http://gamingtrend.com
September 16, 2014, 01:05:19 AM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gas  (Read 11196 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 12656



View Profile
Gas
« on: March 14, 2008, 04:44:20 AM »

I had to pay 3.75 a gallon for gas today and that was the cheapest for regular of 3 gas stations at an intersection.  W T F !!!

Are you guys getting bent over at the pump, too?
Logged
SkyLander
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1882



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2008, 04:49:22 AM »

I think it's nationwide.
Logged

Pretty....what do we blow up first?
Simon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1185


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2008, 04:51:27 AM »

$3.59 here right now, I heard before that we are usually the highest in the state (WA). Makes me glad to use my scooter when I can, at least to save a few dollars.
Logged
USMC Kato
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2772


I have a bad feeling about this....


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2008, 05:10:01 AM »

We're getting slammed here in Southern California.  3.95 near MCAS Miramar. 
Logged

Semper Fidelis

Gamertag: USMC Kato
PSN ID: USMC_Kato
Gamecenter ID: USMC Kato
Wii U Nintendo ID: USMC_Kato
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12477


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2008, 11:21:54 AM »

We're not quite as bad ($3.20 last night), but it's still rising.  I'm sure it'll catch up to the rest of the country soon.

At what point do oil company profits outweigh crippling the rest of the US economy?  I'm curious where the tipping point is.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2008, 12:15:26 PM »

Earlier in the week I filled up at $2.89 ish

Yesterday gas prices went up to $3.09

This morning on the radio they said it went up to $3.29

So basically, $5 more per week to fill my tank and my wife's tank.

If prices keep going up, it's time to find something else to cut back on to make ends meet.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2008, 01:02:02 PM »

Not to turn this into a political thread, but if you're pissed off, vote Democrat in the next election.  The gas prices are a direct result of this administration's policies.

The increase in the M3 rate (essentially, the money supply) shows the huge number of dollars recently put in circulation.  Essentially, the vast increase in the money supply has lowered the value of the US dollar to rock-bottom.  For example, $1 = .9387 Euros in 1999.  Now?  $1 = .6434.  This drives up the price of foreign goods. 

Combine that with the lowering of the Federal Fund rate and the lack of any real policy regarding Iraqi oil and you have a recipe for inflation on consumer staples - food, gas and raw materials.  Food is just as bad: http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2008/03/09/surging_costs_of_groceries_hit_home/.  No wonder the economy is tanking - discretionary income for the Middle Class is virtually nonexistent.

It may get worse before it gets better.  Many experts are predicting $3.75 as the average gas prices by Memorial Day - about $.40 higher than what you're paying now.  That will, in turn, increase the price of other consumer staples (including food).  And for anyone who points to the CPI as a measure for true inflation, don't - the changes made to the CPI under the Clinton administration has made it a poor measure of inflation.

Since McCain has vowed to continue Bush's economic policies, a vote for him in November is a vote for the policies that have created these inflated prices.  Of course, Exxon and the rest of the big oil companies are raking it in...big suprise.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5472


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2008, 01:40:38 PM »

Quote from: leo8877 on March 14, 2008, 04:44:20 AM

I had to pay 3.75 a gallon for gas today and that was the cheapest for regular of 3 gas stations at an intersection.  W T F !!!

Are you guys getting bent over at the pump, too?

You sound surprised, almost as if oil hasn't gone up to $111 a barrel.  That's almost 5 times what it was five years ago.  I don't think the price of gas has gone up 5 times or else you'd be paying $12 a gallon of gas.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2008, 02:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on March 14, 2008, 01:02:02 PM

Not to turn this into a political thread,

too late  Tongue
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 02:51:31 PM by CeeKay » Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Larraque
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2392


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2008, 03:14:46 PM »

Not to turn this into a hardware/software hell thread, but my wife complains that I have really bad gas at night.

Anyone recommend me some anti-gas medicine?
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2008, 05:00:53 PM »

Also, don't forget that oil is traded in US Dollars.

Weak US Dollar = high oil prices = high gas prices.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2008, 05:12:47 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on March 14, 2008, 05:00:53 PM

Also, don't forget that oil is traded in US Dollars.

Weak US Dollar = high oil prices = high gas prices.

Again, review my post above...it's important to know how the US dollar got weak.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2008, 07:36:14 PM »

Quote
Again, review my post above...it's important to know how the US dollar got weak.

and just for you black - on a totally noninflationary note, theres a brand new five dollar bill hot of the presses - errrrr... i mean going into circulation

and one of the huge pet peeves of mine was that over the past 3 or 4 years NO ONE was mentioning that maybe, perhaps the weakening dollar was somehow "mysteriously" related to the rising price of gasoline (i bitched about it in more than one post here, and in numerous discussions).  nice that everyone is finally starting to pick up on it. 

a second thing that may keep driving up the price is uncertain economic times and a floundering stock market.  theres always a flight to safety, so a lot of investors will jump on staples and things that simply MUST be purchased - this is going to continue to push up the price of oil
Logged
Eel Snave
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2786



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2008, 09:47:19 PM »

Check out this graph.  Now, I'm as supportive as the next guy of the administration.  But you can't tell me that the spike in prices from 2002 onward is just some sort of coincidence.  Oil didn't get that much rarer, or that much more difficult to extract.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2008, 10:22:14 PM »

Quote from: Eel Snave on March 14, 2008, 09:47:19 PM

Oil didn't get that much rarer, or that much more difficult to extract.

Oil demand happened to go up a wee bit.
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2008, 10:22:52 PM »

But but but... we invaded Iraq for the oil, right?  RIGHT?
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2008, 10:54:10 PM »

Quote
Oil demand happened to go up a wee bit.

sort of.  by most estimates the growth of oil "production" is actually a bit higher than growth in worldwide demand for oil - both are around 2% per year, with growth in production being slightly higher (at least for projections, and for the next 5 to 10 years)

it has more to do with the way oil is now bought and sold (futures contracts as opposed to long term deals with customers) and dollar depreciation.  refined stuff and gasoline in particular takes additional hits from, well local refinery "problems" (too few due to poor investment or outright shutdowns of existing)

Quote
But but but... we invaded Iraq for the oil, right?  RIGHT?

smile well it sure wasnt for the broccoli!  if i remember correctly, iraqs oil output never recovered from the FIRST gulf war, let alone this current mess
Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5472


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2008, 11:07:42 PM »

Quote from: Eel Snave on March 14, 2008, 09:47:19 PM

Check out this graph. 

You fail at posting links smile
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2008, 11:14:56 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on March 14, 2008, 10:54:10 PM

it has more to do with the way oil is now bought and sold (futures contracts as opposed to long term deals with customers) and dollar depreciation.  refined stuff and gasoline in particular takes additional hits from, well local refinery "problems" (too few due to poor investment or outright shutdowns of existing)

This is going to bite all of us, as consumers, in the ass (since nothing ends up biting the oil industry in the ass).  Why?  Because a futures market relies on there actually being a future... and many experts believe Saudi Arabia has already hit "peak oil".  That means the largest oil fields in the world have reached the point where it's going to start taking more and more effort to get less and less oil out of the ground.

Does that sound like a market with a good future?  Not really.

Part of the stupidity of this administration was how they attacked conservation right from the very start.  We were actually on a pretty good trend, the government was starting to mandate the efficiency of it's buildings, etc.  All that ended when GWB took office, of course, and actually discouraged (and reversed!) conservation efforts.

People realized over a decade (or two, or three) ago that humanity's future does not lie with oil.  But GWB's administration was the "last hurrah" of a great many people.  That's exactly why so many people have been stealing everything that wasn't nailed down... and a lot that was.  They knew that unless they got GWB in, by hook or by crook, they would never have a chance like this ever again.

One thing I've been wondering for a while, and it would be really interesting to know: does anyone know what percentage of the oil market is supplied to the US military?
Logged
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2008, 12:24:30 AM »

I think it's nonsense to think that Democrats will magically fix a global problem, especially when Bill Clinton did nothing for curbing oil use.

Quote
Congress initially set the passenger-car fuel economy standard in 1975 under President Gerald R. Ford, with the expectation that automakers would meet it in 10 years. President Bill Clinton added 0.2 miles per gallon to the requirement, but Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase.

Bush persuaded Congress to lift the prohibition in 2001, and a National Academy of Sciences study that year concluded that a standard of 33 mpg was feasible and would not compromise passenger safety. But Bush has not pushed for such a change, instead opting last month to increase fuel economy standards for light trucks by an average of just under 2 mpg over four years. That move will save about 10.7 billion gallons of gas over two decades -- less than one month of current U.S. gasoline use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302134.html

In other words, while he did give tax breaks to folks buying SUVs and edited scientific reports to downplay the severity of the issue, Bush did more for curbing oil use than Clinton.

And why? Because the need is so much more apparent now than when Clinton was in office. No matter who comes next, they'll have to take action.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2008, 12:32:58 AM »

Quote from: Canuck on March 14, 2008, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: Eel Snave on March 14, 2008, 09:47:19 PM


You fail at posting links smile

umm... quoting..... nuff said  Tongue

(or this could actually be performance art and subtle satire)
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2008, 12:49:00 AM »

be careful with peak oil though.  usgs has a really good breakdown of petro categories.  when people talk about peak its usually of proven reserves, which account for only a relatively small percentage of actual stuff in existence.  as price goes up, more oil that was previously "unextractable" becomes extractable.  when oil was $20 a barrel, oil that it would cost $100 a barrel to extract was in a different category.  and as the technology frontier is pushed outward, it will be possible to extract the stuff that is as of now "unextractable"

i am, however in no way saying we should ignore the problem or postpone preparing.  but there is a lot more of the stuff left than some people make out - ease of extraction and refining (or lack of smile), however push it into a different category than what is usually considered.  all that said running out is most likely going to be a problem at the end of our lifetimes, and most certainly by the end of our childrens
Logged
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2008, 03:09:34 AM »

With the price this high, Senor Hugo Chavez's Venezuela sits atop the world's largest oil reserves.
If the price went down, his reserve would go away.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5472


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2008, 05:12:41 AM »

Quote from: CeeKay on March 15, 2008, 12:32:58 AM

Quote from: Canuck on March 14, 2008, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: Eel Snave on March 14, 2008, 09:47:19 PM


You fail at posting links smile

umm... quoting..... nuff said  Tongue

(or this could actually be performance art and subtle satire)

Yes I fail at quoting-although technically I blame Gamingtrend for that.  I've seen a lot of other people do it as well so it must be the site's fault smile
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2008, 02:05:17 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on March 15, 2008, 12:24:30 AM

I think it's nonsense to think that Democrats will magically fix a global problem, especially when Bill Clinton did nothing for curbing oil use.

Quote
Congress initially set the passenger-car fuel economy standard in 1975 under President Gerald R. Ford, with the expectation that automakers would meet it in 10 years. President Bill Clinton added 0.2 miles per gallon to the requirement, but Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase.

Bush persuaded Congress to lift the prohibition in 2001, and a National Academy of Sciences study that year concluded that a standard of 33 mpg was feasible and would not compromise passenger safety. But Bush has not pushed for such a change, instead opting last month to increase fuel economy standards for light trucks by an average of just under 2 mpg over four years. That move will save about 10.7 billion gallons of gas over two decades -- less than one month of current U.S. gasoline use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302134.html

In other words, while he did give tax breaks to folks buying SUVs and edited scientific reports to downplay the severity of the issue, Bush did more for curbing oil use than Clinton.

And why? Because the need is so much more apparent now than when Clinton was in office. No matter who comes next, they'll have to take action.

How is this Clinton's fault?

"Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase."

Who ran Congress in 1995?  The Republicans.

 retard
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2008, 05:11:37 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on March 16, 2008, 02:05:17 PM

Quote from: Eduardo X on March 15, 2008, 12:24:30 AM

I think it's nonsense to think that Democrats will magically fix a global problem, especially when Bill Clinton did nothing for curbing oil use.

Quote
Congress initially set the passenger-car fuel economy standard in 1975 under President Gerald R. Ford, with the expectation that automakers would meet it in 10 years. President Bill Clinton added 0.2 miles per gallon to the requirement, but Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase.

Bush persuaded Congress to lift the prohibition in 2001, and a National Academy of Sciences study that year concluded that a standard of 33 mpg was feasible and would not compromise passenger safety. But Bush has not pushed for such a change, instead opting last month to increase fuel economy standards for light trucks by an average of just under 2 mpg over four years. That move will save about 10.7 billion gallons of gas over two decades -- less than one month of current U.S. gasoline use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302134.html

In other words, while he did give tax breaks to folks buying SUVs and edited scientific reports to downplay the severity of the issue, Bush did more for curbing oil use than Clinton.

And why? Because the need is so much more apparent now than when Clinton was in office. No matter who comes next, they'll have to take action.

How is this Clinton's fault?

"Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase."

Who ran Congress in 1995?  The Republicans.

 retard

How much did the Democrats raise this when they were in control of Congress during the eighties and early nineties? This is a failure of both political parties and to suggest otherwise is fairly laughable, neither has really done jack shit to increase environmental protection to any significant degree.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2008, 05:29:33 PM »

Quote from: CSL on March 16, 2008, 05:11:37 PM

How much did the Democrats raise this when they were in control of Congress during the eighties and early nineties? This is a failure of both political parties and to suggest otherwise is fairly laughable, neither has really done jack shit to increase environmental protection to any significant degree.

Bullshit.  This is a "hindsight is 20/20" argument.  You can't apply the environmental knowledge of today back to the early 90s and late 80s and then try to castigate the Democrats. 

When the Dems last controlled Congress, the hole in the ozone layer (and eliminating CFCs) - not global warming - was the environmental issue of the day.  Gas was $1.15/gal and there was zero political will for alternative fuels.  Kyoto wouldn't be signed until 3 years after the 1994 midterm elections when the Republicans swept into Congress.  The big discussion was drilling in ANWR, a move the Dems consistently opposed.

The Republicans held both the House and the Senate from 1994-2006, the White House since 2000 and a stacked Supreme Court since the late 80s.  Since '94, how much of a chance have the Dems had to push any real environmental policies with regard to Global Warming or fossil fuels?  Virtually zero. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2008, 05:39:12 PM »

Quote from: CSL on March 16, 2008, 05:11:37 PM

How much did the Democrats raise this when they were in control of Congress during the eighties and early nineties? This is a failure of both political parties and to suggest otherwise is fairly laughable, neither has really done jack shit to increase environmental protection to any significant degree.

Neither has done anything to increase environmental protections?  What the hell are you talking about?

Let's look at fossil fuels specifically, and we can limit ourselves to the early 80s, because otherwise I'll be here all day:

1978 - Energy Tax Act - income tax credits for people using alternative fuels.  Oh, and created the gas guzzler tax.
1980 - Energy Security Act - loans for smaller ethanol producers and price guarantees for biomass energy projects.  Created the Synthetic Fuels Corporation to create alternatives to imported fossil fuels.
1980 - Gasohol Competition Act - prevents market discrimination against synthetic fuel producers.
1980 - Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act - intended to finance the tax credit for alternative fuels.
1981 - VP George "not the worst" Bush proposes to eliminate the phase-out of leaded gasoline even though there are clear health risks to Americans.  Well done, GB!

Should I continue?  We can talk about the federal speed limit, enacted to conserve gasoline during the OPEC crisis.

Like with every substantive issue facing this country, the republicans are far, far worse than the democrats.
Logged
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9359



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 17, 2008, 04:48:31 AM »

Let's not forget that were was plenty of evidence connecting Bush to oil interests here and abroad.

I was sad the day he passed this one bill that was supposed to help hydrogen as a renewable fuel, but it turns out all the money was earmarked to find ways to get hydrogen from fossil fuels.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 17, 2008, 05:08:47 AM »

The nuclear industry has also been pushing to make hydrogen for at least two decades.

All this stuff is just a scam, intended to make so-called vital industries (which the Japanese market called Zombie Companies [not Umbrella Corp]).  In the case of Japan, a very few companies got ahold of the food supply.  Thus, when they started losing money through mismanagement, they convinced the government that they were too important to go out of business.  Rather than telling them to go pound sand, the government agreed and started propping them up.  You know, just like the Bush Administration just did with Bear Stearns.

These guys just bounce from one self-created crisis to the next, getting a nice corporate welfare bail-out each time.  And when they just make sure all the money they "lost" went into their pocket in the first place, it's happy days for all involved.  Just ask Ken Lay (if he hadn't died without serving a single day of jail time, that is).

That's why the energy industry has been making billions in profit, but not investing at all in planned growth (or in many cases, even basic upkeep).  They just want another catastrophy so they can get big daddy gubment to give them money again.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 05:11:00 AM by unbreakable » Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 17, 2008, 01:41:22 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on March 16, 2008, 02:05:17 PM

Quote from: Eduardo X on March 15, 2008, 12:24:30 AM

I think it's nonsense to think that Democrats will magically fix a global problem, especially when Bill Clinton did nothing for curbing oil use.

Quote
Congress initially set the passenger-car fuel economy standard in 1975 under President Gerald R. Ford, with the expectation that automakers would meet it in 10 years. President Bill Clinton added 0.2 miles per gallon to the requirement, but Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase.

Bush persuaded Congress to lift the prohibition in 2001, and a National Academy of Sciences study that year concluded that a standard of 33 mpg was feasible and would not compromise passenger safety. But Bush has not pushed for such a change, instead opting last month to increase fuel economy standards for light trucks by an average of just under 2 mpg over four years. That move will save about 10.7 billion gallons of gas over two decades -- less than one month of current U.S. gasoline use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302134.html

In other words, while he did give tax breaks to folks buying SUVs and edited scientific reports to downplay the severity of the issue, Bush did more for curbing oil use than Clinton.

And why? Because the need is so much more apparent now than when Clinton was in office. No matter who comes next, they'll have to take action.

How is this Clinton's fault?

"Congress then passed legislation starting in 1995 that blocked any further increase."

Who ran Congress in 1995?  The Republicans.

 retard

But who signed said bill?

Why, Bill Clinton, of course!

He could have vetoed, you know.  Congress passes legislation; POTUS signes it into law.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
the Nightbreeze
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 465

Done posting.


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 17, 2008, 02:29:38 PM »

And a 2/3rds vote of both houses of the legislature overturns a veto, and during that congressional era, it was feasible to happen.
Logged

Done posting
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 17, 2008, 02:34:48 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on March 17, 2008, 01:41:22 PM

But who signed said bill?

Why, Bill Clinton, of course!

He could have vetoed, you know.  Congress passes legislation; POTUS signes it into law.

In case you were not aware, the President does not write legislation (well, unless he is a Republican president with a rubber-stamp Republican Congress ignoring it's Constitutional duties).

Thus... it's not "Clinton's Fault".  But if you really, really need to assess partial blame, you can give him a 1/539th share of it.
Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 17, 2008, 06:58:49 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on March 17, 2008, 02:34:48 PM

But if you really, really need to assess partial blame, you can give him a 1/539th share of it.

That sentence only makes sense if the 538 shares all have veto power. It's more like half the blame.
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2008, 07:18:43 PM »

How about we assign some credit?

Over the past 3+ decades the primary mover in terms of Environmental legislation and regulation has been California, and it's need to deal with air quality, and in general the EPA has been receptive to allowing the States to mandate Air Quality controls.

This has really irked some people, but for the most part it has been extremely forward thinking and beneficial, despite the kicking and screaming.

Right now CA is suing the EPA because of what appears to be politically motivated stonewalling on the restriction of CO2 emissions.  We'll see what happens.
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #35 on: March 18, 2008, 03:43:33 PM »

Quote from: CSL on March 17, 2008, 06:58:49 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on March 17, 2008, 02:34:48 PM

But if you really, really need to assess partial blame, you can give him a 1/539th share of it.

That sentence only makes sense if the 538 shares all have veto power. It's more like half the blame.

But those 538 shares can override a veto.  So it's more like 1/539th the blame.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 03:45:16 PM by unbreakable » Logged
PaulBot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1769


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2008, 01:05:06 AM »

Why isn't crude oil and gasoline sold for what it actually costs to produce plus a reasonable profit margin?
Logged

CEO of the GT Post Padders Club
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2008, 01:18:37 AM »

Quote from: PaulBot on April 01, 2008, 01:05:06 AM

Why isn't crude oil and gasoline sold for what it actually costs to produce plus a reasonable profit margin?

Because reasonable price controls don't make people multi-billionaires.
Logged
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2008, 02:21:26 AM »

$3.18 here..Fn Bush. Up his.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4015


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2008, 05:36:06 AM »

Quote from: PaulBot on April 01, 2008, 01:05:06 AM

Why isn't crude oil and gasoline sold for what it actually costs to produce plus a reasonable profit margin?
Because the government makes more in taxes on a gallon on gasoline than what the oil companies make in profit on a gallon of gas.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   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 0.176 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.043s, 2q)