The gasoline/petrol price thread.

[Bella Fortuna]

The roads in California are dismal for the most part, and oftentimes in dangerous repair!

[Coito ergo sum]

Doesn't matter why. If it runs up to $5, it will hurt a lot of people, and the economy in general.

Of course it would. My point is that oil prices could crash again the moment Iran stops waving its dick.

Crashing is doubtful. We usually get an uptick in the spring through May in prices. The problem here is that it's starting very early.

The mileages we were comparing were gasoline.

There seemed to be confusion (on your end) as to why a European version of a vehicle got significantly better gas mileage, so I proposed a possible explanation.

No confusion at all on my end, since the cars were were discussing were all gasoline powered, not diesel.

The roads in my city are fine. Where are you that the roads suck so bad?

Get out of your city.

Believe me, I do. I am well traveled.

Moreover - the mere fact of the amount of tax per gallon being "low" is not a reason to raise it. I'd put the onus on someone propounding a tax increase to state how the tax money would be used, and what results would be expected. A business plan.

In most places (AFAIK), the gas tax is tied to roadway spending. But yeah, of course any tax increase (or decrease) should come with a valid justification and fiscal plan.

Which is a good reason to object to almost any tax hike, since we hardly ever, if ever, get any sort of a reasonable fiscal plan. I'm not against taxes. I'm against government waste.

But, anyway - you can't have low gas prices and high taxes on gasoline at the same time. It's obvious that those leaning to the left really do want higher gas prices, for some larger political reason. That, to me, makes little sense, though, since gasoline taxes are the most regressive kind of tax you can have.

One can stomach regressive taxes in some areas as long as the overall tax scheme is progressive.

Why not tax something else? Something that doesn't hurt the working poor as much?

I find it amazing that left-leaning folks would want to support such tax increases, since the people paying the lion's share of it would be the working poor and middle class. The rich can pay $5 or $7 a gallon no problem. The guy making $25,000 to $40,000 loses his raise when the price goes up 50 cents a gallon or a dollar a gallon.

Perpetuating our dependence on oil isn't helping this guy either.

Then let's (a) ramp up domestic production of fuel, and (b) increase other sources of energy besides oil.

For example, electric cars -- all nice and wonderful to contemplate, but they just aren't feasible. Let's pretend millions electric vehicles hit the road -- our electrical grid could not power them, and the price of electricity would skyrocket. Electric vehicles without a means of generating huge amounts of electricity, and distributing it cheaply, is needed. One power source can do that: Nuclear. I'm all for it.

Also, think about the reduction in US consumption. Let's assume that we raise the average fuel economy of cars in the US to 50 MPG. What sort of impact do you think that would have on the price of gasoline at the pump? Answer: nothing much.

The problem is a supply problem, not a demand problem. We need energy. A lot of it.

[MrJonno]

For example, electric cars -- all nice and wonderful to contemplate, but they just aren't feasible. Let's pretend millions electric vehicles hit the road -- our electrical grid could not power them, and the price of electricity would skyrocket. Electric vehicles without a means of generating huge amounts of electricity, and distributing it cheaply, is needed. One power source can do that: Nuclear. I'm all for it.

No such thing as an environmentally friendly electric cars, there are actually some cars that can run on compress air and even those arent as low CO2 emitting (you have to compress the air) than a petrol powered bus or train

[Coito ergo sum]

For example, electric cars -- all nice and wonderful to contemplate, but they just aren't feasible. Let's pretend millions electric vehicles hit the road -- our electrical grid could not power them, and the price of electricity would skyrocket. Electric vehicles without a means of generating huge amounts of electricity, and distributing it cheaply, is needed. One power source can do that: Nuclear. I'm all for it.

No such thing as an environmentally friendly electric cars, there are actually some cars that can run on compress air and even those arent as low CO2 emitting (you have to compress the air) than a petrol powered bus or train

You're not going to get everyone in the US to drive trains around, and if you did, it wouldn't be environmentally friendly either, because you'd have to build 50 million miles of railroad tracks, and construct trains to run all the time so people can get around. Unless one lives in NYC, or similar locale, trains for regular transportation are not feasible.

Electric cars are only not environmentally friendly if they're powered by fossil fuels. Nuclear generated electricity would be great.

[MrJonno]

You're not going to get everyone in the US to drive trains around, and if you did, it wouldn't be environmentally friendly either, because you'd have to build 50 million miles of railroad tracks, and construct trains to run all the time so people can get around. Unless one lives in NYC, or similar locale, trains for regular transportation are not feasible.

Electric cars are only not environmentally friendly if they're powered by fossil fuels. Nuclear generated electricity would be great.

Well not living in a city is basically a crime against the environment and fewer and fewer people are doing it each year. Make petrol so expensive and cut any sort of grant to anyone living in rural areas and you basically force people to live in decently people density area

[eXcommunicate]

Doesn't matter why. If it runs up to $5, it will hurt a lot of people, and the economy in general.

Of course it would. My point is that oil prices could crash again the moment Iran stops waving its dick.

Crashing is doubtful. We usually get an uptick in the spring through May in prices. The problem here is that it's starting very early.

Well, "crash" is a relative term. Dropping $20/barrel as has happened in the not too distant past could be considered a crash. The reason it's "started early" is because of a bunch of dick waving.

The mileages we were comparing were gasoline.

There seemed to be confusion (on your end) as to why a European version of a vehicle got significantly better gas mileage, so I proposed a possible explanation.

No confusion at all on my end, since the cars were were discussing were all gasoline powered, not diesel.

There are two dozen variants of the Focus Estate. The ones in the 45mpg range are all diesel. Source: http://www.topgear.com/uk/ford/focus-estate/specs

The roads in my city are fine. Where are you that the roads suck so bad?

Get out of your city.

Believe me, I do. I am well traveled.

Such a worldly fellow to use his city as an example of why our roads and highways are a-ok.

Moreover - the mere fact of the amount of tax per gallon being "low" is not a reason to raise it. I'd put the onus on someone propounding a tax increase to state how the tax money would be used, and what results would be expected. A business plan.

In most places (AFAIK), the gas tax is tied to roadway spending. But yeah, of course any tax increase (or decrease) should come with a valid justification and fiscal plan.

Which is a good reason to object to almost any tax hike, since we hardly ever, if ever, get any sort of a reasonable fiscal plan. I'm not against taxes. I'm against government waste.

Well, things are never ideal, are they?

But, anyway - you can't have low gas prices and high taxes on gasoline at the same time. It's obvious that those leaning to the left really do want higher gas prices, for some larger political reason. That, to me, makes little sense, though, since gasoline taxes are the most regressive kind of tax you can have.

One can stomach regressive taxes in some areas as long as the overall tax scheme is progressive.

Why not tax something else? Something that doesn't hurt the working poor as much?

Because gas taxes directly fund construction and maintenance of our roads. But I'm not advocating increasing gas taxes, I'm saying they aren't exorbitant. I'm also okay with some regressive taxes as long as the overall tax burden is progressive. It's unavoidable.

I find it amazing that left-leaning folks would want to support such tax increases, since the people paying the lion's share of it would be the working poor and middle class. The rich can pay $5 or $7 a gallon no problem. The guy making $25,000 to $40,000 loses his raise when the price goes up 50 cents a gallon or a dollar a gallon.

Perpetuating our dependence on oil isn't helping this guy either.

Then let's (a) ramp up domestic production of fuel, and (b) increase other sources of energy besides oil.

For example, electric cars -- all nice and wonderful to contemplate, but they just aren't feasible. Let's pretend millions electric vehicles hit the road -- our electrical grid could not power them, and the price of electricity would skyrocket. Electric vehicles without a means of generating huge amounts of electricity, and distributing it cheaply, is needed. One power source can do that: Nuclear. I'm all for it.

Well, I'm all for nuclear too.

Also, think about the reduction in US consumption. Let's assume that we raise the average fuel economy of cars in the US to 50 MPG. What sort of impact do you think that would have on the price of gasoline at the pump? Answer: nothing much.

Reducing our reliance on oil is not about driving down the price of oil. This would actually work against the effort to reduce our dependence upon it.

The problem is a supply problem, not a demand problem.

The supply is running out. No amount of blame heaped upon liberals will change that fact. Drop the price precipitously by some miracle, and demand will skyrocket, hastening the reckoning. I'm all for nuclear though, no argument there.

[Coito ergo sum]

Doesn't matter why. If it runs up to $5, it will hurt a lot of people, and the economy in general.

Of course it would. My point is that oil prices could crash again the moment Iran stops waving its dick.

Crashing is doubtful. We usually get an uptick in the spring through May in prices. The problem here is that it's starting very early.

Well, "crash" is a relative term. Dropping $20/barrel as has happened in the not too distant past could be considered a crash. The reason it's "started early" is because of a bunch of dick waving.

Good reason to expand domestic energy production...

The mileages we were comparing were gasoline.

There seemed to be confusion (on your end) as to why a European version of a vehicle got significantly better gas mileage, so I proposed a possible explanation.

No confusion at all on my end, since the cars were were discussing were all gasoline powered, not diesel.

There are two dozen variants of the Focus Estate. The ones in the 45mpg range are all diesel. Source: http://www.topgear.com/uk/ford/focus-estate/specs

Christ on a bicycle. The one mentioned in OUR DISCUSSION was a gasoline powered car. FFS...

The roads in my city are fine. Where are you that the roads suck so bad?

Get out of your city.

Believe me, I do. I am well traveled.

Such a worldly fellow to use his city as an example of why our roads and highways are a-ok.

Since we're both only relying on our experience -- you haven't presented any statistics or objective evidence - I don't see as why my experience ought to count for less than yours.

Moreover - the mere fact of the amount of tax per gallon being "low" is not a reason to raise it. I'd put the onus on someone propounding a tax increase to state how the tax money would be used, and what results would be expected. A business plan.

In most places (AFAIK), the gas tax is tied to roadway spending. But yeah, of course any tax increase (or decrease) should come with a valid justification and fiscal plan.

Which is a good reason to object to almost any tax hike, since we hardly ever, if ever, get any sort of a reasonable fiscal plan. I'm not against taxes. I'm against government waste.

Well, things are never ideal, are they?

Nope.

But, anyway - you can't have low gas prices and high taxes on gasoline at the same time. It's obvious that those leaning to the left really do want higher gas prices, for some larger political reason. That, to me, makes little sense, though, since gasoline taxes are the most regressive kind of tax you can have.

One can stomach regressive taxes in some areas as long as the overall tax scheme is progressive.

Why not tax something else? Something that doesn't hurt the working poor as much?

Because gas taxes directly fund construction and maintenance of our roads. But I'm not advocating increasing gas taxes, I'm saying they aren't exorbitant. I'm also okay with some regressive taxes as long as the overall tax burden is progressive. It's unavoidable.

I find it amazing that left-leaning folks would want to support such tax increases, since the people paying the lion's share of it would be the working poor and middle class. The rich can pay $5 or $7 a gallon no problem. The guy making $25,000 to $40,000 loses his raise when the price goes up 50 cents a gallon or a dollar a gallon.

Perpetuating our dependence on oil isn't helping this guy either.

Then let's (a) ramp up domestic production of fuel, and (b) increase other sources of energy besides oil.

For example, electric cars -- all nice and wonderful to contemplate, but they just aren't feasible. Let's pretend millions electric vehicles hit the road -- our electrical grid could not power them, and the price of electricity would skyrocket. Electric vehicles without a means of generating huge amounts of electricity, and distributing it cheaply, is needed. One power source can do that: Nuclear. I'm all for it.

Well, I'm all for nuclear too.

Then we are in agreement.

Also, think about the reduction in US consumption. Let's assume that we raise the average fuel economy of cars in the US to 50 MPG. What sort of impact do you think that would have on the price of gasoline at the pump? Answer: nothing much.

Reducing our reliance on oil is not about driving down the price of oil. This would actually work against the effort to reduce our dependence upon it.

It is for me, partly. It's also about national security, in that we become less dependent on certain areas of the world.

The problem is a supply problem, not a demand problem.

The supply is running out. No amount of blame heaped upon liberals will change that fact. Drop the price precipitously by some miracle, and demand will skyrocket, hastening the reckoning. I'm all for nuclear though, no argument there.

Energy --supply... Energy, supply. There are sources of energy.

The problem is that we don't have a ready replacement for oil, yet, and we're not really working on one. These "green" efforts are largely bullshit and politically motivated - like the corn ethanol craze that went on a few years ago. Nonsense from the start, but time, money and energy were wasted on it.

Nuclear is the only feasible way to generate the kind of power we need. Nuclear power generating electrical current to power electric cars.

Everything else is a drop in the bucket. We're never going to have natural gas cars (and as soon as we do have 10,000,000 on the road, we'll start running out of natural gas too). And, coal driven power plants powering electric vehicles are no better than oil in the long run.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama's arguments on the oil/gasoline issue:

a) gasoline prices are beyond his control, but b) to the extent oil and gas production is rising in America, his energy policies deserve all the credit, and c) higher prices are one more reason to raise taxes on oil and gas drillers while handing even more subsidies to his friends in green energy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... n_newsreel

The reality is that most of the increase in U.S. oil and gas production has come despite the Obama Administration. It is flowing from the shale boom, which is the result of private technological advances and investment. Mr. Obama has seen the energy sun rise and is crowing like a rooster that he made it happen.

Mr. Obama yesterday also repeated his proposal that now is the time to raise taxes on oil and gas companies, as if doing so will make them more likely to drill. He must not believe the economic truism that when you tax something you get less of it, including fewer of the new jobs they've created.

***
We'd almost feel sorry for Mr. Obama's gas-price predicament if it weren't a case of rough justice. The President has deliberately sought to raise the price of energy throughout the economy via his cap-and-trade agenda. He is now getting his wish, albeit a little too overtly for political comfort. Mr. Obama has also spent three years blaming George W. Bush for every economic ill. If Mr. Obama now feels frustrated by economic events beyond his control, perhaps he should call Mr. Bush for consolation.

[leo-rcc]

In Holland atm it is about $8.30/gallon or Eur. 1.673/liter. Diesel is cheaper at $6.99/gallon or Eur. 1.409/liter

[Coito ergo sum]

Now talk of $6 per gallon gasoline -- http://houston.culturemap.com/newsdetai ... -levels-1/

Regular unleaded here in Florida seems to be crossing into the $3.70 per gallon range with high-octane gasoline at around $4.

[Coito ergo sum]

Christ-on-a-bicycle -- the same gasoline station that was $3.70 for regular unleaded yesterday was $3.80 today. Fuck me running.

And, thieves are starting to drill into people's gas tanks to steal the gasoline. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... print.html

[Bella Fortuna]

When I went two days ago the Arco was $4.15 for the cheapest (and I only go to Arco in the first place because it's cheaper than all the rest). That's the highest I've seen since I've been driving!

[Coito ergo sum]

Where are those folks who were so sure we invade other countries to steal their oil?

Where's the damn stolen oil!!!???

[leo-rcc]

You are still paying half of what we pay for petrol, bunch of crybabies.

[Coito ergo sum]

You are still paying half of what we pay for petrol, bunch of crybabies.

We don't want our economy and lifestyles to be brought down to your level, so we're concerned about long term fuel costs. And, paying higher prices for gasoline is not per se a virtue.