If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Drivers now paying record high gasoline prices despite a U.S. oil boom. Or as oil company executives call it, a win win situation   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 110
    More: Fail, U.S., gas prices, oil boom, Patrick DeHaan, Brent Crude, energy consumption, developing economies, importer  
•       •       •

1715 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Mar 2013 at 2:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-24 11:22:16 AM
So that means we are one more well away from $2 gas?

/drill baby, drill
 
2013-03-24 11:27:34 AM
Yeah, 0bama has been the best friend of the oil execs.  Even more than Bush was.
Look at how much the prices have gone up since 0bama's first inauguration.
 
2013-03-24 11:38:10 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah, 0bama has been the best friend of the oil execs.  Even more than Bush was.
Look at how much the prices have gone up since 0bama's first inauguration.


Good lord.  The world economy was in the shiatter when Obama was inaugurated.  It has recovered (at least as far as Wall Street / global markets are concerned).  Along with that recovery oil prices have recovered.  But of course you know this, you are just being deliberately obtuse.
 
2013-03-24 11:40:27 AM
I learned about this is business school -- it's an economic principle known as "Because Fark You, That's Why"
 
2013-03-24 11:42:01 AM

alywa: tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah, 0bama has been the best friend of the oil execs.  Even more than Bush was.
Look at how much the prices have gone up since 0bama's first inauguration.

Good lord.  The world economy was in the shiatter when Obama was inaugurated.  It has recovered (at least as far as Wall Street / global markets are concerned).  Along with that recovery oil prices have recovered.  But of course you know this, you are just being deliberately obtuse.


yeah, because Wall Street buys and uses so much gas.  Geesh.
Or is it because all those unemployed people and people who have given up on even looking for jobs are driving around a lot looking for work?
 
2013-03-24 11:51:35 AM
Yes. Because when the oil is extracted it belongs to BP, Exxon, etc and they are under no obligation to sell it to American citizens or business for any less than they sell it to the Chinese. Ditto for the Keystone pipeline, except in that case the oil belongs to a Canadian oil company.
 
2013-03-24 11:53:09 AM
Been paying $4.15 gal/reg for some time now.  CA summer prices will no doubt break $5.00 gal early this year.  Supply/Demand etc..B.S.....

/fark'n crooks
 
2013-03-24 12:01:11 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, because Wall Street buys and uses so much gas.  Geesh.


You really don't understand how global commodity markets work, do you?
 
2013-03-24 12:04:02 PM
But just think how much we are reducing air pollution!
 
2013-03-24 12:04:21 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Yes. Because when the oil is extracted it belongs to BP, Exxon, etc and they are under no obligation to sell it to American citizens or business for any less than they sell it to the Chinese. Ditto for the Keystone pipeline, except in that case the oil belongs to a Canadian oil company.


Look everyone, a guy who understands what fungible means.    These people are rare in the wold, often thought of as endangered or near extinction.
 
2013-03-24 12:06:13 PM
The top ten highest (most money) weekly average price of gas was from July of 2008 with number 10 being from May 2008.
 
2013-03-24 12:06:50 PM
- High [global] oil prices.
- Refinery shutdowns.

what part is confusing to people again?
Even if we banned US export of oil, that would have little or no effect on prices.
 
2013-03-24 12:08:55 PM

alywa: tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, because Wall Street buys and uses so much gas.  Geesh.

You really don't understand how global commodity markets work, do you?


He doesn't understand how the "I've got your nose" gag works.
 
2013-03-24 12:09:25 PM

JacksonBryan: The top ten highest (most money) weekly average price of gas was from July of 2008 with number 10 being from May 2008.


link please?
not because I dont believe you, but because I WANTS MORE DATA
 
2013-03-24 12:18:13 PM
Cracks me up when Americans complain about the "high price of gas" when we're paying (and always have been paying) well *below* the marginal cost to society of consuming every gallon of gas.  Socialized energy.
 
2013-03-24 12:24:02 PM
i.imgur.com

I feel sorry for these boys.  The favoritism isn't just overt, its being pimped on the internet and to Ellen.
 
2013-03-24 12:24:40 PM
wrong thread.
 
2013-03-24 12:33:25 PM

namatad: JacksonBryan: The top ten highest (most money) weekly average price of gas was from July of 2008 with number 10 being from May 2008.

link please?
not because I dont believe you, but because I WANTS MORE DATA


http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

If that one doesn't load the excel spreadsheet than go here and click on the EIA link for the gas and diesel prices.
 
2013-03-24 12:34:05 PM

gameshowhost: Cracks me up when Americans complain about the "high price of gas" when we're paying (and always have been paying) well *below* the marginal cost to society of consuming every gallon of gas.  Socialized energy.


But technically that is true for EVERYTHING we consume in a society. Everything is socialized in one way or another.

We could attempt to compute all externalities. Certainly we could compute the big ones.

Military support of OPEC. But if we removed that support, how much would the price of crude go up now that supply would be lower and OPEC would have to fund its own security?

CO2-AGW I have no idea how you could compute this. One extreme would argue that this number is gigantic.

BUT
WHY do we socialize anything? To reduce the cost to the poor and middle class.
If we included all externalities, the price would be so high that it would greatly effect society in negative ways.
Transportation prices would sky-rocket. All transported goods' prices would sky-rocket. And so on.

should we start to include some federal tax increase on gasoline? yes, probably. Start slow and low. But what would you use that money for?
To start paying for the socialization of oil?
Technically you could charge the oil companies directly for the externalized support. But that would get passed on directly to the consumer.

/dont get me started on what should we do about the INSANE oil company profits
 
2013-03-24 12:36:14 PM

JacksonBryan: namatad: JacksonBryan: The top ten highest (most money) weekly average price of gas was from July of 2008 with number 10 being from May 2008.

link please?
not because I dont believe you, but because I WANTS MORE DATA

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

If that one doesn't load the excel spreadsheet than go here and click on the EIA link for the gas and diesel prices.


nice thanks!
 
2013-03-24 12:37:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yeah, 0bama has been the best friend of the oil execs.  Even more than Bush was.
Look at how much the prices have gone up since 0bama's first inauguration.


Even better, let's look at prices across time:

simontegg.files.wordpress.com
This would seem to indicate that the Bush years saw as much of a spike as we saw during the OPEC crisis of the late 70s.

3.bp.blogspot.com

And this would seem to indicate that the 08 dip was nothing more than a blip in an otherwise continual upwards trend.

gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com

And this would indicate that the price is rising in the face of lower than expected US demand.

av.r.ftdata.co.uk

And this would suggest that it's not just here, but worldwide.

media.resourceinvestor.com
And this would indicate that growth is being driven not by developed nations like the US, but by developing nation like China

images.angelpub.com

And the rest of the developing world

advisoranalyst.com

It's almost like the US President has NOTHING to do with oil prices. Regardless of his party. Who knew?
 
2013-03-24 12:37:38 PM

namatad: Military support of OPEC. But if we removed that support, how much would the price of crude go up now that supply would be lower and OPEC would have to fund its own security?


I'm reminded on how Neoconservatives were arguing to attack OPEC through flooding the market.

Big oil wasnt a fan.
 
2013-03-24 12:40:36 PM

alywa: tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, because Wall Street buys and uses so much gas.  Geesh.

You really don't understand how global commodity markets work, do you?


Global commodity markets
blah, blah, blah

what's next from you?  The Trilateral Commission?  The Illuminati? 

look at who contributed to his campaign.
follow the money
google it
work it out.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 12:44:09 PM

namatad: should we start to include some federal tax increase on gasoline? yes, probably. Start slow and low. But what would you use that money for?
To start paying for the socialization of oil?
Technically you could charge the oil companies directly for the externalized support. But that would get passed on directly to the consumer.


It would be better to have the price reflect the actually cost.  Right now, someone who drives a Prius pays the same as someone who drives a Hummer all else being equal.  But why shouldn't people who use more pay more?  Then there would be an disincentive to be wasteful and people who conserve wouldn't be subsidizing people who don't.
 
2013-03-24 12:50:42 PM

vpb:  But why shouldn't people who use more pay more?  Then there would be an disincentive to be wasteful and people who conserve wouldn't be subsidizing people who don't.


You do realize that runs exactly counter to economic theory, right? That buying in bulk saves you money, not the other way around?

Let's say you had some sort of sliding scale gas tax, that charged more for buying more. What would happen is people would make lots of microtransactions, buying gas in $5 increments to save money, instead of $50+ at a time. Lines would increase at pumps, gas stations' credit card fees would go up, and fees would rise accordingly. Eventually, those who bought in bulk would pay less proportionately, everyone would pay more in general, and the unwieldly regulatory structure you're proposing would be reviled and repealed. It would fail miserably.

In short, this is an awful idea, because it runs exactly counter to every economic principle out there. It could be made to work, but only by removing more or less all freedom from the economy. It would be a command economy-type setup.
 
2013-03-24 01:01:24 PM

namatad: But technically that is true for EVERYTHING we consume in a society. Everything is socialized in one way or another.

We could attempt to compute all externalities. Certainly we could compute the big ones.


Of course that's true, and it'd be impossible to compute *all* externalities.  Fortunately gasoline is a pretty easy one WRT the "big ones".

And costs going up? So what? Marginal price and marginal cost to society should always be equal - that's what makes market economies efficient, by definition.  Decades upon decades of underpriced fuel... so now our entire system is predicated on underpriced fuel... and we overconsume the hell out of it, with our retarded gas-hogging apparatuses, both personal and industrial.   To make it even funner, that subsidization has also undercut the proper development of substitutes to gasoline (and thus to things powered by gasoline) by making them relatively -- and artificially -- "too expensive".

The whole thing is a boondoggle.  Lousiest free market of all time.
 
2013-03-24 01:08:13 PM
Obama sure dropped the hammer on those hard working job creators. They're barely getting by.
 
2013-03-24 01:12:14 PM

namatad: BUT
WHY do we socialize anything? To reduce the cost to the poor and middle class.
If we included all externalities, the price would be so high that it would greatly effect society in negative ways.
Transportation prices would sky-rocket. All transported goods' prices would sky-rocket. And so on.

should we start to include some federal tax increase on gasoline? yes, probably. Start slow and low. But what would you use that money for?
To start paying for the socialization of oil?
Technically you could charge the oil companies directly for the externalized support. But that would get passed on directly to the consumer.


Oh, and to the former paragraph... that scenario is the price of not following basic economics for over a century.  The piper is always paid.

To the latter... yeah, low and slow, ease it in.  IMO, at this point, the best use for the money would be put into substitutes/alternatives, in R&D and/or direct funding of the already-available alternatives, as those are the markets which have been suppressed by gasoline's artificially-low price.
 
2013-03-24 01:18:40 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: alywa: tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, because Wall Street buys and uses so much gas.  Geesh.

You really don't understand how global commodity markets work, do you?

Global commodity markets
blah, blah, blah

what's next from you?  The Trilateral Commission?  The Illuminati?
look at who contributed to his campaign.
follow the money
google it
work it outstudy it out.


FTFY
 
2013-03-24 01:36:55 PM

vpb: namatad: should we start to include some federal tax increase on gasoline? yes, probably. Start slow and low. But what would you use that money for?
To start paying for the socialization of oil?
Technically you could charge the oil companies directly for the externalized support. But that would get passed on directly to the consumer.

It would be better to have the price reflect the actually cost.  Right now, someone who drives a Prius pays the same as someone who drives a Hummer all else being equal.  But why shouldn't people who use more pay more?  Then there would be an disincentive to be wasteful and people who conserve wouldn't be subsidizing people who don't.


wut?
If they drive the same distance, they Hummer driver will pay more since he uses more.
 
2013-03-24 01:38:27 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: tenpoundsofcheese: alywa: tenpoundsofcheese: yeah, because Wall Street buys and uses so much gas.  Geesh.

You really don't understand how global commodity markets work, do you?

Global commodity markets
blah, blah, blah

what's next from you?  The Trilateral Commission?  The Illuminati?
look at who contributed to his campaign.
follow the money
google it
work it outstudy it out.

FTFY


thanks...but I just heard that "study it out" is already out of fashion "work it out" is one of the contenders for next week.
"google it" is holding steady.
 
2013-03-24 01:41:55 PM
So we can b****h about higher gas prices, which means that we as a country support moving to alternative fuel sources (sugarcane, algae, and industrial cannabis all have serious energy potential ahead of corn) and spending the tax money to develop an electric car infrastructure?

Getting around the battery recharge problem is easy enough if batteries become more efficient and cheaper: standardize sizes and use the gas station as a swap-out point. Pull in, swap the batteries, pay and go on your way. Solar panels on the roof can recharge the battery over time. Hell, put a barcode on them so data can be tracked to prioritize transportation patterns and commerce efficiency for various industries.
 
2013-03-24 01:46:55 PM

vpb: It would be better to have the price reflect the actually cost.  Right now, someone who drives a Prius pays the same as someone who drives a Hummer all else being equal.  But why shouldn't people who use more pay more?  Then there would be an disincentive to be wasteful and people who conserve wouldn't be subsidizing people who don't.


but isnt that what happens today?
SUV, HUMMER and Porsche drivers use more gas and directly pay more as a function of mile driven.
But the effect of Prius drivers has been lower tax revenue, leading to the crazies wanting to tax efficiency!!!
Same thing has happened in Colorado when they started metering water. Water usage went down and lower water bills.
Unexpected outcomes are entertaining.

One solution is to slowly increase fed and state gas taxes to make up for lost revenue from people driving less and conserving.
Of course, this increase would have unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences.

people would drive less, which would lower tax revenue
poor people, unable to move closer or buy a prius would be regressively taxed

economies are strange
one way to lower the price of gas would be to build more refineries.
more competition!!!
 
2013-03-24 01:49:43 PM
When you devalue your currency by printing money like it is going out of style, you will have high prices.

When oil was $150 a bbl, gas was $4 a gallon.  Now it is $90 and gas is $3.75.  Yep, gotta love how we dealt with our debt.
 
2013-03-24 01:50:17 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So we can b****h about higher gas prices, which means that we as a country support moving to alternative fuel sources (sugarcane, algae, and industrial cannabis all have serious energy potential ahead of corn) and spending the tax money to develop an electric car infrastructure?

Getting around the battery recharge problem is easy enough if batteries become more efficient and cheaper: standardize sizes and use the gas station as a swap-out point. Pull in, swap the batteries, pay and go on your way. Solar panels on the roof can recharge the battery over time. Hell, put a barcode on them so data can be tracked to prioritize transportation patterns and commerce efficiency for various industries.


build tons more fission power plants
lower electricity prices by half or more
electric cars win
raise the tax on gas and diesel slowly to $10-$20 per gallon.

YAY forced social change!!!

Here is an interesting question, why is one socialization bad (socialized gas) but one socialization good (high gas prices to drive down usage)
 
2013-03-24 01:52:48 PM

gameshowhost: To the latter... yeah, low and slow, ease it in.  IMO, at this point, the best use for the money would be put into substitutes/alternatives, in R&D and/or direct funding of the already-available alternatives, as those are the markets which have been suppressed by gasoline's artificially-low price.


while I agree, how often has the government been good at those substitutes and alternatives?
Plus we already have a perfect alternative which we have chosen to ignore. Fission. TONS of clean electricity.
(yes, processing on both ends requires better processes ... blah blah blah blah)

/wind and solar can not replace our current usage. ever.
 
2013-03-24 02:02:24 PM

namatad: gameshowhost: To the latter... yeah, low and slow, ease it in.  IMO, at this point, the best use for the money would be put into substitutes/alternatives, in R&D and/or direct funding of the already-available alternatives, as those are the markets which have been suppressed by gasoline's artificially-low price.

while I agree, how often has the government been good at those substitutes and alternatives?
Plus we already have a perfect alternative which we have chosen to ignore. Fission. TONS of clean electricity.
(yes, processing on both ends requires better processes ... blah blah blah blah)

/wind and solar can not replace our current usage. ever.


Not for the entire country, but regional solutions are great.

Solar for the southwest. Tidal power for California and Hawaii. Solar for the southern states. Wind for the plains. Mixes for the midwest/rust belt.

Nuclear (especially the Thorium-Salt reactors I've been reading about) would be ideal for the northeast and eastern seaboard.
 
2013-03-24 02:04:15 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So we can b****h about higher gas prices, which means that we as a country support moving to alternative fuel sources (sugarcane, algae, and industrial cannabis all have serious energy potential ahead of corn) and spending the tax money to develop an electric car infrastructure?

Getting around the battery recharge problem is easy enough if batteries become more efficient and cheaper: standardize sizes and use the gas station as a swap-out point. Pull in, swap the batteries, pay and go on your way. Solar panels on the roof can recharge the battery over time. Hell, put a barcode on them so data can be tracked to prioritize transportation patterns and commerce efficiency for various industries.


+1 for how funny you are!

batteries would be better if only they were more efficient and cheaper. LOL!
Gas would be better too if it were only more efficient and cheaper.  Same for wind power.

We can put not just solar panels but also wind power on the roof and then a methane catcher attached to your seat.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 02:07:53 PM
"U.S. oil output rose 14 percent to 6.5 million barrels per day last year - a record increase. By 2020, the nation is forecast to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's largest crude oil producer "


Next time a FOX News listener tells you gas prices are high because Obama won't let the oil companies drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or because the EPA won't let them drill int he Gulf (I've heard both many times) just tell them to shut their ignorant whore mouth.

Next year, America is due to become a net oil producer.
 
2013-03-24 02:09:13 PM
tenpoundsofcheese,

Dude, you're not even trying anymore. You used to sound like an uninformed but sincere Republican shill but now it's just  "Blatant Trolling For Dummy's".
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 02:14:23 PM

whistleridge: vpb:  But why shouldn't people who use more pay more?  Then there would be an disincentive to be wasteful and people who conserve wouldn't be subsidizing people who don't.

You do realize that runs exactly counter to economic theory, right? That buying in bulk saves you money, not the other way around?

Let's say you had some sort of sliding scale gas tax, that charged more for buying more. What would happen is people would make lots of microtransactions, buying gas in $5 increments to save money, instead of $50+ at a time. Lines would increase at pumps, gas stations' credit card fees would go up, and fees would rise accordingly. Eventually, those who bought in bulk would pay less proportionately, everyone would pay more in general, and the unwieldly regulatory structure you're proposing would be reviled and repealed. It would fail miserably.

In short, this is an awful idea, because it runs exactly counter to every economic principle out there. It could be made to work, but only by removing more or less all freedom from the economy. It would be a command economy-type setup.


You never took an economics class did you?  This "awful idea" comes from a guy named Adam Smith.

And how would "micro transactions" help you avoid paying a tax on imported oil products?
Eliminating externalities would increase market freedom, not diminish it.
Do you even know what "command economy" means?
Are you just stringing together phrases you have heard other people use without knowing what they mean?
 
2013-03-24 02:17:44 PM
Maybe it's because it's still global corporations that depend on the profits. It's not like the profits are going to pay off the national debt, or anything.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 02:19:45 PM
tenpoundsofcheese:
If they drive the same distance, they Hummer driver will pay more since he uses more.

No he won't, because the cost of defending the middle east and propping up friendly governments isn't financed by a tax on imported oil, it's comes from general revenue.  The same thing for subsidies for domestic oil production.

If both drivers pay the same income tax then both pay the same amount regardless of how much they use.
 
2013-03-24 02:21:54 PM

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese,

Dude, you're not even trying anymore. You used to sound like an uninformed but sincere Republican shill but now it's just  "Blatant Trolling For Dummy's".


you are saying that my trolling is for dummy's.  interesting that you responded to it.
what does that it say about you?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 02:29:04 PM
namatad:
One solution is to slowly increase fed and state gas taxes to make up for lost revenue from people driving less and conserving.
Of course, this increase would have unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences.

people would drive less, which would lower tax revenue
poor people, unable to move closer or buy a prius would be regressively taxed

economies are strange
one way to lower the price of gas would be to build more refineries.
more competition!!!


There is no increase, the costs are being paid by tax payers now instead of from the people who burn oil.  That's what an externally is.

And building refineries wouldn't do anything to lower the cost of gas.  All they do is convert crude oil into refined products, they don't increase the supply of oil.  They aren't build by the government anyway, they are built by private industry according to need which depends on demand.  That's what supply and demand means.
 
2013-03-24 02:43:36 PM
You expect cheaper gas prices in an oil boom? Excuse me while I laugh my Canuckian ass off.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-24 02:46:48 PM
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
Not for the entire country, but regional solutions are great.

Solar for the southwest. Tidal power for California and Hawaii. Solar for the southern states. Wind for the plains. Mixes for the midwest/rust belt.

Nuclear (especially the Thorium-Salt reactors I've been reading about) would be ideal for the northeast and eastern seaboard.


Sure they could.  It's simple math.  It would better to have a mix as you suggest, but the entire countries power could be supplied by solar if we wanted that.  It's not quite as simple as the enviornmentalists make it sound, but it could be done.

If we just eliminated externalities it would sort itself out through market forces.  Oil and Coal are artificially cheap because the costs aren't reflected in the price.
 
2013-03-24 02:50:08 PM

vpb: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:
Not for the entire country, but regional solutions are great.

Solar for the southwest. Tidal power for California and Hawaii. Solar for the southern states. Wind for the plains. Mixes for the midwest/rust belt.

Nuclear (especially the Thorium-Salt reactors I've been reading about) would be ideal for the northeast and eastern seaboard.

Sure they could.  It's simple math.  It would better to have a mix as you suggest, but the entire countries power could be supplied by solar if we wanted that.  It's not quite as simple as the enviornmentalists make it sound, but it could be done.

If we just eliminated externalities it would sort itself out through market forces.  Oil and Coal are artificially cheap because the costs aren't reflected in the price.


Are you saying that solar is not artificially cheap because the true costs are reflected?
 
2013-03-24 02:53:03 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: you are saying that my trolling is for dummy's. interesting that you responded to it.


Meaning you read a book called "Trolling for Dummies" and changed your posts accordingly.
 
2013-03-24 02:57:34 PM

Mugato: tenpoundsofcheese: you are saying that my trolling is for dummy's. interesting that you responded to it.

Meaning you read a book called "Trolling for Dummies" and changed your posts accordingly.


and yet you responded twice.
Interesting.

So once again I caught you in a lie since I didn't read that book.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report