Nahhh we aren't being gouged AGAIN

[Spaz]

LETS PUSH THEM OFF A LEDGE!!!

[Kjz99z28]

lest get a few thousand people to eat at mcdonalds for a few days and all bum rush thier house and shit on thier lawn...

[FasstChevys]

No no no I meant like as anything else worldwide.. if the value of the dollar falls, it makes more dollars to pay the market value. So prices go up. Which just made sense to me when I heard it because our economy is not-so-great. I think we were on the same path.

Okay, I'm with ya!

[gwballin]

No no no I meant like as anything else worldwide.. if the value of the dollar falls, it makes more dollars to pay the market value. So prices go up.

This is why a price cap will not work, why sell something in the US at below market price when they can sell it in other countries at the market price? Short answer, you no longer sell in the US and then the American people find themselves in a world of hurt since government intervention crippled supply overnight not allowing for the market to compensate.

[Kjz99z28]

This is why a price cap will not work, why sell something in the US at below market price when they can sell it in other countries at the market price? Short answer, you no longer sell in the US and then the American people find themselves in a world of hurt since government intervention crippled supply overnight not allowing for the market to compensate.

It sucks, but it's true.

It's not something that HAS to be sold here, supplies can be sold elsewhere. I guess crappy gas prices are kind of a necessary evil to keep our supply of gas coming. I'm sure they do take a little more off the top than is needed though.

[0rion]

gubment intervention never works although I see why people would want it. The gas companies do price fix, it's what they do. The only real solution we have is to dump money into alternative fuels. Just like anything else they'll be expensive in the beginning but they will be cost effective at some point. We have the technology to do it now but no companies willing to take the hit and no customers willing to pay the price. If the gubment should do anything it should pour available money into these alternatives and offer incentives for companies and consumers to go this route.
The bigger problem we have is that if we're not careful we'll be speaking Chinese at some point. China is growing right now and changing a lot within their economy. They have the potential to dominate the world market at some point.

[Kjz99z28]

Yeah if we'd just find a way to not USE gas.. the prices wouldn't have to suck.

[FasstChevys]

Yeah if we'd just find a way to not USE gas..

Exactly...just like Brazil...

[Spaz]

HAHA!!! i bet them oil guys are made of potatoes!!! LET BOIL THEM!!!

[Kjz99z28]

HAHA!!! i bet them oil guys are made of potatoes!!! LET BOIL THEM!!!

You crack me up.

[Spaz]

You crack me up.

i'm like ...

[ss~zoso~ss]

Why should they "cut their profits"?

They are not in business to do us favors, their duty is to increase the wealth of shareholders. Luckily for them they provide a product that people are willing to pay for. Luckily for us they provide a product that is still cheaper than the alternatives.

because no motherfucker on this earth needs that much money

[gwballin]

because no motherfucker on this earth needs that much money

And I guess it is up to you to decide what others "need". I don't think you need a car at all let alone one with more than 75 hp. How about them apples?

[Toyota h8r]

we should rally against them... light thier houses on fire... eat thier pets and children... staple thier nut sacks to thier legs and cut thier eye lids off and feed them sleeping pills...

I will do it.........lets get some people together

[99Hugger]

Yea 2 top stories on Yahoo news this morning...

Payrolls drop for 1st time since 2003 - 3 hr ago
Exxon Mobil posts record profits - 3 hr ago

I'm no friggin rocket scientist but maybe there's some correlation there.

[Spaz]

Yea 2 top stories on Yahoo news this morning...

Payrolls drop for 1st time since 2003 - 3 hr ago
Exxon Mobil posts record profits - 3 hr ago

I'm no friggin rocket scientist but maybe there's some correlation there.

some ones ass gets wiped with franklins...

[99Hugger]

no doubt

[GTP231]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080201/exxon_results.html

GO TO HELL!!!!!

If it pisses you off so much buy a hybrid and help lower costs

[hoss 2000 z-28]

If the oil companies spent some money on growing and improving their infrastructure, their business would become far more efficient using state of the art technology, they could recoup their investment costs relatively quickly. What is the average age of the refineries out there? But, if what they have is working just fine then why change it, right?

Off topic but... When we bombed Japan they had to rebuild their auto manufacturing plants out of necessity. As a result of using new technology, their quality control was vastly improved compared to stateside products.

With oil and other commodities, there is an elasticity of demand where if the price is too high then the # of sales / profit per sale ratio becomes unfavorable so there is a strategic cap but it is an economic limitation, not a government regulation. It is a capatilist economy after all, which is best for consumers.

The only way to lower the cost is by increasing availability or providing alternatives. Fortunately alternative fuels (E85, hydrogen, electric, etc.) are all considered competitors and will impact price as big oil starts to lose market share. Big oil is bringing it on themselves. Change by necessity is real and I think they are gouging because they can. Holding that dollar with a death grip because it will soon slip away once other options are available.

Although it's not the biggest reason for rising prices, lets not forget the impact of inflation and the slipping Dollar. I think Canadian is more valuable now.

http://www.x-rates.com/

[Tobynine9]

This is why I think the 2007 Energy Bill is such a great thing. The 35 gpm requirement is an increase of 40% above the current number. If the annual gasoline consumption in the United States is about 140 billion gallons, a 40% reduction would be HUGE. I'm all for it. This is another reason the oil companies have their panties in a bunch......and they should.

How is a 35 gpm mileage requirement going to reduce the amount of gasoline fuel used? All it will do is increase the up-front capital expense of purchasing a car while, gas prices being equal, reducing the variable cost of fuel for one to drive the same amount one does today at the current CAFE standards.

For a regulation like this to work, we have to assume that individual driving behaviors won't change. Using the new CAFE standards, assuming a 40% reduction in fuel use assumes that individual drivers won't drive any more than they do now once they've purchased their 35 mpg cars.

However, once the 35 mpg CAFE car is purchased, the marginal cost of driving more has gone down. The purchase price is sunk, you can't recover it and, if you want to purchase a new car, it will have gone up across the board.

In the same manner that a person drives faster and more carelessly as you increase the safety feature content of his/her automobile, you have to assume that John Q. Driver is going to drive longer distances and more frequently if you force him to buy a car that goes further on one gallon of gas. And why wouldn't he? At $3.00 per gallon of regular unleaded, a 250 mile road trip would cost $75.00, round trip, burning gas at a rate of 20 mpg. With a 35 mpg car, that same trip only costs $42.86, a savings of $32.14.

If you really want people to burn less fuel, make the variable cost of driving go up - increase the gas tax. Make every additional mile that much more expensive.

Using our 250 mile road trip example, if Uncle Sam were to use a tax to increase the cost of one gallon of regular unleaded to $5.00 above our current assumption price of $3.00, the cost of the trip increases $125 and $71.43 at 20 mpg and 35 mpg, respectively. Facing a marginal cost schedule like that, our theoretical driver will be much less likely to take a road trip unless he deems he really needs to and will face a real incentive to buy a vehicle that burns less fuel.

With a cost-per-mile structure like that, we would have manufacturers meeting and exceeding a 35 mpg average on their own by simply responding to market demand. Meanwhile, Uncle Sam gets a nice, big, fat, injection to the treasury.

Political popularity is the only reason the CAFE rules changed. If a politician in office votes against increasing CAFE, he/she is labeled "anti-environment" and will face a slimming chance of re-election.

If he/she votes to increase taxes... well, we all know what happens to politicians who vote to increase taxes.

And that's the dooming flaw designed into democracy.

If our society really wants to do something to help the environment or if we even believed environmental health to be an important issue, real changes would have happened already.

IMO, I think it's quite evident that most Americans don't think Global Warming, or any other environmental buzz word du jour, is a genuine threat. Let's just acknowledge that and move on. We like to say we need our large gas-guzzling vehicles and we like to say we need to help the environment but we're not willing to give up the freedom of one to fix the other. So, we either don't really think the environment needs our help or, we don't really believe that our high levels of gas consumption are part of the blame.