digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at forbes.com

10 Industries Getting Rich And Poor Off $4 Gas

forbes.com — Who's getting rich off $4-a-gallon gas and who's feeling the pain? These will be the less-obvious winners and losers if energy costs continue to rise.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BlueSkyfish, on 05/17/2008, -8/+41Don't forget oil companies, who are seeing record profits.
    • doctechnical, on 05/17/2008, -9/+11...because they're selling more oil. The bastards!
      Oil companies are making the same profit per dollar that they made a couple of years ago.
      • doctechnical, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Then invest in oil companies and you, too, can get rich.
        • deviantsteve, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1That's a large reason gas prices keep rising, welcome to capitalism.
      • marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3@doc - still getting used to the new comment system? :) Me too. Anyway, Im not sure why people dug you down. Everyone looks past the fact that oil companies are, in fact, earning the same profit percentage they always have and it's one point above the average percentage most companies make. It seems oil companies are the new scapegoat. What was it 3 years ago? Fast food companies? Auto makers? Airlines?
        • Envark, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5A lot of people are very bad at basic math.
          They clearly don't understand percentages.
      • d03boy, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3Oil companies are not making any more than they were making before.
    • mb3581, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4You bitch about the oil companies making record profits when they make less profit off of their product than just about any other company out there. If you strip away or tax their profits, you are stripping away the very idea of capitalism. Exxon does not decide how much oil costs. Gas thirsty consumers are the ones to blames for the record profits. In an economic recession and amidst record gas prices (not to mention the whole global warming fiasco) the overall demand for gasoline and other petroleum products has never been higher. I say good for Exxon and for anyone else who is still able to make a buck in such trying times. We should be blaming the people who are the root of the issue like OPEC who steer the oil prices and restrict production for whole world.
      • freezeout, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5and how do government subsidies of these rich oil companies fit into your capitalist world view? isn't socialism for corporations "stripping away the very idea of capitalism"?
        • Lyph5, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Yes? You'd be hard pressed to find a free marketeer in this country that's for giving subsidies to oil companies.
    • smartass007, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2that's shorthand for the bush family and their cronies, right? good thing american sons and daughters are all over the middle east now, protecting the assets of the well-connected few.
    • ralphthemagi, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0And all their investors, who are seeing higher returns.
    • robbiedo, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Everyone sees these huge profits, but don't ask what happens to these profits. Are they given to shareholders as dividends? How much is already taxed? How much in invested in developing future sources of energy?

      I don't know the particular answer to these questions; however, before you criticize the oil companies, you should remember they make huge gambles and invest billions of dollars in long term capital costs without knowing what the return is going to be. My point is that the oil companies are not quite the enemies that is commonly thought, and the capital costs are enormous. Did you ever stop to think what it costs to get an offshore platform built, and the lead time before they see one cent of income?
  • buffyangel108, on 05/17/2008, -8/+42Getting rich: oil companies
    Getting poor: everyone else
    • marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Show me where oil companies are making such a crazy profit percentage over the average company in the US. (And I'm talking net profit, not gross)
      • buffyangel108, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/05/01/disappoi ...

        True, only $11 billion net for Exxon in Q1 2008. How do they feed their families?!
        • Lyph5, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5How much profit did Microsoft make? Apple? Toyota? Honda? How about big drug companies?
        • skidooer, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1But their ROI is quite low. Much lower and they would be better off spending their money elsewhere.
        • marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Buffy, now tell me how much they invested back into the industry, paid in taxes and to shareholders. And then you get net profit margin.
          http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:XOM
          Net Profit Margin
          Quarterly (March 08) 9.32%
          Annual (2007) 10.04%
          Now do you really think they're robbing everyone blind?
        • mcquitty, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1marx2k...

          Careful you used logic and substantiated your numbers. That might get you dugg down because you aren't allowed to defend oil profits. You can, however, defend rumors and innuendo so long as it fits a certain mindset.
      • wezults, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0Look at stock prices of all oil companies in the last few years, up up and away...
    • mb3581, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2You can't blame the oil companies for their profits. No matter how high gas prices get, people are still going to drive cars that depend on gasoline to get them around. Most people are not going to stop driving because of $4, $5, or even $6 a gallon gas. We are so passionate about protesting when Ron Paul gets shut out by the media, or when Scientology does something stupid, or about a war. There have been rallies and protests on the mainstream media outlets for all of these reason yet where is the protest over an economic recession that is driving the value of the dollar into the ground? Where are the protests over rising gas prices? Instead of being outraged over the results of a free market and capitalism (oil profits), why are we not outraged about the lack of research going into reducing or eliminating our dependence on petroleum? Sure there is a lot being done, but if we are able to spend over $300 million a day on a war in another country, why can't we spend that on developing technologies that would advance our own?
    • mcquitty, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Really? So, why is it that oil companies can't make money but you never hear people complaining how much a movie start or movie studio makes? When an actor gets a huge contract, they brag about it. Why not tax them for excess profit?

      Why not tax excess profit from Universal or Disney?

      Why not tax the Dallas Cowboys? I mean, they turn a profit, right?




      • scaaven2, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Because movies are not vital commodities, they are discretionary income.
  • yunus, on 05/17/2008, -4/+18They listed refiners such as Sunoco as a loser? Because prices are so high. Give me a break. I feel no pain for the oil refiners who may break the streak of record profits for the last 3 years running. I feel for the truckers who are having trouble putting food on the table. I feel for the many who will lose their jobs as fuel prices push the small companies out of business.
    • privatejoeker, on 05/17/2008, -1/+0Exactly!. The refiners are the ones manipulating the supplies anyways to jack up the price of gas at the pump. It is really their fault we are in this mess in the first place. It will bring me much happiness to see the refiners lose $ this year. Serves those bastards right as the rest of us suffer.
      • billybillyboy, on 05/17/2008, -1/+6They aren't manipulating it very well then. Sunoco Refining and Supply lost $120 some million alone in the first quarter. The PPS is down about 50% from the 52 week high. Instead of blaming evil companies for trying to make evil money (so evil, I know), maybe you could examine the root cause of the situation and place it in a perspective a little bit larger than yourself. The price of crude oil has gone up from an inflation adjusted average price of 15.35 $/bbl in 1998 to today's level of 120+ $/bbl. (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_r ... The reasons for this price increase while debatable, are nearly completely outside of the influence of domestic refining companies such as Sunoco. That is an increase of 700%. Over that same period, gasoline prices have gone up ~200%. Refiners aren't gouging you.
      • inane, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, privatejoeker. Keep laughing as we all pay more for gas. Great tactic. Them losing money will only drive the price higher. Jackass.
  • DietMountainDew, on 05/17/2008, -1/+87Buried for Forbes.com stupid slideshow thing:

    Winners: Electric Vehicle Makers
    Losers: Muscleboat Manufacturers
    Winners: Automotive Components Makers
    Losers: Automotive Components Manufacturers
    Winners: Plug-In Hybrid Kit Makers
    Losers: Plug-In Hybrid Kit Buyers
    Winners: Titanium Producers
    Losers: Refiners
    Winners: Mass Transit, Urban Development
    Losers: Exurban Builders
    • marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Agreed. God didn't make a right-facing arrow icon and hyperlinks so Forbes can make slideshows with minimal information on each one.
      • diggapleeeze, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5You mean you didn't see the link under the headline that says "Read full story"?
    • LucidHawk, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2Your my hero.
      I hate these slide show things.
    • bobmagoo, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1here's the printable version of the story for those not wanting to put up with forbes crap website:
      http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/16/gas-gallon-prices ...
  • yhan, on 05/17/2008, -19/+84$ a gallon? Lucky Americans. If my math isn't failing, I pay almost 10$ gallon (1.65€/L = 6.24€/gallon (1gallon are 3.785L) = 9.70$/gallon).
    Portugal (An European country, for our American readers who might not be able to locate it on a map :p).
    • secrity, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Not all Americans are geographically challenged, I know where Portugal is.

      Europeans typically pay exorbitant prices for gasoline. How much of that 1.65€ is tax?
      • yhan, on 05/17/2008, -0/+360% if im not mistaken
        • Lyph5, on 05/17/2008, -1/+4So why don't you do something about your insanely high taxes? Instead of complaining on Digg, I mean.
    • Envark, on 05/17/2008, -1/+6What percentage of the difference is due to taxes?
    • itsgotyou, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3The money goes mainly to taxes and ineffecient (compared to the US) refineries.
    • lschofield, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5There are ignorant people in every country. If you travel a bit you might find that out.
    • pablo0713, on 05/17/2008, -1/+7Still waiting for a European with an original thought rather than regurgitate the same old lame jokes about dumb Americans. I'm sure you all have your share of retards too.
    • JointVenture, on 05/17/2008, -1/+5*****. I bet if I walked down the road a bit in outside Lisbon and asked the local goat herder where Guam was he would think I was asking about some sort of cheese.
  • ZephyrNinety, on 05/17/2008, -14/+8DRILL IN ALASKA.
  • hauntedchippy, on 05/17/2008, -3/+24Since petroleum is a finite resource, then it is inevitable that as the supply dimishes, the price must go up to quell the demand. What would be worse would be low gas prices right up to the day it runs out, then we're truly *****. With prices steadily increasing over time it helps to wean us off more gently and increase demand for newer technologies that can survive a post oil world.
    • kinerry, on 05/17/2008, -3/+2there will never be a "post oil" world as nature makes it naturally and we will still need it to lubricate moving parts
      • marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3And you think that nature makes it naturally as fast as we consume it? A spigot dripping once every few hours is not going to quench the thirst of a planet of billions. (Even if it's got electrolytes)
      • dexim, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I guess you don't realize how long it takes to make oil. Luckily we can manufacture synthetic oil for lubrication. Right now synthetic oil is more expensive, but at this rate they should be about the same price before too long.
  • taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -5/+9I can't bring myself to get a motorized vehicle considering everything the oil companies are responsible for. Sure, it'd be practical, but my principles come first.
    • hauntedchippy, on 05/17/2008, -2/+5Better not get healthcare either considering what doctors and clinical researchers have been responsible for over the years.
      • marx2k, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4He probably doesn't depend on a car to keep him alive.
    • Lyph5, on 05/17/2008, -4/+4BAWWWWWWWWW
    • Eddiecoaster, on 05/17/2008, -1/+6No Car, What happens when you want to go on a date? "Hey baby, lets take the bus"
      • taradisiac, on 05/17/2008, -3/+1Yeah because that makes supporting the death industry totally worth it...
  • gkiltz, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6Biggest case of getting rich: The financial services industry!
    Their GAMING of the market is the reason that the supply/demand equation has been hosed!
    Even the suppliers can only have a few dollars per bbl effect at this point!
    The biggest losers: Those people who transport the ordinary good we all use every day!
    What we can do: Wait until it crashes, then release some drug dealers to make room in the slammers for all those Wall Street cheats!
    • FREETHINKER2008, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2We need to get rid of the speculators, who are driving up the price of oil.
  • firefox15, on 05/17/2008, -1/+28This can all fit on one page. Why in the world does Forbes think it's necessary to have a slideshow of this?
    • d03boy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4maybe they're sick of lists
    • torontoliam, on 05/17/2008, -0/+810 times as much advertising space. Simple.
    • wezults, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0They use this stupid format all the time, very annoying.
  • 4abtrlife, on 05/17/2008, -7/+2Well guys, don't let them beat you. The consumers don't have to be on the losing side anymore. It's time to come out of the suppression. Read this http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_jibbguy_08 ... and the read this http://www.SaveGasSaveEarth.com

    Who cares a damn ***** about the general population? As long as they get their wallets full
  • macweirdo42, on 05/17/2008, -2/+6Hey, I thought we needed more refining capacity! I thought that was the reason prices are high. And now you're saying that refineries are going to have to cut production? Are you suggesting that President Bush lied to us? I am completely shocked and surprised that you could even suggest that President Bush would lie to us.
    • Lyph5, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4It would be nice to maybe build a couple updated refineries. I mean, the most recent one in the US is from the 70s, and I can guarantee that the refining technology has advanced since then.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Actually, if you want to know the truth, refineries are constantly upgrading. Capacity goes up every year, and in fact, not too long ago, plans to do a massive upgrade, one that would increase production capacity way above simply building another refinery could accomplish, were scrapped because the oil industry didn't see the need for the extra capacity, what with prices going up and demand going down.
  • ryan899, on 05/17/2008, -0/+6I work for a consulting engineering company and we do a lot of work for the refineries. I've got to say we would be in the winner category right now. The actual crack spread is actually very low, but we Americans buy so much gas the refineries can't help but make money.
  • nibkey, on 05/17/2008, -3/+0Welcome to our world - The UK's fuel price has always dwarfed the US's meagre outlay. Get used to it, it won't drop back to pre war level.
    • bdbr, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, but you were mostly paying taxes when you bought fuel. We paid taxes too, via other means. Now we pay more for both.
  • pinetree, on 05/17/2008, -1/+6What makes magazine websites think that "slideshow" format is a good idea? No matter how much you tweak the speed setting, the slide will almost always change too soon or too late. I don't get it.
    • diggapleeeze, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I don't understand people complaining about a slideshow. What slideshow? Didn't you click the link under the headline that says "Read full story"?
  • NelsonR, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Be happy the Bush name has always been associated with Oil. Allow them their riches.
    Funny though, ask anyone about the lowest price of gas they remember and it will tell you their age.
    29 cents a gallon for me.
  • Snottlebocket, on 05/17/2008, -5/+5I get a chuckle everytime I see Americans complain about 4$ a gallon gasprices. Welcome to the real world kids.
    • rdoger6424, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Yeah, but that's including our low gas taxes. Welcome to the world outside of Europe.
    • Abdax, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0I really wouldn't have a problem with it, that is if we had a functional mass transit system. But we all depend on cars too much.
  • kurtwinter, on 05/17/2008, -4/+6I don't feel sorry for anyone. 51% of the morons in this country elected a good old boy texas oil man, and well, what the ***** did you expect? Still about 25% support him, and we'll get more of the same with Shill or McSame. And I don't think obama will magically lower oil prices either.

    Keep driving your SUV's America! That'll show the terrists!
    • Lazydriver, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Presidents can not lower the price of oil except by taking over the oil companies and subsidizing the price of it...

      But, isn't that the evil socialism!? :O Sure! But the price of gas sure as hell would go down, even though the Government would have to buy a LOT of oil companies - or take them, but that brings enemies.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1There are literally 1000's of ways the President can help to reduce oil prices without subsidizing it.
        There are obviously two sides to high oil prices - suppply(which Bush views as the problem) & DEMAND(which those crazy Europeans view as the solution). The German car fleet get TWICE the MPG of the American car fleet right now. I wonder what would happen to gas prices in America if demand halved?
        Capitalism has a built in mechanism to "encourage" consumers to do what the government thinks is good for them & not what they think is bad for them - taxes. eg. Cigarettes & alcohol are taxed much more heavily than fruit & vegetables. Using this wonderful mechanism, the government could "encourage" consumers to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. A higher tax on SUV's & other low MPG vehicles would achieve this. And before a bunch of you scream "but I need my SUV for work, I don't want to pay more", please understand the system. Firstly, if you do NEED it, you can have it - hence the tax rather than a ban on SUV's. Secondly, if you NEED it for work, then the additional caost could/should be passed on to your customer(those now saving money thorugh reduced gas prices & usage). Thirdly, if those that NEED SUV's were the only people driving them, the demand for gas would drop dramatically & prices would follow, which should more than offset the increased tax on the purchase price of your vehicle. So remember, all of you guys that NEED your SUV for work, everytime you see the soccer mom or cool kid driving alone in their SUV because they feel safer - they're costing YOU money by pushing up gas demand and prices!
  • browny1978, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1But then you cant tax water to the extent petrol is taxed - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837 ...
  • LoudMusic, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Since diesel prices are climbing with petroleum prices there are others being effected as well.

    Trucking companies are having to raise their rates significantly because fuel is one of their main expenses. And because trains are so much more fuel efficient the railroads are picking up the dropped customers. Fewer trucks, more trains. Financially I think this is one of the biggest swings. People are still buying gas gusslers and driving the ***** out of them. They're just doing it a little bit less. But people trying to make money with their transportation needs are finding cheaper ways of doing so.





  • blurplevtx, on 05/17/2008, -8/+3Easy to figure out who has caused this: tree huggers. They have gotten their resolutions passed to stop for drilling of domestic and off-shore oil, oil in ANWR, plus the banning of any new refineries in the US since 1977. This is simple supply and demand issues, oil companies can't keep up with demand because of all the legislation and they are making record profits because of this. It's not their fault, but they are reaping the benefits.

    Increase supply, price goes down.
    • pablo0713, on 05/17/2008, -2/+4A problem with supply is a mere illusion. There is no supply shortage. That is the official excuse used to justify these high gas prices. OPEC does not increase production because the USA is like the only country asking for it. OPEC has stated that if more countries demand more production, they will do so. The real problem with these prices lie in the obsessed buying of oil and speculating about its prices. Besides, didn't the USA take over Iraq? How come this country isn't seeing the benefits of that take over? You're telling me that Iraq alone isn't enough to provide the oil we need? Come on....

      No, this is all done by design. And, eventually, it pits people like me and you against each other. You want to blame a group of people who had nothing to do with this crisis and I'm here to call you on it.
      • JohnGalt72, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Blurple nice post, and I agree...another example of how gov't regulation puts a stranglhold on the economy, as if a gov't bureaucrat knows better than the marketplace.

        And Pablo you make a good point also. The futures market has a very prominent roll in driving the price of oil up. If there's a area that I see that the gov't should intervene, it may well be there. But also we have to understand that these guys are betting on "future" events, that may or may not happen. And with the stress in the world right now, war with Iran looming, and our foreign policy in general, it's not surprise to see the prices shooting up.
  • Thomaschaaf, on 05/17/2008, -3/+3We have over 9 US-$ a gallon in Germany
    • bdbr, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3About $7.60/gallon of that is tax..which means you pay about $1.40/gallon for gasoline. In the US, only about 20% of the fuel price (now at $3.70/gallon) is tax, meaning we pay about $3/gallon for gasoline. We pay over twice as much as you do for gasoline.
      • kricsek, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I guess you wanna pay 9 $ per gallon then if it's 1.40 without taxes. 1.40 is not even true anyway, it's more than 4.00$..
  • blacklilyninja, on 05/17/2008, -2/+3Artificially inflated prices of oil and gas controlled by the oil companies are going to come crashing down once they bankrupt the world market. Once the tie between the oil companies and the transportation manufacturers is severed they will crash.. causing a market crash and even more people with less money.

    this will end badly no matter what happens.
  • MaximusD, on 05/17/2008, -1/+3Honestly, many of these things are really positive economic developments, and even though oil companies are corrupt and rolling in the dough and high prices adversely impact the working class, I don't want to see prices go down. Electric cars? Better public transit? A slow down in suburban sprawl? This stuff kicks ass, and can only exist when oil prices are high. California will finally build high speed rail from Sacramento/San Fransisco to Los Angeles/San Diego! ***** we should have been doing for over a decade will actually start to make not only social sense, but financial sense as well. Overall, it's good that the monetary cost of gasoline is starting to reflect its social and environmental cost.
    • MaximusD, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Also, one of LA's biggest problems is alleviated with higher oil prices: Smog. Higher efficiency vehicles and electric cars obviously have better emissions. One decade of high gas prices could wipe out the haze that hangs over the City of Angels.
    • lschofield, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I'm all for better public transport and the like. Problem is - I don't see that we're doing anything about it. My husband would love to take public transport to work rather than paying $12 a day (early bird rate) parking. He can't though because our public transport system is too unreliable and he'd probably lose his job from being late all the time (we live in Chicago).

      I walk whenever possible, which I imagine is a lot more than most Americans. I say this because we live in Chicago's inner city where you can actually find shops to walk to within one mile of your home. Most of rural and suburban America is not like that. If a trip to the shop meant a 5 mile hike I wouldn't be up for it!

      I also use public transport IF I don't have to be somewhere at a set time. I relegate this for shopping trips downtown or day trips to the zoo or the beach with the kids. If I have to be somewhere though, forget it - I'm driving.

      The high petrol prices are bad because they are really digging into the budgets of those who can't spare anymore and there doesn't seem to be an alternative in the foreseeable future.
  • atact88, on 05/17/2008, -4/+3Gas prices going up = we're becoming more like Europe, just like Diggers wanted, right?
    Also, have you all ever heard of something called inflation?
    • bdbr, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2This is nothing to do with the reason gasoline is so expensive in Europe. In many cases, they pay far more for taxes with each liter of fuel than they do for gasoline. Actually, they frequently pay less for the fuel itself than the US.
    • drmangrum, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Europe pays a ***** more in taxes per unit of sale than the US. Their gas prices being high are THEIR fault.

      Inflation doesn't account for a $2.20 rise in fuel costs in 7 and a half years. If it was just inflation, assuming roughly 3% per year, gas would be around $1.90. Gas is now 3.68 where I live. That's just not right.
  • JohnGalt72, on 05/17/2008, -2/+2A question for all you who think these oil companies are making too much profit...how does one decide how much profit is too much profit? And who decides? How much profit is too much profit for a cell phone company to make?

    The sole purpose of starting a company is to make profit. And the profit that they make is decided by the marketplace, not a bureaucrat. Don't believe the rhetoric that Congress spews about these "greedy capitalists". It's just another power grab by our gov't.

    The problem IS gov't intervention, not the market, or the capitalists. Congress decided a long time ago to fund these oil companies with hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax money. We give these these companies this money every year as R&D subsidies. This stifles competition as there now isn't a level playing field for an upstart company who may want to introduce an alternative fuel to the market. He or she cannot compete with an industry that gets a huge head start. Therefore, we have what is almost a monopoly in the oil industry. The free market doesn't create the monopolies, gov't intervention does. And these companies receiving this money now have no incentive to change to alternative fuel, or lower prices, because they don't have to.

    This is the dirty little secret Congress doesn't tell us...why? Because they like the control and the power. So they make the capitalists out to be the bad guy. And it's been done like this for years and years.
    • drmangrum, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3If they were selling a product that the average person could do without, then yes, "too much profit" would be unheard of. We're not talking about Blu-ray players, or Hi-def TVs, or some new Elmo doll. EVERYONE needs oil. Everyone. The problem here is they oil companies are clearly colluding with OPEC to keep oil high so profits can be seen by all. They have a captive market. They are the sole suppliers, you have no choice in who you buy from.


      Let me ask you this. Let's say tomorrow all the wheat farmers decided they wanted in on the action. All of them said they were going to triple the price per unit for wheat. As a result, all wheat flour products are now at LEAST triple the cost. You now have to pay $30 for a pizza, $10 for a loaf of bread, your bagel is now $7.

      You see, the issue here is if companies are allowed to make as much profit as they can. That's capitalism. However, when the companies controlling the commodity are hijacking the free market, that's robbery.
      • JohnGalt72, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Good points.

        I would counter by saying, in answer to your question about the wheat farmers is that in a true free market, it wouldn't and couldn't happen. It couldn't happen because someone would come into the market and undercut them with price. Hence, the marketplace will always balance out.

        You see this everyday in the technology industry. When a new product comes out, the price is high as there are few producers. Then what happens...more people come into the market and the price drops. This is the nature of the marketplace.

        If one takes a real good look at certain industries where there is a free market as opposed to industries where there is gov't involvement, my point is easy to see. Only with gov't involvement do prices rise and quality decreases. One example is the Healthcare industry, a second would be college tuition, and a third would be oil.

        Now many times gov't gets involved and they're intentions are sincere, but no one person, or group of people is more powerful than the market. In my opinion, more times than not gov't get involved not out of sincerity, but to favor friends in industry, payback political favors, or line their own pockets. This just adds insult to injury.

        In free market capitalism, although not perfect, you will never see a monopoly. Hence, you will never see companies hijack a segment of the market.
        • drmangrum, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1That's my point. The oil market ISN'T free market capitalism. There are a handful of suppliers that control the entire market. They are colluding with each other to keep prices artificially high. There is no room for some new comer to enter the market and reset the prices to a fair margin.

          I'm gonna make a prediction. Soon as gas starts to hit $5 a gallon, tanker trucks are going to be escorted by the police.
        • JohnGalt72, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1I understand your point.

          And it stinks to high heaven that American ingenuity basically built OPEC. And now they hold us hostage.

          I say stop the subsidies and we'll see more competition in alternative fuels. I say drill in ANWAR and we'll see a strengthened supply line. I say build more refineries. All of these ideas encompass the entirety of the problem. Get the gov't out of it.
    • lschofield, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1Based on the current necessity of oil and the international politics involved, I would be very happy to have a nationalized (rather than privatized) oil provider. No Amercians seem to argue about the US public schools, postal service or army being run by the government. I think the petroleum industry meets the criteria of those other nationalized US industries as well. Introduce a government-run oil company and watch it either put the current monopolies out of business or cause the prices to drop...
      • drmangrum, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1lets examine this a little closer:

        The US Public schools are a joke. I recently went to visit my family for mothers day, and what did i find out about math these days? They are not only allowed to use calculators for BASIC algebra, but they are ENCOURAGED. The sad part is, my little brother didn't believe me when i told him i could solve every problem in his homework in my head much faster than he could use a calculator.

        The US Mail system is bankrupt. Why do you think the price of a stamp has skyrocketed in recent years?

        The military is the biggest victim of bureaucracy I've ever seen. They take forever to decide and act on anything
        • lschofield, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1The U.S. public school system is terrible. My son is in one of the highest rated accelerated programs in the city. I don't fault the majority of the teachers, rather this obsession with standardized testing. The majority of teaching that doesn't have to do with testing is sent home as 'homework'. If we could afford it, we would certainly opt for private education. Yet, I wouldn't argue that schooling should be an entirely privatized affair because current policies are failing.

          While we should hold teachers and schools more accountable for the students' success, I don't think this responsibility lies with the parents. Parents of the low achievers are usually low-income immigrants or people with limited educational backgrounds themselves (English is also not necessarily the first language spoken in the home). Children are sent to school to learn. Parents should encourage their children's learning, but not be expected to supplement or even teach it.

          I know first-hand that some assignments coming home have not been covered in class and I am teaching my child in these areas. I have the luxury of being a college-educated, stay-at-home mom. This is not the case for many other parents who work all day and have to come home to teach a foreign language or math concept to their children after a full day's work themselves.

          I have also witnessed homework assignments for algebra where use of a calculator is required. I could see calculators for accounting courses or even scientific applications, but algebra? And we aren't talking graphing calculators here - just standard ones for standard mathematics applications.

          The real problems with US education lie with tenure and overly protective teacher's unions. We need to get rid of some of these unproductive and bad teachers. I know of no other industry where you cannot be fired for a lack of results. My husband is a representative in his union and he agrees with me on this.

          I still believe a government is accountable for providing all citizens with a fair shot at a good education. The thought of the 'business' of educating a nation should scare people.

          The same goes for the military. While it may be badly run, this is much preferable to a privatized military. The problem with 'contractors' in Iraq (basically privatized military) is that they are not accountable to government policy like the regular US troops are. Also, not being part of a publicly-traded organization, they can keep certain facts, statistics, etc... out of public reporting. In military matters, this is decidedly dangerous. Governments and military are inherently tied together for a reason!

          Again, delivery of the mail is something that is often undervalued. I would not want to trust this service to anything less than a publicly accountable organization (i.e. one that is held up by the government). In fact, that is one of the requirements in the initial founding of this country. Postal service is too important to be trusted to private and for-profit companies.

          My point is that if something is necessary to the public for its ability to maintain itself (like education, protection, delivery of important and personal documents) it needs to be held to a higher body of regulation than a most-likely nepotistic board of directors with their own personal profits as the main incentive.

          As oil is necessary for survival in today's America (for heating, transportation, and even to generate electricity) lets add it to the list of government-run commodities like the above listing. If nothing else, maybe it would keep the private companies more in line with their pricing. The monopoly that is being served up to us currently is not good for anybody. We could still have the private brands available, just also have a 'public oil'. Which would you choose?
  • drmangrum, on 05/17/2008, -0/+5OK, so let me get this strait. The other day i read an article that said Saudi Arabia wasn't going to increase production because their customers haven't demanded it. In fact, they said they were running at several hundred thousand barrels a day under capacity, and that's just saudi. So that means demand isn't up. So i thought gas prices might be up due to refining capacity.

    Now this article says that refiner are going to lose out, because of their slim profit margins. This, to me, tells me that refining capacity also isn't at peak, if it were, and if they were going to lose money, they would build more refineries.

    So WHY exactly are gas prices high? Supply meets demand, refining capacity is keeping pace. I think I smell a rat, a rat coated in oil.
    • JohnGalt72, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3Good questions.

      The rat you smell, I believe has alot to do with the speculators on Wall Street driving up the price. Betting on "future" events that may or may not happen. With all of the stress in the world, war with Iran looming, Iraq, and our foreign policy in general, it's no wonder the future's market predicts higher prices. Something needs to be done about these speculators...but I don't know what.

      Secondly, inflation. The bill for the war always comes later. And it's here now. With the Fed somewhat secretly printing billions of fake money out of thin air for the past 8 years our dollar is pretty weak. Weaker than it ever has been. The first industries to see price rises from the inflationary policy of our Fed is always commodities, oil and food.
    • wattersm, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Demand is down because prices are up, it's simple economics.
  • djwk1928, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4$4 a gallon? Try living in the UK!

    We pay almost $2 per litre!
    • lschofield, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I did live in the UK. You don't need a car in England like you do in America. Cars are not luxury items here. Most people rely upon them as we do not have suitable public transportation or even corner shops that are within walking distance of home.

      My husband is a life-long Londoner and accused me of wanting to live a soap-opera existence when I added a car to our budget upon moving to the US. After maybe a month or two of living here he saw the necessity of it.

      You can't tell me you couldn't make it to a job or even get your shopping done without a car in most English towns and cities. If buses aren't available, you can most likely walk.
    • Surferess, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Don't make me go look that up.
  • dave911la, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1basically to wrap up all the good points i have read/ i want to add. If you want to HS and took an econ course you learned about supply demand curves. You also have to understand the point of a business is to maximize profits. With those two concepts it easy to understand why the price of gas has gone up and why it will stay up. In the US we had the luxury of a market that never reached an equilibrium price with the rest of the world. Now of course there are things that companies do that seem messed up (i.e. lower supply, refining power, etc) but once again if you could sell an ice cream scoop for 2$ and still have the same number of customers as if you were to sell it for 1$, why wouldn't you? Finally there is one thing ***** up this whole equilibrium and its the assholes on wall street who keep causing the price of oil to grow only on the basis of speculation of world oil supply. Well this cant go on for years and years and that aspect will crash eventually, but if you think your going to ever see sub 3 or even sub 4 dollar prices ever again your wrong!
  • dagoonmaster, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1i say drill more offshore in the gulf again oil just sitting getting older because of balderdash environmental concerns that were proved to be fallacies decades ago, or set up more nuclear power plants
  • Loudtyper, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Man, check out these lame ducks...these auto giants arent even trying anymore!

    http://digg.com/autos/Detroit_Three_Target_Camry_A ...

  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.