p.s. My biggest disappointment with the recent showboating in Congress was that the oil execs didn't pull out a simple pie chart: If gas costs $4/gallon, and crude costs $3/gallon, how much is left for taxes, shipping, refining, and selling? Not much!
You know, that is an interesting question....if their margin of profit per barrel of crude is so slim, why didn't they show Congress the books that show this?
One possible answer: It's possible that they didn't do so because they were under oath and knew those numbers to be false. All it takes is one whistleblower buried somewhere and all of a sudden CEOs are facing charges.
Actually I heard a discussion that the price of gas is subsidized by the government and is held artificially low in China and another country... India? Venezuela? And if the price there is allowed to rise, the demand will lessen and the price of oil will drop worldwide. I.e., the demand is artificially high due to cheap gas. That demand is affecting our right to the oil at a more reasonable price.
"possible that they didn't do so because they were under oath and knew those numbers to be false. All it takes is one whistleblower buried somewhere and all of a sudden CEOs are facing charges. "
Which numbers are false? You don't think there are 100 eager-beaver politicians and lawyers who would jump on this? Please provide specifics.
So let me get this straight? You think the oil companies get to keep the money for the oil and not the governments? Saudi Arabia and Dubai are just letting the oil companies take the oil for a few $'s?
Or you think the oil companies are running some sort of under-the-table operation only reporting part of their businesses? And they're putting tons of cash in Swiss banks? and under their mattresses?
And you think the IRS is stupid enough not to know what's going on? Oh I forgot the conspiracy that the oil companies have paid off Bush and the Congress, and the IRS is infiltrated with tons of oil company moles.
If crude is $3 and gas is $4 and all the other stuff is basically making their profits 10 cents for every gallon of gas sold (which incidentally is still a LOT of money) then they could simply show Congress the valid numbers as part of their testimony.
However, if they were to display those numbers as part of their testimony and later it were to come out that those numbers were false, there would be charges...lying under oath is a crime. I was advancing that as a potential reason why the executives didn't "just display a pie chart" when they were testifying before Congress. And it may also explain why some eager-beaver politicians ARE jumping...the execs were unwilling to provide specifics under oath.
Again, I do not have proof of this, but it's a valid possible explanation. Most companies have more than one set of books you know...the real ones and the ones for people outside the company to see. And they always get in trouble when the real ones somehow get out. :shades:
One possible answer: It's possible that they didn't do so because they were under oath and knew those numbers to be false.
The scenario of a CEO or CFO going to jail could happen any day; it doesn't require being in front of Congress for that to happen. Read-up on the Sarbannes-Oxley Act. I work at a smaller manufacturing company and we're always doing inventories, getting audits, and managers have to verify the bill-of-materials, all under the threat of jail-time for any willful misrepresentation.
Companies the size of the oil companies would be under pretty heavy scrutiny, and it's fairly hard to hide refineries or millions of gallons of oil, regularly.
Or you think the oil companies are running some sort of under-the-table operation only reporting part of their businesses? And they're putting tons of cash is Swiss banks? and under their mattresses?
Entirely possible. Don't know how likely, mind you, but it would not be the first time. How many corporate executives have been suspected/investigated/charged/convicted lately? And don't tell me Ken Lay doesn't count just because he died before they could sentence him (even though that's technically true, which just goes to show what a WONDERFUL legal system we have...).
Well as you said - it only takes 1 whistle-blower, and given the large number of potential whistle-blowers and the last 35 years that oil companies have been accused, the odds would be rather astronomical not to have got caught. The Enron - Ken Lay story was slightly different then what we're talking about here, but it does illustrate that a large financial scheme will collapse within a few years, no matter how skilled and intricate. This thus supports that the oil companies do not have some large, unified conspiracy that has lasted from 1973.
I think people ought to not focus so much on the profits that the oil companies have made, but question why the government takes at least 2X the profit in tax. Instead of Exxon giving back their $40B profit, why don't we tell the government to let them keep that, and drop the $80B tax on Exxon, and make Exxon then drop the price accordingly? And how much tax does the government take from the other oil companies, which we the consumer eventually pay for.
All the taxes every corporation pays, eventually is paid by you or I in the end.
Instead of Exxon giving back their $40B profit, why don't we tell the government to let them keep that, and drop the $80B tax on Exxon, and make Exxon then drop the price accordingly?
Not a bad idea except for one problem: now that we've proven we'll pay this much, what do you think the chances are of Exxon dropping prices versus just keeping them where they are and pocketing the $80 billion, perhaps in wonderful new executive compensation parachutes...er, packages? :shades:
"The scenario of a CEO or CFO going to jail could happen any day; it doesn't require being in front of Congress for that to happen. Read-up on the Sarbannes-Oxley Act."
You are exactly right regarding Sarbannes. Companies do the equivalent of testifying every time they release a financial report. If they are found to have lied on the report, they (the president and any others proven to have contributed to the lie) go to jail. Period.
If crude is $3 and gas is $4 and all the other stuff is basically making their profits 10 cents for every gallon of gas sold (which incidentally is still a LOT of money) then they could simply show Congress the valid numbers as part of their testimony
Exactly what do you think is false about these numbers? Exxon/Mobil doesn't make much money selling gasoline. They make far more selling oil so the fact that the profit margin on gasoline sales is relatively small is totally irrelevant. There's a lot of profit in selling $130/barrel oil and it probably does come out to around $3 of the price for a gallon of gasoline. Are you suggesting that the oil companies should sell their oil to customer X for less than customer Y is willing to pay?
My aren't we defensive? I never said anything was definitively false about the numbers. I'm saying that IF they are false and the executives know this, it's a good reason for NOT providing those numbers under oath in front of Congress on CSPAN cameras. :shades:
You're not saying that $3 of the $4 price is profit, are you?
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that of the $4/gallon that we are currently paying for gas the price of oil accounts for $3 of that. The other $1 is refining, distribution, taxes, etc.. Now I'm certain there is a lot of profit in that $3, which is based upon the market price of oil and has little to do with the actual price to extract it.
Think of it this way, if they worked GM and Ford would install one on every SUV and truck that they can't even give away. If GM could sell a Tahoe that now got 40 MPG they would sell every one they made for over MSRP.
Last weekend we had dinner with a friend of my wife’s who is an analyst with BP-Arco. He told us if a new proposed federal rule goes through in the next couple of weeks; expect to see gas prices at least $0.50 higher by Labor Day. He told us that the rule will do two things. First, it will require that the oil refiners increase their diesel production by at least 15% by the end of 2008 and second; it will limit the amount of finished diesel that can be exported. The feds are concerned that the high cost of diesel will pull the economy into a recession and they want the price of diesel more in line with premium gas.
we are going to start seeing a move to nationalize the oil companies. Wouldn't that be a cool trick. If Venezuela can do do it, so can we. Look at Venezuela's gas price!
Nationalizing anything beyond our defense forces is a recipe for disaster and that includes the Postal Service. We're capitalists and time and again if you leave people to their own resources with profit as their reward they will do a FAR better job than the government. If you can imagine EVERY major industry, health care, oil, farming, etc., operating like your local DMV you can envision what a government world would be like.
As rising gas prices leave drivers with ever-heftier tabs at the pump, Americans have started looking for ways to reduce the drain on their budget. For some, transitioning away from a one-person, one-car lifestyle has proved rewarding.
Janaki Purushe, a 22-year-old genetic researcher living in Rockville, Maryland, bikes just about everywhere she goes. "When I had the opportunity to finally plan my own life after I graduated college," Purushe explains, "I took into consideration where I was going to shop, where my friends live, where my boyfriend lives, and I definitely tried to plan the location of my home around where I was going."
Now, although she still has a car, Purushe bikes to work every day. It's a 10-mile round-trip commute, and she carries a change of clothes for when she gets to the office. She says she loves it. "When I'm riding my bike, I really pay attention to what's around me, and the weather's been great. I feel like I'm getting more out of my days."
Purushe also enjoys biking to the grocery store, and the bank. She admits that such convenience came at the price of living in a costlier part of town, but maintains that by not driving, she's made up for the extra expense.
"I know I'm lucky to be able to bike everywhere," she says.
The Department of Transportation said Monday it had seen the sharpest monthly drop in driving since it began keeping records. In March, Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles than in March of 2007.
When rising gas prices coincided with a baby on the way for Lucas and Naomi Smith, they knew they had to make some quick changes help keep life affordable. The first move the Smiths made was to sell one of their cars. Between insurance, gas and the depreciation of the car's value, Lucas Smith says the couple saves about $350 a month.
Another benefit of sharing the car is that the Smiths, Herndon, Virginia, residents, now spend more time together, in the car and at home.
"We have to plan out our weeks," Smith explains, "When are you going to pick me up? What days am I going to work later? It actually facilitates conversation."
In making room in the budget for the baby, the Smiths each also gave up their cell phones and cable TV. Smith thinks the change has been nice.
"We've found that there's just such an emphasis on having things, that you don't realize there's a stress cost, the cost of maintaining those things. Although it seems like you have less convenience," he explains, "you also have less stress."
Besides a drop in stress, the money the couple has saved will allow Naomi Smith to stay home with their new baby.
If he had all the money in world Smith says the one thing he might do differently is buy a fun car. "There's something different about having a fun car than having an efficient car," he muses.
Bethany Dietz of Baltimore, Maryland, is the stay-at-home Mom of two daughters, ages 1 and 3. Dietz says her husband works 20 miles from home, so his gas tank gets first priority. "If I stay home all week with the kids," Dietz says, "so be it -- it saves us on gas."
Dietz waits until Friday, when her 3-year-old goes to school, to run all of her errands. The rest of the week, she and her daughters don't really go out.
Although she doesn't mind not driving, Dietz says, "It can get kind of hairy sometimes because my daughter's 3 years old and she likes to go out and do things. She gets a little stir crazy."
Dietz says the family's gas bill is encroaching onto the food budget. "You just have to make the choice," Dietz explains, to conserve money on gas in order to afford food.
With respect to the gas prices that show no sign of leveling, Dietz says, "I see a lot more complications in the future."
Not a bad idea except for one problem: now that we've proven we'll pay this much, what do you think the chances are of Exxon dropping prices versus just keeping them where they are and pocketing the $80 billion,
Remember that Exxon is not the only horse in this race, If Exxon kept their prices high than someone else like shell would drop below Exxons prices to lure customers and sell more. Then someone else would drop below them to do the same thing. Its called competition.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I see myself in a lot of those stories. I commute on a bike, I own a hybrid car, I live 5.3 miles from work, I have cut back on driving, I have adjusted my food and entertainment budgets.
These high gas prices are a benefit in some ways because it has forced people to think outside their normal comfort level and realize that they can live more frugally with a little thought and effort.
"...And how much tax does the government take from the other oil companies..."
I just heard that the US government gets more in taxes from the top 10 oil companies than from the bottom 75% of individual taxpayers. No wonder they aren't doing anything about gas prices.
Oh wait...I guess Maxine Waters had an idea...she threatened to nationalize the oil companies and have the government run them. Now that's sure to give us lower prices! How do we keep electing these clowns! :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Janaki Purushe might bike everywhere, but not in January, when Rockville Maryland is 20 degrees and the roads are covered with ice. That's a physical impediment to biking in much of this country.
Also, during July when the temperature and humidity are both in the low 90s, I'll bet her bike doesn't leave her smelling too sweet by the end of the day. That's a social impediment to biking in much of this country.
Then there are the hundreds of cars that pass her on the road every day, any one of which can kill her. That's a practical impediment, and that's what the whole bike vs. car argument boils down to.
Bicycling simply isn't practical for most of the population of the U.S. Sure, it would be nice if we all did it, but it's never going to happen -- even if gas goes to $10.
Regarding oil company profits and the little dog and pony show to which Congress just treated us; Every time Exxon/Mobil makes $10 billion in a quarter, Congress makes $12 billion. See, the corporation makes $10 billion AFTER they pay the $12 billion in taxes to the federal government.
Now who's greedy?
And where were the congressional hearing a few years ago when all the GREEDY home owners were selling their houses for astronomical prices? They were making OBSCENE profits, and gouging home buyers. Some of them bought houses for $150K, then sold them a few months later for $200K. Why didn't Congress subpoena them, and force them to justify the money they were making?
After all, we now know that their greed led directly to the housing market crash and the credit crisis. The entire nation now faces a shaky economy as a result.
Surely Congress should seize some of those profits, and funnel them to needy home owners who are now facing foreclosure ..... right? .
Easy to do when you're 22. If you're 50,70 or 90 not so easy. I find it interesting that all the media hype about people biking and hiking to save gas they never show some poor 80 year old struggling through the snow to get to the market. It's always perky young blondes who live in Florida.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Biking, true, is not practical for a vast majority of Americans.
But you know what?
It's practical for many hundreds of thousands of single young people who are not currently doing it.
How many people do you know living within 5 miles of their work, with sidewalks or good road shoulders almost the whole way? A LOT I'd bet.
Even older people with medical issues could ride "electric assist" bikes, which is what I ride. I'm almost 45 years old. I use the electric assist style bike mostly because I live in Phoenix and for 7 months of the year I am commuting in seriously sweaty weather. I have chosen not to end up at the end of my two rides needing a shower.
I usually do take a shower in the afternoon at home after particularly hot rides, but I prefer not to do that for my morning ride.
Now, if you have to deliver kids to school, or go buy $150 worth of groceries, or run an errand several miles from your work or home, then even on bike commute days you have problems.
But just as the people in that story have "adjusted" their lives around less driving, so shall many of us continue to do so.
Every one of you reading this post: Think SERIOUSLY about what you would do, for example, if your driver's license got suspended. Could you work a bike commute THEN? If you could do it THEN you could do it NOW.
Many of you live too far from work or have too many other obligations, I know that. But many of us COULD ride a bike and just have not considered it seriously enough.
It's not for everyone. But it IS possible for a LOT MORE of us to do it.
It's practical for many hundreds of thousands of single young people who are not currently doing it.
Wow, I come back from a long weekend and find a serious post about commuting by bike. I had to check to be sure I hadn't accidentally clicked on one of my bicycling-related websites. What a refreshing way to begin the new workweek.
As more and more people are discovering, commuting by bike is within their ability. I wouldn't put the limit at a 5 mile radius from work. My own limit would be about an hour each way, regardless of the number of miles. After that it starts cutting too much into the rest of my daily schedule, especially during the weeks I work 12-hour days.
By riding to work the majority of the time I've reduced my car gas fill-ups from about once every 5 days (6x per month) to about two times per month. That means I'm using only about 1/3 as much fuel as before. To put it another way, if gas was $4/gal I'd be paying about $1.33/gal.
And bike commuting isn't just for the 20-something and 30-something year olds either. I'm old enough for AARP and I have no plans to give up my bike anytime soon for a Hoveround. Every 4 years I take my bike to France. I always marvel at the occasional little old grey haired ladies I see pedaling back from the market with their French bread sticking out of several bags of groceries.
I don't envy your Phoenix area commute. I had a taste of what the summers are like around there one July when I pedaled past the area on my way to the east coast. I recall it was over 110F degrees. Ah, but the local residents pointed out that it was a "dry heat".
I agree completely with your assessment about the nationalizing of any of our major industries, etc.. I work in the health care industry in a management position and I am a licensed insurance agent in TN... We had a program here in TN called TennCare, our Democrat Governor, Phil Bredsen, threw in the towel on that program and started Cover TN... I give the governor credit for recognizing a sinking ship that he inherited and looking for ways to solve problems, without raising taxes. TN found out just how expensive it is to deal with health care.. with respect to divergent opinions, I don't see how nationalization of the oil industry would solve the issue of higher gas prices at the pump.. In saying all of this, I am not advocating the position of any political party... I am opposed to higher taxes but I reckon just about everyone would be..
Consider the HUGE numbers involved.... the world uses 85 mmbpd of oil. That's 31 BILLION bbl/yr.
If the oil companies make a $10 / bbl profit on the oil ( 8% ) and break even on the rest that's $310 Billion in PROFIT. It's very likely that ExxonMobil has a 10-15% market share so $30-$50 Billion in profit sounds about right.
Sell a BILLION anythings at a profit and you'll be stupidly rich.
You would have to look at how many barrels of oil come from Exxon leases in this country to get a good idea of where their profit comes from. They don't make much on oil they buy from some foreign country and just do the refining.
This time of year I'm not heading up the hill to snowboard and I can usually go a month between fill-ups on the Subaru. My next trip out will require some gas or the low fuel light will come on. The van commutes to town so it's lucky to go a week between stops at the pump.
My doc yelled at me to get more exercise so I guess I need to start riding my bike farther than my mailbox - it's a problem when everything is downhill from you. It'd be an easy coast for most of the ~2 miles to the grocery, but hard to get home. :sick:
>If the oil companies make a $10 / bbl profit on the oil ( 8% )
The statistics always kill me in the way they're used whether it's in annual reports or the media's assessment of proper profit margins. With the oil companies like ExxonMobile, the real comparison would be profit per GALLON of gasoline/diesel produced in whatever comparison year is chosen and the current profit year. Comparing the profit RATE on a commodity item which has had its value run up greatly by speculators and world economic concerns is not a good comparison.
I do not have the profit per gallon values for 2002 and 2007, e.g. But I hope someone out there does have them or knows a link that will find them. I suspect the profit per gallon has increased greatly.
Mine keeps telling me to raise my cholesterol with more exercise and diet with more of certain oils. Others are lowering cholesterol and I'm trying to raise mine (the happy cholesterol, HDL). I need more seat time on my bike.
Is riding a bicycle on the sidewalk legal? Maybe it varies by state but I grew up in CA and had always thought you weren't allowed to ride your bike on the sidewalks. I could be mistaken.
I don't know if you're an American. I am. I have no desire to live in a county like Venezuela. I don't want my government interfering with the free trade system any more than necessary.
Remember that Exxon is not the only horse in this race, If Exxon kept their prices high than someone else like shell would drop below Exxons prices to lure customers and sell more. Then someone else would drop below them to do the same thing. Its called competition.
Except we already covered the fact that that doesn't seem to happen...gas prices from different companies ALWAYS seem to stay remarkably similar to each other in the same geographical area, though admittedly there has been no proof as far as collusion on gas prices between them.
There is a silent middleman between the oil well and the pump . The oil companies own many subsidiary corporations ( profit centers ) that masks a great deal of their total profits . When they report that their profit is 8% they aren't really telling a lie , just not telling the whole story .
Bike riding on sidewalks is legal in Tempe AZ and Phoenix AZ, the two jurisdictions I commute in.
There are bike lanes most of the way, but not all.
I choose to ride on the sidewalks for the added safety factor. I give pedestrians (as is the law) 100% right of way, even if I have to stop and get off the bike. That sort of interaction rarely occurs though.
In areas where there are solid pedestrians on the sidewalk, then the bike lane or road is the only option. Lucky for me I do not have to deal with that.
Any statistics on oil company profits, 5%, 8%, 10%, 20%, etc. are complete crap. The oil industry's smart lawyers, CPAs and MBAs came up with these numbers. These people believe they can lie to God almighty on judgment day and get away with it. And congress passes laws that the oil industry writes. And the stock market plays the same damn game with numbers so the 401Ks are totally about making the little guy feel good while the super wealthy get inside deals, scooping the real profits right off the top.
We are all being duped into playing same loosing game over and over again getting taken every time folks. What's really happening is really big money interests are playing the end game of a global strategy taking oil profits and running before some really meaningful laws get passed that put a stop to this. And the really scary part is, no one will be able to figure it out.
Remember Enron. Smartest lawyers, CPAs and MBAs worked for that company too. It was an energy company. Where did those guys go? Hmm, I wonder.
In areas where there are solid pedestrians on the sidewalk, then the bike lane or road is the only option. Lucky for me I do not have to deal with that.
Is it really that awful to ride on the roads? I am one of the "men in spandex" as many weekends or early mornings as I can, along with tons of other people, and we don't see mayhem on the streets that we ride on, including riding in Manhattan.... sure, you have the occasional hairy moment, but I have those when I drive too.
For me it seems that the big obstacles to bike commuting are distance, time, and facilities - in most cases work locations don't have adequate storage for bikes or showers for the sweaty employees. Most of us are also not prepared to leave home at least an hour earlier, even though the health benefits are wonderful.
No, it's not AWFUL to ride on the road or in the bike lane. It's just more dangerous from the point of view of being hit by a vehicle.
I'm a single dad with an ex-wife who is not cut out to be a Mom - so keeping myself alive until my kids are grown is very important to me and to them. Riding on the sidewalk reduces my chances of interacting violently with a vehicle.
"No, it's not AWFUL to ride on the road or in the bike lane. It's just more dangerous from the point of view of being hit by a vehicle."
Very true in Dallas. Some cities are just not bike-friendly. A co-worker got nailed several years ago, luckily he survived. It takes a very particular mix of trails, bike lanes, and car drivers' attitude to make bike riding safe.
Comments
You know, that is an interesting question....if their margin of profit per barrel of crude is so slim, why didn't they show Congress the books that show this?
One possible answer: It's possible that they didn't do so because they were under oath and knew those numbers to be false. All it takes is one whistleblower buried somewhere and all of a sudden CEOs are facing charges.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Which numbers are false? You don't think there are 100 eager-beaver politicians and lawyers who would jump on this? Please provide specifics.
Or you think the oil companies are running some sort of under-the-table operation only reporting part of their businesses? And they're putting tons of cash in Swiss banks? and under their mattresses?
And you think the IRS is stupid enough not to know what's going on? Oh I forgot the conspiracy that the oil companies have paid off Bush and the Congress, and the IRS is infiltrated with tons of oil company moles.
Who said that "we" have a "right" to someone else's product at any price?
However, if they were to display those numbers as part of their testimony and later it were to come out that those numbers were false, there would be charges...lying under oath is a crime. I was advancing that as a potential reason why the executives didn't "just display a pie chart" when they were testifying before Congress. And it may also explain why some eager-beaver politicians ARE jumping...the execs were unwilling to provide specifics under oath.
Again, I do not have proof of this, but it's a valid possible explanation. Most companies have more than one set of books you know...the real ones and the ones for people outside the company to see. And they always get in trouble when the real ones somehow get out. :shades:
The scenario of a CEO or CFO going to jail could happen any day; it doesn't require being in front of Congress for that to happen. Read-up on the Sarbannes-Oxley Act. I work at a smaller manufacturing company and we're always doing inventories, getting audits, and managers have to verify the bill-of-materials, all under the threat of jail-time for any willful misrepresentation.
Companies the size of the oil companies would be under pretty heavy scrutiny, and it's fairly hard to hide refineries or millions of gallons of oil, regularly.
Entirely possible. Don't know how likely, mind you, but it would not be the first time. How many corporate executives have been suspected/investigated/charged/convicted lately? And don't tell me Ken Lay doesn't count just because he died before they could sentence him (even though that's technically true, which just goes to show what a WONDERFUL legal system we have...).
The Enron - Ken Lay story was slightly different then what we're talking about here, but it does illustrate that a large financial scheme will collapse within a few years, no matter how skilled and intricate. This thus supports that the oil companies do not have some large, unified conspiracy that has lasted from 1973.
I think people ought to not focus so much on the profits that the oil companies have made, but question why the government takes at least 2X the profit in tax. Instead of Exxon giving back their $40B profit, why don't we tell the government to let them keep that, and drop the $80B tax on Exxon, and make Exxon then drop the price accordingly? And how much tax does the government take from the other oil companies, which we the consumer eventually pay for.
All the taxes every corporation pays, eventually is paid by you or I in the end.
Not a bad idea except for one problem: now that we've proven we'll pay this much, what do you think the chances are of Exxon dropping prices versus just keeping them where they are and pocketing the $80 billion, perhaps in wonderful new executive compensation parachutes...er, packages? :shades:
You are exactly right regarding Sarbannes. Companies do the equivalent of testifying every time they release a financial report. If they are found to have lied on the report, they (the president and any others proven to have contributed to the lie) go to jail. Period.
Exactly what do you think is false about these numbers? Exxon/Mobil doesn't make much money selling gasoline. They make far more selling oil so the fact that the profit margin on gasoline sales is relatively small is totally irrelevant. There's a lot of profit in selling $130/barrel oil and it probably does come out to around $3 of the price for a gallon of gasoline. Are you suggesting that the oil companies should sell their oil to customer X for less than customer Y is willing to pay?
You're not saying that $3 of the $4 price is profit, are you? Exxon make about 10% on total revenue, which would mean about $0.40 profit per gallon.
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that of the $4/gallon that we are currently paying for gas the price of oil accounts for $3 of that. The other $1 is refining, distribution, taxes, etc.. Now I'm certain there is a lot of profit in that $3, which is based upon the market price of oil and has little to do with the actual price to extract it.
Nationalizing anything beyond our defense forces is a recipe for disaster and that includes the Postal Service. We're capitalists and time and again if you leave people to their own resources with profit as their reward they will do a FAR better job than the government. If you can imagine EVERY major industry, health care, oil, farming, etc., operating like your local DMV you can envision what a government world would be like.
As rising gas prices leave drivers with ever-heftier tabs at the pump, Americans have started looking for ways to reduce the drain on their budget. For some, transitioning away from a one-person, one-car lifestyle has proved rewarding.
Janaki Purushe, a 22-year-old genetic researcher living in Rockville, Maryland, bikes just about everywhere she goes. "When I had the opportunity to finally plan my own life after I graduated college," Purushe explains, "I took into consideration where I was going to shop, where my friends live, where my boyfriend lives, and I definitely tried to plan the location of my home around where I was going."
Now, although she still has a car, Purushe bikes to work every day. It's a 10-mile round-trip commute, and she carries a change of clothes for when she gets to the office. She says she loves it. "When I'm riding my bike, I really pay attention to what's around me, and the weather's been great. I feel like I'm getting more out of my days."
Purushe also enjoys biking to the grocery store, and the bank. She admits that such convenience came at the price of living in a costlier part of town, but maintains that by not driving, she's made up for the extra expense.
"I know I'm lucky to be able to bike everywhere," she says.
The Department of Transportation said Monday it had seen the sharpest monthly drop in driving since it began keeping records. In March, Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles than in March of 2007.
When rising gas prices coincided with a baby on the way for Lucas and Naomi Smith, they knew they had to make some quick changes help keep life affordable. The first move the Smiths made was to sell one of their cars. Between insurance, gas and the depreciation of the car's value, Lucas Smith says the couple saves about $350 a month.
Another benefit of sharing the car is that the Smiths, Herndon, Virginia, residents, now spend more time together, in the car and at home.
"We have to plan out our weeks," Smith explains, "When are you going to pick me up? What days am I going to work later? It actually facilitates conversation."
In making room in the budget for the baby, the Smiths each also gave up their cell phones and cable TV. Smith thinks the change has been nice.
"We've found that there's just such an emphasis on having things, that you don't realize there's a stress cost, the cost of maintaining those things. Although it seems like you have less convenience," he explains, "you also have less stress."
Besides a drop in stress, the money the couple has saved will allow Naomi Smith to stay home with their new baby.
If he had all the money in world Smith says the one thing he might do differently is buy a fun car. "There's something different about having a fun car than having an efficient car," he muses.
Bethany Dietz of Baltimore, Maryland, is the stay-at-home Mom of two daughters, ages 1 and 3. Dietz says her husband works 20 miles from home, so his gas tank gets first priority. "If I stay home all week with the kids," Dietz says, "so be it -- it saves us on gas."
Dietz waits until Friday, when her 3-year-old goes to school, to run all of her errands. The rest of the week, she and her daughters don't really go out.
Although she doesn't mind not driving, Dietz says, "It can get kind of hairy sometimes because my daughter's 3 years old and she likes to go out and do things. She gets a little stir crazy."
Dietz says the family's gas bill is encroaching onto the food budget. "You just have to make the choice," Dietz explains, to conserve money on gas in order to afford food.
With respect to the gas prices that show no sign of leveling, Dietz says, "I see a lot more complications in the future."
Remember that Exxon is not the only horse in this race, If Exxon kept their prices high than someone else like shell would drop below Exxons prices to lure customers and sell more. Then someone else would drop below them to do the same thing. Its called competition.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
From CNN
I see myself in a lot of those stories. I commute on a bike, I own a hybrid car, I live 5.3 miles from work, I have cut back on driving, I have adjusted my food and entertainment budgets.
These high gas prices are a benefit in some ways because it has forced people to think outside their normal comfort level and realize that they can live more frugally with a little thought and effort.
I just heard that the US government gets more in taxes from the top 10 oil companies than from the bottom 75% of individual taxpayers. No wonder they aren't doing anything about gas prices.
Oh wait...I guess Maxine Waters had an idea...she threatened to nationalize the oil companies and have the government run them. Now that's sure to give us lower prices! How do we keep electing these clowns! :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Also, during July when the temperature and humidity are both in the low 90s, I'll bet her bike doesn't leave her smelling too sweet by the end of the day. That's a social impediment to biking in much of this country.
Then there are the hundreds of cars that pass her on the road every day, any one of which can kill her. That's a practical impediment, and that's what the whole bike vs. car argument boils down to.
Bicycling simply isn't practical for most of the population of the U.S. Sure, it would be nice if we all did it, but it's never going to happen -- even if gas goes to $10.
Regarding oil company profits and the little dog and pony show to which Congress just treated us; Every time Exxon/Mobil makes $10 billion in a quarter, Congress makes $12 billion. See, the corporation makes $10 billion AFTER they pay the $12 billion in taxes to the federal government.
Now who's greedy?
And where were the congressional hearing a few years ago when all the GREEDY home owners were selling their houses for astronomical prices? They were making OBSCENE profits, and gouging home buyers. Some of them bought houses for $150K, then sold them a few months later for $200K. Why didn't Congress subpoena them, and force them to justify the money they were making?
After all, we now know that their greed led directly to the housing market crash and the credit crisis. The entire nation now faces a shaky economy as a result.
Surely Congress should seize some of those profits, and funnel them to needy home owners who are now facing foreclosure ..... right?
.
Easy to do when you're 22. If you're 50,70 or 90 not so easy. I find it interesting that all the media hype about people biking and hiking to save gas they never show some poor 80 year old struggling through the snow to get to the market. It's always perky young blondes who live in Florida.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
But you know what?
It's practical for many hundreds of thousands of single young people who are not currently doing it.
How many people do you know living within 5 miles of their work, with sidewalks or good road shoulders almost the whole way? A LOT I'd bet.
Even older people with medical issues could ride "electric assist" bikes, which is what I ride. I'm almost 45 years old. I use the electric assist style bike mostly because I live in Phoenix and for 7 months of the year I am commuting in seriously sweaty weather. I have chosen not to end up at the end of my two rides needing a shower.
I usually do take a shower in the afternoon at home after particularly hot rides, but I prefer not to do that for my morning ride.
Now, if you have to deliver kids to school, or go buy $150 worth of groceries, or run an errand several miles from your work or home, then even on bike commute days you have problems.
But just as the people in that story have "adjusted" their lives around less driving, so shall many of us continue to do so.
Every one of you reading this post: Think SERIOUSLY about what you would do, for example, if your driver's license got suspended. Could you work a bike commute THEN? If you could do it THEN you could do it NOW.
Many of you live too far from work or have too many other obligations, I know that. But many of us COULD ride a bike and just have not considered it seriously enough.
It's not for everyone. But it IS possible for a LOT MORE of us to do it.
Wow, I come back from a long weekend and find a serious post about commuting by bike. I had to check to be sure I hadn't accidentally clicked on one of my bicycling-related websites. What a refreshing way to begin the new workweek.
As more and more people are discovering, commuting by bike is within their ability. I wouldn't put the limit at a 5 mile radius from work. My own limit would be about an hour each way, regardless of the number of miles. After that it starts cutting too much into the rest of my daily schedule, especially during the weeks I work 12-hour days.
By riding to work the majority of the time I've reduced my car gas fill-ups from about once every 5 days (6x per month) to about two times per month. That means I'm using only about 1/3 as much fuel as before. To put it another way, if gas was $4/gal I'd be paying about $1.33/gal.
And bike commuting isn't just for the 20-something and 30-something year olds either. I'm old enough for AARP and I have no plans to give up my bike anytime soon for a Hoveround. Every 4 years I take my bike to France. I always marvel at the occasional little old grey haired ladies I see pedaling back from the market with their French bread sticking out of several bags of groceries.
I don't envy your Phoenix area commute. I had a taste of what the summers are like around there one July when I pedaled past the area on my way to the east coast. I recall it was over 110F degrees. Ah, but the local residents pointed out that it was a "dry heat".
If they stop absorbing what do that do to their inflation rates? The growth? The political stability?
If the oil companies make a $10 / bbl profit on the oil ( 8% ) and break even on the rest that's $310 Billion in PROFIT. It's very likely that ExxonMobil has a 10-15% market share so $30-$50 Billion in profit sounds about right.
Sell a BILLION anythings at a profit and you'll be stupidly rich.
My doc yelled at me to get more exercise so I guess I need to start riding my bike farther than my mailbox - it's a problem when everything is downhill from you. It'd be an easy coast for most of the ~2 miles to the grocery, but hard to get home. :sick:
The statistics always kill me in the way they're used whether it's in annual reports or the media's assessment of proper profit margins. With the oil companies like ExxonMobile, the real comparison would be profit per GALLON of gasoline/diesel produced in whatever comparison year is chosen and the current profit year. Comparing the profit RATE on a commodity item which has had its value run up greatly by speculators and world economic concerns is not a good comparison.
I do not have the profit per gallon values for 2002 and 2007, e.g. But I hope someone out there does have them or knows a link that will find them. I suspect the profit per gallon has increased greatly.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Mine keeps telling me to raise my cholesterol with more exercise and diet with more of certain oils. Others are lowering cholesterol and I'm trying to raise mine (the happy cholesterol, HDL). I need more seat time on my bike.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Except we already covered the fact that that doesn't seem to happen...gas prices from different companies ALWAYS seem to stay remarkably similar to each other in the same geographical area, though admittedly there has been no proof as far as collusion on gas prices between them.
There is a silent middleman between the oil well and the pump . The oil companies own many subsidiary corporations ( profit centers ) that masks a
great deal of their total profits . When they report that their profit is 8% they aren't
really telling a lie , just not telling the whole story .
I'll do that and get that info posted here.
There are bike lanes most of the way, but not all.
I choose to ride on the sidewalks for the added safety factor. I give pedestrians (as is the law) 100% right of way, even if I have to stop and get off the bike. That sort of interaction rarely occurs though.
In areas where there are solid pedestrians on the sidewalk, then the bike lane or road is the only option. Lucky for me I do not have to deal with that.
We are all being duped into playing same loosing game over and over again getting taken every time folks. What's really happening is really big money interests are playing the end game of a global strategy taking oil profits and running before some really meaningful laws get passed that put a stop to this. And the really scary part is, no one will be able to figure it out.
Remember Enron. Smartest lawyers, CPAs and MBAs worked for that company too. It was an energy company. Where did those guys go? Hmm, I wonder.
Is it really that awful to ride on the roads? I am one of the "men in spandex" as many weekends or early mornings as I can, along with tons of other people, and we don't see mayhem on the streets that we ride on, including riding in Manhattan.... sure, you have the occasional hairy moment, but I have those when I drive too.
For me it seems that the big obstacles to bike commuting are distance, time, and facilities - in most cases work locations don't have adequate storage for bikes or showers for the sweaty employees. Most of us are also not prepared to leave home at least an hour earlier, even though the health benefits are wonderful.
http://api.aggregateknowledge.com/click?t=www.philly.com%2Fphilly%2Fwires%2Fap%2- Fbusiness%2F19248129.html&f=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philly.com%2Fphilly%2Fbusiness%2F19- 309514.html&rg=1349&sid=25&rid=242&a=4604&p=3&s=DE&rt=RECOMMENDATION&i=504
I'm a single dad with an ex-wife who is not cut out to be a Mom - so keeping myself alive until my kids are grown is very important to me and to them. Riding on the sidewalk reduces my chances of interacting violently with a vehicle.
Very true in Dallas. Some cities are just not bike-friendly. A co-worker got nailed several years ago, luckily he survived. It takes a very particular mix of trails, bike lanes, and car drivers' attitude to make bike riding safe.