Gas Prices- DO SOMETHING

[no name]

i say everyone get a bike and ride bikes like in china or is that tokyo?

[outlaw]

no truckers should unite and strike for gas prices to be lowered who hauls the gas truckers but this wont be done there not enough of them with the pride and balls to do it only then will gas prices go down when we the people start sayin NO MORE

[B Rizzle Ray]

outlaw wrote:

no truckers should unite and strike for gas prices to be lowered who hauls the gas truckers but this wont be done there not enough of them with the pride and balls to do it only then will gas prices go down when we the people start sayin NO MORE

Amen to that.

[michael]

THE ONLY GAS OUT THAT WAS EFFECTIVE .WAS THE GAS I LEFT OUT YESTERDAY AFTER I PUT ONIONS IN MY SOUP...

[Denver Doh]

Hey, good luck with that.

[B Rizzle Ray]

Yesterday I was watching the news and I recall hearing about a price gouging bill, I wasn't paying full attention but it said the bill would stop the price gougingm but George Bush was expected to Veto the Bill. WTF

also, I've heard that if the railroad company strike it is considered national security problem, I work for a small town newspaper, my boss told me her husband who is an employee for a major railroad company told hher that they can't strike.. apparantly there "not allowed" which seems odd to me, but apparantly it is a matter of national security.

But what if they did strike? i wonder what the outcome would be....

[Hammurabi]

The gas gouging bill is the very definition of a policy that will have unintended consequences (namely, f*** over the few remaining small and independent stations, and it will do nothing to reduce consumption and will in fact encourage more of it).

[Fred]

no name wrote:

i say everyone get a bike and ride bikes like in china or is that tokyo?

Both, also Taiwan. The streets are packed with bikes and scooters in China and Taiwan

Conservation and alternate energy sources are long term solutions, however the oil companies and oil speculators bear much of the responsibility for outrageous gas prices.

Gas prices are not determined by legitimate supply and demand pressures, and price increases are not the result of increased costs as with most other products. The proof of this fact is the following: since Hurricane Katrina, when supplies were so low and the refineries were damaged, etc, etc, THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE RECORDED THE HIGHEST QUARTERLY PROFITS EVER RECORDED BY ANY INDUSTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD! These profits come directly out of your pockets.

Hammyrobber, insert your usual pro-oil company double-talk propaganda here.)

[Hammurabi]

Fred wrote:

<quoted text>
since Hurricane Katrina, when supplies were so low and the refineries were damaged, etc, etc, THE OIL COMPANIES HAVE RECORDED THE HIGHEST QUARTERLY PROFITS EVER RECORDED BY ANY INDUSTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!

Apparently, you don't understand what constantly increasing volume of sales (globally and domestically) plus increased (even modest) price per unit means.

Come on: I know you want to tell me how much profit the oil companies were making when crude was $19/bbl in the '90's. I just know it.

Here ends the propaganda.

[Fred]

Hammurabi wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently, you don't understand what constantly increasing volume of sales (globally and domestically) plus increased (even modest) price per unit means.
Come on: I know you want to tell me how much profit the oil companies were making when crude was $19/bbl in the '90's. I just know it.
Here ends the propaganda.

Right on cue. Good job, Ham.

I don't think any oil company executives were starving at $19/bbl. They were merely unable to post THE HIGHEST QUARTERLY PROFITS EVER RECORDED BY ANY INDUSTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!!

[Hammurabi]

That's not the question I asked.

Executives don't make profit. They get ginormous bonuses, almost regardless of performance. Their compensation is not germane to this conversation.

To be sure, the oil companies LIKELY profited to some degree back then. What I want to know is HOW MUCH? Preferably also with what their sales volume was back then compared to now and also how their margins compare then and now.

Of course you could keep beating up those poor, defenseless straw men you set up...

[Fisherman]

I agree with most that this approach (boycotting a particular day) will never work. But we can have a huge impact if everyone would boycott the big three gas companies and only purchase from the others.

[Fred]

Hammurabi wrote:

That's not the question I asked.
Executives don't make profit. They get ginormous bonuses, almost regardless of performance. Their compensation is not germane to this conversation.
To be sure, the oil companies LIKELY profited to some degree back then. What I want to know is HOW MUCH? Preferably also with what their sales volume was back then compared to now and also how their margins compare then and now.
Of course you could keep beating up those poor, defenseless straw men you set up...

I don't care how much sales or profits they made at $19/bbl. They did not lose money selling it, and I did not go broke buying it. Whatever profits they made or did not make then does not give them the right to gouge consumers now.

Executives don't make profit? They make the decisions that make profit. They develop the policies and practices that can make a business successful or send it under.

I don't mind a business making a fair profit, but I do have a problem with windfall profits derived from unfair manipulation of the market.

You display a knowledge of business theory derived from classrooms and textbooks, but of little use in the real world.

[Hammurabi]

Fred wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't care how much sales or profits they made at $19/bbl. They did not lose money selling it, and I did not go broke buying it.

When all factors are considered, you SHOULD care. Because then maybe you wouldn't make emotional arguments based on what YOU think is fair. And I honestly don't KNOW if some of them did indeed lose some money selling it. Do you?

Whatever profits they made or did not make then does not give them the right to gouge consumers now.

Explain what "gouging" is. Explain how it relates to the price consumers are willing to pay.

Executives don't make profit? They make the decisions that make profit.

This may be true, but that is NOT what you were referring to and you know it. You were attempting to inject an emotional argument based on a straw man and pummel him to death.

I don't mind a business making a fair profit, but I do have a problem with windfall profits derived from unfair manipulation of the market.

Who defines "fair profit"? Who defines "windfall"? Name ALL the actors responsible for manipulating the oil market and their relative influences. Bet you won't do it.

You display a knowledge of business theory derived from classrooms and textbooks, but of little use in the real world.

No, those proposing "gouging" bans display an ignorance of economics. Those crying "greedy gougers!" display similar ignorance, as they continue to pay the price for the good that is on offer while whining the entire time.

The "real world" is full of examples in plain sight of well-intentioned regulation (often of profit) that governments engage in. The universal result is that the markets are distorted and someone gets heavily screwed. And yet no one holds the government to account for f***ing things up.

The Law of Unintended Consequences rules the results of those who think constraining ALREADY CONSTRAINED markets by FURTHER government fiat are good things. It's incomplete thinking. It's emotional thinking. It's ultimately destructive.

[jimwings]

I don't want to butt in, but "the price consumers are willing to pay"......?

How about the price we are forced to pay. A gallon of milk can pretty much vary from 2-5 bucks depending where I choose to buy. The same should be for gas. The Big oil companies know we need to put gas in our cars to get to work, and I think it's pretty obvious with the billions of quarterly profit, something should be done to ease the pain at the pump. I myself am driving less, and buying less extras to make up the difference. But I can see around the corner gas will be 4 dollars a gallon+, and that makes absolutely no sense of why a tank of gas should cost us $45 more each time we fill up. If we have to fill up twice a week, that's 360 a month EXTRA in a 30 gallon tank.

[Fred]

Hammurabi wrote:

<quoted text>
When all factors are considered, you SHOULD care. Because then maybe you wouldn't make emotional arguments based on what YOU think is fair. And I honestly don't KNOW if some of them did indeed lose some money selling it. Do you?
<quoted text>
Explain what "gouging" is. Explain how it relates to the price consumers are willing to pay.
<quoted text>
This may be true, but that is NOT what you were referring to and you know it. You were attempting to inject an emotional argument based on a straw man and pummel him to death.
<quoted text>
Who defines "fair profit"? Who defines "windfall"? Name ALL the actors responsible for manipulating the oil market and their relative influences. Bet you won't do it.
<quoted text>
No, those proposing "gouging" bans display an ignorance of economics. Those crying "greedy gougers!" display similar ignorance, as they continue to pay the price for the good that is on offer while whining the entire time.
The "real world" is full of examples in plain sight of well-intentioned regulation (often of profit) that governments engage in. The universal result is that the markets are distorted and someone gets heavily screwed. And yet no one holds the government to account for f***ing things up.
The Law of Unintended Consequences rules the results of those who think constraining ALREADY CONSTRAINED markets by FURTHER government fiat are good things. It's incomplete thinking. It's emotional thinking. It's ultimately destructive.

I will provide all of the information you request if you will give me the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all of the retail outlets of petroleum based products in operation when oil was $19/bbl, in addition to a record of all of the retail and wholesale transactions involving petroleum based products during the same period.

Basing your argument on requests for volumes of minutiae is ludicrous.

I have lived through at least two periods of skyrocketing gas prices, when the oil companies cried about the conditions in which they had to operate, about how hard it was to get domestic oil out of the ground or transport imported oil, and how expensive this process was, and how price pressures were out of their control. The funny thing is, in both instances, the oil companies made HUGE WINDFALL PROFITS, taken directly from the pockets of consumers already struggling to make ends meet.

If someone is urinating down your back and telling you it is rain, you do not need to perform a chemical analysis of the offending liquid to determine it is urine. You do not have to study a diagram of the urinary tract and descriptions of kidney function. At least you should not have to. It should not take long to realize that, whatever the liquid is, you damn well know it ain't rain and you do not want it on you!

It is the same way with huge, record profits. Acting like "the market fairly determines prices and we can't help that prices are going up, we aren't benefiting from them", all the while packing away huge, record profits is the same as urinating down someones back and expecting them to believe it is rain.

I am sorry if none of this agrees with what your professor told you in Econ 101. I had a few Econ professors myself and most of them did not have enough common sense to come in out of the rain no matter what color it was, and little or no practical business experience. If not for the sanctuary of academia they would not have survived.

[Hammurabi]

Your stream of ad hominems and non sequiturs is not convincing and reads like a child who will think of any reason whatsoever not to answer a question they were directly asked.

What is "fair"? What is a "windfall"?

Acting like the request for the industry aggregate profits, margins and sales in a particular period is some egregious imposition and is like asking for every businesses' details is running away from an answer you may not want to know.

And you'll note that NOT ONCE did I mention that the market alone dictates the price in oil. In fact, I repeatedly mentioned that it was DISTORTED massively by the government in the recent post and several other older ones in other threads. It is distorted because the idiots in Congress and the regulatory bodies listen to people like you, who wail for someone to "DO SOMETHING!!!", as if doing something, anything, is the way forward. It's shallow thinking like that that PERPETUATES the problem. It ENCOURAGES constant or increasing levels of consumption. It DISCOURAGES the development of alternatives by those who would benefit by developing them under a less regulated environment. It keeps the consumers uncritically coming back for more.

[surrab]

yeah right,lets just all go get a horse and buggy...

[Gomer]

surrab wrote:

yeah right,lets just all go get a horse and buggy...

sounds good!
signed, Wells Fargo

[surrab]

Just for giggles and grins exxon mobile just posted a 10+ billion dollar profit for the quarter...yes I said quarter.Thats more the the major beverage co.'s post for the year...yes I said year.Do I think thats fair? " HELL NO" And anybody who does is either brain dead or just plain ignorant!And I'm sure your out there.