Clearly Nancy, you're missing the point

[studmuff.livejournal.com]

Comments

[neonleonb.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. It's clear that regulations have made the oil business completely unprofitable.

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

No one's saying they make the business unprofitable, simply that they've restricted supplies, which had the predictable effect on prices.

[rickenharp.livejournal.com]

Y'know, we should give the oil companies preferential treatment so that they'll drop their prices! Right? Whoops, already doing that... (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/qu...?c109:H.R.4479:)

"The effective tax rates of the top five oil companies averaged 13.3 percent over the three-year period 2001-2003, well below the 35 percent rate, and in contrast to those in the health care industry, the financial industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the computer industry and the chemical industry."

Y'know, the lobbyists who make the bullshit arguements you do normally get paid. You guys are just cheap whores.

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Wow, that was enlightened. This has nothing to do with oil companies. Let me try it again: We mandate ethanol use at a level beyond domestic production, while simultaneously putting a large tarriff on importing ethanol. This essentially restricts the supply, which has a predictable effect on the price.

I don't know if any of the other comments in the cartoon have merit -- there are, for example, conflicting estimates of how much oil is available in ANWR -- but that one is obvious government stupidity. If the problem were price gouging, they would have done it more gradually so as not to inspire exactly this reaction -- and they would have done it sooner. The ethanol law, curiously, was passed just before the prices spiked.

That isn't a restricted supply

[hashbangperl.livejournal.com]

There is more than sufficient supply - otherwise you'd have shortages, of which there are none.

You merely have higher prices than you're used to, but still far cheaper than elsewhere in the western world.

The ethanol thing is irrelevent..

If the cartoon was in any way relevent it would be talking about the world bank bailing out Big Oil to the tune of millions of dollars when Chad nationalised the oil assets and production, which the world bank subsidised the construction and construction of.. or it would mention that the iraq war pushed up crude prices.

It's just a second rate collection of straw men.

Re: That isn't a restricted supply

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

There is more than sufficient supply - otherwise you'd have shortages, of which there are none.

No. Shortages occur when something prevents the price adjustments that naturally occur in reaction to changes in supply or demand. A restricted supply leads generally to a price rise, not a shortage, barring certain other circumstances.

If the cartoon was in any way relevent it would be talking about the world bank bailing out Big Oil to the tune of millions of dollars when Chad nationalised the oil assets and production, which the world bank subsidised the construction and construction of.. or it would mention that the iraq war pushed up crude prices.

You are quite right that the cartoon ignores foreign policy issues which are equally negative. I am not sure I understand why bailing out Big Oil causes them to raise prices.

No, it's not that either.. fuckwit

[hashbangperl.livejournal.com]

Look at the Oil Markets - they are driven by Speculation, look it up in a dictionary, that speculation is driven by 'market stimuli'.

Now what could be stimulating the market that hasn't before some idiots decided to start the "War on Turrr" and destabilise the middle east?

Could it be the whole war thing?

Of course the war was to increase US access and control of oil, which oddly enough is an industry that the current US administration is closely linked to.

Everybody knows that the US and UK are quite happy to allow ruthless dictators like Saddam (Burma, various African and Eastern European Dictatorships, the long list of now toppled dictators that the US and Europe were happy to do business with and support, including the same Saddam) so it wasn't to save the people from a nasty dictator that we put into power and supplied with weapons and money, and it wasn't to find the Nukes and weapons of mass distraction that everybody knew didn't exist.

What else could be stimulating those prices again, oh - look at that America wants to force Iran not to build it's own profitable nuke power plants using it's own uranium mines and it's research to provide power, as per the treaty they signed - on the off chance they go nuts and nuke Isreal (which illegally builts nuke weapons, refuses to sign any treaties and has an equally mad religious right wing that matches Iran's mullahs for rhetoric and hate).

So we have 2 of the largest Oil Producing nations, and the US has managed to bomb one into oblivion and civil war, while picking a fight with the other.

Gosh! Could that just affect oil prices more than ethanol additives or restrictions on US Oil Companies being able to drill into nature reserves?

I mean Oil production is increasing throughout Africa and Eastern Europe with far bigger oil fields and capabilities than if you were drill all of the US's wilderness and parks.

Re: No, it's not that either.. fuckwit

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

So, ok, in addition to ethanol our foreign policy drives up oil? I'll buy that -- but notice that's still the government.

And yes, speculation sucks.

Re: No, it's not that either.. fuckwit

[hashbangperl.livejournal.com]

no.

It's exclusively the foreign policy, which is driven by Oil Interests and a bunch of other special interests.

The Iraq war was win/win for big oil - speculation drives up prices and therefore profits, when improved iraqi oil production is back to full capacity and in their hands, they have greater control of supply. Of course lots of oil companies were involved in the corporate looting like Halliburton and profitted from that, but they also got resources and assets at knock down prices and continue price gouge the iraqi nation and us army/government for both fuel and services in iraq.

The Iran thing is just farcical, I don't think any business lobby wants that fight.. it's just the whole wierd Israel fixation that the US has had for decades.

Ok, so explain

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Before I get back to the larger question, can you please actually answer my argument, which I will lay out here point-for-point:

Four premises which I believe to be empirically demonstrated:
(1) The government mandates more ethanol mixing than can be met by domestic production.
(2) The government has tarriffs on foreign ethanol which were designed to make importing it unprofitable.
(3) Increased production costs lead to increased prices
(4) Shortages lead to increased prices

These lead me to the following conclusions:
(5) It is no longer possible to refine as much gasoline as was done before the ethanol mandate without significant increases in production cost (1,2)
(6) The government laws have therefore led to one of two things which will increase price (3, 4, 5)

Please explain which of my premises is wrong, or which of my conclusions does not follow from the premises.

Re: Ok, so explain

[hashbangperl.livejournal.com]

Right, these facts may all be correct without impacting the price in any significant way.

The simple fact is that barrels of crude are extremely expensive, *THIS* is what has pushed up the price *worldwide*.

Just because you have some wierd laws about fuel in the states doesn't mean they are what is noticably pushing up the price -- after all Fuel is still far far cheaper in the states than europe and the UK where these rules do not apply, also fuel prices worldwide have increased equally including not just domestic fuel but that used for airliners, ships and power stations.

The ethanol costs only apply to domestic american fuel, yet all oil based fuels world wide have increased in cost hugely, along with crude fuel prices - and the price of your domestic fuel has increased in line with those prices, rather than in relation to ethanol usage.

Re: Ok, so explain

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I should have specified that the ethanol is (as far as I can tell) responsible only for a relatively recent jump which seemed perplexing at first because there had not been an equivalent hike in crudeo oil. There was also, of course, the jump post-Katrina caused by refineries closing down and distribution being interrupted. But yes, the general trend over the last few years of gas getting expensive at increasing rates is a result of world-wide supply and demand: Demand continues to increase with the rise of Asian economies and the American passion for ever-bigger cars (though the latter seems to finally be leveling off), and any new supplies have been offset by political problems in oil-producing countries, some but not all of which are caused by US foriegn policy.

[ccnuggie.livejournal.com]

Asay is the man.

[studmuff.livejournal.com]

you da man

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

Damned straight.

[lesleykajira.livejournal.com]

i would rather pay more for gas than drill in Alaska.

[studmuff.livejournal.com]

aren't you cute?

[lesleykajira.livejournal.com]

Yay praise! Even if it's sarcastic.

It's just a little thing called "consistancy".

i want more green spaces. i want less pollutants release by automobiles. i understand that causing folks to do more research and do more work to acheive these things for me costs extra money.

Is the price of gas high right now? Yes, very. i've had to significantly change how i used to do things. Do i like that it costs 40$ to fill up my Dodge Stratus? No. Do i think we should allow a rollback of said restrictions for a temporary relief in prices? No.

Furthermore, i agree with madmethod's comment below.

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, I'm just glad to see more people understanding the concept of trade-off.

I'm not sure where I stand on that issue, as I can't find anything remotely resembling an objective assessment of how much oil is in there.

[madmethod.livejournal.com]

Is there anyone that maintains a position that our oil supply is infinite, or that as easily accessed deposits dry up it won't cost more and more to extract? Is there anyone who believes (regardless of how you feel about global warming) that constantly burning fossil fuels is GOOD for our environment?

It seems to me that we can debate the cost of oil all we want. Our grand-kids are screwed unless we put serious money and effort into new sources of energy.

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Yup.

In which case, the increasing price of gas is arguably a good (or perhaps merely inevitable) thing, as no one will invest seriously in alternatives until it becomes profitable to do so.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

There is a theory that says oil has an abiotic origin, and that basically the earth makes the stuff. Not many people believe it (for good reasons), but there are some who argue we'll never run out of oil.

Personally I don't like this whole burning things for energy in the first place. There has to be some way to convert matter into energy directly, other than by splitting or fusing atoms.