1. Good. You do have a conscious. I figured I could get a little 'emotion' out of you - though unbeknownst to even yourself evidently, you displayed it all along.

2. I acted here. You RE-acted. I'm not the 'straw-puller' - though if you (or anyone) were provoked to close your cranium, that was certainly not my intention.

3. The "thread" is my thread - and it was an appeal to the common (though perhaps these days - not so common) sense (Supply/DEMAND) ... an appeal for assistance - "HELP". The "forum" MAY be about "economics" - I don't know, I didn't start the forum - so perhaps my thread was misplaced/misdirected.

3. Fly-boy, I'm not looking for an apology - especially for spelling errors. When one (presumably an ADULT "one") touts ones 'education', one ought not sound (type) like a child. The degrees would "matter", but only if they became relevant - which you have not made a case for, in my humble opinion. Though with the 'Psych', I'm concerned, and confused, by what you post.

4. The thread had MUCH to do with the ecology/environment (but that is a secondary issue where I am concerned - not to mention, based on my thread, that issue automatically becomes "addressed" if my SUGGESTIONS are taken-up. Why waste the extra time/space - AMMO - when two birds can be killed with one stone?). Y-O-U (!) brought up combat veterans, which I agree, IS another subject altogether.

Perhaps this thread was/is too much for you. I "SUGGEST" you beat another drum - elsewhere.

Much,
Glenn

 

I didn't write anything about wages, but if you want to bring it up, fine. I agree that they don't pay enough and don't provide enough benefits. They also crush the "mom & pop" stores with their low prices. Wal-Mart does have a way of ruining local economies. As far as the CEO making ridiculous money, that's true of almost every huge corporation, though.

All I meant was that their influence (or rather stranglehold) over American consumers could help, at least in some small part, to get the public thinking along more "green" lines.

If you supply the cards, I think we have a deal!

Thanks for spicing-up the forum. I'm anxiously awaiting your next tirade.

 

Well, it is a thread, so let's get it back on topic. Your plea to your readers was that we all conserve some gas so we could put a dent in foreign countries profits from the USA, and so that we can individually save some money. On the surface, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this theory.

My points, also echoed by some others, was that the price of gas is a personal thing. For many people, the price isn't that high. Especially in perspective to inflation over the last 20-30 years. Also, compared to a lot of places we have lived in, and had to pay the prices locally, the gas prices in the USA are still some of the lowest in the world.

My second post was that there are actually very good positives to the gas prices going up. There will usually be SOME conservation of usage which will help the ecology. Also, while the price of gasoline and such are too low, the return on investment (ROI) isn't there for research, innovation, and production of alternative/renewable energy sources. I.e. If a clean renewable alternative means of running your car equated to $3 per 30 miles; (Equal to 30mpg with gasoline at $3 a gallon), but the price of gasoline itself is only $2 a gallon, then why would anyone purchase it or someone else even try to invent it. There is no magic number here, but the higher energy prices go, the greater the ROI for investing in research and implementation of alternative means of energy. I personally am more concerned with the ecology. The economy can and will take care of itself through supply and demand and political pressure by those citizens who actually get involved.

The problem with your post, that created so much discussion and disagreement, was that you made it personal. Basically you said that if we didn't see it your way and conserve gas, combine our trips, use the consumer's power of supply and demand to lower prices, that WE are infringing on "your (and your friends/family) bottom-line". The fact that most people do in fact try and save money in their budgets in the area of gasoline seemed irrelevent to you. The point that came across was that if we didn't help your cause to reduce the price of gasoline, then we were PERSONALLY hurting your financial position.

Unfortunately, personal economics is personal. If my family enjoys the freedom to be independent, with my wife shopping in one part of town, while my daughter goes and does her thing, and my son drives to the mall, and I feel like going to the computer stores and Autozone; and we feel that we can afford it, then who are you to say we shouldn't? Yes, we could combine our trips and drop the kid off at the mall, do our rounds, pick each other up, etc... But if we do, then it's a personal choice for our own economic reasons. I'm not going to do it because you feel that I am infringing on your bottom line.

I can honestly say that had you written this post without making it personal and trying to make people feel personally attacked and guilty, this thread would have taken on a whole new course. If this had been a post about how we could each save money in reducing our gasoline consumption, and at the same time screw the middle east out of their control on the USA, then it would have been a totally different personality. But when you use the words "You", "My", "I", "Your", etc... you divide your audiance. If it had included more "Us", "We, "Our", etc..., especially when talking about what "WE" are doing wrong, then "WE" probably wouldn't have seemed so defensive.

Perception is in fact 90% of a person's reality. Whether you meant to write your original post the way you did, or if you totally disagree with what I just wrote, is totally irrelevent. What is relevent, is that is how your post came across and that is the "Perception" some of "US" had of the post.

Yes, there are plenty of things "We" can do to conserve gasoline to improve "Our" personal economics and to reduce the hold that the oil producing countries have on "Us". Each of us needs to find a balance of pros and cons that we are willing to compromise in order to benefit from the reduction in use. This benefit has to be "Ours" personally. I, nor anyone else, should have to be asked to help reduce the price of gasoline for "You". Read this post and perceive it anyway you want. The fact is, your original post was centered all around "Me, Me, Me". You wrote it as though "We" were personally destroying your personal economics. That is what caused this headache. Later... Mike.....

 

Understood and agreed - thanks for clearing it up for me.

Will reply to "christcorp'" (Mike) when/as time permits.