Gasoline Prices

[Danoff]

...Well, Bush has let the Congress loose to investigate price fixing on Gasoline and other oil products by American oil companies. Hopefully something will get figured out...

Yea, they'll waste a bunch of tax dollars to redicover the concept of supply and demand. Meanwhile they'll grandstand for a little while in hopes of getting re-elected.

 

[Joey D]

Ah, well then just be glad it only cost you 30-40 cents to pay for the convenience of having a gas station right where you needed one (so that you didn't have to be troubled to plan a little better). Be glad you're allowed to fill up at all, because if the price cap folks get their way, rationing could dictate that you leave your car on the side of the road until the next tuesday when your license plate is allowed to visit the pump.

We tried to ignore basic economics in the 70's and economics won. Let's hope we don't try that again.

While I do complain about the prices now, I tolerate them, I still fill up and drive on down the road. But if they ration gas, we are looking at a huge economic meltdown. There is no need to ration it, and even if I have to pay a little more I would just to keep the ability to get gas when I please.

 

[Swift]

Yea, they'll waste a bunch of tax dollars to redicover the concept of supply and demand. Meanwhile they'll grandstand for a little while in hopes of getting re-elected.

I said it before, if they weren't so greedy and our Federal and state governments so laden with brauracacey, they would just say, "OK, gas taxes are suspended for 6 months while you get used to the new prices. We'll stop all the stupid corruption and spending your money on useless investigations to what we already know."

THAT would get congressmen re-elected.

 

[Danoff]

I said it before, if they weren't so greedy and our Federal and state governments so laden with brauracacey, they would just say, "OK, gas taxes are suspended for 6 months while you get used to the new prices. We'll stop all the stupid corruption and spending your money on useless investigations to what we already know."

THAT would get congressmen re-elected.

HA! No way. Repealing the gas taxes would just get them in trouble for either cutting spending on some government handout, or raising debt.

 

[Danoff]

Good article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200604250600.asp
http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=255

Here's a good one on price gouging:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4601

Allowing prices to rise to whatever their natural level might be sets off an economic chain reaction that remedies the shortage quicker than any conceivable government plan to do likewise. That’s because $3 gasoline and moral exhortations from President Bush and Bill O’Reilly to conserve fuel will not produce the same degree of frugality that $6 gasoline would deliver.

 

[Swift]

HA! No way. Repealing the gas taxes would just get them in trouble for either cutting spending on some government handout, or raising debt.

God forbid our citizens do for themselves or our gov't be conservative.

Amazing how it all seems to come back to the same thing huh?

 

[Joey D]

There is something I don't understand about state gas tax, Michigan pays quite a bit for it's gas tax, which I know goes to the roads. Now if any of you have ever been to Michigan you know that the roads are probably some of the worst in the country. Now my question is, where does this money go? It certianly doesn't go into the roads, because if it did I wouldn't be driving through a pot hole ridden stretch of any road everytime I want to go drive.

 

[Swift]

There is something I don't understand about state gas tax, Michigan pays quite a bit for it's gas tax, which I know goes to the roads. Now if any of you have ever been to Michigan you know that the roads are probably some of the worst in the country. Now my question is, where does this money go? It certianly doesn't go into the roads, because if it did I wouldn't be driving through a pot hole ridden stretch of any road everytime I want to go drive.

Get a copy of your state budget. That should help a lot in explaining your situation.

BTW, I believe Pennsylvania was voted to have the road conditions in the nation.

 

[FoolKiller]

Nobody's making money off water(unless you are talking about bottled water), so we can count that one out.

They don't have water bills in Oregon? I get a water bill every month. It usually runs between $8 and $15, depending on if I am watering flowers and the amount of laundry I do.

Be glad you're allowed to fill up at all, because if the price cap folks get their way, rationing could dictate that you leave your car on the side of the road until the next tuesday when your license plate is allowed to visit the pump.

We tried to ignore basic economics in the 70's and economics won. Let's hope we don't try that again.

Is there serious talk of rationing or just a price cap? I know that a price cap will eventually mean rationing, which will screw me over since I live 40 miles from work.

I haven't paid much attention to price caps since I doubt it will happen unless some politicians get desperate to gain voters. I have been furious over the idea of the windfall profits tax proposed. So because some people are upset they have to pay a lot in gas we have to create a tax to punish people for having a successful business? That is total BS.

 

[Swift]

I have been furious over the idea of the windfall profits tax proposed. So because some people are upset they have to pay a lot in gas we have to create a tax to punish people for having a successful business? That is total BS.

...well, yeah!

Don't you know that everything that's hard for the citizens of America is the fault of big business?!? You know, the businesses that employ all those citizens.

 

[a6m5]

Seeing why not is easy, it's immoral to steal from others. Seeing why is the hard part.

If I pump gas and drove away without paying, that's stealing. You are arguing that I want to steal from oil companies. If that was the case, people who are controlling oil prices are stealing from us now.

Why does "making money" off of it matter?

If we are still talking about high prices, profit margin matters.

Yet? Do you understand what price regulation means? It means that demand will be greater than supply. In otherwords it means long lines and rationing. We tried that with gasoline in this country in the 70's and it didn't work. I'd rather have access to gasoline if I need it (even if the price is high) than be prevented from getting it or having to wait in line for 2 hours to get it and immorally forcing someone to provide it to me below fair market value in the process.

I think this is why we are having this discussion, right here. I don't think there is a supply issue here, you do. I do think that market prices are pretty much b.s. They control the oil production depending on the demand to charge us more and more. At least that's what I think.

Also, "yet", because we don't see that happening with food. If we have plenty of food, but they are charging us $3 for an apple, then it's time to do something about food as well.

Air is public-ish and has to be because it flows onto and off of other people's property. Forget about the air argument, it's too far removed. Water on the otherhand - the most abundant substance on the planet - can be property and I see no problem with that.

That's crazy though. You are saying that if multi-billion $$$ corporation buys up every water ____(enter dept., bureau, works, etc.) in the country, then they should have the right to charge us whatever they want for gallon of water. I guess I'm a bit of communist, but I don't agree. But with all this talk about water prices, 3, 4 bucks for gallon of gas is starting to sound really reasonable.

What exactly is fair? What you want to pay? That may seem fair to you and like highway robbery to the people providing you with their goods. Goods you have no legal or moral claim to. Goods that do not belong to you in any way shape or form. Fair is the price the free market sets. Fair is the price at which people ar willing to buy other people's property and others are willing to sell their property , and they're willing to pay a lot more than they are right now.

Again, I have to go back to how market prices are set. Do you really believe that it's the "free" market setting oil prices? I have no proof, but if you aren't bit suspicious here, I think you are being gullible(and you can call me paranoid).

We most certainly can. We can fall back on bikes, motorcycles, horses, hybrid cars, electric cars, feet... you can move closer to work, you can find a job that lets you telecommute (they're out there). Don't pretend you need to drive to get to work.

Oh, come on. Who's pretending now! j/k Those can be answer to some, but as a solution for the all of U.S.A., that idea is pretty out there.

Edit:

They don't have water bills in Oregon? I get a water bill every month. It usually runs between $8 and $15, depending on if I am watering flowers and the amount of laundry I do.

Oregon do have water bills, belive it or not. When I said "making money", I should have said "lots a profit", sorry about that. Anybody know if they are making a lot of money off of water as well? I never even thought about how much profit are being made by water bereau.

Another edit!:

There is something I don't understand about state gas tax, Michigan pays quite a bit for it's gas tax, which I know goes to the roads. Now if any of you have ever been to Michigan you know that the roads are probably some of the worst in the country. Now my question is, where does this money go? It certianly doesn't go into the roads, because if it did I wouldn't be driving through a pot hole ridden stretch of any road everytime I want to go drive.

I think they are fixing the roads, Joey. It's just that there are so many of them to repair, plus State Governments and Departments are not known for their efficiency(at least not in Oregon).

 

[YSSMAN]

...Ya know BX, I've begun to wonder how the Michigan Road Comission works as well. I don't know if it is Granholm f'ing things up, or just the red tape surrounding the road contruction, but the money (really for anything) isnt going where it needs to.

I say we elect DeVos, but I may be a bit biased, as he only lives a few miles from me, I went to school with his kids/nieces/nephews, and my mother/father/grandmother/grandfather all worked for him...

 

[Joey D]

DeVos has my vote because I think Granholm has really messed things up, we are the only state in the nation with a small business tax and we are one of the only ones who have had consecutive increasing unemployment.

But I really don't think our gas tax dollars go towards the roads, and it's not do to the winters because as soon as you get to Ohio or Indiana the roads are instantly better.

 

[Small_Fryz]

We are almost paying the US equivliant of $4 a US gallon

 

[YSSMAN]

...The rumor was that the Motor City Madman (Ted Nugent, Uncle Ted to all you kids out there) was going to run for Gov. here in Michigan this year, but I think he gave up on it after he bought a ranch down in Texas.

Just the thought of the Nuge running Michigan is a little creepy, but then it is freaking awesome at the same time. Atleast that way S. would get done (presumably).

Either way tho, I'm voting for DeVos. He isnt the best choise, but Granholm isnt either. I really do think it is going to come down to West Michigan vs East Michigan once again, and I'm sure the topic of the Govenor ignoring this side of the State will be addressed several times by DeVos...

EDIT: Hopefully people figure out that Debbie Stabinow (sp?) isn't doing jack squat in the Senate either, and we kick her fat behind out to the curb. I'm okay with Levin (he is occasionally a moderate Democrat), but Stabinow is just insane...

 

[Joey D]

Micheal Bouchard is supposdly running and he's got my vote, he's done awesome things for Oakland County. But really I think our government is full of crap and I'm pretty sure they are mismanging the money they get from gas tax, they should either get rid of it, or spend it on our god aweful roads. I've blown a few tires on pot holes and I have several friends who ruined rims, struts, etc. from the roads.

But if Nugent ever ran for anything in Michigan, he'd get my vote hands down.

 

[Danoff]

If I pump gas and drove away without paying, that's stealing. You are arguing that I want to steal from oil companies. If that was the case, people who are controlling oil prices are stealing from us now.

No, because you don't own the oil, they do. Forcing them to sell their property for any price other than what they want is theft.

If we are still talking about high prices, profit margin matters.

Why?

I think this is why we are having this discussion, right here. I don't think there is a supply issue here, you do. I do think that market prices are pretty much b.s.

The market price is set largely by futures traders, not oil companies. And futures traders tend to over react to bad news. Another impact in the process is in refining. Right now we're having a gas supply problem more than an oil supply problem because there aren't enough refineries to keep up with demand and adjust new environmental regulations.

They control the oil production depending on the demand to charge us more and more. At least that's what I think.

So what? It's their oil, and by "their" I mean many different independant oil companies both American and foreign.

Also, "yet", because we don't see that happening with food. If we have plenty of food, but they are charging us $3 for an apple, then it's time to do something about food as well.

Why? Because you're entitled to food? What gives you any right to purchase food at any price. What gives you a right to food that belongs to other people? You keep dodging this question, point to me where in the constitution it says that people have a right to other people's property if they need it.

That's crazy though. You are saying that if multi-billion $$$ corporation buys up every water ____(enter dept., bureau, works, etc.) in the country, then they should have the right to charge us whatever they want for gallon of water. I guess I'm a bit of communist, but I don't agree.

So you're asking me about the scenario where a corporation has a monoploy on the world water supply. Which is an impossible scenario given that oceans cannot be owned, and rainwater falls on everyone's property and water is generally the most accessilbe substance on the face of the earth. But this is what you're asking???

I would say it's a national security issue since one company has the ability to extort the government and usurp law. Tell me something, what does this impossible scenario have to do with our current situation?

Again, I have to go back to how market prices are set. Do you really believe that it's the "free" market setting oil prices?

Well no not entirely. There are many environmental regulations invovled and lots of taxes. But for the most part it's free. Once again I'll explain, oil companies don't set the price of oil for the most part, futures traders on the commodities market set the price. Like it or not, eventually oil is going very scarce. We need high prices to force us to adjust. As long as oil is cheap we'll stick with our current way of life - a way of life that isn't indefinitely sustainable.

You seem to think these prices are shocking. They are the highest dollar amounts we've ever paid as a nation. But did you realize that the current price when adjusted for inflation isn't the highest price we've ever paid??

Here's a list of points that you have not addressed.

1) Oil companies don't set the price of oil, commodities traders do
2) US oil companies get a small portion of their profits from the US market.
3) Part of the supply problem is due to refining capability, which is partially due to poor timing of new environmental regulations
4) If price gouging were going on right now, it would be the only thing saving us from shortages and rationing
5) Higher oil prices are good, they help us move in a direction to reduce our dependance on foreign oil and move to more sustainable alternative solutions.
6) You don't have a right to other people's property, at any price.

But you're right, it's just greedy oil CEOs. If it makes you feel better to have someone to hate and feel like a victim, by all means...

 

[James2097]

Looking at europe, everybody should think ourselves lucky, as bad as we think it is currently. Fuel is expensive, but it could be a LOT worse.

I think we're still in denial generally that the price will get cheaper again. I don't believe it will... we'll just get smaller cars etc, and live with it.

 

[Swift]

Looking at europe, everybody should think ourselves lucky, as bad as we think it is currently. Fuel is expensive, but it could be a LOT worse.

I think we're still in denial generally that the price will get cheaper again. I don't believe it will... we'll just get smaller cars etc, and live with it.

Well, Europe in general, taxes gas even more then we do. So that has a lot to do with it.

But yeah, Gas is going to be at or over 3$ a gallon from now on. That's just how it is.

 

[Danoff]

Interesting how Americans are so quick to call for government action, when they're not willing to lift a finger themselves:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/25/Autos/big_engine_sales.reut/index.htm

 

[Joey D]

Looking at europe, everybody should think ourselves lucky, as bad as we think it is currently. Fuel is expensive, but it could be a LOT worse.

I think we're still in denial generally that the price will get cheaper again. I don't believe it will... we'll just get smaller cars etc, and live with it.

I'm sorry I do not feel bad for Europeans, it's taxes for you guys. You should be complaining to your government.

Interesting how Americans are so quick to call for government action, when they're not willing to lift a finger themselves:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/25/Auto...reut/index.htm

Well a lot of people like myself bought their vehicles before the gas hike, I know when I bought the Blazer gas was around 1.30 -1.40 a gallon, it was about 20 bucks to fill my tank. Now it's about 50 to fill up, that's quite an increase. But really it's the car companies, they should be marketing smaller engines instead of trying to out do one another all the time. No one cares if your Dodge Charger has a 6.1L V8 in it. Either that or for the big vehicles that need a V8, like trucks and SUV's, do the DOD thing on them, it helps. At least GM's got it right in making the Hybrid Tahoe.

 

[a6m5]

No, because you don't own the oil, they do. Forcing them to sell their property for any price other than what they want is theft.

That's what you consider a theft, but I understand the point you are making. I can respect that.

Why?

I'd draw you a picture, but I'm all fresh out of crayolas!

The market price is set largely by futures traders, not oil companies. And futures traders tend to over react to bad news. Another impact in the process is in refining. Right now we're having a gas supply problem more than an oil supply problem because there aren't enough refineries to keep up with demand and adjust new environmental regulations.

Regulations slowing the refining process and controlled oil production, in my view, are tools that can be used to affect oil/gas prices. But of course there is no way to prove my suspicion. Again, my personal opinion, but people with that much power and money didn't get there by luck. They don't watch "free market" operate and hope for the best.

So what? It's their oil, and by "their" I mean many different independant oil companies both American and foreign.

I've already explained the "so what?". Legally, you are in the right, 100%. I can't, and won't say you are wrong.

Why? Because you're entitled to food? What gives you any right to purchase food at any price. What gives you a right to food that belongs to other people? You keep dodging this question, point to me where in the constitution it says that people have a right to other people's property if they need it.

I'm pretty sure I never dodged your question, but if I did, it wasn't intentional. I'm sorry, Dan. First off, I don't even know the constitution very well. And let me answer the question: If handful(this is the key, just like the oil companies, handful) of corporations controlled all food production, and they used whatever tools necessary to control the amount of production, so the "free market" will say that that lettuce is worth 10 bucks, that's when I would see a problem, that type of manipulation. If you had some tomatoes from your farm for sale, obviously, I don't have any right to tell you how much you should be charging for your tomatoes.

So you're asking me about the scenario where a corporation has a monoploy on the world water supply. Which is an impossible scenario given that oceans cannot be owned, and rainwater falls on everyone's property and water is generally the most accessilbe substance on the face of the earth. But this is what you're asking???

I would say it's a national security issue since one company has the ability to extort the government and usurp law. Tell me something, what does this impossible scenario have to do with our current situation?

That was a typo. I did mean "multi-billion $$$ corporations ". Well, you said water can be a property, so I was trying to switch water and oil to show how it would be wrong to sell something like water the way oil is sold. It was pretty weak argument anyway, so lets just move on! Yeah, lets.

Well no not entirely. There are many environmental regulations invovled and lots of taxes. But for the most part it's free. Once again I'll explain, oil companies don't set the price of oil for the most part, futures traders on the commodities market set the price. Like it or not, eventually oil is going very scarce. We need high prices to force us to adjust. As long as oil is cheap we'll stick with our current way of life - a way of life that isn't indefinitely sustainable.

You seem to think these prices are shocking. They are the highest dollar amounts we've ever paid as a nation. But did you realize that the current price when adjusted for inflation isn't the highest price we've ever paid??

Here's a list of points that you have not addressed.

1) Oil companies don't set the price of oil, commodities traders do
2) US oil companies get a small portion of their profits from the US market.
3) Part of the supply problem is due to refining capability, which is partially due to poor timing of new environmental regulations
4) If price gouging were going on right now, it would be the only thing saving us from shortages and rationing
5) Higher oil prices are good, they help us move in a direction to reduce our dependance on foreign oil and move to more sustainable alternative solutions.
6) You don't have a right to other people's property, at any price.

So you are telling me that we are running out of oil pretty soon, and the "free market" is adjusting the price accordingly, so we'll make the oil last longer. If the discussion is on the premise that we don't have much oil left, I can go with that. High prices won't last long anyway, we will run out of oil soon enough. I sure hope the research for alternative energy sources is going well.

But you're right, it's just greedy oil CEOs. If it makes you feel better to have someone to hate and feel like a victim, by all means...

Wow, this one's a classic. I'd be lying, if I said I didn't expect more from you. Pretty soon, you'll be calling me a jerk face. j/k

 

[Danoff]

That's what you consider a theft, but I understand the point you are making. I can respect that.

It's the definition

I'd draw you a picture, but I'm all fresh out of crayolas!

Use words.

Regulations slowing the refining process and controlled oil production, in my view, are tools that can be used to affect oil/gas prices. But of course there is no way to prove my suspicion. Again, my personal opinion, but people with that much power and money didn't get there by luck. They don't watch "free market" operate and hope for the best.

I figured out the perfect analogy - the housing market. Here in Los Angeles, homeowners found the value of their home double over the last few years. They bought their houses thinking it was a good investment, and now that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for their houses, they make huge profits. But the homeowners in this area didn't just suddenly decide to double their housing prices in the last few years. They, like the oil companies, are at the mercy of the market. They, like the oil companies, reap the benefits of the market driven rise in price of their property . Would you suggest slapping a windfall profit tax on homesellers, or regulating the enormous prices in this area? I think it's a much bigger deal that gas prices. Sure, gas might cost people an extra $100/month. But what difference does that make when it costs people an extra $400,000 to buy their home?

Of course people don't get so upset about housing costs, because, like the oil companies, many of them are benefiting from the market price.

I've already explained the "so what?". Legally, you are in the right, 100%. I can't, and won't say you are wrong.

Then you should re-evaluate your position on this issue.

I'm pretty sure I never dodged your question, but if I did, it wasn't intentional. I'm sorry, Dan. First off, I don't even know the constitution very well. And let me answer the question: If handful(this is the key, just like the oil companies, handful) of corporations controlled all food production, and they used whatever tools necessary to control the amount of production, so the "free market" will say that that lettuce is worth 10 bucks, that's when I would see a problem, that type of manipulation. If you had some tomatoes from your farm for sale, obviously, I don't have any right to tell you how much you should be charging for your tomatoes.

Why does it suddenly become your right if a few companies have a large enough portion of the market? I agree that at some point it becomes a national security issue (though since food can be grown from the ground, it's also impossible for corporations to have a monopoly on food). Until it becomes a problem of national security (ie: corporations have too much leverage over the government), it's in the realm of the free market.

So you are telling me that we are running out of oil pretty soon, and the "free market" is adjusting the price accordingly, so we'll make the oil last longer. If the discussion is on the premise that we don't have much oil left, I can go with that. High prices won't last long anyway, we will run out of oil soon enough. I sure hope the research for alternative energy sources is going well.

It won't go well if prices stay low. That's why it's important for oil to be expensive.

Wow, this one's a classic. I'd be lying, if I said I didn't expect more from you. Pretty soon, you'll be calling me a jerk face. j/k

You should put my quote in your signature.

 

[Magic069]

I figured out the perfect analogy - the housing market. Here in Los Angeles, homeowners found the value of their home double over the last few years. They bought their houses thinking it was a good investment, and now that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for their houses, they make huge profits. But the homeowners in this area didn't just suddenly decide to double their housing prices in the last few years. They, like the oil companies, are at the mercy of the market. They, like the oil companies, reap the benefits of the market driven rise in price of their property . Would you suggest slapping a windfall profit tax on homesellers, or regulating the enormous prices in this area? I think it's a much bigger deal that gas prices. Sure, gas might cost people an extra $100/month. But what difference does that make when it costs people an extra $400,000 to buy their home?

Of course people don't get so upset about housing costs, because, like the oil companies, many of them are benefiting from the market price.

Listen, I am not prepared to get in the middle of this huge debate, but I do poke around and often read what people are talking about.

I read this, and I had to comment on it. I don't think I like this analogy. It just doesn't work for me.

The Real Estate market is one through out history has had it ups and downs. This result is the product of serveral different factors any of which are usually pretty obvisous at the time its happening.

One could say, "the oil industry has its own list of factors as well." True.

But is it fair to put a natural resource and real estate in the same barrel?

What happens when real estate falls, the home sellers take less profit. Are you saying that oil companies will do the same. How do we as a mass convince to oil companies there product is being sold less? Stop driving? Run to automobile compaines and demand nothing else but a hybrid? Demand our government to force auto companies to offer an alternative?

The fact is, the amount of people it would take to cause such a reaction that would change things in an instant isn't going to happen. Oil is a resource, something that is depended on for survival in todays world. Like Electric bills, the only thing you can do to save money is use less. Otherwise, you are forced to pay. For this reason, the governments job do anything it can to make sure the consumer is not getting taken advantage of. And I think that feeling is justified when the american public sees there gas spending double, sometimes more, then sees the oil companies report record profits.

Going back to the analogy, real estate is a give and take industry. If you eye a house that seems perfect, but its 400,000, you can always give up something that seems a little less important and find another house cheaper. You also can fiance your dream house, and get payments locked in over the time of the morgage with the option to refinace later. This allows bugeting. Something a person can depend on, know its there and plan for it.

Everyone pays for the price of gas whatever it is when they pull up for it. There is no give and take. There is no waiting for a cheaper price. No one is finacing there gas cost, no locked in rates for the next 30 years, and no option to refinace.

 

[Danoff]

Magic,

Thanks for jumping in. When I'm going back and forth with someone like a6m5 and I are doing now, I'm often wanting someone else to chime in to keep the discussion fresh.

The Real Estate market is one through out history has had it ups and downs. This result is the product of serveral different factors any of which are usually pretty obvisous at the time its happening.

That's a good point. I'm glad you pointed that out because it helps make my point that the real estate market is very much like the commodities market on which the price of oil is set.

But is it fair to put a natural resource and real estate in the same barrel?

Real estate is a natural resource right?

What happens when real estate falls, the home sellers take less profit. Are you saying that oil companies will do the same.

They're taking record profits right now right? That means that earlier, when the price of oil was lower, they were taking less profits. Not only am I saying that oil companies will do the same, I have proof, and it's logically required.

How do we as a mass convince to oil companies there product is being sold less?

That's not necessary to drive down the price of oil. All that's really necessary is the prospect of oil supply in the future. Since the price is largely set by investors gambling on the price of oil going up, as soon as they think the price will go down in the future, they'll pull their investments out and the price will go down. That can happen for one of two reasons

1) As you say, people could consume less
2) Oil supplies stay bloated

Stop driving? Run to automobile compaines and demand nothing else but a hybrid? Demand our government to force auto companies to offer an alternative?

Auto companies offer an alternative now, no need for government action. All people have to do is start buying them, and buying less oil, and they'll effectively shift the supply/demand curve and potentially start making oil look like a worse investment.

The fact is, the amount of people it would take to cause such a reaction that would change things in an instant isn't going to happen.

There's nothing like punching people in their wallet to drive millions to change thier behavior. That is, as long as they don't think they can get the best of both worlds by getting the government to intervene.

Oil is a resource, something that is depended on for survival in todays world. Like Electric bills, the only thing you can do to save money is use less.

Like anything. Take any particular product available on the market. The less you purchase of that product, the less money you lose. There's nothing special about oil in this regard.

Otherwise, you are forced to pay. For this reason, the governments job do anything it can to make sure the consumer is not getting taken advantage of.

Define "getting taken advantage of". And by whom? Oil companies? Are you getting taken advantage of when you buy a house for $400,000 more than it was worth 2 years ago? Who is taking advantage of you? The seller? The seller didn't make prices go up. The seller didn't force you to buy his house, he's just offering it at the going rate and you're buying voluntarily. The same thing is happening with oil companies. They offer oil at the going rate (not something they set), and people are still voluntarily purchasing it.

Yes that's right, voluntarily purchasing it. I probably consume 1/4th the gasoline as the average consumer, and I did that by choice. All people have a choice. They have a choice of what car they buy, where they live, where they work, whether they carpool. There are a multitude of options for the average person to reduce his oil consumption.

I have the ability to reduce my oil consumption by half from what I'm currently using. I'll excersize that option if oil prices double again. But I don't think I'll need to. I'd bet most Americans could reduce their oil consumption by half without really feeling it. Many could reduce their oil consumption by 3/4 if they really wanted to. But screaming for government action is easier than changing your lifestyle.

And I think that feeling is justified when the american public sees there gas spending double, sometimes more, then sees the oil companies report record profits.

I saw the price of houses in the area I wanted to buy double in the last two years. I see homeowners making record profits from those sales. But I don't blame them for fluctuations in the market.

Going back to the analogy, real estate is a give and take industry. If you eye a house that seems perfect, but its 400,000, you can always give up something that seems a little less important and find another house cheaper.

This is a good analogy to our oil situation. Perhaps your gas guzzling SUV and your 100mi/day commute seem like the perfect situation to you, but you can always double, possibly even triple your fuel efficiency by selling your SUV and getting a more efficient car, and then you can cut your commute in half or more by moving closer to work.

You also can fiance your dream house, and get payments locked in over the time of the morgage with the option to refinace later. This allows bugeting. Something a person can depend on, know its there and plan for it.

Likewise you can plan ahead for the cost of gasoline when you purchase a car. Many people just don't factor that in to their decision.

Everyone pays for the price of gas whatever it is when they pull up for it. There is no give and take.

There is a huge give and take, but consumers first have to face high prices before they'll be willing to give a little.

 

[Kylehnat]

I think Jon Stewart summed it up pretty well last night. We're feeling the pinch of high oil prices, and oil companies are not. They keep telling us that they HAVE to charge this much, yet they're making record profits. If their raw materials (the oil) increase in price, their profit should be reduced, or at least stay the same. By showing increasing profits, they're pretty much showing the world that they're increasing gas prices more than they need to, and more than they have done in the past. Record-high prices and simultaneous record-high profits is what is most curious about the whole situation.

The housing market is not really a good analogy. There, you pay whatever you want. If you can't afford the house of your dreams, there is a house out there that you can afford. We don't have such choice in gasoline, since it all costs the same (give or take 20 cents). If every house on the market cost $500,000, would that constitute a free market system?

Also, you finance a house over a period of 15-30 years. At the beginning of the loan, you and the bank agree on a payment plan, which in most cases is fixed. In this way, you can plan your future finances. You know what you will pay next month, and you know what you will pay in 10 years. No such luck with gasoline. Four years ago, gas was $1.50. Now, it's twice that. How is anyone supposed to account for that when they figure out a monthly budget?

 

[Zrow]

You say you don't have to buy a $500,000 house. You also don't have to buy a huge gas-guzzling SUV, because you need "space for the kids". You don't have to keep your home at a nice 65 degrees in the hot summer months, or warm and toasty during the winter months (put on a sweater!). There's options for everything we purchase.

 

[Swift]

I think Jon Stewart summed it up pretty well last night. We're feeling the pinch of high oil prices, and oil companies are not. They keep telling us that they HAVE to charge this much, yet they're making record profits. If their raw materials (the oil) increase in price, their profit should be reduced, or at least stay the same. By showing increasing profits, they're pretty much showing the world that they're increasing gas prices more than they need to, and more than they have done in the past. Record-high prices and simultaneous record-high profits is what is most curious about the whole situation.

Ok, I DO NOT like paying $3+ for gas. However, the simple facts are that oil consumption on a world scale is at an all time high and rising. With stability in the middle east and other countries using more oil then they did just 10 years ago, it increases demand while lowering the expected supply.

Also, our good friends at the EPA are helping with this because of all the new additives that have to be put into gasoline. The main one being ethonal. Not all refineries are pumping out gas with these new standards and THAT helps to bump up the price.

Now, when looking at the numbers for the profits of the company, make sure you're looking at just the US not the whole world. Oil consumption is up across the globe, how could they NOT turn profits on a global scale?

We don't need the gov't to step in and do something(besides cut taxes and Maryland might actually do that) we need to change our driving habits and keep our cars in better shape.

 

[Joey D]

You don't need a 500k house thats for sure, some people do need big vehicles like SUV's, and if you live in Michigan you have to run your heat...we have plenty of below zero days. Something just can't be avoided in today's world, we aren't Amish or living in the 19th century...might as well use the technology we are given.

 

[Danoff]

I think Jon Stewart summed it up pretty well last night. We're feeling the pinch of high oil prices, and oil companies are not. They keep telling us that they HAVE to charge this much, yet they're making record profits. If their raw materials (the oil) increase in price, their profit should be reduced, or at least stay the same. By showing increasing profits, they're pretty much showing the world that they're increasing gas prices more than they need to, and more than they have done in the past. Record-high prices and simultaneous record-high profits is what is most curious about the whole situation.

You're still not using my analogy. Think about the people who owned homes that increased in value. They don't have much of a say in how much the home is worth. They sell it at the going rate which they don't set . Oil companies do not set the price of gasoline. They sell it at market rate . Jon Stewart is not an economist. But the people who write for CNN money know what they're talking about, and that (and other places) is where I'm getting my information (I posted a few articles a while back).

The housing market is not really a good analogy. There, you pay whatever you want. If you can't afford the house of your dreams, there is a house out there that you can afford. We don't have such choice in gasoline, since it all costs the same (give or take 20 cents). If every house on the market cost $500,000, would that constitute a free market system?

The shacks that are listed as "tear downs" cost $700,000 in the neighborhood that I'd like to move into. 2 years ago that "tear down" probably cost $250k. If I want to live in that neighborhood (Los Angeles in general for that matter), I have to pay that much. It's kinda like owning a big vehicle, or driving alone to work, or living far away from work. If you want to do that, you have to pay more in gas. It's a prefect analogy.

Also, you finance a house over a period of 15-30 years. At the beginning of the loan, you and the bank agree on a payment plan, which in most cases is fixed. In this way, you can plan your future finances. You know what you will pay next month, and you know what you will pay in 10 years. No such luck with gasoline. Four years ago, gas was $1.50. Now, it's twice that. How is anyone supposed to account for that when they figure out a monthly budget?

For years, I thought I'd be spending $200k to buy a home. Now I'm thinking it'll cost more like $800. How am I suppose to account for that when I figure out a savings plan? You don't account for it ahead of time, you adjust. You adjust by consuming less. One way to consume less is to trade in your gas guzzler for a more fuel efficient vehicle. Another way is to carpool to work. Another way is to telecommute, or find a job that offers that. Another way is to take advantage of 9/80 work schedules at work, or move closer to your job. There are a bazillion ways to cut consumption on gasoline.