Well, it has nothing really to do with the price of gas, it’s just one more thing the poor in this country have to contend with.
I only brought it up because Cisco decided to appeal to my having it better than Africans. I’m sure I do have it better, but then again, I’m not African and don’t live under the same government (or lack thereof) that they do, ergo I expect to live better because the government keeps telling me that I live in such a prosperous country. How prosperous are we really when certain demographics don’t have access to healthcare, though?
On the one hand, Cisco says he doesn’t want to “belittle my situation” and then juxtaposes my situation with in war- and drought-stricken Africans. Well, durrrr. I should be thanking my lucky stars and praising the white-collared, Mercedes-driving Exxon execs for not wielding machetes on their commute to offices bigger than my apartment.
What you’ve gone through really sucks. Seriously. I got laid off after 25 years and lucked into a better job (from which I just got laid off from). I saw it comming and managed to restructure my finances to avoid what you’re going through. I was able to keep most of the severance package from my earlier job. I was tinkering with the idea of buying a new car when I got laid off. Everybody at work was looking at relocating to get closer. Fortunately, nobody was able to sell their house so nobody got burned and I feel like I dodged 2 bullets.
So I just want you to know that I’m not trying to come down on you and hope you’re able to elevate your situation in the near future. I have my own little support group and we try to keep things moving in a positive direction. I’m even tinkering with making my beater car a hybrid of some kind (hey, I’ve got the time).
If it makes you feel better, I think Cisco’s remarks were out of place. I understand where you’re coming from, but I honestly don’t think the government can do much of anything to lower gas prices. OTOH, they can do a lot of things that would raise gas prices. And I expect that is exactly what will happen.
There is no free lunch (well, actually there is at the bar up the street from me, but that is a different story) and everything has a cause and an effect. A lot of times folks simple solutions to these complex problems SEEM reasonable…until you start looking at the effects of their simplistic solutions would actually have on the situation they are trying to ‘fix’. gonzo wants to use anti-trust law suits against companies who aren’t necessarily US companies and who don’t, in fact, have a monopoly. Others want the gubberment to step in and fix prices so they don’t have to pay as much at the pump…without realizing what this will actually do to the supply and demand equation. Still others want the gubberment to wave it’s magic wand and force through alternatives that are either more expensive or are not ready for prime time (or both). Then you have the carbon tax crowd who want to reduce GHG emmissions and save the world (and by doing so drastically increase the costs of energy…btw, I happen to be a proponent of this, though Brown Eyed Girl may not be a big fan).
Everything the government does will have some effect on the system…and probably a lot of unexected and sometimes nasty effects at that. If there were a simple solution we could figure out over beers at the local pub then…well, we’d be using them already because a lot of very smart and greedy folks would LOVE to solve this for fun and profit if they could.
Well, thanks guys. Like I said, I apologize for letting my emotional response color my opinion. I guess I’m just blowing off steam and contributing to the chorus of “Houston, we have a problem.” (hehe, Houston. Texas. Right.)
Admittedly, there are other factors involved in my current situation and it’s going to take a lot of effort and perseverance to rise above it. The fact that all of this is happening during an economic downturn of worrying proportions, is unsettling. I don’t expect a free ride (where do all these puns come from?), but I do hope to have some needed resources available to assist during our personal calamity. If not just for my husband and I, but for our kids, who by no luck of the draw, depend on us for their well-being. I cry for them and I so wish I could give them more.
Again, I’m sorry for freaking out on you guys. Not sure I belong in Great Debates.
I hate to interrupt the joy of piling on Brown Eyed Girl (just kidding ), but to get back to the OP, Ed Wallace is local to my area and is a terrific radio talk show host on Saturday mornings. The show, called “Wheels” is basically a car talk call-in show, but he sprinkles in some little known historical tidbits and some independent-style politics. I think he mostly makes good sense, but I thought the article linked in the OP was a bit confused on some points. He appears to conflate US demand with global demand which screws up his point #2. In point #3, he seems to oversimplify the cause of the increase in the price of oil. As I see it, there are 3 major factors: Global demand outstripping supply, dollar depreciation, higher production costs, and a minor factor might be speculation, but that can only be a temporary factor - all speculative buys eventually expire or are delivered. I don’t think the government can do anything to help this situation and any action taken will likely makes things worse. We’ve been getting a free (reduced price) ride for the last 50 years or more (low taxes, easy cheap production, overpriced dollar) and as all good things must, it will end. I think it’s foolish to whine about this reality - we should be taking action in our personal lives to adjust and mitigate the impact. Reduce usage where possible, work more hours if you must to help pay for things, or do without, but PLEASE don’t ask the government to fix it because I guarantee you it will only be made worse.
Heh. Thanks **Weirddave **(I really like your name, BTW). For fear of further hijacking this thread, I’m not sure how to take you up on this, so I guess I’ll just answer your question. I’m in the Cincinnati area and my husband is (well, was) in technology. I’m currently looking into some further vocational training to better my income, as I squandered the opportunity for a college education when I was young and dumb. If anyone would like to discuss this further, feel free to PM me. As for this thread, I’m just gonna end this trainwreck here.
Sorry, I had to respond to this statement. I guess government-funded universal health care is inevitable, but when that day comes it will not make this a better country.
I guess you don’t literally mean what you say above. Who is being turned away from receiving health care? Do you mean that people with more money get better health care? I’m certain that’s true, but I don’t understand why that’s a problem. People with more money have better cars, better homes, better food, better water (Ethos!), better air (oxygen bars!). Air, food, water, shelter, transportation - those are some basic necessities of life, and few people claim that the poor should have equal outcomes on these. Health care is really no different, especially when it’s not smart to muck around with something so difficult and important that’s working pretty well now. The poor DO get health care - there are free clinics and hospitals do not turn away anyone in for emergency treatment. Even a regular doctor visit costs less than it does to fill up your tank with gas.
By the way, I am in a situation similar to yours. I’ve been laid off from a job I had for 23 years. I am confident that I will not be able to find similar employment without relocating - something I cannot do due to a family situation. Right now I’m scrounging to bring in some decent income and maintain some reasonable standard of living. You have my sympathies, but I would not wish government help on anyone.
The oil companies are making the same profit margin that they’ve historically made. The reason they’re making more money right now is that they’re spending more money. We all are, because the raw materials are simply more expensive.
If, for years, apples cost $10 per bushel and your grocer sold them for $12 per bushel, he’d make a 20% profit on apples. If the price of apples went up to $20 per bushel and he sold them for $24 per bushel, he’d still be making the same profit margin. But all of a sudden his profits have doubled! (assuming that he sells the same number of apples) Bring out the pitchforks! Let’s tax him on this extra profiteering he’s doing! But, in actuality, he’s making the same margin he used to. Now, you could argue that he ought to be willing to take the same absolute profit, but business doesn’t really work that way. People won’t invest in a business that has a shrinking profit margin, since that’s what the investors get paid out of. And the grocer has the same risks. If he was, say, losing %5 of his apples to spoilage, he still had a nice 15% profit margin. If you keep his absolute income the same when his prices double, all of a sudden he’s down to a 5% profit margin. You just cut his profit by a factor of 3!
On preview, sorry about the pileon. I agree that it sucks to have to pay more for gas. I’m currently living 100 miles away from my girlfriend, and that round-trip weekend visit can get expensive. I just don’t think that I can blame fuel-company profiteering for our troubles. The fact is that easy and quick personal transportation is a tremendous luxury, and we’re finally having to consider it as such.
Just out of curiosity, do any of the presidential candidates have a credible plan for lowering the cost of gasoline in the US? I’d like to see it if they do.
The next president can try and make the M.E. more stable, and that might cause oil prices to drop, but anything we do in the M.E. could just as easily backfire. Getting out of Iraq, for instance, might make things less stable than they are now. Getting the value of the dollar up is largely a function of the world economy and how the Fed reacts to the US economy, and that isn’t going to change no matter who is president. You can get Congress to mandate higher fuel efficiency, but you can buy a more fuel efficient car right now (unless you happen to own the most fuel efficient car out there). And unless you’re willing and able to buy a new car, that won’t help you much.
You make a very good point, xtisme. There is no simple solution apparently. I tell you what, I’d be happy to come to pub and represent the po’ folk, you can all pat me on the head and tell me what’s wrong with my simplistic take on the problem, and I won’t bite your heads off…if you buy me a beer. I’m a cheap date, I don’t drink often so I tend to nurse my beers, but damn, a cold one does sound refreshing right about now.
iamthewalrus(:3=, no need to apologize. I can admit when I’m wrong as I apparently am and you’re not piling on, rather your post was very level-headed. I think my argument stems from the fact that gas for many people is a necessity (not everyone can work around the corner or has access to reliable and affordable public transportation). As such, and like utilities, there should be some limitations as to profitability of the companies that provide such service. I do understand what you’re saying, that these companies are there to make a profit and they are doing a fine job for their shareholders. But how they choose to do business directly impacts the economy and, just like air traffic controllers, the government ought to be directly involved in seeing to it that these companies don’t bring the economy to a grinding halt. How they do that is for the big guns to figure out. I’m just a lowly receptionist feeling the hurt. I’m sure I’m not in the minority in figuring that we’re in the midst of a big economic clusterfuck.
Now maybe I’m overstating things and I don’t really understand the nitty-gritty details. I do understand that this situation is not sustainable for many people. I am one of those people. I do hope to see a rebound with the next administration, but probably not until it gets worse before it gets better, unfortunately.
flex727, I misspoke. I should have said healthcare coverage. And, yes, I was referring to the SCHIP funding.
Just as a point of fact, I don’t believe that you are correct (although I will let someone else like for the numbers)…i.e., I think that the profit margin is higher in percentage terms now than it has generally been during times when gas prices were lower. I think there was a thread a while back discussing why this might be the case. The two things that make most sense to me are: (1) To the extent that the companies are not just buying and reselling oil but are actually pumping it out of the ground themselves, they will make higher profits when the price goes up because the cost of the oil to them has not gone up. (2) In a volatile-price market, it is harder for consumers to keep track of the current prices and thus it makes the market less price-competitive. I.e., when the price was low and stable, I knew what gas would cost and would avoid a bad price. However, now, each time I fill up, I don’t know what the current going rate is…and being too lazy to find out, I just go to a station that I believe to generally have competitive prices and pay whatever they are selling it at on the assumption that this is probably just about as good as it gets.
Not necessarily. He’s the guy who sounded most belligerent towards Pakistan, although that was in relation to al Qaeda. What would Obama do if Iran developed nuclear weapons during his 8-year presidency? I honestly don’t know.
I seriously doubt you are anything approaching poor…at least not by my own standards. Tell you what…we’ll have that beer in South Tucson someday and I’ll show you where I grew up. It might be…educational…
“Most belligerent?” How so? He didn’t suggest doing anything beyond what Bush has already done at least once. (Bombing a known al Qaeda position in Pakistan without obtaining prior consent from Pakistan’s government.)
Besides which, Iran (not Pakistan) has a lot of, you know, oil. Hostilities with Iran would be much more likely to disrupt world oil supplies than a strike on al Qaeda in Pakistan.
), but to get back to the OP, Ed Wallace is local to my area and is a terrific radio talk show host on Saturday mornings. The show, called “Wheels” is basically a car talk call-in show, but he sprinkles in some little known historical tidbits and some independent-style politics. I think he mostly makes good sense, but I thought the article linked in the OP was a bit confused on some points. He appears to conflate US demand with global demand which screws up his point