quit whining

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9585

Oh by the way...gas (and energy in general) isn't that expensive in America. . yet. And since it's been going down anyway...it's not going to be a major issue...yet.

This is probably the most realistic economic way to look at it, not via the silly signs with the 9/10 cents per gallon charges. It should be looked at per budget/per wallet. That article in general does not continue the parallel to the world, especially the rest of the developed world, where energy costs are considerably higher still and hence resource use is much more efficient. Probably because that's not supposed to be mentioned either.

Much as few politicians are willing to say "quit bitching" to the American public when it isn't ridiculously expensive, just way more expensive than it was recently. I'd doubt further that people would extend the topic to decide whether having higher energy costs is actually a boon for economic growth, via the necessity of energy efficient methods and high tech operations to take advantage of them, research them, etc. Naturally it puts a bit of a crimp on things while the price of energy rises. But in truth, with a global market, there have been companies moving in this direction for decades. Most of them just don't have American names and/or products that say "Made in America" on them. Since GM & co more or less missed the bus and gasoline was recently dirt cheap, we as a society have foolishly squandered the opportunity to create most of the jobs in those new sectors. This however isn't quite the same as investing in the market, where missing the bus means you lose. It just means we're not very good at playing the market anymore (because our companies/unions have gotten too used to rigging it so they can "win"). For all the harping different parties do on the markets in this country, they don't seem to understand the damage they cause to it by allowing corporations to play games with how the markets work. Things which line one's pockets, or alternatively, line the pockets of major contributors (and influential constituents) are much more important now days.

This in effect is one of the two major outcomes of a social democracy with a capitalist economy. Either the social factors win and usurp power over industry or the industry usurps power over the government (and by extension, the people). It would seem to me that somewhere along the line, the people forgot how to fight back. Much of the democratic republic here in America is based on the continuous battle between those who don't trust the people (such as industrial giants or other aristocratic forms), and those who don't trust the powerful (usually the peons who work for them). It's possible, and generally preferred, when there is a sort of benevolent truce between the two sides and they can work toward some common goals, rather than waging an undeclared war by reversing more active policies constantly and confusing everyone in the game. For example, businesses who take care of their workers first will tend to profit more over time as the workforce they employ will generally take better care of that businesses' consumers. We used to have something like this with organized labor, but that has long since become yet another stultifying force, fixed on issues which no longer matter or which are no longer afforded by the best interests of either worker bee and corporate titan. When the powerful need take no notice, and the powerless are content to bitch about the meaningless, we are left with something that doesn't at all resemble democracy or capitalism. It doesn't at all sound like my kind of town, but at least I could say it's been a long time coming (or at least Russell could say that).