Rising Fuel Prices! WTF!?

[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
As long as price raises do nothing but make 99% of Americans shake their head, curse the pump, and fill their gas tanks, the Oil Corps, from an economic standpoint, ought to raise their prices. Price raises so far have done virtually nothing to decrease volume sold. It doesn’t take Alan Greenspan to see that Oil Corps could easily justify raising prices.

Nailed it on the head. Most people are still living under the mindset that we’re not running out of oil and refinery production. They will bitch and complain about and oil and gas prices, but not do a whole lot more than that.

Sales of SUVs may be down, but they’re not down that much. Sales of large trucks are actually up and they get just as bad gas mileage as the SUVs.

Have you seen the ridiculous sales figures for the new Toyota Tundra? It gets a whooping 15 mpg/city 18mpg/hwy. We still think of our automobiles as status symbols and not point A to point B reliable transportation.

I think they could easily take gas prices to $5-$6 (which they will) and it really wouldn’t significantly affect most people’s driving habits or automotive purchases. What it will do though is chew up people’s disposable income, which will cause future problems down the road. But Americans have never been all that good at planning a sustainable future for themselves. Politically, economically, financially or otherwise.[/quote]

Good post.

Americans are complacent and out of touch on the issue of oil.

The benefits of reducing our dependency on foreign oil are many yet the issue is largely ignored. We continue to flaunt our wealth by buying inefficient transportation and housing and creating suburban sprawl that is ever increasing the average workers commute.

All the while personal and government debt continues to grow.

Our immensely expensive military is also stretched thin trying to secure democracy in the only region that could possibly meet world demand for oil in the not so distant future. A region also filled with terrorists that have promised to attack oil production. A region that will also require trillions of dollars of investment to meet growing world demand.

Yet we continue to behave as a nation as if cheap and abundant foreign oil is something you can count on.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Unfortunately its basically impossible to do that.
[/quote]

Like I said, I don’t think it would work. I was only arguing with HH over whether or not it was a somehow immoral act.

[quote]
But in the situations where there is a steady supply of crude but the bottleneck is in the refining process, well, questions need to be asked.[/quote]

Questions like: why do tree-huggers thwart progress and keep new refineries from being built for decades, thus raising the price for everyone else? I agree, the truth must be told.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Questions like: why do tree-huggers thwart progress and keep new refineries from being built for decades, thus raising the price for everyone else? I agree, the truth must be told.
[/quote]

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Questions like: why do tree-huggers thwart progress and keep new refineries from being built for decades, thus raising the price for everyone else? I agree, the truth must be told. [/quote]

Well, this is a completely different debate. You cannot have an unequivocally large economy without detriment to the Earth’s resources. I will put this under a blanket “law of conservation”. So we either decide we want cheap, ubiquitous goods or we want to live on a planet with breathable air, etc. I won’t go further with the rhetoric.

I will frame this another way:
quality or quantity?

if the oil companies started charging $6+ per gallon, can we charge them with treason?

If HH thinks the dems are worthy of that tag I am sure we could spin it enuff to fit big oil.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, this is a completely different debate.[/quote]

No, it isn’t. If the supply is limited not because we have less crude oil, but because we don’t have enough refineries, then it is precisely the debate. Whether or not we, as a society, choose to privilege the environment’s supposed interests over our economy’s is, indeed, a different debate.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Unfortunately its basically impossible to do that. Far too many rely on automobile transportation to earn a living. Add to that the fact that a lot of people cannot switch to more fuel-efficient / flex-fuel cars and you have an industry that has a permanent, guaranteed demand.
[/quote]

An example to the validity of your point is that fuel is selling elsewhere in the world where prices are as high as 7.5$/gallon (Swedish price as of today). This probably seems ridiculously expensive to you with your EarthFucker-2000s, but people are still filling up their tanks around here.

But, the BIG difference is that people have developed more efficient cars and alternative fuel. Heck, they make biodiesel around here from organic garbage. It takes some time to separate your household trash, but, at the end of the day, it sure feels like an accomplishment when you know your heater and car’s energy is coming from eggshells, banana skins, teabags and macaroni leftovers.

Electricity could also be generated that way.

Did anyone watch “Who killed the electric car”? I know it’s a bit old, but what did you guys make of the Shell head-engineer of R&D on alternative fuels going on record saying that Hydrogen is never gonna happen?

[quote]Ren wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How about everyone just takes two weeks off from work this summer (all at the same time), not go anywhere, don’t buy, consume, or contribute in any way to the economy to send a message.

On the other hand, that’s probably what we should already be doing to conserve resources. Let them try to talk about supply when demand drops for two straight weeks over the summer.

What you wrote is straight from the Dem playbook:

The intelligent and productive deserve no reward and no profits. Everyone is here to be a slave to the others, our brother’s keepers. Those who produce gasoline are supposed to produce it because we NEED it, not because they want to make a profit, those greedy bastards!!

HH, you’re not being consistent. If it’s OK for oil companies to exploit the market and increase the price during times of scarcity (it is), it is also OK for us to exploit the market and not buy from them when we can afford not to, to drive down the prices. That is very different from some kind of legislative action.

Not that I think it would work…

Unfortunately its basically impossible to do that. Far too many rely on automobile transportation to earn a living. Add to that the fact that a lot of people cannot switch to more fuel-efficient / flex-fuel cars and you have an industry that has a permanent, guaranteed demand.

Add to this that unlike other industries, competitors have no motivation to lower their prices, which leaves us with oil companies that can tell us to bend over and there is nothing we can do about it.

But hey, we are talking about an industry that has not shown a loss for over 2 decades, and have recently had a taste of the ridiculous profits that can be made off the American public.

Do I think that we need to tax them into oblivion? No. But in the situations where there is a steady supply of crude but the bottleneck is in the refining process, well, questions need to be asked.[/quote]

When was the last time a refinery was built in the USA? Something like 1972, wasn’t it? The environmentalist whackos passed ream after ream of regulations and prohibitions, making it impossible to build one. We are now paying the price.

The environmentalists will now achieve their dream — we all walk. Welcome to the Anti-Industrial Revolution.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well, this is a completely different debate.

No, it isn’t. If the supply is limited not because we have less crude oil, but because we don’t have enough refineries, then it is precisely the debate. Whether or not we, as a society, choose to privilege the environment’s supposed interests over our economy’s is, indeed, a different debate.
[/quote]

Yes, but you are purposely ignoring the fact that with more refineries comes more pollution. So the question is do we want more, cheaper goods or do we want…? Maybe it is the same–I was just pointing out the other side of the argument that you left out.

I am not just arguing about the mass production of fuel, per se, on the contrary, that mass production in general has been a detriment to global ecosysytems; and that cannot be argued. Its fact.

[quote]micromuscle wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Quit crying…it is supply and demand.

Get over it.

“And there are fewer options around the world. State oil monopolies now control three-quarters of the world’s proven oil reserves, so Venezuela may still prove enticing even under Chavez’s new, tougher terms.”

--- from Foxnews

There’s one thing I love about you HH, your avatar! Friggin’ classic! I wonder which one’s cock is bigger?[/quote]

Well, since Al has one, I assume, and Annie is the perfection and ideal of feminity, therefore not having one, Al’s is bigger by default.

With regard to the control issue: if governments control the oil fields, what is more likely to happen to prices?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
nephorm wrote:

Questions like: why do tree-huggers thwart progress and keep new refineries from being built for decades, thus raising the price for everyone else? I agree, the truth must be told.

Well, this is a completely different debate. You cannot have an unequivocally large economy without detriment to the Earth’s resources. I will put this under a blanket “law of conservation”. So we either decide we want cheap, ubiquitous goods or we want to live on a planet with breathable air, etc. I won’t go further with the rhetoric.

I will frame this another way:
quality or quantity?[/quote]

So, your choices are to return to the Middle Ages, when the air was all pristine and pure, or die in our own pollution. LOL! Where’d you pick that crap up?

The Anti-Industrial Revolution continues…

ROFLMAO!!!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, your choices are to return to the Middle Ages, when the air was all pristine and pure, or die in our own pollution. LOL! Where’d you pick that crap up?

The Anti-Industrial Revolution continues…

ROFLMAO!!!
[/quote]

The middle ages were pre-enlightenment not just pre-industrialization. Not only that, the church had more pull back then too. I am not suggesting we revert to that.

We’ll see. When you are living on top of a land-fill because of all the mass produced garbage that comes with excessive industrialization then you can talk to me about the middle ages.

Again, how much is enough?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

When was the last time a refinery was built in the USA? Something like 1972, wasn’t it? The environmentalist whackos passed ream after ream of regulations and prohibitions, making it impossible to build one. We are now paying the price.

The environmentalists will now achieve their dream — we all walk. Welcome to the Anti-Industrial Revolution.

[/quote]

I think we all agree that this has fucked us now. Stupid greenpeace. My other question is have the oil companies been allowed to improve on existing refineries? As in either expand them or make them more productive?

The problem once again has been the influence that extreme groups have had on the policies of this government at the expense of the majority.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes, but you are purposely ignoring the fact that with more refineries comes more pollution. [/quote]

I’m ignoring it because it isn’t relevant to the current discussion, which centers on fuel prices and the greed of oil companies. This discussion is primarily about whether or not to blame the oil companies - not the environmental merits or dangers of more refineries.

I am only interested in pointing out that while supply and demand motivate fuel prices, supply is legislatively limited. And while the corporations might constitute an oligopoly, and oil is in many ways a utility similar to other utilities, the companies will still charge only as much as buyers will pay.

The childish response to this is a feeling of injustice, shouting “that’s not fair,” and seeking some sort of retribution from the companies themselves. That’s OK as a first instinct.

Reflection indicates that such a move is poor precedent; that increased taxation or confiscation will not lessen the burden on those who feel it, and that our desires - our greed - is certainly as loathsome as that of any CEO at the point at which we extract from other human beings their rightful earnings at gunpoint.

The mature answer that many posters have already pointed out is that there are alternatives to petrol, and if we were really all that oppressed by the oil companies, we would invest more money and effort in those researches.

That is, we find our own way out.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…, that mass production in general has been a detriment to global ecosysytems; and that cannot be argued. Its fact. [/quote]

Yes. And it has been a boon for mankind.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The mature answer that many posters have already pointed out is that there are alternatives to petrol, and if we were really all that oppressed by the oil companies, we would invest more money and effort in those researches.

That is, we find our own way out.[/quote]

Exactly. Its only in a mixed or fascistic economy that capitalists (or environmentalists) can use the power of government to abuse the citizenry. Given freedom, the oil companies will eventually be f**ked if they seek too high a return on capital.

Freedom…what a wonderful thing!!!


The Valkyrie Rune

[quote]lixy wrote:

[i]greed: n.

1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: {avarice}, {covetousness},
{rapacity}, {avaritia}][/i][/quote]

On Greed

"Greed is similar to gluttony, except it applies more to inedible things. It is the desire for more cash than you could possibly spend, and more stuff than you could possibly use or appreciate. It is the selfish desire to get more and have more, for the sake of the getting and the having, often at the expense of others.

The critics of greed generally take aim at the most conspicuous examples of conspicuous consumption. Bill Gates. Donald Trump. People who drive Hummers and Suburbans. Basically, anyone who has more, better, or bigger stuff than the critics do. That these folks are themselves probably guilty of the sin of Envy is beside the point, and is certainly never recognized by them.

As with Lust and Gluttony, it is the the excessive and unnatural desire for wealth and material goods which cause the haters to hate greed. But I have a problem with the words unnatural and excessive. What could be more natural than desiring the best? Who has the right to define what is excessive?

True, nobody needs a Cartier bracelet, or a Georgio Armani suit, or a Louis Vuitton handbag, or a Valkyrie Rune motorcycle, but we [/i]want[/i] these things, damn it. And our wanting these excellent things inspires engineers, craftsmen and artisans to produce them.

Similarly, nobody needs 18-inch biceps or 28-inch thighs. Nobody needs to look like a fitness model. Nobody needs to squat 400 or deadlift 700, or to have a shot at maybe doing the horizontal samba with Jessica Alba. But we [/i]want[/i] these things. So off to the gym we go.

I suppose that in an ideal world, as imagined by the greed haters, all human beings would be completely equal, living in perfect harmony. We would all have the same basic skills, the same meager possessions, the same scrawny physiques, low tastes and scant desires. We would all be living in caves and mud huts, growing millet and amaranth, raising goats and mouflon sheep.

What a fucking nightmare. Good thing that Greed makes us want to go out and get something better."

Excerpted from “Nation of Sin”

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1095292

Incidentally, where I live, regular gasoline costs $4.75 a gallon. It’s about $5.45 in Italy. Gasoline in the United States is…

(…listen very carefully, America…)

[center]…CHEAP!!![/center]

Lixy: just as an addendum to your bit about biodiesel:

A friend of mine bought a VW Golf diesel last year, which he converted to run on straight vegetable oil.

The conversion itself is a little expensive, maybe 500 bucks, but he now pays precisely nothing for fueling his automobile. He simply drives around to all of the donut shops, tempura shops and Mc Donalds, and they gladly give him their used deep-fry oil, which they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of.

He strains the crud out the oil, and then just pours it in the tank. The car runs perfectly, and its exhaust smells vaguely like french fries.

When you consider that the first diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil, this is not so strange an idea.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Lixy: just as an addendum to your bit about biodiesel:

A friend of mine bought a VW Golf diesel last year, which he converted to run on straight vegetable oil.

The conversion itself is a little expensive, maybe 500 bucks, but he now pays precisely nothing for fueling his automobile. He simply drives around to all of the donut shops, tempura shops and Mc Donalds, and they gladly give him their used deep-fry oil, which they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of.

He strains the crud out the oil, and then just pours it in the tank. The car runs perfectly, and its exhaust smells vaguely like french fries.

When you consider that the first diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil, this is not so strange an idea. [/quote]

How much vegetable oil does he need to do that? Just out of curiosity. And how much mileage does he get?

A friend of mine is thinking about going cross country in a vegetable-fueld diesel car after he graduates, and I’m curious to see if he has a feasible plan.

-Gendou

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
micromuscle wrote:
To the OP (and others), on the World News about 2 weeks ago, the headline was: 127 Isreali militants captured, oil prices expected to rise. Isn’t that clear enough? Damn, we have to pay for their incarcerations SOMEHOW! (sarcasm!)

It blew my mind when I saw this. How does capturing militants= rise in oil prices? Shouldn’t the shift go the other way? Please Zap, explain economy to us low-life freedom lovers.

Israeli militants?[/quote]

That’s what I said! I couldn’t believe my eyes or ears. The Isreali’s apparently have them too. Dude, I’m still sitting here wondering who, what, and how this lead to a rise in oil prices…