Unemployment falls below 9%

[AvalonXQ]

Drinking water is available to most people in the United States for free out of the tap.

In more places than not, that water is undrinkable without a filter.

Comparing the price of gasoline with the price of water is just pointing out the irony that some people are perfectly happy to pay a premium for something they can get for free, but complain about the price of gasoline (which is cheaper than what they pay for water that they could get for free).

Again, saying that the gasoline is "cheaper than what they pay for water" is disingenuous, because the volume of gasoline consumed by a car with standard use is far greater than the volume of bottled water consumed by a human with normal use. Comparing the price of a gallon of gasoline to the price of 8 bottles of water is unreasonable, and if a commuter had to spend upwards of $40 a week on bottled water he would probably be more concerned about the price.

I can go to the store and spend less than $10 on a case of bottled water that will last my household a week. If I could buy a week's worth of gas for $10, I wouldn't be very sensitive to the price of gas, either.

 

[Bri]

In more places than not, that water is undrinkable without a filter.

Certainly not true of "more places than not." There are water standards in most areas of the country.

Again, saying that the gasoline is "cheaper than what they pay for water" is disingenuous, because the volume of gasoline consumed by a car with standard use is far greater than the volume of bottled water consumed by a human with normal use.

OK, but that wasn't the point. Water is usually free, but people are willing to pay a significant premium for it without even thinking about it. Nobody claimed that water was a perfect analogy to gasoline. You're reading WAY too much into it.

-Bri

 

[AvalonXQ]

Water is usually free, but people are willing to pay a significant premium for it without even thinking about it.

Yes, because the "premium" isn't actually significant. They try to make it significant by making a "per gallon" comparison, but that's not the reasonable basis of comparison.
The line item in any commuter's household budget for fuel is going to be far greater than their line item for bottled water, even if bottled water is their main beverage.

So the distinction is rational -- consumers are sensitive to the price of gas because it has a more significant impact on their bottom line.

 

[johnny karate]

I do. But acting like it's unreasonable to be unhappy when one of the costs of your choice greatly increases from what it was when you made the choice, is inconsistent at best.
Again, you don't make a similar argument if bus fare suddenly doubles. "Those people made the choice to take the bus, so they have no right to complain." How silly is this argument? The people who choose to take the bus have the most reason to complain if bus fare goes up.
And automobile commuters have good reason to complain when gasoline prices skyrocket.

You certainly have the right to be upset when the costs of your choices increase, but that doesn't absolve you from educating yourself on the stability of those costs.

Out of all the counterexamples you've offered - rent, bus fare, etc - gasoline prices are far and away the most volatile. (Bus fare never "suddenly double". )If you sat down one day and calculated your cost of living expenses based on static gas prices - despite the fact that history shows they can increase dramatically without warning - it's on you when those prices do go up and catch you unawares.

 

[Bri]

Yes, because the "premium" isn't actually significant.

I would consider $1.50 for water to be significant when it's available for free. People from many countries worldwide would consider $4 or even $5 per gallon of gasoline a bargain, and would still consider $1.50 for water a significant premium for something that's available for free.

They try to make it significant by making a "per gallon" comparison, but that's not the reasonable basis of comparison.
The line item in any commuter's household budget for fuel is going to be far greater than their line item for bottled water, even if bottled water is their main beverage.

OK, but that's not the point. The point is that many people would consider gasoline to be worth a lot more per gallon than water (given that water is available for free), and don't stop to realize that they pay far more per gallon for water.

So the distinction is rational -- consumers are sensitive to the price of gas because it has a more significant impact on their bottom line.

Sure, people typically buy a lot more gasoline than bottled water. But the point of the comparison isn't to imply that people buy the same amount of bottled water as gasoline, nor to imply that gas prices don't make a more significant impact on people's bottom line than bottled water.

-Bri

 

[AvalonXQ]

I would consider $1.50 for water to be significant when it's available for free.

Again -- bottled water, $5 a week. Gasoline, $50 a week. Inflate the price of each by 40%, and it's clear which one people should care more about -- the one they already do.

 

[Bri]

Again -- bottled water, $5 a week. Gasoline, $50 a week. Inflate the price of each by 40%, and it's clear which one people should care more about -- the one they already do.

Then we agree. I never said otherwise.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

People should send their complaints to the Koch brothers. It will amuse them as they watch the rise in oil futures and their wealth soar.

How The Gas Prices Are Manipulated By The Koch Brothers And Other Wall Street Players

Why are gas prices surging to levels unseen since the 2008 oil spike while the oil companies reporting record profits?

...

Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency that regulates commodity futures and option trading in the United States, says a very few number of players control too much of the market, allowing them to push the price of gas higher and higher. The American public knows very little about the oil speculation industry because a conservative majority on the CFTC has refused to implement the mandates from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to curb abuses and provide transparency.

One of those players is the petrochemical multinational Koch Industries. Although oil extraction is a small part of the Koch’s oil business the company has major control over every other part of the market as its core venture is shipping crude oil, refining it, distributing it to retailers, then speculating on the future price. The company actively trades about 50 types of crude oil around the world and has trading operations in London, Geneva, Singapore, Houston, New York, Wichita, Rotterdam, and Mumbai.

 

[Tricky]

Drinking water is available to most people in the United States for free out of the tap.

I don't know where you live, but in every place I've ever lived, you pay for water service to your home. Not much, but not free.

In more places than not, that water is undrinkable without a filter.

You have some statistics for that? How many places in the US is tap water impotable? I've never lived in such a place. Sure, some places have water that has a slightly unpleasant taste, but none where drinking the water (except in emergency situations like floods) is actually unhealthy. If you're going to criticize posters for exaggerating what bottled water costs, you shouldn't make exaggerated claims like this yourself.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You have some statistics for that? How many places in the US is tap water impotable? I've never lived in such a place. Sure, some places have water that has a slightly unpleasant taste, but none where drinking the water (except in emergency situations like floods) is actually unhealthy. If you're going to criticize posters for exaggerating what bottled water costs, you shouldn't make exaggerated claims like this yourself.

Good point. I'm used to living in places where tap water is well water, usually impotable. However, upon further reflection, most of the US is probably on a municipal water supply. Usually potable I assume? So my "most" was in error.

 

[Tricky]

Good point. I'm used to living in places where tap water is well water, usually impotable. However, upon further reflection, most of the US is probably on a municipal water supply. Usually potable I assume? So my "most" was in error.

Very much in error. (But you win major respect points for admitting error.) Of course, it depends on how you collect your statistics. If you go by "How many people in the US have impotable water coming from their municipal taps", the number is tiny. If you go by "How many places (measured in square inches?) in the US have no municipal drinking water or impotable municipal drinking water" then the number goes up substantially, especially in the western states. But I feel that to use the second type of measurement is misleading to the point of being a lie. The vast majority of US residents can drink the water out of their taps without fear of serious health issues.

But we've really gotten away from the economy issues here. Who wants the "water" issue split? Let's see a show of hands.

 

[lomiller]

You certainly have the right to be upset when the costs of your choices increase, but that doesn't absolve you from educating yourself on the stability of those costs.

Out of all the counterexamples you've offered - rent, bus fare, etc - gasoline prices are far and away the most volatile. (Bus fare never "suddenly double". )If you sat down one day and calculated your cost of living expenses based on static gas prices - despite the fact that history shows they can increase dramatically without warning - it's on you when those prices do go up and catch you unawares.

While you are correct it's pretty clear AvalonXQ isn't concerned enough about the price increase to have actually done anything differently so the volatility really doesn't matter.

The problem I'm having is that if AvalonXQ isn't concerned enough about it to have done anything differently how can these concerns be big enough to matter to use? In this context these "concerned" simply come off as whining and complaining.

Of course it's likely there are people out there who don't find gasoline a fair value at current prices, but again this situation was created by the people who designed communities in such a way that you need to drive long distances each day and by the people who chose to live there.

While it's unfortunate for these people, we can't change the past and fix these decisions. What we can do is stop making these bad decisions.

 

[KwamiFabu]

People should send their complaints to the Koch brothers. It will amuse them as they watch the rise in oil futures and their wealth soar.

Well, first your link to addictinginfo didn't work. Second, this smear against the Koch bros. is feeble and sad. Third, Dodd-Frank is not only unconstitutional IMO (creating a "credit czar" handpicked by POTUS, appointed in a bogus "recess appointment"^* no less) but is destined to keep US unemployment at chronically high levels.

To quote an editorial from Politico:

Evidently, Obama does not believe that well-informed consumers are capable of judging which financial products are appropriate for their needs, and that we’re all better served by a nanny-state government bureaucrat at the Consumer Bureau.

Americans should rightly be protected from fraud, but not by surrendering their freedom and centralizing even more power in even fewer hands in Washington. Consumers should be empowered with effective and factual disclosure, not potentially barred from enjoying the benefits of product innovations like automated teller machines and online banking.

How will banning the types of credit small businesses use to make ends meet create jobs? Rationing consumer credit certainly won’t grow the economy. Sadly, Dodd-Frank has commissioned yet another unaccountable bureaucrat to do exactly this.

More generally, the Dodd-Frank legislation has had the opposite effect of its stated goals. Lending to small businesses remains restricted, unemployment remains stubbornly high and owners of small businesses are uncertain about the state of the economy. Dodd-Frank’s impact on small businesses has impeded, not improved, the nation’s economic recovery.



^* The statute creating the CFPB makes clear that only Senate confirmation of a Director – not a recess appointment – can activate the new powers of this agency to regulate consumer transactions with Main Street businesses.

 

[RandFan]

Well, first your link to addictinginfo didn't work.

Works for me.

Second, this smear against the Koch bros. is feeble and sad.

Rhetorical. Gas prices have nothing to do with anything the president does. Supply and demand does not explain current price increases. Speculation does. Koch speculates in oil. Even if Koch isn't behind the manipulation they damn well profit from it and are damn happy it's happening. So, folks like Avalon should complain to them and they will laugh.

Republicans ought to at least accept the futures market and the ability to manipulate prices through speculation. Bitching about it is rather odd.

Third, Dodd-Frank...

Don't agree but don't care. Dodd-Frank wasn't my point. I'm just lousy with my cut and paste. In any event, given that SCOTUS is weighted with conservatives you will have no problem getting Dodd-Frank thrown out.

 

[AvalonXQ]

While you are correct it's pretty clear AvalonXQ isn't concerned enough about the price increase to have actually done anything differently so the volatility really doesn't matter.

The problem I'm having is that if AvalonXQ isn't concerned enough about it to have done anything differently how can these concerns be big enough to matter to use? In this context these "concerned" simply come off as whining and complaining.

Again, this is a pretty silly argument. You can basically use it in any situation to defend the status quo.

Concerned about abortion laws? If women really don't like them they'll stop getting pregnant. If they continue to get pregnant, clearly they're not concerned enough about abortion laws to have actually done anything differently so the laws really don't matter. Stop whining and compaining.

Concerned about poor working conditions? If the workers really don't like them they'll work somewhere else. If they continue to come to work, clearly they're not concerned enough about the working conditions to have actually done anything differently so the existing conditions are fine. Stop whining and complaining.

It's a silly argument. The truth is that this is the right option for many people, and making it significantly more expensive is bad. By your logic, there's never any negative effect on increasing the costs of an option until people no longer consider it a viable option at all, and that's silly.

 

[lomiller]

You can basically use it in any situation to defend the status quo..

I can certainly be used whenever someone complains about the status quo but then goes on to say they wouldn’t change anything even it if they could. There are people out there who just like to whine, complain and blame others, and will do so about things they don’t want to change o and things that can’t be changed, and this is how you are presenting yourself.

Concerned about abortion laws? If women really don't like them they'll stop getting pregnant. If they continue to get pregnant, clearly they're not concerned enough about abortion laws to have actually done anything differently so the laws really don't matter. Stop whining and compaining.

Bad analogy. In this case it’s more like a women who gets pregnant and complains about it, but doesn’t want an abortion and would still have chosen to get pregnant if she had it to do over again and wanted the baby all along.

Concerned about poor working conditions? If the workers really don't like them they'll work somewhere else. If they continue to come to work, clearly they're not concerned enough about the working conditions to have actually done anything differently so the existing conditions are fine. Stop whining and complaining.

Another bad anaology. Your acting more like a someone who gets a desk job then complains about how it’s everyone else’s fault they have to sit all day even though they like the job and would choose to work there if they had the decision to make over again.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Bad analogy.

Good analogy.

Your argument: I dislike the price of gas but still commute to work ==> the price of gas is fine.

Same argument: Woman dislikes the abortion laws but still gets pregnant ==> abortion laws are fine.

Same argument: Worker dislikes the working conditions but still goes to work ==> working conditions are fine.

Sorry, but the argument is silly.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, first your link to addictinginfo didn't work. Second, this smear against the Koch bros. is feeble and sad.

The Koch roaches are manipulating the ecconomy and bribing candidates and sitting office holders. They deserve every blob of mud thrown at them.

More generally, the Dodd-Frank legislation has had the opposite effect of its stated goals. Lending to small businesses remains restricted, unemployment remains stubbornly high and owners of small businesses are uncertain about the state of the economy. Dodd-Frank’s impact on small businesses has impeded, not improved, the nation’s economic recovery.

Care to back that up with some real information?

Part of the problem is that the banks are making more money doing stuff that does nothing for the ecconomy, like buying back their stock and speculating in commodities, to the hurt of the entire ecconomy.

^* The statute creating the CFPB makes clear that only Senate confirmation of a Director – not a recess appointment – can activate the new powers of this agency to regulate consumer transactions with Main Street businesses.

Take it up with the Supreme Court. The recess appointment was neccessary because a few dunderheads decided that they should be able to re-write the law without having to go through the normal process to do so.