>
>PLENTY in a few senses...
>First, ALL of the states that export oil except Iraq were on firendly terms with the U.S. so there were no artificial constraints or factors limiting distribution. And in fact even Iraq's oil was available shortly after, under the "oil for food" program.
>Second, when oil buddies want to drill in the ANWAR then there is a need to state that there is a shortage so as to justify that drilling.
>Thirdly, there were hardly any SUVs on the road back then. The growth in the SUV population tells you, all by itself, that there was (and is) PLENTY of oil for the time being.

The SUV issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of gas. The reason that most of those SUV's are on the road is the fact the from 1991 until 2000 the US economy was booming. Thus the so called wealthy could afford the high price SUV's. Gas prices during that time had little to do with it. It is the fact that SUV's are a status symbol for some people and for some people they are safer means of traveling.

>Finally, there has been a consolidation of petroleum companies and their refining capacities. This was deliberately done, under the guise of "productivity", to create shortage situations where previously there was excess capacity. An all VERY LEGAL way to raise prices while doing even less work than was previously the case.


>
>Yes, I believe that President Clinton also had hidden objectives in his decisions. The difference is, they at least paid some lip service to the "average Joe". President Bush has only corporations and the rich in his ECONOMIC objectives, applying yet again that infamous theory of President Reagan's about "trickle-down benefits" which was proved not to work.

Clinton and the avergage joe. You have been listening to too much propaganda. Clinton had no more interest in the average joe than any other president and just because Bush is tied back to Texas oil, people think he is some sort of puppet. Well he is under no more control than Clinton or Reagan or Carter or anyone else. Our system may not be the best in the world, but the ones who believe that their is a conspriacy behind every door, will never realize how good the country really is.

As far as Reagan's trickle down benefits, my lands your from Canada, how would you even know how I was affected by trickle down economics. I would never attempt to be critical of your countries economic decisions and results because I do not live there.