Gas prices

[GrnBay007]

I couldn't find the original gas price thread.

Gas prices jumped 22 cents per gallon here today. $3.49 :(

[hurleyfan]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

[red]

really?

they were already 3.51 up here most of this week

its probably 5 bucks now

[Bossman641]

3.54 here. Ridiculous.

[Gunakor]

Unfortunately, I drive a newer car which acts funny if I don't put 93 octane in it. $3.77 per gallon. I'll be up over $4 by July. Yet Oil companies reported over $200 billion in profit for 2007 alone. Unbelievable.

[Scott Campbell]

What's the mpg if this little beauty?


http://thecartech.com/gallery/cars/small_car.JPG

[red]

lol

it looks like you could pedal it

[hoosier]

Gas is over $8.00 a gallon in most Western European countries right now, yet we complain when it hits $3.50. Of course, many people there have the option of taking efficiently run trains for longer trips. I'm surprised that none of the presidential hopefuls have tried to start a national discussion about investing in alternatives to car travel, such as reviving and expanding Amtrack service. The automobile is deeply engrained in American culture, and there would surely be resistance to any program that smacks of "big government." But at some point the Federal subsidization of automobiles at the expense of alternative modes of travel (which is also the work of "big government," even though we tend not to see it) needs to be reexamined.

[texaspackerbacker]

If a solution is in order, how about drilling in ANWAR and off both oceanic coasts, as well as deep water drilling in the Gulf, and allowing more refineries to be built?

Also, how about greater use of nuclear power--which wouldn't do much for gas prices, but would help with electricity.

The farce of bio-fuels is currently being exposed as doing a lot more harm than good with the rapidly increasing food prices due to conversion of farmland to crops for fuel use. Other alternatives like hydrogen should be encouraged, but for the next few decades, petroleum is still the best way to go.

I really hope this field in North Dakota/Montana turns out to be as good as some think. If it did, it would literally change the world, as we would suddenly be energy-independent or very close to it.

[LL2]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute. It's all about supply and demand. If everyone starts using less gas then it will cause the prices to go down, but that is a simplistic approach. Another part of the oil problem has nothing to do with the U.S. It's countries like China and India that are consuming a lot more oil than ever before as their economies grow at a rapid pace.

[retailguy]

I really hope this field in North Dakota/Montana turns out to be as good as some think. If it did, it would literally change the world, as we would suddenly be energy-independent or very close to it.

Unfortunately it is not this simple. While the crude reserves "in theory" may be large enough to make us energy independent, it won't work out this way. That crude is very "sour" and US refineries will have to be retrofitted to run it. Some will, most won't.

BP has spent $3bn in the past year and a half at their Whiting and Toledo refineries to run a lower cost Canadian heavy crude, that is so heavy, condensate must be pumped up the embridge pipeline into Canada to be mixed with the crude so it is liquid enough to flow down the pipeline.

Heavy crudes are cheaper, but require more "processing" to be converted to gasoline and hence are only economically viable at higher crude prices, which is what we have now. This North Dakota find is not likely to lower crude prices as the processing costs far exceed that of better crudes, and there is a limited market for it's use in the current refinery climate.

Additionally, you have a lower gasoline yield with this crude than crude of a better variety. You have increased pollution from processing, increased undesirable product yields - high sulfur fuel oil, and sulfur just to name a couple, plus increased production of asphalt and coke (a coal like briquette).

We already send high sulfur fuel oil to Singapore as most areas of the country don't allow it to be used for boiler fuel because of emissions issues. Currently, the bulk of that fuel is used as bunker fuel on ships, only while in international waters... How much more of that do we need?

Now, this limitation is lessened with ANWR and the Gulf Crudes as they are of a "sweeter" quality when compared to the North Dakota finds which are some type of oil shale derivative, I think.

That's why I'm for AGRESSIVE drilling in ANWR and the Gulf coasts of TX and FL, and the Pacific Coast of California. That would lower crude prices temporarily, I believe, leaving time for adequate exploration of alternative technologies, and sufficient time to make those technologies profitable. (Which are largely not profitable today)

In the interest of clarification, I DO NOT believe our Government should be involved in alternative technology. They have difficulty buying toilet seats at fair prices, could you imagine what the Prius would look like and would cost if the US Government was involved in the development? :roll:

[retailguy]

I couldn't find the original gas price thread.

Gas prices jumped 22 cents per gallon here today. $3.49 :(



Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

What you are seeing here is partially because crude is trading at $114bbl, however it's more complicated than that.

Summer blend gasoline is rolling out in large parts of the country right now, as is MANDATED by Federal and State law. And guess what? That fuel costs more to produce as lower quality blendstocks cannot be used during the summer months because they vaporize at summer temperatures, lowering octane in the fuel, which increases pollution both from the vaporization and the inefficient manner that the cars burn the remaining liquid fuel.

So, our beloved government has stepped in and mandated fuel composition, lowering supply and raising prices. (Not saying the goal is all bad, but the effect is clear).

Hurley, if you'd add the "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" to your "bitch" list, I'd be grateful! :P Thanks. :twisted:

[red]

lets not forget one thing supply and demand. and i'm not talking about just the cost of a gallon of gas

suppose we're sitting on a whole shitload of oil right now. the oil companies could go get it and drop the price of gas, but why would they want to do that?

if i'm an oil company, and have a ton of oil, i wait a decade or so. let the middle east dry up, let the cost of oil skyrocket to 300 dollars a barrel or more

then i say, oh look what i have. i guess the us is now the worlds biggest supplier, now that oil is worth much more then it was 10 years ago

oil companies and barons would make much more then they are now

a lot of people are going to make a whole shitload of money by us sitting on our oil reserves. the value of that oil is only going up

now i'm not for this, i want my cheap oil now, and i won't ever see any of the profit. so what do i care if a hand full of ass hats strike it rich

but i can definately understand why they would do it. and if i was in their shoes i would probably do it too

if you're a merchant and have an item is worth 3 dollars now, would you sell it knowing that if you hold on to it you could sell it for 10 or 20 dollars in the future?

[Gunakor]

lets not forget one thing supply and demand. and i'm not talking about just the cost of a gallon of gas

suppose we're sitting on a whole shitload of oil right now. the oil companies could go get it and drop the price of gas, but why would they want to do that?

if i'm an oil company, and have a ton of oil, i wait a decade or so. let the middle east dry up, let the cost of oil skyrocket to 300 dollars a barrel or more

then i say, oh look what i have. i guess the us is now the worlds biggest supplier, now that oil is worth much more then it was 10 years ago

oil companies and barons would make much more then they are now

a lot of people are going to make a whole shitload of money by us sitting on our oil reserves. the value of that oil is only going up

now i'm not for this, i want my cheap oil now, and i won't ever see any of the profit. so what do i care if a hand full of ass hats strike it rich

but i can definately understand why they would do it. and if i was in their shoes i would probably do it too

if you're a merchant and have an item is worth 3 dollars now, would you sell it knowing that if you hold on to it you could sell it for 10 or 20 dollars in the future?


TO HELL WITH BIG OIL!!!

I could care less what would benefit the damn merchants. I care far more about what would best benefit the average consumer. I personally don't want to be paying upwards of $5 per gallon just so that Big Oil companies can make extra money in the future. The fuel industry netted over $200 billion in profits in 2007 alone. They do not need to be making any more money, especially when it comes at a cost to the American citizen making $10 per hour or less.

They need to uncork this oil now to curb economic decline due to rising fuel costs. Beyond that, they need to find a readily available energy source that can be produced here in America so we can remain a self-sustaining country even after our own oil supplies dry up.

[texaspackerbacker]

Thanks for the info, retailguy.

The article I read stated the how huge the total amount was; It stated that with current technology, only 1-3% of that total was feasible to pump--still 4-12 billion barrels--compared to 10.5 billion in ANWR; It mentioned the difficulty in drilling and getting it out; The one question I have though, it mentioned that the North Dakota Crude is "honey-colored". Wouldn't that mean higher quality--the lower grades being darker? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Villainous "Big Oil" that these guys hate so much was who developed the techniques that make a portion of this field feasible to drill, and which presumably will come up with even better techniques to get the bulk of it out of the ground.

One more question, retailguy, don't we have even bigger shale oil deposits farther south--Colorado, Utah, etc.? Are these harder yet to make use of? What do you know about them?

[retailguy]

Thanks for the info, retailguy.

The article I read stated the how huge the total amount was; It stated that with current technology, only 1-3% of that total was feasible to pump--still 4-12 billion barrels--compared to 10.5 billion in ANWR; It mentioned the difficulty in drilling and getting it out; The one question I have though, it mentioned that the North Dakota Crude is "honey-colored". Wouldn't that mean higher quality--the lower grades being darker? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Well, Tex, I'm not a geologist, but I've worked in Oil & Gas for about 10 years on and off.

I don't think your assumption is necessarily solid, the lower the sulfur content, the higher the quality of the crude. The higher the sulfur content, the more impurities are present.

As I understand it, the difficulty with the Bakken find in ND & Montana is that the crude is found "within" the rocks. They are having the most success by drilling sideways instead of up and down, and using a process developed by Haliburton (the contemporary version of the "evil empire" :wink: ), that essentially "fractures" the rock to release the oil.

Pretty sophisticated operations, for sure. Sophisticated operations lead to higher costs, typically. And depending how "different" the crude composition is, admittedly, its out of my realm to know, but globally the more different, the more retrofitting needed for US refineries to run it.




Villainous "Big Oil" that these guys hate so much was who developed the techniques that make a portion of this field feasible to drill, and which presumably will come up with even better techniques to get the bulk of it out of the ground.

Would that be the same "villainous bastards" who earned an ROI of 34.7%(Exxon ONLY), to the lower to mid 20%'s (most of the rest of the US major Oil companies), as opposed to the 19% that P&G posted, or the 18% that Wal-Mart posted. Yeah, I guess it was those guys. :roll:

Yet the same people who decry "villainous bastards" can't wait to tell us about the 30% that their 401K earned two years back.... Talked about how much of a "genius" they were in their financial plans, but seemingly left off the term "villainous bastard" from their description of themselves.... <sigh>





One more question, retailguy, don't we have even bigger shale oil deposits farther south--Colorado, Utah, etc.? Are these harder yet to make use of? What do you know about them?

Not harder, necessarily, just different. Oil shale is essentially oil enclosed within the rock itself. You mine the rock, and when heated to extreme temperatures, the rock gives off gases that can be refined into petroleum products. They share the higher production costs, but it's more economical I think with current technology. But again, more processing requires a higher crude price for viability.

I was with TOSCO in the mid 90's - now part of Conoco Phillips. Tosco stands for The Oil Shale COmpany. The principal owners had a lot of those fields (I believe the CEO was O'Malley, if I recall correctly). He did pretty well in the sale to Conoco Phillips....

[Harlan Huckleby]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

sure, keep working in all aspects of alternative energy.

But look at china. They build a new coal plant every day. Windmills aren't going to save the planet.

You got your atom. In the neucleus is energy a million times more than those electron gnats. Most forms of energy - chemical, electrical, even mechanical - are derived from the electrons. That's chump change. The only efficient way to generate a lot of energy is going to come from nuclear power. Hopefully fusion someday, fission for near term.

combustion = fire = cave man stuff. burning generates much waste, consumes tons of materials/resources, and produces relatively little energy.

I guess solar counts as nuclear power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet.


An electrical grid doesn't depend on whether electricity was generated by nuclear, wind, coal, solar ...

[red]

why don't we use more hydo?

is it because of the cost?

we've got so many rivers in this country that you'd think we would utilize it more

[retailguy]

why don't we use more hydo?

is it because of the cost?

we've got so many rivers in this country that you'd think we would utilize it more

Daming rivers disrupts salmon spawning. Can't do that. It upsets our ecosystem. Then all we're left with are farm raised salmon. yuk. :wink:

[Partial]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

[red]

why don't we use more hydo?

is it because of the cost?

we've got so many rivers in this country that you'd think we would utilize it more

Daming rivers disrupts salmon spawning. Can't do that. It upsets our ecosystem. Then all we're left with are farm raised salmon. yuk. :wink:

fish ladders, they have one in downtown grand rapids. thing works great

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet.


An electrical grid doesn't depend on whether electricity was generated by nuclear, wind, coal, solar ...

True.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

Try to make your post relevant to mine. I'm not talking about about home usage.

[Partial]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

Try to make your post relevant to mine. I'm not talking about about home usage.

I'm not either. The problems with solar panels as I understand it are they A) break down very easily, B) They throw several away for every good panel they make.

Nobody (gov, personal, etc) is going to want to pay all the money for something that will pay itself off in say 20 years if the likelyhood that it lasts that long does not improve dramatically.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

Some company recently came out with a panel that was like 60% efficient, but the problem with these things are warranties. You pay all this money, then it breaks in a few years? That would suck. The efficient panels are $$$$

Try to make your post relevant to mine. I'm not talking about about home usage.

I'm not either. The problems with solar panels as I understand it are they A) break down very easily, B) They throw several away for every good panel they make.

Nobody (gov, personal, etc) is going to want to pay all the money for something that will pay itself off in say 20 years if the likelyhood that it lasts that long does not improve dramatically.

Ok. You might not wanna use the term "you" then...it implies a person..not a gov't.

You might also want to consider making your point relevant to my post..hence the key phrase "not as it is now, but as it could be with research."

Hence, you jump to a conclusion about solar panels (which for the most part you aren't correct..Solar panels are so reliable that most are surprised when something actually goes wrong. Temperature fluctuations, severe weather, lightning and static electricity are all examples of things that affect them. And, can be easily corrected)...but, I NEVER said anything about panels.

As for production..who cares, that cost is passed on to the consumer..the free market dictates.

This is another example of how you insert Partial into a thread..another stir the pot...yet, no one was talking about solar panels. Infact, the person that mentioned solar was me..and I didn't use the term panel. Think for a minute...why is that?

I was referring to solar collectors. I'm talking square miles covered. I'm not referring to unnatural energy flows, i'm talking natural...as well as geothermal and as mentioned, wind.

But, in your limited world, you jump into it, talking about panels. Reframing the argument and bringing your little strawman argument into it.

Sorry, but on top of being wrong. You aren't even addressing what i'm referring to. But, would you ever ask what it is? No. Would you be smart enough to lay a trap to let me hang myself..nope.

There are many ways to utilize solar without panels. fuck, you are so irritating. How about solar powered thermal energy. Wow!! Guess your panel issue is for shit.

God, man be smart....think about why i mentioned a grid and solar. Do actually think we are going to power the country on solar panels? Yikes.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont.

Best of all..more efficient than panels.

If you wanna talk/post knowledgeably..perhaps you should do your usual..google a few sites and then spout off. Hint: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center.

[LL2]

I saw $3.69 at gas station this morning! Gas prices are just going up...up..up.

[MadtownPacker]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

If you observe..i was quite civil to him.There was no name calling, etc.

And, notice how he responded to my post. Not vice versa.

[Partial]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

I'm not going to bother addressing his claim. It's too ludacris to even begin!

[MadtownPacker]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

If you observe..i was quite civil to him.There was no name calling, etc.

And, notice how he responded to my post. Not vice versa.You can kill each other for all I give a damn but you should be fair to everyone else and do it in the thread where it belongs

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

If you observe..i was quite civil to him.There was no name calling, etc.

And, notice how he responded to my post. Not vice versa.You can kill each other for all I give a damn but you should be fair to everyone else and do it in the thread where it belongs

My post was directly about solar. Nothing else..well, with the exception of noting "partialisms."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

I'm not going to bother addressing his claim. It's too ludacris to even begin!

"ludacris," in inverse proportion to your spelling.

[red]

3.60 today in the UP

[Bossman641]

Try 3.79 a gal.

Bigguns and Partial, sow some courtesy to others and keep your stupid little quarrel out of this thread.

I'm not going to bother addressing his claim. It's too ludacris to even begin!

No Partial, this is Ludacris

http://www.download-latest-online-music.com/images/ludacris_thumb.jpg

The claim is ludicrous.

[Partial]

Luda's my homeboy. I was unaware this was a spelling forum :lol:

[hurleyfan]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

Crap!! $3.65 .. What the hell are they paying in Cali?!?!

For you retailguy: "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" are now on my bitch list :evil: :twisted:

[LL2]

There is an article over at MSN that says oil will go up to $180.00 a barrel! If that happens you can just send this economy from a recession to a depression. The cost of everything will go through the roof.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There is an article over at MSN that says oil will go up to $180.00 a barrel! If that happens you can just send this economy from a recession to a depression. The cost of everything will go through the roof.

I can't wait to see how Tex spins this as good for the country.

Tex: Dollar is strong, good for the country. Dollar is weak..good for the country.

[Gunakor]

There is an article over at MSN that says oil will go up to $180.00 a barrel! If that happens you can just send this economy from a recession to a depression. The cost of everything will go through the roof.

I can't wait to see how Tex spins this as good for the country.

Tex: Dollar is strong, good for the country. Dollar is weak..good for the country.


Na, Tex's spin will probably be that we are just being lied to by the awful corrupt leftist media outlets, so there's nothing to really worry about.

[retailguy]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

Crap!! $3.65 .. What the hell are they paying in Cali?!?!

For you retailguy: "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" are now on my bitch list :evil: :twisted:

Thanks :D

I appreciate it.

When the mandated summer blends are fully rolled out, you should see pump prices stabilize somewhat, I'd think. But we shall see....

Premium in California is over $4.00 - at least in Ventura County where my friend lives.

Tyrone - Macro Economics would dictate that we probably won't go into a depression. Eventually, the prices of other goods will have to adjust, some increasing but others decreasing. Will it hurt some folks in the short term? Absolutely.

FWIW - when you are dependent upon others you do what you have to do. The 12 countries that make up OPEC control 40% of the worlds supply and 2/3rds of the worlds reserves. While becoming "energy independent" probably won't happen, making a meaningful dent in those numbers would help... In the meantime, we'll all just pay it, won't we?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

Crap!! $3.65 .. What the hell are they paying in Cali?!?!

For you retailguy: "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" are now on my bitch list :evil: :twisted:

Thanks :D

I appreciate it.

When the mandated summer blends are fully rolled out, you should see pump prices stabilize somewhat, I'd think. But we shall see....

Premium in California is over $4.00 - at least in Ventura County where my friend lives.

Tyrone - Macro Economics would dictate that we probably won't go into a depression. Eventually, the prices of other goods will have to adjust, some increasing but others decreasing. Will it hurt some folks in the short term? Absolutely.

FWIW - when you are dependent upon others you do what you have to do. The 12 countries that make up OPEC control 40% of the worlds supply and 2/3rds of the worlds reserves. While becoming "energy independent" probably won't happen, making a meaningful dent in those numbers would help... In the meantime, we'll all just pay it, won't we?

Tyrone made no speculation regarding econ. Posed what tex would say.

No need to address Tyrone. Tyrone lives in a cardboard box with no car. Gas prices are of no concern...cept when he is asked to torch a restaurant for insurance money.

[hoosier]

No need to address Tyrone. Tyrone lives in a cardboard box with no car. Gas prices are of no concern...cept when he is asked to torch a restaurant for insurance money.

Ever see the film "Amores perros"? I think you need to change Tyrone's name to El Chivo. http://www.latin-american.cam.ac.uk/culture/violence/images/perros.jpg

[LL2]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

Crap!! $3.65 .. What the hell are they paying in Cali?!?!

For you retailguy: "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" are now on my bitch list :evil: :twisted:

Thanks :D

I appreciate it.

When the mandated summer blends are fully rolled out, you should see pump prices stabilize somewhat, I'd think. But we shall see....

Premium in California is over $4.00 - at least in Ventura County where my friend lives.

Tyrone - Macro Economics would dictate that we probably won't go into a depression. Eventually, the prices of other goods will have to adjust, some increasing but others decreasing. Will it hurt some folks in the short term? Absolutely.

FWIW - when you are dependent upon others you do what you have to do. The 12 countries that make up OPEC control 40% of the worlds supply and 2/3rds of the worlds reserves. While becoming "energy independent" probably won't happen, making a meaningful dent in those numbers would help... In the meantime, we'll all just pay it, won't we?

Tyrone made no speculation regarding econ. Posed what tex would say.

No need to address Tyrone. Tyrone lives in a cardboard box with no car. Gas prices are of no concern...cept when he is asked to torch a restaurant for insurance money.

Tyrone, that must be a pretty good position to be in. No need to worry about gas for the car and no utility bills.

If we can just get the fricken Mexicans to start working harder and produce more oil to send to their freindly neighbors to the north ....that would be nice...ya know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

No need to address Tyrone. Tyrone lives in a cardboard box with no car. Gas prices are of no concern...cept when he is asked to torch a restaurant for insurance money.

Ever see the film "Amores perros"? I think you need to change Tyrone's name to El Chivo. http://www.latin-american.cam.ac.uk/culture/violence/images/perros.jpg

Tyrone doesn't watch foreign films..and hates anyone who refers to movies as film, cinema or flicks.

Those people are just hateful, america hatin liberals. who would choose to watch a movie made by non americans about non americans? Liberals.

Tyrone has heard of this movie. Tyrone will consider renaming himself. Though, tyrone has long favored Leon as his preferred hitman. Tyrone likes to think of himself as a cool french hitman..and also someone who is attracted to young teenage girls. :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51 :roll:

Crap!! $3.65 .. What the hell are they paying in Cali?!?!

For you retailguy: "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" are now on my bitch list :evil: :twisted:

Thanks :D

I appreciate it.

When the mandated summer blends are fully rolled out, you should see pump prices stabilize somewhat, I'd think. But we shall see....

Premium in California is over $4.00 - at least in Ventura County where my friend lives.

Tyrone - Macro Economics would dictate that we probably won't go into a depression. Eventually, the prices of other goods will have to adjust, some increasing but others decreasing. Will it hurt some folks in the short term? Absolutely.

FWIW - when you are dependent upon others you do what you have to do. The 12 countries that make up OPEC control 40% of the worlds supply and 2/3rds of the worlds reserves. While becoming "energy independent" probably won't happen, making a meaningful dent in those numbers would help... In the meantime, we'll all just pay it, won't we?

Tyrone made no speculation regarding econ. Posed what tex would say.

No need to address Tyrone. Tyrone lives in a cardboard box with no car. Gas prices are of no concern...cept when he is asked to torch a restaurant for insurance money.

Tyrone, that must be a pretty good position to be in. No need to worry about gas for the car and no utility bills.

If we can just get the fricken Mexicans to start working harder and produce more oil to send to their freindly neighbors to the north ....that would be nice...ya know.

We can get plenty of oil from the mexicans..if we just collect if off their greasy hair.

[texaspackerbacker]

As always, about 90% of the "bad news" the panic-stricken lefties post is speculation by other panic-stricken lefties in the media.

It's true that the weaker dollar is part of the reason for rising oil prices. It's also true that there is both a good side and a bad side to a lower value of the dollar. Basically, the Bush Administration shapers of economic policy are trying to skate the fine line of lowering the dollar enough but not too much.

It's blatantly stupid to talk about "recession going to depression" when there's no way in hell we are even in a recession. How many times do I have to beat you lefties over the head with the truth? There is a simple objective definition of recession--TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN--and we have not even had one.

I heard it stated on MSNBC yesterday--I swear it was in a hopeful tone of voice that 30% of economists think we will have a recession. Oh no, that's terrible--until you stop and think that it means 70% of economists think we will NOT have a recession.

I wouldn't be surprised if gas prices go up 30 or 40 more cents before peaking in the summer. Ask yourself, how many miles you drive a month, how many gallons you buy, and how much extra money you will have to spend. Then ask yourself if it is REALLY that big a deal.

[Gunakor]

As always, about 90% of the "bad news" the panic-stricken lefties post is speculation by other panic-stricken lefties in the media.

It's true that the weaker dollar is part of the reason for rising oil prices. It's also true that there is both a good side and a bad side to a lower value of the dollar. Basically, the Bush Administration shapers of economic policy are trying to skate the fine line of lowering the dollar enough but not too much.

It's blatantly stupid to talk about "recession going to depression" when there's no way in hell we are even in a recession. How many times do I have to beat you lefties over the head with the truth? There is a simple objective definition of recession--TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN--and we have not even had one.

I heard it stated on MSNBC yesterday--I swear it was in a hopeful tone of voice that 30% of economists think we will have a recession. Oh no, that's terrible--until you stop and think that it means 70% of economists think we will NOT have a recession.

I wouldn't be surprised if gas prices go up 30 or 40 more cents before peaking in the summer. Ask yourself, how many miles you drive a month, how many gallons you buy, and how much extra money you will have to spend. Then ask yourself if it is REALLY that big a deal.


It's not all about how much WE drive Tex. Shipping costs will go up, which will raise the cost of consumer goods. The price of travel will go up which will mean many will have to change thier vacation plans or cancel them altogether. Farmers will have to spend more to harvest their crop, so the price of fresh produce will increase. These are just examples, and there are more. Gas prices affect more than just your daily commute. It affects your daily life in general.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As always, about 90% of the "bad news" the panic-stricken lefties post is speculation by other panic-stricken lefties in the media.

It's true that the weaker dollar is part of the reason for rising oil prices. It's also true that there is both a good side and a bad side to a lower value of the dollar. Basically, the Bush Administration shapers of economic policy are trying to skate the fine line of lowering the dollar enough but not too much.

It's blatantly stupid to talk about "recession going to depression" when there's no way in hell we are even in a recession. How many times do I have to beat you lefties over the head with the truth? There is a simple objective definition of recession--TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN--and we have not even had one.

I heard it stated on MSNBC yesterday--I swear it was in a hopeful tone of voice that 30% of economists think we will have a recession. Oh no, that's terrible--until you stop and think that it means 70% of economists think we will NOT have a recession.

I wouldn't be surprised if gas prices go up 30 or 40 more cents before peaking in the summer. Ask yourself, how many miles you drive a month, how many gallons you buy, and how much extra money you will have to spend. Then ask yourself if it is REALLY that big a deal.


It's not all about how much WE drive Tex. Shipping costs will go up, which will raise the cost of consumer goods. The price of travel will go up which will mean many will have to change thier vacation plans or cancel them altogether. Farmers will have to spend more to harvest their crop, so the price of fresh produce will increase. These are just examples, and there are more. Gas prices affect more than just your daily commute. It affects your daily life in general.

Gunakor,

Exactly. Tex has been using the same lame argument back when gas was a 1.60...it never hurts that much.

Tex fails to understand that even if it is only an extra 10 a week, that is 10 that someone doesn't spend in the economy..and that adds up. Let's say that I don't go out to eat for lunch one less time a week. No biggie to me..cept for mental sanity. But, for the waitress it is an extra 2 dollars...now multiply that by X amount of customers. Quicly adds up. Add in that the restaurant doesn't do as well.

How about this tex...if it isn't that much..how about you give that amount to me. I'll give you my paypal account. After all..it aint' that much.

I had a conversation about this a couple of days ago, in respect to teenagers.

When i was a teen...minimum wage was approx 2.50-3 bucks. Gas was 50 cents. So, for 1 hour of work, i got approx 6 gallons of gas.

Even when the war started...gas was around a buck..minimum wage was in the mid 4s. So, it was a 4 to one ratio.

Now, compare with today. Minimum wage is around 5 beans. Gas is hovering around 3.50 or so. So, a teenager doesn't get even 2 gallons of gas for one our of work. There is no way teens can spend the way the use.

Now, everyone knows that teenagers have tons of discretionary income..or at least they use to. No way can they spend the same amount on music or clothes or whatever.

[texaspackerbacker]

I keep hearing about how everything is gonna go up so much, but I don't see it happening. Do you?

Same ol' same ol'--the negativists of the left have a bunch of predictions, but very little in the line of facts.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I keep hearing about how everything is gonna go up so much, but I don't see it happening. Do you?

Same ol' same ol'--the negativists of the left have a bunch of predictions, but very little in the line of facts.

I just gave you a fact based argument. But, you ignore it.

No way you can say that teenagers have as much discretionary income. Nor do anybody else.

[texaspackerbacker]

Your "fact-based argument" was basically "Oh no, it isn't just driving, everything else is gonna go up horribly too". And that does have a ring of logic to it. But do you honestly see it happening? I sure don't.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Your "fact-based argument" was basically "Oh no, it isn't just driving, everything else is gonna go up horribly too". And that does have a ring of logic to it. But do you honestly see it happening? I sure don't.

Wow. You obviously don't read well or comprehend...since I said nothing of the sort.

Try again.

[texaspackerbacker]

You lost me when you suddenly started talking about "beans" for gas--although I guess gas does come from beans :lol:

Weren't you the one who said it was NOT just about gas--when I pointed out how minor the effect on the wallet is when prices go up?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You lost me when you suddenly started talking about "beans" for gas--although I guess gas does come from beans :lol:

Weren't you the one who said it was NOT just about gas--when I pointed out how minor the effect on the wallet is when prices go up?

I gave you a fact based argument. I have yet to see you address it.

[texaspackerbacker]

You lost me when you suddenly started talking about "beans" for gas--although I guess gas does come from beans :lol:

Weren't you the one who said it was NOT just about gas--when I pointed out how minor the effect on the wallet is when prices go up?

I gave you a fact based argument. I have yet to see you address it.

Sorry, but i can't find it. I thought you meant that stuff about gas prices, minimum wages, and BEANS when you were a teenager--to which I replied, I thought it wasn't just about gas.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You lost me when you suddenly started talking about "beans" for gas--although I guess gas does come from beans :lol:

Weren't you the one who said it was NOT just about gas--when I pointed out how minor the effect on the wallet is when prices go up?

I gave you a fact based argument. I have yet to see you address it.

Sorry, but i can't find it. I thought you meant that stuff about gas prices, minimum wages, and BEANS when you were a teenager--to which I replied, I thought it wasn't just about gas.

It is a simple fact that I had more discretionary income as a teenager when gas was 1/6 of an hour's worth or work...vs. today when it is roughtly 2/3rds of an hour's worth of work.

I also mentioned going out to lunch.

The fact is text, that since the inception of the war...gas has tripled. If you don't think that effects what people do then you are crazy...people eat out less, take less vacations, have less money to spend on other things.

[texaspackerbacker]

I thought you were kinda "out to lunch". I'm still wondering where the BEANS fit in.

Not to shift the argument from BEANS, but what you're talking about is small potatos--or more likely a handfull of straws to be grasped.

Is it fair to sum up your argument by saying that while the minimum wage has gone up only from $2.50 -3.00 to $6.25 or whatever while gas went up from 50 cents to about $3.50? It would be interesting to know WHEN you were a teenager, as gas was around 72 cents a gallon when we had those gas lines in 1974. I remember that. Anyway, even if taken at face value, your figures are just NOT that big a deal when put in context.

What, you may ask, is that context? The amount of increase in driving cost and other products in relation to the overall income, cost of living, and lifestyle of people.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I thought you were kinda "out to lunch". I'm still wondering where the BEANS fit in.

Not to shift the argument from BEANS, but what you're talking about is small potatos--or more likely a handfull of straws to be grasped.

Is it fair to sum up your argument by saying that while the minimum wage has gone up only from $2.50 -3.00 to $6.25 or whatever while gas went up from 50 cents to about $3.50? It would be interesting to know WHEN you were a teenager, as gas was around 72 cents a gallon when we had those gas lines in 1974. I remember that. Anyway, even if taken at face value, your figures are just NOT that big a deal when put in context.

What, you may ask, is that context? The amount of increase in driving cost and other products in relation to the overall income, cost of living, and lifestyle of people.

What a surprise...nothing matters.

Never a big deal, blah blah blah.

Yet, a couple of hundred dollars from the gov't spurs our economy when it is in a tax rebate. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[texaspackerbacker]

So you're saying that rising gas prices cost a couple more than $1,200 in a year?

If you assume a 50 cent increase, that's 2,400 gallons in a year. At 25 mpg, that's 60,000 miles driven. What couple drives that much? Even if you go all the way to a dollar a gallon increase, that's 30,000 miles driven. Do you and your wife--if you have one--drive anywhere near that far?

[The Leaper]

Who cares about gas prices? If we elect Hillary or Obama, gas prices will be the least of our concerns in terms of expenses.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So you're saying that rising gas prices cost a couple more than $1,200 in a year?

If you assume a 50 cent increase, that's 2,400 gallons in a year. At 25 mpg, that's 60,000 miles driven. What couple drives that much? Even if you go all the way to a dollar a gallon increase, that's 30,000 miles driven. Do you and your wife--if you have one--drive anywhere near that far?

Oh, so now 1,200 isn't a big deal. Well, if it isn't to you or your friends, send it to me.

The point is that 1,200 would be spent in the economy...not just at the pump. So, i now use that money to let's say..eat out more often..thus injecting money into the local economy.

If you dont' think that 1200 per person/couple spent in restaurants is significant..you are nuts.

More importanly, it is sucking money from teenagers and others that would normally spend it "frivously" on music, entertainment, etc.

Your logic is just foolish. You can justify anything that way. It was a buck, now is 3.50..no big..when it is 5..you'll continue to say no biggie.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Who cares about gas prices? If we elect Hillary or Obama, gas prices will be the least of our concerns in terms of expenses.

That's right, leaper. Ratchet up the hysteria.

As opposed to Bush...guess those "prices" of 3 trillion don't matter.

[GBRulz]

Someone sent me this article, thought I'd share.

Gas prices are up and oil executives are once again testifying before Congress. Clearly, many politicians, pundits, and consumers lament the rising cost of gas. Before we join them in their chorus, let us take a step back and ask this question: Are gas prices really all that high? A change in price can be a result of inflation, taxes, changes in supply and demand, or any combination of the three.

First, we need to take into account inflation. The result of the Federal Reserve printing too much money is a loss of purchasing power of the dollar: something that cost $1.00 in 1950 would cost about $8.78 today. As for gas prices, in 1950 the price of gas was approximately 30 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gas today should cost right at $2.64, assuming taxes are the same.

But taxes have not stayed the same. The tax per gallon of gas in 1950 was roughly 1.5% of the price. Today, federal, state, and local taxes account for approximately 20% of gas's posted price. Taking inflation and the increase in taxes into account (assuming no change in supply or demand) the same gallon of gas that cost 30 cents in 1950 should today cost about $3.13.

Neither have supply or demand remained constant. The world economy is growing. China and India are obvious examples. At the same time, Americans continue to love driving SUVs and trucks. As for supply, we are prohibited (whatever the reasons may be) from using many of the known oil reserves in our own country. Furthermore, due to government regulation, the last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976. In addition, the Middle East is politically unstable which leads to a risk premium on the world's major source of oil. It is obvious that the demand for oil has grown while supplies have been restricted. The average price of gas in the United States today is approximately $3.25. The question is why are gas prices not higher than they are? Blaming greedy oil companies on the rising price of gas is simply irresponsible. The profit margins of a few selected industries are as follows:

• Periodical Publishing 24.9%
• Application Software 22.5%
• Tobacco 19%
• Shipping 18.8%
• Water Utilities 10.2%
• Major Integrated Oil and Gas 9.5%
• Drugstores 2.8%
• Hospitals 1.4%

The water utility industry has higher profit margins than major oil and gas firms! Why isn't every CEO with profit margins above that of the oil companies made to testify before Congress for "price gouging"? Clearly, greedy corporate profits are not the issue. Again, while just over nine percent of the price of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits, approximately twenty percent of the price of a gallon of gas is composed of federal, state, and local taxes. Those who want the government to step in and do something about the high price of gas are either forgetful of recent history or too young to remember the oil crisis of 1979. During that time, restrictions on the price of gasoline led to the inability of some to find gas at all. Price ceilings always lead to shortages. The only thing worse than having to pay "too much" for gas is not being able to find gas at any price.

http://mises.org/story/2940

[HarveyWallbangers]

Good article. And it's accurate. That's why I have a hard time complaining about gas prices. Up until recently, gas prices had actually gone up less than a lot of other things.

It's killing the economy though--mainly because many industries (e.g. airline industry) didn't plan for gas prices this high. It's killing them. Of course, they also have a horrible business model, and they could do a lot better. Too much fat and prices are too low. If you knew how much it cost to fly a jet across the country, you could understand why the profit margins are so small for the airlines.

I'm still holding out hope for the flux capacitor.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, this is what I said:

texaspackerbacker wrote:
So you're saying that rising gas prices cost a couple more than $1,200 in a year?

If you assume a 50 cent increase, that's 2,400 gallons in a year. At 25 mpg, that's 60,000 miles driven. What couple drives that much? Even if you go all the way to a dollar a gallon increase, that's 30,000 miles driven. Do you and your wife--if you have one--drive anywhere near that far?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the hell do you get the idea that I don't think $1,200 per family is a significant amount?

Do the math, and tell me if you and yours drive anywhere near enough to total an increase of $1,200 in a year. It takes a helluva lot of driving!

[The Leaper]

That's right, leaper. Ratchet up the hysteria.

Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

I think your post ratio recently clearly suggests you are far better at ratcheting up hysteria than I am.

[LL2]

I agree that the article is good. The one thing I would dispute is the 18% margin stated for shipping. I work in the shipping industry, and I know that is not even close. I would say it's anywhere from 5-10%, and 10% is very good. I often see 7-8% per shipment. There are some parts of the shipping industry that have higher (or lower) margins than others, but as a whole it's a very low margin business.

[Bossman641]

Good article. Too many people just look at the bottom line profits and don't take into account the profit margin when complaining about gas prices.

[Freak Out]

The oil bubble will burst...the question is when. The price of oil remains high because people are buying the shit out of commodities of all kinds driving the damn price up. The dollar is fucked and the world knows it.

[LL2]

The oil bubble will burst...the question is when. The price of oil remains high because people are buying the shit out of commodities of all kinds driving the damn price up. The dollar is fucked and the world knows it.

Would you say there is a oil bubble like there was a real estate bubble, and tech stock bubble in the 90's? Is everyone and their mother trying to make money off of oil right now?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's right, leaper. Ratchet up the hysteria.

Pot calling the kettle black, eh?

I think your post ratio recently clearly suggests you are far better at ratcheting up hysteria than I am.

I highly doubt discussing bowling or black contentment is ratcheting up any hysteria regarding the future of this country.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, this is what I said:

texaspackerbacker wrote:
So you're saying that rising gas prices cost a couple more than $1,200 in a year?

If you assume a 50 cent increase, that's 2,400 gallons in a year. At 25 mpg, that's 60,000 miles driven. What couple drives that much? Even if you go all the way to a dollar a gallon increase, that's 30,000 miles driven. Do you and your wife--if you have one--drive anywhere near that far?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the hell do you get the idea that I don't think $1,200 per family is a significant amount?

Do the math, and tell me if you and yours drive anywhere near enough to total an increase of $1,200 in a year. It takes a helluva lot of driving!

Because you have constantly stated that it is a small amount..here and on the jsonline board..so were touting the same thing when it was at a buck sixty.

BTW, your figures, as usual, are outta your ass. I spend at least 50 bucks a week on gas...that is 2500 per year. Assuming pre 2001 prices of roughly a buck...i'm spending 1500-1800 more per year. And, that is a VERY conservative estimate.

I have no idea how you come up with with your driving figures.

My brother drives on average 2 hours a day...one hour to work, one hour back. It isn't an issue of just total miles....do you think that when you sit in traffic on the freeway you aren't burning gas. Do you think that this country which has premoted suburban living..ever expanding..and the freeway system...is burning less gas?

When i lived in the burbs of miltown...places like Mequon were far from the city...now people are living way further out and commuting.

You love to pretend that your world is how the rest of us operate. Do you really think those SUV/Hummer/luxury vehicle drivers are getting 25 mpg.

[Freak Out]

The oil bubble will burst...the question is when. The price of oil remains high because people are buying the shit out of commodities of all kinds driving the damn price up. The dollar is fucked and the world knows it.

Would you say there is a oil bubble like there was a real estate bubble, and tech stock bubble in the 90's? Is everyone and their mother trying to make money off of oil right now?

No...its not like day traders with etrade accounts are out buying up oil futures but the huge fund managers and wealth fund managers are. Sovereign wealth is being taken from one place like dollars or euros and being put into oil and gold for the time being.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tyrone, your case and your brother's are exceptional. Most people don't drive near that much. I have to assume you both are making pretty good money doing all that driving--or else you wouldn't be doing it.

As for the whole oil price "bubble" or whatever it is, the expression, "this too shall pass" comes to mind. They say, there is plenty of crude oil available, just not enough refinery capacity. I would say, thank the liberals for that. However, it's more complicated than that. The oil companies don't want to rock the boat. The higher prices are at worst, not hurting them, possibly helping, although supposedly their profit margin is a fixed figure per gallon.

It is definitely valid to blame the weaker dollar in part for higher oil too. As I have said several times, though, the whole weaker dollar scenario is contrived by the Treasury and the Fed. Conspiracy theorists of the left and otherwise can both seriously fault that policy of allowing the dollar to drop and demagogue it for pure politics. As for myself, call me naive, but I really believe the best economic minds in this country both have American interests at heart and know what they are doing.

[Partial]

Tyrone, this is what I said:

texaspackerbacker wrote:
So you're saying that rising gas prices cost a couple more than $1,200 in a year?

If you assume a 50 cent increase, that's 2,400 gallons in a year. At 25 mpg, that's 60,000 miles driven. What couple drives that much? Even if you go all the way to a dollar a gallon increase, that's 30,000 miles driven. Do you and your wife--if you have one--drive anywhere near that far?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the hell do you get the idea that I don't think $1,200 per family is a significant amount?

Do the math, and tell me if you and yours drive anywhere near enough to total an increase of $1,200 in a year. It takes a helluva lot of driving!

Because you have constantly stated that it is a small amount..here and on the jsonline board..so were touting the same thing when it was at a buck sixty.

BTW, your figures, as usual, are outta your ass. I spend at least 50 bucks a week on gas...that is 2500 per year. Assuming pre 2001 prices of roughly a buck...i'm spending 1500-1800 more per year. And, that is a VERY conservative estimate.

I have no idea how you come up with with your driving figures.

My brother drives on average 2 hours a day...one hour to work, one hour back. It isn't an issue of just total miles....do you think that when you sit in traffic on the freeway you aren't burning gas. Do you think that this country which has premoted suburban living..ever expanding..and the freeway system...is burning less gas?

When i lived in the burbs of miltown...places like Mequon were far from the city...now people are living way further out and commuting.

You love to pretend that your world is how the rest of us operate. Do you really think those SUV/Hummer/luxury vehicle drivers are getting 25 mpg.

No, but do you really think that hummer and luxury vehicle owners are worried about inflation and gas going up in prices?

[GrnBay007]

Tyrone, your case and your brother's are exceptional. Most people don't drive near that much. I have to assume you both are making pretty good money doing all that driving--or else you wouldn't be doing it.


When people talk about the gas prices, it's funny how they only relate it to their jobs and the amount of money they make. I make a decent amount of money and it only takes me 10-15 minutes, tops to make it to work. What about the other stuff? Two kids in sports...pretty much year round, track, baseball, volleyball, basketball and football. Usually at least two games a week and generally two practices a week. Some of the games traveling 30-45 min. ....that adds up to a lot over the year, probably 60x what I spend on gas to go to work. What are you supposed to say? sorry kids, mom can't afford gas at these prices to be driving you to your sporting events......maybe you can find a nice little gang to join.

It's not just the gas prices. How many people can honestly say their paycheck is not going as far as it did two years ago?

[sheepshead]

Tyrone, your case and your brother's are exceptional. Most people don't drive near that much. I have to assume you both are making pretty good money doing all that driving--or else you wouldn't be doing it.


When people talk about the gas prices, it's funny how they only relate it to their jobs and the amount of money they make. I make a decent amount of money and it only takes me 10-15 minutes, tops to make it to work. What about the other stuff? Two kids in sports...pretty much year round, track, baseball, volleyball, basketball and football. Usually at least two games a week and generally two practices a week. Some of the games traveling 30-45 min. ....that adds up to a lot over the year, probably 60x what I spend on gas to go to work. What are you supposed to say? sorry kids, mom can't afford gas at these prices to be driving you to your sporting events......maybe you can find a nice little gang to join.

It's not just the gas prices. How many people can honestly say their paycheck is not going as far as it did two years ago?

Exactly--right when the Dems took over congress. Everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Here's a prime example of a respected member of the "Party of the People"

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/25/if-youre-going-to-complain-about-gas-prices-nancy/

[hoosier]

Exactly--right when the Dems took over congress. Everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Here's a prime example of a respected member of the "Party of the People"

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/25/if-youre-going-to-complain-about-gas-prices-nancy/

Yeah, that really explains everything. Those Dems have just gone hog wild passing new legislation in the last two years. :roll:

[sheepshead]

Exactly--right when the Dems took over congress. Everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Here's a prime example of a respected member of the "Party of the People"

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/25/if-youre-going-to-complain-about-gas-prices-nancy/

Yeah, that really explains everything. Those Dems have just gone hog wild passing new legislation in the last two years. :roll:

That's just it, they havent. Actually they havent done squat.

[Gunakor]

Exactly--right when the Dems took over congress. Everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Here's a prime example of a respected member of the "Party of the People"

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/25/if-youre-going-to-complain-about-gas-prices-nancy/

Yeah, that really explains everything. Those Dems have just gone hog wild passing new legislation in the last two years. :roll:

That's just it, they havent. Actually they havent done squat.


When the George Bush and the Republican Party won the 2000 election gas prices were about $1.60 to $1.75 per gallon. They have more than doubled in the not quite 8 years since. The price at the pump is now at an all time high. Republican's were in office while the price has balloned to this all time high. Are they not to be held at all accountable for this? What have the Republicans - specifically W himself - done to try and curb gas prices?

[The Leaper]

What have the Republicans - specifically W himself - done to try and curb gas prices?

Do you honestly believe that any president, Rep or Dem, could alter the supply/demand curve of oil? Do you honestly not recognize that the consumption of oil across the globe has increased exponentially since 2000?

More demand = higher prices...that is ECON 101. Unless you have a plan for curbing the demand of 3 billion new consumers entering the industrialized world in India and China, I fail to see how you can blame rising gas prices on any individual.

Both sides have had decades to move forward with legislation to reduce our nation's dependency on oil, and what has been accomplished? To claim that it is entirely the fault of George Bush is an awful narrow viewpoint...and thinking that either potential Dem candidate will change the status quo is quite wishful. Washington as a whole isn't interested in reducing our oil dependence or in addressing the needs of common Americans.

[sheepshead]

Exactly--right when the Dems took over congress. Everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Here's a prime example of a respected member of the "Party of the People"

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/25/if-youre-going-to-complain-about-gas-prices-nancy/

Yeah, that really explains everything. Those Dems have just gone hog wild passing new legislation in the last two years. :roll:

That's just it, they havent. Actually they havent done squat.


When the George Bush and the Republican Party won the 2000 election gas prices were about $1.60 to $1.75 per gallon. They have more than doubled in the not quite 8 years since. The price at the pump is now at an all time high. Republican's were in office while the price has balloned to this all time high. Are they not to be held at all accountable for this? What have the Republicans - specifically W himself - done to try and curb gas prices?

Of course, its an election year and it will hurt republicans regardless of the reality of the situation. I was just pointing out as Larry King did on that video, that the dems had this secret plan in '06 and they are so in touch with the working middle class-watch the current leader of that party and nothing could be further from the truth. Lear Jet liberals do not know how much it costs to fill up a mini van.


(gas was about $2.25 or so in the Chicago area in 2000)

[hoosier]

What have the Republicans - specifically W himself - done to try and curb gas prices?

Do you honestly believe that any president, Rep or Dem, could alter the supply/demand curve of oil? Do you honestly not recognize that the consumption of oil across the globe has increased exponentially since 2000?

More demand = higher prices...that is ECON 101. Unless you have a plan for curbing the demand of 3 billion new consumers entering the industrialized world in India and China, I fail to see how you can blame rising gas prices on any individual.

Both sides have had decades to move forward with legislation to reduce our nation's dependency on oil, and what has been accomplished? To claim that it is entirely the fault of George Bush is an awful narrow viewpoint...and thinking that either potential Dem candidate will change the status quo is quite wishful. Washington as a whole isn't interested in reducing our oil dependence or in addressing the needs of common Americans.

I think Gunakor was being facetious and trying to show the idiocy of the earlier post blaming the Dems for high gas prices (the rise in prices began when the Dems took over Congress so it must be their fault)

[GBRulz]

[quote=Gunakor]

Do you honestly believe that any president, Rep or Dem, could alter the supply/demand curve of oil? Do you honestly not recognize that the consumption of oil across the globe has increased exponentially since 2000?

I don't. But, during the mid-term elections two years ago, gas decreased big time. Was $1.99/gal - down from $3+ that previous summer. After the elections were over, they climbed back up again.

It's just one of those things that make you go, hmmm.

[GBRulz]

It's not just the gas prices. How many people can honestly say their paycheck is not going as far as it did two years ago?

exactamundo, 007. Everything is more expensive now, all due in part to high gas prices.

[Gunakor]

What have the Republicans - specifically W himself - done to try and curb gas prices?

Do you honestly believe that any president, Rep or Dem, could alter the supply/demand curve of oil? Do you honestly not recognize that the consumption of oil across the globe has increased exponentially since 2000?

More demand = higher prices...that is ECON 101. Unless you have a plan for curbing the demand of 3 billion new consumers entering the industrialized world in India and China, I fail to see how you can blame rising gas prices on any individual.

Both sides have had decades to move forward with legislation to reduce our nation's dependency on oil, and what has been accomplished? To claim that it is entirely the fault of George Bush is an awful narrow viewpoint...and thinking that either potential Dem candidate will change the status quo is quite wishful. Washington as a whole isn't interested in reducing our oil dependence or in addressing the needs of common Americans.

I was replying to sheeps post, where he implied that the dems "haven't done squat" and that was the primary reason that the price is at an all time high.

That being said, gas prices have more than doubled during Bush's term. They didn't double during Clinton's term, or the earlier Bush's... I'm not placing blame solely on the republican party but I cannot believe that the Bush administration in particular didn't have the most to do with it. He gets the most blame.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That being said, gas prices have more than doubled during Bush's term. They didn't double during Clinton's term, or the earlier Bush's


Do you honestly not recognize that the consumption of oil across the globe has increased exponentially since 2000?

More demand = higher prices...that is ECON 101. Unless you have a plan for curbing the demand of 3 billion new consumers entering the industrialized world in India and China

It could be worse. We rank #102 in Ratio of Gasoline Price to World Average. We are actually well below the world average.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_gas_pri-energy-gasoline-prices

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone, your case and your brother's are exceptional. Most people don't drive near that much. I have to assume you both are making pretty good money doing all that driving--or else you wouldn't be doing it.



Exceptional? Based on what? Your opinion. Sorry, but you aren't an expert on driving.

I drive 20 minutes to work both ways or 13.8 miles. On the weekends I do normal stuff. Perhaps you are unaware of what it is like to live in cities like Tampa, Orlando, LA, Phoenix...newer american cities that are spread out.

I hardly think i'm exceptional.

And, if you think people in Cali aren't sitting in traffic and burning tons of gas you are crazy.

But, leave it to you to drop the point...that is 1500-1800 i could be saving or spending in the economy...other than with the gas companies.

I'm sure the electronics industry would love some of that money or the local restaurants.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Exactly--right when the Dems took over congress. Everything goes to hell in a hand basket.

Here's a prime example of a respected member of the "Party of the People"

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/25/if-youre-going-to-complain-about-gas-prices-nancy/

Yeah, that really explains everything. Those Dems have just gone hog wild passing new legislation in the last two years. :roll:

That's just it, they havent. Actually they havent done squat.


When the George Bush and the Republican Party won the 2000 election gas prices were about $1.60 to $1.75 per gallon. They have more than doubled in the not quite 8 years since. The price at the pump is now at an all time high. Republican's were in office while the price has balloned to this all time high. Are they not to be held at all accountable for this? What have the Republicans - specifically W himself - done to try and curb gas prices?

Very true.

Now, those prices seem reasonable..and within the norm since 1947, prices had consistently been between $1.30 and $1.50 per gallon in today's dollars (this being relevant to 2000 dollars), except for the big energy spike in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Now, the early 80s price of around 1.30 to 1.40 would be about 2.20 in 2000 dollars.

So, even the highest Americans had paid prior to our now record prices were still about a 1/3 less.

[GrnBay007]

$3.76.....isn't that precious!

[oregonpackfan]

I heard on the news today an oil supply analyst predicts gas prices in America will be $10.00 a gallon in three years!

Should his prediction prove correct, think of the incredible ripple effect that cost would have on the rest of the economy.

[GrnBay007]

I heard on the news today an oil supply analyst predicts gas prices in America will be $10.00 a gallon in three years!

Should his prediction prove correct, think of the incredible ripple effect that cost would have on the rest of the economy.

Think people will finally admit we are in a recession if that happens?? :P

[HarveyWallbangers]

So, even the highest Americans had paid prior to our now record prices were still about a 1/3 less.

Except the big energy spike in the late 1970s, right? Events that you'd expect to affect oil prices in a dramatic way. Think any events in the the last 7 or 8 years could have affected oil prices in a dramatic way?

I love intellectual honesty.

[Gunakor]

So, even the highest Americans had paid prior to our now record prices were still about a 1/3 less.

Except the big energy spike in the late 1970s, right? Events that you'd expect to affect oil prices in a dramatic way. Think any events in the the last 7 or 8 years could have affected oil prices in a dramatic way?

I love intellectual honesty.


Don't you think there's anything our government could have done over the last 8 years differently? Maybe something we did but shouldn't have done? I'm sorry, but you can't use the war in Iraq as justification when the very people we blame for the price spike are the ones responsible for the war in the first place.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, even the highest Americans had paid prior to our now record prices were still about a 1/3 less.

Except the big energy spike in the late 1970s, right? Events that you'd expect to affect oil prices in a dramatic way. Think any events in the the last 7 or 8 years could have affected oil prices in a dramatic way?

I love intellectual honesty.

What part of "except for the big energy spike in the late 1970s and early 1980s" did you not understand?

I factored in 1980s dollars into what it would have been in 2000.

If you are talking "intellectual honesty" to me, you are barking up the wrong tree...i was completely honest...can't even fathom your point on that.

The point was that, yes, things factor in, but in this case, we are still 1/3 higher than at any point. Those previous "events" dramatically rose prices, yet they weren't even in the same neighborhood as what we are facing today.

[Kiwon]

Yikes!

Just paid $1.73 per liter or $6.56 a gallon for diesel.