepticalMan

Politics frustrate me to no end. Today the Senate voted to not end the Oil Industry subsidies. Democrats claim ending the subsidies would lower gas prices, highly suspect. The Republicans claim the subsidies keep the gas prices low, also highly suspect.

Both groups are playing us for fools. Yes, the subsidies do contribute to a bottom line that can help drive prices lower if there were real competition. As an outside observer, it seems clear there is no real competition in this industry. If there were, one company could take a small hit on their margins to drive increased volume. They don’t. Oil companies are taking record profits every quarter and if you look around, the prices are pretty much the same at all the stations.

Now, I know there are a ton of things that go into this. But in reality the price at the pump is dictated by the willingness of the market to pay. It’s like an iphone. There isn’t competition in the iphone market. What’s that? Did you just say Android? Sure, Android is an alternative and a good one at that, but we all know the majority of the people who are in the iphone market aren’t interested in competitive alternatives. They want an iphone and that’s it. So for these people there isn’t any competition in the market and Apple could essentially charge whatever they want. However, there is a threshold where the price becomes too high. Apple’s goal is to price their product as close to that threshold as possible without going over. If they can hit that sweet spot, as they clearly have, lots of people are able to “afford” the product and Apple drives much more volume in sales than they would if they had priced above the threshold. So they have smaller margins, but they make more money because they sell many times the units than they would have otherwise.

Gas is similar, but with much wider ranging impact on our everyday living. Gas is literally the fuel of our economy. We need it to move goods from place to place, to earn our own living, travel, heat our homes, cook our food, pretty much everything we do depends on this resource and they know it. The same threshold exists here, but it is a bit more difficult to gauge. At what point do people stop using gas and do without? If you purchase anything you’re paying for gas, maybe not your own, but the gas it took to get that good somewhere is factored into the cost. When does gas become such a burden that we can no longer shoulder it?

Given the nature of this relationship, why isn’t gas $50 dollars a gallon? Well, no one could afford anything if that were the case and we would be forced to go without and the oil companies wouldn’t sell their product. So the price steadily rises until the outrage reaches a boiling point and then it comes back down a little, but never as low as before. Some might argue this is due to inflation, but it might also be a catalyst for inflation. Which came first, the inflation of the currency or the incremental increase in the cost of goods through the price of fuel?

Which brings us to the topic of taxes and consumer burden. So the subsidy isn’t going away, but neither are the taxes. If removing the subsidy would potentially increase the price at the pump, then it makes sense that raising taxes would have a similar effect. The reality is, the subsidies need to end and the taxes need to be reduced. Sure, the oil companies are making record profits, but you know what, they aren’t paying any of those taxes, no matter how high we make them. You know who pays the taxes, we do. Through every gallon of milk, every tank of gas, every plane ticket, and every television.

Taxes are a cost of doing business, they are factored into the companies balance sheet as a loss and counted against the revenue. In order for the company to be profitable, they must have a net gain after all loss is accounted for. In some industries, price is heavily dictated by the customer and competition, but as discussed earlier, the competition in the gas industry is observably low. It’s more a slow methodical march to the threshold than it is a race to see who can offer the best product at the lowest price point. Heck, quite a few of the gas companies you see out there are owned by the same conglomerate. So the oil industry is free to factor in taxes as a cost and easily price their product to clear that hurdle. As a side note, research and development is also a cost, so clearly with record profits every quarter, this industry isn’t hurting for R&D dollars.

Where am I going with all this? Well, I’m just pissed off. I know there is a shell game going on right in front of me and frankly I feel powerless to influence it. End the subsidies and lower the tax rate, the net effect will be that the american people are paying less, even if the price of gas doesn’t go down. Right now, we are paying double, we are paying the oil companies a subsidy and also paying their taxes, let’s not pay either one and call it a wash.

In the end, we are still being gamed; the oil companies are still marching us to the precipice, but maybe there is some solace in knowing that we aren’t paying three times over for the same thing.

~SH