Pissed at gas prices? Get used to it.

[Kelly Rupert]

Oil is a finite resource, and production is limited. Even if oil companies were to put every dime they had towards energy exploration, they still couldn't find enough to keep up with demand. US oil consumption is rising. Indian and Chinese oil consumption is rising. The entire world using more oil, and the Earth isn't making any more any time soon.

Each year, this increase in demand outstrips the increase in production. As such, worldwide oil prices are going to continue to rise. We can yell and hiss and spit all we like at the oil companies, but they can barely even keep up with demand--hence the high prices. And it's going to get worse. The rate at which we're finding new oil reserves is slowing, while the rate at which the Indian and Chinese economies are consuming oil is increasing.

We're probably not going to see $2/gal gas again. If we had a Democrat in office, gas prices would probably be about where they are right now. We have two options when it comes to oil and energy:

1. Use less energy.
2. Use a different energy source.

That's it. All the willpower of all the American consumers will not change the global energy dynamic. So stop trying to "protest" the gas companies and start demanding that Congress fund REAL alternative energy research (corn ethanol is a scam) and enforce REAL fuel economy standards.

[Warpy]

1. Gas prices will not go down to $1.25 or lower again

unless this country's financial house is miraculously reordered and the dollar starts to rise again.

However, the present rise in prices is a manipulated one. More than one refinery is at least partially offline for unspecified maintenance, creating an artificial shortage at the confluence of changing gas formulas and the peak driving season.

This is an object lesson in how monopolies and even near monopolies work. Feel free to educate your looneytarian friends.

[liberal N proud]

2. ABC News was reporting that Americans are used to paying $3/gal

I had to do a double take on that one. I don't remember paying over $3 except for a couple of weeks following Katrina.
They showed some bozo filling up Hummer, his comment was: "I just keep driving, it doesn't bother me" Of course not you idiot, you are some rich bastard who thinks it is funny to be blowing money faster than most people can make it.

[HockeyMom]

3. I don't GO anywhere anymore

I go two and from WORK = 2 miles a day. The end of the week on way home from work I go shopping. That is it.

Today was a BEAUTIFUL day. I thought to myself I should go out. Then I thought better of it. AND USE UP MY GAS? No, I stayed home.

That is the kind of life we "real" Americans are living now.

[LSparkle]

5. I hear you -- my commute is 22 miles (one way)

At the end of the week, I just hit the market and stay home on Saturday and Sunday. I don't remember what "disposal income" was ...

[BeFree]

70. Lets see

If you have a 10 mpg vehicle and you drive 60 miles an hour you will use 6 gallons of gas each hour meaning that your burn $18 an hour.

Yep, that's more than most people take home for an hour's work. Wow.

[AndyA]

4. The Bush Administration and Americans themselves are also responsible.

The demand for oil in India is partially due to the new influx of American outsourced jobs. More jobs in India means more people with cars needing gas.

And every time someone turns into a Wal-Mart store, they are doing their part to ensure higher gas prices with each and every purchase. The Chinese economy is roaring due in large part to Wal-Mart purchasing their goods. More robust economy in China = more jobs, more cars needing gas.

See the pattern developing here?

The money people think they are saving by shopping at Wal-Mart goes right into their gas tank at each and every fill up.

Stupid, stupid Americans. We're screwing ourselves and we're too stupid or complacent to do anything about it!

[Telly Savalas]

31. So people in China and India should live in poverty so that our gas can stay cheap?

That's pretty fucked up.

[AndyA]

36. So people here in America should live in poverty because they can't

afford gas for their cars to go to work?

You want to sacrifice Americans so that people in other countries, who are doing very well now because of America can live a better life? THAT'S pretty fucked up.

Let's fix America first, then worry about the rest of the world. I'm tired of my hard earned tax dollars doing good in another country, when we have bridges literally falling apart in my own community, with big chunks of concrete falling on cars below and killing the occupants who are virtually trapped. And no money for repairs to those bridges.

We need to put America first for a change.

[dave_p]

37. Huh?

"We need to put America first for a change"

Where's the change?

People in India are "doing very well", are they? Some of them may be, but most are still trying to escape from poverty.

It isn't people in India who are trying to impress their neighbors with Hummers. America's the world's gas-guzzler. It needs to put its own house in order first.

[AndyA]

39. We're not going to do it by outsourcing jobs, importing everything we buy

from China, and supporting companies headquartered in other countries.

We have a lot of people right here in the United States of America living in poverty, with no roof over their heads. Check New Orleans for an example.

Not everyone here in America drives a Hummer. A lot of Americans are barely making ends meet. We need to help them before we help other countries.

India and China do virtually nothing to help us. They tax our exports so high that we can hardly sell anything in those countries due to the cost, yet we don't return the favor.

Over the last six years, one out of every 6 jobs in manufacturing has been lost to outsourcing. Do the math.

[pampango]

42. You cannot compare the levels of poverty in America and in the

Third World. Is there poverty in the US? Of course there is. Is the poverty much worse in China, India and the rest of the Third World? Of course it is.

Our goal should be lifting people out of poverty everywhere - not just here and not just over there. "India and China do virtually nothing for us." Neither do Ghana or Burma or Zimbabwe. Exactly what does the Third World owe to the First World? Do we need another Cultural Revolution in China, so that they Chinese can go back to chanting slogans and sharing egalitarian poverty, so there is less competition for our insatiable demand for the world's resources?

[AndyA]

44. At the rate we're going, the United States is going to BE a Third World country.

We'll eventually get to the point where we don't actually make anything here anymore, we'll just be a consumer/service country.

It won't take long for that to do us in.

My point is, we should start taking care of people here at home first. We should protect Americans, American businesses, and fix the serious problems we have here. Then we can worry about the rest of the world. But as it is now, we're going to be just as bad off as these other countries if we don't tend to our failures and needs first.

The dollar is falling, poverty in America is up, the rich keep getting richer and the middle class is becoming extinct. It's time to address these issues and focus on fixing them before the problem gets completely out of control, and some feel we may be very close to that point now.

[The2ndWheel]

45. There is no America to protect

There is no China or India to compete with. It's all becomming one integrated system. You're just living in the past, you can't stop progress. Yeah, "Americans" will have to make due with less if "China" and "India" get more, but wealthy Americans had to do with less if poor Americans got more. It's a zero-sum game.

Not to mention that as long as there is a middle class, by definition, there will be a lower class, which means there will always be poverty, and always be poor people to be exploited for either production or politics.

As long as energy is cheap, and economics has access to billions of people, this is what we'll end up with. If energy is ever expensive again(other than being so cheap that we're destroying our habitat to get it), slavery will come back(at least more overt), since humans will be cheaper by comparison, and the job has to get done.

[pampango]

46. "Then we can worry about the rest of the world."

You realize of course that will never come to pass. If we cannot help the rest of the world, until we "fix the serious problems we have here" then we will never help them. If that is your belief, then you are welcome to it. Just don't try to sell the idea that our concern for the Third World is definitely schedules to begin once we have achieved utopia here at home.

You apparently have little sympathy for the poor of the Third World, so don't be too surprised if those in abject poverty in sub-Saharan Africa have a hard time working up sympathy for the American middle class that is concerned about the pressures of life in America.

Why does in peasant farmer in Mexico deserve less consideration from us than a poor person in New Mexico? They may only live a few miles apart, but I am supposed to care less for the former because he lives on the wrong side of a river?

[AndyA]

48. Shouldn't you take care of your neighbors first?

You're going to walk past the man down the street, who has just lost everything to a fire, flood, hurricane, or whatever, and tell him, "I'm sorry, but I can't help you. I'm giving money to someone in another country, because they need it more than you do."

If we don't fix America first, it will continue to decline and there won't be any money to help ANYONE. American, Mexican, or Nigerian.

I know several people who used to donate time and money to various charities, but they can no longer afford to do so, due to loss of their jobs to outsourcing, downsizing, cuts in pay, etc. So, there are less people in a position to offer help.

We need to help those people first, so they can return to fiscal health and in turn can help others again, as they once did.

I know one person who back in the 90s donated tens of thousands of dollars to various charities around the world. Today, he and his family are trying to keep a 1978 Pontiac running so they can make it to work.

Sorry, but there is no way I can justify ignoring my fellow American to help someone in another country. America does more to help others than any other country, and we need to make sure that continues to be a possibility going forward. But in order to do that, we need to address the issues and needs here, first.

[pampango]

49. You are a true patriotic nationalist, my friend.

There aren't too many "America first, last and always" types left.

I have lived in the Third World, if only for a few years, and I simply cannot completely forget about the poor who live in huts with no electricity or running water, in order to focus all of my attention to the needs that have to be addressed in my own country. I believe that I can help the poor of American without ignoring the abjectly poor of the rest of the world.

If your world view is not consistent with that, so be it. Your opinion is, I will concede, more of a winner when it comes to domestic politics. Americans respond better to politicians who promise to help them than to politicians who promise to help the faceless poor in the Third World.

[nam78_two]

79. Thanks a lot -thats a great post!

If I could recommend indivual posts I would recommend this one. I understand the concerns about outsourcing , but I really hate the framing of the debate in terms that almost make it seem like people in the third world are somehow putting one over us and getting rich at our expense.

[Raksha]

74. I think that's essentially a false choice, i.e. America VERSUS

the rest of the world. Globalism is a fact of life, and it isn't going away any time soon. The question is, WHOSE globalism? Who is running it, who is pulling the strings? Who benefits? Right now it's obvious that the exploiters and the despoilers are running it, to THEIR advantage and to the detriment of everyone else in the world. The fact that some (Americans and Western Europeans) are relatively better off doesn't change the basic fact that the entire world now dances to the tune of the exploiters, to the disadvantage of everyone else. But it doesn't have to be that way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. It is AMERIICAN BUSINESSES

Chiefly first tier Corporations, who got you into this fix (with the help of REBPUBLICAN POLICIES) that lead to this Thom Friedman's the world is flat mentality

You are barking up the wrong tree... it is not the people in India who are the problem, it is oh Exxon Mobile, Ford Motor Company, Walmart who are always in search of cheap labor.

Gee bu the way your taxes are mostly not involved in this process

[dave_p]

76. No it isn't

Third World countries aren't consumer/service countries. They're countries that can't afford effective modern infrastructure, education or healthcare. Countries locked in a spiral of poverty without equal access to the global market on which the rich countries have told them to rely.

America is in no danger of becoming a Third World country - not with a per capita GDP of $45,000. The US produces more food than it needs, and more of pretty much everything else. It has the resources to educate every citizen and to provide not just healthcare, but free healthcare. It's produced the world's most powerful corporations.

America's problem isn't one of economic retardation, it's one of income & wealth concentration. And US big business largely created that. Why should anyone else on the planet sacrifice for the sake of America's peculiarly skewed distribution of the prosperity it's capable of producing?

[entanglement]

52. This 'help' idea is laughably naive

Do you really believe the global capitalist's main goal is to 'help' others? Or their expansion into the developing world is because of philanthropic reasons? No, their main goal is to maximize profits anyhow. The fallacy in your post is the 'we': in reality, there is no 'we', just the ownership class and everyone else. Their class interests drive them and their actions reflect that. It is ridiculous to expect otherwise, just because they (by an accident of birth) are American.

Nationalists like you will continue to whine "Our capitalists...were meant to be on OUR side". Get real. They are on THEIR side and no one else's. Their sole allegiance is to the greenback. No matter how much the capitalists screw you, you never learn. They'll direct your anger into reactionary channels, painting the foreign working class or immigrants or somebody else as your enemy. You'll buy into it and hate 'them'. When the hatred reaches a peak, you'll go to war, die for the capitalists and swell their coffers with war profits - generation after generation after generation. The profound intellectual and moral blindness of your ilk is a bigger impediment to a successful class struggle than anything else.

:rant:

[dave_p]

69. "India and China do virtually nothing to help us"

Well with per capita incomes at a twelfth (India) and a sixth (China) of the US level (and I suspect the Chinese level's inflated), would you expect them to?

It isn't tariffs that are stopping them from buying US goods, it's the simple fact that, other things being equal, you can produce goods far cheaper with labor in a grindingly poor country. China's starting to escape that trap, and its competitive edge will narrow accordingly.

The solution to these deficits lies not in rich countries putting up tariffs, but in making their domestic tax arrangements work to the advantage of productive home investment, and in making the rest of the world's poor less poor.

[TheFarseer]

72. That's a good point

I hadn't thought of that but that's exactly what's going on. Americans are financing both sides in the war on terror, their jobs going overseas, and paying more at the pump.

[dave_p]

73. It isn't India that's to blame

The Administration's certainly made things worse. America is becoming one of the most polarized societies on the planet in terms of income.

It's also the most wasteful when it comes to oil.

India's oil consumption per head of population is about 3.3% of the US level. A thirtieth. The US Department of Energy expects that ratio to reach 3.9% by 2030. Is that too much? Just how much are Indians entitled to use?

China's level is higher - about 8.1% of the US figure now and an anticipated 13.5% in 2030. That's under a seventh of US per capita consumption even after half a century of rapid industrialization.

America's share of total world oil consumption in 2030 is expected to little changed from today at slightly under a quarter - for less that a twentieth of the world's population.

The big declines in consumption share will be in Europe and Japan. And they already use far less oil per head than do Americans - little more than half in the European OECD countries.

Americans have no intrinsic entitlement to go on consuming oil at more than six times the rate of the rest of humanity, and twice the rate of other developed western economies.

It's sometimes difficult to see where "America first" ends short of "America should get everything". Others have hungered long enough. And their poverty didn't do much for America's industrial base either.

[MiniMe]

6. They will go down next year, until the election

Happened last election, it will happen again this election.

[lfairban]

7. Get an e-bike

They have a range of 5-20 miles and accelerate to 15 mph in seconds:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x847204

[Parche]

8. Its A Gas

Until people get rid of their Stupid Utility Vehicles, this will continue

[bdamomma]

41. and those Oil Companies are making billions off us.

[BuyingThyme]

9. This thread, like all of those before it, is total bullshit.

The price of gas today has absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand.

All domestic sources of oil are still being tapped today at the same cost to the producers as when gasoline was 99 cents per gallon.

The system is rigged to where competition is not permitted. No supply and demand arguments apply.

[Dr.Phool]

11. With all the mergers of the last 10 years or so.

There is no competition anymore.

Whenever they merged, they shut down more refineries.

[BuyingThyme]

12. I actually heard a "news" report this weekend where they

called the current oil market the "perfect storm," referencing, of course, the conveniently offline refineries.

I wonder what they would have said if there had actually been a hurricane season which arguably could have had a minimal effect on the market.

[TX-RAT]

13. How did you come up with that.

(((All domestic sources of oil are still being tapped today at the same cost to the producers as when gasoline was 99 cents per gallon.)))

Please explain.

[BuyingThyme]

14. It's the same oil; it's the same rigs; it's the same infrastructure.

OPEC's prices do not dictate the cost of obtaining and refining domestic oil.

That's why their profits have skyrocketed -- because they just raise their prices in an effort not to compete.

[TX-RAT]

15. OPEC's prices do not dictate the cost of obtaining and refining domestic oil.

Where do you think the refineries get their crude? Their the one having to pay 64 dollars a barrel. Since over 60% of our daily needs are imported, you have to leave OPEC in the equation.

Drilling and exploration costs have sky rocketed domestically. Where drilling was costing us 10.00 per ft in 98, now it's 24.50. Day work was 9,000.00 per day, now it's 22,750.00. All the other cost of producing and repairs have all damn near doubled, plus the fuel used to make all this possible has damn near tripled.

[BuyingThyme]

16. Are you having problems with the word DOMESTIC?

And drilling and explorations costs, besides being subsidized, are minimal factors in the cost of tapping existing domestic sources.

If anything, the cost of (acquiring) domestic crude has gone down.

[TX-RAT]

17. I was speaking of domestic, those are our costs.

Please tell me where I'm being subsidies, evidently I've missed my checks.

(((If anything, the cost of (acquiring) domestic crude has gone down.)))

What a crock of bullshit!

Obviously you've never been around or have any knowledge of exploration and recovery or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Your comments are a joke.

Are you actually going to try to convince people here that oil exploration is not being subsidized by our tax dollars? Are you going to pretend that the oil companies have not received huge tax breaks while receiving huge windfalls?

What a crock of bullshit is right.

Do some reading and grow up a little.

Incentives on Oil Barely Help U.S., Study Suggests

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: December 22, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 — The United States offers some of the most lucrative incentives in the world to companies that drill for oil in publicly owned coastal waters, but a newly released study suggests that the government is getting very little for its money.

The study, which the Interior Department refused to release for more than a year, estimates that current inducements could allow drilling companies in the Gulf of Mexico to escape tens of billions of dollars in royalties that they would otherwise pay the government for oil and gas produced in areas that belong to American taxpayers.

But the study predicts that the inducements would cause only a tiny increase in production even if they were offered without some of the limitations now in place.

It also suggests that the cost of that additional oil could be as much as $80 a barrel, far more than the government would have to pay if it simply bought the oil on its own.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/washington/22royalty.html?ei=5090&en=7c13b8cb0622b4f4&ex=1324443600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[TX-RAT]

38. Maybe you should read what you post.

(((The United States offers some of the most lucrative incentives in the world to companies that drill for oil in publicly owned coastal waters,)))

All of our drilling and production is on privately held land, nothing was said about federal or state lands, nice try, but you missed. We receive no subsidies or LMAO, " Lucrative Incentives"

Just for shits and giggles, I'd love to hear what you consider " lucrative incentives"

[BuyingThyme]

53. Okay, now. Let's get this straight:

When you arrived at this thread, you thought that everybody was talking about you. Not "you" as in your country, but "you," as an individual.

Well, please read this very carefully:

You are either having some severe psychological issues or you are simply a joker.

Now, if you are not a joker, I beg of you to visit your doctor. Tell him or her that when you read things on the internet, you always assume that you are the inspiration -- that everybody is talking about you.

You will not have to tell them anything more than what I've outlined above. They will immediately be able to recognize what's going on. Just do it. No big deal.

Good luck to you.

[TX-RAT]

55. Nice try, we call that craw-fishing here.

Usually done by people who don't have a fucking clue about the subject being discussed.

Have a great day, don't forget your meds.

[BuyingThyme]

58. Okay, then. If you would like to carry on, let's do this.

So I said that the government was subsidizing exploration. You said they weren't, that I was full of bullshit for suggesting such a thing. You were outraged.

Then I posted an article which demonstrated what every single person on DU knows -- that the government is subsidizing oil exploration (etc.).

Next you said that I was still wrong because the government does not subsidize you, TX-RAT, specifically.

This argument made sense to you. It still does. You're sticking with it.

Now, please explain how this does not prove that you are having severe psychological issues.

[TX-RAT]

68. Make up your mind.

(((So I said that the government was subsidizing exploration. You said they weren't,)))


I said they weren't subsidizing me. That would also include several thousand other oil and gas producers throughout the US, who don't explore or produce from federal and state properties. I'm sure someone with your vast knowledge of the oil and gas business, is already aware that there are 39 oil producing states and thousands of independent and small time producers, who don't explore or produce from state or federal properties.

(((Then I posted an article which demonstrated what every single person on DU knows -- that the government is subsidizing oil exploration (etc.).)))

And i suggested maybe you should read your own links, then you would have seen what i was talking about.
From your link.
"The United States offers some of the most lucrative incentives in the world to companies that drill for oil in publicly owned coastal waters,"

Here's a question for you. Why do you think the feds would make such an offer?
Could it be because the only way the feds receive any royalty payments from those waters at all, is if somebody's pumping oil from them? Giving a company an incentive to explore and drill, makes the feds money.


(((Next you said that I was still wrong because the government does not subsidize you, TX-RAT, specifically.

This argument made sense to you. It still does. You're sticking with it.)))

I have never received a subsidy from the federal government, neither have thousands of other small time producers.

(((Now, please explain how this does not prove that you are having severe psychological issues.)))

I believe that little childish and smartassed comment violated DU posting rules and should be deleted. An adult would do that without having to be reported, how about you?

[BuyingThyme]

78. Don't you understand how easy it is to make you look silly?

I mean, you made a bogus claim that I was wrong about the government subsidizing. And then you pretended that you thought I was talking about you. That is, unless you really believe that I know something about your finances. Is that how far you have fallen off the wagon? What else do you think I know about you? Are you hearing voices?

And now you're asking me why they subsidize. But the interesting thing about that, besides having absolutely nothing to do with the point, is that you have forgotten that you're supposed to be pretending that I was wrong about the fact that they subsidize. Remember? You said that was bullshit.

But the really funny thing is that you are accusing me of being unable to make up my mind.

Why do you do things like this?

[mudesi]

22. You are so wrong on so many levels

First, there is not enough domestic oil to meet American demand. That's why oil is bought by the American consumer from "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, and that's why Iraq is such an important strategic area and why Bush and company are so adamant to have "victory" there.

If only domestic oil was being used by Americans, gas prices would be at about $50/gal.

Second, while I agree that there is no competition and that monopolies restrict supply while they raise prices to maximize their profits, they can only do that up to a point. If not for the exorbitant demand for oil, the prices would plummet.

The oil companies can only restrict supply. They have no way of controlling demand, and the OP's contention that demand is up is correct. If everyone switched to a hybrid and stopped wasting energy tomorrow, you can bet the oil companies would have no choice but to slash prices.

[BuyingThyme]

29. Nonsense, paragraph by paragraph.

Your first paragraph has nothing to do with anything.

Your second paragraph is as useful as the first.

Your third paragraph is not true, as there is not an exorbitant demand for oil.

Your fourth paragraph belies the concept of supply and demand.

[mudesi]

35. Just because you say so doesn't make it so

Worldwide demand for oil is up and increasing. This is a fact. The oil companies, being a monopoly, will sell that oil at the output where marginal revenue equals marginal cost and at the price that intersects the demand curve in order to maximize profit, as shown in this textbook example from any economics 101 course:

http://imgred.com/

As demand increases (and it is increasing, that is a fact), the demand curve (The green line labeled "D") will shift to the right, but still be downward sloping. If you imagine shifting that line to the right, but keep the marginal revenue curve (The pink line labeled "MR") and the marginal cost curve (The blue line labeled "MC") in their same spots, the intersection of the vertical dotted line with the new right shifted demand curve will be higher (ie. A higher price).

[BuyingThyme]

54. Look, nobody said that the demand for oil is not increasing.

If you would like to respond, it would probably be a good idea to respond to something in this thread. You just as well could have posted a photo of a bunny rabbit.

Now, I'm going to give you a homework assignment: Look into the all things being equal assumption.

Take care.

[mudesi]

67. You've lost this one

I think you have to give it up now.

If you would like to respond, it would probably be a good idea to respond to something in this thread.

I responded to your initial post.


Your post:

The price of gas today has absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand.

Wrong.

All domestic sources of oil are still being tapped today at the same cost to the producers as when gasoline was 99 cents per gallon.

Wrong, but even if that were true, I addressed that. The increased demand leads to the higher price. You've admitted an increase in demand. Your statement that domestic oil is being tapped at the same cost is irrelevant.

The system is rigged to where competition is not permitted.

True. The oil companies are effectively a monopoly. Find yourself an economics textbook and look up the chapter on monopolies to find the very chart that I posted in my previous reply.

No supply and demand arguments apply.

False. See above.

[BuyingThyme]

77. If you could even begin to understand the chart you posted,

you wouldn't have posted it.

That is, unless you believe the drastic increases in crude have something to do with that formula.

Now, go ahead and say that that's what you believe. I'd like you to get it all on record.

[karlrschneider]

26. Sorry but your comment is total bullshit.

You apparently have no knowledge of how oil is discovered, produced or marketed.

[BuyingThyme]

28. Just because you pretend to know something

doesn't mean people are going to believe you.

But if you have something real to contribute, go for it.

[TX-RAT]

51. No they don't.

[ProfessorGAC]

40. AY-MEN!

You could not be closer to the truth. You're already sitting on it. The same commodity being sold as futures on the same market, twice completely invalidates supply and demand principles.

The Professor

[meldroc]

10. Maybe diminishing oil supplies are part, but MOST of this is blatant market manipulation.

The mysterious drop down to $2.00/gal just before the election pretty much settled this. I'm not buying the oil industry's excuses. "The refineries are maxed out!" "We're having trouble switching to the summer blend!" "Those old refineries are broken down again!" BULLSHIT! What they're doing is squeezing the supply to force gas prices up. After all, Exxon's gotta get another quarter of record profits...

If we weren't saber-rattling at Iran, keeping Iraq's oil exports down to a trickle and squeezing the gasoline supply by restricting refinery output, we'd probably be paying $1.60/gallon.

Doesn't mean oil won't eventually run out - it will, but not yet. Even if oil didn't run out, there's global warming to worry about, and we need to drastically cut our use of fossil fuels, so Florida doesn't end up underwater & we don't get hit by Katrina-level hurricanes and F5 tornadoes every year.

I'd feel better about paying $3.00 - $4.00/gal if that extra money was going to build and run public transportation infrastructure - busses, trains, light-rail, etc. Nope, it's all going to the oil companies. We've got to make sacrifices so those Exxon executives can upgrade to new Learjets.

[Individualist]

25. Agree it's blatant market manipulation

No matter how much we conserve, oil companies will manipulate to keep prices high and continue making their huge profits.

[Kurovski]

18. I'm already well acclimated to being pissed.

[RC]

19. What needs to be done is to

tax the obscene profits and use that money to research alternative energy sources.

[mediawatch]

20. It is not gas prices that bother me so much

at least I have some control over that, or so I feel. What makes me nervous is oil prices. I have no idea how I am going to heat my house this winter. My company has decided to source (we don't outsource we "source")my job soon to India and I am not sure where I can make the money I make now. I have been paying down my dept in preparation for this day. If I don't have the cash I don't buy it. Even if I work full time at Wal Mart, would that heat my house?

I think I may have gotten off the topic. Sorry

[roamer65]

21. The gas price doesn't tick me off, its the obscene oil company profits.

Windfall oil profits tax NOW! Use it to pay for the war.

[LSK]

23. the price of a barrel of oil is DOWN

Its in the 60s.

You do have a point thou, in that the high gas prices might force people to get more efficient cars and change their lifestyles.

I just wish what was causing the high prices were taxes that would pay for health care or other things that benefit the country like they do in Europe.

[pampango]

47. Great point. Gas taxes could be used for any number of useful

projects and would hurt oil company profits by reducing the amount of gas sold. If Europe can make gas taxes work for their economies, we should be able to do it, too.

[Redstone]

24. A voice of reason, rising above the babble. Thank you.

Redstone

[piedmont]

27. k&r nt

[tyedyeto]

32. Exxon posted the HIGHEST quarterly profits everfor several quarters

But NO price gouging has ever occured.

What do the corps think we are? Stupid?

I guess we are since we will pay whatever the price is at the pump. Congress does nothing about it, so what can the average consumer do???

NADA!

[Telly Savalas]

33. I agree 100%, but we can't discount the fact that the high prices put the pinch on many.

It's an economic reality that some people are stuck living a long ways from where they work, have little or no access to public transportation, and can only afford cars with shitty mileage (Priuses aint cheap.) These are people who can't wait a decade for the advent of a cheaper cleaner alternative fuel. They need help now. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to artificially deflate gasoline prices. To address the short-term problem, Congress needs to implement things like living wage laws and a beefed-up earned income tax credit. In essence, they should tackle the underlying issue of poverty, but keep the incentives in place to encourage conservation and environmentally responsible transportation.

In the medium and long term, one addresses the issues mentioned in the first sentence:

*End sprawl, and encourage rational urban development so that people aren't faced with hour long drives to work.
*Promote public transportation: boost funding, and as per the previous point, build our cities in a manner that's conducive to mass transit.
*Increase fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles, and perhaps introduce tax incentives for people to buy cars with extremely good mileage -- make the Priuses affordable for more Americans.

Couple these policies with investment in alternative renewable energy sources, and you've got a recipe for success. We must be aggressive, because time is not on our side. Granted, between now and Jan. 2009, most of this stuff would probably get vetoed, but it's critical that bills at least start hitting the president's desk. We must advance the agenda. Having some little committee meeting in a broom closet of the Capitol building isn't going to cut it.

[KT2000]

34. Oil industry has a stranglehold

on the whole area of alternatives. They can and do exercise their power to stop alternatives that cannot be owned and controlled by them.

I will stay pissed thank you. Until the oil industry is nationalized they will destroy this country for their own profits.

By the way - I drive less too but the solution involved reigning in the power of the oil industry over our elected officials and appointed government employees.

[Clark2008]

43. I agree, but there is a big problem with using alternative energy sources:

most people can't afford them, either.

They may be cheaper to use, but a Prius is much more pricey than a Mustang. Solar panels cost tons more to add to an old home or build into a new home and so forth. Hell, even the non-incandescent light bulbs are three to four times more than the regular ones.

How does the American populace compete?

[Robb]

57. As we always have, by trying to change the game

Unfortunately, it means living the way our incomes really dictate. It's the same rules to get out of any situation where you're being priced out:

- Mortgage payment skyrocket? Sell the house, get a much smaller one.
- Car payment got you down? Sell the "new" car, get a much cheaper one.
- Gas prices killing you? Walk, public transportation, carpool, motorcycles, bicycles.

...The thing to notice here: the solutions rather suck, compared to driving everywhere in your nice car and coming home to the big house.

[ComerPerro]

56. so its just a coincidence that gas prices started taking off when Bush got in office,

and have more than doubled in his six years in office? Even adjusted for inflation, they are higher than they have ever been.

[A wise Man]

59. It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them.

[A wise Man]

60. It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them.

[A wise Man]

61. It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them as the laugh while we argue.

[A wise Man]

It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them as the laugh while we argue.

[A wise Man]

63. It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them as the laugh while we argue.

[A wise Man]

64. It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them as the laugh while we argue.

[A wise Man]

65. It seems that many

on this post have forgotten that and the secret energy meetings Cheney had with these oil companies. Making excuses for the oil companies is ridiculous when we all are being robbed by them as the laugh while we argue.

[ComerPerro]

66. LMFAO

[Jack Sprat]

62. While awaiting the development of #2,

a new energy source, our own US government should seize private US oil assets, and take the profits out of this dwindling industry. It must be done expeditiously and the public will demand it in a short time. You fail to mention the record profits of the oil companies in the wake of these recent spikes in prices. Our government should seize the health and energy industries and place them under government control, so that they serve the public domain and the savings passed back to the people who built them in the first place.

[BeFree]

75. Indeed

And each person should get only 10 gallons of gas a week at the regular price and double or triple the cost for every gallon over 10.

As a human being all oil that exists on the planet belongs equally to those alive.

Damn, now that's some socialist thinking, eh?

But you are right: the people will demand something in short time.

[TheFarseer]

71. I just want to know why oil prices have nothing to do

with gas prices. Oil is at $61 just like it was last November, and gas is way higher than it was last November. Tell me why the disconnect? And I don't want to hear about how the oil companies are were surprised that spring came and they had to switch blends. Who the f*ck could have predicted spring this year!!!???

[Babsbrain]

80. Driving less won't solve problems

It called fungoobility. If you drive less in the U.S., the oil companies will just sell more oil to China and India where they drive more. Then they will say fungoo America. If you want our oil, you pay what we tell you because we want huge profits so we can pocket them and thumb our noses at your stupid belief that we will research alternative fuel sources and update our refineries.
Fungoo!