Gashole Movie
 

http://www.gasholemovie.com/sitebuil...le-293x169.jpg

Hey folks,

Last night I went to a one-night-only showing of GASHOLE, a gasoline documentry touring the country right now.

Had a great time. I bicycled to a friends house, and then carpooled in her Toyota to the showing.

At the showing, I met several interesting people including a guy interested in converting his motorcycle to biodiesel, and a guy building an electric trike. Good thing I brought my motorcycle business cards!

The film itself talked a lot about oil company profits, patent squashing, OPEC and the other usual things you would expect. Pretty good film overall, but it certainly didn't have a WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR budget.

The film's interviews were shot on a high-def digital camcorder (which looked great) but often, the stock footage cut-aways felt either not quite the right thing to show, or didn't have the right timing.

After the show, two of the film-makers were there for a talk-back.
They literally ARE just driving from city to city promoting the film, which will be in wider release this fall.

Overall, the film is worth watching. Check out the tour schedule for when it is in your city and get a group to carpool/hypermile/public transit your way out to it.

http://www.gasholemovie.com/Home.html

Cool, you got to go. I got the email to go to the show at like 8 last night so I had no chance. It sounded very interesting though and thanks for the review.

Did they make any distinction between profit and profit margin? The two are not the same, and too many folks don't understand the difference.

Not to start an argument here (having not seen the movie), if it cannot be shown that the oil companies' profit margins have increased, one would be hard-pressed to say that the increase in profits is nefarious.

Sweet, it will be in my town on July 31st...marking the date on the calendar now!

::EDIT::
O dear, it appears it's at the LeFont theater in Atlanta...there are two...I wonder which one it's at? I sent them a message on myspace, so hopefully they'll get back to me. Either way, they're both only about 10 miles away from where I live, so I can take my bike there either way!

Shawn,

yep, they talk about MARGINS.

There are some good clips from the senate hearings a while back when the government had the top seven oil execs in.

Isn't it silly they're convoying around using gas, promoting not using gas?

Or is their fleet biodiesel, etc? They'd have to have a massive tanker truck to go with them.

preview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn2zqGmPqeQ

"The film itself talked a lot about oil company profits..."

Wonder why none of these people can come up with anything new? Seems like it's always the evil big oil companies and their profits. Now if they really wanted a conspiracy theory that'd fly, they should look at the amount of money US automakers have spent on convincing Americans that they really want to drive big SUVs.

The movie also does point out the fact that manufacturers "only build what the public wants", and yet also heavily advertises those particular heavier vehicles, which causes the public to want them.

Margins should go up if the price of the commodity goes up. Right now, for example, the profits of companies that supply metals (copper, aluminum and steel) are going up because there is greater demand. If someone complains about oil companies making bigger profits, they are either ignorant or playing upon the ignorance of others. Where were these people 20 years ago when company after company was going broke? Was there a conspiracy then? People just want to believe that they are being ripped off.

If the price of modded cars, EV's or Geo Metros go up, is it because of a conspiracy? In the mindless thinking of the average consumer, it is. LOL! Why are used Hondas so freakin' expensive? Well, it must be "big-auto" Honda working behind the scenes, paying people off! LOL!

Yes, the ignorant are being preyed off of. Just who is doing that to them? Ironic.

Why is it suprising that a manufacturer wants to sell more of their vehicles that they have a greater profit margin on?

Ford has traditionally sold the Focus at a $250 loss. American car manufacturers have been unable to sell small cars at a profit. They have continued to sell them to meet government quotas. Hopefully that will change with higher gas prices. There are no monsters hiding in dark corners. Ignorant, near-sighted manufacturers? Certainly. But no monsters.

Exactly Arminius,
Even before CAFE, the entry level models were loss leaders to get custormers into the showrooms where hopefully salesmen could steer them to higher more profitable models.

How is it that Ford has always done poorly with small cars, yet the Japanese have (historically...) done well. The problem is that domestic car manufacturers are too conservative. They build what will guarantee a profit today without putting any though into innovation.

Ford made a killing with the Tin Lizzy until they built the same damn car for 30 years. Did they really think the Model T would be successful forever? When the Big 3 do put "thought" into a project (e.g. outsourcing the design of the EV1 to Aerovironment), they don't have the nerve to back it.

As far as Oil companies, the issue isn't them making a ton of cash...it is them making all the cash. It's great when 1% of the population owns the vast majority of the wealth...when you are in that 1%. I think we went wrong when America became involved in the cold war.

Commie bad...Money good. oogah oogah.

The haves are wondering why the have nots are complaining. Gee, I don't know.

- Lost Cause

Err... No, not this former have-not, anyway. What I wonder is why so many have-nots seem to work overtime at avoiding anything that might get them into the haves. If you can't avoid school altogther, at least spend your time partying instead of learning something geeky like computer engineering or (gawd forbid!) physics. Spend all the money you do earn on consumer junk, racking up car payments & credit card bills instead of saving & investing. When housing prices go up, take out the biggest home equity line you can, and use it to finance your lifestyle...

They haven't made much on the cars either. They have made money, but not much.

That is a misconception. Oil companies do not own themselves. They are owned by common people, most of whom own them through their retirement accounts. In addition, most oil outside the US is produced by government-owned oil companies. China, for example, is the biggest oil producer. There are relatively few true oil companies, and the biggest, Exxon, only produces 2% of the world's oil production.

I do not condone stupidity or irresponsiblity. I just think that the haves are not made up of PhD's. The haves are made up of land developers, business owners, and financiers. An upper middle class American pares in comparison to the fortunes of the wealthy. People live comfortably today, but the income gap grows every year. The natural order of society seems to be stratification...

I don't have an issue with someone saving up for retirement through investments, but it irks me when owners fill their Hummers from oil company dividends. It is one thing to save for retirement, it is another to save for a lavish lifestyle caravaning around the nation in a $500,000 RV.

As far as government owned oil, I think you are right to an extent. My understanding is that Royal Dutch Shell essentially owns the infrastructure of the Nigerian oil industry and is sucking the nation dry. If I was a Nigerian and saw a leech, I'd want to get rid of the thing too.

Globalization means foreign companies own the land. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of Chinese-owned farms coming the U.S. in the near future. They already own half the country via debt...

Swedish citizens average some of the highest per capita income rates in the world, yet their society is much more egalitarian than ours. We've mistakenly taken Social Darwinism as truth and show pride in our choice as we rationalize our existence through it.

"I deserve more because I am better!"

No, you deserve to give back more because you are better! The United States is one of the most fundamentalist and devout religious nations on Earth yet it can't seem to realize that Jesus was not a wealthy king. I'm not religious, but even I can see the message...

Sorry for getting off topic, but I imagine this is the kind of dialogue that the movie is trying to create anyways...:o

- LostCause

Ummm....

1. Sweden's per capita income is about 2/3 that of the US, after adjusting for the weak dollar.

2. 1/3 of the people work for the government.

3. 1/4 of their workforce has not worked in the past 3 years.

4. No new jobs have been created in the private sector since 1950.

5. None of the top 50 companies in their stock exchange were started after 1970.

6.It is one of the lowest in GDP in Europe (ranked 14th).

1.) Sweden's nominal GDP per capita is higher than the United States. ($49,655 vs. $45,845)

Sweden's GDP (PPP) per capita is lower (~2/3) because the cost of living is much higher. ($36,494 vs. $45,845). Sweden is a welfare state.

2.) Sweden has a heavily mixed economy, what do you expect?

3.) Sweden had a severe economic downturn during the 1990's. It is not immune from economics, but policy changes have seen strong growth and low inflation in recent years.

Sweden's consideration of unemployment is also much more broad than the U.S. The "unemployed" (including the sick, housewives, military servicemen, students, etc.) account for ~20%. Unemployment as we consider it hovers around 4%.

4.) I highly doubt that.

5.) I can't speak of that, but it is irrelevant as Sweden has modernized its industry successfully.

6.) It also isn't swarming with people like France...

Ofcourse Sweden is not perfect, but they are definately a more progressive country than the United States. The U.S. will have cars getting 35mpg by 2012, Sweden will be well on its way in going Oil-Free.

The use of Sweden as the "model country" is irrelevant. America doesn't "suck" because Sweden is "better." America is dying because of the very nature of its design. Infinite growth is unsustainable. A select few are cashing out now to the burden of the masses, both of the present and future.

Marx claimed religion was the opiate of the masses. In our growingly secular society, money is the opiate of the masses. America won't be rich forever. What happens to the junkie when the goods dry up?

- LostCause

Humm... Check your Forbes 500. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and all the rest, not a whole lot of land developers & financiers in that lot. Business owners, yes, but would they have had the idea that they started the business on if they hadn't gotten the technical education first?

Of course there are other ways to make money, if you have the aptitude, but the surest way to go from being a have-not to having at least modest prosperity is a technical education.

First off, the Forbes 500 lists the biggest businesses in America...what do you expect? Warren Buffett, the richest man in the world, made his money through investments and finance. Go to your local marina and check out the megayachts...I bet the owners are either financiers, business owners, or land developers.

Secondly, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs never graduated college. Bill Gates and Larry Ellison gained their wealth through cut-throat business practices reminiscent of Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel. Steve Jobs gained his wealth by exploiting people like Steve Wozniak. All three are highly intelligent, savvy business people...but PhD's they are not.

Americans have a love affair with Horatio Alger Jr. and his "rags to riches" stories. Every society is made up of the haves and have nots. The middle class are merely the have's cronies who get paid extra for loyalty. You may be happy sitting on $120,000/yr, but you are not the one in control.

I'm not trying to say that America and its ways are evil. There is a lot worse out there, but as much as we hate to believe it, we are far from perfect. To an American, a mansion is a sign of success. To me, it is utter failure.

- LostCause

Lost Cause, you ask a lot of good questions and make some good points, but you extrapolate to the point where we (Americans) are all doomed in the (near?) future. I can't agree with you to that extent. Fifty years ago, the communists were going to do us in, then twenty years ago, it was the Japanese. Now? The Chinese ... or the muslims. The doomsday predictions change ... but America continues on regardless.

The Gashole film (remember, the original topic everyone?) may be interesting … but it may just be another conspiracy film … like Moore’s Roger & Me which was amusing … but misleading. The biggest problem with oil/gasoline/energy is that North Americans have allowed themselves to become addicted to vast quantities of cheap energy, specifically liquid fossil fuels. It’s our own fault … not the government and not some star chamber of oil executives. I have driven a 4-cylinder car all my life (by choice) but most members of my family have V-8 powered vehicles … just because.

I am not particularly comfortable with the wealth distribution in the world, but every time a government tries to rectify the situation, they make things worse by killing off the entrepreneurial spirit of their people and locking most into a bleak, lower-middle-class rut. Achievement is punished, slacking becomes routine and corruption festers. Free-market capitalism isn’t perfect … it’s just the guideline that has provided the highest standard of living in the history of human civilization.

Along the lines of the things that jamesqf has said, how's this for a conspiracy: We have a culture that has decided superficial, unthinking slackers with poor personal grooming are the “cool” people while doing well in school (especially in math & science) is for “losers” … otherwise known as geeks and nerds. Now that’s a recipe for national deterioration!

If money (wealth) is the opiate for the masses, please pass me the pipe! Part of the wealth distribution problem in the world is because it takes money to make money. Your theory seems to be that we will get so rich that it will be the end of us all. I just can’t quite follow the logic. Yes, materialism for the sake of materialism won’t make for a meaningful life … but no one says it does. Well, the superficial cultural nonsense you see on TV states this … but please tell me you get your values from a better source! The fact that a lot of Americans don’t is a large part of the problem.

Personally? People hear these nutty conspiracy theories about this group or that group having the real power, believe them and then complain ... but are never inspired to actually do anything because the conspiracy is so vast and powerful, there’s nothing you can do to counter it. We all are just supposed to sit there and endure our woeful lot in life. :(

Actually, if I had to pick something, I’d say that conspiracy theories are the opiate for the masses. ;)

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...about_swe.html

The rest of your comments make no sense. Per capita income does not need to take into account the cost of living. It's income before expenses. The rest of the stats come from the World Bank and the United Nations, and they evaluate each country the same way.

I'll agree with you whole-heartedly there. I get carried away, but the point is that the economy isn't designed to last forever.

Environmental degradation is a result of wealth. The billions of poor have caused a minute fraction of global warming. The world today literally cannot support everyone living an American standard of life.

Why are we afraid of China and India becoming wealthy? Today they are sucking oil fields dry. I can't drive a Hummer anymore because Cheng Duan is becoming a middle class citizen. How dare he!

There's a difference between GDP per capita and GDP (PPP) per capita. I posted both. I'm sorry my comments are gibberish.

If you consider economics as the sole measure of quality of life, you are missing the bigger picture. The United States is the richest nation in the world yet continually scores mid-teens on quality of life indices. Bhutan actively works towards the happiness of their people. America actively works towards the happiness of the stock market. Somewhere along the line we got our ends and means mixed up...

I'm getting carried away. I'll shut up now. :)

- LostCause

"Environmental degradation is a result of wealth. The billions of poor have caused a minute fraction of global warming. The world today literally cannot support everyone living an American standard of life.

Why are we afraid of China and India becoming wealthy? Today they are sucking oil fields dry. I can't drive a Hummer anymore because Cheng Duan is becoming a middle class citizen. How dare he!"

I agree ... almost 100%.

Look at the bottles by the side of the road in this country ... we, as a people, are obviously too wealthy to be bothered returning containers for the deposit. So, Mother Earth has to take one for the team. :(

My solution would be to crank up the deposit from $0.05 (in most places) to $0.10 - 0.20 and you'd see compliance increase ... or it would provide a source of income for homeless/unemployed people. Either way, they'd get recycled.

As for the vehicles Americans drive? The price of fuel will take care of that soon enough. Market forces work best ... but in this case the price went up so quickly, it was a harsh lesson for the great unwashed to learn. Oh well. :p

well yeah, as Americans we should live an american style life, and how dare the chinese think they should live an american way of life, after all they are in china. isnt it that simple, we do need someone to work for pennies on the dollar and even the poor americans wont do that so thats what we need the chinese for, and anyhow, if there cost of living increases than there would be no reason to import from them so they would suffer a crash and that would be so much worse than having to work for 15 cents per day.

just kidding, but seriously some people really do try to hard to "live american" i know to many people swallowed in dept or who purchase alot of junk and then complain they have no money :shakes head: everyone has an equal oportunity , its just what you do with it, the easy answer to success is buy less, use more efficient means of doing things, be happy with what you do have but strive to improve yourself and the world. life is simple and better that way.

Yes Johnpr, what we have in this country, more than anything else, is a poverty of culture. Resources are available to us ... but freedom means also having the freedom to make bad decisions ... and plenty here are making really bad ones that favor short-term, superficial, material gain. :(

"Everyone has an equal opportunity, it's just what you do with it. The easy answer to success is buy less, use more efficient means of doing things, be happy with what you do have but strive to improve yourself and the world. Life is simple and better that way."

That's exactly how I live my life ... though my income would allow me to spend a lot more. Some friends and family call me cheap ... but it's they who do not 'get it.' :p

I didn't bring up income; you did. Also, you create a false dichotomy, as if Sweden doesn't have a stock market and cares nothing about it, and America does, but cares about nothing else. Your position is extreme and emotional, but is far from reflecting the reality. Sweden cares about its stock market just like we care about ours.


As for the NewEconomist's comments, I think they make my point. Given the opportunity, almost no one wants to live in a country where nothing has changed for 40 years, unless it has come from the outside. No, there is not more upward mobility, since there are only so many positions available at the top. Unless there is class, gender or racial discrimination, this is usually the case.

I'll agree on the emotional aspect, but I never said Sweden is a model nation. I brought them up because the average American equates socialism to the bleakness of the USSR. Sweden has shown that making an effort towards a welfare state does not spell doom.

I guess this is just where we differ in opinion. I think upward mobility is only a virtue until it establishes a place you are willing to live for the rest of your life.

Beyond that, the only change worthwhile is that which improves your role as a human. Buying a 4,000ft2 house is not improvement. Improvement is struggling through a decade worth of school to become a doctor only to serve the third world.

It's all about the means and the ends. Money is a necessary means. Altruism is a noble ends.

Virtue is of our own choosing. Live as you wish...

- LostCause

I agree with the people who think of it as doom. Lagging 30 years behind every 70 years would put you 100 years behind after a couple hundered years. That's not for me. I think the answers to our problems have usually come from the future, not the past. Everyone who disagrees with me can't read this, because they don't have a computer.

I didn't offer any value on upward mobility. You did. I thought that it was ironic, given the position of the NewEconomist.

I guess the Amish are having it tough these days, what with high gas prices and all.

But you did on change. :thumbup:

This topic is spiralling out of control. I value the debate (seriously), but I'm tagging out.

- LostCause

I think they're more concerned with doing their dental work with an ice pick and a wooden mallet than they are about gas prices. Fortunately, we'll continue to advance and solve our problems through research and adaptation. 100 years from now they will still be using that same ice pick and wooden mallet, but at least they'll be doing so by their own choice.

It would be a serious mistake to believe that the whole situation was only about money. If the west did not oppose the Soviets during the cold war, we would be communist. Do you think we'd even be able to be on such a board as this and/or be able to have this discussion if this were a communist country?

Do you think that the "haves" in the US are too disproportionately wealthy? Try a comparison of the Politburo in the Soviet Union to the Russian people. While you're at it, check out Kazakhstan and other former-Soviet states.

Do you think US corporations are the worst things to happen to the environment? Try a comparison with all the ecologically dead rivers in Eastern Europe and communist/formerly-communist countries where the needs of the state trumped everything else. Hey, all those rusting hulks of Soviet nuclear-powered navy vessels contaminating the seas are really great. Communism did a great job with the Aral Sea, too, didn't it?

Do you think Bush "stole" the election from Gore? Try a comparison with the electoral "system" in communist countries.

Have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago?"

Sorry to seem so strident, but your flippant "Commie bad...Money good. oogah oogah" really set me off.

so where did you get the "we would be communist" thing? i have never heard that before, and yes if we would have been communist it would be possible that we would have the internet today and free discussion, my friend from russia says she used it all the time before moving here, in fact that is how she met her current husband, and guess what? they are moving back to post communist russia. I know there was a great deal of corruption in the Russian government, but there is a difference between an economic system and how the government is ran.

and yes i will agree with you that countries which where highly corrupted like the soviet union have had a terrible impact on the environment, but that can happen anywhere, seriously we havent been the greatest on the environment either, for instance the US navy dumps rags full of oil into the ocean as soon as they are 50 miles from shore, i know that cant be good for the ocean. how do i know this, my wife was an engineer in the navy and her superiors required it.

my point is, you cant say that because they where communist they embodied all that was bad, we just tend be brainwashed into only seeing the bad, its not that hard to look at the US and find many faults involving pollution, government corruption, money laundering, or poverty.

im not trying to bully you about the whole communist thing but we are far from saints ourselves.

EXCUSE ME? Do you really think that if the Soviets and Chinese were unopposed that the world would have turned out the way it has? Perhaps I should have said "We almost certainly would be communist" instead of making such an absolute statement, but I stand by it nonetheless.

Sorry, I believe you're wrong there. Your anecdotal story about your friends' opinion is what has happened post-communist, not what likely would have happened if communism had persisted. No, if we had not opposed communism so strongly and for such a long time, Perestroika would have likely never happened. You think China has free discussion? Why don't you ask the jailed political activists and religious leaders? Why don't you ask the Dalai Lama why he doesn't return home? You think North Korea has free discussions?

I never said we had a perfect record. Yes, the Navy did have some horrible practices. The operative word is "did."

So, pray tell, what good things were there about the Soviet Union? Sorry, buddy, I'm not brainwashed -- I know and recognize the failings of our country.

I never said we were. If you inferred that, that's your issue.

2003 is far from "did" that still counts as current, if you honestly believe that they stopped bad practices over night thats fine but they haven't.

all i was after finding out is where you got the whole we would be communist thing. its ok that its your opinion my statements where just to point out that the issue itself isn't communism, it's corruption. (communism by the way is an economic system related to production and money, not the control of speech, religion etc)

"Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humanity is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxism-Leninism, Socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership. [4] [5]"
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

so the point is there are many corrupt governments which use communism as an excuse to control everything.

Where I got it was my understanding of history. Not to seem condescending and/or patronizing, but as soon as I saw "so where did you get the 'we would be communist' thing? i have never heard that before," I was 99% certain you were a twenty-something or younger; checking out your introduction confirmed my hunch. ;)

I already knew the academic definition of communism. In the real-world application, it has always been inseparable from totalitarian regimes that do control speech, religion, travel, association, etc. Can you show me where it has played out otherwise? Citing how things are in post-communist countries doesn't count, BTW.

Now, back to Gashole...

The Internet, as we know it, came about after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia and the Soviet Union are not the same thing. The Soviet Union was controlled by communists and they did not have freedom of information or speech.

Just some facts as I see them:
Totalitarianism does not mean communism. Some of the worst states in our history have embraced capitalist ideals (Nazi Germany, Pinochet’s Chile and Saddam’s Iraq). In practical terms the best definition to communism would be a 1 party system of government with very strong ties to state ownership and socialistic ideals.

To my knowledge we have never seen a modern state that was free and democratic that worked on Marxist principals. There were a few examples that were headed in that direction until coups supported by foreign governments eliminated them. There are successful communities that operate on those principal though.

I seriously doubt we will ever see a pure socialist democracy in our lifetimes, the same could be said for a pure libertarian government, but that doesn’t mean that trends and ideas from each ideology cant be valuable or useful.

Traditionally totalitarianism governments have been horrible to their people. Yet we in the west do not have unrestricted free speech or freedoms either. I have friends that lived the majority of their lives in non-democracies (Arab nations) and they say that as long as the government is not bad, the majority of the people really don’t care who is running the country.

The USSR ultimately failed because it used a command economy that had massive corruption, not because they were a bunch of inbred hillbillies that couldn’t add 2+2 together.

What I said was that communist regimes have always been totalitarian, not that totalitarian regimes have always been communist. Perhaps I could have worded it better, though.

Nazi Germany did not embrace capitalist ideals. "Nazi" is short for "Nationalsozialismus," or "National Socialism." As described in the Wikipedia entry, "Among the key elements of Nazism were... collectivism... opposition to economic liberalism..."

Well, I must admit I'm unfamiliar with the "inbred hillbilly" theory of the Soviet Union! :p