Why High Gas Prices?

• dont_belong

  

  LJ;713914 wrote:You have 2 choices then. Nationalize the oil supply and gasoline companies, or deal with it. Their profit margins are very thin. Sure, Exxon made eleventy billion dollars last year, but that was onlu 10% of their gross.
  
  Gas stations make a few cents per gallon, the state and feds combined make around $.60 per gallon, and Exxon makes around $.20-$.30 per gallon depending on price. Now, tell me, who is gouging you?

  Very true...but at least I feel better now that I got all that off my chest. Now I don't want to go blow up a Speedway anymore.
• LJ

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;713925 wrote:Anything that drives an economy shouldn't be traded as a commodity. Plain and simple.

  
  actually it should. If not you really lack a free market economy.
  
  I think the biggest problem is that oil and gas was inflation neutral for so long and people got used to cheap gas.
• dont_belong

  

  LJ;713932 wrote:actually it should. If not you really lack a free market economy.
  
  I think the biggest problem is that oil and gas was inflation neutral for so long and people got used to cheap gas.

  
  Why were they so neutral for so long? Asking with sincerity, not to be a prick.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  LJ;713932 wrote:actually it should. If not you really lack a free market economy.
  
  I think the biggest problem is that oil and gas was inflation neutral for so long and people got used to cheap gas.

  
  Banks have proven we should be lacking a free market economy even more so than we already do.
• fan_from_texas

  dont_belong;713940 wrote:Why were they so neutral for so long? Asking with sincerity, not to be a prick.

  
  New reserves, relative peace, and improved technology brought more supply online. Plenty of oil companies lost their shirts when oil was under $10/barrel. Were there calls for handouts then to bail them out? (No--they took huge risks, and some got walloped). As India/China industrialize, massive amounts of new vehicles are being added to the roads. This means that demand is now outstripping supply, which naturally leads to price spikes. There's a limit to what oil can be drilled, and where, and for how much. For better or worse, environmental regulations put some of it off-limits.
  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;713925 wrote:Anything that drives an economy shouldn't be traded as a commodity. Plain and simple.

  
  Disagree. Trading it as a commodity is the best way to ensure transparent prices and encourage effective deployment of capital. Heavily regulating something other than certain natural monopolies is almost always a bad idea, which is why we don't really do it, and the countries that have, have really struggled with it.
  
  The reality is that we, as a country, use far too much oil. We're starting to see the natural, market-based result of that. If the gov't stepped in to subsidize and/or regulate it, all that would do is mask the true cost, artificially driving up demand and exacerbating the problem.
• LJ

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;713944 wrote:Banks have proven we should be lacking a free market economy even more so than we already do.

  
  Don't confuse anarcho capitalists with a true fairly regulated free market.
• dont_belong

  

  I still think market volatility has more to do with this than supply/demand.
• fan_from_texas

  dont_belong;713982 wrote:I still think market volatility has more to do with this than supply/demand.

  
  Market volatility is just supply/demand on a very short-term basis. Volatility, of course, is the real issue for businesses--high prices would be okay, if they were more predictable. Europe, which has much higher gas taxes, doesn't suffer as much from swings in price, as they don't affect the end price as much. If we wanted to limit volatility and reduce demand, the easiest way to do that is to increase the gas tax. But that's a politically unpopular idea.
• WebFire

  LJ;713881 wrote:Are they not allowed to make a profit every now and then on their razor thin profit margin? A gas station makes only a few cents per gallon.

  
  You can't argue it one way and defend against it the other. If what you are saying is true, then the gas price should drop immediately when oil prices drop. Otherwise you are telling me they are ripping us off.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;714106 wrote:You can't argue it one way and defend against it the other. If what you are saying is true, then the gas price should drop immediately when oil prices drop. Otherwise you are telling me they are ripping us off.

  
  uh no. You are getting ripped off by the government. What do you mean you can't argue one way and defend it against the other. I'm just telling you reality. Plus, gasoline is not tied 100% to the price of oil. Reserach RBOB. that is the going price of gasoline minus taxes.
• WebFire

  LJ;714113 wrote:uh no. You are getting ripped off by the government. What do you mean you can't argue one way and defend it against the other. I'm just telling you reality. Plus, gasoline is not tied 100% to the price of oil. Reserach RBOB. that is the going price of gasoline minus taxes.

  
  Your argument for the gas price rising immediately when oil does is that they have to pay for the next shipment. But you then turned around and said they don't have to lower it so they can make a profit. So you basically said they are only going to raise, never lower.
  
  I know it's much deeper than that, but that argument just cannot fly.
  
  Also, don't most goods get sold based on current stock? How did they ever pay for their first delivery? Pricing for future delivery doesn't follow most goods' pricing methods.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;714126 wrote:Your argument for the gas price rising immediately when oil does is that they have to pay for the next shipment. But you then turned around and said they don't have to lower it so they can make a profit. So you basically said they are only going to raise, never lower.
  
  I know it's much deeper than that, but that argument just cannot fly.
  
  Also, don't most goods get sold based on current stock? How did they ever pay for their first delivery? Pricing for future delivery doesn't follow most goods' pricing methods.

  
  That's just how the gasoline industry works
  
  Oil pricing aside, RBOB is trading at $2.84, making the price of gasline $3.44, exactly what it is down the road.
  
  If you consider a few cents per gallon to be excessive, I feel sorry for you
• WebFire

  LJ;714131 wrote:That's just how the gasoline industry works
  
  Oil pricing aside, RBOB is trading at $2.84, making the price of gasline $3.44, exactly what it is down the road.
  
  If you consider a few cents per gallon to be excessive, I feel sorry for you

  
  Nope, I'm fine.
• WebFire

  I do wish we could sell our product using this method though.
• LJ

  

  WebFire;714155 wrote:I do wish we could sell our product using this method though.

  
  It's because gasoline is typically a loss leader. They mainly profit off of in store sales.
• OSH

  

  A new article on how much money we could save by using public mass transportation.
• fan_from_texas

  OSH;714239 wrote:A new article on how much money we could save by using public mass transportation.

  
  That article says that we can each save an average of $825/mo. by switching to public transportation. That's clearly a stupid number.
  
  How many people even pay $825/mo. for private transportation, including car costs, repairs, gas, and parking? We live in the suburbs of a decent-sized city, commute each day, pay for parking, etc., and between Mrs. FFT & I combined we're not even close to $825/mo. How on earth would switching to public transportation (assuming it were even available) save us that much? And what about the majority of people who don't even have access to public transportation? And when calculating the costs, are we only counting the direct costs, or the real costs (e.g., if each person is taxed extra to make public transportation a cheaper option, is it really a cheaper option?).
  
  That study should read, "People who live in NYC and pay $1,000/mo. for parking can save money by switching to public transportation."
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Proverbially, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics....and then there is this:
  
  "The new hike in prices means commuters can save an average of $9,904 annually – $825 per month – by switching from personal to public transportation. "
  
  Huh? That makes no sense at all. Even if we lived in an area with a great public transportation system (we don't, like 99% of Americans) we'd still need a car. We have to go the grocery store, we have errands to run and things to move, we have a dog which isn't welcome on the bus/train and he needs to go to the vet.
  
  They must have made up that statistic out of thin air.
• FatHobbit

  

  fan_from_texas;714249 wrote:How many people even pay $825/mo. for private transportation, including car costs, repairs, gas, and parking?

  
  I did not factor in repairs (because I'm too lazy to look back farther than last month) but I paid $371.28 for my car payment, gas and 1/12 of my insurance last month.
• fan_from_texas

  FatHobbit;714271 wrote:I did not factor in repairs (because I'm too lazy to look back farther than last month) but I paid $371.28 for my car payment, gas and 1/12 of my insurance last month.

  
  
  If we add in car payment, gas, parking, repairs, and insurance for two cars, we're still under the $825/mo. number. There's no way the AVERAGE person would save this much when the average person doesn't even spend that much. This study is one of the most bogus things I've seen in awhile.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  gut;713826 wrote:No, they can stop every 30 miles or so, but the rest is pretty accurate. My point about density "along the route" is it could do Chicago to Columbus to CLE, or to Toledo to Detroit. But for commuters you need places to park and so you need a reasonable density because just like 4-5hours of driving is sort of "break-even" time-wise for a plane, a few hours will be break-even for a train. And to the extent people incur expensive rental cars or cabs because they have another 30-60 miles to go beyond their destination it's the same issue.
  
  Plane travel can be fairly convenient for business travelers in many cities, and these people aren't going to be the least inconvenienced to save a few bucks on a train because it isn't out of pocket. I'm not saying the economics can't work for a train from CHI to STL, but if it's $200 vs $100 it would take less than half the passengers (figure maybe 30 flights a day from CHI to STL, guessing). And the bigger issue is a lot of people are connecting to flights. IMO high speed rail generally has failure written all over it. For $100 each, it's cheaper to drive a family 3 hours in a car and the convenience factor also dominates.

  
  What's the difference between coming into an airport that is 10 miles away from the downtown core, and coming into a HSR station that is a half mile away from a downtown core? At the very least, you'd need a cab to get anywhere in both scenarios. Still though, downtown commercial centers remain the location of many headquarters for many businesses and corporations. The addition of a HSR would only further the reinvestment.
  
  It is cheaper now to drive the family, but in the future it will not be. That is sorta the whole point.
  
  It is expensive to build HSR, but I think Americans are pretty ignorant to how much building and maintaining the interstates are. It's a fraction of the cost, and as I stated earlier the construction could be completely funded by ending the War on Drugs. I don't want to raise taxes or increase federal spending. I want to eliminate one program and transfer the money to something that makes more sense.
  

  fan_from_texas;714276 wrote:If we add in car payment, gas, parking, repairs, and insurance for two cars, we're still under the $825/mo. number.

  I don't believe that study either. I read always read that American families spend $8,000/year on a car. I would imagine it's going to be lower in Ohio.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;714268 wrote:Even if we lived in an area with a great public transportation system (we don't, like 99% of Americans) we'd still need a car. We have to go the grocery store, we have errands to run and things to move, we have a dog which isn't welcome on the bus/train and he needs to go to the vet.

  
  That's primarily because we live in communities that rely on cars. They aren't walkable or bikable. If your vet clinic was a half mile down the street, you wouldn't really need a car. If you grocery store was a quarter mile away, you wouldn't necessarily need a car. UHAUL exists to move.
  
  Would I ever fully get rid of my car? No. Well, I am next month but that's because I live in a walkable community and have absolutely zero need for it, so I'm sending it home. But the benefit is that a family would need one car instead of 2-3 like families have now.
  
  No one is suggesting eliminating cars. I am suggesting there are 1)better ways to commute, and 2) reasons that communities and commercial centers built for the automobile are not anywhere near sustainable.
  
  Build one of these, every American city had one before the boom of cars.
  
  
• OSH

  

  fan_from_texas;714249 wrote:That article says that we can each save an average of $825/mo. by switching to public transportation. That's clearly a stupid number...And when calculating the costs, are we only counting the direct costs, or the real costs (e.g., if each person is taxed extra to make public transportation a cheaper option, is it really a cheaper option?).

  fan_from_texas;714276 wrote:If we add in car payment, gas, parking, repairs, and insurance for two cars, we're still under the $825/mo. number...This study is one of the most bogus things I've seen in awhile.

  
  Though the $825 a month may be high, and I do think it is high, what's the difference in what the REAL average may be? $100? $150? I am sure it's not that far off. And to some people saving $100 is a big step. I am not too caught up on what the "research" showed (the number being a little high), I just know that saving ANY amount that's around $600-900 a month just on transportation is excellent -- if it can be done. I think it can be done in certain areas.
  
  I try to save money on transportation, one reason why I got a bicycle (really hard to ride a bike in SD weather though, ). I'd like to save $100 a month on traveling to work.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "If your vet clinic was a half mile down the street, you wouldn't really need a car. "
  
  Ever try carrying a 55 lb hound a half mile after he sprained his ankle? I haven't either, but it was tough enough carrying him 40 feet from the vet's parking lot. Again, cabs/buses wouldn't even take him - the vet doesn't have a pet ambulance, without a car we'd be boned. How am I getting to UHaul? Uh, car.
• LJ

  

  I'll never live in a walkable community, never. Personal choice.
  
  Also, I have some interesting info on the "moving downtown" stuff. i'll post it later
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;714310 wrote:"If your vet clinic was a half mile down the street, you wouldn't really need a car. "
  
  Ever try carrying a 55 lb hound a half mile after he sprained his ankle? I haven't either, but it was tough enough carrying him 40 feet from the vet's parking lot. Again, cabs/buses wouldn't even take him - the vet doesn't have a pet ambulance, without a car we'd be boned. How am I getting to UHaul? Uh, car.

  
  You can relax anyway, no one is taking your car.
  
  Interestingly enough I just looked at the numbers again and <10% of people living in Columbus' immediate downtown had children, but ~60% of them had pets.