Gasoline prices – Don’t blame the US, it’s everyone else’s fault!

According to Steve Hargreaves (CNNMoney.com), it is countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, China and Russia that are making US gasoline more expensive for you.

He states the “absurdly low prices” for gasoline in these countries are “a direct result of massive government subsidies” and it is not “allowing the free market to do its job”.

It wasn’t so many years ago that the gasoline prices in the US were also “absurdly low”, but that was when the United States had plenty of oil and gave very little thought to what would happen to it in the future. Should the US criticize other countries for allowing their own people to benefit from their resources, just because the US has squandered theirs? Isn’t that a bit like trying to take the other kid’s ice-cream, after you have eaten your own?

The Bush administration seems to have developed a solution to this problem. If they can’t get the oil at a price they like, they just invade a country and take it for themselves. Although this new supply (the other kid’s ice-cream) should lower gasoline prices, it won’t because the “Usual Suspects” are involved in controlling its distribution.

Whilst the US public is paying dearly for the war in Iraq, with tax money and the loss of their loved ones, they will not benefit from the spoils. But what’s new? For some reason the public are always willing to sacrifice everything for their leaders, who in turn take all the glory (if there is any to be had), and stick the profits in their own pockets.

Doesn’t it seem odd to some people that most high ranking politicians are wealthy? Are poor people unable to run a country, or are they simply in the wrong club?

But despite the fact that Bush, his family and his friends are doing nicely, and don’t have to worry about gasoline prices (or losing members of their family in some war), there are still a few who think we are being a little too hard on them.

I was reading an article recently that offers a good example of this misguided dedication that some people are prepared to give their President. The author, driven by extreme devotion more than fact, wanted his readers to believe that all the bad things said about Bush are just lies. In his desperation to convince us that Bush did not invade Iraq for their oil, he asked if America were interested in oil when they landed in France during the Second World War.

This is a strange comparison to make, seeing as WWII was about resisting the attempts of a dictator (Hitler), whose dream was to dominate the world. I find it difficult to compare Saddam Hussein and Iraq, with Hitler and Germany of the past. Of course the United States was not interested in oil when they entered the Second World War, or when they landed in France, no one has ever suggested otherwise. It is Bush that has been accused of that, no one else. And as far as I recall, George Bush was not the President at that time (although it may seem that he has been around that long to some).

The interest in other people’s oil (from an invading point of view), only began when Bush came to power, prior to this, the US really did care about freedom and democracy.

Maybe those who still support Bush believe they will receive some personal thanks or reward for their efforts, when in truth the President is probably sitting at home, with his oil buddies, wondering how on Earth some people can still be so gullible.

Very few Americans are comfortable with the thought of being dependent on foreign oil supplies and would prefer to see more research on alternatives (like hydrogen-powered automobiles for example). Whilst Bush has shown some interest in hydrogen-powered automobiles, it seems to be no more than an attempt to keep the environmentalists off his back (Nixon made similar proposals in 1974). Unfortunately, renewable fuels don’t make oil companies rich, and until the last drop is used up, we are going to continue seeing increasing gas prices, and wars to support their greed.