Gas prices

[Charles Elms]

And Texas doesn't have a state income tax, and a lower sales tax than CA, lower vehicle registration fees, etc. I'm not sure where the revenue comes from, corporate and property taxes I guess (Texas has generally higher property tax rates than CA but the dollar figures per individual still tend to be lower due to the lower value of real estate.)

 

Texas has a tax on Oil and Gas Produced in the State.

[Mr_Ed]

I don't know of any state that says "We're doin' fine".

 

Georgia reporting in, "We're doin' fine."

 

 

I call BS on that. I recently did a little work with the State of GA and learned from multiple State entities (not to mention press releases from the Gov's office) that GA ain't doin fine.

[Matts_12GS]

I call BS on that. I recently did a little work with the State of GA and learned from multiple State entities (not to mention press releases from the Gov's office) that GA ain't doin fine.

 

That's camouflage to keep the "half backs" out.

 

For those that don't know... A half back is a New Yorker who moves to Miami, bitches about the heat but still doesn't want that much cold so they move half way back to NY. Usually, around C.A.R.Y., NC.

 

The joke used to be that Cary stood for Corral Area for Relocated Yankees.

[steve.foote]

I don't know of any state that says "We're doin' fine".

 

Georgia reporting in, "We're doin' fine."

 

 

I call BS on that. I recently did a little work with the State of GA and learned from multiple State entities (not to mention press releases from the Gov's office) that GA ain't doin fine.

 

You might want to recheck your sources.

[russell_bynum]

I don't know of any state that says "We're doin' fine".

 

Georgia reporting in, "We're doin' fine."

 

But, I have to agree with you. California should dramatically raise their taxes. Double or triple at the least.

 

Don't make me come over there.

[HairyCannonball]

Okay I have all my protective gear on so that I am fully prepared to be blasted for this opinion.

 

I think the best thing that happened to the US this past year was the high gas prices. I am disturbed to see that they are back down again.

 

The high prices are the only thing that will ever convince people to buy, and therefore manufacturers to make, small efficient cars. It is the only thing that will get single passenger drivers to consider public transit.

 

Now I will get really unpopular. I think there should be taxes that keep the gas price high. The income from the tax should go to low income people who have to drive to get to work so that they aren't punished. I have no idea how this would be administered but since it is so unlikely, I'm not losing sleep over implementation.

 

Let the flames begin...

 

I agree with your premise. But instead of taxing gasoline, how about taxing vehicles based on mileage. For example, tax any NEW vehicle that gets less than 30 MPG say $1000.00 per year per mile per gallon less than 30MPG, commercial vehicles exempt. Then the cell phone yakkin soccer mom driving her 12 MPG 3 ton clumsy 4wd station wagon would still be free to do so, however it would cost her $18,000 per year for the privilege. The economically challenged don't drive new vehicles. The economically privileged and those of us who care about others and the environment who have chosen efficient vehicles to haul our families all our life would not be penalized. Auto manufacturers would have a huge incentive to produce efficient vehicles as no one would buy the current crop of gas guzzling crap available. Oh wait, that part was already working...lol. Use the revenue generated to pay for research into alternative energy sources or to improve the highway infrastructure. Either that or impose some really strict CAFE standards. The average fuel efficiency of the new cars available today is sickening. You don't think demand has an impact on oil prices? From close to $150 a barrel this summer to $35 plus change just because of reduced demand due to a failing global economy.

That and very soon we have to quit sucking on the oily tit altogether, because the global supply of petroleum is finite. How much is left? Does anyone really know? All that is certain is that it took all of the earths history to create what we have, and in the last 100 years we have used an awful lot of it.

We need to conserve NOW. Hopefully that will buy us enough time to figure out other solutions to support our lifestyle.

 

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

I want to be KING!!!!!

[Selden]

I agree with your premise. But instead of taxing gasoline, how about taxing vehicles based on mileage. For example, tax any NEW vehicle that gets less than 30 MPG say $1000.00 per year per mile per gallon less than 30MPG, commercial vehicles exempt. Then the cell phone yakkin soccer mom driving her 12 MPG 3 ton clumsy 4wd station wagon would still be free to do so, however it would cost her $18,000 per year for the privilege. The economically challenged don't drive new vehicles. The economically privileged and those of us who care about others and the environment who have chosen efficient vehicles to haul our families all our life would not be penalized.... Use the revenue generated to pay for research into alternative energy sources or to improve the highway infrastructure. Either that or impose some really strict CAFE standards. The average fuel efficiency of the new cars available today is sickening. You don't think demand has an impact on oil prices? From close to $150 a barrel this summer to $35 plus change just because of reduced demand due to a failing global economy.

This sounds like an unnecessarily complex solution, which means it's going to have unanticipated consequences, such as providing an incentive to keep older cars on the road longer; the beauty of a gas tax is its simplicity: use more, pay more. This lets the consumer to choose how to use less fuel (ride pool, drive less, get a more fuel efficient vehicle, etc.).

 

One of the more fanciful suggestions I have seen is to send large SUVs to OPEC countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the gulf states. This could help Detroit unload a lot of costly inventory, get a lot of recently manufactured gas guzzlers off the road, and help our balance of payments. I have no current information, but I suspect this is already happening, although with the price of crude dropping by 75% since July, OPEC economies are also hurting.

 

25 years ago, Chevy Suburbans were the vehicle of choice among wealthy Saudis with large families; these days,they're probably buying Cadillac Escalades, Ford Excursions, and Lincoln Navigators.

[Quinn]

[quote=HairyCannonball

I agree with your premise. But instead of taxing gasoline, how about taxing vehicles based on mileage.

 

We already have that--it's called the gas guzzlers tax on new vehicles. It hasn't proven to be much of a deterent.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

...The economically challenged don't drive new vehicles. The economically privileged and those of us who care about others and the environment who have chosen efficient vehicles to haul our families all our life would not be penalized.

 

I love your "everyone but me" should pay more mentality...

 

Have you ever considered running for Congress?

 

Merry Christmas!

[SageRider]

...I love your "everyone but me" should pay more mentality...

Seems to be dominate in this topic.

I also haven't seen any of the raise the taxes folks put there money where there mouth is yet and voluntarily contribute to their appropriate taxation agency the pain they wish to inflict on everyone else......

 

[Nate9k9]

How much of the money collected for vehicle titles, registration, tires and gas actually go toward supporting road/highway infrastructure? I'm willing to bet those fees and taxes are being siphoned off to support other government programs that have nothing to do with creating/maintaining vehicle infrastucture. I agree that we need to invest in mass transit. I am an American and demand the freedom to choose and not have government choose what is good for me or take from me what I've rightfully earned to provide for someone else. Viva liberty and to the those who would contemplate limiting or taking it, kiss my ___.

[John Ranalletta]

How much of the money collected for vehicle titles, registration, tires and gas actually go toward supporting road/highway infrastructure?

About the same percentage of SS taxes collected that are deposited or invested to pay SS benefits.

[HairyCannonball]

...The economically challenged don't drive new vehicles. The economically privileged and those of us who care about others and the environment who have chosen efficient vehicles to haul our families all our life would not be penalized.

 

I love your "everyone but me" should pay more mentality...

 

Have you ever considered running for Congress?

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Not everybody but me. Just those who waste fuel. As I said, if you read carefully, those who care about others and the environment and have chosen an efficient vehicle in the first place would not be penalized. The idea is to slow down demand for oil thereby keeping the price low. Don't want to be penalized? Don't buy something that gets poor fuel economy, its that simple. Sheesh.

 

 

The gas guzzler tax had no deterrent because it was no where near high enough.

 

[Nate9k9]

I believe the market and consumer should choose, not government. When government intervenes in the market, via taxes or legislation, then we have exactly the problems we are facing today. According to our Constitution, NO ONE has the right to choose what is best for me or anyone else. I have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness as I see it. The constitution says nothing about group rights, it speaks of individual rights. What does this have to do with your way of thinking, well everything. You advocate altruism, not individualism. Your stated view is that the best course of action is that which is good for your group, driving a fuel efficient car. Altruism is group think not American individualism, which is what this country was founded upon. Now I might choose to help my fellow citizens out in some way but I don’t have to and government should not compel me too. Ya, I should be willing to defend this ideal and have, but I’m defending my freedom and that of my children. I really find it sad and disturbing that what government can’t make illegal, they will attempt to tax it into no existence. Funny thing though, people keep on buying or doing. The reality is government says they are doing it for the greater good but are in fact just taking more. You mentioned one good example the “gas guzzler tax” and how about seat belt laws or increasing taxes on fast food or soft drinks, all BS. I don't doubt your sincerity brother; I do believe your way of thinking is naive. This response is posted not to disrespect or knock a brother; it’s grownups sitting around talking about issues. Warmest Regard

[HairyCannonball]

The whole theory behind taxing gasoline higher is probably sound. Last summer gasoline was over $4.00 a gallon at he pump. This certainly caused a slowdown in peoples consumption habits and therefore caused a reduction in demand. Now it is well below $2.00 a gallon at least in most communities. Place a $2.00 a gallon tax on now and the price is still below $4.00 but close enough to cause a serious reduction in demand. What is the benefit of this over letting the price of oil and therefore gasoline rise naturally? Well, first off, the tax money stays here instead of flowing out of the country to purchase foreign oil. This money is also flowing out to countries that number one don't particularly like us, and number two don't spend the money back here for our goods and services. That is huge alone. Also, since it would drive the price of oil lower it would help the airlines. $150.00 a barrel is not sustainable for them in current form.

This would also maintain the economic incentives to develop alternative fueled vehicles like a viable electric, or at least better hybrids. Or perhaps something we have not even conceived yet. Face it, at a buck or two a gallon there is little incentive for folks to change what they are driving. Four or five bucks a gallon, there is a much larger incentive to move to smaller, more efficient means, more use of public transportation where available, more development of public transportation where not currently available.

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

[Matts_12GS]

 

Not everybody but me. Just those who waste fuel. As I said, if you read carefully, those who care about others and the environment and have chosen an efficient vehicle in the first place would not be penalized. The idea is to slow down demand for oil thereby keeping the price low. Don't want to be penalized? Don't buy something that gets poor fuel economy, its that simple. Sheesh.

 

 

Why is it that people who use more than X amount of fuel per day/week/annum are seen as not caring for others or the environment?

 

Given your stated desires, who will be the arbiter of what is wasteful or not? Who will anoint that entity as the "fairest of them all" when making these determinations.

 

Lemme guess, the almighty gubmint?

 

Your idea of using less is valid, and is a great start, but I think your approach is ill considered.

 

 

 

The whole theory behind taxing gasoline higher is probably sound. Last summer gasoline was over $4.00 a gallon at he pump. This certainly caused a slowdown in peoples consumption habits and therefore caused a reduction in demand. Now it is well below $2.00 a gallon at least in most communities. Place a $2.00 a gallon tax on now and the price is still below $4.00 but close enough to cause a serious reduction in demand. What is the benefit of this over letting the price of oil and therefore gasoline rise naturally? Well, first off, the tax money stays here instead of flowing out of the country to purchase foreign oil. This money is also flowing out to countries that number one don't particularly like us, and number two don't spend the money back here for our goods and services. That is huge alone. Also, since it would drive the price of oil lower it would help the airlines. $150.00 a barrel is not sustainable for them in current form.

 

Drill here, drill now, save money. You've made a good case for that. I'm guessing that's one of those laws of unintended consequences, eh?

[Selden]

What is the benefit of this over letting the price of oil and therefore gasoline rise naturally? Well, first off, the tax money stays here instead of flowing out of the country to purchase foreign oil. This money is also flowing out to countries that number one don't particularly like us, and number two don't spend the money back here for our goods and services.

I can't speak for Iran or Venezuela, but I can assure you that the Saudis buy huge amounts of American goods and services, from Caterpillar to Pringles, from Halliburton to Safeway. We loved our Safeway in 1980, especially the fact that yeast was shelved next to the Blue Ribbon hopped malt extract.

 

[David]

Not everybody but me. Just those who waste fuel. As I said, if you read carefully, those who care about others and the environment and have chosen an efficient vehicle in the first place would not be penalized. The idea is to slow down demand for oil thereby keeping the price low. Don't want to be penalized? Don't buy something that gets poor fuel economy, its that simple. Sheesh.

 

Seen somewhere in a signature line:

 

'05 R1200RT

'76 R90/6

'02 Duc 900SSie

'00 Duc 996 mono

'74 Duc 750GT

'09 DR650

'00 Royal Enfield Diesel

'03 Guzzi V11 LeMans

 

Maybe we ought to save the lecture on consumption for another day.

[Fugu]

The whole theory behind taxing gasoline higher is probably sound. Last summer gasoline was over $4.00 a gallon at he pump. This certainly caused a slowdown in peoples consumption habits and therefore caused a reduction in demand.

 

Do you believe that the lower prices we have now are due to decreased demand?

 

REALLY?

 

The prices now at $1.50 something versus $4.00- you think demand decreased by a factor of 2 to 3? I don't buy it. Not for a minute. I'd love to see that point of view backed up.

 

 

Anybody got some numbers from a reasonably valid source to support that the price changes are anything other than market BS?

 

 

[steve.foote]

Don't make me come over there.

 

Bring it on, big boy. You'll always have a place to stay.

[steve.foote]

Not everybody but me. Just those who waste fuel. As I said, if you read carefully, those who care about others and the environment and have chosen an efficient vehicle in the first place would not be penalized. The idea is to slow down demand for oil thereby keeping the price low. Don't want to be penalized? Don't buy something that gets poor fuel economy, its that simple. Sheesh.

 

Seen somewhere in a signature line:

 

'05 R1200RT

'76 R90/6

'02 Duc 900SSie

'00 Duc 996 mono

'74 Duc 750GT

'09 DR650

'00 Royal Enfield Diesel

'03 Guzzi V11 LeMans

 

Maybe we ought to save the lecture on consumption for another day.

 

Ya beat me to it.

[Matts_12GS]

yeah, I refrained after getting edited earlier...

 

Oh well...

[John Ranalletta]

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

If your argument was valid, oil-producing countries would have halted oil production and sales as the price fell from $146 to $39. Why would they sell a $146 asset for $39 if they didn't have to do so?

 

They need to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Your argument is based upon a personal philosophy, but the issue is one of simple economics.

[Whip]

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

If your argument was valid, oil-producing countries would have halted oil production and sales a when the price fell from $146 to $39. They need to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Why would they sell a $146 asset for $39 if they didn't have to do so?

 

 

 

..ya can't eat sand.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

If your argument was valid, oil-producing countries would have halted oil production and sales a when the price fell from $146 to $39. They need to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Why would they sell a $146 asset for $39 if they didn't have to do so?

 

 

 

..ya can't eat sand.

 

...and, that's why new fuel technologies will falter or fail to come to fruition (unless, like ethanol, they're subsidized by our idiotic congress). Oil producing states will drop the price of oil whenever there's a threat to their markets. Would anyone like the current count of half-completed but deserted ethanol and coal-to-gas plants in the midwest? They were a helluva good idea when oil was north of $100.

 

High prices are the cure for high prices.

[Whip]

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

If your argument was valid, oil-producing countries would have halted oil production and sales a when the price fell from $146 to $39. They need to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Why would they sell a $146 asset for $39 if they didn't have to do so?

 

 

 

..ya can't eat sand.

 

...and, that's why new fuel technologies will falter or fail to come to fruition (unless, like ethanol, they're subsidized by our idiotic congress). Oil producing states will drop the price of oil whenever there's a threat to their markets. Would anyone like the current count of half-completed but deserted ethanol and coal-to-gas plants in the midwest? They were a helluva good idea when oil was north of $100.

 

High prices are the cure for high prices.

 

 

Let the markets sort it out............

 

[HairyCannonball]

Not everybody but me. Just those who waste fuel. As I said, if you read carefully, those who care about others and the environment and have chosen an efficient vehicle in the first place would not be penalized. The idea is to slow down demand for oil thereby keeping the price low. Don't want to be penalized? Don't buy something that gets poor fuel economy, its that simple. Sheesh.

 

Seen somewhere in a signature line:

 

'05 R1200RT

'76 R90/6

'02 Duc 900SSie

'00 Duc 996 mono

'74 Duc 750GT

'09 DR650

'00 Royal Enfield Diesel

'03 Guzzi V11 LeMans

 

Maybe we ought to save the lecture on consumption for another day.

 

Yeah, but I havn't figured out how to ride them all at once!!!

[HairyCannonball]

What is the benefit of this over letting the price of oil and therefore gasoline rise naturally? Well, first off, the tax money stays here instead of flowing out of the country to purchase foreign oil. This money is also flowing out to countries that number one don't particularly like us, and number two don't spend the money back here for our goods and services.

I can't speak for Iran or Venezuela, but I can assure you that the Saudis buy huge amounts of American goods and services, from Caterpillar to Pringles, from Halliburton to Safeway. We loved our Safeway in 1980, especially the fact that yeast was shelved next to the Blue Ribbon hopped malt extract.

 

No where near the trillion dollars a year we are spending on foreign oil, at least according to what I read.

[HairyCannonball]

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

If your argument was valid, oil-producing countries would have halted oil production and sales as the price fell from $146 to $39. Why would they sell a $146 asset for $39 if they didn't have to do so?

 

They need to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Your argument is based upon a personal philosophy, but the issue is one of simple economics.

 

You are right, they do need to sell it as much as we need to buy. However simple economics says that as the price goes higher, demand will go lower. To a point, however oil is somewhat inelastic. But the demand is not directly related to the price of crude, it is more directly related to the price of motor fuel at the pump. If you artificially raise the price of motor fuel at the pump, demand will be reduced and therefore the price of crude will drop. Lets put it a simpler way. Gasoline 4 bux a gallon. One way pays lets say 3 dollars for the oil and 1 for tax. The other way pays 3 for the tax and one for the oil. The difference is that the tax money stays in the United States. The consumer pays the same regardless, as the price of gasoline and diesel being a commodity respond to supply and demand economics. You are right..it is an issue of simple economics. Personal philosophy has nothing to do with it.

[HairyCannonball]

I think it is an idea that at least merits further study. The United States needs to become energy independent. Face it, if our supply of foreign oil was cut off today it would be our fast and painful demise.

If your argument was valid, oil-producing countries would have halted oil production and sales a when the price fell from $146 to $39. They need to sell it as much as we need to buy it. Why would they sell a $146 asset for $39 if they didn't have to do so?

 

 

 

..ya can't eat sand.

 

 

 

They certainly need to sell oil so they can buy food and maintain their current lifestyle, but there are plenty of other places besides the United States that can supply their food.

[roadscholar]

Yeah, but I havn't figured out how to ride them all at once!!!

 

Precisely.

 

BTW, that's a very tasteful collection of bikes. At a glance, I'd figure the three Ducs get about 40 mpg, the BMWs and Guzzi about 45, the DR 50, and the diesel maybe 70. That averages out what, high 40's, pretty frugal I'd say.

[HairyCannonball]

I believe the market and consumer should choose, not government. When government intervenes in the market, via taxes or legislation, then we have exactly the problems we are facing today. According to our Constitution, NO ONE has the right to choose what is best for me or anyone else. I have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness as I see it. The constitution says nothing about group rights, it speaks of individual rights. What does this have to do with your way of thinking, well everything. You advocate altruism, not individualism. Your stated view is that the best course of action is that which is good for your group, driving a fuel efficient car. Altruism is group think not American individualism, which is what this country was founded upon. Now I might choose to help my fellow citizens out in some way but I don’t have to and government should not compel me too. Ya, I should be willing to defend this ideal and have, but I’m defending my freedom and that of my children. I really find it sad and disturbing that what government can’t make illegal, they will attempt to tax it into no existence. Funny thing though, people keep on buying or doing. The reality is government says they are doing it for the greater good but are in fact just taking more. You mentioned one good example the “gas guzzler tax” and how about seat belt laws or increasing taxes on fast food or soft drinks, all BS. I don't doubt your sincerity brother; I do believe your way of thinking is naive. This response is posted not to disrespect or knock a brother; it’s grownups sitting around talking about issues. Warmest Regard

 

So according to you the Constitution says that it is ok for me to poop on your front door step if I feel the need to do so in the pursuit of life liberty and happiness? Thankfully I don't feel the need...lol

 

My thinking is not naive. Everyones right to pursue happiness etc. is bounded by how it impacts the rest of society. Absolute freedom to do anything and everything does not work, because your actions have a direct impact on someone else. No one lives in a vacuum. Put it another way..and this is very simplistic, just to illustrate a concept...If someone driving a 12 MPG car drives up the price of fuel, it adversly affects me by making me pay more also. How about the massive number of folks layed off from the airline industry in response to the astronomical oil prices this last summer. Are we not concerned with their rights also? Every action each one of us takes has an impact on others. So at what point does your right to drive whatever you want need to be bounded by how that restricts my right to supply fuel for my vehicle? Or an airline employee's right to put food on the table for his family?

[HairyCannonball]

Yeah, but I havn't figured out how to ride them all at once!!!

 

Precisely.

 

BTW, that's a very tasteful collection of bikes. At a glance, I'd figure the three Ducs get about 40 mpg, the BMWs and Guzzi about 45, the DR 50, and the diesel maybe 70. That averages out what, high 40's, pretty frugal I'd say.

 

Thanks, you are pretty close on the mileage estimates, but the RE diesel gets better. I started out getting an easy 160mpg, but lately I have had to struggle to get better than 130mpg. I need to check it over and find out what changed. It is really stinking to get only 450 miles to a tank of fuel. Now if only it had enough power to could get out of it's own way...It's a hoot and a half around town though.

[roadscholar]

That's great, and 145 mpg is amazing. I've always wanted a diesel motorcycle and didn't know those were made. And that takes you're average way up. I still have a 240D stick (3000 lbs. 65 hp) and it's also a hoot to drive, and a good way to practice humility.

[steve.foote]

You know that there is somebody, somewhere, right now, riding a scooter, giving you the hairy eyeball about your R1200RT. I know that it's human nature, but how do you justify setting the line of irresponsibility just above your own level of consumption?

 

We could get into an endless arguement of symantics about what is and isn't essential for life. We all view responsibility through our own prisms, but from a worldly perspective, both of us will probably be found to live significantly excessive lifestyles.

 

Until one gives up ALL of their excesses, their claims of frugality are selective and mostly symbolic.

[HairyCannonball]

You know that there is somebody, somewhere, right now, riding a scooter, giving you the hairy eyeball about your R1200RT. I know that it's human nature, but how do you justify setting the line of irresponsibility just above your own level of consumption?

 

We could get into an endless arguement of symantics about what is and isn't essential for life. We all view responsibility through our own prisms, but from a worldly perspective, both of us will probably be found to live significantly excessive lifestyles.

 

Until one gives up ALL of their excesses, their claims of frugality are selective and mostly symbolic.

 

Yes, you are correct. Well said.

[Matts_12GS]

If you artificially raise the price of motor fuel at the pump, demand will be reduced and therefore the price of crude will drop. Lets put it a simpler way. Gasoline 4 bux a gallon. One way pays lets say 3 dollars for the oil and 1 for tax. The other way pays 3 for the tax and one for the oil. The difference is that the tax money stays in the United States. The consumer pays the same regardless, as the price of gasoline and diesel being a commodity respond to supply and demand economics. You are right..it is an issue of simple economics.

 

Either way, you're artificially impacting the cost of other goods dependent on motor fuels...

 

Higher gas prices = more expensive everything at the grocery store, or more expensive lead painted shite at Wally World, or... I'm sure you get the analogy, and I'm sure you can see, it's not the best way for you to "care for others" is it?

 

I'm standing by that unintended consequences thing from above... Let's buy our own damn oil to replace what we're getting from elsewhere. We can then work on other solutions.

[HairyCannonball]

If you artificially raise the price of motor fuel at the pump, demand will be reduced and therefore the price of crude will drop. Lets put it a simpler way. Gasoline 4 bux a gallon. One way pays lets say 3 dollars for the oil and 1 for tax. The other way pays 3 for the tax and one for the oil. The difference is that the tax money stays in the United States. The consumer pays the same regardless, as the price of gasoline and diesel being a commodity respond to supply and demand economics. You are right..it is an issue of simple economics.

 

Either way, you're artificially impacting the cost of other goods dependent on motor fuels...

 

Higher gas prices = more expensive everything at the grocery store, or more expensive lead painted shite at Wally World, or... I'm sure you get the analogy, and I'm sure you can see, it's not the best way for you to "care for others" is it?

 

I'm standing by that unintended consequences thing from above... Let's buy our own damn oil to replace what we're getting from elsewhere. We can then work on other solutions.

 

You are missing two points. First, the end price of motor fuel at the pump will be the same, as reduced demand will drive the price of crude oil stock to make the fuel down. It already went from over $150.00 to less than $40.00 on lower global demand. Two, if you think the United States has enough oil to supply our current gluttonous demand, I and many many others with much more knowledge of this than I, think you couldn't be more wrong.

 

 

 

[Nate9k9]

I would hope for both our sakes that you would not attempt to do that, especially if I'm home.

According to the Constitution and bill of rights, the government can not infringe upon my god given rights, as outlined in aforementioned documents. You don't have a right to cheap gas, cheap insurance, etc. Now the federal government, through the courts, has managed to manipulate/reinterpret the constitution mainly through the commerce clause to get into almost every aspect of life, but that's the government. I have to ask to what extent you’re willing to give up your individual freedoms for the greater good as you see it? We have the bill of rights to prevent your society from taking away my individual rights. Based upon recent election returns, it's clear to me that your society does not possess the intellect to make decisions on my behalf. If you wish to perform a service for the greater good of society, then become a cop, fireman or better yet join the military. I would willingly allow them to have a say in my future, they have a much better grasp of reality.

If you can explain to me why gas prices have fluctuated from $150 to $35 a barrel I'd love to hear it. I suspect it's not because of supply and demand, more like politics, but I'm open to you premises. Regards

 

[Selden]

VW 1L: http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-car.htm

 

Of course, acceleration with a 300cc single cylinder diesel producing 8.4 hp may be a little lethargic.

[Ken H.]

The whole theory behind taxing gasoline higher is probably sound. Last summer gasoline was over $4.00 a gallon at he pump. This certainly caused a slowdown in peoples consumption habits and therefore caused a reduction in demand.

 

Do you believe that the lower prices we have now are due to decreased demand?

 

REALLY?

 

The prices now at $1.50 something versus $4.00- you think demand decreased by a factor of 2 to 3? I don't buy it. Not for a minute. I'd love to see that point of view backed up.

 

 

Anybody got some numbers from a reasonably valid source to support that the price changes are anything other than market BS?

 

US Sales of Motor Gasoline per day:

 

(x1000)

May-08 - 367,950

Jun-08 - 366,640

Jul-08 - 364,230

Aug-08 - 366,524

Sep-08 - 349,137

Oct-08 - 366,258

 

Source - The EIA

[Ken H.]

I can't speak for Iran or Venezuela, but I can assure you that the Saudis buy huge amounts of American goods and services, from Caterpillar to Pringles, from Halliburton to Safeway.

No where near the trillion dollars a year we are spending on foreign oil, at least according to what I read.

 

Current US trade deficits, 2008 Year To Date:

 

$US millions

 

China - 223,395.84

Japan - 62,426.73

Canada - 68,513.41

Mexico - 56,781.12

Saudi Arabia - 39,797.27

Germany - 36,812.72

Ireland - 18,858.10

Venezuela - 36,298.91

Nigeria - 31,422.79

Italy - 17,712.29

 

Source - Linky

 

[Selden]

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)

(Thousand Barrels per Day)

 

Country Oct-08

CANADA 2,055

SAUDI ARABIA 1,427

MEXICO 1,254

VENEZUELA 1,014

 

It's them damn Candians who are sucking up all our petrodollars!

[Ken H.]

I have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness as I see it. The constitution says nothing about group rights, it speaks of individual rights. What does this have to do with your way of thinking, well everything. You advocate altruism, not individualism. Your stated view is that the best course of action is that which is good for your group, driving a fuel efficient car. Altruism is group think not American individualism, which is what this country was founded upon. Now I might choose to help my fellow citizens out in some way but I don’t have to and government should not compel me too. Ya, I should be willing to defend this ideal and have, but I’m defending my freedom and that of my children. I really find it sad and disturbing that what government can’t make illegal, they will attempt to tax it into no existence. Funny thing though, people keep on buying or doing. The reality is government says they are doing it for the greater good but are in fact just taking more. You mentioned one good example the “gas guzzler tax” and how about seat belt laws or increasing taxes on fast food or soft drinks, all BS. I don't doubt your sincerity brother; I do believe your way of thinking is naive.

I just love people who think that somehow they are exempt from the responsibilities but still get to benefit from living in a functioning society. That a society where everyone could and did do whatever they wanted could function in any way.

 

‘The rules apply to everyone but me’ crowd, shish...

 

 

[Ken H.]

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)

(Thousand Barrels per Day)

 

Country Oct-08

CANADA 2,055

SAUDI ARABIA 1,427

MEXICO 1,254

VENEZUELA 1,014

 

It's them damn Candians who are sucking up all our petrodollars!

They’ve got it; you (the US) wants it. Seems pretty straight forward it to me.

 

The problem isn’t the consumer nations not wanting the (petroleum) product(s) of the producer nations, the problem is the consumer nations not wanting to pay the price to the producer nations for the product.

 

The US just can’t stand the fact that they actually have to pay for something they want. If the If OPEC want to charge $10,000 a barrel, what’s wrong with that? It’s their oil. Seems to me that’s exactly the principle of a “free market” that some people are such vocal advocates of. Or are we only advocates of the free market princile sometimes?

[HairyCannonball]

I would hope for both our sakes that you would not attempt to do that, especially if I'm home.

According to the Constitution and bill of rights, the government can not infringe upon my god given rights, as outlined in aforementioned documents. You don't have a right to cheap gas, cheap insurance, etc. Now the federal government, through the courts, has managed to manipulate/reinterpret the constitution mainly through the commerce clause to get into almost every aspect of life, but that's the government. I have to ask to what extent you’re willing to give up your individual freedoms for the greater good as you see it? We have the bill of rights to prevent your society from taking away my individual rights. Based upon recent election returns, it's clear to me that your society does not possess the intellect to make decisions on my behalf. If you wish to perform a service for the greater good of society, then become a cop, fireman or better yet join the military. I would willingly allow them to have a say in my future, they have a much better grasp of reality.

If you can explain to me why gas prices have fluctuated from $150 to $35 a barrel I'd love to hear it. I suspect it's not because of supply and demand, more like politics, but I'm open to you premises. Regards

 

So, what would you do about it if you were home? Infringe upon my God given right to pursue happiness???ROFLMAO

 

Let me get this straight..I don't have a God given right to cheap fuel, but you have a God given right to drive whatever you want?? So your rights are God given, and everyone elses rights are what??? Not important to you?? I don't think driving is a right, I believe it is a privilege.

 

You say I should, to perform a service to society, become a cop, fireman, or join the military. For the past 20 years I have served my community as a fixed wing EMS pilot, so please don't tell me *ever* again how to better serve society. And for the record my way of serving society is no better, or worse than the waitress that brings me my coffee, the mechanic that fixes my car, the engineer that designed my motorcycles, the folks that pick up the garbage, folks like Larry Flynt, a champion of free speach, members of the clergy of whatever religion that give people in need comfort, the family members that devote their life to raising the next generation...we all serve society.

 

As for as an explanation to the fluctuation of oil prices..speculation. When the market sees demand increasing and supplies decreasing price escalates. When the market sees global demand dropping, speculators sell driving prices lower. Lets consider a fantasy. Let us suppose that tomorrow the United States needed no more oil. What do you suppose would happen to the price of oil if that happened? Ok, lets suppose something that I believe is possible. Let suppose we could cut our consumption in half? How bout then??

 

Try to think outside the box on this..because things really aren't working the best the way it is now.

 

 

 

 

[Whip]

"Try to think outside the box on this..because things really aren't working the best the way it is now."

 

..actually they are.

 

Economy is down, the market sends the price down to compensate.

 

 

Compared that to what governments do when the economy goes down. Spend more and tax more. The market is always better.

 

It has never failed us over the long term. Government policies have always failed us. People in government are not qualified to run the economy. The economy today is a mess because of government intervention into the private sector.

 

It would be better if the Congress took a few years off and were forced to get jobs to support themselves. A long with all their bureaucratic henchmen.

 

 

Thank You and have a nice day.

 

Whip

[HairyCannonball]

The reason I say things aren't working is an ever increasing global consumption of a finite resource with no solution in sight and a mentality of the masses that it is ones God given constitutional right to use it up as they see fit with no thought to future generations.

 

Furthermore, there are some that might argue that it was the price of oil that tipped the economy over the edge and I believe there is plenty of merit to the arguments.

 

I would say, though, that having the price volatility of a commodity that you absolutly depend on is indicative that things aren't working.

[Pilgrim]

In this whole issue of so-called social responsibility, I keep coming back to this question: "Who decides?"

 

Unless I get to be Emperor of the Universe and make that decision for everyone my very own self (believe me, if that happened there'd be some very innovative solutions, sometimes involving guillotines), I vote for the market.

 

I vote for the market because there is not one damned soul who's posted on this subject (or anywhere else - and I do include me in that number) who's smart enough to make those decisions. The best you can do is screw things up in new ways.

 

There are two advantages to letting the market work: (1) it's a neutral force, and (2) it works to promote what's most efficient over the long run. Government-imposed solutions are neither and they suffer from a host of other ills, too.

 

You may note that "it's fair" is a count absent from the thought. Fair is a nebulous concept that no one can define absent a religious parameter. Therefore, leave it out of the social equation - unless, of course, you're willing to impose a religious paradigm of government.

 

What I have said applies to governments - it does not imply that I believe one man has no obligation to help another, so don't bother with an attack from that point. My beliefs (founded in personal theology) demand that I do so. My beliefs do not demand (as yours would have it) that I use force to compel you to do so.

 

Pilgrim