[Spliff]

Is the US doing anything to pressure OPEC into lowering oil prices/increasing oil production?

I know that the Bush family will personally profit from higher oil prices, but aren't high gas prices bad for the economy because they they raise the cost most goods (higher transportation fees, etc).

Or is the US OPEC's bitch?

[AKcrab]

The *world* is OPEC's bitch.

[Logic]

Shouldn't OPEC be allowed to set the price they want on their goods? Why should the US "do" anything about it? Soon Iraqi oil production will be up to speed and the price will drop.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Logic:
Shouldn't OPEC be allowed to set the price they want on their goods? Why should the US "do" anything about it? Soon Iraqi oil production will be up to speed and the price will drop.

Because the US uses their clout in so many other trade areas. Why not pressure OPEC?

Here's an example. They slapped duties on Canadian softwood lumber because they felt they were unfairly subsidized. How is OPEC restricting oil production different than subsidies on lumber? They both forms of price manipulation.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Is the US doing anything to pressure OPEC into lowering oil prices/increasing oil production?

Is the US doing anything to pressure Microsoft into lowering software prices?

Is the US doing anything to reduce its dependency on oil?

Is the US doing anything useful for anyone other than the US?

Is the US so self-centred that it beleives that OPEC should roll over for them?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Because the US uses their clout in so many other trade areas. Why not pressure OPEC?

Here's an example. They slapped duties on Canadian softwood lumber because they felt they were unfairly subsidized. How is OPEC restricting oil production different than subsidies on lumber? They both forms of price manipulation.

The difference is that they need OPEC oil. They don't need lumber. If they would slap duties on oil the price would get even higher.

And I'm against them using duties on Canadian exports as well. In fact, I'm against all duties on trade. If a nation can't compete in producing something they should either fix it or stop producing it.

IMHO of course.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by christ:
Is the US doing anything to pressure Microsoft into lowering software prices?

Is the US doing anything to reduce its dependency on oil?

Is the US doing anything useful for anyone other than the US?

Is the US so self-centred that it believes that OPEC should roll over for them?

I would think that President Bush wants to be re-elected and helping the economy by trying to lower oil prices.

[Spheric Harlot]

ANNEX MORE NATIONS.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
ANNEX MORE NATIONS.

[Spliffdaddy]

word up.

it ain't a cartel if it's all US-owned.

[ghost_flash]

Wait. Didn't we go to WAR for oil? <smirk>

Well,<pun>
Where is it?

Oh right, we DIDN'T go to war for OIL.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Wait. Didn't we go to WAR for oil? <smirk>

Well,<pun>
Where is it?

Oh right, we DIDN'T go to war for OIL.

no, we did.
You're forgetting that the profits from overpriced gas goes right into the pockets of the oil companies. This is not a proof AGAINST a war for oil...no, no, this actually is quite in line with the plan.

[ghost_flash]

Tinfoil hat jpeg for Lerk.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Wait. Didn't we go to WAR for oil? <smirk>

Well,<pun>
Where is it?

Oh right, we DIDN'T go to war for OIL.

I am sure some dem will come in here trying to say we DID, while looking foolish in the process.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, we did.

Heh

You're forgetting that the profits from overpriced gas goes right into the pockets of the oil companies. This is not a proof AGAINST a war for oil...no, no, this actually is quite in line with the plan.

So when the price of gas was JUST AS HIGH when Clinton was in Office, what was the reason then?

Come on Lerk...

[nonhuman]

Personally, I think gas prices should be higher. Why? Because they're artificially low right now. We're actually paying a lot more for gas than it says at the pumps, but because the pumps show a low price people are still buying more. If we were in a free market gas prices would be much higher (though we'd actually be paying less), and as a result people would actually be motivated to find ways to move off our unfortunate fossil-fuel reliance.

Rather than complaining when the price of gas rises and demanding the government do something about it, why don't you just buy less gas?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Personally, I think gas prices should be higher. Why? Because they're artificially low right now. We're actually paying a lot more for gas than it says at the pumps, but because the pumps show a low price people are still buying more. If we were in a free market gas prices would be much higher (though we'd actually be paying less), and as a result people would actually be motivated to find ways to move off our unfortunate fossil-fuel reliance.

There's many, including some hardcore environmentalists, who'd like to see gas much higher as well. The theory is we won't move to the cleaner, more sensible alternative sources until the political pressure is there to make it happen. If the population is yelling about the cost of energy than the government will have to look for other solutions.

Personally, I think it's going to get much worse before it gets better. That includes allowing drilling in places we're reluctant to do so currently.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, we did.
You're forgetting that the profits from overpriced gas goes right into the pockets of the oil companies. This is not a proof AGAINST a war for oil...no, no, this actually is quite in line with the plan.

ding..
http://www.oilandgasreporter.com/sto...40210008.shtml


<not directed at Lerk>
Also, just because we aren't getting the oil now doesn't mean that wasn't the objective. I seem to remember alot of sabotage after "Mission Accomplished Day" on the oil infrastructure in Iraq. If the pipelines and factories were in perfect working order you would probably see a reduction in oil prices now.

[Macfreak7]

There's no way they're going to step back from the said cuts. Two reasons: 1. It'll hurt their credibility. 2. They're currently supplying ~1 million barrels/day MORE than they're supposed to.

The dollar is losing it's value.

[Krusty]

Re: the price of gas.
Where I live, regular unleaded is about $1.65/gal. (at the cheap places). When I started driving in 1987, it was about $1.00/gal. Adjusting for inflation, its roughly the same price now as then. We've just been spoiled by the falling price of gas (relative to inflation) over the last 17 years or so (during both Rep and Dem administrations -- before anyone wants to pull a partisan, knee-jerk). The current "high" prices aren't really that high in the greater scheme of things .. just "back on track", really.

Re: Going to war for oil.
I think Zimph and ghost_flash are kidding themselves if they think that having a "friendly" (aka, set up by us) government in Iraq that will sell us as much oil as we want/need as our demands dictate is a clear (and almost transparently obvious) "side benefit" of the war in Iraq. As Lerk mentioned (and has been pointed out in these forums in the past), the idea isn't something as silly as just going in and stealing the oil to redistribute as free "spoils of war" to the American populace. Its about big oil companies having control over the resale of Iraqi oil in the US (i.e. making sure Iraq will "sell" us as much as we need, when we need it, at the most profitable levels for the people who resell it in the US).

Sound silly/conspiratorial to you ? Read up on the OPEC oil embargo in 1973. Basically, we were completely held by the gonads by a handful of countries upon whom our economy depended. Gas prices quadrupled from 30 cents to 1.20. Rationing and no sale of gas on Sundays was implemented (ration booklets were actually printed up but the embargo ended before they were needed). The price of EVERYTHING soared as trucking/distribution costs skyrocketed. Basically, we were f*cked. In 2004, we now have an even greater dependency on imported oil than we did then. Please feel free to read This article from the very conservative "Free Republic" which talks about Nixon's backup plan to forcibly seize oil fields due to the extent to which our entire economy was at the mercy of OPEC. Outright stealing Iraqi oil through conquest ? No. Making sure that a we have a regime and leadership in Iraq that won't pull any embargo stunts (as Saddam wanted to do .. he actually called for another embargo in 2002 which largely fell on deaf ears). Yup. Its even more critical today than 30 years ago.

A little 1973 history for those who don't seem to realize how critical a steady mideast oil supply is to us link

On Oct. 17, OPEC imposed an oil embargo on the United States and The Netherlands and raised prices 70 % on America's allies in Western Europe. Within three months the price of oil had more than tripled. Suddenly, Americans felt a new sense of vulnerability to events halfway around the world. Motorists were limited to a meagre 5 or 10 gallons at the pump. Gas lines stretched for miles and tempers flared. Homeowners were told to turn down their thermostats and companies were asked to reduce work hours. Daylight-saving time was extended and gasoline sales were banned on Sundays.
The embargo, which lasted nearly six months, triggered a deep economic recession in the United States and other industrialized countries. Oil company stocks rose, but the rest of the stock market plunged.

Thirty years later, the nation is still grappling with the aftershocks of the crisis. Each of the last seven presidents has promised to reduce US dependence on foreign oil, but the problem has only grown worse.
Total oil consumption since 1973 is up 13 %, while net oil imports are up 72 %. Imports from the Persian Gulf have nearly tripled, from 800,000 bpd in 1973 to 2.2 mm bpd in 2002. Transportation -- primarily automobiles -- account for more than 60 %of US oil consumption. But the average fuel efficiency of American automobiles last year was at its lowest point since 1981.
"For the foreseeable future OPEC is still in the driver's seat," said Mark Hopkins, executive director of the Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan group formed in response to the oil embargo.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Logic:
Shouldn't OPEC be allowed to set the price they want on their goods?

No.

The whole way that the free-market system is supposed to work is that the market determines prices by means of demand. What OPEC does is set the prices artificially and arbitrarily. In essence, what they are doing is the opposite of capitalism: instead of being controlled by the markets, they wish to control the market itself. It's standard behavior for pretty much any monopoly or near-monopoly (as OPEC is), and it's why monopolies break capitalism.

[voodoo]

Gas prices here are $1.25 per Liter. ... $4.75 per gallon. Unleaded.

OPEC schmoepec when you have the Scaninavian gov. taxing things those arabs become peanuts in comparison!

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No.

The whole way that the free-market system is supposed to work is that the market determines prices by means of demand. What OPEC does is set the prices artificially and arbitrarily. In essence, what they are doing is the opposite of capitalism: instead of being controlled by the markets, they wish to control the market itself. It's standard behavior for pretty much any monopoly or near-monopoly (as OPEC is), and it's why monopolies break capitalism.

I wouldn't call them a monopoly. There are several other nations that produce oil. Meaning that if OPEC pumps up their prices, you can go to another seller.

And also the demand and availability isn't as easy as many of us think. It is actually used by most nations/companies to find out how they can get the most money out of as little production as possible. Especially when you are dealing with something like finite sources like oil. So because the US dollar has been falling in the last couple of months/years(?) OPEC has decided it can't keep selling oil at the low rates it has been so far. How can they fix that? By cutting production and thereby raising demand for each liter produced.

Capitalism is about a free market, and OPEC is on the free market. There are several nations outside of OPEC that produce oil, and there are also alternatives to oil. Meaning that OPEC can do what they deem necessary to keep their profits up. If we(western nations) don't like it we can a) buy our oil from elsewhere b) try to minimize our dependence on OPEC oil by working on finding alternatives.

Like I said, OPEC is in no way a monopoly in the oil market. And oil is not the only source of energy there currently is. It's our own fault for still in the year 2004 being dependent on something like oil for our energy.

[Logic]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Gas prices here are $1.25 per Liter. ... $4.75 per gallon. Unleaded.

OPEC schmoepec when you have the Scaninavian gov. taxing things those arabs become peanuts in comparison!

[christ]

Originally posted by Logic:
Shouldn't OPEC be allowed to set the price they want on their goods?

Yes.

If you don't want to pay the price, don't buy the product.

If people stopped buying oil, then the price would come down again pretty quick.

(Same with Windows/ office is my guess).

If you don't like the monopoly/ cartel, buy something else and bring it to its knees.

[christ]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No.

The whole way that the free-market system is supposed to work is that the market determines prices by means of demand. What OPEC does is set the prices artificially and arbitrarily. In essence, what they are doing is the opposite of capitalism: instead of being controlled by the markets, they wish to control the market itself. It's standard behavior for pretty much any monopoly or near-monopoly (as OPEC is), and it's why monopolies break capitalism.

If you can't control your demand, that is hardly OPEC's fault.

The way that the free-market system is supposed to work is that the market price is raised in times of low demand, and lowered in times of high demand, and contrariwise, demand raises when prices are low, and demand lowers when prices are high.

Monopolies don't break capitalism (although they may break some capitalists). Monopolies are uniquely sensitive to demand - if people stop wanting your product, and its the only one that you have, you are screwed.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by christ:
If you can't control your demand, that is hardly OPEC's fault.

Indeed not, but note that they are artificially cutting supply, going into a time when demand has traditionally been quite high. In effect, they are trying to raise demand even higher, manipulating their own market.

No, it's not OPEC's fault that they can't control demand: they shouldn't be able to control demand. No one should. The only reason capitalism works at all is that supply and demand check each other's influence. This supply cut is not meant to lower demand by any stretch of the imagination. We've seen this happen almost every year on a smaller scale; this just happens to be the most blatant case of market manipulation yet.

The way that the free-market system is supposed to work is that the market price is raised in times of low demand, and lowered in times of high demand, and contrariwise, demand raises when prices are low, and demand lowers when prices are high.

Yes. But you're speaking only of the demand side of the equation. We're talking about the manipulation of supply.

[christ]

Originally posted by Millennium:
...No, it's not OPEC's fault that they can't control demand: they shouldn't be able to control demand. No one should. The only reason capitalism works at all is that supply and demand check each other's influence. This supply cut is not meant to lower demand by any stretch of the imagination.

The demander should certainly be able to control his demand

Supply and demand do check each other's influence, and if you had the strength of character to control your oil intake, then the OPEC manipulation would be self-defeating. Blaming them because you are beyond self-control is typical.

If your government were to tax petrol at, say, $10 a gallon, then demand would drop dramatically, forcing OPEC to lower prices or increase supply; so it is within your gift to play OPEC at their own game. As usual, though, you wish your supply to stay strong, supporting any demand that you wish to make, and accuse them of cheating.

[Lerkfish]

One thing people should keep in mind about the oil companies -- just like diamond merchants, they don't set prices based on the cost to produce the actual products, but on how the consumer perceives the scarcity of the product.
Diamonds are actually quite plentiful, if you think about it -- pick any mall across the US, and there'll be 3 or 8 jewelry stores...all of them with an overabundance of diamonds to purchase. That's ONE mall. Multiply that by the number of malls, then by the additional jewelers, and that's just one community. We're swimming in diamonds. If we were to pay the actual cost to mine the diamonds per unit, they'd be barely more than the cubic zirconium variety. What sets the price artificially high is the PERCEPTION, promoted by the industry, that diamonds are RARE, when they really aren't.

Same with the oil industry. If you don't think so, ask yourself this: from the derrick to the pump around the corner, the oil takes about a month to travel, refine and transport.
However, note that the oil industry will respond within hours to any event which the public will meekly accept as causing oil to be more scarce....like when we invaded Iraq, prices shot up. The oil industry will often state things like "an increase in opec cost per barrel" or "increased transportation of oil costs" or whatever excuse is handy to make the public think the increase in prices is necessary. BUT even if what they say is true, the oil that would cost the xtra amount would not be at your pump for another month. The oil that is already at the station has already been paid for at the previous wholesale price. They're charging you for an alleged increase in the future of future product on the existing product, the overhead of which has already been adjusted for. How can they get away with it? Because they are setting prices based on the willingness of the customer to pay it rather than the actual cost to produce it.
Since that is true, they invest a lot of PR and spin to continue to make you think oil is scarce so that you accept the increase in price.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
ANNEX MORE NATIONS.

We would, if there were that many worth having.

[vmpaul]

Us Americans will bitch and moan about paying nearly $2/gallon (still cheap considering inflation) while we're pumping gas. Then we go into the mini-market and buy a $1.50 bottle of water before we drive off.

Go figure.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Us Americans will bitch and moan about paying nearly $2/gallon (still cheap considering inflation) while we're pumping gas. Then we go into the mini-market and buy a $1.50 bottle of water before we drive off.

Go figure.

I've NEVER bought a bottle of water. Not once.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I've NEVER bought a bottle of water. Not once.

Who cares?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Us Americans will bitch and moan about paying nearly $2/gallon (still cheap considering inflation) while we're pumping gas. Then we go into the mini-market and buy a $1.50 bottle of water before we drive off.

Go figure.

The New Republic had an interesting article on cost of living adjusted gas price comparisons here.

Last week the national average for regular unleaded was $1.71, while "the record," USA Today declared, was $1.74 in August 2003. But all that matters to consumers is inflation-adjusted cost, and in this real-dollar calculation, gasoline prices remain about where they have been for most of the postwar era. This chart shows that the actual U.S. record price for gasoline occurred in 1981, when regular unleaded cost $2.80 in today's money. (The chart is in 2002 dollars; add 2 percent for current dollars.) The current gas-price level that Spencer Abraham, Dan Rather, and others are hyping as close to "the record" is actually 39 percent lower than the true price peak.

Another comparison: The average price of gasoline during the 1950s was about $1.80 in today's money--meaning that during the period enshrined in our collective political nostalgia as Energy Heaven, gasoline cost slightly more in real dollars than the amount now being theatrically bemoaned as a "record" price. But wait; in the 1950s, per-capita real income was less than half what it is today. That means that for the typical American in the 1950s, gasoline cost twice as much, in terms of buying power, as today's gasoline. Adjusted for inflation and for buying power, the purported "record"-priced gasoline at your pumps now is substantially cheaper than the gasoline your parents bought.

Now, those are the facts. But gas prices as an issue people worry about is more a matter of perceptions than facts, so I don't know if this will make much of a difference, especially with news outlets making it their "shark attack" story.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Who cares?

Obviously not all Americans do this crankypants.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Is the US doing anything to pressure OPEC into lowering oil prices/increasing oil production?

We need to drill our own land and waters. We have plenty of oil, but everytime the notion of drilling comes up, the radical left throws a hissy fit.

The left is the reason we are so dependent on foreign oil.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We need to drill our own land and waters. We have plenty of oil, but everytime the notion of drilling comes up, the radical left throws a hissy fit.

The left is the reason we are so dependent on foreign oil.

And they eat babies too.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by christ:
Yes.

If you don't want to pay the price, don't buy the product.

If people stopped buying oil, then the price would come down again pretty quick.

(Same with Windows/ office is my guess).

If you don't like the monopoly/ cartel, buy something else and bring it to its knees.

Easier said than done. IN order to do that you'd have to modify how you heat your home, and buy a new car.

Neither is something the average person can really afford to do. Those that can afford it, probably don't care about increased energy prices.

Therefore, they've got us by the balls. Problem is no one whines till they squeeze a little.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I've NEVER bought a bottle of water. Not once.

Anecdotal. Bottled water is a HUGE business.

But since you don't, you can bitch and moan about gas prices.

[djohnson]

We should pump every last drop out of the US that we can! What will people think when it gets over $2/gallon this summer, as an average? I hope some people start complaining real soon!

[hyteckit]

Damn all of you SUV and hummer drivers! Damn, damn, damn. Now I have to take the train to work.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by itai195:
And they eat babies too.

with a little chianti and faaaaavaaaahhhhh beans ....zut zut zut.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Damn all of you SUV and hummer drivers! Damn, damn, damn. Now I have to take the train to work.

Dont blame thos that want large vehicles! Blame all of those that drive sports cars and get the same mileage as those that drive SUVs. How about the really old cars that get next to now mileage??? Why people think it is all SUVs....

[christ]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Easier said than done. IN order to do that you'd have to modify how you heat your home, and buy a new car.

Neither is something the average person can really afford to do. Those that can afford it, probably don't care about increased energy prices.

Therefore, they've got us by the balls. Problem is no one whines till they squeeze a little.

So - you can't afford to pay what they want to charge, so the answer is:

a) cut down, or
b) force the foreigners to drop the price (or not to increase the price)

a) is responsible and makes you less dependent on others (and increases the oil available to the rest of the world), but b) is easier, so let me guess what you want to do.

If the foreigners increased the price of oil tenfold, then "modify how you heat your home, and buy a new car" may become the cheap option. Maybe you should think about it while you still have a choice.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We need to drill our own land and waters. We have plenty of oil, but everytime the notion of drilling comes up, the radical left throws a hissy fit.

The left is the reason we are so dependent on foreign oil.

See, this is the problem. The only solution you see is to get more oil. You don't even consider trying to develop something other than that.

At the same time you are trying to pollute your nations more, little Iceland has already set up the first hydrogen fuel station in the world. Isn't it sad that you in your attempt at being the first and most powerful let a small nation like Iceland be the first to actually start with the alternative energy that could save you all that trouble?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by christ:
So - you can't afford to pay what they want to charge, so the answer is:

a) cut down, or
b) force the foreigners to drop the price (or not to increase the price)

a) is responsible and makes you less dependent on others (and increases the oil available to the rest of the world), but b) is easier, so let me guess what you want to do.

If the foreigners increased the price of oil tenfold, then "modify how you heat your home, and buy a new car" may become the cheap option. Maybe you should think about it while you still have a choice.

Unfortunately, I don't think most americans (at least those who are hit hardest) can cut down that much. I drive my car to and from work and to and from college. I rarely travel other than that, so there's not much I can do to reduce my transportation costs.

I heat my home with oil, but I rarely raise the thermostat above 60 degrees, and I don't heat the upstairs.

There's not much else I can do.

[christ]

Originally posted by Logic:
See, this is the problem. The only solution you see is to get more oil. You don't even consider trying to develop something other than that.

At the same time you are trying to pollute your nations more, little Iceland has already set up the first hydrogen fuel station in the world. Isn't it sad that you in your attempt at being the first and most powerful let a small nation like Iceland be the first to actually start with the alternative energy that could save you all that trouble?

It's OK logic - they'll wait and see how it pans out, and if it looks good they'll come and bully you into giving it to them, or they'll accuse you of having WMD, or harbouring a terrorist, and then they'll send in their army to take it from you.

Why should they develop alternative energy sources when they can take what they want by force?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Damn all of you SUV and hummer drivers! Damn, damn, damn. Now I have to take the train to work.

Actually, blame the Big Rig truck drivers. They are the one's driving prices up by paying their prices. I have a friend who drives a rig and he paid $600 per week in fuel costs. Last summer he was paying $300 / week.

Suv and Hummer owner do not affect the price of gas, that is a naive (evian) notion.

You want to go and buy your milk, eggs, etc. at the grocery store right? Or are you just happy complaining and riding the train. Hell, I prefer the train. I just hate when they don't put enough cars on the train and I have to stand all the way to the city or sit between cars... Still, it's better than driving, and then paying $12-18 per day parking, in addition to the gas prices.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The New Republic had an interesting article on cost of living adjusted gas price comparisons here.

Exactly.

Besides, OPEC supplies only 1/3 of the oil demand - they are a cartel, but not a monopoly, as some think. Add to that that oil is a finite resource, so from a capitalist POV there's nothing wrong if they decide to sell their product at a certain rate.

Another misconception is that the relatively higher price right now is due to short supply: that is not the case - there's enough oil on the market to cover all demand.

Add to that that it's the US-$ that is losing value - calculated in €, oil prices have been quite steady.

There are other factors driving the prices, and OPEC isn't responsible for them: at this rate, within two years there's very little oil producers will be able to do and demand will surpass supply (bare some major crisis) - our governments know that and that is why we are either filling our strategic reserves (like the US) or are hastily creating them (like China, Thailand, etc.)
Another factor is political - the current US administration has alienated many oil producers and US private companies are much less keen to work in Saudi Arabia, etc. Recently the Saudis, the Iranians and the Venezuelans have started major contracts with China.

Sure, OPEC could bow to the US and start overproducing (our b*thces in Kuwait and UAE said they would) in order to drive down the price, but we haven't been friendly to them lately - why should they do us any favor?

And no, starting to drill in Alaska would not lower the price in any way, there just isn't enough oil there.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by christ:
It's OK logic - they'll wait and see how it pans out, and if it looks good they'll come and bully you into giving it to them, or they'll accuse you of having WMD, or harbouring a terrorist, and then they'll send in their army to take it from you.

Why should they develop alternative energy sources when they can take what they want by force?

THEY are giving a $1,500 - 2,000 tax credit for buying a Hybrid automobile.
WTF do you want you little crybaby.