Yeah, like everybody else on this issue is thinking solely of how it affects others - it’s amazing how selfless the entire world is compared to somebody saving for their retirement.
And it’s obvious you didn’t get my point with the “F you…” rant - I’m bitching about, not for, all those people - so, yeah, fuck the SUV driver who wants to steal from my child because they think it’s their “right” to pay less than market rates so they can burn the damn stuff at 12mpg.
When you get out of fantasy-land, Hama, let me know and we can discuss it without the idiotic “rebuttal” that assumed my response will somehow contain some sort of ditzy label. Frankly, I don’t care about your “political philosophy” - I care about my child and how your beliefs are stealing from her. I don’t care about any hypothetical moms with or without milk - I care about my family, as one is supposed to.
The car I drive gets about 20 MPG in the city and 25 MPG on the highway (not as good as a 4-banger Subaru could be but not too bad either.) I’d do even better if I was willing to drive 55 instead of 80 or 85 on my occasional trips out of town, but it already takes me 3 hours to make it to Albuquerque. It’s about 230 miles on the highway, meaning it takes me just about three hours to get there at 80 MPH, and that’s assuming I don’t stop (or get stopped, stupid Border Patrol) for any real length of time. It would take me an extra hour, at least, if I did it at 55. I don’t know what the actual difference in milage would be, as I don’t really want to spend four hours at I-25 constantly getting passed by people doing 80-90. I already can generally make it on something between 9 and 10 gallons, so even saving a gallon both ways would only be six bucks. And when I only make that drive once every month or every other month, that removes the incentive even further, as I’ve spent more money than that on sodas and snacks in the meantime while driving. At current prices, assuming I fill up with three gallons left in the tank (I don’t like to cut it any closer than that), a fillup will cost me about $30 (it’s a 13 gallon tank.) The rest of the time, I can go for a week without using more than a gallon total driving around town.
In any case, I don’t see what the politicians hope to accomplish, other than taking the heat off (or putting it on) so that the can be elected/re-elected. Companies like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron are oil companies now, but the people running them have sense enough to know that they need to be energy companies. The way they’ll stay in business, and make money, is to be at the head of the game for whatever new energy source comes out. Trying to force the prices down won’t work. Windfall taxes won’t work. A nuclear war between China and India might do it, but the global economy would probably be in the toilet as a result. So I just laugh at the politicians and their pandering and hope that they’re not stupid enough to actually try to “fix” the “problem.”
Me, too. But with the Republicans wanting to mitigate downside risk by giving the oil companies tax breaks, and the Democrats wanting to limit their upside potential by propsing a windfall profit tax, they might as well just get it over with and nationalize the whole industry.
I don’t mean to get into the debate here, but I have to admit that I was under the impression that there was a direct connection between Bush/Cheney being in office and higher gas prices. Why? Because the day after the 2004 election, gas prices went up by like 30 cents a gallon here, because “the oil companies could expect four more years of oil-centric energy policy” blah blah etc.
So … what’s up with that? Was that just a one-time thing that went back down shortly?
Can we have a cite for that claim. I don’t recall a price hike here the day after the election.
Instability in the Middle East is certainly is a factor in the price of oil, and a good case can be made that Bush’s policies have resulted in a less stable Middle East. But there are lots of other factors that affect oil prices, and I don’t accept that Bush is even the primary factor for oil costing what it does today. Besides, note that Pelosi wasn’t even talking about that. She wants us to think the because Bush and Cheney were in the oil business, they’re in cahoots with oil companies to rip off American consumers. That makes good political theater, perhaps, but doesn’t add to reasoned discourse on the subject. I can accept the position that Bush and Cheney are more ammendable to push for tax breaks for oil companies, but the truth of the matter is that high gas prices hurt Bush and the Republicans, especially going into the midterm elections. They’d have to be suicidal to be secretly working with oil companies to raise gas prices. And even though Bush isn’t up for re-election himself, he’ll be in very deep shit if the Dems take control of the House-- they’ll subpoena his ass faster than oil gushing out of a newly tapped well.
Well, the quickest way to make a difference is drilling for our own oil, and/or increasing refining capacity. But we aren’t allowed to drill our own areas, no new refineries since 1979, and nuclear power to ease oil and coal use is thwarted at every turn by the environmental group of the day.
We can make our own energy. But because of various lobbying groups we aren’t allowed to. Makes as much sense as politics do.
So far, no hybrid/alternative fuel car has proven to save money over its lifetime; high purchase prices easily eat up any fuel savings. Despite that, a good deal of money has been thrown at the problem, both by companies and by the government.
Now you’re just being pedantic to defend your overreaction.
A side topic, but this sentance has no real meaning in economics. Demand and supply are a negotiation that are ultimately interrelated, not fixed quantities.
Don’t be thick. The allegation is not that he pulled some switch that controls prices. The allegation is that when you have leaders of a particular energy industry making energy policy,
Again, feigning thickness is not becoming. The point is that enron is a perfectly nice precedent where friendliness to industry and the refusal to take political action cost consumers millions in a giant scamola (not to mention killed a couple overheated seniors). You just don’t like it because it works against your ethos of corporations can do no wrong.
Nah, it’s not really a different debate, see. That is the debate. It’s just not one you enjoy having, so you’d rather have a completely goofy debate.
Only if “pendantic” means sticking to the specific reason I opened this Pit thread. Additionally…
If I wanted a in indepth debate about energy policy, I would’ve opened a thread in GD. But if you’d like to that, go ahead. I’m here to Pit Ms. Pelosi’s stupid remard. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don’t like it, tough shit.
This from the guy who just called my pedantic! Would you rather I said: The price of oil is rising because demand at the lower price outstrips the current supply. Do you feel better now? :rolleyes:
I think you forgot to add the final clause to that sentence.
You know, for a pretty smart guy you can be pretty stupid sometimes. Firstly, I have never said or even implied that “corporations can do no wrong”. If I have, I’m sure you can produce a quote from me to back up that ridiculous charge. Secondly, the roots of the Enron situation (wrt to CA or otherwise) long predates Bush, and lies deep in the Clinton presidency, if it doesn’t even predate him. Hint: Ken Lay became CEO in 1985. You act if as if the Enron debacle, which started when it decared bancruptcy in 2001, started only 10 months prior when Bush was sworn in. And your insistence of dumping the Enron scandal on Bush negelcts the factor Arthur Anderson played. But that’s another debate, too, and if you want to have it you’re free to open a GD thread on the subject. If you decide to do so, I suggest you do some research first-- you seem to have only a superficial understanding of the subject.
I never contested that they were average. I think what you’ve shown is that you thought 18% was average; in other words, and were wrong.
In other words, you didn’t know what you were talking about - bringing out a data point you were wrong about, and using it to prove that that was average, which it wasn’t.
In other words, you’ve shown that you start with a presupposed conclusion. Then , whatever thing you find must support it.
I clearly proved that XOM’s profit margins are about average, and have been for the last 5 years. Ignoring the data that I presented because you just can’t admit that you were wrong isn’t going to get you any points here. I made a statement, you questioed it, I qualified what I meant and provided data supporting my position. You’ve presented nothing except snide comments and inuendo. If you want to continue this discussion, bring some facts and figures. Until then, you lose, big guy.
You said 18% - I said that’s not average. I never said Exxon/Mobil wasn’t average (except recent record profits).
You got caught passing on false knowledge - in two ways. It was wrong, and it demonstrated you don’t know dick about the subject you were bombasting about.
Having claimed the existence and personal control of this magic wand, I’d say Bush is obligated to demonstrate its use.
Seriously, though, energy policy is a long-term thing. We’re stuck with the Hummers on the road that everybody’s been buying the past few years, and they’ll be guzzling gas for a few years to come. The thing is, we’re already into the long term, where Bush’s energy policy is concerned.
The Dems certainly share some of the blame, but only a minute fraction of it, IMHO. It’s been 16 years since the last time they tried increasing the CAFE standards (can’t remember if it got killed by filibuster or GHWB veto), and they’ve controlled Congress and the White House together for exactly two of those years - and even then, such a measure could have been killed by a filibuster. Nonetheless, they should have tried then.
But the GOP has been free to propose such remedies at any time during those years, knowing full well that if they proposed it and gave it a modicum of support, it would have sailed right through Congress. Of course, the GOP doesn’t believe in conservation until its back is already against the wall. But the most effective use of CAFE standards, gas taxes, etc. is to drive down demand before we hit the wall with respect to supply.
And we’ve hit it. Right now, supplies are so tight that hiccups in the market from a bunch of unstable or semi-hostile places - Nigeria, Iran, Venezuela, not to mention Iraq - can cause oil prices to jump. The slack’s already gone.
Focus on a single minor point at the expense of ignoring the actual agrument being made. God, is it any wonder you never win an argument? Don’t ever change, bup. If you ever got a clue you might be dangerous.
I don’t understand why we need to legislate higher CAFE standards as a way of controling gas prices. If we, as a society, really wanted higher mileage cars we’d buy them without the need for the government to force us to do so. I can see higher CAFE standards as a way of controling pollution, but anyone who wants to spend less on gas should be buying the highest mileage car he or she can.
Instead, we’ve all known that higher gas prices are coming for a few years now, and we’re still buying those Hummers and Expeditions. Anyone who can afford to by a big SUV gets no sympathy from me when gas prices goes up. In fact, the cheaper gas is, the more we’re going to dependent on it for our economy. The best way to kick the imported oil habit is for the price to rise to where alternative fules become viable sooner.
So, you demanded proof, and I went looking for it. What oh what did I post:
Hmm. Looks like I started out by admitting that what you were querying me on was heresy. Doesn’t look like a strong start for me.
Well, that’s refreshing, a poster on these boards who is actually willing to look at the facts WRT his claims, regardless of his previous bias. Very unusual!
Oh my. A flat out admission that I couldn’t find any data to support my claim. How tragic. I guess I’m done, unless…I’m willing to be honest! YES! I go on to clearly state what the data shows and then to present the data to back that up. Amazing! A poster arguing honestly! Unheard of! Still, who could take issue with that? Apparently you can, because in the grand tradition of endless disagreeing about what the definition of “did not have sex” is, you focus on the 18% as average figure(you know, the part I already admitted I’ve been unable back up with cites) and ignored the greater point entirely (That XOM does not show profit levels indicative of any gouging or profiteering, and in fact their profit levels are about average for Dow companies.) Jesus Christ! Just once I’d like to see a thread on these boards demonstrate a reasonable give and take on the actual issue instead of dissolving into pedantic squabbling over the whyness of which verses the whichness of why. What a waste of time. If you have any data suggesting that XOM’s profit margins are not pretty damn average, which was the entire point in the first place, present it. If you want to pursue a different subject, start your own thread on that subject.
