ericynot, aside from being petutlantly obstinate, really is ignorant of how the market works. An increase of 20 cents above what ? The study he cites (assuming it exists - and who cares) is no more meaningful than most of what he says. Those opposed to economic progress always have a study documenting the negative coinsequences of energy devlopment unless it is worthless "green energy". Of course ericynot would see no gas at all at 0 cents a gallon as a bargain
Obama may go down as the first president in the history of the U.S. to run a campaign based, like Jerry Seinfeld’s comedy, on nothing.
It’s gotten so bad that the New York Times is appealing to people to “believe in” Obama, like he’s a children’s character or a Vegas magic act, rather than president of the United States.
Talk about bitter clingers who cling to their religion.
But I know what they mean. There is isn’t any good logical reason to vote for Obama even if you are a liberal.
Let’s take his tax policy.
...
If you want to disagree with me or it, that's fine. But try reading it before you opine.
who cares about your link - I spent ten years in oil - and I never met an egghead who could reason his way out of a paperbag that would agree with your theory.
Cornell's "study" is agitprop - created specifically for political purposes.
Energy development by the private sector is generally a good thing - and trying to argue against it is foolish and very disingenuous.
the only legitimate arguments against a pipeline would be very local change to the Right Of Way....
First off, it's not "my" theory. Secondly, if you want to school me and others, take five minutes to look at the piece and tell us why you think it's valid or not.
No one is arguing against energy development. Nor are they arguing that the pipeline should not be built. Read the study ...
The report from "Cornell" is from its lobal Labor Institute.... From their website:
GLR was established in 2005 to work with trade unions in the U.S. and internationally to help them and their civil society partners develop solutions to major social, economic and environmental challenges.
A group of people who have no idea how business runs to help marxists run trade unions and help protect the environment.... Yeah--that is the group I want to cite.
Anybody who refers to this as a "study" deserves never to be believed again. It is not a study. It is a polemic against the Keystone Pipeline, not even masquerading as a study. It bickers with other polemicists over whether the numbers of jobs to be created by the project are high or low, or in between.
I don't know you, ericynot. But from this moment forward, I will never, ever trust a thing that you say. Either you are a liar, or you are too partisan to filter out agitprop. Either way, you do not deserve the trust of objective observers.
One of the key claims of the "study" (= argument) mentioned by ericynot is this:
"KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs."
This is nonsense. If KXL can, in fact, maximize profits by diverting oil to the Gulf Coast, standard economics (even the Keynesian kind) informs us that this will be the most efficient use of resources, and will therefore produce net positive economic activity.
Either way, it never makes sense for the government to stop economic activity proposed by profit-seeking private corporations engaged in ordinary, LEGAL profit-seeking behavior, because the intervention will always decrease economic efficiency and thus decrease net economic benefit. This, from Econ 101.