Gasoline Prices Options

[impala454]

Just thought it'd be some interesting questions to ask. As always, explain what your choices were and why. If there's a sensible choice in one of the questions I left out, I'll add it.

[Psykopath]

Dogmeat: Quit referring to anyone that supports LOGICAL environmental efforts as a Goddamn hippie or Socialist. That shit is tiring and completely off base, for the most part. I.E.- Quit blanket insulting anyone not on the right-wing concerning big oil.


As far as this poll:
1.) The cause of the spike is an amalgamation of factors, no one complete cause. I do feel the biggest player in the spike is the oil companies seeking ever more profits, but let's face it: They're exploiting a perfect situation right now. The demand is high, as it will obviously remain and continue to grow, until consumers finally realize that they can't afford to take their kids to soccer practice in a fucking hummer and demand better valued hybrids (which are the first step towards less oil use in the transportation arena).

2.) So yeah, people will just need to wake up eventually and see that they are being exploited/wars raise oil prices/they are demanding too much oil/refineries can only make so much/etc. and start to fix things in a logical progression.

3.) $2-$2.50, if we're lucky.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: May 24 2007, 01:10 PM

[Dogmeat]

Dogmeat: Quit referring to anyone that supports LOGICAL environmental efforts as a Goddamn hippie or Socialist. That shit is tiring and completely off base, for the most part. I.E.- Quit blanket insulting anyone not on the right-wing concerning big oil.
As far as this poll:
1.) The cause of the spike is an amalgamation of factors, no one complete cause. I do feel the biggest player in the spike is the oil companies seeking ever more profits, but let's face it: They're exploiting a perfect situation right now. The demand is high, as it will obviously remain and continue to grow, until consumers finally realize that they can't afford to take their kids to soccer practice in a fucking hummer and demand better valued hybrids (which are the first step towards less oil use in the transportation arena).

2.) So yeah, people will just need to wake up eventually and see that they are being exploited/wars raise oil prices/they are demanding too much oil/refineries can only make so much/etc. and start to fix things in a logical progression.

3.) $2-$2.50, if we're lucky.

"Logical environmental efforts" has been a virtual oxymoron in the last 30 years ... seriously, it has. Of all the "environmental efforts" i've witnessed, I'd say maybe %10 were logical and not political stunts, so forgive me for generalizing. I think that generalizations have been well-deserved in the vast majority of cases here

I guess the single biggest problem I have with these so-called "environmental efforts" is that they're being pushed by people whose livlihoods, state economies, whatever don't revolve around having jobs in the oilfield. I find it assinine when hollywood zealots like barbara streisand use their wealth so misguidedly to fight political battles in parts of the country they MIGHT visit once a year has an ENORMOUS effect on the thousands of people that might live and work in that area, and actually *enjoy* the "environment" there. I have yet to meet a single person in the oilfield that wanted to see their old stomping grounds fucked up by drilling operations. Not one. I'd be willing to be that %90 of the people who work out there and more concerned about "the environment" than ANYONE from a thousand miles away ...

I dunno. If you think about how many trillions of gasoline, gallons of oil, etc have been recovered and produced vs. how many have ever been accidentally spilled, I'd say the track record is amazing. Why do you want to spill what makes you money? And what's even funnier is, all of the so-called negative environmental impact that is generated by drilling operations that supposedly fucks up the land, etc .... I dunno, I spent the first 24 years of my life in the most outdoorsey state in the country and I have yet to see a drilling operatioon fuck up a fishing hole or hunting round I used to roam in ...

go figure....

sorry man, the phrase "logical environmental effort" sounds really good but the people who claim that's what they're pushing are basically selling political snake oil .... there's not a lot that's "logical" about it from my standpoint.

[Psykopath]

"Logical environmental efforts" has been a virtual oxymoron in the last 30 years ... seriously, it has. Of all the "environmental efforts" i've witnessed, I'd say maybe %10 were logical and not political stunts, so forgive me for generalizing. I think that generalizations have been well-deserved in the vast majority of cases here

I guess the single biggest problem I have with these so-called "environmental efforts" is that they're being pushed by people whose livlihoods, state economies, whatever don't revolve around having jobs in the oilfield. I find it assinine when hollywood zealots like barbara streisand use their wealth so misguidedly to fight political battles in parts of the country they MIGHT visit once a year has an ENORMOUS effect on the thousands of people that might live and work in that area, and actually *enjoy* the "environment" there. I have yet to meet a single person in the oilfield that wanted to see their old stomping grounds fucked up by drilling operations. Not one. I'd be willing to be that %90 of the people who work out there and more concerned about "the environment" than ANYONE from a thousand miles away ...

I dunno. If you think about how many trillions of gasoline, gallons of oil, etc have been recovered and produced vs. how many have ever been accidentally spilled, I'd say the track record is amazing. Why do you want to spill what makes you money? And what's even funnier is, all of the so-called negative environmental impact that is generated by drilling operations that supposedly fucks up the land, etc .... I dunno, I spent the first 24 years of my life in the most outdoorsey state in the country and I have yet to see a drilling operatioon fuck up a fishing hole or hunting round I used to roam in ...

go figure....

sorry man, the phrase "logical environmental effort" sounds really good but the people who claim that's what they're pushing are basically selling political snake oil .... there's not a lot that's "logical" about it from my standpoint.

Christ I've got a lot of posts to respond too...but hey, YAY for some good debate in NPR.

Aaron: Oh man, please do NOT confuse me with those dipshit celebs that think earning $20 mill for a movie/song/sucking cock entitles them to lead some environmental crusade. FUCK THEM

I understand that a great deal of the environmental movement is dominated by political motives ("Snake oil" schemes, as you said). But everything seems to be like that these days, even the oil and subsequent peripheral industries (automotive and such).
Funny thing is, I'm actually more inclined to support drilling in Alaska now, just so long as they don't go into the Tundra like Bush through Iraq!...i.e.- tear it up for nothing. (heh, had to zing Bush once in this post...isn't that supposed to be a "liberal" theme?!)

And yes, logic fails most of the drug fiend hippies that run these silly campaigns. But there are some good people...minus the lawyers...who are out to simple play the benevolent watchdog. No interference unless it's necessary/company does something drastic to the environment or something like that. These "groups" or more often than not loose associations of individuals that obviously don't get as much airplay as the whackjobs from PETA/Earth Now and the like.

But yeah...I'm rambling a bit now...umm, anything more you want me to address Aaron then just PM me or ask in this thread.

Rock on with your posts, BTW. I'll go ahead and give you another e-BJ, as many other already have, over the quality of your responses thus far. =P

So back in the late 90s when gas was like $0.85/gallon, oil companies weren't seeking profits?

Of course they were. They weren't pulling record profits like today, obviously.

That's just the point though... people can afford it just fine. People whine about gas prices because it takes away from their play money. OMG I had to spend an extra $50 on gas this month, now I can't go out for steak one night ! crying.gif it's every american's right to drive whatever they want, but like dogmeat said, they can't complain if they chose a gas guzzler.

Well yeah, some can afford such luxuries. But the majority of people I see driving the big gas guzzlers are the middle-class people that have both adults working full time jobs and barely scraping by as it is without driving the tank to their kid's recital.
And no, I'm not advocating some ban on SUVs, so I hope you were not assuming that I support such a thing.
And yet again, I know it's a person's choice as to what vehicle they purchase/drive. I really should have added that it was more of an attack on consumer mentality in my original post.

Take a look at the graph. I don't see much evidence to support this. There was a major world war in the 1940s, and another major war in the late 1960s, the entire time, gasoline was declining in price. There was a war between Iran & Iraq between 1980-1988, and the gulf war in 1991, those all have steady declines in gas prices.

WWII- Well, I think that it's safe to assume cars were fairly less common in those days, plus there was rationing and all that, so domestic demand was probably a bit lower. I'd actually like to do a bit more historical economic research on that before I form any full on conclusion for that era though.

Vietnam era- Looks like it stayed reasonably steady, with a slight dip in the inflation adjusted price following the withdrawal of US forces from 'Nam.

The Iran-Iraq war- Well, it spiked in both figures during the first part of that, but then it slid back to a bit below pre-conflict numbers at its conclusion, no surprise there.

Gulf War- Looks like it held steady for '91.

Also, of course gas prices have declined since 1918 on that chart. Let's see: cars were rare, low production efficiency, things like that...it'll obviously lead to a higher price for a product that had an increasing demand, but took much more effort to produce than today. Just like when TVs, VCRS, and other such things first hit the market. Fuckers were expensive.

I'd be interested to know what everyone's vehicle is and what mileage they really get. don't be quoting the manufacturer either, if you don't keep track just say so.

1993 Jeep Cherokee
Gets about 18 or so in town, and pretty good on the highway...I'd say close to 25 or so.

I want to get a Subaru Outback 2.5i when I get more cash for a new vehicle. 23/28+ city/highway miles for such a versatile vehicle.