The media suits typically send a reporter with a camera and mic to get a shot of the gas price on the sign at the station, and then coach some woman—it's usually a woman, for a sympathetic impression—to say words to the effect that she has to choose between gas and shoes for her kids.
Reacting like Pavlov's dogs, the American public becomes hysterical about gas prices, and they need someone to blame. It might be the government, which for many is the default bad guy responsible for every vicissitude of life. Or the Arab sheiks, who are not exactly popular. Or Big Oil execs, whose sensitivity to public needs is demonstrated by bragging about how they are giving back to the American people by paying dividends to shareholders at a time of record profits.
No sane American is going to go to bat for Mohammed bin Salman or Vladimir Putin or the CEO of Exxon, and in fact they deserve all the opprobrium they get and more. But why do incensed American consumers go out of their way to add to the incomes of these oligarchs?
People had a choice, and over the years they have opted for larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles. Perhaps they need all those pickups for work: maybe there is a vast number of farmers, ranchers, and contractors out there.
Except there isn't. According to the Washington Post, "once the auto companies realized the rural market for pickups was saturated, 'they still needed to sell more trucks. So they really start[ed] to turn to targeting the suburban white man.'" The pickup trucks for this demographic were hardly essential work tools: "75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling...once a year or less." Among the attributes buyers desired was "to present a tough image."
So WHO is to blame Spies??
Read Article