Obama wants $8 a gallon gasoline

[GreecePwns]

Since the word "Okay." will not immediately translate into "you have to go back and look at what you've written and question whether or not you know what you're saying," in your mind (I forgive you; sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet) I will write everything out which I thought immediately before writing the word "Okay."

I'll toss aside your statement that it "correlates both ways," since it's clear you don't know the definition of the terms positive correlation and negative correlation.

Telling us to "go back and look" is not an argument, when your argument is irrelevant.

The viability of alternative energy sources for automobiles has increased over time, and more specifically over a more recent time frame. Using the historical inflation-adjusted prices is irrelevant in this discussion because the conditions of 1918 or 1958 do not apply to our discussion. The conditions in 1958 are not the same as in 2012: gas driven cars did not have to compete with electric cars/hybrid cars/hydrogen cars. This competition determines the price elasticity of gasoline. Since gas was a necessary good to drive cars in 1958, another near-necessity in 1958, gas prices in 1978 (or even now) are inelastic. Price changes don't affect quantity demanded. In 2012, the conditions are not the same. These new technologies directly affect the necessity-ness (for lack of a better word) of gasoline, and therefore quantity demanded and elasticity of the price of gasoline. You saying "well this is what has happened over 100 years" doesn't mean it will happen forever. The $2.49 comes from an entire century where there was no competition for gas-powered cars, making gas a necessary and price-inelastic good. The next century won't be like that, so let's not pretend it will.

On top of that, your statement implies both a positive correlation and a definite causation between gas prices and the economy. Your math would have to be a bit fuzzy to find a definite positive correlation in the first place (notice the percentage change during the Great Depression is smaller than the percentage change in 2008-12), but let's say that is the case. You'd still be very hard-pressed to say that those particular gas prices caused periods of growth and periods of recession. C'mon man, do you ever hear high gas prices as a reason for the current recession? Or the Great Depression? Or the Dot Com Bubble? Do you realize what you're saying implies?

[ViperOverLord]

Since the word "Okay." will not immediately translate into "you have to go back and look at what you've written and question whether or not you know what you're saying," in your mind (I forgive you; sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet) I will write everything out which I thought immediately before writing the word "Okay."

I'll toss aside your statement that it "correlates both ways," since it's clear you don't know the definition of the terms positive correlation and negative correlation.

It's a negative correlation. I put it in lay man's terms. I think that's okay since I'm not writing an article for the Economist.

The viability of alternative energy sources for automobiles has increased over time, and more specifically over a more recent time frame. Using the historical inflation-adjusted prices is irrelevant in this discussion because the conditions of 1918 or 1958 do not apply to our discussion. The conditions in 1958 are not the same as in 2012: gas driven cars did not have to compete with electric cars/hybrid cars/hydrogen cars. This competition determines the price elasticity of gasoline. Since gas was a necessary good to drive cars in 1958, another near-necessity in 1958, gas prices in 1978 (or even now) are inelastic. Price changes don't affect quantity demanded. In 2012, the conditions are not the same. These new technologies directly affect the necessity-ness (for lack of a better word) of gasoline, and therefore quantity demanded and elasticity of the price of gasoline. You saying "well this is what has happened over 100 years" doesn't mean it will happen forever. The $2.49 comes from an entire century where there was no competition for gas-powered cars, making gas a necessary and price-inelastic good. The next century won't be like that, so let's not pretend it will.

I never pretended that the next century would be the same gas market. I said that gas has been the predominate fuel source for automobiles and that it will be for the foreseeable future.

On top of that, your statement implies both a positive correlation and a definite causation between gas prices and the economy. Your math would have to be a bit fuzzy to find a definite positive correlation in the first place (notice the percentage change during the Great Depression is smaller than the percentage change in 2008-12), but let's say that is the case. You'd still be very hard-pressed to say that those particular gas prices caused periods of growth and periods of recession. C'mon man, do you ever hear high gas prices as a reason for the current recession? Or the Great Depression? Or the Dot Com Bubble? Do you realize what you're saying implies?

No. It is a negative correlation. The economy is better (up) than it would be when gas prices are better (down). Gas prices may have been worse in 2008 than 1938. And the economy may have been better in 2008 than 1938. The correlation does not erase other potential economic factors. Obviously, when we had the foreclosure crisis or banking crisis it wasn't just going to be a magic pill to get gas prices down. But certainly keeping gas prices down would help us recover faster.

[BigBallinStalin]

Since the word "Okay." will not immediately translate into "you have to go back and look at what you've written and question whether or not you know what you're saying," in your mind (I forgive you; sarcasm doesn't translate well on the internet) I will write everything out which I thought immediately before writing the word "Okay."

I'll toss aside your statement that it "correlates both ways," since it's clear you don't know the definition of the terms positive correlation and negative correlation.

Telling us to "go back and look" is not an argument, when your argument is irrelevant.

The viability of alternative energy sources for automobiles has increased over time, and more specifically over a more recent time frame. Using the historical inflation-adjusted prices is irrelevant in this discussion because the conditions of 1918 or 1958 do not apply to our discussion. The conditions in 1958 are not the same as in 2012: gas driven cars did not have to compete with electric cars/hybrid cars/hydrogen cars. This competition determines the price elasticity of gasoline. Since gas was a necessary good to drive cars in 1958, another near-necessity in 1958, gas prices in 1978 (or even now) are inelastic. Price changes don't affect quantity demanded. In 2012, the conditions are not the same. These new technologies directly affect the demand for gasoline, and therefore quantity demanded and elasticity of the price of gasoline. You saying "well this is what has happened over 100 years" doesn't mean it will happen forever. The $2.49 comes from an entire century where there was no competition for gas-powered cars, making gas a necessary and price-inelastic good. The next century won't be like that, so let's not pretend it will.

On top of that, your statement implies both a positive correlation and a definite causation between gas prices and the economy. Your math would have to be a bit fuzzy to find a definite positive correlation in the first place (notice the percentage change during the Great Depression is smaller than the percentage change in 2008-12), but let's say that is the case. You'd still be very hard-pressed to say that those particular gas prices caused periods of growth and periods of recession. C'mon man, do you ever hear high gas prices as a reason for the current recession? Or the Great Depression? Or the Dot Com Bubble? Do you realize what you're saying implies?

I replaced "necessity-ness" with "demand."

Furthermore, to support GreecePwns regarding the elasticity of demand for petroleum, there are other substitutes than electric cars/hybrid cars/hydrogen cars. There's bicycles, mass transportation (e.g. buses, city rails, country-to-country rails), airplanes, and even walking depending on one's income.

Also, note that a temporary price increase is temporary. It takes time for people to find and learn to more efficiently use substitutes, so not only are all of the above substitutes discovered, but the marginal calculus of individual choice also includes other issues such as: travel distance from home to work and to other markets relative to the benefits received of reduced commuter time and additional time for spending with friends and family.

[Lootifer]

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).

I know exactly whats going on in here. You guys are faffing about oil prices like they have some material basis in reality. Pity it's just not true.

Oil prices are tied to retarded speculation and long term (ie long before Obama/Bush/etc) arrangements of political capitalists. The easiest way consumers to fix this is by elastic demand, pushing the suppliers (and politicians) to change their model.

The previous model worked because you could trip over and find/produce oil, this isnt true anymore; regardless of how much there still is in the ground, it is more exspensive [to find and produce].

[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?

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

Isn't coal generally the fuel used to power a steam engine?

[Lootifer]

Yes.

[BigBallinStalin]

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).

I know exactly whats going on in here. You guys are faffing about oil prices like they have some material basis in reality. Pity it's just not true.

Oil prices are tied to retarded speculation and long term (ie long before Obama/Bush/etc) arrangements of political capitalists. The easiest way consumers to fix this is by elastic demand, pushing the suppliers (and politicians) to change their model.

The previous model worked because you could trip over and find/produce oil, this isnt true anymore; regardless of how much there still is in the ground, it is more exspensive [to find and produce].

Do you think it's likely for the major oil companies to seek regulations in order to impose higher start-up costs on their competition, so that the major oil companies can gain a "competitive" advantage?

[Lootifer]

haha well played, and yes im sure they will.

note im all for deregulation of the Oil industry.

[ViperOverLord]

Obama's energy czar, excuse me, secretary of energy, John Chu just told Congress that he's giving himself an A. When asked if it was an A Minus he said no despite Keystone, Solyndra and high gas prices. That's the epitome of arrogance and Obama just needs to go.

[Lootifer]

link?

[ViperOverLord]

link?

Go to ABC, CNN, NYT, Huff Post or MSNBC. I'm sure it'll be there

Link

[Lootifer]

Dont be a dick, i was asking genuinely.

[ViperOverLord]

Dont be a dick, i was asking genuinely.

I genuinely gave you the link and was making a joke about something other than you. Comprehension dude.

[BigBallinStalin]

Clarity, dude.


I like how he has to grade himself. It reminds me of China's monopoly on cigarettes, and how that same business is also responsible for analyzing the health effects of cigarette smoking. (link? I dunno, I can't remember from where I read this).

[ViperOverLord]

Clarity, dude.


I like how he has to grade himself. It reminds me of China's monopoly on cigarettes, and how that same business is also responsible for analyzing the health effects of cigarette smoking. (link? I dunno, I can't remember from where I read this).

I didn't (originally) put a link b/c it wasn't an interesting read and an easy search otherwise.