http://gamingtrend.com
August 23, 2014, 03:49:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [RP] President says "suffer" to gas prices  (Read 9400 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4001



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2006, 07:56:54 PM »

Quote from: "Zekester"
Our own Congress approved the war, BTW


Actually, CONgress didn't.  CONgress basically said "hey, uhhh, we have elections coming up, Mr. President, and we don't want to lose votes by ending up picking the wrong thing, so uh... here's a blank check, you write the war if you want to, sir!"

Which is a flagrant violation of the Constitution.  The Legislative branch is the only branch of the government that can declare war, not the Executive, not the Judicial.  And the Legislative branch never actually issued a declaration of war for either the "War on Terror" or the war against Iraq.

I really wish more people in this nation educated themselves on the important checks and balances in the way our government was set up, and also took the time to understand that yes, politics does have a direct impact on our lives, just not often immediately.
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2006, 08:00:17 PM »

The war in Iraq was not exactly approved by congress.

It was 'bundled' into the "War on Terror".  But, it's now abundantly clear that Bush lied to Congress in making that case.

Iraq posed an insignificant terrorist threat.  However, Bush's friends stood to make BILLIONS from plundering what was, essentially, a defenseless nation.

And so it was.
Logged
Abaddon
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 226


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2006, 10:26:54 PM »

Iran's alleged impact on gas prices as I understand it is based on its proximity and control of the Straits of Hormuz.

A very large portion of crude oil being exported from the middle east passes through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran borders the Straits on one side while the United Arab Emirate borders the other. Again my understanding is that Iran has a significant amount of control over the Straits.

Iran is currently being pressured by the U.S. and U.N. in regards to its policies on nuclear power production. Iran is insisting on producing enriched uranium while the U.S. and U.N. are insisting they must cease and desist.

As a response to this pressure the Iranian president has made some thinly veiled threats regarding oil export and the Straits of Hormuz.

Some folks are using this as another excuse to escalate oil/gas prices.

"The spice must flow"
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2006, 01:00:16 AM »

you people do realize that it was only what a week or two ago that oil was allowed to be "traded" on a market like gold or silver right? and that that opens it up to speculation? and that no one on the news or anywhere is talking about this?

also you do realize that the lack of refining capacity has NOTHING to do with environmentalists and EVERYTHING to do with the couple of jackasses on trial this very week as well.  ever wonder why this stuff doesnt go on the news?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2006, 01:37:50 AM »

Quote from: "Doopri"
you people do realize that it was only what a week or two ago that oil was allowed to be "traded" on a market like gold or silver right? and that that opens it up to speculation? and that no one on the news or anywhere is talking about this?

also you do realize that the lack of refining capacity has NOTHING to do with environmentalists and EVERYTHING to do with the couple of jackasses on trial this very week as well.  ever wonder why this stuff doesnt go on the news?


Must be our 'elite, liberal media' again.
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2006, 01:44:26 AM »

yes exactly unbreakable smile oh and an edit to my post - i was caught up and forgot - im pretty sure silver isnt traded though im not 100%
Logged
stiffler
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4071


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2006, 01:54:15 AM »

Quote from: "Doopri"
im pretty sure silver isnt traded though im not 100%


http://www.kitco.com/charts/livesilver.html

Silver prices dropped $1.15 to $11.80 an ounce today.
Logged

Xbox Live Gamertag: cstiffler
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4015


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2006, 02:14:03 AM »

Quote from: "Doopri"
also you do realize that the lack of refining capacity has NOTHING to do with environmentalists and EVERYTHING to do with the couple of jackasses on trial this very week as well.  ever wonder why this stuff doesnt go on the news?


Taken from USA Today:

Quote
Congress should remove obstacles to building new refineries:  No oil refineries have been built in the United States since 1976.  Since 1981, with the removal of refinery subsidies, the number of oil refineries has decreased from 315 to 144 at the end of 2004.  The decrease in refineries can also be traced to the environmental restrictions in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.  The operating costs of meeting these regulations became too high for many smaller refineries, which had to shut down.


http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:yKKVkP94kTMJ:www.usitoday.com/servlet/processUserPage%3Faction%3Dshowfeature%26feature%3D156+Oil+Refinery+building+environmental+restrictions&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=16

This is also a rather lengthy analysis of why the gas prices are higher:

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/1014.html

Quote
The United States has experienced a steep decline in refining capacity between 1981 and the mid-1990s. The number of refineries fell from 324 in 1981 to 149 in 2003. This steep decline in refining capacity resulted from the removal of price controls and allocations, which kept many marginal refineries in business. Many of the early refineries that shut down had little downstream processing capability and were economically viable as long they received subsidies under Federal price controls. In addition to the removal of price controls, a bear market in energy and narrow refinery margins produced low rates of return on capital. Average returns on capital were not much more than 5.5% during this period. Other factors included environmental constraints that imposed major capital expenditures and legal suits which only added to costs. The net result of all of these factors is that refinery margins—the difference between the cost of input and the price of output—have squeezed profit margins at the same time that operating costs and the need for additional investment to meet environmental mandates has grown.


Emphasis mine.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
Victoria Raverna
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1089


Auspiciousness, prosperity, and good fortune


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2006, 02:57:21 AM »

Quote from: "Zekester"
Quote from: "Victoria Raverna"
Quote from: "unbreakable"
Quote from: "Zekester"
Invade my ass. Hussein's Iraq had it coming.

Afghanistan was hardly an 'invasion' unless you're a Taliban/AlQaeda supporter.


1. so by what legal authority did the US invade Iraq?

2. it WASN'T an invasion?  Than WTF was it?  Is there an alternative term for taking your troops and inserting them uninvited into another country?


US troops were invited by the Iraqi people and received as saviors.smile


Sure you haven't changed your mind and flip-flopped yet? I heard you were good at that.

There were UN rules that Iraq was supposed to abide by, yet didn't....like violating restricted airspace. Our own Congress approved the war, BTW


So US invaded Iraq because they violate restricted airspace?smile
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2006, 03:53:38 AM »

"Many of the early refineries that shut down had little downstream processing capability and were economically viable as long they received subsidies under Federal price controls. In addition to the removal of price controls, a bear market in energy and narrow refinery margins produced low rates of return on capital. Average returns on capital were not much more than 5.5% during this period"

Graham dont play apologist for a multibillion dollar theft of investment that SHOULD have been going to construction of new refineries. the quote above essentially spells out the conditions that led to the drop in the number of refineries - namely they couldnt turn a viable profit - translation - there was not a need for said refineries.  he devotes a paragraph to that fact and simply notes environmental constraints under "other factors" in one line.  do you honestly feel that dropping the already minimal restrictions (note we dont ascribe to more stringent kyoto measures) is wise? the industry is already reaping record profits the problem is NOT a lack of funds, its allocation.  if you or i could get 5.5% from a bank account, wouldnt you take it in a second? not only does the industry want MORE than a 5.5% return to construct NEEDED facillities, they want to pollute all our air to a greater extent in the process.  how can you possibly argue that this is what is in the best interest of the country?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2006, 04:06:20 AM »

I have never bought into the BS claim that environmentalists are taking away the ability of oil companies to make money.

What the REAL problem is, is that oil companies want to continue putting zero effort into researching new and better ways of doing anything.  They refuse to put any money into new technologies.

To be quite honest, I would rather have seen our government invest in that research, than the multi-billion dollar corporate welfare they just handed them in last year's "energy policy".  Which even it's biggest proponents admit does not provide one single solution, to anything.

Bush's time in office will be viewed, in history books, as the plundering many people see it as right now.
Logged
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4015


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2006, 04:22:57 AM »

Quote from: "Doopri"
"Many of the early refineries that shut down had little downstream processing capability and were economically viable as long they received subsidies under Federal price controls. In addition to the removal of price controls, a bear market in energy and narrow refinery margins produced low rates of return on capital. Average returns on capital were not much more than 5.5% during this period"

Graham dont play apologist for a multibillion dollar theft of investment that SHOULD have been going to construction of new refineries. the quote above essentially spells out the conditions that led to the drop in the number of refineries - namely they couldnt turn a viable profit - translation - there was not a need for said refineries.  he devotes a paragraph to that fact and simply notes environmental constraints under "other factors" in one line.  do you honestly feel that dropping the already minimal restrictions (note we dont ascribe to more stringent kyoto measures) is wise? the industry is already reaping record profits the problem is NOT a lack of funds, its allocation.  if you or i could get 5.5% from a bank account, wouldnt you take it in a second? not only does the industry want MORE than a 5.5% return to construct NEEDED facillities, they want to pollute all our air to a greater extent in the process.  how can you possibly argue that this is what is in the best interest of the country?


If I could get more I would take more, and don't BS me that you wouldn't either.  If it wasn't profitable for me to make money by building refineries, I wouldn't.  That's business.  It takes 5-7 years to build a refinery, which is a huge investment.  Even the leaders of Kuwait said that they were looking at building refineries here in the US, but the environmental restrictions were too stringent for them to build here.  Easing restrictions would have gotten us more refineries or allowed closed refineries to stay open.

Also, you are only thinking about the here and now.  You seem to forget that several years the oil industry wasn't profitable.  That's why smaller refineries closed and companies consolidated.

If you want to see lower prices, you have to increase supply, decrease demand, or find an alternative.  The futures market is having a huge influence on the price of oil, and they are betting that the price of oil is going to go up even higher.

Gas companies make about 10 cents of profit on each gallon of gas.  Ever look at how much you pay in taxes on a gallon of gas?  I pay 50 cents a gallon in taxes.  The government makes five times more on a gallon of gas than the gas companies.

Taxing the "big oil corporations" won't work because of a few factors.  One, any extra costs will be passed onto consumers.  You don't think that we'll see gas prices rise if the government increases taxes?  Think again.

Secondly, if we tax big oil, what's next?  Bottle water?  Car manufacturers?  Paper companies?  Where does it stop?

I'm not saying that the $400 million dollar bonus that one of the execs got was not unreasonable, but there is a lot more going on than the simplistic arguments that people want to push.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2006, 12:17:27 PM »

Graham its a waste of time trying to get yoru point across here.  I posted a link on the first page that had a lot fo good data in it.  I do not think the majority of people that responded read any of the article beyond the snippet I put into the post.

Gas prices are higher because of the refinerys situation here and the many developing countries are demanding more oil.  We are competing for oil with China and India in a big way.  It costs too much money and there are too many regulations here to bother to build a new refinery, not to mention having to fight every environmentalist group in court.

You might as well blame Wal Mart for our high gas prices hell 80% of their globally supplied products come from China.  As China prospers it will get worse for us.
Logged
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2006, 02:04:53 PM »

weel, as I said last week.  Bush has now ordered a investigation into the high gas prices.  To see if the companies are gouging.

They will come down a bit.

I read some of the stuff you posted BTW, and I still think that a huge spike in prices suddently to make up for gas usage in 2025 is garbage, as well as claiming that last year, china used for gas.  Again garbage.

Show me numbers on barrels used by countires over the last 5 years.  As well as barrels refined over the last 5 years.  That number will tell everyone what we need.  not just me.  But other people here.  People who argue either side of this can see the ACTUAL usage.
Logged
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2006, 02:19:38 PM »

here's some numbers that i was able to find.

global demand for the year is about 30 billion barrels.

Global daily demand is about 84.9 million barrels a day.

US Daily Demand is about 20 million barrels per day.

Oddly enough.  I was not able to find any numbers on production perday.  Someone want to see if they can locate that number?  My Numbers came from searching around oil stuff on wikipedia.  now Wiki isnt the be all, end all of information, but its a start.  And it has numbers.
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2006, 02:27:29 PM »

No where in the article does it state this so where did you get this idea in your head?
"I read some of the stuff you posted BTW, and I still think that a huge spike in prices suddently to make up for gas usage in 2025 is garbage, as well as claiming that last year, china used for gas. Again garbage"

The article states the at current usage rates China will surpass the US in oil consumption by 2025.

You are paying more for oil now because demand has increased globally, especially in China, I do not see how this is hard to understand.  the economy there is booming and more people are able to purchase things they did not have, imagine the price of oil if the vehicle to person ratio was the same in China as it is in the US?
Logged
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2006, 02:46:03 PM »

Oil demand by country (in millions of barrels/day)  I tried to line the number up below but in preview it keeps funking them out, sorry.
 
Country                     2000  2001   2002    2003  2004
USA                         19.70  19.65  19.76  20.03  20.52
China                       4.80    4.92    5.16   5.55    6.63
Japan                       5.61    5.53    5.46   5.58    5.44
Former Soviet Union  3.90    4.30    4.11   4.18    4.16
Germany                  2.77    2.81    2.72   2.68    2.67
India                        2.05    2.10    2.10   2.20    2.30
Canada                    2.03    2.04    2.08   2.19    2.29
France                     2.00    2.05    1.98    2.06    2.04
UK                           1.76    1.72    1.77   1.72    1.86
Total World              76.95  78.10  78.44  79.89  82.63


BY THE NUMBERS  
Are we running out of oil? And how soon?

Of course, it's bound to happen. Oil is a non-renewable resource and sometime (some experts say fairly soon) demand will begin to outstrip supply.

World Oil Consumption
It's estimated that we've already exhausted about half of the original two trillion barrels of oil on earth. And the rest will be burned even faster as China, India and other developing nations develop oil-hungry economies.

World consumption last year stood at nearly 80 million barrels a day. In 2003 North America, the world's largest guzzler, consumed 24,083,000 barrels (over 25% of the total) each day. Almost half of it went into the continents cars, light trucks and SUV's. Ninety percent of North America's transportation sector depends on an affordable and steady supply of oil.

Although North America's voracious appetite for oil is stable in other areas of the world it is growing by leaps and bounds. Last year China overtook Japan as the second largest consumer. Early statistics for 2004 are showing another substantial increase over 2003 and the International Energy Agency now describes China as 'the major driver of global demand for oil'.

Experts estimate that the world demand for oil will grow by another 60 million barrels a day by the year 2015.

World Supply Diminishing
At the same time production from the world's super-giant and giant oil fields is diminishing by 5% a year. Although new supplies are being discovered in places like Siberia, the Central Asian republics and West Africa, these are not enormous additions to the total output. Most of the 'easy' to recover oil has already been discovered and tapped.

That leaves oil supplies like the tar sands in Western Canada and the oil shale in Venezuela's Orinoco belt. But half as much energy is used extracting this oil as the energy value of the oil produced. The price of oil needs to remain high for these operations to be economically viable. And there's a terrible cost to the environment.

The impact of the oil 'peak'
Oil experts are unsure when the 'peak' in oil production will occur. Some like petroleum geologist, Colin Campbell say it could be as soon as 2010 whereas the U.S. Energy Department estimates it won't happen until 2037. In any case, if you're middle-aged, it's bound to happen in your lifetime.

Soon enough, the era of cheap oil will be over. As the supply begins to diminish the price will go up. If prices rise too steeply there could be a devastating effect on the world's economy. It will cost a lot more to heat our houses, offices and factories and power our cars, trucks and airplanes. Increased transportation costs will drive up prices everywhere from the hardware store to the supermarket.

That's why conservationists argue that we need to reduce the world's dependence on oil today so that supplies can be stretched giving us time to develop alternate energy sources.

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/oil/numbers.html
Logged
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2006, 03:08:31 PM »

I completely understand that whole oil is getting short thing.  Theres a limited amount of it, and thanks for that breakdown of usage per country.

your number was pretty close to mine as for as daily consumption.  I would really like to see daily production now too.  Since the thing the companies have been crying is that production is so much lower since katrina, and the war worries with iran, and such.
Logged
Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4001



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2006, 03:45:29 PM »

Some analysts even believe we may have already reached Peak Oil, drifter, which is even more cause for alarm and conservation.

I really wish that the auto makers would get off their bums and start churning out much more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
drifter
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1250


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2006, 04:49:15 PM »

I agree oil is a finite resource that will be exhausted, the only question is when.  The oil referred to as sand oil or shale oil is of a low grade and energy derived from it is about 50% of regular oil after conversion to be useful.  This is also a problem with someof the alternative fuels.  When you convert there is always a loss of energy it is an unbreakable rule.  This loss of energy is compounded each step of the way.

Some time soon something has got to give.
Logged
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2006, 04:56:26 PM »

the huge discussion going on over at OO, finally yieled these numbers.

Produced Globaly per day.  84 mil barrels.
Used Per day 83 Mill barrels.

If these numbers hold true, i can see WHY they are worried.  But the fact still remains that profits from the companies producing are HUGE.  Something needs to be done.  be it new fuel source, money cap, something.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2006, 06:02:38 PM »

My first "real" job paid $2.30 an hour and gas at the time was around $0.60 a gallon. I had a '67 Chevelle and it cost me $10.00 to fill it up. My job was part time, but let's assume it was full time, so in one week I would have grossed $92.00 and netted about $75.00.

A gallon of gas at the time was 26% of my hourly wage, and it took 15% of my weekly take-home pay to put a full tank of gas into my car.

Current minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Gas in my area can be had for $2.87 a gallon.

Now a gallon of gas is 56% of a minimum-wage earner's hourly pay, and 26% of their take home pay for one week at full time to fill up that same old Chevelle.
Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2006, 06:36:00 PM »

The bottom line is that is doesn't cost anyone more to manufacture gasoline today than it did four weeks ago. Someone is exceedingly greedy and/or power hungry and they know they can charge more so they do.

They've got us over a barrel (bad pun) and they like it that way.
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4015


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2006, 06:41:58 PM »

Quote from: "VynlSol"
My first "real" job paid $2.30 an hour and gas at the time was around $0.60 a gallon. I had a '67 Chevelle and it cost me $10.00 to fill it up. My job was part time, but let's assume it was full time, so in one week I would have grossed $92.00 and netted about $75.00.

A gallon of gas at the time was 26% of my hourly wage, and it took 15% of my weekly take-home pay to put a full tank of gas into my car.

Current minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. Gas in my area can be had for $2.87 a gallon.

Now a gallon of gas is 56% of a minimum-wage earner's hourly pay, and 26% of their take home pay for one week at full time to fill up that same old Chevelle.

What are the statistics of people who are single-wage earners that make minimum wage?  I'm guessing you were probably a teenager at the time when you got your first job.  I know I was when I got my first "real" job.  Most people in minimum wage jobs are teenagers.

We are at the highest consumer confidence level for four years and we are at the lowest unemployment rate (4.7%) in four and a half years, with unemployment claims dropping sharply.  This is considered "full" national employment.  The statistics show that the economy is going strong. The only reason people are complaining about gas prices is that we've had it for so good for so long, and everyone sees the price of gas when driving down the street and it affects their wallet immediately.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
-Lord Ebonstone-
BANNED
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3428

get naked


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2006, 06:51:37 PM »

Man, how great would it be if this fucker got impeached and fucking sent to PRISON!  After how badly this moron assraped our country, knowing GWB was 'Sally' to some 350lb black guy would be poetic justice of the finest sort.
Logged

xbl tag = cthonic horror

NNNOOOOOO!!
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2006, 07:19:40 PM »

Yeah, I was still in high school when I got that first job.

I read an article today at: http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/money/8968659/detail.html

Quote
"They don't want to walk," said Robin Tummons with Mission Pawn. "More and more customers are coming in to borrow money to fill up their tanks."


Obviously people have been pawning stuff for ages, but the article highlights something that a 4.7% unemployment rate and a, "it's still less than the rest of the planet pays for fuel," mentality doesn't: the widening gap between the Haves and the Have-Nots.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #66 on: April 25, 2006, 09:43:17 PM »

Don't worry: the trickle-down will 'kick in' just in time for the Republifundies to claim they were responsible for all the successes of our next Democratic President.
Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2006, 01:07:18 AM »

Companies that will potentially make a killing off of the insane gas prices (besides the oil industry) are the companies making locking gas caps and siphons  biggrin
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2006, 02:29:52 AM »

the idea of an immediate shortage in oil supply is a false one.  it is based off of Department of Energy numbers, who use oil industry statistics, which only account for what are termed "proven" reserves.  there are also "identified reserves" and "ultimately recoverable reserves" as well as "unconventional reserves".  if you include these, as the us geological survey does (you know all those geeky geologists and scientists without stockholdings?) the shortage of oil is quite far off and as paulbot noted, NOT the reason for why gas prices jumped so significantly in the past month (and year).

chinese oil consumption actually declined the past year.  supply shortages are NOT the reason for gas spikes, as world oil needs this year, next year the year after etc etc into the near future will be and have been met with no problem.  as i pointed out oil was recently added to speculative market trading.  also enron was about more than a "few executives making XXX million dollars."  this company was charged with investment in energy technology AKA refineries.  if you wanted a long term investment and you were risk averse, you went with the sure bet, enron.  this company was also built entirely on lies and fraud and the united states refining capacity was the ultimate victim of this fraud.  this was NOT a few executives getting paid too much, this was the absolute collapse of one of the gems of american industry.  that gem was supposed to have been investing in refining capacity.  it now does not exist, and neither do the refineries it should have been "investing" in.  everyone in the industry agrees that the #1 bottleneck responsible for gasoline prices in the united states right now is a lack of refining capacity.  in each of the articles posted this is the first thing mentioned.

edit to add: and when you are getting increases in prices today because of "something happening sometime in year XXXX", that is NOT supply and demand NOR is it market capitalism - it is speculation pure and simple.  do NOT let people sell you speculation as economics, particularly when there is very good literature concerning the dangers of speculation.  there is much money to be made, but it is very rarely good for the long term hopes of an economy.  dot com? stock market 1930s?  any of this ring bells?
Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2006, 02:24:33 PM »

When the price of oil jumps and the price at the pump follows immediately, that's greed, pure and simple. You know the gasoline in the gas stations holding tanks didn't just suddenly cost them more when the price of oil went up. I seriously doubt their distributor amends their bill for previously delivered gasoline based on that days price of oil.

Imagine your favorite box of cereal sold the same way. The pricing clerk in the store listens to the news and reprices that cereal multiple times a day according to what they hear.

Somebody needs a shotgun to the head....
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4001



View Profile
« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2006, 04:05:44 PM »

Quote from: "PaulBot"
When the price of oil jumps and the price at the pump follows immediately, that's greed, pure and simple. You know the gasoline in the gas stations holding tanks didn't just suddenly cost them more when the price of oil went up.


Exactly.  Hey, anybody see the sudden spike in prices for Rubbermaid and Tupperware?  Holy crap, the price instability in the market for those items is insane!  I wish we could find an oil alternative to make those products so that they didn't keep jumping up in price every time oil spiked.  You know, how every summer the price on those products leaps up dramatically because of the higher demand for picnics and barbeques.
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
GGMark
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2006, 05:49:37 PM »

PVC, the clothing, is made with gasoline.  i think it has to do with to many chubby goth girls.  Anyways.

I wish i could find numbers for minimum wage and how many people in the US make minimum wage.  I bet you would be surprised.  Or a least some people would.

They also did a study not to long ago, and found that a single person making minimum wage couldnt live ANYWHERE in the US.  There wasnt a single place in the US that they could pay rent for the month.  WOW.  Minimum wage DOES need to be recalculated, OR, pricing of 'things' needs to be redone.  You should be able to make whatever M. wage is, and afford rent, food, gas, electric, and a small amount for some expenditure of clothes and what not.  making huge hikes to minimum wage doesn tnothing.  it makes the price of everything else go up, and it rewards non skilled workers with more money without the need to learn a skill.

i remember working at Wendy's ages ago in high school making like 3.00 to start.  I was given a raise to 3.25, and a year later to 3.30...and then m. wage went to 3.25  so they were highering people in at 3.30, or more.  Hmmmm.....I really felt ripped off.

besides the point.

Gas prices SHOULD not rocket at the pump like they do.  I understand how futures work and what not, and i can see no reason why the price i see in the morning is different when I drive by 4 hours later.  Also different from what it was when I went by on the way home the night before.  Gimme a weekly +/-.  I wouldnt mind as much, and would make more sense to me on the stock market close.  

With all these countries switching to other fuels than Gas, I dont see how global demand is going up.  iran, Nuclear, brazil switched to some crazy ass hybrid too.  

Something needs to be done.  if there is a REAL shortage, like they are claiming, why dont they just say no more driving.  if we dont see you with more than one person in the car, you get ticketed.  Sorry.  Its war time, we need gas, turn the lights off, keep tha air down.  

Things like that went on during WWII.  Juat admit that the amount of time and energy being spent elsewhere is WAY more than you thought.  Be honest to people.  While people may not like something.  They will take it more kindly when your honest about it.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9207


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2006, 06:53:49 PM »

Well, i wouldn't worry TOO much.  President Logan has a plan to get access to all the oil we need in asia!

...wait...that's on 24

sorry

we're screwed
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2006, 04:03:14 AM »

Quote from: "hepcat"
Well, i wouldn't worry TOO much.  President Logan has a plan to get access to all the oil we need in asia!

...wait...that's on 24

sorry

we're screwed


I was right there with ya until you said "wait"  biggrin

Logan or Bush...hmmm....
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2006, 04:23:55 AM »

There is a combination of things going on to make gas prices as high as they are right now, and none of them have to do with the current President of the United States.

1.  We don't have enough refineries.    Why don't we have enough refineries?   Because Democrats in congress continue to block, sink, and otherwise sabotage bills in congress that would pave the way for more refineries.    Before you say 'minority party', please remember that in our government's case, the minority party holds a tremendous amount of tools to control bills.    The start of which are riders on bills that cause the majority to vote against them.    They've been sinking attempts at paving the way for more refineries for 15 years, and it takes a while to build these facilities so even if they passed a bill tonight it would be a while before you saw the results.

2.  ANWAR -- Again -- Democrats led by environmentalists have been sinking any bill to allow oil exploration here for years.   We're feeling the effects.

3.  Gulf of Mexico --  Jeb Bush is mostly at fault this time.    Bowing under the pressure of beach front property owners allied with environmentalists, Jeb helped pass laws in Florida that prohibited offshore oil rig exploration in the Gulf.    The main real reason for this was landowners that didn't want their 'view' spoiled by the site of a distant oil rig.

4.  Government --  on average a 50 cent per gallon tax.    In Europe it's worse, sometimes climbing to $5.00 a gallon or more.   Still 50 cents is 50 cents.

5. China --  forget futures on oil, China and India are consuming massive amounts more RIGHT NOW.    These pressures weren't as great 5 years ago, and they aren't being helped by items 1-4 above.    China's economy grew 10% in the last quarter of last year ALONE.    They are also exempt from treaties restricting pollution and such because of their status as a developing nation.   They can burn coal and oil all they want with little to no restrictions, and since their ecnomoy is growing exponentially, it's suddenly put tremendous pressure on the oil market.

6.  Gormet Gasoline --  yet again, overzelous goverment (this time state level) has created a scenario in which environmentalists in various states have managed to get the governments to pass laws that alter the fuel mix of gas sold in that state.    This means refineries can't produce at full production one type of gas.   They have to shut refineries down to retool them to produce multiple types of gas.    this means less production.   This means higher prices.


I know the hip thing to do these days is to blame the President and throw that whole 'in bed with big oil' conspiracy out there, but please recognize when he is at fault for something and when he isn't.    This time he isn't.    He could no more control this situation than the man on the moon.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21052



View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: April 27, 2006, 05:27:46 AM »

msduncan - the full circle

"I know the folks here are suffering at the gas pump," the president said while promoting his competitiveness initiative at the Silicon Valley headquarters of Internet networking company Cisco Systems Inc. "Rising gasoline prices is like taking a — is like a tax, particularly on the working people and the small-business people."

He may or may not be at fault, but these are his words.  He obviously doesn't understand what is going on.  It isn't like a tax, and this stinks of rhetoric.  He just wanted to throw the words "working people" and "Small-business" in, like they are talking points to make him more 'one of the people' and not a rich Texas oil baron.  

Now, as for your points.  I completely agree with #1.  There is a lack of understanding in that party about supply and demand.  Without a way to produce more supply and with rising demand, you just get rising cost as the point of intersection rises higher in the curve.

#2 is fueled by Hollywood just as much as Democrats.  Hollywood Celebrities feel the need to champion xyz cause, and their idiot fans fall right in line.  Baaaaaaa!

#3 again, no argument here.  Bush's brother is no more sharp a marble than his older brother.  Lots of lead paint chips in that family.

#4 Bush is always clamoring to cut taxes, but you don't see him 'adjusting' this tax do you?  He CAN do something, he just won't.

#5 Again, no argument here.

#6 I hadn't thought of this.  Arizona is one of those states where part of the year we have Ethanol in our gas and the other half of the year its...hell, I don't remember, ground up diamonds or something.  I'm sure that does affect things though.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 27, 2006, 06:55:14 PM »

ms i agree with a lot of you points.  i disagree with your reasoning for there not being enough refineries (as you can probably guess from some of my other posts! smile)  as an article someone posted mentions, the industry was unwilling to construct more refineries DESPITE 5+% returns to capital - that isnt a policy failure thats a market failure.

taxes - be careful when you wish for lower gas taxes - by the national highway transportation act, most federal gas taxes are REQUIRED to be used to construct and repair roads.  SO, if we cut taxes we're going to have to find a way to repair those roads, and by way i mean money.  if youve ever bitched about a poor road in your town / highway / etc you MIGHT want to think about cutting gas taxes as the money to fix those roads, that is already automatically allocated, will have to come from somewhere else.

finally ive also said this before too - do you REALLY want to sacrifice the quality of our environment so someone can make more than 5.5%?  the health costs alone will probably offset the money that will be saved by refinery builders.  our requirements are already less stringent than many other countries.  i wish this discussion would turn to a cry for electric trains and better public transportation - take the uk - ridiculous gas prices, but you know what you never need a car in that place, its great!
Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 27, 2006, 07:22:55 PM »

I wish they'd raise the gas tax in Oregon!! It's the one tax increase I'd vote for.

I'm sick of driving on some roads that are downright pathetic.
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2992


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: April 27, 2006, 07:27:52 PM »

Well and that's where our States probably differ.    In Georgia we pay an ad valorem tax of a couple hundred dollars a year per vehicle depending on the vehicle's value.    The roads here are very well maintained.    They repair roads they don't NEED to repair in this state.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #79 on: April 27, 2006, 10:25:42 PM »

So let me get this straight-

* The oil industry closes down a significant percentage of refineries.
* The oil industry has not built even ONE new refinery in decades.
* The oil industry has been making billions without reinvesting one red cent back into their business.
* The oil industry has been getting billions of dollars in corporate welfare from the government, which has gone right into the pockets of their investors.
* The oil industry has failed to invest ANY money into new technologies to make refineries pollute less, or to improve their methods.

We need to stop coddling the oil industry.  When Exxon posts world history making profits quarter after quarter, it's amusing how a self-proclaimed 'fiscal conservative' says we need to help them out more.

The oil industry makes enough money to take care of itself.  It needs zero help from the government, and there should be MORE environmental laws rather than fewer.

Does it cost too much to make 30 different blends?  Fine, then work on a 'common denominator' blend, and just go with that.  Heaven forbid a multi-billion dollar industry be inconvenienced with making more than a dozen different products!  Oh, the humanity!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.054s, 2q)