View Full Version : Who's parking their bikes and driving more as gas approaches $2?
Tobias
10-31-2008, 07:52 AM
The question in reverse was asked as we approached $4; how about now on the way down towards $2? Riding more, less, or no difference?
In Houston one station had it under $2 already.
I haven't driven more but it will be nice to fill up for $50 instead of $100. It may make it more likely for my wife and me to go cycling in the Hill Country on long weekends or special events, but around town it won't make much difference.
wasfast
10-31-2008, 08:21 AM
Makes no difference to me. I gave my car to my son nearly 2 years ago and use my wife's as needed. I commute every day to work.
cadence90
10-31-2008, 08:32 AM
Not me.
I'm still riding, and will continue to do so.
Exxon/Mobil posted just posted the largest 3rd quarter profit in history. :butt:
Screw them all: I'm a cyclist/commuter trying to better my own life and the environment, no what the $/P/B costs are; I'm not a subsidizer of the Big Oils as much as I can avoid it.
(But I'd be more than willing to ride from end-to-end of T. Boone Pickens's proposed wind farm, if he ever actually builds it; heck, the propellers might even push my cadence up to 110 rpm... :) .)
Bruce K
10-31-2008, 08:34 AM
Still about the same but as the weather worsens here in New England the car will get driven to the corner store instead of the bike.
We did do a drive to the country last weekend that we probably would not have done when the gas was close to $4 but it was nice to not be quite as concerned about burning through a tank.
BK
BTW: I'm riding more but it has nothing to do with gas being cheaper.
From a driving perspective, my wife mentioned yesterday that Metro buses haven't been quite as full the last couple of weeks; which she really likes. For a while they were running with standing room only; and that got old for a 45 minute commute.
Exxon/Mobil posted just posted the largest 3rd quarter profit in history. :butt: I'm not rich but own a few shares of Exxon. It's nice when they turn a profit for the "little guy" partial owners, don't you think?
I hope you don't hold it personally against me. ;)
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 08:40 AM
I've been driving more lately, nothing to do with the price of gas though, more my own laziness and burnout from a long riding season. I'll pick it back up soon though. I was riding to work almost every day until a month or so ago.
michael white
10-31-2008, 08:43 AM
Not me.
I'm still riding, and will continue to do so.
Exxon/Mobil posted just posted the largest 3rd quarter profit in history. :butt:
Screw them all: I'm a cyclist/commuter trying to better my own life and the environment, no what the $/P/B costs are; I'm not a subsidizer of the Big Oils as much as I can avoid it.
(But I'd be more than willing to ride from end-to-end of T. Boone Pickens's proposed wind farm, if he ever actually builds it; heck, the propellers might even push my cadence up to 110 rpm... :) .)
Yep, ???? Big Oil.
I ride for me.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 08:47 AM
I'd expect many will drive more with lower gas prices, but it will be interesting to watch and see if trends like buying large SUVs reverses also. Not that that is all bad since many industries can use the break; even if temporary.
Jeff N.
10-31-2008, 08:49 AM
Been commuting to work on my bike since '89. Don't plan on stopping anytime soon. Jeff N.
thwart
10-31-2008, 08:51 AM
Luckily I can pay for gas, and it wasn't breaking my budget. So my perspective is a little skewed.
But I think $4 gas was the best thing to happen to the US in years.
$2 gas... backsliding.
Still bike commuting, but the time change this weekend will end it. Roads I have to use are just too dangerous in the dark.
They're bad enough in full daylight...
Tobias
10-31-2008, 08:59 AM
Luckily I can pay for gas, and it wasn't breaking my budget. So my perspective is a little skewed.
But I think $4 gas was the best thing to happen to the US in years.
$2 gas... backsliding.Do you think your perspective would be different if paying for gas was a struggle? I don't want to make this political -- really.
People working in aviation, auto, RV, boating, tourism, etc... (assuming they still have their job) may not think that $4 "was the best thing" for them.
dauwhe
10-31-2008, 09:01 AM
Haven't been on the bike in five days. I've been in the car all of those days.
Of course, I'm home sick, and I'm just driving the baby to daycare in the morning.
Dave
thwart
10-31-2008, 09:04 AM
People working in aviation, auto, RV, boating, tourism, etc... (assuming they still have their job) may not think that $4 "was the best thing" for them. Long term benefits vs short term benefits... you pick the time frame.
For Americans like my parents who are retired, live on limited income, and can't ride a bike to the store, doctors, etc... high gas prices is not a good thing. I don't know too many people who want to pay double for anything - whether it's gas or toothpaste.
fiamme red
10-31-2008, 09:11 AM
For Americans like my parents who are retired, live on limited income, and can't ride a bike to the store, doctors, etc... high gas prices is not a good thing. I don't know too many people who want to pay double for anything - whether it's gas or toothpaste.Does the US have a Strategic Toothpaste Reserve in case of a shortage of Crest and Colgate?
Tobias
10-31-2008, 09:12 AM
Long term benefits vs short term benefits... you pick the time frame.Agree -- I think long-term also.
However, shocking a system is not always smart. Using exercise as an example, we wouldn't recommend someone to go from being sedentary to riding 500 miles a week to lose weight and get in shape, right? That will likely just lead to injury because the body doesn't have time to adapt without breaking down.
I'm OK with higher prices, just not too quickly.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 09:16 AM
Does the US have a Strategic Toothpaste Reserve in case of a shortage of Crest and Colgate?Who would have thought we can make toothpaste political? :rolleyes:
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 09:26 AM
For Americans like my parents who are retired, live on limited income, and can't ride a bike to the store, doctors, etc... high gas prices is not a good thing. I don't know too many people who want to pay double for anything - whether it's gas or toothpaste.
Yep. Same with my parents. Heck, my Dad is still cutting firewood. He did it this year because he HAS TO, and not because he wants to like when he was working. He'll be the last person on earth to complain about it, but I'm happy oil prices have come down a bit. Now my Mom and Dad, along with my Grandmother who they are taking care of next door (she's a feisty independent soul) in our old house (Oil Heat) might be a bit warmer this winter. They live way out in the country and driving anywhere takes time and money. Wishing for higher oil prices. Sheesh! We'll get over our oil addiction when it's all gone and technology catches up. I promise you. What's the rush?
What's the rush?I agree with what Tobias said. Shocking a system (or people) is often not good -- there is little time to adjust.
A slower transition which allows time for adaptation can accomplish everything with a lot less pain for everyone.
Does the US have a Strategic Toothpaste Reserve in case of a shortage of Crest and Colgate?It's a funny comparison -- when my native country ran out of toothpaste we started using bar soap to brush, which worked well until that ran out too. I doubt the US stockpiles toothpaste. :rolleyes:
Should we worry more about that? :confused:
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 09:42 AM
I agree with what Tobias said. Shocking a system (or people) is often not good -- there is little time to adjust.
A slower transition which allows time for adaptation can accomplish everything with a lot less pain for everyone.
Exactly my point also. My parents aren't moving. I moved. Now I live 6 miles from work and can ride my bike easily. That's the kind of transition it's gonna take. We aren't there yet, but we are working on it.
why are oil prices down? I get that with a slowing economy, demand will drop, but is production also up? How much impact did changes in behavior when gas was $4.99/gal have on demand?
Going back to old habits because the price is now lower will just take us back to $5/gal gas....
I ride the bus....bike when I can....drive when my company reimburses me for it.
geo-political thread drift: Interesting Thomas Friedman article in the paper yesterday on the impact low oil prices is having on possible political instability in Iran...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
thwart
10-31-2008, 10:06 AM
A slower transition which allows time for adaptation can accomplish everything with a lot less pain for everyone. Agree; it's a shame no one in our government had the guts to do it that way. We probably could have used the bucks for infrastructure repair and renewal, instead of boosting the economies of Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Not to mention those huge Big Oil profits...
Sheesh! We'll get over our oil addiction when it's all gone and technology catches up. I promise you. What's the rush? Talk with the rangers at Glacier Nat'l Park.
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 10:12 AM
Talk with the rangers at Glacier Nat'l Park.
...and the the desert in Northern Africa was once a lush forest or under water. I think the park rangers and whatever animals that are able to adapt will make it out of there alive.
cadence90
10-31-2008, 10:17 AM
I'm not rich but own a few shares of Exxon. It's nice when they turn a profit for the "little guy" partial owners, don't you think?
I hope you don't hold it personally against me. ;)
You, individually: no. It's your world.
Them: obscene crooks, imho; and they indeed do govern part of my world.
And Mc wants to give them more tax breaks/"incentives"?
Screw that, the party needs to end now, it's getting feeble.
Kind of ironic to be "gettting rich over the very thing that makes us poor", to paraphrase Ry Cooder....
Blue Jays
10-31-2008, 10:24 AM
No change.
I ride as much as possible.
I drive when I need to drive.
cadence90
10-31-2008, 10:25 AM
Do you think your perspective would be different if paying for gas was a struggle? I don't want to make this political -- really.
People working in aviation, auto, RV, boating, tourism, etc... (assuming they still have their job) may not think that $4 "was the best thing" for them.
I'm not wealthy enough to own a home, so I rent: I know for sure that the yard-workers my landlady hires are getting their ass kicked at $4, even $2, because they require gas to get to/from and to work at their jobs. They're surely not getting any raises because of gasflation.
Political? I'll stay out of that.
Social? Hell yes.
cadence90
10-31-2008, 10:38 AM
...and the the desert in Northern Africa was once a lush forest or under water. I think the park rangers and whatever animals that are able to adapt will make it out of there alive.
That's mighty generous: what about the poor New Englanders with the Winter coming on in 1-2 months, not 13,000 years of Sahara climate change?
Just fine?
You, individually: no. It's your world.
Them: obscene crooks, imho; and they indeed do govern part of my world.
And Mc wants to give them more tax breaks/"incentives"?
Screw that, the party needs to end now, it's getting feeble.
Kind of ironic to be "gettting rich over the very thing that makes us poor", to paraphrase Ry Cooder....It would be easier to discuss this calmly if the implied premise of “their huge profits” were accurate.
Companies like Exxon make a lot of money because they are huge. In proportion to their size, they don’t make “huge profits” compared to some other smaller companies which get a pass in the media (attacking those lacks sensationalism). Really, look it up. I’d give you the data but you won’t likely believe me anyway – it’s more effective if you get it on your own provided you go to reliable sources instead of groups that have an ax to grind.
Regardless, let’s assume I gave you that their profits were indeed obscene (that all corporate profits are obscene). Where do those obscene profits go? Who owns these companies? Working stiffs like me and maybe you, your neighbor, etc…? Teachers, mechanics, pilots, etc… who invest directly or save for retirement in their IRAs or 401Ks?
Why do you guys hate corporations? I honestly don’t get it. Why hate Exxon and not Serotta? I own less in Exxon that some individual owns in Serotta, and they make more profit from it that I do from Exxon. So why pick on big oil?
If your issue is environmental then say so, but don’t hide your feelings behind financial matters.
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 10:54 AM
The more profitable they are, the less taxes I pay. (of course this is only partially true since washington spends money way faster than it earns it) I can always choose not to drive my car and exxon will not make a dime from me but,.... They already pay more in taxes than the bottom 50% of wage earners in America. Look it up.
That IS spreading the wealth around. Guess what? When we (earth) runs out of oil, Exxon will either not be in business, or will have to find another way to make money. Imagine for a second they are out of business totally tomorrow. Where are the greedy spenders in Washington gonna get all their walkin around money?
We never ask government to do with less, yet we have a bunch of people running around trying to destroy the ones that literally feed them.
cadence90
10-31-2008, 11:08 AM
It would be easier to discuss this calmly if the implied premise of “their huge profits” were accurate.
Companies like Exxon make a lot of money because they are huge. In proportion to their size, they don’t make “huge profits” compared to some other smaller companies which get a pass in the media (attacking those lacks sensationalism). Really, look it up. I’d give you the data but you won’t likely believe me anyway – it’s more effective if you get it on your own provided you go to reliable sources instead of groups that have an ax to grind.
Regardless, let’s assume I gave you that their profits were indeed obscene (that all corporate profits are obscene). Where do those obscene profits go? Who owns these companies? Working stiffs like me and maybe you, your neighbor, etc…? Teachers, mechanics, pilots, etc… who invest directly or save for retirement in their IRAs or 401Ks?
Why do you guys hate corporations? I honestly don’t get it. Why hate Exxon and not Serotta? I own less in Exxon that some individual owns in Serotta, and they make more profit from it that I do from Exxon. So why pick on big oil?
If your issue is environmental then say so, but don’t hide your feelings behind financial matters.
Hiding??? :confused:
Sorry, man: I am definitely the wrong guy for you to request sympathy from.
First: my issues are BOTH economic AND environmental.
Second: I don't feel any need at all to be "calm" in this economy, sorry.
Not because of my own lack of "investment acumen', but because I really don't buy it, literally or figuratively, that every imaginable circumstance from oil wars to hurricanes is viewed exclusively as a profit-opportunity by the Boards, ethics (or country for that matter) be damned.
To compare Exxon to Serotta is truly ludicrous, really.
I "pick" on Big Oil because it is the most anti-progressive, greed-riddled, national-security risk our society as a WHOLE has to deal with, regardless of your personal investment portfolio.
"HOUSTON -
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported income yesterday that shattered its own record for the biggest profit from operations by a US corporation, earning $14.83 billion in the third quarter.
Yet numbers contained within the company's most recent financial report revealed production numbers that continue to sag.
The Irving, Texas-based company said net income jumped nearly 58 percent to $2.86 a share in the July-September period. That compares with $9.41 billion, or $1.70 a share, a year ago. The latest quarter's net income equaled $1,865.69 per second, nearly $400 a second more than the prior mark.
The previous record for US corporate profit was set in the last quarter, when Exxon earned $11.68 billion.
Revenue rose 35 percent to $137.7 billion.
On average, analysts expected Exxon to earn $2.39 per share in the latest quarter on revenue of $131.4 billion.
Exxon Mobil's results got a boost of $1.62 billion in the most recent quarter from the sale of a natural gas transportation business in Germany. It also took an after-tax charge of $170 million for a punitive damages award related to the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
As expected, Exxon Mobil reaped massive earnings from its exploration and production arm, where net income rose 48 percent to $9.35 billion.
A not-so-bright note was Exxon's output, which once again was below year-ago levels. The company, which produces 3 percent of the world's oil, said production was down 8 percent from a year ago. Exxon cited disruptions caused by hurricanes Gustav and Ike, production-sharing contracts and increased maintenance activity."
(Even the ever-serious Paul Kangas actually laughed at that on 'Nightly Business Report' last nght.)
Oh, poor Exxon.... :rolleyes:
You want more data?
I'll sell you some genuine ax-ground crocodile tears at a buck each, cash on the barrel-head, pardon the pun.
Yeah, I do rage against the obscene. Sorry if it offends you.
fiamme red
10-31-2008, 11:23 AM
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/
ss-jimbo
10-31-2008, 11:32 AM
Honestly, people don't get their a$$es in gear except when there is a dramatic shift. Think about the frog in the cold water that's brought to a boil. If I don't travel, I might have to fill up my tank once a month. I would imagine that most seniors who are still in condition to drive, NEED to drive even less than I do, not having to commute. I know there are exceptions, but if a senior has to fill up once a month and the cost goes from $30 to $60, that is not a major part of their budget, or even the major part of the costs of owning a car.
What's good for a society is certainly always going to be bad for some individuals in that society. We suffer from inertia, and the shock is the only way to get us going in the right direction.
Jimbo
ps I'm commuting more than ever, even as the gas prices have dropped.
I agree with what Tobias said. Shocking a system (or people) is often not good -- there is little time to adjust.
A slower transition which allows time for adaptation can accomplish everything with a lot less pain for everyone.
ss-jimbo
10-31-2008, 11:35 AM
I'm a libertarian democrat, but I'll say that corporations don't pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers as higher prices.
The more profitable they are, the less taxes I pay. (of course this is only partially true since washington spends money way faster than it earns it) I can always choose not to drive my car and exxon will not make a dime from me but,.... They already pay more in taxes than the bottom 50% of wage earners in America. Look it up.
That IS spreading the wealth around. Guess what? When we (earth) runs out of oil, Exxon will either not be in business, or will have to find another way to make money. Imagine for a second they are out of business totally tomorrow. Where are the greedy spenders in Washington gonna get all their walkin around money?
We never ask government to do with less, yet we have a bunch of people running around trying to destroy the ones that literally feed them.
Oh, poor Exxon.... :rolleyes:
You want more data?
I'll sell you some genuine ax-ground crocodile tears at a buck each, cash on the barrel-head, pardon the pun.
Yeah, I do rage against the obscene. Sorry if it offends you.Why would I ever be offended by lack of understanding of simple principles? The entire article you quoted did not address the question I asked you in any way whatsoever, did it? And yes, I read the Houston paper every day.
If you insist on irrelevant comparisons, I can’t stop you. But unless you can show that a $1,000 dollar investment in Exxon makes more profits than in any other corporation on a consistent basis then I’m not going to shed tears for you or your cause either.
By the way, I’m not looking at this politically like you seem to be. I’d guess that people like Gates and Buffett both own more Exxon shares than anyone here and they are both Democrats, so I’d appreciate not turning this into another us versus them argument.
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 12:00 PM
I'm a libertarian democrat, but I'll say that corporations don't pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers as higher prices.
Does Exxon Control the Price of Gas? Is there no competition in the Oil Industry?
cadence90
10-31-2008, 12:05 PM
Why would I ever be offended by lack of understanding of simple principles? The entire article you quoted did not address the question I asked you in any way whatsoever, did it? And yes, I read the Houston paper every day.
If you insist on irrelevant comparisons, I can’t stop you. But unless you can show that a $1,000 dollar investment in Exxon makes more profits than in any other corporation on a consistent basis then I’m not going to shed tears for you or your cause either.
By the way, I’m not looking at this politically like you seem to be. I’d guess that people like Gates and Buffett both own more Exxon shares than anyone here and they are both Democrats, so I’d appreciate not turning this into another us versus them argument.
I'm not asking for your tears, or your newspaper subscription, my points are NOT political (as I wrote previously they are economic and environmental), and I won't even venture to "guess" at Gates' and Buffet's investments, but I'm pretty sure they're smarter than all of us combined, so more power to them.
But they are also not THE guys who run the companies that gridlock sustainabilty and ruin the environment and civilization because of greed. That's not a political statement, that's my social position.
I really don't feel beholden to go google a bunch of stats in order to "prove" my freely voiced opinion, to you or anyone else, so we disagree = big deal: se g'hin, g'hin; se g'hin no, ciao....
why are oil prices down? I get that with a slowing economy, demand will drop, but is production also up? How much impact did changes in behavior when gas was $4.99/gal have on demand?
Change in behavior has some impact but investors have a greater impact on prices as does the strength/weakness of the US dollar. OPEC also announced production cuts last week but that move appears to have been priced in.
I'm riding less, but has nothing to do with gas prices.
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 12:12 PM
Personally, I boycotted Exxon for years after Valdez. Drove right on by. I would guess 5+ years easy.
On the other hand, I can't just stop sending tax dollars to Washington for Stupid Things they do I know don't work. Morally, Financially, or any other way.
Geoff
10-31-2008, 12:14 PM
I'm not asking for your tears, or your newspaper subscription, my points are NOT political (as I wrote previously they are economic and environmental), and I won't even venture to "guess" at Gates' and Buffet's investments, but I'm pretty sure they're smarter than all of us combined, so more power to them.
But they are also not THE guys who run the companies that gridlock sustainabilty and ruin the environment and civilization because of greed. That's not a political statement, that's my social position.
I really don't feel beholden to go google a bunch of stats in order to "prove" my freely voiced opinion, to you or anyone else, so we disagree = big deal: se g'hin, g'hin; se g'hin no, ciao....
The best thing about an opinion is it does not have to based on facts just emotions that may or maynot be valid.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 01:20 PM
why are oil prices down? I get that with a slowing economy, demand will drop, but is production also up? How much impact did changes in behavior when gas was $4.99/gal have on demand?
Going back to old habits because the price is now lower will just take us back to $5/gal gas....I don’t think production is up enough (or at all) to affect prices, it’s more that world demand is likely to be much lower than what was expected. The problems we are having here with our economy are felt to an even greater degree in places like China and India where a lot of growth was expected. All of a sudden the near-term shortages that were expected don’t appear as likely; hence speculation on oil prices continuing to skyrocket has been tempered. For now. Ultimately it will go up – let’s hope a little more gradual.
I'm hopeful we don't forget everything overnight. We may go back to driving more, but longer-term decisions like smaller cars should help.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 01:23 PM
Political? I'll stay out of that.
Social? Hell yes.That's a very fine distinction, is it not?
Hard to separate the two. ;)
Not to start an argument with you; that's not what I want.
Blue Jays
10-31-2008, 01:29 PM
"...It would be easier to discuss this calmly if the implied premise of “their huge profits” were accurate.
Companies like Exxon make a lot of money because they are huge. In proportion to their size, they don’t make “huge profits” compared to some other smaller companies which get a pass in the media (attacking those lacks sensationalism). Really, look it up. I’d give you the data but you won’t likely believe me anyway – it’s more effective if you get it on your own provided you go to reliable sources instead of groups that have an ax to grind.
Regardless, let’s assume I gave you that their profits were indeed obscene (that all corporate profits are obscene). Where do those obscene profits go? Who owns these companies? Working stiffs like me and maybe you, your neighbor, etc…? Teachers, mechanics, pilots, etc… who invest directly or save for retirement in their IRAs or 401Ks?
Why do you guys hate corporations? I honestly don’t get it. Why hate Exxon and not Serotta? I own less in Exxon that some individual owns in Serotta, and they make more profit from it that I do from Exxon. So why pick on big oil? If your issue is environmental then say so, but don’t hide your feelings behind financial matters..."Outstanding post and 100% accurate.
Excellent comprehension of contemporary business and explained with perfect clarity.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 01:36 PM
Honestly, people don't get their a$$es in gear except when there is a dramatic shift. Think about the frog in the cold water that's brought to a boil. If I don't travel, I might have to fill up my tank once a month. I would imagine that most seniors who are still in condition to drive, NEED to drive even less than I do, not having to commute. I know there are exceptions, but if a senior has to fill up once a month and the cost goes from $30 to $60, that is not a major part of their budget, or even the major part of the costs of owning a car.When oil/gas goes up, other forms of energy also go up. It costs more to buy natural gas for hot water or cooking, electricity at 15 cents a kw-hr, etc... Seniors who have limited income are hurt by high energy costs.
In the case of the frog, why not just let it stay in the pond? Why boil it? Just to see it jump....or die? Why force abrupt change?
If we change gradually I think we will see society become more efficient; hence more economical. Probably out of necessity, not because we like it.
One easy way is to share homes. Many older parents may end up living with children, and in some cases more adult children will ive with parents -- much like in Europe and other parts of the world. That can save a lot by eliminating or reducing cooling, heating, lighting, etc... It's not that we want it, but we can do it if gradual to give us time to adapt.
William
10-31-2008, 02:19 PM
Now that it's cheaper again...I take the long way home.
http://images.jpmagazine.com/images/0610jpmp_10z+albright_shores+yj+mud_bogging.jpg
William:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)
I'd expect many will drive more with lower gas prices, but it will be interesting to watch and see if trends like buying large SUVs reverses also. Not that that is all bad since many industries can use the break; even if temporary.
I heard this morning that Ford is re-hiring a bunch of people to continue production of F-150s because they're selling again over the last month or two. People react to incentives and dis-incentives, whether set by the market or the government.
With all of the talk about prices going up gradually or quickly, I guess it depends on how you define gradually or quickly. Jumping to $4 quickly was a shock, but jumping back down as low as it is now probably creates a false sense of security, as per above with the F-150 production. To me, reduced demand for oil widens our window for creating alternative sources of energy but reduces the incentive for it. If the peak oil theorists are right, and they seem to be growing in number quickly, at some undetermined point in the not too distant future, prices are likely to rise VERY HIGH VERY QUICKLY. Matthew Simmons, one of the guys on Bush/Cheyney's energy task force (so no raging liberal) was recently projecting $400 a barrell oil within a few years. I believe that prediction was right before the financial collapse, so maybe it would extend out from a few to several years now. But going from $125 oil to $400 over a relatively short period (let alone from the lower base we're at now) will be pretty frickin dramatic - much more than the jump from $75 to $125 recently (and now back again).
I personally think we should artificially raise the price now, not too dramatically at first, but then increasing over a time, to incentivize both changes in personal behavior and increased urgency in development of alternative energy sources. We were living with $4 a gallon oil - maybe we should set the floor somewhere around $3.50 or $4 and then raise it slowly from there. I realize this is "socialist", but probably no more so than nationalizing the frickin' banks. That will create a more dramatic increase in the short term than the market, alone, might cause, but could avert a far more dramatic increase in the long term, which would be far more difficult to adapt to as a society.
I also don't have a problem with oil companies making profits and their shareholders sharing in them, but I see absolutely no reason to continue to subsidize companies that make billions in profits quarterly (reverse socialism, but worse imho). The subsidies are probably holdovers from when oil was an industry we wanted to encourage and it couldn't stand on its own two feet and they've just gotten entrenched, like ag subsidies. That money could be better spent on propping up alternative energy technologies, which we SHOULD want to encourage but which probably can't stand on their own two feet yet. And any gas tax uses to artificially increase the price of gas now should also be used for purposes of developing alternative sources.
I hope the next president, whoever he is, will press for something like this, although obviously working out the details more intelligently than I'm capable of.
-Ray
93legendti
10-31-2008, 03:24 PM
...I personally think we should artificially raise the price now, not too dramatically at first, but then increasing over a time, to incentivize both changes in personal behavior and increased urgency in development of alternative energy sources. We were living with $4 a gallon oil - maybe we should set the floor somewhere around $3.50 or $4 and then raise it slowly from there. I realize this is "socialist", but probably no more so than nationalizing the frickin' banks. That will create a more dramatic increase in the short term than the market, alone, might cause, but could avert a far more dramatic increase in the long term, which would be far more difficult to adapt to as a society...
-Ray
We? Unless B.O. becomes president and nationalizes gas companies (like his idol Hugo Chavez), I''m not sure "we" have a say in gas prices.
Hey Ray,
Have you ever lived on a fixed income and had to choose between gas or food? I have a feeling that if you had, your opinion concerning artificially inflated gas prices would be different.
Here's a real simple exercise that you should try. Go to a grocery store and pretend that you're buying groceries for a family of 5 for one week. You have $50 to spend. If you're frugal, you can do it. Limited fresh vegies, fruit, no organics, mostly store brand products, bin oat meal, etc. It can be done and they can eat healthy meals. Now try it on $20. Can you do it? I doubt it but that's reality for many working class Americans. That extra $1.50 a gallon is taking food right out of the mouths of those poor guys working as laborers you see driving their pickups to work every morning. One 20 gallon fill-up for the week probably isn't enough but what the heck. That's reality.
We? Unless B.O. becomes president and nationalizes gas companies (like his idol Hugo Chavez), I''m not sure "we" have a say in gas prices.
"We" have the ability to tax any given product, including gas, as we do now. I'm not sure exactly how it would work, but I'd think there would be a way to establish a floating tax rate that guarantees the price doesn't fall below a certain point. I've never seen a tax levied like that, but I'd think a mechanism could be created for it if it doesn't exist already. Whether it should or shouldn't is legitimate policy debate, but the "how" is just a matter of mechanics.
-Ray
Hey Ray,
Have you ever lived on a fixed income and had to choose between gas or food? I have a feeling that if you had, your opinion concerning artificially inflated gas prices would be different.
Here's a real simple exercise that you should try. Go to a grocery store and pretend that you're buying groceries for a family of 5 for one week. You have $50 to spend. If you're frugal, you can do it. Limited fresh vegies, fruit, no organics, mostly store brand products, bin oat meal, etc. It can be done and they can eat healthy meals. Now try it on $20. Can you do it? I doubt it but that's reality for many working class Americans. That extra $1.50 a gallon is taking food right out of the mouths of those poor guys working as laborers you see driving their pickups to work every morning. One 20 gallon fill-up for the week probably isn't enough but what the heck. That's reality.
I understand the hardship involved and I'm not advocating raising the price of gas just for the fun of it. I'm advocating small increases now to begin the weaning process and deal with a smaller series of "shocks" now rather than a potentially huge shock later. I think we all understand that the price of gas is going to go up. And if there's any credence to the peak oil theories, which I obviously believe there is, we could be in for catastrophic increases at some point in the next several years if we don't start reducing demand in a big way. In the near term, the financial crisis and looming recession probably does reduce demand temporarily, but it also reduces incentives to change our behaviors and our technologies. We may need to assist the poorest Americans in dealing with these hardships, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start down that road.
And, no I've never been on a fixed income, but I've been on a very limited income at points in my life and I understand about making tough choices in your budget.
-Ray
So we're going to assist our poorer citizens...how about the illegal immigrants? The borders are less active recently but there are unknown millions here. Do we help them with handouts or a ticket home? How will that impact our economy? Where is the money going to come from? The next president is going to have a tough four years.
I'm going for a ride and then plan to destroy the neighborhood kids teeth and health with sugary handouts. Happy Halloween.
If the peak oil theorists are right, and they seem to be growing in number quickly, at some undetermined point in the not too distant future, prices are likely to rise VERY HIGH VERY QUICKLY. Matthew Simmons, one of the guys on Bush/Cheyney's energy task force (so no raging liberal) was recently projecting $400 a barrell oil within a few years. I believe that prediction was right before the financial collapse,.....snipped..... Don’t you expect free markets to react, or readjust, exactly like that? If prices started to climb from $125 towards $400 demand would decrease just as rapidly to limit/stabilize prices. When we are talking about decades of remaining oil, it’s not like it's going to run out in a matter of a year or two. Demand destruction due to pricing would be incredibly effective, particularly in developing and poorer countries which would occur first.
I personally think we should artificially raise the price now, not too dramatically at first, but then increasing over a time, to incentivize both changes in personal behavior and increased urgency in development of alternative energy sources. We were living with $4 a gallon oil - maybe we should set the floor somewhere around $3.50 or $4 and then raise it slowly from there. I realize this is "socialist", but probably no more so than nationalizing the frickin' banks.Who would decide what personal behavior is appropriate? This is a very serious and important question. I know, for instance, that you idolize Obama; which is OK. But is the size of his house in Chicago which I’m sure requires a lot of heating and cooling more deserving of energy than my love of RVing? Or Williams 4X4? When we start deciding for others we open the door to a lot of conflict.
I also don't have a problem with oil companies making profits and their shareholders sharing in them, but I see absolutely no reason to continue to subsidize companies that make billions in profits quarterly (reverse socialism, but worse imho). The subsidies are probably holdovers from when oil was an industry we wanted to encourage and it couldn't stand on its own two feet and they've just gotten entrenched, like ag subsidies. That money could be better spent on propping up alternative energy technologies, which we SHOULD want to encourage but which probably can't stand on their own two feet yet. And any gas tax uses to artificially increase the price of gas now should also be used for purposes of developing alternative sources. I’d clean house and stop all subsidies unless necessary to national security. I agree oil companies don’t need them; or deserve them for that matter. But why force tax payers to prop up alternative energy technologies that may not be the right answer in the long run. Are we going to let Senators decide what technologies are most promising? And even if they get it right, who is to say that a new innovation won’t change that in midstream? I’m leery of getting the government involved – considering their track record and all.
I hope the next president, whoever he is, will press for something like this, although obviously working out the details more intelligently than I'm capable of.
-RayIt’s not that you lack intelligence Ray – you may well be brighter than both Obama and McCain. Seriously – I don’t think either would score all that high on an IQ test. The problem is that having good and worthy goals doesn’t necessarily translate to viable plans or policy.
Ti Designs
10-31-2008, 05:38 PM
Hey Ray,
Have you ever lived on a fixed income and had to choose between gas or food? I have a feeling that if you had, your opinion concerning artificially inflated gas prices would be different.
This is a question of short term conditions vs. long term solutions to real problems. There's no doubt that a price hike would hurt the lower and fixed income people, that's really not the point. I think the point is that the general population is stupid enough to find comfort in a short lived low fuel price. Example: the economy has hurt the car makers, that's for certain, but if you look at the units sold for small cars, hybrids and SUVs, the relative numbers of SUVs only decreased while gas was over $4/gallon. The percentages came right back up as the price of gas dropped. There will be an increase, and as we're going now it's going to be a sharp one which the lower income class probably can't handle.
And for what it's worth, my house was kept at 50 degrees last winter, and my weekly food budget is less than most people spend on coffee. I think they should start raising the price of fuel to put the pressure on to find alternatives. As things stand now I don't look forward to the day it runs out. Maybe I've seen Mad Max too many times...
As for driving more now that the cost has come down, I don't see it making much of a difference. I ride when I can ride, I drive in situations where riding doesn't work for one reason or another. I think you'll find that's the pretty much the same story across the board.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 06:02 PM
I heard this morning that Ford is re-hiring a bunch of people to continue production of F-150s because they're selling again over the last month or two. People react to incentives and dis-incentives, whether set by the market or the government.I agree Ray, the question is which is better or more effective, the markets or government.
IMHO free markets do a much better job at promoting efficiency – although sometimes it’s not pretty. The government – which is far more likely to promote socialistic behavior – gives us incentives to do less for ourselves, and that hurts productivity.
If our ultimate goal is to have a better quality of life, we need a higher collective standard of living; and for that we need higher productivity, not less.
That’s why I generally can’t get behind any socialistic plans. Even when they sound great they don’t end up working well.
In the case of Ford and F-150, that's a very good thing for the 1000 employees and families -- if Ford did it on its own. If they are increasing capacity because the US mint is giving them billions in aid, then that's a bad thing for us all.
Don’t you expect free markets to react, or readjust, exactly like that? If prices started to climb from $125 towards $400 demand would decrease just as rapidly to limit/stabilize prices. When we are talking about decades of remaining oil, it’s not like it's going to run out in a matter of a year or two. Demand destruction due to pricing would be incredibly effective, particularly in developing and poorer countries which would occur first.
Who would decide what personal behavior is appropriate? This is a very serious and important question. I know, for instance, that you idolize Obama; which is OK. But is the size of his house in Chicago which I’m sure requires a lot of heating and cooling more deserving of energy than my love of RVing? Or Williams 4X4? When we start deciding for others we open the door to a lot of conflict.
If we assume that oil goes up gradually over a period of decades, I'd agree with you about just letting the market do it. But that's not what the concept of a production peak portends. It anticipates a peak in production followed by a gradual decrease even as worldwide demand continues to rise. Even assuming we trim a lot of fat out of our oil use patterns, if we don't have alternatives in place, even continuing to pay for the most essential uses of oil could get prohibitively difficult and cause great societal dislocation that would make going from $2 - $4 a gallon look like kids play. While nobody anticipates that we just suddenly run out of oil, we could see catastrophically severe increases in prices in a very short period of time. Maybe this won't happen, but a lot of people who understand oil markets a lot better than I do think it will. There are some who think it won't but they're shrinking in number pretty quickly. I personally hope it doesn't go down like that, but I fear it could and would rather prepare for that day rather than just get slammed by it. Which ironically could help prevent it from occurring or reduce its effect, but that's ok too.
As to who makes the decisions, that's a basic "role of government" debate. You and I clearly disagree on the role of government but we already manipulate and incentivize all sorts of markets whether we like it or not. Sometimes, government intervention is necessary, sometimes its overkill. But as long as we have a strong tension between markets and democratic government, we're going to make these sorts of compromises and regulate markets when a majority believe its in the national interest. I suspect we're coming into one of those periods now. Eventually, we'll go too far and someone like Reagan will come along and tell us that govt isn't the solution, its the problem, and the great democratic pendulum will swing back. But at the moment, its swinging in a pro-government direction.
I hope that, if elected, Obama (who I obviously like and support but absolutely don't idolize, thank you very much) will do what he's been talking about and make green energy an Apollo level priority for the next decade. And I think putting a floor on oil prices should be part of that. But, obviously, we'll see how it goes and what the next pres proposes and can get through congress.
-Ray
Tobias
10-31-2008, 06:08 PM
As things stand now I don't look forward to the day it runs out. Maybe I've seen Mad Max too many times...Did they ride bicycles in that movie? If not, why?
mschol17
10-31-2008, 06:19 PM
We? Unless B.O. becomes president and nationalizes gas companies (like his idol Hugo Chavez), I''m not sure "we" have a say in gas prices.
Bush's nationalization of the banks was more socialist than anything Obama will do.
IAs to who makes the decisions, that's a basic "role of government" debate. You and I clearly disagree on the role of government but we already manipulate and incentivize all sorts of markets whether we like it or not. .........snipped..........Eventually, we'll go too far and someone like Reagan will come along and tell us that govt isn't the solution, its the problem, and the great democratic pendulum will swing back. But at the moment, its swinging in a pro-government direction.Yes it is swinging in that direction, but I’m not sure I know why. Some may be misinformation or pure hate – I don’t know.
If you watched 60-Minutes’ piece on what caused the financial disaster, it was interesting for me to learn that the regulations that allowed swaps to be created were approved 8 years ago under a Democratic Clinton, pushed by a Republican Greenspan, and approved unanimously by a bipartisan Senate.
Clearly there was no partisan politics on whether it was good for one side versus the other – yet they managed to screw it up royally by not understanding at all the unintended consequences of their actions.
That just seems to happen too often with government intervention. In the above case we would have been much better off if they had done nothing, or gone off to Hawaii for a paid vacation at our expense.
Bush's nationalization of the banks was more socialist than anything Obama will do.Didn't Obama approve this move also?
Personally I think it was a mistake, but that makes Obama, McCain and Bush equally wrong in my mind. I'm not going to single one out for the same thing. :confused:
93legendti
10-31-2008, 06:36 PM
Bush's nationalization of the banks was more socialist than anything Obama will do.
Too bad Congress isn't controlled by the Democrats. If it was, a Democratically controlled Congress could have drafted legislation that didn't "nationalize" banks. :D
Tobias
10-31-2008, 06:38 PM
Didn't Obama approve this move also?The real test is whether they act socialistic when they don't have to. The banks were a necessity to keep us eating, driving, and riding bikes. I didn't like it, but they all said it was needed.
Whether BO is a socialist only time will tell. If he is, he is not about to tell us in advance.
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 06:43 PM
Didn't Obama approve this move also?
Personally I think it was a mistake, but that makes Obama, McCain and Bush equally wrong in my mind. I'm not going to single one out for the same thing. :confused:
"Call me if you need me." -- Barack Obama.
I'm thinking he REALLY would have loved to stay out of this, or at least vote Present, so he could tell us all how right he was when the whole thing blows up. Can't say I blame him. Having a record sucks, he doesn't have much and we aren't allowed to discuss the stuff on him that does exist. So he should win Tuesday comfortably.
"Call me if you need me." -- Barack Obama.It's not that at all -- I just think mixing government and private business that closely is a huge mistake.
Already we are seeing some of these banks which are giving "our" taxpayer money to managers in bonuses that are ridiculous by average American standards. And what the "heck" did these guys in DC expect? Seriously, not one of the senators asked why they had not written in provisions had an answer better than "we thought they would do the right thing". :confused:
And we have people here thinking these guys are smart? I would have gotten fired in a second for doing less than that. The fact is that to these guys -- on both sides -- billions of our tax money is like monopoly money.
Keep it out of their reach and they can't play.
93legendti
10-31-2008, 06:55 PM
"Call me if you need me." -- Barack Obama.
I'm thinking he REALLY would have loved to stay out of this, or at least vote Present, so he could tell us all how right he was when the whole thing blows up. Can't say I blame him. Having a record sucks, he doesn't have much and we aren't allowed to discuss the stuff on him that does exist. So he should win Tuesday comfortably.
C'mon he either "wrote a letter" or "warned about this". The LA Times has a video tape...really.
jsfoster
10-31-2008, 06:59 PM
Obama has said he would have a bipartisan cabnet, don't think that will be too 'socialist', Jon
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 07:06 PM
....The fact is that to these guys -- on both sides -- billions of our tax money is like monopoly money.
Keep it out of their reach and they can't play.
I agree.
Spending other people's money is the easiest most gutless thing you can do. In time, it corrupts even well intentioned men. That's a remark McCain made that struck a chord with me. The other guy is all about spending other people's money.
93legendti
10-31-2008, 07:31 PM
Obama has said he would have a bipartisan cabnet, don't think that will be too 'socialist', Jon
He said:
he would take public financing
he would do town hall meetings with John McCain
he was against drilling for oil in the USA
Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel
Bill Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood"
he would give tax breaks to people making less than $250,000 (now it is less than $120,000!)
he would meet Iran's leader "without any preconditions"
Iran was a tiny country and not a threat
Iran was a threat and Pres. Bush' policy of not talking to Iran failed
He says a lot of things.
Tobias
10-31-2008, 07:33 PM
Obama has said he would have a bipartisan cabnet, don't think that will be too 'socialist', JonJon, I fear we are moving in that direction on both sides of the aisle. Once we start down that path it's next to impossible to stop because each side has to compete for the votes. Each side has to keep promising more and more.
bigbill
10-31-2008, 09:25 PM
About this gas price thing.... The drop in price is just in time for some crappy PNW weather. I commuted 3-5 days a week from April until a few weeks ago. I have a 42 mile round trip on rural roads so the weather really plays a big part on whether I can commute or not. We lived the good life in Hawaii where I could commute every day with the rare exception of a tropical storm or the week I had stitches in my hand. Living with one car (a honda) was nice.
johnnymossville
10-31-2008, 09:29 PM
About this gas price thing.... The drop in price is just in time for some crappy PNW weather. I commuted 3-5 days a week from April until a few weeks ago. I have a 42 mile round trip on rural roads so the weather really plays a big part on whether I can commute or not. We lived the good life in Hawaii where I could commute every day with the rare exception of a tropical storm or the week I had stitches in my hand. Living with one car (a honda) was nice.
21 miles each way! That's about max for what I'd do. That's great though. Don't blame you now that the weather is getting cooler.
Kirk007
10-31-2008, 11:39 PM
He says a lot of things.
Can you give me even one example of a politician who hasn't? Damn this politicizing of every thread gets old.
Back to the point. Down to one car and not going back; driving at a minimum regardless of price per gallon. Unfortunately I think most Joe Six Packs and Joanna Hockey Moms, regardless of political affiliation, will be right back to their wasteful comsumptive ways until the peak oil predictions come true. Long term thinking doesn't seem to be a strong point for the human race.
Avispa
11-01-2008, 08:23 AM
On a Vespa since 2006 and never going back to a car...
We have one car at the house, which is used by the wife since her commute is longer or if we need to travel more than 60 miles by car.
..A..
Back to the point. Down to one car and not going back; driving at a minimum regardless of price per gallon. Unfortunately I think most Joe Six Packs and Joanna Hockey Moms, regardless of political affiliation, will be right back to their wasteful comsumptive ways until the peak oil predictions come true. Long term thinking doesn't seem to be a strong point for the human race.Yes, getting back to driving and riding: I agree that as prices go down more will drive. As my wife noticed fewer are taking Houston Metro buses to work; so they are either back to driving more or doing something else (doubtful they are suddenly telecommuting, living closer, etc…). When out riding I’ve also noticed more traffic on the roads which is not a good thing, and drivers are not driving as conservatively.
It also seems drivers around me (lots of SUVs and trucks) are taking the vehicles they idled in favor of the smaller family cars and are starting to use them again (since they couldn’t sell them a year ago I'll assume they may want to get use out of them). The longer-term affect I’m waiting to see is whether they go back to buying large SUVs and hobby trucks when theirs wear out, or if they shift towards more fuel efficient vehicles.
The truck-based GM Suburban and Tahoe were very popular here, but seem to be giving way to the new GM FWD 7-8 passenger crossovers (almost as efficient as a minivan). Not a great improvement but moving in the right direction.
BTW: Cycling in my area has picked up a lot in the last year but for recreation and not transportation. I rarely see anyone riding a bike to a store, post office, etc...
mikki
11-01-2008, 08:14 PM
Luckily I can pay for gas, and it wasn't breaking my budget. So my perspective is a little skewed.
But I think $4 gas was the best thing to happen to the US in years.
$2 gas... backsliding.
Still bike commuting, but the time change this weekend will end it. Roads I have to use are just too dangerous in the dark.
They're bad enough in full daylight...
I too think the temporary skyrocketing gas prices taught alot of people to cut back on needless use of their vehicle.
I'm driving more simply because I'm not back in the saddle from my accident yet.
Tobias
11-01-2008, 08:40 PM
I too think the temporary skyrocketing gas prices taught alot of people to cut back on needless use of their vehicle.
I'm driving more simply because I'm not back in the saddle from my accident yet.Hope you get better soon. :)
While watching college football on TV, I was thinking about how much gas was spent to drive or fly to these games by the 80,000 or so that attend each game. And the thing is that technology exist to stay home and watch on big screen HDTV -- "almost" as real as being there but saving a bunch of fuel.
What I may consider needless is someone else's necessity. I'm not sure I'd want to tell other Americans they shouldn't go to their games. It's a tough call. :confused:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.