Anyone else getting worried about how fast gas prices are climbing? It's the middle of April and I already paid $3 for a gallon of premium. I read today that the US spent $212 million more on gas then we did this time last year. Some of that increase is increased demand......but most of it is increased price. I have little doubt that we are going to see $3.25-$3.50 for premium during the highest volume part of the summer this year........maybe more if we see another Katrina (which analysts think is a high probability).

This sucks :(

I paid $3.61 at some point last year. At those prices it takes $50 to fill up and getting 260 miles out of it really gets depressing.

uhmm im already paying 3.25-3.30 here in irvine, ca. 2.99 is a steal!

uhmm im already paying 3.25-3.30 here in irvine, ca. 2.99 is a steal!


Dude.....that really sucks!!! I wonder what you're going to be paying in July?


$4 !!!

I just paid $2.85 for regular 87 yesterday on the Navy Base. The Mobil by my house is at $3.04 for 87. By the way, the 87 went in my 3 not my RX-7.

$3.17 in the Oakland, CA area

~$2.90 for 89 and well over $3 for 93 (the 91 is scarce and prices vary widely).

$3.25 for 93 octane in sheepshead bay, brooklyn. We got iraqi oil, where's the price break in oil/gas?

3.12 yest in Seattle. Its a good thing you live in MI.


Anyone else getting worried about how fast gas prices are climbing? It's the middle of April and I already paid $3 for a gallon of premium. I read today that the US spent $212 million more on gas then we did this time last year. Some of that increase is increased demand......but most of it is increased price. I have little doubt that we are going to see $3.25-$3.50 for premium during the highest volume part of the summer this year........maybe more if we see another Katrina (which analysts think is a high probability).

This sucks :(

Somewhere within Haliburton

$3.25 for 93 octane in sheepshead bay, brooklyn. We got iraqi oil, where's the price break in oil/gas?

3.12 yest in Seattle. Its a good thing you live in MI.


I didn't look at the signs today on the way in......but I am sure the prices are higher now that a barrel of oil is over $71. I'll check and report back.

Around $2.60 for 87 and $2.99 for 93 here.

Now Bush says he will not rule out using nukes on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060418/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_15

At least then he will have a good excuse for not using the oil. :-(

Iran has nothing to do with it, although Big Oil would love for you to blame it on that.

Biggest scam ever - Crude oil stocks are building, yet farking oil companies refuse to build new refineries and blame blended gasoline and lack of refinery capacity for rising prices.

They are making a killing! Ex CEO of Exxon-Mobil was just awarded 660 million 'package.'

Iran has nothing to do with it, although Big Oil would love for you to blame it on that.

Biggest scam ever - Crude oil stocks are building, yet farking oil companies refuse to build new refineries and blame blended gasoline and lack of refinery capacity for rising prices.

They are making a killing! Ex CEO of Exxon-Mobil was just awarded 660 million 'package.'


What's really sick is that even though the oil companies made billions last year in PROFITS....they blame the lack of new refining capacity on the US government not subsidizing the investment in new refineries. WTF?? Where is the US gov't when the country actually needs them? Make these oil companies invest their easily earned billions on new refineries.....they don't need to be subsidized by tax dollars. Where's the regulation?

I just paid $2.9something and yes, I'm starting to worry about this. It took $40.05 to fill up my baby with her zoom juice. I did get 19.4mpg in all city driving so I can't complain I guess...while yes...yes, I CAN COMPLAIN...

DANG YOU OIL COMPANIES...DANG YOU TO HELL!!!!! LOL

OPEC = Oil Price Escalation Consortium

I paid $2.99 just the other day as well. I can't believe they're just letting prices spiral upwards like this while the oil companies are posting record profits. The government or some other power has to step in at some point here, it's getting to the point of absurdity.

there's only one place i can go to fill right now for $2.999 on octane 91. its a shell back in rowland heights so i must not drive while i'm down in san diego.

I paid $4.30 US for 87 this past weekend.

Really doesn't matter to me what it costs. My baby needs the go go juice! :yesnod:

You guys south of the Canadian border should be ashamed of yourselves! $3.00/gallon is a joke. I'm already paying for $4.25/gallon for regular. ;) :eyetwitch :p: :tear: I have nightmares now about what the price might be at the peak of summer!

I paid $2.99 just the other day as well. I can't believe they're just letting prices spiral upwards like this while the oil companies are posting record profits. The government or some other power has to step in at some point here, it's getting to the point of absurdity.

And what would the government do?

I paid $4.30 US for 87 this past weekend.Where was that?!?!? Even the Californians haven't reported anything over $4 in this thread.

Did you get a complementary lube, oil and filter change with that...... or at least the lube?

even at $5 a gallon gas is still cheap. wanna argue?.. puch your car yourself for 20 miles and see how you feel.

Where was that?!?!? Even the Californians haven't reported anything over $4 in this thread.

Did you get a complementary lube, oil and filter change with that...... or at least the lube?
BlueEyes is a fellow Canadian.

And what would the government do?

Subsidize it or something to at least put a damper on how fast it's going up. I also said "or some other power," since I don't really understand how it all works. I'd just imagine someone would catch on that this could start effecting economies if it goes unchecked for long enough. It's getting out of hand now.

I paid $2.99 just the other day as well. I can't believe they're just letting prices spiral upwards like this while the oil companies are posting record profits. The government or some other power has to step in at some point here, it's getting to the point of absurdity.
I don't think the average Joe understands what "profit" means in relation to businesses. I think people don't understand that AFTER expenses, operating expenditures, paying off share-holders, and any other money that has to be paid out..whatever...this money that is left over is profit. I think people tend to confuse profit with revenue, being the money that is taken in from new business.

Subsidize it or something to at least put a damper on how fast it's going up. I also said "or some other power," since I don't really understand how it all works. I'd just imagine someone would catch on that this could start effecting economies if it goes unchecked for long enough. It's getting out of hand now...... I'll agree you don't really understand how it all works.

Not to pick on you, but just to answer your point - Oil companies are in business to make profit. Without profit there is no reason for them to survey, drill, pump, transport, refine and distribute. Would you keep going to work if your employer suddenly decided you shouldn't have profit (wage)? How about if they decide salary inflation has "gone unchecked for long enough" and levy a big paycut?

I'm just glad none of you here are so bad at math as some of the locals around here. Here folks like to gripe about record oil profits.

Well, let's see, profits tend to be a percentage mark-up on cost and thus a percentage of revenue. If the cost of crude oil goes up *and* the *amount* of oil bought/sold goes us that's two factors driving up profit at the same time. That's ignoring the industry consolidation (it wasn't the Exxon/Mobil Valdeez that ran aground off the coast of Alaska, it was just Exxon that short time ago). You take collective profit from several companies and combine it and the resulting single company immediately and automatically had more profit, not because they are more bad, but because they have greater market share.

Test time - If the world buys more gas and the market price for crude oil is rising do those market conditions drive prices and profit up or down?

*sigh* okay, okay, I'll try to rope in my soap-boxing, but I do recommend certain readings:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11553&news_iv_ctrl=1021

Aseras is right - if it's not worth that price, don't pay it. Oh, it *is* worth that price. Okay, no further questions.

2.90 for reg
3.10 for prem

the gas guy at shell said reg is going to be 3.30 by the end of this month and end of summer he would be surprised if its going to be in 4 dollar ranger for reg gas

in south Fl

Subsidize it or something to at least put a damper on how fast it's going up. I also said "or some other power," since I don't really understand how it all works. I'd just imagine someone would catch on that this could start effecting economies if it goes unchecked for long enough. It's getting out of hand now.

Yep, I'll agree, you have absolutely no idea how it works.
It's called supply and demand. Demand goes up or supply goes down, and prices go up. Whether or not the government pays for it with taxpayer dollars or we pay at the pump, in the end, we still pay the same amount.

If you're talking price controls, we have hundreds of years of history to show that price controls DO NOT WORK!

Just take a look at the blackouts in California a few years ago. Left-wing environmentalist nutjobs in California have made it virtually impossible to build new power plants in California (the last one was built in something like 1982). As a result, the electrical infrastructure could not keep up with the population boom over the last 25 years, forcing the power distributors to import electricity from out of state. On top of this, the left-wing political nutjobs who run California enacted price controls so that the power distributors couldn't charge above a certain threshhold. The prices that they could charge were below the price it cost them to import electricity from out-of-state, since the out-of-state power generators had no price controls. The law of supply and demand says that when prices are low (in this case, held artificially low by price controls), that demand will be high. Since the power distributors couldn't import power without losing money, their only choice was to cut power.

This scenario has played itself out time after time after time in the past and leftists still don't get it. Price controls create shortages!! If you want long lines at the pumps like in the 70s (another price-control created shortage) then demand that the government intervene. If you want to do something helpful: buy a car that gets better mileage; carpool; walk/ride a bike; or, if you're entrepreneurial, start developing a solution such as engines that run on renewables. Most of the people I see complaining have one thing in common - they don't want to have to make any adjustments or sacrifices themselves, they just want to demand that other people do something about it.

When we speak of oil companies, we're speaking of retrievers of crude oil, and refiners of crude oil into gasoline.

Some are one of these, while others are both.

In either case, they are oligopolistic entities, and do not have to operate in an efficient and truly competitive field.

Again, as I've said before, crude oil stocks are building, and did not diminish during the past very mild winter.

They are manipulating the price of refined gasoline higher by basically refusing to expand existing refinery capacity or build new refineries. Well, that's their official excuse as to why gasoline is soaring, at any rate.

The truth is a whole lot more sinister.

If you're talking price controls, we have hundreds of years of history to show that price controls DO NOT WORK!Right on fellow New Yorker. I get frustrated by folks who expect the government to *do something* about regular free market forces. A few years ago there were calls for Congressional on......... terrorism? free speech? No! The rising cost of pre-packaged breakfast cereal! Bleah, like the government can do anything about that!

Aw, don't get me started on what I think the government should or should not do. I know what *I'm* gonna do - if the price of gas hits $4/gallon I'm going to sell my farm and move to an apartment in town within biking distance of work.

My local station here in Costa Mesa CA was at 3.22 yesterday. I filled up in Newport Beach on Sunday for 3.09. I'm just glad I walk a block to work and don't have to drive with these prices!

When we speak of oil companies, we're speaking of retrievers of crude oil, and refiners of crude oil into gasoline.

Some are one of these, while others are both.

In either case, they are oligopolistic entities, and do not have to operate in an efficient and truly competitive field.

Again, as I've said before, crude oil stocks are building, and did not diminish during the past very mild winter.

They are manipulating the price of refined gasoline higher by basically refusing to expand existing refinery capacity or build new refineries. Well, that's their official excuse as to why gasoline is soaring, at any rate.

The truth is a whole lot more sinister.Now, don't get all paranoid. This sort of conspiracy theory doesn't wash. Think about Citgo - they are (mostly) bringing North America gas from South America. If there was a lot of artificial price manipulation in the market then they, or some other company - there's still more than two - would have the ability to sell gas at a lower cost and still make good profit. They could undercut their competition and increase their market share and they'd try to do it before their competition thought of it.

Think of the freefall price erosion of electronics - every competitor is fighting tooth and nail to undercut the rest of the market by a nickel here and a nickel there. Whenever they eke out more cost the price collapses more.

Enron is fresh in everyone's mind as the poster child for lying, cheating, stealing, society-harming big corporations - but where did it get them? Nowhere - they self-destructed and quickly too. Such behavior wasn't sustainable.

Where is our 'cost-of-gas-adjusted-for-inflation' chart. That usually calms everyone down when they see they're still paying effectively less for gas then their parents and grandparents did before them.

Now, don't get all paranoid. This sort of conspiracy theory doesn't wash. Think about Citgo - they are (mostly) bringing North America gas from South America. If there was a lot of artificial price manipulation in the market then they, or some other company - there's still more than two - would have the ability to sell gas at a lower cost and still make good profit. They could undercut their competition and increase their market share and they'd try to do it before their competition thought of it.

Think of the freefall price erosion of electronics - every competitor is fighting tooth and nail to undercut the rest of the market by a nickel here and a nickel there. Whenever they eke out more cost the price collapses more.

Enron is fresh in everyone's mind as the poster child for lying, cheating, stealing, society-harming big corporations - but where did it get them? Nowhere - they self-destructed and quickly too. Such behavior wasn't sustainable.

Where is our 'cost-of-gas-adjusted-for-inflation' chart. That usually calms everyone down when they see they're still paying effectively less for gas then their parents and grandparents did before them.
People are far too quick to through the phrase "conspiracy theory" around to denigrate someone's arguement, when they themselves have little facts to disprove the veracity of such arguement. Just go ahead and google "CIA Enron" and watch the results populate. There's much more going on than simplistic economics...oligopolistic entities as Mr. Rocket said, Do they exist? What about PNAC? What about the Bilderberg Group? Skull and Bones Society? Bavarian Illuminati? What about the New World Order. That's written in latin on the back of the one dollar bill. But who wants to entertain conspiracy theories, when the real conspiracy is making all of these valid accusations seem like conspiracies. But, these theories don't get much play on the news....I wonder why...

Record profits for big oil in '05. I thought margins were to remain consistent regardless of the price per barrel? It's bullshit but we keep buying SUV's and OPEC keeps laughing all the way to the bank.

:yesnod:

$3.15 USD last night for crummy 91 RON+MON/2 west-coast turtle piss.
At least that same $3.15 got me 93 in Maryland.
The toluene I add is now cheaper than the gas!

Regulation doesn't work, but tax incentives sure do. Getting paid not to work in a strong market is an amazing idiosyncrasy of our current market situation.
Subsidy begat sloth. Now, pull that subsidy and see what happens: even bigger price hikes as the oil boards try to maintain profits.

It could be alot worse..we can live in Japan and pay at least TWICE what we are paying now..at least they have an actual train system to alleviate the hurt for the increase in price..ours over here is a joke..amtrak is pathetic..

As for the oil companies..yeah..they need to burn..nice of them to care about the avg. joe/jane :p They are raking it in..now..if the government would only tax the living @#$ out of them..oh, wait..those senators get paid underneath the table..guess us middle-income folks will have to foot the whole damn bill...

CBD, I am not about to get political here, but I'll just say that if people aren't at least cognizant of the political links between many people in government positions around the globe today, and entities such as Unocal, The Carlyle Group, Exxon-Mobil and KBR, then it's a real shame.

They are not conspiratorial theories. They are provable facts.

Iran has nothing to do with it, although Big Oil would love for you to blame it on that.

Biggest scam ever - Crude oil stocks are building, yet farking oil companies refuse to build new refineries and blame blended gasoline and lack of refinery capacity for rising prices.

They are making a killing! Ex CEO of Exxon-Mobil was just awarded 660 million 'package.'


I believe an understanding of oil companies is needed here...

High gas prices are a result of high crude oil prices. The amount of refineries that turn crude oil into gasoline doesn't matter if the price of the oil getting to the refineries is 2x what it should be - refineries are not going to sell gasoline cheaper then the crude oil they refine it from.

Crude is a publically traded commodity with a price determined by the stock market - there is a spot market for buying oil instantly and a futures market for contracts to supply oil xxx days in the future at an agreed price. They are not determined by oil companies. Exxonmobil is making a killing right now because depending on the oil well, it costs about $20/barrel to suck oil out of the ground - however, because the market says its worth $72/barrel - thats what people have to buy it for. If the price would suddenly change to $15/barrel they'd be loosing money and forced to suck it up... thats what happens when a resource is a publically traded commodity.



So whats effecting the price of crude oil and you pocketbook?... 3 things

1) Demand is increasing - but is it increasing at a rate that would double prices? No, so there is more to the story... see next point

2) Investment Firms

A recent study was done which investigated the purchases of oil/natural gas in the market. Historically it has always been ~30/70 split with 30 people buying/selling in a short term investment fashion (buying and selling quick enough to never take possesion, or buying futures and selling the fuel off without ever having posession) and 70 people buying the fuel to actually use. The recent study found the ratio is now 60/40 meaning more day traders are buying fuels on the open market and then reselling them at a profit then people actually buying the fuels to use! Its a great scheme where capital investment firms with big $ buy large quantities, create a bit of a supply problem for people who need the fuel causing prices to spike and then resell it on the market for a profit. Or if some world news rumour starts up, they will buy and wait for panic to sell at an even bigger profit.

Until reform sets in, prices will be abnormally high from this imbalance and volitility will be at a maximum.


I get updated more frequently on the natural gas scene as its my plant's biggest yearly expense. I just read last week that natural gas RESERVES are at an all time high from the mild winter - literally there is no more room in storage facilities to store the stuff. Yet prices are still hovering in the $8-$9 mmBTU range, up from $3-$4 a few years ago. The laws of supply and demand do not make sense anymore.


3) We have a media hell bent on hanging a president. This weekend they made a non-story a horror show - we have never ruled using any part of our military arsenal in history - yet suddenly because of this we are on the brink of a nuclear war. Its bullshit, the media knows its bullshit, but when the price of oil rises $5 overnight in the asian market before our market even opens - its obvious that not many wish to admit its bullshit.

...but then again some of the media outlets also are largely owned by some investment firms found above :cwm27:

btw - I'm not a left wing nutjob. I'm a right wing nutjob. :) Just been thinking that this is going to start effecting other prices in the economy because of increased transit costs. I'd imagine that it needs to be stabilized somehow to keep a bunch of other things in check.

Whew, thank God for people who have at least a basic understanding of the oil industry.

We have a media hell bent on hanging a president.

Please.

Everything else you said made some sense. But if Fox news is 'hellbent' on hanging Bush, angel food cake fairies will jump out of my asshole.

I'd imagine that it needs to be stabilized somehow to keep a bunch of other things in check.

See, here's the problem I have with this kind of a statement (and it's the kind of statement I see everywhere - most notably in 'Letters to the Editor") - you say that gas prices "need to be stabilized" somehow, yet you have no idea how or what this would entail. Obviously you think the government needs to step in and do something - but since when has the government ever made a situation better? Price controls will cause shortages. Why not let the market run its course?

The other part that I have a problem with is that 'someone else' needs to do the job. I contend that it is YOU ('you' as in everybody, not you specifically) that needs to do something. If you want gas prices to go down, get rid of your 15 mpg RX-8 and get a 40 mpg Corolla. But, you want your cake and eat it, too. You want your gas guzzling RX-8 or SUV but you don't want to have to pay the price to keep the car going. It is much easy to demand other people adapt and make sacrifices than it is for you to make sacrifices.

I just don't want gas to dictate what car I buy...lack of money already put's a hold on me, I don't want gas to add yet another hold on me.

lol

Solstice here I come...lol.

We have a media hell bent on hanging a president. This weekend they made a non-story a horror show - we have never ruled using any part of our military arsenal in history - yet suddenly because of this we are on the brink of a nuclear war. Its bullshit, the media knows its bullshit, but when the price of oil rises $5 overnight in the asian market before our market even opens - its obvious that not many wish to admit its bullshit.

...but then again some of the media outlets also are largely owned by some investment firms found above :cwm27:

If you think the media, the tool of the elite is hellbent on frying a Bush porkchop, I'd like for you to watch a couple of short films. Goto http://video.google.com Search for two things 1st) "Painful Deceptions" 2nd) "Loose Change 2" Then PM me. I'd like to know what you think after that, so we can have a healthy debate.

...but since when has the government ever made a situation better?

Touche, salesman.

The other part that I have a problem with is that 'someone else' needs to do the job.

Well, I never said that I was too concerned about prices myself. I realize that it's just a fact of life. If I couldn't afford the gas, I would indeed make the move to a much smaller car. My concern is that this is going to be the root of some up and coming inflation which I'd imagine could be stopped if action were taken.

I'm no economic genius, nor have I ever pretended to be one, I've simply stated my casual observation. It sure does seem that if oil prices go up, companies are going to have to pay more for transportation (gas) and that money is going to come in the form of higher priced products. It's a simple idea, but it seems that the pieces fit together. I didn't consider nor do I grasp the inner workings of the oil industry or any industry for that matter, so I could be terribly wrong.

No need to get all worked up about this guys, as I said, I'm uninformed right now, but I'm using this thread to learn about how all this business works.

^yup, and meanwhile...pay is as stagnant as it always has been.

Don't they realize we all love to blow our money...IF we have some that is. If not, it's the high end stuff that goes first. Getting that car, electronic, gadget, etc we always wanted get's nailed my reality...our home, utilities, and food are the most important so they better stop complaining that we don't buy enough stuff...frankly, it's just getting priced out of our reach.

What's really sick is that even though the oil companies made billions last year in PROFITS....they blame the lack of new refining capacity on the US government not subsidizing the investment in new refineries. WTF?? Where is the US gov't when the country actually needs them? Make these oil companies invest their easily earned billions on new refineries.....they don't need to be subsidized by tax dollars. Where's the regulation?

No F'ing kidding. This shit is beyond ridiculous. The US gov't isn't subsidizing GM or Ford building new factories. Not doing anything like that for IT either. What makes you bastards in the oil industry so special?

I'm personally never considered myself a right wing liberal, andhave complained about them much, but over the last 5-10 years... America is just getting out of control. It's time for serious regulation... regulation of life's necessities... energy (of all types), health care (not national system... just government regulated prices), and insurance to say the least. These companies are bending America over making billions in profits off of things that are considered necessities of life in this age. there is more market supply/demand... this is just stuff that you must have in order to work and live. IN my book that makes it qualify for government regulation... They don't need to be a charity... making a "reasonable" profit is fine, but no company that deals in these life necessities should be making record profits in the billions. Energy, health care, insurance...

You guys south of the Canadian border should be ashamed of yourselves! $3.00/gallon is a joke. I'm already paying for $4.25/gallon for regular. ;) :eyetwitch :p: :tear: I have nightmares now about what the price might be at the peak of summer!

Yeah... I've been saying that to the Americans ever since gas prices started rising. In '96 gas was like 86 yen/liter and a year ago it was about 129 yen/liter (about $4.17/gallon). Now it's about 144 yen/liter (545.04 yen/gallon or
$4.66/gallon)... that's $74.09 to fill up your RX-8 in Japan (15.9 gallons).

Now THAT'S something to cry about... :tear:

1 gallon = 3.785 liters
1 USD = 116.95 JPY

..... I'll agree you don't really understand how it all works.

Not to pick on you, but just to answer your point - Oil companies are in business to make profit. Without profit there is no reason for them to survey, drill, pump, transport, refine and distribute. Would you keep going to work if your employer suddenly decided you shouldn't have profit (wage)? How about if they decide salary inflation has "gone unchecked for long enough" and levy a big paycut?

I'm just glad none of you here are so bad at math as some of the locals around here. Here folks like to gripe about record oil profits.

Well, let's see, profits tend to be a percentage mark-up on cost and thus a percentage of revenue. If the cost of crude oil goes up *and* the *amount* of oil bought/sold goes us that's two factors driving up profit at the same time. That's ignoring the industry consolidation (it wasn't the Exxon/Mobil Valdeez that ran aground off the coast of Alaska, it was just Exxon that short time ago). You take collective profit from several companies and combine it and the resulting single company immediately and automatically had more profit, not because they are more bad, but because they have greater market share.

Test time - If the world buys more gas and the market price for crude oil is rising do those market conditions drive prices and profit up or down?

*sigh* okay, okay, I'll try to rope in my soap-boxing, but I do recommend certain readings:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11553&news_iv_ctrl=1021

Aseras is right - if it's not worth that price, don't pay it. Oh, it *is* worth that price. Okay, no further questions.


And that, sir, is a cop out.

1) If their CEO is making multi-millions of dollars in salary alone and then gets a cash and options/stock bonus of again multi-millions, the company can sure as hell afford to cut the price of their product. (qualify this with said CEO is not the founder/owner of said company) no I don't care if other "big execs" are getting paid like that too... they ALL should have their salaries cut unless they are owner/founder of the company.

2) Mr. CEO ain't out there drill and processing the oil. He's busy lobbying... market analysts, politicians, other execs... he's a salesman... his product is the company. REAL management is done levels below him.

3) So you seem to believe in this current American business bullshit philosophy of greed. "If they'll pay it, then charge it." "PROFITS, PROFITS, PROFITS!" I hope you don't also complain about the lack of ethics in business and by American companies... A lot of good any of that will do you when people have little to no disposable income and the only people that will be able to afford your product are your golf buddies.

4) Why bother regulate anything at all? Ultilities, phone, cable... whatever. Hey... let's charge as much as people can or are willing to pay. It's only fair... it's the "American way".

:rolleyes:

Most of America's top politicians were put into office by corporations in the form of campaign contributions.

Here's my opinion as to why the price of gasoline is so high.

Why pay for building refineries when you can just keep the same ones and charge more for the same supply of gasoline? Oil companies are keeping the demand up on a more limited supply.

If the oil companies build more refineries they will be cutting their profits. They will increase the supply of oil which will drive prices down because the demand will remain the same.

The biggest and most profitable publicy owned corporation is Exxon Mobile. Their # 1 priority is making money for their stock holders.

They don't care about how their customers feel. They know that we will pay the price because we are dependent on their product. We simply cannot live without it.

Simple economics --> Supply & Demand

P.S- I'm NOT defending the oil companies.

On top of record profits, the U.S. government also just gave away pure cream to big oil:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14oil.html?ex=1297573200&en=87dc413fa6add582&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies


By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: February 14, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years.

New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government...

You and your buddies can thank the Iowa corn lobby and the Democrats in congress for the performance of today's altered gasoline blends. They worked the system so that ethanol and methanol replaced MTBE in gasoline, and they do not necessarily behave the same in today's high performance engines. The octane rating, by law, however, must comply with what is stated on the pump. The issues around ethanol and methanol are more about potential long-term effects on engines (rubber gaskets and other components), although many folks do claim performance woes as well.

The real killer is that every gallon of ethanol is subsidized by the taxpayer--you and me--because those blendstocks in gasoline are more than twice as expensive to produce as oil-derived alkylate or MTBE (That's methyl tert-butyl ether for you people that have taken organic chemistry ). Fertilizing corn, growing it, harvesting it, fermenting it, and making it into final product ethanol, then shipping it, is horrifically expensive, and not a viable business without Washington (you and me) footing the bill.

Sorry for the long answer--it's just a shame what a few special interest Democrats can do. I'm just kind of passionate about this issue because it is directly related to people bitching about gasoline prices. It's all intertwined.

I'm sorry that this has turned into a political thread and I know that political threads are forbidden, just felt unrepresented.

See, here's the problem I have with this kind of a statement (and it's the kind of statement I see everywhere - most notably in 'Letters to the Editor") - you say that gas prices "need to be stabilized" somehow, yet you have no idea how or what this would entail. Obviously you think the government needs to step in and do something - but since when has the government ever made a situation better? Price controls will cause shortages. Why not let the market run its course?

Don't just throw something out there like that when you have even stated that the people here don't seem to understand how things work. Explain it. How do price controls cause shortages? Why doesn't regulation of health care costs cause shortages in Japan or Canada? Why doesn't regulation of auto insurance cause some kind of "shortage" (or other issue) in Japan or Canada?


The other part that I have a problem with is that 'someone else' needs to do the job. I contend that it is YOU ('you' as in everybody, not you specifically) that needs to do something. If you want gas prices to go down, get rid of your 15 mpg RX-8 and get a 40 mpg Corolla. But, you want your cake and eat it, too. You want your gas guzzling RX-8 or SUV but you don't want to have to pay the price to keep the car going. It is much easy to demand other people adapt and make sacrifices than it is for you to make sacrifices.

No. I don't agree. People shouldn't be running around buying 10mpg SUV's and have no kids to be hauling around in them. However, at the same time you have to take into consideration that the US is nation that depends upon personal automobiles for transportation. Public transit is few and far between... in many places is it almost a joke.... crappy schedule and always late. Why should someone be forced to get an inferior car, just so CEO's of oil companies can get another couple million on their bonus package?

Isn't it much easier to point the finger at the person making the comment/raising the question, than to admit there's a problem in the system and look at how it can be fixed.

Most of America's top politicians were put into office by corporations in the form of campaign contributions.

Here's my opinion as to why the price of gasoline is so high.

Why pay for building refineries when you can just keep the same ones and charge more for the same supply of gasoline? Oil companies are keeping the demand up on a more limited supply.

If the oil companies build more refineries they will be cutting their profits. They will increase the supply of oil which will drive prices down because the demand will remain the same.

The biggest and most profitable publicy owned corporation is Exxon Mobile. Their # 1 priority is making money for their stock holders.

They don't care about how their customers feel. They know that we will pay the price because we are dependent on their product. We simply cannot live without it.

Simple economics --> Supply & Demand

P.S- I'm NOT defending the oil companies.

There is likely more to the situation that just that (I haven't had time to look more into it), but overal... that is what I understand is going on here... and in all industries to some degree.

When is it enough? A company can't simply be profitable... it has to be as profitable as possible? Cut that margin razor thin... at the expense of employee benefits/salaries or even jobs and raising prices beyond a "reasonable" cost? Ethics? What's that? MONEY! PROFIT! When is it enough America?

Isn't it much easier to point the finger at the person making the comment/raising the question, than to admit there's a problem in the system and look at how it can be fixed.

But when the finger is pointed in the right direction, the oil companies are blamed out of reflex.

But when the finger is pointed in the right direction, the oil companies are blamed out of reflex.

But when the shoe fits...

But when the shoe fits...
Please read the educated posts throughout this thread for all of the refutation you need (including my own). Many many many coherent, well founded thoughts have been expressed by other people in this thread, so reposting these thoughts would be a waste of my breath.

You and your buddies can thank the Iowa corn lobby and the Democrats in congress for the performance of today's altered gasoline blends. They worked the system so that ethanol and methanol replaced MTBE in gasoline, and they do not necessarily behave the same in today's high performance engines. The octane rating, by law, however, must comply with what is stated on the pump. The issues around ethanol and methanol are more about potential long-term effects on engines (rubber gaskets and other components), although many folks do claim performance woes as well.

The real killer is that every gallon of ethanol is subsidized by the taxpayer--you and me--because those blendstocks in gasoline are more than twice as expensive to produce as oil-derived alkylate or MTBE (That's methyl tert-butyl ether for you people that have taken organic chemistry ). Fertilizing corn, growing it, harvesting it, fermenting it, and making it into final product ethanol, then shipping it, is horrifically expensive, and not a viable business without Washington (you and me) footing the bill.

Sorry for the long answer--it's just a shame what a few special interest Democrats can do. I'm just kind of passionate about this issue because it is directly related to people bitching about gasoline prices. It's all intertwined.

I'm sorry that this has turned into a political thread and I know that political threads are forbidden, just felt unrepresented.


Yes, because we all know that Republicans investigate the hell out of big oil collusion/price-fixing, don't give anything away to big oil, and that no Republicans in the corn belt had anything to do with the institution of ethanol mandated fuel blends.

Please.

$3.17 in the Oakland, CA area
:iamwithst This is really starting to suck. My top last year was $3.69 around Oct. At this rate we'll be at $4 at some point in the summer.

Yes, because we all know that Republicans investigate the hell out of big oil collusion/price-fixing, don't give anything away to big oil, and that no Republicans in the corn belt had anything to do with the institution of ethanol mandated fuel blends.

Please.
Show me.
http://www.10nbc.com/news.asp?template=item&story_id=18441
Would you consider this an indication of apathy towards oil prices, or an action that shows understanding of the big picture?

Show me.
http://www.10nbc.com/news.asp?template=item&story_id=18441
Would you consider this an indication of apathy towards oil prices, or an action that shows understanding of the big picture?

Money talks, and bullshit walks:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01


Oil & Gas:
Long-Term Contribution Trends
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus_gif6.asp?ind=E01&type=P

Please read the educated posts throughout this thread for all of the refutation you need (including my own). Many many many coherent, well founded thoughts have been expressed by other people in this thread, so reposting these thoughts would be a waste of my breath.

Right. :rolleyes:

Read them. And so what? Well-founded on what? Your opinion?

Money talks, and bullshit walks:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01


Oil & Gas:
Long-Term Contribution Trends
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus_gif6.asp?ind=E01&type=P
Aside from the source, opensecrets.org, and the collapsed variables on that data table on the website, and you basing everything entirely on ONE FACTOR IN OIL PRICES (DOMESTIC politics), well nothing, you should try and look at the big picture as I've previously stated.

This is my last post- work comes before play.

There is likely more to the situation that just that (I haven't had time to look more into it), but overal... that is what I understand is going on here... and in all industries to some degree.

When is it enough? A company can't simply be profitable... it has to be as profitable as possible? Cut that margin razor thin... at the expense of employee benefits/salaries or even jobs and raising prices beyond a "reasonable" cost? Ethics? What's that? MONEY! PROFIT! When is it enough America?

There is more to the situation. GREED.

Once a single entity becomes so profitable and has more money than they can possibly spend, they begin to seek other ways to satisfy their hunger. In this case POWER is what the oil corporations are seeking.

They are so deep in America's political scene that they are controlling America's economic legislation. They have to be or else the American gov't would break up their virtual monopoly over the oil refining industry.

It's a "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" kind of deal or just simply put, political corruption. Of course, since when has the American gov't NOT been corrupt in one aspect or another?

I'd love to get much more in depth with this subject, but I'm just too tired.

Right. :rolleyes:

Read them. And so what? Well-founded on what? Your opinion?
Organic chemistry, ass.
You and your buddies can thank the Iowa corn lobby and the Democrats in congress for the performance of today's altered gasoline blends. They worked the system so that ethanol and methanol replaced MTBE in gasoline, and they do not necessarily behave the same in today's high performance engines. The octane rating, by law, however, must comply with what is stated on the pump. The issues around ethanol and methanol are more about potential long-term effects on engines (rubber gaskets and other components), although many folks do claim performance woes as well.

The real killer is that every gallon of ethanol is subsidized by the taxpayer--you and me--because those blendstocks in gasoline are more than twice as expensive to produce as oil-derived alkylate or MTBE (That's methyl tert-butyl ether for you people that have taken organic chemistry ). Fertilizing corn, growing it, harvesting it, fermenting it, and making it into final product ethanol, then shipping it, is horrifically expensive, and not a viable business without Washington (you and me) footing the bill.

Sorry for the long answer--it's just a shame what a few special interest Democrats can do. I'm just kind of passionate about this issue because it is directly related to people bitching about gasoline prices. It's all intertwined.

I'm sorry that this has turned into a political thread and I know that political threads are forbidden, just felt unrepresented.

I won't argue the political stuff, but I will give a little insight from business inside the oil circle.

The oil drilling companies are not losing business that I know of. I know of a small company (with a huge business) of supplying chemicals for drilling to some of the largest oil companies in the world. The company that I know about depends on the productivity of the oil industry. In other words, the need for more chemicals to be used in more and more drilling sites. That company doubled its profits in 2004 and again doubled (if not more) in 2005 due to the overwhelming request for more and more chemicals, not necessarily due to the rising cost of oil. If that is the oil industry suffering...I would hate to see what it looks like when we REALLY run out of oil. Believe it or not, the price of gas also takes a toll on the oil industry too. The company that I know had to raise the prices of all the chemicals significantly due to the rising cost of fuel to transport the chemicals. The large oil companies had to compensate for that in millions of dollars difference for the price of the chemicals that they need to be able to drill effectively. Now, I am in no way shape or form sticking up for the oil companies. I don't agree with how they do business, but they do...and make billions.

As far as putting a price control on oil...why would congress do that? The biggest suppliers of campaign funds are the oil companies. Piss them off and they just take their money elsewhere and bring in someone new who will meet their demands.

It is sad that it hits the "little guy's" pocket, but as a nation, we could take control. We are a nation VERY dependent on our automobiles. Nobody said that we have to be. Ride a bike to work, take a bus, take a train, buy a more economical car for weekday driving.

Personally I love my 8 and want to keep it forever, but I can buy a really nice bicycle for what 6 months worth of gas costs me in the 8 going back and forth to work and I only work a few miles from my job.

We just need to be smart as a nation. We can talk about it all day long, but until WE actually do something about it...nothing will change.

Oil markets explained
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/904748.stm

How much oil do we really have?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4681935.stm

China's Quest for Oil
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501041025-725174,00.html


There is higher than expected demand in industrialised countries and China's rapidly expanding economy has created a huge demand boost...

...

Low US gasoline stocks and pressure on US refiners to increase production of new gasoline blends have also helped drive world crude oil prices.

Environmental regulations demand new grades of gasoline, which can vary from state to state.

But building processing facilities to serve so many different markets is expensive and environmental concerns can make planning permission difficult to obtain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3708951.stm


"Fear is the driver and remains so," said Kyle Cooper, an analyst at IAF Advisors in Houston. "It is not considered likely that any oil flow from Iran is disrupted, but it is possible."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/18/markets/oil.reut/index.htm


Median CEO pay rose 1.1 percent to $8.4 million in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis of the 251 FORTUNE 500 companies that had filed proxies as of March 27. (Equilar, a compensation data and research provider, conducted the analysis.)
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/06/news/newsmakers/pluggedin_f500_fortune/index.htm


Felmy suggested Schumer stop the political grandstanding and call for things that will actually bring down gas prices, which he said include more domestic oil production, greater conservation efforts and provisions to make it easier to build more refineries.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/18/news/economy/gas_price_investigation/index.htm




While most, it turned out, actually did save gas, some of the fuel-saving advice you commonly hear didn't make much difference at all.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/01/Autos/tipsandadvice/gas_saving_test/index.htm


The director of the University of California's Energy Institute, Professor Severin Borenstein claims: "It still costs two or three thousand dollars more to buy a Hybrid and if you do the calculations of how much you would save on gasoline over the life of a car it's unlikely you would ever actually cover your costs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3749377.stm

Organic chemistry, ass.

Nice ad hominem. When you have to resort to insults and attacks...

And organic chemistry has exactly what to do with the business and politics of the energy market?

Look, we can all sit around and point fingers all day long, but WE are the ultimate reason oil prices are so high. We have became overly dependent on a single resource. It was only a matter of time before someone came along and decided to exploit it. We live in a capitalist society.

The # 1 goal of big business is to make money. It doesn't matter which country you live in, money is what makes the world go round. Its a fact of life.

In the mean time, here's a little theory you guy's can chew on:

All the big auto manufactures are under increasing pressure from the public to develop and build more hybrid and gas efficient vehicles. These vehicles are probably going to become very popular in the near future. As more and more of these vehicles hit the road, oil companies are going to make less money from gasoline purchases. They have to do something to compensate. So, the more efficient vehicles get, the higher the gas prices will get.

I'm not at all saying this is why the gas prices are high, I've already stated my opinion on that above. But this could be one of the driving factors now or in the future.

I don't disagree at all with the sentiment that America needs to become much more fuel efficient. People need to drive less SUV's or at least not use them as daily drivers. All cars need to be more fuel efficient... although on that note, the constantly increasing weight of cars means that they are both less fuel efficient and require more powerful engines. Because of saftey features? maybe... maybe some of those are occurring because of the need for protection against accidents with the huge overweight SUV's...

Anyway...

The over-dependence on oil is a serious issue... in terms of limited supply, environmental impact and vulernability/security. If there isn't a political will to seriously address this, then there needs to be a "grassroots" level will to push it forward.


The # 1 goal of big business is to make money. It doesn't matter which country you live in, money is what makes the world go round. Its a fact of life.


The problem with this sentiment is that the it assumes that this is right way to do things or that it HAS to be this way. Maybe for the forseeable future money will be the fuel for society, but we don't need to be driving SUV's, do we? ;)

I believe an understanding of oil companies is needed here...

High gas prices are a result of high crude oil prices. The amount of refineries that turn crude oil into gasoline doesn't matter if the price of the oil getting to the refineries is 2x what it should be - refineries are not going to sell gasoline cheaper then the crude oil they refine it from.

:cwm27:

Rotor makes some very valid points. to ilustrate the structure of oil companies further:
Most integrated oil co's are functionally two separate organizations: Upstream and Downstream. Upstream looks for and pulls the crude out of the ground, and sells it to refiners. Downstream buys crude, refines it, and sells it to the public.
When crude is high (like now), Upstream rakes it in, while Downstream's profits are comparably tiny. When Crude is low, it's the other way around.

So it seems, the oil company as a whole, wins out either way!! True, to an extent. And if you are convinced an oil company has built themselves up to ensure success, the beauty is that you are free (in a manner of speaking) to share in it by becoming a shareholder. those profits aren't all going into one pocket!!

But even through the high/low cycles of crude over the last couple of decades, we have seen virtually no new refineries built. Given the incredible regulatory roadblocks facing any proposed new refinery (to the point of making the considerable capital expense seem trivial), it's not surprising at all that there arent' any new ones. However we should not underestimate the continual expense reinvested into expanding/improving existing refineries and also upstream resources. This runs into the Billion$ per year for each of the likes of XOM, CVX, CP, RDShell. This activity is a big reason why the *unit* Profits of oil companies (net profit per $ of revenue) still lags waaay behind that of Banks, Pharmaceuticals, Software & Hardware, etc. Capital/operating expense is staggering, and stays high even in times of low gross profits.

.

Don't just throw something out there like that when you have even stated that the people here don't seem to understand how things work. Explain it. How do price controls cause shortages? Why doesn't regulation of health care costs cause shortages in Japan or Canada?
The things you need to know about supply and demand:

1) When prices rise, supply rises (suppliers want to get as much product out to benefit from the high price) and demand decreases (consumers unwilling to pay high prices).
2) When prices decrease, supply decreases (suppliers will not want to supply as much because they cannot make as much money and can make more money by investing elsewhere) and demand increases (consumers more willing to spend because it's cheaper).
3) When supply increases, prices decrease.
4) When demand increases, prices increase.
5) When supply decreases, prices increase.
6) When demand decreases, prices decrease.

It's all about supply and demand. When prices are held artificially low and not dictated by the market, consumer demand will be very high, but suppliers will not want to supply as much, causing shortages.

Interesting that you should bring up health care. I don't know much about Japan, but I do know that there is a severe shortage of health care in Canada. For instance, depending on where you live in Canada, it can take up to 6 months to get a simple procedure like an MRI done. The reason? Price controls cause shortages! Prices are held artificially low, causing demand to be very high. Everyone with a little headache wants to have an MRI done because it costs them nothing. Demand high, prices low = shortage. This is why many Canadians will come and pay for the procedure in the US rather than wait for it to happen in Canada.

The over-dependence on oil is a serious issue
You know how to decrease our dependence on oil? It's not by having the government subsidize or control prices. It's by letting the price of gas continue to rise. As the price rises, consumers will be less willing to pay for oil. People will buy more efficient cars and demand that alternative fuels be made available. Auto makers will respond by making more fuel efficient vehicles and developing new engine technologies to meet market demand. Other companies will respond by developing alternative fuel sources. With gas prices held low, there is no incentive for consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars, and there is no financial incentive for companies to spend big dollars to develop alternative fuel sources.

It's all simple economics. I don't understand why so many people (not just some of you in this thread) cannot understand these principles.

If you think the media, the tool of the elite is hellbent on frying a Bush porkchop, I'd like for you to watch a couple of short films. Goto http://video.google.com Search for two things 1st) "Painful Deceptions" 2nd) "Loose Change 2" Then PM me. I'd like to know what you think after that, so we can have a healthy debate.


i don't care about biased political drivel - i'm not a republican or democrat... you should try it at least once in your jaded life to be neutral as well

All the big auto manufactures are under increasing pressure from the public to develop and build more hybrid and gas efficient vehicles. These vehicles are probably going to become very popular in the near future. As more and more of these vehicles hit the road, oil companies are going to make less money from gasoline purchases. They have to do something to compensate. So, the more efficient vehicles get, the higher the gas prices will get.


A common misconception, if you don't understand economics. See my post above on supply and demand. As demand decreases, prices will decrease. If prices increased, that would cause demand to decrease even further.

Iran has nothing to do with it, although Big Oil would love for you to blame it on that.

Biggest scam ever - Crude oil stocks are building, yet farking oil companies refuse to build new refineries and blame blended gasoline and lack of refinery capacity for rising prices.

They are making a killing! Ex CEO of Exxon-Mobil was just awarded 660 million 'package.'

I'm pretty sure that nuking Iran would not help our gas prices though. You are right that Iran is not the true reason, but the market is reacting to what is now being called the "Iranian nuclear crisis" in the news.

There is more to the situation. GREED.


They are so deep in America's political scene that they are controlling America's economic legislation. They have to be or else the American gov't would break up their virtual monopoly over the oil refining industry.


....

I'd love to get much more in depth with this subject, but I'm just too tired.

Oh, I'd love to hear more about this...


There is a lack of refineries being built since the 70's because of 2 reasons...

1) The refining business makes no money. Actually, Exxonmobil lost money for years refining crude into gasoline. There are factors such as competition and wanting brand identity that prevents them from passing the loss on to consumers. Refining is a rough business to be in.

2) Couple making no money on refining with EPA restrictions that today require something in the neighborhood of $150 million enviromental catalyst system to make the air cleaner then any plant before it. If you don't want to believe it, I work at a plant that burns natural gas and is cleaner burning then 70% of the power plants in the country without even using an emissions system, however we were required to install a $60 million SCR because that wasn't good enough.


... I love the hatred towards "big oil"

- Exxonmobil is a US company paying US taxes and supplying a couple hundred thousand US employees with great paying jobs...

- Less then 10% of their crude oil comes from the middle East. The same can not be said from the foreign oil companies who we buy large amounts of gas from but fail to point the finger at.

- The chances are that XOM stock is a backbone of your 401k plan... and if not it should be since it pays great div. and the company is rock solid.

In the end...the little guy is the one who suffers the most, as always.

Higher gas = higher prices for everything

None of this would be such an issue or the impact would be a lot less painful if it wasn't for the fact that our wages continue to sag WAY behind.

Do you know what a CEO making 8 million a year accounts towards in numbers of employee's saleries? What this ONE man/woman get's paid equals (@ 35K a year) 228 employee saleries.

A company needs a good leader, no doubt, but I bet that if the company lost 228 employee's all at once they would be in a huge bind compared to losing one guy at the top.

In the end...we get paid trash which keeps us from buying more, so if the gas prices continue to go higher we will continue to buy less and the economy as a whole will suffer for it.

The oil industry has too much power and their prices effect too much of the other goods and services. I don't know enough to offer a solution but SUV's and sports cars might be only for the rich if things continue on this path.

If gas doubles...my love for sports cars might have to take a back seat to putting food on the table for my family considering that everything else will also become more expensive. At $6 per gallon ($160+ per month in gas) it no longer becomes reasonable to own a 18mpg sports car at my salary.

Meanwhile...I no longer can afford a home in FL, and it seems I'm getting pushed out of my home state. In NY, they are buying more and more old buildings and converting them into much more expensive condo's once again...making the average Joe move out of the city.

Time will tell....as always...with everything...

In conclusion...lol, I get paid trash and it's time to move out of FL....lol, but not funny at the same time.

You know how to decrease our dependence on oil? It's not by having the government subsidize or control prices. It's by letting the price of gas continue to rise. As the price rises, consumers will be less willing to pay for oil. People will buy more efficient cars and demand that alternative fuels be made available. Auto makers will respond by making more fuel efficient vehicles and developing new engine technologies to meet market demand. Other companies will respond by developing alternative fuel sources. With gas prices held low, there is no incentive for consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars, and there is no financial incentive for companies to spend big dollars to develop alternative fuel sources.

It's all simple economics. I don't understand why so many people (not just some of you in this thread) cannot understand these principles.


You are absolutely correct......that is how the price of gas will naturally decrease without any control by the gov't.......but it that how we want this to play out? I think the gov't has a responsibilty to the citizens. Price fixing is not the answer......but stricter CAFE requirements would be a start. Do you know the average mpg requirement in CAFE requirements has not changed since the 80's......it's still 21mpg, and it doesn't include vehicles over 8600lbs GVW. Do you know how many vehicles are over that 8600GVW these days......every 3/4 ton & 1 ton pick-up truck, Hummer H2, Excursion, Suburban, etc. All of these vehicles are exempt from CAFE requirements......which are only 21mpg anyway. In 2008 the rule changes to 24mpg......WOW!!! big fuckin deal. Why isn't CAFE like 30mpg or more by now and including all vehicles made by the company.

There are three things that can happen here:

1) the oil industry suffers profits for the greater good of the citizens of every nation.

2) the citizens of every nation continue to pay whatever the oil industry wants for gasoline until the economy goes into full recession.....possibly worse, thus decreasing the price of gas due to a severe drop in demand......or we get smart and stop buying gus guzzling vehicles.

3) the governments of the world do something about the problem by regulating everything:

- They can regulate the oil industry by setting minimum refining capacity regulations forcing the oil companies to invest in new refineries.

- The transportation industry (this includes car companies) through stronger legislation of CAFE requirements and speed limits.

- The end user (us) by taxing owners of vehicles based on fuel economy (this could be done with vehicle registration renewal costs that are based on fuel economy and not vehicle value.

CBD, I am not about to get political here, but I'll just say that if people aren't at least cognizant of the political links between many people in government positions around the globe today, and entities such as Unocal, The Carlyle Group, Exxon-Mobil and KBR, then it's a real shame.

They are not conspiratorial theories. They are provable facts.Okay, without getting political - Don't get me wrong - I won't claim there is no corruption - I'm sure there is corruption. I'd love to see the oil companies tax breaks pulled considering the bull market they are enjoying. I'd love to see the lobbyists in an honest line of work or in jail.

However, I think your point backs up my point really nicely -

Someone suggested the government should "do something",
I claim that's silly, it's not the government's place to interfere with the free market,
You bring up corruption between the government and said oil companies.

I'll try not to sound political one way or the other, but I gotta say I can't believe anyone would believe the government could step in, take control of one (or many) private businesses and do a better job.

i don't care about biased political drivel - i'm not a republican or democrat... you should try it at least once in your jaded life to be neutral as well
It's such a waste of time hurling insults and being rude and just shows how ineffective you are at arguing. You assume that I'm on one particular side of the fence, but I'm not. I haven't aligned myself with any political entity, nor do I plan on doing so. You imply in your response that you're neutral, but yet you refute my point with nothing more than your bias. How can you be ignorant of a collection of facts and evidence that is apolitical, nothing but objective and informative, but yet repudiate it with prejudice? If you're as neutral as you imply then you'll look at the evidence I'm presenting to you with an open mind. I'm not trying to sway you or coax you into an opinion. I want you to look at it, make your own mind, and then come back to me so we can discuss. Hell...you as well as anyone. Challenge me on what I'm presenting to you, without making these lame personal attacks.

Someone suggested the government should "do something", I claim that's silly, it's not the government's place to interfere with the free market, You bring up corruption between the government and said oil companies.

I'll try not to sound political one way or the other, but I gotta say I can't believe anyone would believe the government could step in, take control of one (or many) private businesses and do a better job.


CBD, usually I agree with most of what you say.....but on this issue I do not. Do you really think the gov't has no place in a free market economy? That would mean that you do not feel the gov't should impose any emissions laws on corporations, bankruptcy laws should be forgotten, work-place safety and OSHA are not needed, etc. I agree that price fixing is not the answer.......but that is not the only way gov't can be proactive in fuel price control. I am not a dreamer either, I know ALL big companies have politicians in their pocket.......but does that mean the average citizen is completely powerless? I hope not for our sake and that of our children.

You know how to decrease our dependence on oil? It's not by having the government subsidize or control prices. It's by letting the price of gas continue to rise. As the price rises, consumers will be less willing to pay for oil. People will buy more efficient cars and demand that alternative fuels be made available. Auto makers will respond by making more fuel efficient vehicles and developing new engine technologies to meet market demand. Other companies will respond by developing alternative fuel sources. With gas prices held low, there is no incentive for consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars, and there is no financial incentive for companies to spend big dollars to develop alternative fuel sources.That is indeed the cycle in a nutshell.

Don't forget the final advantage of the free market - if the other big oil companies really are gouging then there is opporunity for a new player to enter the market and undercut their prices and thus steal their profits.

Again, my experience is with electronics technology, not oil, but I know from first-hand witness my past employers will 'charge all the traffic will bear' until a competitor enters the market and begins to challenge them on price - then prices drop to some minimum cost + margin (or lower if one player makes a strategic attempt to gain more market share).

After reading some of the prices listed I guess the $3.09 for premium isn't too bad here in West Texas. This thread turned from a "how much are you paying for gas" to "lets discuss the evil oil industry"

I'll be the first to admit I don't know how the oil (#) industry works but I want to thank everyone who contributed to the thread so far. I learned something.

Thanks.

1) the oil industry suffers profits for the greater good of the citizens of every nation. I think we can all agree that this won't happen. In fact, it shouldn't happen. Businesses are in business to make money for investors. If a business changed its focus to keeping prices low 'for the greater good', then investors will pull their money from that business and put it into one that makes money.

2) the citizens of every nation continue to pay whatever the oil industry wants for gasoline until the economy goes into full recession.....possibly worse, thus decreasing the price of gas due to a severe drop in demand......or we get smart and stop buying gus guzzling vehicles. You paint a bit of a doom and gloom scenario, but in a free market, this is exactly what should happen. Gas prices go up, consumers buy less gas and start looking for alternatives, businesses step in and provide the alternatives. All free market economics. Nobody said it would be painless, however.


- They can regulate the oil industry by setting minimum refining capacity regulations forcing the oil companies to invest in new refineries. This does nothing to curb demand, which is the real reason why prices are going up. Plus, this is not the government's job.


- The transportation industry (this includes car companies) through stronger legislation of CAFE requirements and speed limits.
Again, it be better for gas prices to go up, forcing consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, and let the market dictate consumer demands then have the government tell consumers what they want.


- The end user (us) by taxing owners of vehicles based on fuel economy (this could be done with vehicle registration renewal costs that are based on fuel economy and not vehicle value.
This is already in place. It's called gasoline taxes. The less fuel efficient a vehicle, the more gas they have to buy, and the more taxes they pay.

The government, as always, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Environmentalist wackos (who have more influence over government than any business ever could) have successfully made it nearly impossible to run highly efficient diesel cars in this country. Diesels can easily attain 40+ mpg, but our overly-strict 'clean air' regulations don't allow us to drive diesels here. You want the government to do something? Start by getting them to allow us to drive diesels.

Man, this thread really took a turn for the worst. I suppose that's to be expected when talking about "big oil".

I have lots of opinions, but I'll keep that to a minimum. I just wanted to point out that economics isn't always as simple as supply and demand. Collusion, diseconomies of scale, and subsidies all affect price when dealing with an oligopoly like OPEC. I'm not going to argue or defend this point because I just don't care enough. Take an economics class or just grab a book from the library -- you'll probably find it interesting if you like to understand how "things" work.

At some point (which is going to be different for everyone), the rising cost of gas is going to force some changing behavior. Whether that being driving less, getting a more economical car, or carpooling something will have to be done. Many Americans don't have a very good understanding on budgeting or sacrifice and they'll continue to spend even when it's financially imprudent for them. In general, they're not able to stand back and objectively look at the pros and cons of anything they own and thus are terrible at modifying their behavior accordingly.

I for one hope that this current situation expedites the arrival of more hybrid technology because it'll be better for the environment in the long-run. Until then, the likelihood of me getting an 8 gets smaller and smaller.

CBD, usually I agree with most of what you say.....but on this issue I do not. Do you really think the gov't has no place in a free market economy? That would mean that you do not feel the gov't should impose any emissions laws on corporations, bankruptcy laws should be forgotten, work-place safety and OSHA are not needed, etc. I agree that price fixing is not the answer.......but that is not the only way gov't can be proactive in fuel price control.Ah, yes, please don't misunderstand me. I believe the government has *some* role. For instance -

The free market economy is vulnerable to abuse by monopolies - we have a governemnt agency which guards against that and I wouldn't want that check and balance removed.

The free market economy can allow the cost of environmental abuse to be hidden or deferred - the EPA attempts to prevent environmental damage.

I wouldn't dispute OSHA's role either.

What I meant was - the government should not be micro-managing businesses by 1) telling them their prices or 2) telling them their production volume. The government must act at the macro level outside the system, not become the system.

Mandating certain MPG to auto manufacturers: yes
Mandating particular engine designs: no

It's such a waste of time hurling insults and being rude and just shows how ineffective you are at arguing. You assume that I'm on one particular side of the fence, but I'm not. I haven't aligned myself with any political entity, nor do I plan on doing so. You imply in your response that you're neutral, but yet you refute my point with nothing more than your bias. How can you be ignorant of a collection of facts and evidence that is apolitical, nothing but objective and informative, but yet repudiate it with prejudice? If you're as neutral as you imply then you'll look at the evidence I'm presenting to you with an open mind. I'm not trying to sway you or coax you into an opinion. I want you to look at it, make your own mind, and then come back to me so we can discuss. Hell...you as well as anyone. Challenge me on what I'm presenting to you, without making these lame personal attacks.


I'm sorry, but 9/11 theories are not relevant at all in the conversation - please take it somewhere else :boring:

Man, this thread really took a turn for the worst.


Are you kidding? This is one of the best discussions we've had on here in a while! No leghumping RX-8 fanbois!

Ah, yes, please don't misunderstand me. I believe the government has *some* role. For instance -

The free market economy is vulnerable to abuse by monopolies - we have a governemnt agency which guards against that and I wouldn't want that check and balance removed.

The free market economy can allow the cost of environmental abuse to be hidden or deferred - the EPA attempts to prevent environmental damage.

I wouldn't dispute OSHA's role either.

What I meant was - the government should not be micro-managing businesses by 1) telling them their prices or 2) telling them their production volume. The government must act at the macro level outside the system, not become the system.

Mandating certain MPG to auto manufacturers: yes
Mandating particular engine designs: no

Exactly correct. Government already has many laws and regulations in place in regards to monopolies, price fixing, gas mileage standards, etc, etc. I have yet to see a good argument that states why we need more regulations and the benefit that we would receive from said regulations.

3) the governments of the world do something about the problem by regulating everything:

- They can regulate the oil industry by setting minimum refining capacity regulations forcing the oil companies to invest in new refineries.




again, all of the refining in the world will not bring down the price of the oil UPSTREAM of the refining - and your gass will not be cheaper until that happens

Collusion, diseconomies of scale, and subsidies all affect price when dealing with an oligopoly like OPEC. .


OPEC did not jack up the price of oil $7 this week - the speculators with help of the media did that all by themselves.

Its nice to blame the arrogant middle eastern crime bosses at OPEC, but its really up to them in this economic market anymore

Okay, without getting political - Don't get me wrong - I won't claim there is no corruption - I'm sure there is corruption.....but I gotta say I can't believe anyone would believe the government could step in, take control of one (or many) private businesses and do a better job.

I ask you to consider this. Let us assume for a moment, that much of what RotoRocket is saying is very provable and that many of these "links" are public record and well documented in various popular media sources. I understand that on the surface many branches/sects/divisions of the government appear to be inneffective and incompetent. But if you running an egregiously corrupt organization that had little chance of being ousted, wouldn't it be safer for you to play the "dumb role," AND more importantly not challenge any of the facts directly implicating you and your cohorts? Once you start finding the links and doing a little research, you'll quickly realize how well these people operate.

I ask you to consider this. Let us assume for a moment, that much of what RotoRocket is saying is very provable and that many of these "links" are public record and well documented in various popular media sources. I understand that on the surface many branches/sects/divisions of the government appear to be inneffective and incompetent. But if you running an egregiously corrupt organization that had little chance of being ousted, wouldn't it be safer for you to play the "dumb role," AND more importantly not challenge any of the facts directly implicating you and your cohorts? Once you start finding the links and doing a little research, you'll quickly realize how well these people operate.

Are you, by any chance, wearing a tin foil hat right now?

OPEC did not jack up the price of oil $7 this week - the speculators with help of the media did that all by themselves.

Its nice to blame the arrogant middle eastern crime bosses at OPEC, but its really up to them in this economic market anymore

Yeah, I know there are other factors at play. Commodities do notoriously well during periods of crisis or economic recession. I was just pointing out it's slightly more complicated than generic supply & demand curve.

If anyone's to blame it's probably the Swiss. They're a shady group of individuals. No one like the listen to the fact that Swiss cheese is made with gallons upon gallons or pure crude oil.

I think we can all agree that this won't happen. In fact, it shouldn't happen. Businesses are in business to make money for investors. If a business changed its focus to keeping prices low 'for the greater good', then investors will pull their money from that business and put it into one that makes money.

I know that won't happen.....however, investors only invest disposable income.....as the economy goes further into recession, some investors may cash-out just to be able to afford necessities. Don't underestimate the 'greater good' phenomenon.

You paint a bit of a doom and gloom scenario, but in a free market, this is exactly what should happen. Gas prices go up, consumers buy less gas and start looking for alternatives, businesses step in and provide the alternatives. All free market economics. Nobody said it would be painless, however.

That is not going to happen.....gas is like no other commodity. Our country depends on fuel no matter how expensive. Large increases in price will not cause large decreases in demand.....it will only hurt other industries as less and less disposable income is available. Most people cannot just start walking to work because gas is $4.....$5......$6 per gallon. But people can live without going to the movies, going to concerts, going to sporting events, buying new clothes, buying consumer electronics, etc.



This does nothing to curb demand, which is the real reason why prices are going up. Plus, this is not the government's job.

Eric, this could be the government's job......because 'people' do not know what is best for them. Americans are obsessed with 'power' and 'big'......car companies have built small economical cars for years, but that is not what Americans' want. The gov't could increase CAFE requirements to 35mpg for next year to force the auto companies to offer more fuel efficient autos of all sizes. That in itself would help our dependence on gas.

Again, it be better for gas prices to go up, forcing consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, and let the market dictate consumer demands then have the government tell consumers what they want.

Like I said before.....it wouldn't work that way. A price increase in gas only causes a increase in frustration......not a decrease in fuel consumption. The only decrease seen is in demand for all unnecessary consumer goods and services (movies, clothes, sporting events, restaurants, concerts, etc)

This is already in place. It's called gasoline taxes. The less fuel efficient a vehicle, the more gas they have to buy, and the more taxes they pay.

This is a good start.


The government, as always, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Environmentalist wackos (who have more influence over government than any business ever could) have successfully made it nearly impossible to run highly efficient diesel cars in this country. Diesels can easily attain 40+ mpg, but our overly-strict 'clean air' regulations don't allow us to drive diesels here. You want the government to do something? Start by getting them to allow us to drive diesels.

Can't drive diesels here??? That's funny, Ford sells an awful lot of Super Duty trucks with diesel engines.....as does GM and DCX. The gov't didn't stop companies from offering diesels in the US.....the technology did. Now and days diesels burn cleaner and run more quietly.....but that was not the case in the 80's when diesel cars failed in the US and left Americans with a bad taste in their mouth....literally. Back then diesels were loud, slow and stunk badly......Americans lost interest, AND GAS WAS CHEAP!!! I think that we will start to see more diesel offerings in the US in the future as the technology has advanced significantly. Diesels have been popular in Europe because gas has been expensive for a long time there......they needed to use efficient diesels, just like we will here in the US now that gas is so expensive.

I'm sorry, but 9/11 theories are not relevant at all in the conversation - please take it somewhere else :boring:
Do some research and connect the dots. It's more than revelant

Ah, yes, please don't misunderstand me. I believe the government has *some* role. For instance -

The free market economy is vulnerable to abuse by monopolies - we have a governemnt agency which guards against that and I wouldn't want that check and balance removed.

The free market economy can allow the cost of environmental abuse to be hidden or deferred - the EPA attempts to prevent environmental damage.

I wouldn't dispute OSHA's role either.

What I meant was - the government should not be micro-managing businesses by 1) telling them their prices or 2) telling them their production volume. The government must act at the macro level outside the system, not become the system.

Mandating certain MPG to auto manufacturers: yes
Mandating particular engine designs: no

That's more agreeable to me.

Are you kidding? This is one of the best discussions we've had on here in a while! No leghumping RX-8 fanbois!


I would agree with Eric on this point.....most of the thread topics are getting boring and redundant these days.......this is an issue that is extremely important and needs discussion. Many people have had great input into this conversation without being too argumentative.

Do some research and connect the dots. It's more than revelant

oh please tell me how 9/11 in any way relates to the recent price spike related to the completely trumped up story of nuclear war with Iran??? This ought to be halarious...

I would agree with Eric on this point.....most of the thread topics are getting boring and redundant these days.......this is an issue that is extremely important and needs discussion. Many people have had great input into this conversation without being too argumentative.

Meh, I suppose. But most people are just spitting out random information.

And I kinda like it when everyone gets all mad at each other. The funniest posts come out when people are angry by not only those involved, but the bystanders who make insightful and hilarious comments.

Then again, I'll just give it time -- this will degrade into a RX-8 vs. Evo/STi debate eventually.

again, all of the refining in the world will not bring down the price of the oil UPSTREAM of the refining - and your gass will not be cheaper until that happens

refining capacity is the bottleneck right now.....not the oil supply. Yes, oil supply is a long-term problem......but the price of gas includes more than the cost of a barrel of oil. Check out the various gas price websites for a breakdown of the cost of a gallon of gas. Right now the supply of refined gasoline is driving up the actual price at the pump (yearly average price).....not the supply of crude oil. The price flux of a barrel of crude oil only causes short-term price gouging at the pump.

I know that won't happen.....however, investors only invest disposable income.....as the economy goes further into recession, some investors may cash-out just to be able to afford necessities. Don't underestimate the 'greater good' phenomenon. Wrong. There is far more money being invested by the Warren Buffets of the world than by people who would need to take money out of their investments to pay for necessities.


That is not going to happen.....gas is like no other commodity. Our country depends on fuel no matter how expensive. Large increases in price will not cause large decreases in demand.....it will only hurt other industries as less and less disposable income is available. Most people cannot just start walking to work because gas is $4.....$5......$6 per gallon. But people can live without going to the movies, going to concerts, going to sporting events, buying new clothes, buying consumer electronics, etc. Wrong again. If gas gets to the point of pain, consumers WILL adapt and change their habits.


Eric, this could be the government's job......because 'people' do not know what is best for them. Americans are obsessed with 'power' and 'big'......car companies have built small economical cars for years, but that is not what Americans' want. The gov't could increase CAFE requirements to 35mpg for next year to force the auto companies to offer more fuel efficient autos. That in itself would help our dependence on gas. Ah, yes, the typical liberal credo...people are too stupid to know what is good for them, so I, the benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful liberal elite will tell them what is good for them. No thanks. If I want to buy a Viper that gets 10 mpg, why shouldn't I be allowed to? If CAFE standards were raised to 35mpg, we would see just about all sports cars wiped off the face of the planet. I don't want the government telling me what is best for myself.


Like I said before.....it wouldn't work that way. A price increase in gas only causes a increase in frustration......not a decrease in fuel consumption. The only decrease seen is in demand for all unnecessary consumer goods and services (movies, clothes, sporting events, restaurants, concerts, etc) At the point we are at now, you are correct. But that is because we have been spoiled with very low gas prices for a long time. We have not yet reached the point of pain, so all we have are a lot of complainers and no one actually changing their habits. When we reach the point of pain, people will begin to change their habits.


Can't drive diesels here??? That's funny, Ford sells an awful lot of Super Duty trucks with diesel engines.....as does GM and DCX. The gov't didn't stop companies from offering diesels in the US.....the technology did. Now and days diesels burn cleaner and run more quietly.....but that was not the case in the 80's when diesel cars failed in the US and left Americans with a bad taste in their mouth....literally. Back then diesels were loud, slow and stunk badly......Americans lost interest, AND GAS WAS CHEAP!!! I think that we will start to see more diesel offerings in the US in the future as the technology has advanced significantly. Diesels have been popular in Europe because gas has been expensive for a long time there......they needed to use efficient diesels, just like we will here in the US now that gas is so expensive.
Incorrect, again. Mercedes Benz only has one diesel car here, the E320 CDI. In the UK, they have 35. The E320 CDI gets 37 mpg. However, you cannot buy one in California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, or Vermont because of their overly strict environmental regulations. As it is, it barely meets federal EPA standards. Most European diesels cannot be imported here because they do not meet the overly-strict EPA guidelines.

Are you, by any chance, wearing a tin foil hat right now?
Man, Yo momma was wearin my tin foil hat last night!
:kiss:

Wrong. There is far more money being invested by the Warren Buffets of the world than by people who would need to take money out of their investments to pay for necessities.

Wrong again. If gas gets to the point of pain, consumers WILL adapt and change their habits.

But the habits that will change first will be the one's that have the greatest impact on the economy. The US has become a service economy and not an industrial one like we used to be. Think about every business and every job that exists solely on Americans having disposable income to spend. I recently started to think about how I would have to change my life if gas is $4 per gallon.....$5 per gallon. You know what was cut before gas for my car........cable tv, cellular phone, hi-speed internet connection, date nights with my wife, vacations with my family, etc. I work 25 miles from my home......I need to work to support my family.....I don't have a choice in limiting my fuel consumption right now. I would sell the RX8 but I would lose my ass on the sale since no one else wants 18mpg sports cars when gas is $4 per gallon.

Ah, yes, the typical liberal credo...people are too stupid to know what is good for them, so I, the benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful liberal elite will tell them what is good for them. No thanks. If I want to buy a Viper that gets 10 mpg, why shouldn't I be allowed to? If CAFE standards were raised to 35mpg, we would see just about all sports cars wiped off the face of the planet. I don't want the government telling me what is best for myself.

So you think that everyone should govern themselves because they know best? No one says the Dodge can't build the Viper when CAFE requirements are 35mpg......they just have to charge more for them to cover the fines they will get from the gov't. Porsche gets fined every year for not meeting CAFE requirements......did it stop them from building the cars they wanted to? DCX was fined in 2005 for not meeting the requirements......you still get a Hemi in half of their products. The point is, if you want to contribute to the problem.....then you should have to pay to play.....and that money should go to support research into alternate fuels.


Incorrect, again. Mercedes Benz only has one diesel car here, the E320 CDI. In the UK, they have 35. The E320 CDI gets 37 mpg. However, you cannot buy one in California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, or Vermont because of their overly strict environmental regulations. As it is, it barely meets federal EPA standards. Most European diesels cannot be imported here because they do not meet the overly-strict EPA guidelines.

I am not sure how I am incorrect. Just because Mercedes has other diesel powertrains does not mean they could sell them here in the US. Most of the people in the US that can afford Mercedes Benz autos are older and they lived through the first round of European diesel cars.......THEY WILL NOT BUY THEM! That is the reason they are not sold here. By the way, just because 5 states restrict most European diesel offerings based on emissions.....that does not prevent them from coming to the US (which is 50 states the last time I checked).

But the habits that will change first will be the one's that have the greatest impact on the economy. The US has become a service economy and not an industrial one like we used to be. Think about every business and every job that exists solely on Americans having disposable income to spend. I recently started to think about how I would have to change my life if gas is $4 per gallon.....$5 per gallon. You know what was cut before gas for my car........cable tv, cellular phone, hi-speed internet connection, date nights with my wife, vacations with my family, etc. I work 25 miles from my home......I need to work to support my family.....I don't have a choice in limiting my fuel consumption right now. I would sell the RX8 but I would lose my ass on the sale since no one else wants 18mpg sports cars when gas is $4 per gallon.
YOU may have no choice in limiting your fuel consumption, but I suspect that you are in the minority. In fact, I suspect that your statement is not true at all. You can't carpool? You can't move closer to work and bike it? A logical person would say, "Hmmm...gas is up to $6 a gallon, I should probably look into ways to cut my consumption" rather than, "Hmmm...gas is up to $6 a gallon, I better cut my internet connection, my cell phone, and vacations". I already know of people who are carpooling and I know people who have bought more gas efficient vehicles.


So you think that everyone should govern themselves because they know best? No one says the Dodge can't build the Viper when CAFE requirements are 35mpg......they just have to charge more for them to cover the fines they will get from the gov't. Porsche gets fined every year for not meeting CAFE requirements......did it stop them from building the cars they wanted to? DCX was fined in 2005 for not meeting the requirements......you still get a Hemi in half of their products. The point is, if you want to contribute to the problem.....then you should have to pay to play.....and that money should go to support research into alternate fuels. CAFE fines are based on how far from the standard you are. If the standard goes up to 35 mpg, most auto companies would be unable to pay the hefty fines levied on them. Again, it should be up to the market to dictate demand, not the government. You also fail to take into account the cost of getting to 35mpg. I suspect that that cost is much worse than costs from higher gas prices.


I am not sure how I am incorrect. Just because Mercedes has other diesel powertrains does not mean they could sell them here in the US. Most of the people in the US that can afford Mercedes Benz autos are older and they lived through the first round of European diesel cars.......THEY WILL NOT BUY THEM! That is the reason they are not sold here. By the way, just because 5 states restrict most European diesel offerings based on emissions.....that does not prevent them from coming to the US (which is 50 states the last time I checked).

First, the Mercedes was just my example. VW, Audi, BMW, Peugeot, and Citroen all also make diesels. There could be plenty of affordable diesels in the US.

Second, the 5 states mentioned are the ones that already have the ultra-strict emissions standards in place (note that they are all blue states). In 2007, all cars must meet the ultra strict Tier 2 exhaust emissions standards. No European diesels will be able to meet these standards. We already have plenty of very nice cars that are ~40 mpg, but our government, controlled by environmentalist wackos, won't let us have diesels.

I personally would snatch up a BMW 120d in an instant. 43 mpg, 250 ft/lb torque. Or, you could get the 118d, which gets over 50mpg. Thanks environmentalists!

YOU may have no choice in limiting your fuel consumption, but I suspect that you are in the minority. In fact, I suspect that your statement is not true at all. You can't carpool? You can't move closer to work and bike it? A logical person would say, "Hmmm...gas is up to $6 a gallon, I should probably look into ways to cut my consumption" rather than, "Hmmm...gas is up to $6 a gallon, I better cut my internet connection, my cell phone, and vacations". I already know of people who are carpooling and I know people who have bought more gas efficient vehicles.

I am a home owner with a family.....if that makes me in the minority then so be it. If I lived in an apartment then I would move closer to my office and bike it.....but that is not an option. Car pooling is also not an option since I have to drop-off and pick-up my kids at a moments notice.....which means I need to have my own transportation to and from work. I intend to purchase a more fuel efficient auto once the lease is up on this stupid RX8......like I said, I would sell it if I wasn't going to lose my ass on the deal.



CAFE fines are based on how far from the standard you are. If the standard goes up to 35 mpg, most auto companies would be unable to pay the hefty fines levied on them. Again, it should be up to the market to dictate demand, not the government. You also fail to take into account the cost of getting to 35mpg. I suspect that that cost is much worse than costs from higher gas prices.



The market already dictates demand......that is how we got into this mess in the first place. Allowing the current trend to run it's course is bound to throw us into a serious recession. Do you really think that there is a magical gas price that will cause everyone to stop buying sports cars, trucks and SUV's and get subcompacts instead?


First, the Mercedes was just my example. VW, Audi, BMW, Peugeot, and Citroen all also make diesels. There could be plenty of affordable diesels in the US.

It is not about affordable......it's about Americans wanting diesel engines. Why don't you write a letter to DCX and ask them why they don't offer more diesel powertrains in the US market. I bet their answer has more to do with demand in the US for diesels and less to do with emissions.


Second, the 5 states mentioned are the ones that already have the ultra-strict emissions standards in place (note that they are all blue states). In 2007, all cars must meet the ultra strict Tier 2 exhaust emissions standards. No European diesels will be able to meet these standards. We already have plenty of very nice cars that are ~40 mpg, but our government, controlled by environmentalist wackos, won't let us have diesels.


WOW!! You must think global warming does not really exist. Maybe you should pick-up a news paper once in a while and check out the extreme climate changes happening all over the world thanks to added carbon in the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels and extreme deforestation. There is nothing wrong with environmental responsibility......I am frustrated to here you bash environmental conservation legislation. If anything we need more not less.

but our government, controlled by environmentalist wackos

The proof in the pudding that sti eric, himself, is a whacko.

To believe that the Bush Administration is comprised of environmental 'whackos' is whacked.

Thanks for playing eric! Buh-Bye! :lach:

WOW!! You must think global warming does not really exist.

We didn't listen..we didn't listen!!

refining capacity is the bottleneck right now.....not the oil supply. Yes, oil supply is a long-term problem......but the price of gas includes more than the cost of a barrel of oil. Check out the various gas price websites for a breakdown of the cost of a gallon of gas. Right now the supply of refined gasoline is driving up the actual price at the pump (yearly average price).....not the supply of crude oil. The price flux of a barrel of crude oil only causes short-term price gouging at the pump.


hmm... http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html shows currently $1.59 worth of crude oil is in a gallon of gas making it the largest cost of a gallon of gas

hmm... http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html shows currently $1.59 worth of crude oil is in a gallon of gas making it the largest cost of a gallon of gas


I did not say that the cost of crude oil is not a large portion of the cost of gas.....just that their are other factors. Gas costs $2.89 which means $1.30 (2.89 - 1.59 = 1.30) of that cost has nothing to do with crude oil price.

The proof in the pudding that sti eric, himself, is a whacko.

To believe that the Bush Administration is comprised of environmental 'whackos' is whacked. I don't see where I said that the Bush adminstration is comprised of environmentalist wackos. Our government is not limited to the Bush administration. At the federal level, besides Congress, there is the EPA, etc, which IS controlled by environmentalist wackos. State and local governments are also affected.

I am a home owner with a family.....if that makes me in the minority then so be it. If I lived in an apartment then I would move closer to my office and bike it.....but that is not an option. Car pooling is also not an option... Is it that you "can't" or that you don't want to?

The market already dictates demand......that is how we got into this mess in the first place. Allowing the current trend to run it's course is bound to throw us into a serious recession. Do you really think that there is a magical gas price that will cause everyone to stop buying sports cars, trucks and SUV's and get subcompacts instead? It's not "magic", it's simple economics. You have even said it yourself in this thread. Just look at Europe. They have very high gas prices in Europe (thanks to socialism: 75% of the cost of gas is taxes). As a result, consumers there buy diesels. Over 50% of the cars sold in Europe (75% in Austria) are diesels. Why are you trying to deny the facts? As gas prices go up, it will force consumers to change their habits.

WOW!! You must think global warming does not really exist. Maybe you should pick-up a news paper once in a while and check out the extreme climate changes happening all over the world thanks to added carbon in the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels and extreme deforestation. There is nothing wrong with environmental responsibility......I am frustrated to here you bash environmental conservation legislation. If anything we need more not less.
Unfortunately, most environmentalism is junk science and not supported by factual data. 30 years ago, it was all the rage in the environmentalist community to predict that we had an upcoming ice age. Now, it's that global warming is going to destroy the planet.

I wouldn't "bash" environmental legislation if it made sense. The Tier 2 exhaust emissions legislation makes no sense and is absolute garbage. The standards are way too strict. I'm all for protecting the enviroment, at a reasonable cost. Environmentalist wackos that get this kind of legislation passed are idiots who "protect" the environment at all costs. If you are an enviromentalist, then you have absolutely no right to be complaining about high gas prices. We could have highly efficient diesel cars here if it wasn't for overly-strict environmental laws.

I don't see where I said that the Bush adminstration is comprised of environmentalist wackos...there is the EPA, etc, which IS controlled by environmentalist wackos.

Yeahhh...you do realize that the head of EPA is a presidentially appointed position, right?

Yeahhh...you do realize that the head of EPA is a presidentially appointed position, right?

You do realize that the EPA is a giant organization consisting of 18,000 employees who were not hired by the Bush Administration, right?

You do realize that the EPA is a giant organization consisting of 18,000 employees who were not hired by the Bush Administration, right?

Whatever. You said the EPA is "controlled by environmental wackos," when it's controlled by a Bush-appointee.

Veni, Vidi, Vici.

Whatever. You said the EPA is "controlled by environmental wackos," when it's controlled by a Bush-appointee.

Veni, Vidi, Vici.

It is LED by a Bush appointee, but it is CONTROLLED by environmentalist wackos, in much the same way you claim that oil company execs control the government.

Veni, Vidi, Vici.

Nos non audimus.

This has been an interesting thread, but once again some ugly people start tossing insults (as the children they are) and this just proves WHY we still can't have conversations like this.

It's sad, because I agree that the website has been pretty sucky for a while now (no new NEWS about the RX8, not much aftermarket stuff, and no fun conversations) but as long as childish people continue to insult each other the mod's or admin here wont change anything.

People, if you can't disagree without insulting someone or getting ugly...then don't even get into the conversation. If you can't be an adult...then stay out of topics like this.

I for one don't expect perfection in this place so I don't stress too much over what the GOBment is and aint doing. Garbage in...garbage out, and since there is no perfect govenment, people, or economic system then we all have to frankly DEAL with the cards we are delt. No...I'm not saying we shouldn't fight to make things better, but we shouldn't get to the point where all that is left is insulting the guy/gal next to us because they don't agree with us.

Relax people and grow up (those that are insulting others) no matter if you have the truth you will always find someone to tell you how wrong you are.

Insults only prove the weakness of your point.

paid $3.15 for 91 yesterday. cost $42 to fill up. :(

Is it that you "can't" or that you don't want to?

Actually, I would like to move......but the housing market here in MI is really scary right now. My neighbor has been trying to sell for 2 years now and they have a really nice home......in a nice area. It's the uncertainty in the auto industry driving the poor housing market for the moment. As soon as things get better, I plan to move.



It's not "magic", it's simple economics. You have even said it yourself in this thread. Just look at Europe. They have very high gas prices in Europe (thanks to socialism: 75% of the cost of gas is taxes). As a result, consumers there buy diesels. Over 50% of the cars sold in Europe (75% in Austria) are diesels. Why are you trying to deny the facts? As gas prices go up, it will force consumers to change their habits.

I personally would like to see more diesel offerings here in the US.....but not at the sake of increased emissions. Just because Europe is more lax on the subject does not make it ok. I think if Americans truely want diesels (and with sustained high gas price we just might), then auto companies will figure out how to offer the diesel powertrains within strict emission legislation set in the US.


Unfortunately, most environmentalism is junk science and not supported by factual data. 30 years ago, it was all the rage in the environmentalist community to predict that we had an upcoming ice age. Now, it's that global warming is going to destroy the planet.

I don't agree with you that 'most environmentalism' is junk science. I would agree that 'some' environmentalism is not realistic......but 'most' is a little harsh. Also, watch National Geographic once in while......global warming triggers an 'ice age'. This is a fact and it has happened multiple times throughout the history of the earth.


I wouldn't "bash" environmental legislation if it made sense. The Tier 2 exhaust emissions legislation makes no sense and is absolute garbage. The standards are way too strict. I'm all for protecting the enviroment, at a reasonable cost. Environmentalist wackos that get this kind of legislation passed are idiots who "protect" the environment at all costs. If you are an enviromentalist, then you have absolutely no right to be complaining about high gas prices. We could have highly efficient diesel cars here if it wasn't for overly-strict environmental laws.

I can understand your point of view regarding environmental legislation as a whole.....but why has Tier II tail pipe emission legislation got you this emotional? Has it stopped Ford from bringing a 475hp Mustang to the world? Has is stopped GM from bringing a 505hp Vette to the world? Meeting PZEV requirements is not that hard for the auto companies to do when they want to or have to through legislation.

^I think I'm going to pour gas every week now so I can "fake" the feeling of spending less...lol. I didn't really like $30...let alone $40.

^I think I'm going to pour gas every week now so I can "fake" the feeling of spending less...lol. I didn't really like $30...let alone $40.

I spent $40.27 to fill up on premium just yesterday.

I can almost guarantee that by July, that will probably be closer to $48.

For 13 gallons of gas.

I feel sorry for the poor bastards driving Suburbans with 40 gallon tanks.

Exactly correct. Government already has many laws and regulations in place in regards to monopolies, price fixing, gas mileage standards, etc, etc. I have yet to see a good argument that states why we need more regulations and the benefit that we would receive from said regulations.


When their is a will there is a way...

Necessity (more like greed) is the mother of invention...

Humans' adpatablility and inherent selfishness will always find away around "problems" if given enough time and enough motivation. These supposed regulations and restraints aren't so effective today. There is plenty of price fixing, collusion and monopolies that take place today without any government intervention or with only a "slap on the wrist."

It's rather naive to think that pure market economics is what's controlling energy prices (significant factor, yes. The only factor...).

Is it any suprise that the oil industry is sticking it to the citizens. You seem suprised? GWB cant serve another term. All of his cronies are Big Oil and they are raking in big profits at our expense. Don't expect anything to change, you voted for him now pay up bitches! :cwm27:

I personally would like to see more diesel offerings here in the US.....but not at the sake of increased emissions. Just because Europe is more lax on the subject does not make it ok. See, this is the wrong attitude to take. It is the attitude that all emissions have to be eliminated at all costs. This is completely unreasonable, yet it is the stance that the 'environmentalist wackos' that I speak of take. We have to weigh the costs vs the benefit. If a diesel engine has double the emissions of a conventional gas engine but gets double the mileage, then the emissions per mile driven work out to be the same.

I can understand your point of view regarding environmental legislation as a whole.....but why has Tier II tail pipe emission legislation got you this emotional?
I wouldn't say that I am emotional about it, just trying to bring out the facts. The fact is, the requirements for Tier 2 emissions are too strict. The costs outweigh the benefits.

The other problem for me is that all these people crying about high gas prices and crying about how the government is controlled by big oil are the same ones who wanted these ultra-strict emissions laws to be enacted. Environmentalists are the ones who have restricted power supply, restricted diesel engine production, restricted refineries from being built. Now these are the very same people who are crying about high gas prices. Well, what did you think was going to happen?

Has it stopped Ford from bringing a 475hp Mustang to the world? Has is stopped GM from bringing a 505hp Vette to the world? No, but it HAS stopped BMW, MB, Audi, VW, Opel (GM), etc from bringing highly efficient diesel autos over here. There hasn't been a demand for them up to this point, because with gas prices ridiculously low, Americans had no incentive for diesel autos. Now that gas prices are rising rapidly, we will NEED diesels autos to be brought over here. Unfortunately, these autos are now going to cost thousands of dollars more than they should in order to meet Tier 2 standards, as well as have decreased performance, heavier weight, etc.

^ Eric, I think you and I need to agree to disagree on this issue :)

Is it any suprise that the oil industry is sticking it to the citizens. You seem suprised? GWB cant serve another term. All of his cronies are Big Oil and they are raking in big profits at our expense. Don't expect anything to change, you voted for him now pay up bitches!

I voted Gore and then Kerry.....don't blame me.

Wrong. There is far more money being invested by the Warren Buffets of the world than by people who would need to take money out of their investments to pay for necessities.

More like investment is more in the hands of investment bankers, money managers and fund managers. Wonder what kind of affect $5 or $8/gallon gas will have on funds...


Wrong again. If gas gets to the point of pain, consumers WILL adapt and change their habits.

What makes you an expert on this one? Economics? Bah. You do know that these "numbers" disciplines aren't the be all authority. I'd say sociology and history show a pattern for Americans that seems to disagree with your statement.


At the point we are at now, you are correct. But that is because we have been spoiled with very low gas prices for a long time. We have not yet reached the point of pain, so all we have are a lot of complainers and no one actually changing their habits. When we reach the point of pain, people will begin to change their habits.

10-15 years is a long time?

What evidence do you have that there will be mass changes due to high energy costs? Even the 70's oil crisis is a poor measure because of several factors that make the situation now not really the same as then... other than rapidly rising gasoline prices.


Incorrect, again. Mercedes Benz only has one diesel car here, the E320 CDI. In the UK, they have 35. The E320 CDI gets 37 mpg. However, you cannot buy one in California, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, or Vermont because of their overly strict environmental regulations. As it is, it barely meets federal EPA standards. Most European diesels cannot be imported here because they do not meet the overly-strict EPA guidelines.

My view... idiots need to put off beating on automakers for tighter emissions on new cars at this point in time and focus their efforts on getting dirty, gas guzzling old cars off the road. While they're at it, things like power plants should be cleaned up more too.

My view... idiots need to put off beating on automakers for tighter emissions on new cars at this point in time and focus their efforts on getting dirty, gas guzzling old cars off the road. While they're at it, things like power plants should be cleaned up more too.


But what would the 13,000,000 illegal immigrants drive around then? :lol:

What makes you an expert on this one? Don't remember saying that I was an "expert". Just on here giving my opinions, like everyone else. However, I do believe that what we know about economics and what history has shown us is on my side.

What evidence do you have that there will be mass changes due to high energy costs? Besides what economic theory and history has shown us to be true...there is Europe. Gas costs up to $8 a gallon there. As a result, well over 50% of the cars sold there are energy efficient diesels which can get over 50 mpg. I dare say that if gas here got up to $8/gallon, there would be many, many, many people who would want to ditch their gas hog SUVs for diesels.

But what would the 13,000,000 illegal immigrants drive around then? :lol:

But those 13,000,000 immigrants have about 12 cars (vans) between them.

But those 13,000,000 immigrants have about 12 cars (vans) between them.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's more agreeable to me.Glad to hear it. I typically agree with your thinking too.

Don't remember saying that I was an "expert". Just on here giving my opinions, like everyone else. However, I do believe that what we know about economics and what history has shown us is on my side.

Uh, no it hasn't and that's why we're disagreeing. Economics may support your arguments (may... as things like collusion, gov't corruption, etc. etc. haven't been accounted for), however, history does not. Europe serves as a very poor example. The 70's oil crisis is a better fit and even then the differences between then and now make it hard to draw a strong conclusion.


Besides what economic theory and history has shown us to be true...there is Europe. Gas costs up to $8 a gallon there. As a result, well over 50% of the cars sold there are energy efficient diesels which can get over 50 mpg. I dare say that if gas here got up to $8/gallon, there would be many, many, many people who would want to ditch their gas hog SUVs for diesels.

Like I said... this is America not Europe. It don't work. The Japanese don't extensively drive diesel (mainly in SUV's only... not vans), but their gas costs are high... more than 70% taxes...

Uh, no it hasn't and that's why we're disagreeing. Economics may support your arguments (may... as things like collusion, gov't corruption, etc. etc. haven't been accounted for), however, history does not. Europe serves as a very poor example. The 70's oil crisis is a better fit and even then the differences between then and now make it hard to draw a strong conclusion. The 1973 oil crisis is a spectacular example of what I am talking about, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. As a direct result of rising gas prices (among other factors), US auto makers turned their focus from giant, big block land barges to more fuel efficient and front wheel drive vehicles. This is a great example of how the market reacts to consumer demands.

Also let it be known that the long lines at the gas stations in 1973 were a direct result of the price controls placed on gasoline at the time. Once again showing that price controls only cause shortages.

The 1973 oil crisis is a spectacular example of what I am talking about, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. As a direct result of rising gas prices (among other factors), US auto makers turned their focus from giant, big block land barges to more fuel efficient and front wheel drive vehicles. This is a great example of how the market reacts to consumer demands.

Also let it be known that the long lines at the gas stations in 1973 were a direct result of the price controls placed on gasoline at the time. Once again showing that price controls only cause shortages.


I'll give you the example of price controls during the oil crisis, but that's just about it.

US companies didn't change to small front wheel drive cars as a direct result of the oil crisis. They did because that is what the JAPANESE auto makers offered and THEIR cars were selling... initially because they were significantly more fuel efficient and cheap.

Fast forward to 2006... outside of the Korean makers, there are no "new" or "low cost" auto makers out there to offer a better machine for us. Technologies that may or do increase fuel economy only results in a higher sticker for the car. 6 of one, half dozen of another? Alternative fuels, etc... would cost us enormous amount per vehicle. Ever noticed the difference in society between then and now? That's something...

Someone cue the Segway, again.

450mpg equivalent, supposedly, with the Li-ion batteries.

US companies didn't change to small front wheel drive cars as a direct result of the oil crisis. They did because that is what the JAPANESE auto makers offered and THEIR cars were selling... initially because they were significantly more fuel efficient and cheap. I get where you're trying to go here. First you are arguing with me, now it seems like you are agreeing. Here, you are saying the exact same thing that I am...the market (consumers) dictated the move from large gas guzzlers to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. The Japanese cars were selling because they were small and fuel efficient. This is what consumers wanted, so that is what the market provided. Simple economics. Same thing will happen with rising gas prices now.

Fast forward to 2006... outside of the Korean makers, there are no "new" or "low cost" auto makers out there to offer a better machine for us. Technologies that may or do increase fuel economy only results in a higher sticker for the car. 6 of one, half dozen of another? Alternative fuels, etc... would cost us enormous amount per vehicle. Ever noticed the difference in society between then and now? That's something... Again, you are basically saying the same thing that I have been saying. Alternative vehicles cost more money than conventional gas vehicles. Since gas has been so cheap, there has been no incentive for consumers to buy or manufacturers to produce vehicles which use alternative fuel sources.

However, I disagree with "Technologies that may or do increase fuel economy only results in a higher sticker for the car." Diesel technology is a technology that we have right now, and on average costs marginally more than a gas engine (usually in the $100-$1000 range). In the UK, a BMW 118i starts at 17,800 and gets 36 mpg, while a 118d starts at 17,885 and gets 50+ mpg.

^ what does a gallon of diesel cost compared to a gallon of 87 octane in the UK? Is the difference relatively the same as here in the US?

The new Prius is rumored to make over 100mpg and be quicker than the current model, at that rate it WILL be worth it if you're looking to save money.

On a side note, premium is up to 3.10 in my area today.

my next car would probably have decent economy thanks to gas prices. rx8 may be a daily driver no more... maybe auto-x it.

I did not say that the cost of crude oil is not a large portion of the cost of gas.....just that their are other factors. Gas costs $2.89 which means $1.30 (2.89 - 1.59 = 1.30) of that cost has nothing to do with crude oil price.

of that $1.30 left over, only 64 cents per gallon is a variable cost as the rest is a fixed tax.

That 64 cents includes the cost of refining (which is proportional to fuel costs) and profits which are effected by the lack of refineries... if you take a look back in history over 5 years, the gas prices have been increased over $1 per gallon because of crude oil costs compared to 50 cents for the variable refining costs. Bottom line is its still the crude prices killing us.

Is it any suprise that the oil industry is sticking it to the citizens. You seem suprised? GWB cant serve another term. All of his cronies are Big Oil and they are raking in big profits at our expense. Don't expect anything to change, you voted for him now pay up bitches! :cwm27:

show me where "big oil" is screwing people.

over 80% of Exxonmobil's profits last year was a direct result of profit made from pulling crude out of the ground for $20/barrel and selling at the market dictated price of $60+/barrel. They did not set the rediculous price, that is what the worldwide stock market is dictating the price of oil is... nothing they can do about it.

As per my above post, the profits of turning crude oil into gasoline is zilch - that is the place they can stick it to the consumer and they absolutely are not.


So please, show me where "Big Oil" is sticking it to citizens with something called PROOF instead of meaningless accusations.

last year, the most i paid was $4.09 for premium... right now its about $3.19-29 average where i live.

I get where you're trying to go here. First you are arguing with me, now it seems like you are agreeing. Here, you are saying the exact same thing that I am...the market (consumers) dictated the move from large gas guzzlers to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. The Japanese cars were selling because they were small and fuel efficient. This is what consumers wanted, so that is what the market provided. Simple economics. Same thing will happen with rising gas prices now.

Well... yes and no. It's more like I think you are making a "causal fallacy" (http://www.uni-trier.de/~schaefew/fallacies.htm#causal). While the two situations may resemble each other, the exact causes... socio-political environment, economy, techonology and such are different. It is more complicated than a mere A + B = C.


Again, you are basically saying the same thing that I have been saying. Alternative vehicles cost more money than conventional gas vehicles. Since gas has been so cheap, there has been no incentive for consumers to buy or manufacturers to produce vehicles which use alternative fuel sources.

No more like I am saying that hybrid vehicles aren't efficient enough now to be worth the extra money they cost. A Civic Hybrid vs Civic high fuel economy model using VTEC... the non-hybrid not only gets better gas mileage, but costs less too. Alternative fuels are caught in a chicken and egg situation... made even worse with oil companies having no real incentive to invest in pushing it forward (especially with record high gas prices)... and they are our current fueling infrastructure. Add in the higher cost, shorter range, storage issues and such with most of them...


However, I disagree with "Technologies that may or do increase fuel economy only results in a higher sticker for the car." Diesel technology is a technology that we have right now, and on average costs marginally more than a gas engine (usually in the $100-$1000 range). In the UK, a BMW 118i starts at 17,800 and gets 36 mpg, while a 118d starts at 17,885 and gets 50+ mpg.

Uh, strawman argument.

A diesel engine is not a technology that increases fuel economy. It's an alternative fuel. Technology that increase fuel economy are things like hybrid cars... I am refering to improving the efficiency of gasoline powered internal combustion engines.

I've never argued against diesels here... making this yet again another strawman. However, I will say that they are more expensive, heavier (crash protection issues), and historically slow performers. Yes, recent models from particuarly MB are showing pretty decent performance now, but we'll see how that works out when one tries to apply it to cars like a Civic Si.

Also... I agree with Bascho on the emissions issue with diesels. I don't see any reason to allow them to blow smog producing exhaust just in the name of savings a few dollars. I'm no major envrionmentalist, but I do also like clean air and hate hot weather.

You also haven't addressed the fact that then isn't now. The yen isn't at the fixed exchange rate of $1 USD = 360 yen anymore. Bretton Woods system collapsing in 1971, being replaced by the Plaza Accord of 1985. The change of the US economy from manufacturing based to service based. The growth of the overal size of the US economy since 1970. The changes in the international monetary/financial system since 1970 and near impossiblity of governments causing lasting affects on the exchange rate by buying/selling currency. There are a host of other things that can be named as well...

AAAAND... as I mentioned previously, the Japanese don't extensively drive diesel and gas is pretty damn expensive here. No everyone doesn't ride the train... if they did traffic would be much better and there are no trains to take to places if you don't live in Tokyo. Even in nearby Saitama prefecture you need a car. You can train to work and back, but after that you need a car to go shopping, etc. So again... like I said... Europe is not a valid example/parallel to use here. America is NOT Europe for many reasons and even the 1973 oil crisis is not a perfect match for the present situation. Japan is a closer match for comparison to Europe... social services, taxes, land space, cost of living, energy costs... but still they don't extensively use diesel.

drove around and I think Gas prices in NYC has been what, I think over the 3.00 mark since a week ago. Last I checked (just before, got home not long ago) was 3.15 at a local BP and 3.10 at mobil. (Premium, of course)

Sigh .... Lets see.

Diesel is not an answer, STI_Eric. yes its one of the way to increase fuel economy simply because it burns slower, since most of the Diesel , I think you can pretty much say its "left overs" when they make Gasoline. They produce alot more SMOG than Gasoline powered cars. I dont really care about Black smoke but I do care about the Ice melting all over the place.

I see more and more commericals from GM/Ford, both trying to tell people that

"Use Ethanol, AKA E85 ! Flex Fuel blah blah blah"

As far as I know theres NO gas station can pump E85, at least in New York City. and funny thing is most people still dont know WTF is E85/Ethanol, they wonder wtf is Ethanol why the pump saids theres MAX 10% added to the fuel?

some even said "You cant put Corn Oil into cars! its going to mess it up !" sigh ...

Yes some GM/Ford models can use Flex Fuel, but they dont even mention it much at the showroom. and most of the Auto companies out there does NOT have any rebates/incentives on Hybird cars. AND they usually cost maybe a few K more than their Gasoline only buddies. and those few K can buy u quite alot of gas. and dont forget, Hybird car's reliability ..... is unknown at this time. I have a feeling that we're going to see alot of "dead" Prius maybe 2-3 years from now. and most people would scream because its going to cost like 4 thousand bucks to replace the batteries.

What they need to do now is, come up with something that can use less fuel while making more power. more E85. or at least tell people that you can get Tax cut if you buy a Hybird/Flew Fuel auto(most people dont even know!)

We saw some nondescript police cruiser type car (I think it was a Grand Marquis) sitting on a dealer lot that was a flex fuel vehicle. Seeing the badge piqued my interest and I went to look at the window sticker. Sweet baby Jesus that thing was expensive! It was just over $55,000 if I recall correctly. Whoever is willing to pay $55k for that caliber of car is absolutely batshit insane. I could be wrong about that price, but I do know that it was definitely shockingly expensive for that car.

You also haven't addressed the fact that then isn't now. You keep bringing this up, but it is an entirely bogus argument. If we said this about every situation, then we would never learn from history. History tells us that we will adapt to the situations presented to us. That means that if gas prices continue to rise, we will adapt and find some way to compensate. History also tells us that having the government step in "do something" is not the answer.

You don't seem to be arguing in favor of anything in particular, you are just against whatever I have to say. What is your stance? I say let the market take care of high gas prices. You say...?

Also... I agree with Bascho on the emissions issue with diesels. Again, it is completely idiotic to say that we have to sacrifice everything for the environment. We have to weigh the costs vs the benefits. For instance, the Kyoto Protocol, in the year that it has been enacted, has cost the world approximately $176 trillion. And what has it achieved? By 2050, global temperatures will be lowered by an undetectable 0.0018 degrees Celsius. Just another example of worthles environmental legislation that does nothing but cost money.

Diesel is not an answer, STI_Eric. Wrong. Diesel IS an answer. Temporarily. While we are developing new techonologies, diesel engines are a technology we can use right now to increase gas mileage. It is not a long-term solution because it still uses petroleum-based fuel to run, but it IS a viable short-term solution.

I dont really care about Black smoke but I do care about the Ice melting all over the place. How do you feel about catalytic converters, which actually increase the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by your car?

You know, it wasn't that long ago (less than 10 years ago), that 87 octane was less than a dollar a gallon. Or at least that's what it was in Baytown, TX.

So, I will ask the same tired question I always ask in oil threads. And no one will answer. But here it is anyway, sorry if I sound like a broken record.

"If gas prices are high because of oil company greed, then why were they so outrageously cheap a few years ago? Were oil companies generous then?"

Any answer to that one? Anybody?

:crickets chirping:

I remember putting in $1.37 low octane when I first got my RX-8. No way was I gonna use 93 at $1.67 are you kidding me? Ha ha. That wasn't quite three years ago; so what happened?

* The Iraq war. "Duh". Whether you support it or not, we shouldn't be surprised that it raised gas prices--after all, the same thing happened in 1991!

* The buildup to a potential Iran war, complete with rumors of bunker nuking. Whether you support it or not, we shouldn't be surprised that it raised gas prices--after all, the same thing happened in 1991!

* China and India. They are building up bigtime, and need commodities. It isn't just gasoline. It's steel too, and copper, and gold, and other stuff. I guess we need to investigate big steel while we're at it?

* No new refineries in 20+ years. This can't possibly help. Thanks, EPA.

* Dozens of different gas formulations for different regions. Thanks, EPA.

* Katrina. Are all the refineries back online? I haven't kept up with it.

* A dirty little secret: taxes aren't the only way we pay for our gigantic bloated pig of a federal government. Another way is to get the federal reserve to crank up the printing press (so to speak). Thus you get a housing bubble as well, due to the way the money creation process drives down the cost of a mortgage. The beauty of this method instead of taxes is, there isn't one person in 1,000 who knows what's going on. So people blame big oil, or capitalism, or ethnic minorities, or the weather--instead of government. Then when the politicians blame the scapegoats for high prices, they can get votes, more regulations, more funding, and more power.

There IS actually an upside to high fossil fuel prices. It encourages alternative technology. Venture capital for advanced solar, wind, and battery tech is the hot new thing. Check out www.freeenergynews.com for examples (granted, lots of cranky stuff there, but lots of legitimate mainstream stuff too)

^ Makes sense to me. I really hope all the attention and focus on alternative fuels is finally the push we need to make a real change. I for one, am for the environment. I don't give two craps if global warming is real or not -- I just don't like the smell of smog. Alternative energy seems like a good way to help alleviate the stinkiness.

All we need to do is somehow turn environmentalism into a competition that the US can try to win. If having the lowest emissions per capita was a sport, we'd just recruit all the hot shot scientists from other countries and make montages with dramatic music and voiceovers of us stepping up to win the "game". I'm tearing up just thinking about it. USA! USA!

Haha Saturn, your posts always crack me up. I read through this thread and kinda chuckled as words were exchanged, egos were crushed, and possibly heart attacks were had. I agree we all need to try to cut back on fuel usage, and I agree we need to find some better solutions to gasoline. Here's hoping we find them.

Where is our 'cost-of-gas-adjusted-for-inflation' chart. That usually calms everyone down when they see they're still paying effectively less for gas then their parents and grandparents did before them.Hey, I ran across one by accident today. Anyone have a better one?

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

YOU may have no choice in limiting your fuel consumption, but I suspect that you are in the minority. In fact, I suspect that your statement is not true at all. You can't carpool? You can't move closer to work and bike it? A logical person would say, "Hmmm...gas is up to $6 a gallon, I should probably look into ways to cut my consumption" rather than, "Hmmm...gas is up to $6 a gallon, I better cut my internet connection, my cell phone, and vacations". I already know of people who are carpooling and I know people who have bought more gas efficient vehicles.

I guess I'm a minority here, too, then. I have to drive 70 miles round trip for work (two full-time jobs). I would take the bus but there is no time for it. It takes 2 hours with the express buses, which don't happen to run to fit my work hours, which I cannot change. (Public transporation also significantly increased rates and cut routes). If I move closer to work, my rent/utilities bill would more than double for less than half the space of my current living situation, which, at least for awhile is more of a burden than the extra gas expenses.

There aren't a lot of significant things I could give up except possibly my cell phone, which I actually need so that is out. The majority of all my expenses are massive medical bills. I also don't have the luxury of carpooling, particularly since my schedule is so tight I can't really depend on anyone else to get me where I needed to go within my exact time frame anyway and I don't happen to live in the city where it would be easier to find a carpool route.

My wages were more than just stagnant. They decreased by more than 60% from last year!!! In fact, they went down quite a bit below my starting pay right out of school with no experience six years ago. Plus, the company cut all kinds of other perks we used to get. This forced me to find new work which means 40 hours a week at a hospital and 32 hours a week at another hospital, which, fortunately is not costing me extra mileage with the change in jobs, just less sleep with commute times. The "new" second job I will be starting soon happens to be on the way home from the first "new" job.

The only thing I can say is that at least now I have great health benefits with virtually no cost to them so I shouldn't be acquiring additional medical bills.

I voted Gore and then Kerry.....don't blame me.

:kiss:

I moved from 3 miles away to 1.5 miles away by buying a house and bought a motorcycle and a bicycle.

Now, if gas ever gets to $150 a gallon, I think i'll make my $$ back in about 20 years.

I guess I'm a minority here, too, then. I have to drive 70 miles round trip for work (two full-time jobs). I would take the bus but there is no time for it. It takes 2 hours with the express buses, which don't happen to run to fit my work hours, which I cannot change. (Public transporation also significantly increased rates and cut routes). If I move closer to work, my rent/utilities bill would more than double for less than half the space of my current living situation, which, at least for awhile is more of a burden than the extra gas expenses.

There aren't a lot of significant things I could give up except possibly my cell phone, which I actually need so that is out. The majority of all my expenses are massive medical bills. I also don't have the luxury of carpooling, particularly since my schedule is so tight I can't really depend on anyone else to get me where I needed to go within my exact time frame anyway and I don't happen to live in the city where it would be easier to find a carpool route.

My wages were more than just stagnant. They decreased by more than 60% from last year!!! In fact, they went down quite a bit below my starting pay right out of school with no experience six years ago. Plus, the company cut all kinds of other perks we used to get. This forced me to find new work which means 40 hours a week at a hospital and 32 hours a week at another hospital, which, fortunately is not costing me extra mileage with the change in jobs, just less sleep with commute times. The "new" second job I will be starting soon happens to be on the way home from the first "new" job.

The only thing I can say is that at least now I have great health benefits with virtually no cost to them so I shouldn't be acquiring additional medical bills.

You see, the thing is, I have no sympathy for people who make stupid decisions. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, have to take a second job, have thousands of dollars in medical bills, and have to drive 70 miles for work every day yet go out and pay $30K+ for an RX-8 that gets 15mpg and then complain about gas prices, I have no sympathy since you made all these choices yourself. If gas prices really concerned you, you would've bought something more economical.

:kiss:

:naughty:

You see, the thing is, I have no sympathy for people who make stupid decisions. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, have to take a second job, have thousands of dollars in medical bills, and have to drive 70 miles for work every day yet go out and pay $30K+ for an RX-8 that gets 15mpg and then complain about gas prices, I have no sympathy since you made all these choices yourself. If gas prices really concerned you, you would've bought something more economical.


Gee, it's really my fault that I ended up with major medical bills from an accident and then that my current company restructured and cut my pay so significantly (after I bought my car) and are working at ways to cut us even further, and now to get rid of the car would cost me another large chunk of change. The only places I could find in my area that guarantee me a wage for my same chosen profession (which pays a lot more than anything else I could find) happen to be that far from my house since I don't live in a city or anything (rural area). I'm not complaining about my mileage anyway. I have been getting 19.5-23.5 MPG so I'm not doing that terribly. Besides that, I was working totally and exclusively at home when I made this decision. I would only have gone somewhere about once a week. It was never a concern. You know what they say, shit happens. I dealt with it. Working these two jobs is not going to cost me anymore in gas than just working one of them did, since the other one is directly on the way home, and only requires about two extra miles added to my trip on each work day. Gee, the horror. :rolleyes:

I also wasn't living paycheck to paycheck when I made my decisions. I was actually saving money. Then I had to spend a good chunk of savings when my company pulled all their crap on us "because they could" was the official answer. Now I specifically chose to work two jobs so I can pay down as much as posible as fast as possible so I can get ahead. I have figured out how to get buy on the wage of one job but I don't want to just remain treading water, I want out and above, hence why I chose specifically to get a second job outside the house and get rid of the one where I get screwed over repeatedly every other month.

I could either figure out a way to keep what I already had without screwing over my credit and everything else that would be hurting me for a long time, or I could find an additional source of income to fix my problem. That is what I chose, as I thought it was better in the long run and would be of most immediate and long-term benefit. I'm enjoying and it is saving me a lot of stress when they decide to raise rates on bills or anything else and then I have to go into a panic and try to figure out how to pay for things. This way I can save money and be prepared for any future disasters that may be thrown at me. I am very resilient and adaptable. :)

I don't care to have sympathy from people like you (should be empathy in correct usage) anyway. Great example of that Christian education you got, huh? :rolleyes:

I calculated my income and obligations and how much gas I use per week at a lower MPG than I have been getting (plus adding in extra mileage if I go a lot of places on my off days) and I could still afford to pay $6.50 a gallon before I would start being squeezed. If it hits $4 a gallon, of course I'm going to start bitching but I can still afford to pay for it.

I'm not complaining about my mileage anyway.


Then why are you posting in here about not being able to take the bus or give up your cell phone?

I am saying this is the only thing I could reasonably hope to give up expense wise if it came to that. Also, that public transportation isn't so great for everyone with limited schedules and locations and it's funny because Portland rates so highly with its public transportation services. It used to be better but high prices have caused them to cut some buses that run and change routes a little bit, which makes it more difficult for other people. I used to be able to take the bus to where I work at in approximately one hour and now it is twice that.

It was my intention to point out that he is not specifically the "minority" when it comes to having to drive long distances and such to get to and from work and accommodate scheduling of his obligations. There is a place I would love to live right now that isn't too far from my work, maybe two miles at most. At this time there are no openings and the monthly expenses are a little high at $1200, although that does include the electricity and other utilities, so that would triple my current expenses unless I get roomates, which is basically the arrangment I have now.

My job will be moving locations sometime this summer from being directly downtown at the hospital to another location about five miles closer to me on the other side of the river so I will be saving mileage that way.

If the price of other "necessities" take a signfiicant jump in price then it will make my budget tighter again, assuming I don't get the cost of living increases through work, which they say they give out every year, which, at this time, I think equates to 43 cents an hour they are posting as the cost of living increase due in June. :rofl: It's better than nothing, though! My other job just cut wages instead of increasing them.

To me it's not the hugest deal budget wise right now, although I don't like the fact that prices are rising so fast and the oil companies are posting record profits and the like for similar volumes of product. Around me prices seem to go up on average 6-7 cent increment jumps every two to three days. I just know a lot of people that had such a hard time making it when gas was $2 a gallon. I worry about people like that and I'm glad that I have so far managed to escape being in that boat.

I moved from 3 miles away to 1.5 miles away by buying a house and bought a motorcycle and a bicycle.

Now, if gas ever gets to $150 a gallon, I think i'll make my $$ back in about 20 years.

:rofl: