sixcard

If the implication of that comment is what I think you think it is, it has the be the most stupid comment I read in my first year as a member of this board.

gs_535xi

Aren't we supposed to be happy with higher gas prices there will be less trafic for us to drive our e60's in
When I get mine I want every1 to be walking or driving there bikes soo they can all see me driving my cool car
im kidding but it would be kinda cool thoughh.....

Terraformer

Yes, I'm sure that there is no relation at all to gas prices and the current WH occupants, both former oilmen with so many connections to oil companies it would make your head spin.

Sure, there is growth throughout the world and increasing demand for oil. But not THAT much, in so LITTLE a time frame. An almost 400% increase in that time frame? And people should NOT consider all possibilities?

I know it's much easier to believe that there are no shenanigans afoot, and that one should trust the government. Many people do, it's just too difficult to avoid cognitive dissonance.

But for people to dismiss that connection as 'stupid' or not worth consideration, (likely) just because the implications of that connection shake up their worldview, is even stupider.

gotabyte

A friend of mine explained to me that the price between grades, his cost, is 4 cents a gallon. We are getting gouged by the stations. By the way, he is selling regular unleaded for 3.65 whereas stations closer to me are being forced down into the 3.79 range. Needless to say, there is a line to get gas at his station.

i<3e60

a little quote my brother told me when i was griping about gas prices

"Nothing is expensive, you just cant afford it"

"make more money"

so now i dont even care, i just want to make money
but thats easier said than done

Ellicit

lol

kscarrol

Sorry, but you clearly have no understanding of basic economics, supply and demand. You don't need demand to increase 400% (by the way, gas going from $1.50 to $4.50 is a 300% increase though it is now below $4 a gallon now in many places) to drive prices up 300%. Demand has increased 2-3 million barrels a day in that time frame. Meanwhile supply is flat. Saudi had, back in 2000, around 4 million barrels a day of spare capacity. Today, that is almost gone. Now when Chavez spouts off or Iran does, the markets get spooked and if Venezuela or Iran cuts off supply, we have a repeat of 1974. That is why prices have moved up so high. There is no spare supply available to either meet a short-term supply loss, or to meet the continued growth that is coming from China and India.

Meanwhile, we Americans keep buying Suburbans and 545/550's and bitching about gas prices. And yes, I'm guilty too, but I am not making up conspiracy theories to rationalize away my actions. Folks in California won't allow more drilling off their coast yet they expect to fill up their Land Rovers, Hummers and Mercedes for $1.50 a gallon. Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Terraformer

Is it clear? That clear? I'm well aware of economics, sir. But even with all that you mention, it just doesn't add up. I recognize and realize the demand and its growth, but all I'm saying is that this confluence of events, coupled with an Executive who clearly has been bought and paid for by the oil cartels (companies?); e.g., energy policy designed by oil execs, tax loopholes, pro-oil policy and the like, suggests that it's not too much of a stretch to see some game-rigging here.

It's awfully easy to label this as a 'conspiracy theory,' as so many stalwart supporters do with all things that appear to tarnish BushCo. It's a tried and abused attempt to dismiss credible suggestions of malfeasance. But the data are there, as are the connections. You've apparently drank the kool-aid, and cannot even contemplate the idea of a corporatocracy, led by the oil companies. They're grabbing all of the money that they can, while they can. And it isn't as if this administration has been so open, honest, and forthcoming about a host of other issues, bud. They've got quite a track record of lying to us. If one doesn't watch Fox News exclusively, that is. Just sayin'

rose colored

kscarrol

Terra, first off I am no supporter of Bush nor did I drink the kool-aid. I am eagerly awaiting a change in DC. My first choice may not be Obama, but it ain't GWB either. But having been an industry analyst covering the issues for almost 20 years now, I do understand how very tight supply of any product/commodity drives the price up exponentionally. That is what we've run into. Is Bush to blame for the price of copper or gold or any other commodity tripling over the past eight years? Must be an awfully big group of conspirators but I'm sure you can make it work some how.

Second, you say silly things like the "data are there". What data other than prices going up? That is not proof of anything other than a bunch of soccer moms driving huge SUVs and a bunch of folks in China waiting in long lines to buy gas. You don't make any credible suggestions at all really, just a lot of finger pointing.

By the way, I assume you drive a Toyota Corolla getting 50 mpg. If not, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Sorry, but that is the truth...

Terraformer

Good for you, I'm glad you're not a Bush supporter. All markets are influenced by politics, and oil (copper and gold as well) is no exception. Recall how, just before the 2004 elections and people were complaining about gas prices, they fell? Prices went up, approval ratings went down, and the converse. Looking at the numbers, Saudi crude production in the five months Apr-Oct was an average 750,000 bpd greater in 2004 than 2003. During a meeting in the Oval Office, according to Bob Woodward in his book that came out a couple of years ago, Bush personally thanked Saudi Prince Bandar because the Saudis had flooded the world oil market and kept prices down in the run-up to the 2004 general election. The relationship with the House of Saud and the Bushes is also well-known and, given their fields, they can manipulate the spigots in favor or in spite of Bush as needed.

It's the big picture I'm talking about, one that I sometimes think economists should endeavor to be more honest about.
That is, money does not make the world go around. People very frequently do not act rationally. And the idea that actors operate purely and consistently according to economic stimuli just doesn't seem true in my personal experiences, nor does it seem true in my reading of current and historical events.

Playing up 'issues' with Iran can mess with prices and speculation as well (along with the Iraq debacle), the fruits of which benefit those who have control of oil. In 2006, we experienced a roller-coaster of sorts in oil prices--all occurring without supply disruption. Perhaps "data" was too strong a word, I admit. I am saying that all of this cannot be so easily and casually labeled as the result of something purely and wholly economic.

Please don't try to suggest that I can 'find a way' to pin Bush on other commodities' rising as well, I am keeping to oil. Again, and given all that this administration has done to lie and manipulate this country, all that I am saying is that this severe, sudden (and within 8 years is sudden in this context) increase of oil futures seems awfully shady to me, and does not completely fit into a nice box of supply and demand. Fundamentals about supply and demand do not explain this--what are they? Oil prices are all about risk and speculation, truths which politicians in power coupled with friends that have oil lead to a very persuasive suggestion that this is not simple economics at play.