LOL! Yes, price increases do work. What I'm looking for are some voluntary consumer behavior change estimates, before price increases (which I think are coming if no reductions in consumption). My belief is that all that's needed is leadership. This idea that we have no options is bunk, imo. WWII showed what can be done to reduce consumption of all kinds, but the scrip used then isn't necessary for minor (10%-20%) reductions, imo.
The language coming out of the White House is "don't conserve, it'll hurt you or your neighbor", instead of what it should be:"conserve or replace dependency on foreign oil, and stop sending billions to supporters of terrorism. We're the most innovative people on the planet, we can do this in a hundred ways that the central government hasn't even thought of".
We see a total and complete lack of challenge from the White House to the American people to get involved.
IMO the greatest store of creativity and power to change the economics of the situation lies w. the Amer consumer.
Secondly, and more controversial, if the money is taken out of terrorism, it will cease. The warlords and their sycophants grow and thrive on cash flow from oil wealth and ultimately from the American consumer, foremost. Without this wealth, the $50,000 payoffs by mullahs to families with 6 kids whose middle child has just blown herself and 20 Jews up would cease. Their esteem by the neighbors would cease, and their joy in the religious righteousness of their cause would shrivel and die.
This is the sad truth of the matter. This is why the vountary consumption flexibility by the American consumer is so important to our national security. Even if foreign consumers changed nothing, the leverage of a single American oil company to provide American consumers with a M.E./non-M.E. choice would be revolutionary.
It is clear the administration will do nothing along this line, and would in fact fight it, I imagine. |
