Obama wants $8 a gallon gasoline

[Haggis_McMutton]

Huntsman! Whoo!

The most best conservative candidate was one of the first to go.

What about the best most conservative one?

[Johnny Rockets]

If you make fossil fuel consumption the path of least resistance,( or in this case cost...) then alternative energy sources will never get focused on enough to be developed or perfected rapidly.
The tactic here is to increase the pump price to stimulate development and to perfect alternative energy.
Clinging onto a disappearing resource is destructive as hell socially. Rising food prices = abject poverty = civil unrest. Best to (forcefully if needed) wean the sheeple off the sweet crude tit, if you want your nation to be relevant in the next 20 years.

JRock

That's there logic and it's a gimmick and an excuse to line their pockets and their benefactors pockets. Alternative energy will be more affordable as we create breakthroughs. I don't mind debating the argument for R & D, but I'm not going to pretend that higher fuel costs are a means to that end.

Fossil fuel is not a disappearing resource either. When you die, there will still be plenty of it in the ground. When your great, great, great, great grand children die there will still be plenty of it in the ground.

We create breakthroughs only when it is profitable to do so. High gas prices = a more focused search for alternatives.
There will be plenty of crude in the ground for my great great great grand-kids, only because 80% of the earths population is going to be fucking ash in 25 years at the rate we are going.

JRock

[Neoteny]

Huntsman! Whoo!

The most best conservative candidate was one of the first to go.

What about the best most conservative one?

I'm not even drunk. I have no excuse for that one.

[ViperOverLord]

If you make fossil fuel consumption the path of least resistance,( or in this case cost...) then alternative energy sources will never get focused on enough to be developed or perfected rapidly.
The tactic here is to increase the pump price to stimulate development and to perfect alternative energy.
Clinging onto a disappearing resource is destructive as hell socially. Rising food prices = abject poverty = civil unrest. Best to (forcefully if needed) wean the sheeple off the sweet crude tit, if you want your nation to be relevant in the next 20 years.

JRock

That's there logic and it's a gimmick and an excuse to line their pockets and their benefactors pockets. Alternative energy will be more affordable as we create breakthroughs. I don't mind debating the argument for R & D, but I'm not going to pretend that higher fuel costs are a means to that end.

Fossil fuel is not a disappearing resource either. When you die, there will still be plenty of it in the ground. When your great, great, great, great grand children die there will still be plenty of it in the ground.

We create breakthroughs only when it is profitable to do so. High gas prices = a more focused search for alternatives.
There will be plenty of crude in the ground for my great great great grand-kids, only because 80% of the earths population is going to be fucking ash in 25 years at the rate we are going.

JRock

That's basically Obama's stated logic. The problem is why does gasoline have to be 3x to 10x what it should be for that? Last I checked our investment in R&D is not that significant to justify such artificial price increases while oil companies make record profits and give politicians huge checks.

[zimmah]

in europe we had to pay $8 a gallon for years now so /care (in europe we've been paying $6.50 per gallon since 2007 up to over $9/gallon in mid 2008 and from there it dropped in 2009 to $6.20 for a short moment and then it steadily went up to $8 again where it is now.) you've been lucky to have very cheap gas all the time. what are the prices over there now, $3.50 per gallon? that's not even HALF what we pay.

start driving fuel-effient cars, maybe higher gas prices will actually make you understand why those cars are so popular in europe.

noone likes to drive around in a car that uses a gallon a mile if it costs that much.

[patches70]

In the US there is a clear correlation between the price of gas and the DOW. When the market tanks gas prices tank with it. When the DOW soars the price of gas soars with it. It's inflation driven primarily.

[ViperOverLord]

in europe we had to pay $8 a gallon for years now so /care (in europe we've been paying $6.50 per gallon since 2007 up to over $9/gallon in mid 2008 and from there it dropped in 2009 to $6.20 for a short moment and then it steadily went up to $8 again where it is now.) you've been lucky to have very cheap gas all the time. what are the prices over there now, $3.50 per gallon? that's not even HALF what we pay.

start driving fuel-effient cars, maybe higher gas prices will actually make you understand why those cars are so popular in europe.

noone likes to drive around in a car that uses a gallon a mile if it costs that much.

More like you're unlucky to live in a place in which politicians feel it is their right to price gauge you imo.

[thegreekdog]

I too wonder what would happen if the tax code applied equally to all industries.

You might have to get a new job. *rimshot*

It's the curse of being both a tax attorney and Libertarian. That being typed, I'm fairly confident that things will not become simpler and will only become more complex.

The president has nothing to do with oil or gas prices short term. Some of you guys should take a world economy class or something. We are lucky in the US that 1. The world economy is based off the dollar and 2. that we are a net exporter of oil.

Instead of complaining about politicians being the reason for high gas prices, why don't you urge the government to move towards alternative energies faster. If we didn't have motor vehicles and someone invented them today, people would be laughed at for suggesting an internal combustion engine. It's a thing of the past and we need t move forward.

And if you do want to play the blame game, you have to start at Bush (W) who saw gas prices rise 2.5 times what they were when he came into office.

I cannot tell you how excited I am to have a bona fide liberal on this site who actually posts party-line stuff like this. I'm really hoping you stay around so we have someone to argue with. And yes, I'm being serious.

Haha, that last comment is just a shot at how stupid it is. Obama used that fact to try to get support in 2008 and now all the candidates are saying the same thing about rising gas prices in his term.

To tell you the truth I am an independent, but I believe in civil rights, education, and innovation so I end up voting mostly democratic. If Jon Huntsman somehow would have won the republican nomination, he would be my choice.

Well, one has to divide the politics from the reality.

Politics = Presidents have direct and total control over abortion, the price of gasoline, taxes, spending, etc. When we have a Republican president and something bad happens, the Democrats say it's the president's fault (as you have done with GW Bush). When we have a Democrat president and something bad happens, the Republicans say it's the president's fault (as VOL has done in this thread).

Reality = Presidents have virtually no control over abortion, the price of gasoline, taxes, spending, etc., except when they write the law that's eventually passed by Congress and/or sign a piece of legislation.

And if you believe in civil rights, education, and innovation, I'm surprised you'd vote Democrat (or Republican for that matter). And I did love Huntsman. Unfortunately, conservatives are stupid.

[Pedronicus]

Fossil fuel is not a disappearing resource either. When you die, there will still be plenty of it in the ground. When your great, great, great, great grand children die there will still be plenty of it in the ground.

Idiotic comment, from the forums resident idiot.

[comic boy]

I also thought Huntsman talked a lot of sense , guess that was his problem

[GreecePwns]

1. I agree that I just want gasoline prices based on the free market (though if govt. did regulate it, I'd want price ceilings to keep gas prices down. I think that can be done given the fact that gas companies still could make very healthy profits. Current cost/price regulation is not agency based though. It's Congress based).

Price ceilings just make the market inefficient, and will just keep incentives to stay with oil over other energy sources.

2. No. I don't believe for one second that gasoline prices are low in America based on subsidies/grants. They're high in Europe b/c of insane tax rates. I'm fine with cutting taxes, subsidies, grants etc and any other artificial barriers and watching gas prices dip like crazy.

Show your work on this. Here's mine:

The EIA says that the US consumes 21 million barrels of gas a day, which equates to 321 billion gallons a year. The subsidies to the oil industry are around $80 billion. So take away $80 billion for the oil companies, which represents 7.5% of revenue*. Meanwhile, gas taxes make up 12% of gas prices*. Because gas is an inelastic good, you would expect an increase in business of less than 12% if we were to completely remove federal and state gas taxes. If we are to believe this meta-analysis from 2008, the corresponding increase in business would be around 3.12% in the short run and 6.72% in the long run.

So the average company loses 7.5% of revenue and gains around 6.72% in sales in the long run (meaning >1 year after all adjustments are made). Sure there's quite a bit I'd have to correct for. For example, with more incentive to use other energy sources, gas would become a slightly more elastic good. But its safe to say prices won't go down after removing both taxes and subsidies.

*At $3.80/gal, the average price of gas as of today, which includes an average of $.47/gal in federal and state taxes.

3. So-called green energy is not efficient yet. When it becomes efficient, all countries will naturally go in that direction. Currently, it's just smoke and mirrors perpetrated by politicians and special interests.

Eventually it will become a more cost-effective energy source, no matter what government does, because that is how technology works. If any nation wants to become an economic power in the 21st century, though, it must be among the first to innovate in this sector. But as we've seen when it comes to high-speed rail, American politicians aren't willing to take that step for one reason or another.

[ViperOverLord]

1. I agree that I just want gasoline prices based on the free market (though if govt. did regulate it, I'd want price ceilings to keep gas prices down. I think that can be done given the fact that gas companies still could make very healthy profits. Current cost/price regulation is not agency based though. It's Congress based).

Price ceilings just make the market inefficient, and will just keep incentives to stay with oil over other energy sources.

Yes, I'm aware that price ceilings is not the most efficient methodology (By the way the system you advocate of artificial price increases is much less efficient). I said I'm for the free market system. But I was saying that I felt that if the govt. did feel like they need to ontrol prices then it should be in a manner in which people aren't so easily priced out of the market.

2. No. I don't believe for one second that gasoline prices are low in America based on subsidies/grants. They're high in Europe b/c of insane tax rates. I'm fine with cutting taxes, subsidies, grants etc and any other artificial barriers and watching gas prices dip like crazy.

Show your work on this. Here's mine:

The EIA says that the US consumes 21 million barrels of gas a day, which equates to 321 billion gallons a year. The subsidies to the oil industry are around $80 billion. So take away $80 billion for the oil companies, which represents 7.5% of revenue*. Meanwhile, gas taxes make up 12% of gas prices*. Because gas is an inelastic good, you would expect an increase in business of less than 12% if we were to completely remove federal and state gas taxes. If we are to believe this meta-analysis from 2008, the corresponding increase in business would be around 3.12% in the short run and 6.72% in the long run.

So the average company loses 7.5% of revenue and gains around 6.72% in sales in the long run (meaning >1 year after all adjustments are made). Sure there's quite a bit I'd have to correct for. For example, with more incentive to use other energy sources, gas would become a slightly more elastic good. But its safe to say prices won't go down after removing both taxes and subsidies.

*At $3.80/gal, the average price of gas as of today, which includes an average of $.47/gal in federal and state taxes.

Your tax numbers are bunk. In 2009 the average price for a gallon of gas was $2.43. The average taxes on gas was $0.47 (Federal and State Taxes). That is 19 percent taxes (not 12 percent).

And yes increased gas prices will eventually lead to other energy source uses . If gasoline goes to $25 a gallon (and is high for other sources) we'll all be riding bikes and burning books for heat. I don't want to go towards other sources through coerced means.

As for the subsidies, gasoline was actually much higher in 2008 than 2009. The average price of gas was $3.38. According to your numbers we gave $.025 cents in subsidies to gas companies per gallon. Could gas prices have been lower then? Yes, but not my nearly as much as I assume you are trying to purport.

3. So-called green energy is not efficient yet. When it becomes efficient, all countries will naturally go in that direction. Currently, it's just smoke and mirrors perpetrated by politicians and special interests.

Eventually it will become a more cost-effective energy source, no matter what government does, because that is how technology works. If any nation wants to become an economic power in the 21st century, though, it must be among the first to innovate in this sector. But as we've seen when it comes to high-speed rail, American politicians aren't willing to take that step for one reason or another.

Not really. Technological breakthroughs in one country will likely be quick to spread to other countries. That is how technology and markets work.

As for high speed rails, American political corruption is the reason for that. Amtrak and other commuter railways are publicly ran and like everything else ran by American govt, it's crap. I voted for a high speed rail in California and the amount of waste already before it is even completed is so staggering that I think if people knew how bad it was they'd cut their billions in losses and say f it. Besides that, there's concerns about prices and speed by the time it's even completed behind schedule.

[GreecePwns]

(By the way the system you advocate of artificial price increases is much less efficient).

How is the gradual removal of all subsidies and taxes in any way artificial? That is what is needed for a free market to operate. Unless you believe I advocate some other system. In that case, you've misrepresented or misunderstood my argument.

Your tax numbers are bunk. In 2009 the average price for a gallon of gas was $2.43. The average taxes on gas was $0.47 (Federal and State Taxes). That is 19 percent taxes (not 12 percent).

I'm using 2012 prices, since the current year is 2012, not 2009.

[ViperOverLord]

(By the way the system you advocate of artificial price increases is much less efficient).

How is the gradual removal of all subsidies and taxes in any way artificial? That is what is needed for a free market to operate. Unless you believe I advocate some other system. In that case, you've misrepresented or misunderstood my argument.

I'm talking about excessive taxing for the sake of shifting to other energy sources. I think you misunderstood me lol.

Your tax numbers are bunk. In 2009 the average price for a gallon of gas was $2.43. The average taxes on gas was $0.47 (Federal and State Taxes). That is 19 percent taxes (not 12 percent).

I'm using 2012 prices, since the current year is 2012, not 2009.

The 12 percent could be accurate then as many states use excise taxes and not percentages per gallon.

[GreecePwns]

(By the way the system you advocate of artificial price increases is much less efficient).

How is the gradual removal of all subsidies and taxes in any way artificial? That is what is needed for a free market to operate. Unless you believe I advocate some other system. In that case, you've misrepresented or misunderstood my argument.

I'm talking about excessive taxing for the sake of shifting to other energy sources. I think you misunderstood me lol.

Well, "excessive taxing for the sake of shifting to other energy sources" is not "the system [I] advocate." I have no clue where you could get that from.

Your tax numbers are bunk. In 2009 the average price for a gallon of gas was $2.43. The average taxes on gas was $0.47 (Federal and State Taxes). That is 19 percent taxes (not 12 percent).

I'm using 2012 prices, since the current year is 2012, not 2009.

I'd have to check their numbers but we haven't been cutting gas taxes.

I wrote in my post that gas taxes now are $.47/gal, just like they were in 2009. I don't know what you're saying here.

[ViperOverLord]

I wrote in my post that gas taxes now are $.47/gal, just like they were in 2009. I don't know what you're saying here.

Your 12 percent is accurate based on the 2012 average. But b/c gas taxes are excise taxes (independent of price per gallon), then when rates are at their historical inflation adjusted average of $2.49 then the tax is 19 percent.

If you look at times like 1988 - gas inflation adjusted price of $1.88 and 1998 - gas inflation adjusted price of $1.41 you'll notice that when gas is low the economy is booming. Look at 2008 - gas inflation adjusted price of $3.39 and 2011 - gas inflation adjusted price of $3.48. I take it you are not arguing that there's an economic justification for high gas prices?

[GreecePwns]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

[thegreekdog]

It's funny... you two apparently agree that the federal government should stop interfering with the free market and yet you're arguing like you're disagreeing on something. Let's just agree that the federal government should not punish the oil and gas industry, but should not reward it above all other industries.

Another thing for me to look up - What percentage of alternative energy grants and tax credits are given to oil companies versus non-oil companies. I bet the answer will shock!

[ViperOverLord]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

Your argument that there has to be more than one energy source is irrelevant. The price of gasoline (the lowest costing automobile fuel) directly correlates with the state of the economy. Eventually that may change (as other automobile energies become more viable). But what is true in 2012 was true in 1918 in regards to that.

[BigBallinStalin]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

Your argument that there has to be more than one energy source is irrelevant. The price of gasoline (the lowest costing automobile fuel) directly correlates with the state of the economy. Eventually that may change (as other automobile energies become more viable). But what is true in 2012 was true in 1918 in regards to that.

Positively or negatively?

[Lootifer]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

Your argument that there has to be more than one energy source is irrelevant. The price of gasoline (the lowest costing automobile fuel) directly correlates with the state of the economy. Eventually that may change (as other automobile energies become more viable). But what is true in 2012 was true in 1918 in regards to that.

Positively or negatively?

Also: Correlation =/= Causation

[ViperOverLord]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

Your argument that there has to be more than one energy source is irrelevant. The price of gasoline (the lowest costing automobile fuel) directly correlates with the state of the economy. Eventually that may change (as other automobile energies become more viable). But what is true in 2012 was true in 1918 in regards to that.

Positively or negatively?

Also: Correlation =/= Causation

Obviously both given the previous discussion. Go back and look at it and you'll figure it out (unless you want to just exercise common sense and then you'll figure it out anyways).

[GreecePwns]

Okay.

[Timminz]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

Your argument that there has to be more than one energy source is irrelevant. The price of gasoline (the lowest costing automobile fuel) directly correlates with the state of the economy. Eventually that may change (as other automobile energies become more viable). But what is true in 2012 was true in 1918 in regards to that.

What alternatives to petroleum products were available for powering cars in 1918? Were there coal-powered cars sold back then?

[AndyDufresne]

The historical inflation-adjusted average is not relevant. There were no viable or near-viable alternative energy sources for the operation of automobiles in, say, 1918. Using this measure counts 1918 as equal to 2012 in our discussion, which is irrational in a discussion of future conditions.

Your argument that there has to be more than one energy source is irrelevant. The price of gasoline (the lowest costing automobile fuel) directly correlates with the state of the economy. Eventually that may change (as other automobile energies become more viable). But what is true in 2012 was true in 1918 in regards to that.

What alternatives to petroleum products were available for powering cars in 1918? Were there coal-powered cars sold back then?

I don't think coal powered cars made it into production ever, but I am not automobile buff. Steam cars, however, were around in the early years of automobiles (building off the momentum of Steam Locomotives). It faced some hurdles, but also had some advantages as well. Wikipedia.


--Andy