Isn't there another forum around here where Ethanol is discussed ad nauseum? :confuse:
I posted my views on Ethanol extensively in there and they boil down to: In the current ethanol manufacturing setting, all you are doing is trading the BTU content of coal, natural gas, whatever for ethanol BTUs. Until somebody comes up with a method of converting something besides sugar to ethanol (cellulose is looking promising) at a low temperature (don't have to burn something for the heat to make the process work) it is not a viable renewable energy source. You have to burn a non-renewable energy source to get ethanol.
On balance, they will probably exit the fleet somewhat normally, IMO.
That all depends on the price of gas. If it stays high or goes higher then these large, inefficient vehicles probably will exit the fleet normally. If gas prices go down then they may actually become very sought after and stay in the fleet for an inordinately long time. As I've posted before, if you're going to force manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles you better also create a market for them. Otherwise if the new vehicles being offered aren't as desirable as what a person is already driving they'll just hold onto what they have.
Now I get your point - 35 mpg CAFE + $2/gallon = market problems. Since we've never been in that situation, it took me a while, but it certainly could happen. Just another reason to have a tax side to the plan, too.
Edit: on second thought, we have been there, with, for example, Ford willing to lose big $$ on every Escort or Focus it sold in order keep up its CAFE and its ability to sell Explorers, etc. Probably one reason they're hurting now.
That all depends on the price of gas. If it stays high or goes higher then these large, inefficient vehicles probably will exit the fleet normally. If gas prices go down then they may actually become very sought after and stay in the fleet for an inordinately long time.
Absolutely, I agree. But really, what's the chance that the price is going to drop?
...you're going to force manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles you better also create a market for them.
Right...that's why Tom Friedman is so adamant about us setting a floor price for oil in the US, to do exactly that and encourage R&D.
Except you forget to factor in the whole picture It's not just pollution or cost, but longer-term things like what happens if there's another 70s era embargo? What if China gets mad at us in the future and tanks our economy? We're outsourced and leveraged to the point where $4 a gallon will seem like a fond memory if anything major happens to either our economy or our oil supply.
Oil is slowly digging this country's grave. We need to move to ANY other alternative(s) as soon as we can. Ethanol, CNG, hydrogen, electricity... not a big deal as long as it's not oil. I'd suffer a fair amount of pollution to no longer be dependent on other nations as well.
Don't know about THAT (Tom Friedman says some incredibly silly things sometimes...) but in the 1970s global competition + fuel shortages + tough emissions laws sure spurred improvements in automobiles!
What's China going to do on oil? They are importers. Aouthe biggest thing they could do would be stop selling us stuff. Lots of folks would love that because we'd have to start making things ourselves again. However taht will never happen as the thing that fuels China's economy more than anything else is America buying stuff.
I've lived through more polluted times. I have no desire to go back. I also want to get off of oil and it will involve multiple solutions. The thing is you have to be very smart about where you place your bets and I'm not seeing ethanol - particularly corn based ethanol - as a piece of the answer.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
You're right, China's a growing importer of oil. What they are doing is working hard to line up supplies, and they have the cash reserves to do it. Their impact is more demand for the same barrels we want, and could be a reduction of supplies for us. (remember, I said 'could')
In the last 20 years, China has moved 250 million people from the farms and villages into the cities. Their plan is to move another 300 million in the next 20 years. When you put that many people into the cities, you have to find work for them. That’s why China is addicted to manufacturing; they have to put all the relocated people to work. When we decide to manufacture something in the U.S., it’s based on market needs and the opportunity to make a profit. In China, they make the decision because they want the jobs, which is a very different calculation.
While China is addicted to manufacturing, Americans are addicted to low prices. As a result, a unique kind of economic codependency has developed between the two countries. If we ever stop buying from China, they will explode politically. If China stops selling to us, our economy will take a huge hit because prices will jump. We are subsidizing their economic development, they are subsidizing our economic growth.
Because of their huge growth in manufacturing, China is hungry for raw materials, which drives prices up worldwide. China is also thirsty for oil, which is one reason oil is now at $60 a barrel. By 2020, China will produce more cars than the U.S. China is also buying its way into the oil infrastructure around the world. They are doing it in the open market and paying fair market prices, but millions of barrels of oil that would have gone to the U.S. are now going to China. China’s quest to assure it has the oil it needs to fuel its economy is a major factor in world politics and economics. We have our Navy fleets protecting the sea lines, specifically the ability to get the tankers through. It won’t be long before the Chinese have an aircraft carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf as well. The question is, will their aircraft carrier be pointing in the same direction as ours or against us?
It may be that pushing 500 million people from farms and villages into cities is too much too soon. Although it gets almost no publicity, China is experiencing hundreds of demonstrations around the country, which is unprecedented. These are not students in Tiananmen Square. These are average citizens who are angry with the government for building chemical plants and polluting the water they drink and the air they breathe.
The Chinese are a smart and industrious people. They may be able to pull it off and become a very successful economic and military superpower. If so, we will have to learn to live with it. If they want to share the responsibility of keeping the world’s oil lanes open, that’s a good thing. They currently have eight new nuclear electric power generators under way and 45 on the books to build. Soon, they will leave the U.S. way behind in their ability to generate nuclear power.
What can go wrong with China? For one, you can’t move 550 million people into the cities without major problems. Two, China really wants Taiwan- not so much for economic reasons, they just want it. The Chinese know that their system of communism can’t survive much longer in the 21st century. The last thing they want to do before they morph into some sort of more capitalistic government is to take over Taiwan.
We may wake up one morning and find they have launched an attack on Taiwan. If so, it will be a mess, both economically and militarily. The U.S. has committed to the military defense of Taiwan. If China attacks Taiwan, will we really go to war against them? If the Chinese generals believe the answer is no, they may attack. If we don’t defend Taiwan, every treaty the U.S. has will be worthless. Hopefully, China won’t do anything stupid.
HERE'S AN IDEA THAT I THINK WILL WORK. BOYCOTT THE MAJOR GAS COMPANIES (IE: SHELL AND EXXON) FOR STARTERS. IF THEY HAVE A LARGE DECREASE IN SALES THEY'LL DROP THEIR PRICES. WE CAN DO THAT. IT'S WHAT COMPETITION IS ALL ABOUT.
IT'S BETTER TO MAKE A DECENT PROFIT THAN NO/LITTLE PROFIT.
but in the 1970s global competition + fuel shortages + tough emissions laws sure spurred improvements in automobiles!
Do you really think so? I'd say that those factors spurred change, not necessarily improvement. My personal opinion is that the cars being offered in 1980 pretty much sucked. Definitely not much better than what was offered in 1970 but a lot different for sure. I think it was the 1980's and 90's when they started figuring out how to make these cars actually good. That probably was driven by competition, particularly from the Japanese.
I don't get it. Most people already buy there gas where it's cheapest. So they're already boycotting whoever is charging the most. If you think you should boycott a certain company regardless of price then I don't think that's really what competiong is all about.
Makes sense. I remember thinking of getting a Chevrolet Aveo like my Mom's car right after Katrina. But the money I'd save on fuel wouldn't make up for the purchase price of the car. Now, buying a Prius would make a lot of sense should we once again have a situation like 1974 with cars lined up at the gas station waiting for a meagre amount of fuel.
Until cars are taxed on size, weight, engine displacement, or some combination of the three. Then that LaCrosse (and Park Avenue and Seville and Brougham) will put a heavy burden on your wallet, and that Buick Excelle with the 1.6L I4 will start looking pretty nice.
A survey this month found that most Americans would only change their driving habits and/or consider a more fuel-efficient car if gasoline hit $4.40 per gallon.
So, for all the complaining people do about $3.30 gasoline, they're still not willing to ease up on acceleration, reduce cruising speed, and combine errands into one trip. Just those basics would save them 10%.
Another factor is that the oil cartels don't simply raise prices -- they spike them, then drop them back (each time a little higher). This has the effect of creating consumer tolerance for the spike in anticipation of the pullback.
They're playing us perfectly, so we keep paying.
The article accurately says that gas prices have to rise above $4 and stay there for a year before people will act. OPEC knows this.
So, while I'm certain that we'll see $4 gas by next year, I'm equally certain that the cartel will never let it stay there. Otherwise, people might actually do something about it.
Well a survey in just a survey but, yes, that's the right idea. Keep the price up as high as people will tolerate but not higher. That is how the market is played. For that behavior to change at all you will need a new variable, such as government regulation, in the equation. That may or may not be a good idea.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
If the auto industry were expressed in a "wave pattern", on the left we'd have a trough at 1946, then the wave goes up and up and peaks around 1970, then slides down and down AND DOWN to around 1985, then starts to pick up again and I think is peaking right about now...or may go higher, depending, or nose dive if economic conditions or regulation or foreign competition come into play again.
It may run in about 40 year cycles. Hard to say with only 120 years to plot it all out.
I put a weeks worth of groceries for two people in the back of my MINI all the time. I didn't even have to fold the seats down. Fold the seat down and you can get a ton of stuff in there.
Cars are already taxed by weight, size and engine displacement. The fraction of your gas bill represented by taxes achieves this. You consume more, you pay more. If you are calling for a fresh layer of taxes, please say so.
Well I had a 2004 MINI Cooper Sand I sold it over a year ago but...
Pure city driving I would get 25-26 mpg and that was taking full advantage of the MINIs handling and mid-range power punch. I could probably have done better if I drove sanely.
Pure highway I could break 40 mpg if I kept the speed under 70 mph but I didn't do that very often.
I would guess my lifetime average, over 30,000 miles, was around 30-31 mpg.
Gimme some soft luggage and a bike rack and I'll move a studio apartment in a MINI....!
I mentioned this before but I moved all of my possesions from my townhouse, except for the big furniture and my big toolbox, in my MINI.
I brokedown my computer desk laid all my lugange on top of that with the seats folded down. I hung up all nice clothes, suits etc and put my computer along with another bag in the front passenger seat/footwell.
With a luggage rack and a little trailer I could probably have moved everything but my big couch. A couple of companies make small trailers for the MINI so that people can tow autocross tires in them.
Exactly. The thing that always amuses me is how young would be economists, usually with a semester or so of economics and business classes but nothing in terms of real life experience, always manage to paint a pretty picture of supply and demand that utterly fails when it's thrust into the cold light of reality.
It only works when you don't have a captive and/or addicted population. The number of alternative fuel vehicles is not even 1% of the entire U.S. fleet. So for every form of transportation outside of those run by municipalities and states, be it your motorcycle, hybrid, delivery truck, train, or simmilar... all use gasoline or diesel fuel.
1: 99% of us have no real option other than something that uses petrochemical based fuels if we want to own a vehicle.
So they have a captive audience. And can charge $10 or even $20 a gallon and there would be nothing we could actually do about it short of walking everywhere, which isn't an option.
We always pay because we are trapped and being mobile is the only way we manage to maintin our standard of living. Artificially high as it is, Americans won't willingly drop down to half of their current level willingly - that much is clear.
2: Many parts of our economy rely on transportation of goods and services. There is no viable alternative. Demand never goes down for these parts of our society.
Greed is rampant in the industry. They know they have a captive audience and aren't afraid to exploit it because the government won't bother to do anything other than whine a little about it.
3:There are no external forces to control monopolistic or predatory behavior. The government is refusing to enforce its own laws.
If gas dropped to $2.50 a gallon, most of the U.S. would consider that to be a bargain now, thanks to the conditioning. But the reality is that $1.50 a gallon is what a "bargain" used to be. Their goal is to condition us to $3 a gallon as being what we consider to be reasonable to pay, thereby almost trippling their profit margins compared to a decade ago. The real cost of refining has hardly changed.
So what we end up with is essentially the relationship between a drug dealer and the addict. They charge, we keep paying.
If you extend that "addict" analogy to entire nations, you know what happens to an addict when something gets between himself and his supply....he gets dangerous.
Let's extend that 'addict' parallel once more - remember the 'don't do drugs' movies in high school, where they showed rats would choose cocain and death instead of food? Well...what does our use of corn for fuel remind you of? And yes, topic drift, I know...
That is a legitimate argument. Others have mentioned that we give foreign aid in the form of grain. A lot of people will go without food because we now want to look a bit more fuel independent by making our corn into ethanol. It already has already raised the price of tortillas in Mexico. I guess they can come up here and we will give them steak.
I saw this blurb from AP today. I wonder if anyone would like to comment?
"Gas prices are high: averaging $3.22 a gallon. But that's not expected to keep people from traveling. AAA says it thinks people will still take their summer vacations but will try to spend less on hotels and restaurants."
We have a bad habit of making people dependent on our government. Both here and abroad. I don't particularly like it. Just the way it is. New Orleans and "Warehousing Votes" ring a bell?
Not really. Gas usage depends more on speed and driving habits than the fixed characteristics of vehicles. Most of the rest of the world directly taxes larger vehicles in some way, and at some point that will be seized on as a panacea for US overconsumption.
Well if a government won't protect its people, let's get rid of it and buy rowboats with the saved tax money :P (Gee I could even afford a new Corvette).
Greed is rampant in the industry. 3:There are no external forces to control monopolistic or predatory behavior.
In our Free Enterprise System, there should not be external forces to control the greed. This is not a Socialistic or Communistic country.
To the Shareholders who have risked their investment dollars, it is worthy and earned by them. The terms, "Greed" and "Excess Profits" are thrown out by non shareholder consumers who forget the Board of Directors first obligation is to their investor shareholders.
The price of gas will continue to rise and why not?
There is a reason why the government broke up Standard Oil all those years ago. It is because monopolies curb innovation by stomping on compitetion. It is funny because every compony strives to be a monopoly, then they get a beatdown session from the Feds for being the best at what they do.
Well I think before there's any tax on larger vehicles (autos), I think we ought to save fuel in other more discretionary uses. Since larger vehicles are safer, I'd hate to endanger people more by enticing them out of those vehicles before we curbed use in: pleasure boating, RV's and non-business flights.
We may also want to ban the transport of billions of dollars of unnecessary merchandise that is trucked from the West Coast (imports from Asia) throughout the nation. Look around your house and take note where things were made, and how many different trips you made to the stores to get those items! Did you really need to go to the mall last week and buy that 40th shirt?
But then again if we didn't do those things, the global economy would go to hell. We are like addicts; staying on our habit is a problem, but kicking the habit is also a problem!
Hate to pop your buble, but the "robber barons" acquired their nickname from their inefficient competitors. Oil prices dropped like a rock under Standard Oil, as they streamlined and simplified the whole delivery chain, from well to customer. The same thing was going on in several industries at that time, with hundreds of non-competitive companies foundering and crying for relief. Not unlike what's gone on with WalMart - people aren't complaining about their low prices, but the fact they put hundreds/thousands of mom&pop and other small retailers out of business. More to the point, the national oil companies (OPEC, etc) control the great majority of oil production around the world, not ExxonMobil, BP, or ChevronTexaco. So yes, oil prices are probably artificially high, but it's not through monopolistic practices on company's parts.
I saw this blurb from AP today. I wonder if anyone would like to comment?
"Gas prices are high: averaging $3.22 a gallon. But that's not expected to keep people from traveling. AAA says it thinks people will still take their summer vacations but will try to spend less on hotels and restaurants."
$3.22/gallon --- what a bargain!
(The Detroit News) Gasoline prices in Michigan jumped to $3.50 for a gallon of regular unleaded gas overnight, according to the AAA auto club of Michigan Daily Fuel Gauge Report. Yesterday, the average price was $3.47 per gallon. Michigan gas prices now are second only to Illinois, which averages $3.51 per gallon of gas, according to the report. Last year, a gallon of gas cost $2.79 per gallon, according to the report. After a low of $2.10 a gallon in December, prices have steadily grown, according to the report. The report calculates the daily average by examining the previous day's credit card purchases of gasoline, according to the auto club.
How many people live in a state with a Tourism Bureau that spends taxpayer $'s for TV ads, and color brochures promoting tourism in their state?
Do you think there isn't a better use for that money then to encourage others (usually to drive) to their state and then drive all around to see the sites? Now the defense of anyone who benefits is - "well it creates jobs and supports our economy." Isn't that like an addict saying "yes but it makes me feel great, and I get thru the day."?
Just another example of conflicting messages from our government. What's that old saying about wanting our cake ...
I think most of us and our governments want to save fuel and money, as long as it doesn't inconvenience (involve) us.
Comments
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
I posted my views on Ethanol extensively in there and they boil down to: In the current ethanol manufacturing setting, all you are doing is trading the BTU content of coal, natural gas, whatever for ethanol BTUs. Until somebody comes up with a method of converting something besides sugar to ethanol (cellulose is looking promising) at a low temperature (don't have to burn something for the heat to make the process work) it is not a viable renewable energy source. You have to burn a non-renewable energy source to get ethanol.
That all depends on the price of gas. If it stays high or goes higher then these large, inefficient vehicles probably will exit the fleet normally. If gas prices go down then they may actually become very sought after and stay in the fleet for an inordinately long time. As I've posted before, if you're going to force manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles you better also create a market for them. Otherwise if the new vehicles being offered aren't as desirable as what a person is already driving they'll just hold onto what they have.
Edit: on second thought, we have been there, with, for example, Ford willing to lose big $$ on every Escort or Focus it sold in order keep up its CAFE and its ability to sell Explorers, etc. Probably one reason they're hurting now.
Absolutely, I agree. But really, what's the chance that the price is going to drop?
...you're going to force manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles you better also create a market for them.
Right...that's why Tom Friedman is so adamant about us setting a floor price for oil in the US, to do exactly that and encourage R&D.
Oil is slowly digging this country's grave. We need to move to ANY other alternative(s) as soon as we can. Ethanol, CNG, hydrogen, electricity... not a big deal as long as it's not oil. I'd suffer a fair amount of pollution to no longer be dependent on other nations as well.
I've lived through more polluted times. I have no desire to go back. I also want to get off of oil and it will involve multiple solutions. The thing is you have to be very smart about where you place your bets and I'm not seeing ethanol - particularly corn based ethanol - as a piece of the answer.
While China is addicted to manufacturing, Americans are addicted to low prices. As a result, a unique kind of economic codependency has developed between the two countries. If we ever stop buying from China, they will explode politically. If China stops selling to us, our economy will take a huge hit because prices will jump. We are subsidizing their economic development, they are subsidizing our economic growth.
Because of their huge growth in manufacturing, China is hungry for raw materials, which drives prices up worldwide. China is also thirsty for oil, which is one reason oil is now at $60 a barrel. By 2020, China will produce more cars than the U.S. China is also buying its way into the oil infrastructure around the world. They are doing it in the open market and paying fair market prices, but millions of barrels of oil that would have gone to the U.S. are now going to China. China’s quest to assure it has the oil it needs to fuel its economy is a major factor in world politics and economics. We have our Navy fleets protecting the sea lines, specifically the ability to get the tankers through. It won’t be long before the Chinese have an aircraft carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf as well. The question is, will their aircraft carrier be pointing in the same direction as ours or against us?
It may be that pushing 500 million people from farms and villages into cities is too much too soon. Although it gets almost no publicity, China is experiencing hundreds of demonstrations around the country, which is unprecedented. These are not students in Tiananmen Square. These are average citizens who are angry with the government for building chemical plants and polluting the water they drink and the air they breathe.
The Chinese are a smart and industrious people. They may be able to pull it off and become a very successful economic and military superpower. If so, we will have to learn to live with it. If they want to share the responsibility of keeping the world’s oil lanes open, that’s a good thing. They currently have eight new nuclear electric power generators under way and 45 on the books to build. Soon, they will leave the U.S. way behind in their ability to generate nuclear power.
What can go wrong with China? For one, you can’t move 550 million people into the cities without major problems. Two, China really wants Taiwan- not so much for economic reasons, they just want it. The Chinese know that their system of communism can’t survive much longer in the 21st century. The last thing they want to do before they morph into some sort of more capitalistic government is to take over Taiwan.
We may wake up one morning and find they have launched an attack on Taiwan. If so, it will be a mess, both economically and militarily. The U.S. has committed to the military defense of Taiwan. If China attacks Taiwan, will we really go to war against them? If the Chinese generals believe the answer is no, they may attack. If we don’t defend Taiwan, every treaty the U.S. has will be worthless. Hopefully, China won’t do anything stupid.
IT'S BETTER TO MAKE A DECENT PROFIT THAN NO/LITTLE PROFIT.
Do you really think so? I'd say that those factors spurred change, not necessarily improvement. My personal opinion is that the cars being offered in 1980 pretty much sucked. Definitely not much better than what was offered in 1970 but a lot different for sure. I think it was the 1980's and 90's when they started figuring out how to make these cars actually good. That probably was driven by competition, particularly from the Japanese.
So, for all the complaining people do about $3.30 gasoline, they're still not willing to ease up on acceleration, reduce cruising speed, and combine errands into one trip. Just those basics would save them 10%.
Another factor is that the oil cartels don't simply raise prices -- they spike them, then drop them back (each time a little higher). This has the effect of creating consumer tolerance for the spike in anticipation of the pullback.
They're playing us perfectly, so we keep paying.
The article accurately says that gas prices have to rise above $4 and stay there for a year before people will act. OPEC knows this.
So, while I'm certain that we'll see $4 gas by next year, I'm equally certain that the cartel will never let it stay there. Otherwise, people might actually do something about it.
Woe is me!
Regards,
OW
It may run in about 40 year cycles. Hard to say with only 120 years to plot it all out.
Gimme some soft luggage and a bike rack and I'll move a studio apartment in a MINI....!
Remember, your parents were probably raised in a one-car family and the whole crew went on vacation together in one car.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Pure city driving I would get 25-26 mpg and that was taking full advantage of the MINIs handling and mid-range power punch. I could probably have done better if I drove sanely.
Pure highway I could break 40 mpg if I kept the speed under 70 mph but I didn't do that very often.
I would guess my lifetime average, over 30,000 miles, was around 30-31 mpg.
I mentioned this before but I moved all of my possesions from my townhouse, except for the big furniture and my big toolbox, in my MINI.
I brokedown my computer desk laid all my lugange on top of that with the seats folded down. I hung up all nice clothes, suits etc and put my computer along with another bag in the front passenger seat/footwell.
With a luggage rack and a little trailer I could probably have moved everything but my big couch. A couple of companies make small trailers for the MINI so that people can tow autocross tires in them.
It only works when you don't have a captive and/or addicted population. The number of alternative fuel vehicles is not even 1% of the entire U.S. fleet. So for every form of transportation outside of those run by municipalities and states, be it your motorcycle, hybrid, delivery truck, train, or simmilar... all use gasoline or diesel fuel.
1: 99% of us have no real option other than something that uses petrochemical based fuels if we want to own a vehicle.
So they have a captive audience. And can charge $10 or even $20 a gallon and there would be nothing we could actually do about it short of walking everywhere, which isn't an option.
We always pay because we are trapped and being mobile is the only way we manage to maintin our standard of living. Artificially high as it is, Americans won't willingly drop down to half of their current level willingly - that much is clear.
2: Many parts of our economy rely on transportation of goods and services. There is no viable alternative. Demand never goes down for these parts of our society.
Greed is rampant in the industry. They know they have a captive audience and aren't afraid to exploit it because the government won't bother to do anything other than whine a little about it.
3:There are no external forces to control monopolistic or predatory behavior. The government is refusing to enforce its own laws.
If gas dropped to $2.50 a gallon, most of the U.S. would consider that to be a bargain now, thanks to the conditioning. But the reality is that $1.50 a gallon is what a "bargain" used to be. Their goal is to condition us to $3 a gallon as being what we consider to be reasonable to pay, thereby almost trippling their profit margins compared to a decade ago. The real cost of refining has hardly changed.
So what we end up with is essentially the relationship between a drug dealer and the addict. They charge, we keep paying.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
I think the answer is a lot more nuke plants coupled with an electric fleet. That way we can wash our hands of the whole blasted area.
I saw this blurb from AP today. I wonder if anyone would like to comment?
"Gas prices are high: averaging $3.22 a gallon. But that's not expected to keep people from traveling. AAA says it thinks people will still take their summer vacations but will try to spend less on hotels and restaurants."
That is what happens when you make yourself dependant on the generosity of others. What is the old saying about teaching a man to fish...
something like that :P
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
3:There are no external forces to control monopolistic or predatory behavior.
In our Free Enterprise System, there should not be external forces to control the greed. This is not a Socialistic or Communistic country.
To the Shareholders who have risked their investment dollars, it is worthy and earned by them. The terms, "Greed" and "Excess Profits" are thrown out by non shareholder consumers who forget the Board of Directors first obligation is to their investor shareholders.
The price of gas will continue to rise and why not?
There is a reason why the government broke up Standard Oil all those years ago. It is because monopolies curb innovation by stomping on compitetion. It is funny because every compony strives to be a monopoly, then they get a beatdown session from the Feds for being the best at what they do.
We may also want to ban the transport of billions of dollars of unnecessary merchandise that is trucked from the West Coast (imports from Asia) throughout the nation. Look around your house and take note where things were made, and how many different trips you made to the stores to get those items! Did you really need to go to the mall last week and buy that 40th shirt?
But then again if we didn't do those things, the global economy would go to hell. We are like addicts; staying on our habit is a problem, but kicking the habit is also a problem!
Crony capitalist perhaps? Or maybe some inheritance?
"Gas prices are high: averaging $3.22 a gallon. But that's not expected to keep people from traveling. AAA says it thinks people will still take their summer vacations but will try to spend less on hotels and restaurants."
$3.22/gallon --- what a bargain!
(The Detroit News)
Gasoline prices in Michigan jumped to $3.50 for a gallon of regular unleaded gas overnight, according to the AAA auto club of Michigan Daily Fuel Gauge Report. Yesterday, the average price was $3.47 per gallon. Michigan gas prices now are second only to Illinois, which averages $3.51 per gallon of gas, according to the report. Last year, a gallon of gas cost $2.79 per gallon, according to the report. After a low of $2.10 a gallon in December, prices have steadily grown, according to the report. The report calculates the daily average by examining the previous day's credit card purchases of gasoline, according to the auto club.
Do you think there isn't a better use for that money then to encourage others (usually to drive) to their state and then drive all around to see the sites? Now the defense of anyone who benefits is - "well it creates jobs and supports our economy." Isn't that like an addict saying "yes but it makes me feel great, and I get thru the day."?
Just another example of conflicting messages from our government. What's that old saying about wanting our cake ...
I think most of us and our governments want to save fuel and money, as long as it doesn't inconvenience (involve) us.