Oil strike
Posted July 1st, 2008 by Adam0980
output
Like everyone else, I have been thinking about the high gas prices. I was thinking about what people can do and the only really power we have is to simply stop using the gas. Thus, what if in the same vein as those money bombs we tried to start an effort to promote a no use of gas day. Is this crazy? I hope people think it is a good idea. It would make news and also really have an impact on the price. If we really organized and planned it out we could do something. I think the country is ready to do something. We would essentially have to pick a day and promote that like we did with the money bombs. The idea would be to have no one drive on that day or at least no long trips, unnecessary trips with the car, everybody stay home for the day, etc. Minimize the usage of oil and gas to its absolute bare minimum on a particular day. And if it catches on we could continue it with a once a month thing or something along those lines.
Any thoughts?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Conservation will help
Start a garden, buy local produce from local farmers, cook outdoors on grill in summer as much as possible. Do things that keep you from using the energy grid.
I'll start a thread on ideas on how to conserve energy.
Davy C Rockett
Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY! - 2 Cor. 3:17
http://www.thelibertypost...
http://screamfreedom.blog...
http://liberty-central.bl...
Doesn't really work
We don't need to be organized to beat high gas prices...you must just do your part and drive, mow your lawn, boat, or burn any energy no more than absolutely necessary. That's the extent to what we can do.
Honestly...if we arrange a one-day boycott, it is meaningless. The oil companies know that if we don't buy gas on Wednesday, we either have to buy in on Tuesday to prepare or Thursday to make up for it. They could not care less, and it would not make a dent in anything.
I appreciate that you're trying to flex the market muscle, but you can only do so by burning as little gas as possible, every day.
So what you are saying is
So what you are saying is that by not driving on Wednesday, the miles that would have been driven on those days would be made up the next day. If no one drives to work on Wednesday and then goes to work on Thursday, then how exactly would that not result in less consumption. Either way, this type of thinking is so defeatist. A boycott would inherently work by the very fact that it would be less consumption. I mean this isn't rocket science. This is plain and simply. Your desire to appear more informed and more intelligent is irrelevant to the common sense fact that less consumption is inherently an impact. You start with one boycott and that would led to another. I even say this in the post.
Some of us can't stay home from work
I don't know what you do for a living...but I can't take days off based on your boycott schedule, and neither can a lot of people.
If i'm being defeatist...it's because this has been attempted many many many times...from the 1970's to 2007, and never has it even made a small dent in daily consumption...people cannot stop their lives for a day.
I practice my daily boycott...I drive as little as possible, I've mowed my lawn once this year, and I bought a tankless water heater to save on propane.
Like I said...it's good that you care enough to want to fight back, but trying to change the daily consumption patterns of millions of people is going to be impossible.
See this I never ever
See this I never ever understand. It is erroneous the thought that "people cannot stop their lives for a day." That is a completely erroneous thought. One, it is technically not true. People could prepare themselves to boycott for a day. However, the more obvious fact is that people DO stop their lives for a day. It is called a holiday. People stop their lives every year...absolutely every year on the last Thursday of November. And everybody, absolutely everybody stops their lives on December 25th. Or how about this past day...July 4th. It is called a holiday and we do it all the time every year. So as I said, it is a completely erroneous idea.
Why don't you check the historically high gas usage days?
You will find they are all around the holidays. The corner you have seemed to have painted yourself into is that you are now saying we need to find a way to use less oil. This is called conservation and this is what is happening. Why? Because of high prices. Lower prices and the conservation stops and guess what, the prices will rise. I'll admit the oil sector is hardly a free market but in this aspect what we are seeing is primarily basic economics.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
Oh my god! Are you serious?
Oh my god! Are you serious? Is there no one here who can think for themselves. I am not stupid. I obviously am aware that the holiday actual has higher consumption of gas. That wasn't the point. The point was a holiday is not a normal day and is proof that people can change their daily lives for a day or weekend or whatever. So instead of driving somewhere for that holiday they instead don't go anywhere. If that is too much of a problem to comprehend, then just take the idea of a snow day. A snow day nobody goes anywhere and everything shuts down for the day. I remember in 96 there was a huge freakin blizzard in the northeast (where I'm from) and people literally didn't do anything because it was so bad. Okay, so if a holiday isn't good for u, take a snow day where people stay home. So it is possible.
Now how have i painted myself into a corner. Yes, obviously I am saying we should use less oil. In fact, I am saying we shouldn't use any for a day every couple of weeks to one use less oil and two make a statement. And that is the dumbest statement I have heard about this. Don't lower gas prices because that will result in high gas prices? That is what u just said. How stupid is that? Yes, conservation is happening but it needs to happen more. Although, i guess I also disagree with u. I don't believe the price of oil is accurate or real. It is higher than it should be by abusive speculation and the terrible decisions effecting the value of the dollar. Maybe oil shouldn't be around $20 like it was before the Iraq War but it surely shouldn't be at $140. I mean if nothing else it wasn't like China and India suddenly started "developing" in 2003/2004. That is a bogus argument.
bump
bump
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS BOYCOTT EXXON/MOBIL
Just boycotting them would bring the price down fast.
but can Americans join forces and do it?
What if nobody consumed oil?
This is an interesting topic because nobody knows the real answer. I can speculate that oil would still cost the same amount it does now because the dollar value is the main reason oil is so high today. However, realistically the oil companies would have to cover their butts and take a big hit otherwise alot of people would see through the Federal Reserve Ruse. Did you hear about the Exxon Mobil CEO getting fired for doubting the globalist agenda of carbon taxing due to global warming? He basically didn't buy into global warming and so was on the outs with his masters.
The Fed might also just step up their efforts to lock down segments of the population with their paramilitary forces.
I bet alot of people don't know about the deal Kissinger made with the middle eastern countries during the nixon administration to tie oil with our dollar. Iraq severed that deal and we invaded. Iran recently severed that deal with their Iranian bourse, and guess what we're planning on doing?
Another factor that you have to figure is it would probably be detrimental to our standard of living if we don't have a backup energy source as a large part of national GDP is oil, it might be mitigated by stemming our dependance on foreign oil, but alot of poor and middle class would be left in the lurch.
If a significant percentage of the population stopped using oil altogether it would definately get the attention of the powers that be, for good or for bad.
Yeah, the object is taking
Yeah, the object is taking control and getting attention. I don't think people realize the power in doing that. That would consequently lead to to things like the price of oil being effected.
Now with all this said, if
Now with all this said, if people do find this interesting, feel free to contact me directly. I will post this idea on ronpaulforums as well. It would be pretty cool if this would work.
That can if you call tech
That and if you call tech support and speak to someone in India quit using the product.
To your idea: I was thinking the same thing a few days ago. If everyone takes 3 days and stay at home or ride a bike to work anything to stop using gas.
Right exactly, just stay at
Right exactly, just stay at home. Doesn't cost extra to read a book, watch tv, play a video game, play in the yard, take a walk, play some bball or something. Yeah, just stay home for a day or a weekend.
I don't buy gas every day.
If I don't use it on a Thursday but still buy it on Saturday like I usually do, the gas company won't be hurt one bit. They won't even know that anything happened. If we all agree to not buy gas on Thursday, then we wil still buy gas on Wednesday and Friday, the gas company won't be hurt one bit. A boycott means that you quit using a product until the company or sector you are boycotting makes changes, one day boycotts are senseless.
Now if you can come up with a way for us all to quit using less oil for a long period of time, then present it, but it won't be a form of a boycott, it would simply be conservation.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
One step further.
Another way would be to reduce the amount of foreign goods we purchase. This would attack two fronts, if there is less demand for imported goods then there would be less transportation required. Less transportation means less oil needed. Less imported goods leads to increase in locally produced goods which would increase demand for local labor markets and employ any laid off truck drivers.
grant
Yeah, but how would you do
Yeah, but how would you do that? A moron could accomplish what I am suggesting. He would simply not have to do anything.
I'm reposting to explain why oil is high
The cost of oil is merely the reflection of the dollar being devalued. If our dollar was pegged to something real, like say silver it would be close to the same amount as when it was first used-if you want to see this truth find out the price of silver in relation to dollars (around $16.00) then find out how much oil cost way back when (about a quarter of a real dollar) and voila gas is right now around $4.00 which translates to a quarter of a dollar when the dollar was actually pegged to something.
An oil strike might not get the oil companies to lower their prices because the oil companies aren't really controlled by their CEO's-the cost of oil is manipulated indirectly by our FED's masters when it lowers interest rates. HOWEVER, an oil strike will get the attention of the media and hopefully will put the oil companies under the spotlight to reveal to the world they don't control the oil price-its the same price its been in REAL dollars since forever.
I agree with this
I agree with this and it seems to be the truth. I also don't have a problem with the use of oil unless the argument is strictly based on something other than carbon dioxide and more specific than a general untrue statement about warming. I cannot jump on board the Al Gore train to stupidity or the knee jerk reaction that oil companies are to blame for all of this. I have also read articles that made very valid points as to why speculators actually stabilize the price of oil in a free market way. I've also read that oil company profit margins are actually lower than some other industries. It all seems to be about the dollar becoming unbound from oil and moving toward it's intrinsic value as a piece of cloth and paper.
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion."
The answer to high prices is high prices
We don't need a one day strike, we need to make changes in the way we live and work for the long term. High prices give us the motivation to do this. This is just the free market at work.
Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both
this is JUST the free
this is JUST the free market. Really. Uh, well I disagree with this. Plus lifestyle is simply not going to change anytime soon. The technology and feasibility to realistically accomplish a change from oil to something else simply doesn't exist yet. So demand all the change you want in lifestyle. It doesn't matter. It's not a option right now. We use oil and will use it for the foreseeable future. Am I wrong on this? Someone tell me I am wrong on this and I would love it. I just don't realistically see it.
Plus as someone is suggesting here, why are people so against fighting back. In someways what I am suggesting is less about the price of oil and more about taking action, responsibility, and control.
But the "action" you are
But the "action" you are advocating is just a counter-productive "quick fix" that will accomplish nothing good.
And you are both wrong and right in saying that "... lifestyle is simply not going to change anytime soon. So demand all the change you want in lifestyle. It doesn't matter."
EXACTLY! In other words, there is no quick fix! But it DOES matter: you have to start making the long-term changes NOW if anything meaningful is going to be accomplished.
As I said, I am not part of
As I said, I am not part of the problem. I live in the northeast and fill up the car once every two or three weeks.
What I meant by lifestyle won't change is to not concede defeat by rationalizing to change. It would seem to make more sense to take control of the present situation. I don't see how trying to move towards boycotting is a bad thing in any form. Maybe better ideas would be better but I do not see how it is a bad start.
Here's some books
Convert it-how to convert any car into an electric car
http://www.motherearthnew...
And
Hybrid car blueprints
http://www.motherearthnew...
So, anyone with free time and some skill can get off oil. Its been done and done for decades, just not publicized and guess why not?
A one-day "oil strike"
A one-day "oil strike" would, at best, be just a feel-good gesture, but would realistically accomplish nothing. It's time attention-deficit-disordered Americans put down their damned cell phones and blackberries, rejected the "quick fix" and tried thinking long-term for once. Only long-term thinking and long-term lifestyle alterations are going to have a meaningful impact.
The problem is what you wish
The problem is what you wish for and apparently seemed angered by is not going to happen anytime soon. You even say that we need long-term solutions. Well the only way to get to long term solutions is to start with short term solutions. You've got to try something. And you are wrong it is just a feel good gesture. Take a minute and just think about the enormity of oil and gas that is consumed on just one day. Or not even that. Just think about the absurd fluctuation of the price of oil per day simply from a geopolitical event of the day. It's completely erroneous. Hence, it is equally erroneous to believe a boycott of a day or hell maybe even a weekend would not have an impact. We consume oil at mammoth proportions. it would have an impact.
Why are people so against people fighting for something?
Its sad so many people's first reaction is let's buy our way out of this mess (buy gold and silver rather than hit the oil companies in their pocketbook). A strike on the falsely inflated oil price, just as a strike on the falsely inflated banking situation is a peaceful way to adjust the attitude of the general populace. I see people every day who only do things just because everybody else is doing the same thing (everyone has been saying since 2005 buy gold and silver and guess what I'm not doing). What we need is a buzz to wake people up which is seriously lacking from people who only see their own point of view.
I can't wait until people can put their ego's aside, try something new and dare to fail.
umm, yeah exactly.
umm, yeah exactly.
How about just boycotting one oil company?
Like Exxon-mobil, we could compile a list, see which station sells Exxon-mobil products and refuse to buy Exxon-mobil for 60-90 days. Don't you think after losing millions of dollars in the US market the would lower prices immensely?
No
It wouldn't lower oil prices at all.
Think it through step by step.
Suppose you got every single person in the country to boycott Exxon. What do you think Exxon is going to do? First, it would probably lower its retail prices a bit. That would probably be enough to bust the boycott and as soon as people went flocking back to Exxon, they would raise prices again. But let's assume that your boycott is really hard ass and it doesn't budge.
Do you think Exxon is going to just eat its gasoline? Of course not. It is going to turn around and sell the gasoline to other retailers who will need it to meet the demand from all the new customers that are boycotting Exxon. See? That is what happens with fungible commodities - they move freely to where the demand is. Gas isn't like a hamburger. If you boycott McDonalds, they get hurt. If you boycott a distributor of a totally fungible commodity like gas, the supply channels just change. It is like trying to change the course of a mighty river by throwing a boulder in it. The water just finds another path around.
So even with a massively effective and tenacious boycott, Exxon wouldn't lose much. Furthermore, the other gas retailers would RAISE their prices in response to the increased demand for their product. So Exxon would offer lower prices at the pump while the other retailers would charge higher prices. But let's assume that this still doesn't break the boycott.
Eventually, Exxon would close its retail outlets, fire a bunch of innocent gas station workers, and go exclusively into the wholesale gas business selling to other retailers. And now, with Exxon entirely out of the retail business, you have REDUCED competition at the pump which will cause prices to go higher than they were.
Don't make the mistake that Nancy Pelosi and other ignorant nimrods make in thinking that gas prices are just pulled out of a hat in some CEO's office and all you have to do is make them feel bad and gas prices will drop to $2 a gallon again. It doesn't work that way.
Gas prices are high due to devaluation of the dollar, changes in supply and demand, and perhaps some speculation. And none of these issues are going to go away with a boycott.
Get used to high gas prices. And get ready for higher prices on EVERYTHING!
Yeah, I think the idea that
Yeah, I think the idea that high gas prices are here and here to stay is a bit absurd. The market will correct itself eventually. The worst correction will be the depression people are suggesting. But it will be corrected at some point. Again, this is just common sense.
And a boycott would effect those issues. A boycott would pull the floor out under the speculators. It would also change the change in supply and demand. The saving of the money used for the gas would go towards other matters and I imagine would effect the dollar, though i admittedly don't know enough about that.
I recently heard on the radio,
That Exxon is getting out of the retail gas business over the next 2 years. there will still be privately-owned "exxon" stations, but boycotting them won't hurt Exxon Mobil at all - It will just hurt the owner, likely a local businessman.
I like that idea. However,
I like that idea. However, I personally don't really have anything against Exxon or any other oil company purely as a business that succeeds. Surely they are not the nicest or most favorable companies, but to crush one company oppose to another kinda doesn't make sense. Plus, i dont think its exxon or any of the oil companies we want to attack. It's the price of oil and the price of gas we pay. We should want to attack the price not a company. I may be completely wrong but isn't the price controlled more by the market and OPEC. Either way, I would say attacking aggressively towards something oppose to peaceful resistance is really never the best thing. The latter is usually always better than the former.
It would be effective and
It would be effective and would potentially help the targetted company in the end. Set an ultimatum. Company X will be boycotted until it offers gasoline for $X.XX, Once that price is offered, all other companies will be boycotted until they do the same. A stair-stepping approach.
I see what you are saying.
I see what you are saying. I agree it is a nifty idea.
Also, akak is way to high-minded. Simplicity is a good thing. Stomp those feet. Food is too high at the grocery store. Stomp the feet. I'll join in. Get enough people it will mean something.
By all means, Adam, stomp
By all means, Adam, stomp your feet --- but stomp them at the right target! What you are advocating is as wrong-minded as screaming at the grocery store stock-boy for the high prices of food. HE wasn't responsible for the prices, fundamentally the banks and the government are.
Yeah, I would disagree with
Yeah, I would disagree with the analogy. The stock boy is the guy pumping your gas just the same. He has absolutely no control whatsoever. I wouldn't stomp my feet at the stock boy and I wouldn't stomp my feet at the gas attendant. The general manager could do something though just as well as people higher up than the gas attendant could do something. I mean come on. Go to a restaurant and if you are a big enough prick or you have a terrible experience your food will get comped or you'll get something for free.
Sreams, that is a simplistic
Sreams, that is a simplistic approach that totally ignores economic reality. If the companies cannot offer gasoline at the price you would prefer to pay, then striking them is striking the wrong target, and will only inflict harm and needless cost on the economy at large. It never makes sense to shoot the messenger just because he bears bad news. This would be just like bitching at the grocery store over high food prices, when it is fundamentally the government and central banks who are responsible for the inflation that causes the high prices.
Waning demand would also
Waning demand would also just hurt "the messenger" by the way you describe it. As consumers, the only part of the oil behemoth that we can effectively reach is the gas stations. Put the hurt there and the industry will have to respond. Companies such as Shell and Exxon are not innocent in this.
Well, now you are talking
Well, now you are talking about "waning demand", which is a longer-term project and WOULD have a real effect. Granted, any changes we make tomorrow or next week will have negligible impact on the price of oil next week, but it will in the long run, if the changes are permanent. Every trip of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Yeah, akak, that is exactly
Yeah, akak, that is exactly what I was/am getting at with this idea. Did no one read the end of the post? The idea is to start with one nationwide boycott but for that only to lead to another and so forth. I am saying exactly that..."Every trip of a thousand miles begins with a single step." Yes, exactly!
OK. I thought you were just
OK. I thought you were just advocating a one-time, one-day fuel strike. I guess I didn't read closely enough.
Okay, yeah no. I am
Okay, yeah no. I am definitely not suggesting that. I am suggesting one step at a time though. I am suggesting play with the cards we have and we have the power to boycott. Now if that were to work and be effective we would want to start at the simplest level but at a level that would mean something. One day would seem to be the starting point. If it were successful than we could expand from there. That is what I am suggesting.
I've thought of this as well
I've thought of this as well and I completely agree. Far more feasible and potentially effective than an industry-wide one-day boycott. Pick a big oil company and boycott them for a month, or as long as it takes for that company to lower its prices enough to affect the whole market.
not a good idea ... oil is
not a good idea ... oil is pretty significant and necessary in the global economy .. striking the world oil supply for about a week or a month or even a day isn't possible... and even if it was to happen ... everything would slow down and economies would implode
that won't bring the price of oil down ...
gold and silver my friend .. do some research
I'm not digging this
I'm not digging this negatively here. You're just trashing the idea before the fact. How can you say such things? It's irrational what you are suggesting. If this was marketed properly and prepared for properly it would work. The simplest way to put it is you remove the need for the oil for a day. Everyone prepares. I mean look at it as a holiday. Call it a Holiday of Conservation or something like that. What you're saying doesn't make sense and I will admit I don't know the details about the "global" economy. But regardless, if you just use common sense, what you are saying is hogwash.
It's because these kinds of
It's because these kinds of things have been tried before, and they have been shown to have little or no effect, as logic would tell you in the first place.
Stop looking for the "quick fix", and change your consumption and habits instead --- car pool, take the bus, or get a job closer to home. THAT is the only thing that can have a real effect in the long run.
Dude, first off I live in
Dude, first off I live in the Northeast and live in a city. I walk to work alright.
Well, I applaud you for
Well, I applaud you for that. I'm just saying that it is naive and counterproductive to think that we can change anything with a one-day strike --- I think they already know the average person is majorly pissed-off with the price of fuel.
Don't shoot the messenger --- shoot the one who made the message necessary in the first place.
Yeah, as I said above. You
Yeah, as I said above. You are being way to complicated about this. Simplicity is a good thing. I could care less about the messenger or the maker. I am a consumer and disagree with the price of the product. Why is that so complicated? That is straightforward and sensible. I mean the only reason a boycott doesn't happen is largely because it seems to big for a country as a whole to pull off. People would drop using oil in a second if it were possible. Oil just has a monopoly on us. I mean come on. this is not complicated. Product X is not demanded anymore. Thus, it is not consumed. Thus the price will be effected. How is this not accurate?