i'm wondering what would happen if there was a coordinated effort country-wide to target one brand and boycott it until the price fell below some agreed-upon threshold...
There is one and only one way to change the behavior of any American corporation, and that is to hit them in the pocketbook, however one chooses to do that...legal...boycott, etc.
Of course, you also need something rational and right on your side or you're just screaming in the wilderness. Some vague notion of "conspiracy" isn't going to inflame the hearts and minds of consumers any more than talk of UFOs. Americans are not people easily given to endure sacrifice or hardship. It has to be something extremely serious, almost life-threatening to get them to give up anything.
say someone were to coordinate: "insert brand here", nationwide, we are gonna boycott your franchisees until such time as the fuel you sell remains below $____.
i see the day when there are targeted backlash campaigns against manufacturer's / distributors for one reason or another.
for example, wasn't something like this done against Nike or Reebock (can't remember) because of their reliance on child labor?
Yes but it is true of many materials - they are constantly changing price everyday, and every hour possibly. Gold, silver, copper, natural gas, wood, coal, aluminum ... constantly change price.
It just so happens 99.9% of us don't buy those directly, a manufacturer or utility does and makes them into some sort of product, which absorbs those fluctuations. But gasoline we do buy and we do see the flctuations. If I'm a gasoline or (heating) oil distributor and it goes up 2% in a day, I certainly want to take credit and sell my product for 2% more. If the price went down 2%, and my competitor lowers his price to grab market-share, I'm certainly going to have to lower my price 2%, if people are aware they can now purchase it for less.
A growing demand for a product, and the inability to keep up with demand, thus an increase in prices, is not immoral like child labor would be to most people.
There are some people who can't afford to buy a house, property or a condo. Should we boycott realtors? There are some people who can't afford to buy a car - do we need to give them a subsidy? No - it is personal economics, and choices. There are many people who come from bad backrounds and do well. I suggest to everyone to improve themselves, become more productive and knowledgable, and make yourself some more $.
To anyone in general: If you have done little to educate yourself, spend your free-time in front of the TV with a 6-pack, and expecting to hit the lottery as your path to wealth ... don't expect me to care if all you're left with someday is a bike.
My point is that when you rely on a predominantly foreign commodity and you wage war with respect to the control of that same commodity and invest very little to change the source, it's insanity.
The US is far behind in devloping alternate sources of energy. It costs $0.25/gal. in Saudi Arabia for that commodity.
It would be a huge boost to our economy if we established a home-based source of energy independent of foreign control.
Yes but price-gouging in the energy business affects all of us, as it drives up the price of goods and sucks huge sums of money out of the economy. It's not quite the same as "buy my widgets or don't". If I don't buy a widget, the price of bread doesn't go up.
As for realtors, many people do boycott them.
MrShiftright Visiting Host
PS: I'd run my own gas station in my back yard if they'd let me. :P
I think if people would make a concerted effort to buy gas from the cheapest place in their area it would bring the overall price of gas down. In my area there are stations that are as much a 50 cents difference in a 3 block drive. I still see people buying the more expensive gas. Being brand conscious is OK. I just have not found that much difference between Costco gas and high priced Shell gas.
Kernick is right on the money. Almost everyone agrees that free markets are the best way make products cheap and available. The same has certainly been true for oil. The only downside is its worked so well that we've probably allowed too much of our lives to become dependent on it. Is that the oil companies fault?
Regarding oil being a foreign commodity. Yes it is and we need to respect those that supply it to us and have the power to interrupt that supply. Everything is fine as long as we do that. The trouble starts when we forget that vulnerability and we think we can cause trouble over there or disrespect the people that provide this important product to us. Oil is always cheapest when peace reigns.
but don't you think it's a bit suspicious we aren't building new refinement capacity and at the same time, we aren't pushing very hard very fast for more efficient vehicles?
Shell has an additive, Texaco and Chevron have Techroline, and what is the additive in Costco, Fred Meyer, and Safeway gasolines? ARCO has a high Sulphur content, but what is the Sulphur content of other brands?
Perhaps those who spend up to $.50 a gallon more are buying a higher quality of gas believing it is worth it in the long run. If I leased a car for three years or less, I'd by the lowest price available.
What brand is of the highest quality and doesn't that vary in areas?
if we were to pick one brand and boycott it indefinitely, here's what I'm guessing would happen. Say, we picked Shell (please don't though, because I'm a shareholder! :surprise: ) Well, if demand dropped off at Shell, it would pick up at other nearby gas stations. Most likely, those stations would end up running out of fuel more often, and end up buying it from Shell. It's been my understanding that different companies buy and trade fuel with each other all the time.
Probably the only one that would get hurt is the Shell gas station owner. They don't make much, if anything, on the actual gasoline, so seeing sales at the pump dry up, in and of itself, would hurt them very little. However, a lot of people go to the gas station to get junk food, beer, lottery tickets, etc, in addition to the gas, and this is where most of the profit comes from. They'd still get some local traffic from people nearby who stop in because it's closer and more convenient than, say, a 7-Eleven, but they'd still lose a lot of business. Now if they're near an apartment complex where they get a lot of walk-up customers for all that junk they may still do okay. And perhaps, if they also have a service center where they can bring in revenue from working on cars.
But in the end, the only way to really have an impact is to start cutting back on usage, not merely shifting it away from one brand to another. But even then, if we cut back on usage, who's to say they just won't cut back on supply, and we'll be right back where we started?
Most of my vehicles were low compression V8 utility engines. I could never tell the difference in MPG so went with the cheapest. I never had an engine problem with any of the last 5 GM V8 engines. My wife has always run premium in he LS400. The Last 5 years it has run great on Costco premium. I think CA limited sulfur in all gas since about 1990. So ARCO should be about the same as the others in the CARB states.
PS CA taxes foreign oil so Shell is 4 cents more tax than those refined from domestic oil.
I've read that it's just the additive package that makes much difference.
I've read that there's only one gas pipeline to Boise (from Salt Lake City) and it's all Chevron (without any additives). There is apparently stuff trucked in too, but it sure sounds like most of the various name brands around town come out of the same pipe in this area.
I've read we aren't building new refineries because each state has said they polute too much and please build them somewhere else. In other words the priorirty level for cheap gas has been downgraded to below that of clean air/environment. I personally support that prioritization. We have effectively decided as a country that we are prepared to pay more for gas then in the past.
The very first time in your life when you twist that key you've made yourself hostage to the oil industry and the auto industry one way or the other. So as Buffalo Springfield said "Pay the Price" "And that's the name of thta tune!"
I'm not the ultimate guru as far as why crude/gasoline prices are higher. However, I do study these prices daily as my propane business is derived from crude and natural gas. Also, I don't own a crystal ball in reference to my predictions. IMO our current gasoline prices are caused by:
a. Increased World demand for a limited supply product. Mexico, China, and other developing countries are tapping into "our" supply. Currently, there's only so much product available, so the basic law of "Supply and Demand" prevails. This law should prevail and prices may have a temporary decline this fall, but will come back to current pricing or possibly higher pricing. b. There's more in the ground to pump and process, but refinery production has a limitation cap. More refineries could be built to increase production. Large oil companies are reluctant to build without government assistance. This "" expectation has been fostered for decades. They have record breaking billion dollar profits, yet expect us (tax payers) to foot the bill. This is primarily due to corporate and investor greed. It's also a business decision. What's the return on investment? Will we (investor, management) make more by investing or not investing? What's the long-term solution? etc... c. At the risk of offending, I've feel that stock market traders should really be known as humanity traitors. They care NOTHING about ANYTHING except how decisions affect their price TODAY. It doesn't matter that hundreds or thousands will lose their jobs... It doesn't matter that the environment will take another hit (unless the risk of a fine outweighs the benefit)... It doesn't matter that the majority of people will be burdened by the decision as long as the investor profits from it! (I write this with guilt as I have 401K investments that include oil and utilities. It's either, be part of the game or be left behind.)
This is long and I'm sure that several disagree with my opinion, but I'll continue with Possible Solutions as my next post.
gasman1, that was a very poignant post, honest and true, IMO. I think the greed is the key.
One solution is harnessing a home based energy solution that mitigates the global supply/demand effect and can use multiple energy sources, electric, wind, hybrid, etc.
The biggest users of petrol in this country are industry, transportation and consumer uses for the energy. Imagine if we were self-sufficient inside our borders for all of these segments?
Just like our highway system, we need our own energy system. Easy to say, hard to do. But IMHO, it'll be worth the effort. Also, lot's of jobs could open up to build this new system.
Warning - This is my opinion so I doubt anyone to fully agree. My reference is to the United States oil/gasoline/transportation industry, not the automobile manufacturing industry.
a. The US consumer expects total freedom to drive when and where they want to drive. High pump prices hinder that expectation. Grow up! We're in Kindergarten compared to the Europeans or Japanese when it comes to transportation. That doesn't mean we can't or won't learn, but we better do it sooner rather than later. b. US mass transportation is a joke! AmTrack doesn't cover enough and for the most part, it's service is sub-par and has been more expensive than driving. (That could change shortly.) Airlines have steadily declined rather than improved to meet customer needs. Many Federal, State, and County roads are in disrepair. Billions of dollars are sometimes spent on highway projects that benefit few while major highways deteriorate. c. Oil companies continue to report profit in the billions. d. Restructure and increase Federal and State fuel taxes. Increase the rate and make the tax a percentage rather than a flat rate per gallon. (possibly 20% Federal and 10% to 20% State, possibly more) Issue Federal and State credits/vouchers to Emergency Services and Law Enforcement agencies to minimize the financial impact. Require oil company profit CAPs and use the excess profits and the increased tax collections to quickly develop a viable mass transit system. e. Energy efficient mass transit must include: local and interstate bus routes; city, commuter, and interstate rail; and more efficient and better customer service air. All mass transit fares must be less less expensive than driving. So consider discounts for additional people who travel together to equate to more than one person traveling by car.
Will this ever happen? If it or some form of it occurs, we will all feel the pain. All of us and all types of current business and industry would be affected.
If we did it, we could stabilize, if not reduce our oil consumption. We should also decrease our greenhouse gases. My ideas may have holes such as we need to consider and adjust the financial impact on retirees.
I guess the bottom line comes down to we need to change our ways now. A mass transit plan is painful. The alternative to no plan could be disastrous!
Thanks and I agree! We can't expect to gain control of this problem by going after only one facit of the problem. We must attck it from every possible avenue. Increased effciencies and alternative energies for transportation, home, manufacturing, and farming come to mind.
With gas prices being as volatile as they are it would be difficult to accurately project revenue with a percentage sales tax. The per gallon system works best. Some states like CA do both. They should be generating a lot of revenue these days but they probably need it with the financial mess they got in during the Gray Davis days.
Oil companies do not set the price for oil. When oil is expensive they are going to make big profits. Not exactly rocket science. It is a global market and if we don't want to pay market price then they will sell it to the Asians. The oil companies that are also in the refining business probably do have some control over the price of unleaded gasoline. But not that much because we can always import unleaded gasoline from Europe, which we did after hurricane Katrina.
The summer driving season hasn't started yet. No hurricanes to report. Political tensions have been relatively static as of late. Refineries are operating at close to 90% capacity but stockpiles of unleaded gasoline are at a 16 year low and demand continues to increase. I think we are in a very vulnerable position where a relatively small market disruption could push prices well past $4/gallon. It is unavoidable since any solutions will be very long term in nature.
We've spent the last 40 years painting ourselves into this corner and it may take a comparable amount of time to get out. A Toyota engineer commented a few months back on our lack of a viable energy policy. He said "sheep are meant to be shorn".
Mr. Shiftright: I have to worry about how others are using the gas they buy if they're choking me to death however or if the environmental damage is not being assumed by the people who cause it.
The air is getting cleaner every year, thanks to air pollution controls on both vehicles and industry. We've discussed this before: no one in America is choking to death because of vehicle pollution.
People who buy those vehicles, and the shareholders and customers of customers of the companies that are mandated to install those controls, have borne the costs associated with cleaning up the air. We have made dramatic progress in improving air quality over the past 25 years.
Mr. Shiftright: Responsibility has to be a component of energy use--but fairly applied.
And accuracy as to the true state of air quality, and a thorough knowledge of the costs already borne by people to clean up the environment, is a critical portion of any attempt to fairly assess the situation. Which is what is missing here.
Mr. Shiftright: Example (exaggerated): If your town instituted a Pothole Tax, to pay for road damage---would you want to pay the same tax as the neighbor who drives an Abrams Tank to work?
Here's a counter question: If my neighbor drives a bigger car, that in reality only causes as much damage to the road as my Honda, would I want him to pay more taxes based on the incorrect appearance - fueled by what people think that they know - that his vehicle is causing more damage than mine?
bluzf1: It took you all that time to come up w/ that?
Considering that your plan is just a rehash of failed ideas from the past, I'd suggest going easy on the criticism.
bluzf1: I'm letting the free market work,I'm just helping it along.
Somehow, passing lots of pointless, intrusive regulations doesn't strike me as helping the free market along.
bluzf1: It's guys like you that need the "help" of some sort of energy plan. You are the reason for "the plan."
Why? Last time I checked, there was plenty of gas available, just at higher prices. If people don't want to pay those prices, they adjust their use accordingly. I don't "need" your "help."
I kind of go along with you on this one. I just returned from Hilo, HI that quite possibly has the cleanest air on earth. My eyes have watered for the last 4 days getting accustomed to the dust and whatever else is in this air. Most I suspect is from dust created by construction. They are cutting the top off the hill next to mine to build 274 $$million plus McMansions. Lots of folks are not worried about 4 buck gas.
I do think the air in So CA is much better than when I left in 1970 to get away in Alaska.
They don't make much, if anything, on the actual gasoline, so seeing sales at the pump dry up, in and of itself, would hurt them very little. However, a lot of people go to the gas station to get junk food, beer, lottery tickets, etc, in addition to the gas, and this is where most of the profit comes from.
That's absolutely correct and there are laws in some states that force station owners to charge a minimum price. This is done to keep them from selling it at cost or a small loss simply to attract customers for their convenience store.
Some have commented that they don't understand how the price at a station can go up when they are still selling the same gas they bought days earlier. Yes they are making an additional profit but I think it has to work this way. When prices are falling the station owners have to adjust their prices down even though the gas they are selling didn't suddenly get cheaper. This is because someone is getting a fuel delivery on any given day and your prices have to match the competition so they should always reflect the current replacement cost.
I do agree that station owners are quicker to pass on price increases than price decreases. This is a characteristic of most products we buy. Economists refer to it as the rocket, feather phenomena.
i think if you're boycotting the gas, you're boycotting the patroning of the station as a whole. well, unless you are buying lotto tickets or cigarettes... which we all shouldn't be anyway.
air quality is not "getting better". In some places it is better, in some places worse, in some places holding its own.
That's about the most accurate statement either of us can make.
The reasons seem clear enough...there are cleaner cars now, but a lot more of them, and people are driving them more---so it makes sense that you can have both cleaner cars and a worsening situation at the same time...depending on where you live, climate conditions, population density, etc.
As for your neighbor's bigger car, if he's pumping more carbon into the air than you are, sure, let him pay more to do that. I have no problem with that, as long as it is quantifiable and accurate assessment, not as you say "appearance"--which can be very deceiving and very unfair. Case in point: The Corvette, which gets very good fuel mileage on the highway.
I ditched my gas guzzler two years ago. Do I miss it? Yeah. Do I want to pay to keep it running at $3.50 a gallon. No. Do I think anybody should be allowed to do anything whatsoever to the environment if they can afford it? No.
I'm no huge fan of Big Oil but as to those who complain about the price of gas not being based on the "purchase price" to the station of the gas undergraound and rather on tha daily market price of replacement, well ...... I bet not one complainer is going to sell his/her house based on what they paid for the thing in 1994, but rather on today's market price. However, if you do want to sell your house at 1994 prices, please call me.
I bet not one complainer is going to sell his/her house based on what they paid for the thing in 1994, but rather on today's market price. However, if you do want to sell your house at 1994 prices, please call me.
Better be careful what you wish for...there might be some people around the Detroit area that would jump at that offer! I hear the housing market and economy ain't so hot there right now. :sick:
Not buying gas for a day will do no good (sales will simply be higher the day before and the day after) .... however not USING gas for a day each week would make a decent dent. Take a sunday walk instead of a sunday drive, hop on a bike & exercise.
Of course like anything skipping usage only works when everyone does it. Since that aint gonna happen, the Exxons of the world are going to continue to rake in $10,000,000,000 profits each quarter. Anyone know what the total oil industry profit was a recent quarter? (not just one company, but combined?)
I guess it's all about personal consumption. 25 years ago, there weren't that many cars on the roads. Extrapolate that globally and there you are! Use more, demand goes up, supply can't match it and price goes up.
Oh, and more peoople = more house = more energy needed/consumed (even mor for the recent McMansions!)
...how I conserve by living in a modest house and by either walking or taking the bus while Daddy-o the Suburbanite is going home to his huge air-conditioned McMansion in a H-2.
I gassed-up my Park Avenue this past Sunday. The pump had $54.96 on it for 18 gallons from the previous guy. Eeek!!!
Thank you for the reality check. My latest gripe is water prices. You can no longer carry a bottle of water into the gate area in our airports. Guess what they will sell you a 25 cent bottle of water for $3.15. Same in Hilo as San Diego. Wonder who came up with that money making scheme? That comes out to $15.50 per gallon for water. My water bill in both Hawaii and San Diego is higher than my gas bill for most any month of the year. If $4 or $5 gas will keep people off the roads in the middle of the day when I run my errands it will be a good thing. It will also help my 401K. I should buy stock in a water company.
Yes but water is delivered to your house. Gasoline isn't.
NOT DRIVING:
Don't know if I mentioned this, but the other day I used my bicycle to do all my shopping. Put in about 10 miles. Got so hungry from pedaling, I had a big breakfast for $7.
That's .70 cents a mile. I could have been driving a Ferrari :P
Oh I was thinking premium pump gas in SF @ $3.85 and 6 mpg from flooring it all day....not maintenance....Ferraris, aside from the gas, cost about $1.50 a mile to drive.
Yes but water is delivered to your house. Gasoline isn't.
Yes that is via my $10,000 water meter hookup. There is just a lot of things we use that have inflated far beyond what gas has since I first started driving. I think the volatile swings are more noticeable in gas because the signs are in our face. If you look at important foods such as tomatoes. They can sell in the stores here anywhere from 50 cents a lb to $3 per lb. As a percentage of our budget gas and food are a small portion. Much less than in 1964 when I was first married. My food and gas in 1964 was more than my rent for a month.
PS A $200k Ferrari should not need any maintenance
that I found online, inflation has risen about 6.68 times since 1960. Of course, not everything rises at the same rate.
A couple years ago, I was digging through some old papers and found a property tax bill for my house, from 1961. $200 per year. I WISH it had only gone up 6.68X since then! Heck, even 10X would be nice! Try 14X. And that's still cheap compared to what many people pay.
In 1960 gas was about 19 cents a gallon at the cheapest stations. I had a 1948 Cadillac flathead V8. It got maybe 8 MPG and 2 gallon can of Raylube every fill-up. That was one of many cars I had during High School. I was working at a wrecking yard and kept trading up. I spent a big share of my income on cars.
Unless you have an SUV, you are spending less for gas on a historical basis if you are in the 25 MPG average club. That calculates to about $1.50/ gal. in today's dollars and calculates to $0.39/gal. in 1975. BTW, gas peaked at $2.00/gal in 1975. At least we can feel good about the increase in efficiency over time. I'm sure we will do even better in the next 30 or so years.
So it ain't that bad!
History
The US Congress established CAFE standards in 1975, largely in response to the oil embargo of 1973. Gasoline prices skyrocketed and the United States was caught flat on its feet. Cars and light trucks were heavy and inefficient, with cars averaging 13.5 mpg and trucks averaging 11.6 mpg. Congress established a phase-in of new fuel economy standards that brought cars up to 27.5 mpg, but delegated the responsibility of setting standards for light trucks, now set at 20.7 mpg, to the Department of Transportation (DOT).
I agree. I am thankful it was inexpensive while I was saving for my retirement. I don't think we will have much to complain about until it is as expensive as our brothers and sisters in the EU are paying. We are about half way there. Maybe then we will think before we jump in our cars to go get a pack of cigarettes or a six pack of beer. Plan ahead more, should be the motto for those concerned about the price of gas.
Comments
i'm wondering what would happen if there was a coordinated effort country-wide to target one brand and boycott it until the price fell below some agreed-upon threshold...
Of course, you also need something rational and right on your side or you're just screaming in the wilderness. Some vague notion of "conspiracy" isn't going to inflame the hearts and minds of consumers any more than talk of UFOs. Americans are not people easily given to endure sacrifice or hardship. It has to be something extremely serious, almost life-threatening to get them to give up anything.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
i see the day when there are targeted backlash campaigns against manufacturer's / distributors for one reason or another.
for example, wasn't something like this done against Nike or Reebock (can't remember) because of their reliance on child labor?
It just so happens 99.9% of us don't buy those directly, a manufacturer or utility does and makes them into some sort of product, which absorbs those fluctuations. But gasoline we do buy and we do see the flctuations. If I'm a gasoline or (heating) oil distributor and it goes up 2% in a day, I certainly want to take credit and sell my product for 2% more. If the price went down 2%, and my competitor lowers his price to grab market-share, I'm certainly going to have to lower my price 2%, if people are aware they can now purchase it for less.
There are some people who can't afford to buy a house, property or a condo. Should we boycott realtors? There are some people who can't afford to buy a car - do we need to give them a subsidy? No - it is personal economics, and choices. There are many people who come from bad backrounds and do well. I suggest to everyone to improve themselves, become more productive and knowledgable, and make yourself some more $.
To anyone in general: If you have done little to educate yourself, spend your free-time in front of the TV with a 6-pack, and expecting to hit the lottery as your path to wealth ... don't expect me to care if all you're left with someday is a bike.
The US is far behind in devloping alternate sources of energy. It costs $0.25/gal. in Saudi Arabia for that commodity.
It would be a huge boost to our economy if we established a home-based source of energy independent of foreign control.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
As for realtors, many people do boycott them.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
PS: I'd run my own gas station in my back yard if they'd let me.
:P
Regarding oil being a foreign commodity. Yes it is and we need to respect those that supply it to us and have the power to interrupt that supply. Everything is fine as long as we do that. The trouble starts when we forget that vulnerability and we think we can cause trouble over there or disrespect the people that provide this important product to us. Oil is always cheapest when peace reigns.
Perhaps those who spend up to $.50 a gallon more are buying a higher quality of gas believing it is worth it in the long run. If I leased a car for three years or less, I'd by the lowest price available.
What brand is of the highest quality and doesn't that vary in areas?
Probably the only one that would get hurt is the Shell gas station owner. They don't make much, if anything, on the actual gasoline, so seeing sales at the pump dry up, in and of itself, would hurt them very little. However, a lot of people go to the gas station to get junk food, beer, lottery tickets, etc, in addition to the gas, and this is where most of the profit comes from. They'd still get some local traffic from people nearby who stop in because it's closer and more convenient than, say, a 7-Eleven, but they'd still lose a lot of business. Now if they're near an apartment complex where they get a lot of walk-up customers for all that junk they may still do okay. And perhaps, if they also have a service center where they can bring in revenue from working on cars.
But in the end, the only way to really have an impact is to start cutting back on usage, not merely shifting it away from one brand to another. But even then, if we cut back on usage, who's to say they just won't cut back on supply, and we'll be right back where we started?
PS
CA taxes foreign oil so Shell is 4 cents more tax than those refined from domestic oil.
I've read that there's only one gas pipeline to Boise (from Salt Lake City) and it's all Chevron (without any additives). There is apparently stuff trucked in too, but it sure sounds like most of the various name brands around town come out of the same pipe in this area.
So as Buffalo Springfield said "Pay the Price"
"And that's the name of thta tune!"
a. Increased World demand for a limited supply product. Mexico, China, and other developing countries are tapping into "our" supply. Currently, there's only so much product available, so the basic law of "Supply and Demand" prevails. This law should prevail and prices may have a temporary decline this fall, but will come back to current pricing or possibly higher pricing.
b. There's more in the ground to pump and process, but refinery production has a limitation cap. More refineries could be built to increase production. Large oil companies are reluctant to build without government assistance. This "" expectation has been fostered for decades. They have record breaking billion dollar profits, yet expect us (tax payers) to foot the bill. This is primarily due to corporate and investor greed. It's also a business decision. What's the return on investment? Will we (investor, management) make more by investing or not investing? What's the long-term solution? etc...
c. At the risk of offending, I've feel that stock market traders should really be known as humanity traitors. They care NOTHING about ANYTHING except how decisions affect their price TODAY. It doesn't matter that hundreds or thousands will lose their jobs... It doesn't matter that the environment will take another hit (unless the risk of a fine outweighs the benefit)... It doesn't matter that the majority of people will be burdened by the decision as long as the investor profits from it! (I write this with guilt as I have 401K investments that include oil and utilities. It's either, be part of the game or be left behind.)
This is long and I'm sure that several disagree with my opinion, but I'll continue with Possible Solutions as my next post.
One solution is harnessing a home based energy solution that mitigates the global supply/demand effect and can use multiple energy sources, electric, wind, hybrid, etc.
The biggest users of petrol in this country are industry, transportation and consumer uses for the energy. Imagine if we were self-sufficient inside our borders for all of these segments?
Just like our highway system, we need our own energy system. Easy to say, hard to do. But IMHO, it'll be worth the effort. Also, lot's of jobs could open up to build this new system.
Regards,
OW
a. The US consumer expects total freedom to drive when and where they want to drive. High pump prices hinder that expectation. Grow up! We're in Kindergarten compared to the Europeans or Japanese when it comes to transportation. That doesn't mean we can't or won't learn, but we better do it sooner rather than later.
b. US mass transportation is a joke! AmTrack doesn't cover enough and for the most part, it's service is sub-par and has been more expensive than driving. (That could change shortly.) Airlines have steadily declined rather than improved to meet customer needs. Many Federal, State, and County roads are in disrepair. Billions of dollars are sometimes spent on highway projects that benefit few while major highways deteriorate.
c. Oil companies continue to report profit in the billions.
d. Restructure and increase Federal and State fuel taxes. Increase the rate and make the tax a percentage rather than a flat rate per gallon. (possibly 20% Federal and 10% to 20% State, possibly more) Issue Federal and State credits/vouchers to Emergency Services and Law Enforcement agencies to minimize the financial impact. Require oil company profit CAPs and use the excess profits and the increased tax collections to quickly develop a viable mass transit system.
e. Energy efficient mass transit must include: local and interstate bus routes; city, commuter, and interstate rail; and more efficient and better customer service air. All mass transit fares must be less less expensive than driving. So consider discounts for additional people who travel together to equate to more than one person traveling by car.
Will this ever happen? If it or some form of it occurs, we will all feel the pain. All of us and all types of current business and industry would be affected.
If we did it, we could stabilize, if not reduce our oil consumption. We should also decrease our greenhouse gases. My ideas may have holes such as we need to consider and adjust the financial impact on retirees.
I guess the bottom line comes down to we need to change our ways now. A mass transit plan is painful. The alternative to no plan could be disastrous!
Oil companies do not set the price for oil. When oil is expensive they are going to make big profits. Not exactly rocket science. It is a global market and if we don't want to pay market price then they will sell it to the Asians. The oil companies that are also in the refining business probably do have some control over the price of unleaded gasoline. But not that much because we can always import unleaded gasoline from Europe, which we did after hurricane Katrina.
The summer driving season hasn't started yet. No hurricanes to report. Political tensions have been relatively static as of late. Refineries are operating at close to 90% capacity but stockpiles of unleaded gasoline are at a 16 year low and demand continues to increase. I think we are in a very vulnerable position where a relatively small market disruption could push prices well past $4/gallon. It is unavoidable since any solutions will be very long term in nature.
We've spent the last 40 years painting ourselves into this corner and it may take a comparable amount of time to get out. A Toyota engineer commented a few months back on our lack of a viable energy policy. He said "sheep are meant to be shorn".
The air is getting cleaner every year, thanks to air pollution controls on both vehicles and industry. We've discussed this before: no one in America is choking to death because of vehicle pollution.
People who buy those vehicles, and the shareholders and customers of customers of the companies that are mandated to install those controls, have borne the costs associated with cleaning up the air. We have made dramatic progress in improving air quality over the past 25 years.
Mr. Shiftright: Responsibility has to be a component of energy use--but fairly applied.
And accuracy as to the true state of air quality, and a thorough knowledge of the costs already borne by people to clean up the environment, is a critical portion of any attempt to fairly assess the situation. Which is what is missing here.
Mr. Shiftright: Example (exaggerated): If your town instituted a Pothole Tax, to pay for road damage---would you want to pay the same tax as the neighbor who drives an Abrams Tank to work?
Here's a counter question: If my neighbor drives a bigger car, that in reality only causes as much damage to the road as my Honda, would I want him to pay more taxes based on the incorrect appearance - fueled by what people think that they know - that his vehicle is causing more damage than mine?
Considering that your plan is just a rehash of failed ideas from the past, I'd suggest going easy on the criticism.
bluzf1: I'm letting the free market work,I'm just helping it along.
Somehow, passing lots of pointless, intrusive regulations doesn't strike me as helping the free market along.
bluzf1: It's guys like you that need the "help" of some sort of energy plan. You are the reason for "the plan."
Why? Last time I checked, there was plenty of gas available, just at higher prices. If people don't want to pay those prices, they adjust their use accordingly. I don't "need" your "help."
There are lots of Epidemiology studies out there that say that air pollution kills.
link and link and link and link
There's lots more scientific journal links that you have to subscribe to if you want full text of the actual studies (example).
I do think the air in So CA is much better than when I left in 1970 to get away in Alaska.
That's absolutely correct and there are laws in some states that force station owners to charge a minimum price. This is done to keep them from selling it at cost or a small loss simply to attract customers for their convenience store.
Some have commented that they don't understand how the price at a station can go up when they are still selling the same gas they bought days earlier. Yes they are making an additional profit but I think it has to work this way. When prices are falling the station owners have to adjust their prices down even though the gas they are selling didn't suddenly get cheaper. This is because someone is getting a fuel delivery on any given day and your prices have to match the competition so they should always reflect the current replacement cost.
I do agree that station owners are quicker to pass on price increases than price decreases. This is a characteristic of most products we buy. Economists refer to it as the rocket, feather phenomena.
That's about the most accurate statement either of us can make.
The reasons seem clear enough...there are cleaner cars now, but a lot more of them, and people are driving them more---so it makes sense that you can have both cleaner cars and a worsening situation at the same time...depending on where you live, climate conditions, population density, etc.
As for your neighbor's bigger car, if he's pumping more carbon into the air than you are, sure, let him pay more to do that. I have no problem with that, as long as it is quantifiable and accurate assessment, not as you say "appearance"--which can be very deceiving and very unfair.
Case in point: The Corvette, which gets very good fuel mileage on the highway.
I ditched my gas guzzler two years ago. Do I miss it? Yeah. Do I want to pay to keep it running at $3.50 a gallon. No.
Do I think anybody should be allowed to do anything whatsoever to the environment if they can afford it? No.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
"The 'Don't pump gas on May 15' chain e-mail may be a natural response to record prices and profits, but experts say it'll do no good." (CNN)
Better be careful what you wish for...there might be some people around the Detroit area that would jump at that offer! I hear the housing market and economy ain't so hot there right now. :sick:
Of course like anything skipping usage only works when everyone does it. Since that aint gonna happen, the Exxons of the world are going to continue to rake in $10,000,000,000 profits each quarter. Anyone know what the total oil industry profit was a recent quarter? (not just one company, but combined?)
I guess it's all about personal consumption. 25 years ago, there weren't that many cars on the roads. Extrapolate that globally and there you are! Use more, demand goes up, supply can't match it and price goes up.
Oh, and more peoople = more house = more energy needed/consumed (even mor for the recent McMansions!)
There! I passed economics 101!
Regards,
OW
I gassed-up my Park Avenue this past Sunday. The pump had $54.96 on it for 18 gallons from the previous guy. Eeek!!!
Regards,
OW
My latest gripe is water prices. You can no longer carry a bottle of water into the gate area in our airports. Guess what they will sell you a 25 cent bottle of water for $3.15. Same in Hilo as San Diego. Wonder who came up with that money making scheme? That comes out to $15.50 per gallon for water. My water bill in both Hawaii and San Diego is higher than my gas bill for most any month of the year. If $4 or $5 gas will keep people off the roads in the middle of the day when I run my errands it will be a good thing. It will also help my 401K. I should buy stock in a water company.
NOT DRIVING:
Don't know if I mentioned this, but the other day I used my bicycle to do all my shopping. Put in about 10 miles. Got so hungry from pedaling, I had a big breakfast for $7.
That's .70 cents a mile. I could have been driving a Ferrari :P
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Yes that is via my $10,000 water meter hookup. There is just a lot of things we use that have inflated far beyond what gas has since I first started driving. I think the volatile swings are more noticeable in gas because the signs are in our face. If you look at important foods such as tomatoes. They can sell in the stores here anywhere from 50 cents a lb to $3 per lb. As a percentage of our budget gas and food are a small portion. Much less than in 1964 when I was first married. My food and gas in 1964 was more than my rent for a month.
PS
A $200k Ferrari should not need any maintenance
A couple years ago, I was digging through some old papers and found a property tax bill for my house, from 1961. $200 per year. I WISH it had only gone up 6.68X since then! Heck, even 10X would be nice! Try 14X. And that's still cheap compared to what many people pay.
So it ain't that bad!
History
The US Congress established CAFE standards in 1975, largely in response to the oil embargo of 1973. Gasoline prices skyrocketed and the United States was caught flat on its feet. Cars and light trucks were heavy and inefficient, with cars averaging 13.5 mpg and trucks averaging 11.6 mpg. Congress established a phase-in of new fuel economy standards that brought cars up to 27.5 mpg, but delegated the responsibility of setting standards for light trucks, now set at 20.7 mpg, to the Department of Transportation (DOT).
Regards,
OW
I agree. I am thankful it was inexpensive while I was saving for my retirement. I don't think we will have much to complain about until it is as expensive as our brothers and sisters in the EU are paying. We are about half way there. Maybe then we will think before we jump in our cars to go get a pack of cigarettes or a six pack of beer. Plan ahead more, should be the motto for those concerned about the price of gas.