Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Gas Prices Expected to Peak in June. I Pray They Do.
nytimes.com — Oil jumped to another record on Tuesday, and the government said it expected gasoline prices to peak at a national average of $3.73 a gallon in June, just as the summer driving season kicks off.
breeder- 722 diggs
- digg it
- FREETHINKER2008, on 05/08/2008, -14/+37I'm quite sure that we heard that gas was supposed to peak at : $ 3.40, $3.50, $3.60 and now $3.70, and what does the govt. have to do with gas prices anyway.
- o0joshua0o, on 05/08/2008, -7/+90The government causes geopolitical instability in oil-producing regions
The government enacts poor fiscal policy that leads to devaluation of the dollar
The government does little if anything to promote alternative fuels
The government wastes billions of dollars on an unjust war
The government protects the interests of Big Oil- IslandDog, on 05/08/2008, -23/+5And most of that which does not affect the price of gas.
- o0joshua0o, on 05/08/2008, -0/+13That makes zero sense. Did you even read the comment you're replying to?
- VinceNoir, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6I'm sure he did. But his perceptual filter designed by Bushco and friends make it impossible for him to see the truth. He is disabled. Pity him. Then burn him with fire (just remember to use gasoline. He'll appreciate it).
- Joeyrev, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Man, I'm sick of all this "bush brain-washing" nonsense. Can't people just be ***** stupid anymore?
- o0joshua0o, on 05/08/2008, -0/+13That makes zero sense. Did you even read the comment you're replying to?
- pagalchu, on 05/08/2008, -15/+2get over it. government has nothing to do with gas prices. US government own very little gas, most of them comes from Arabs country. its you and people like you causing unnecessary demand which causing prices to go up. In USA everyone got car even 16 years old. go to Europe and see how they live and how they raise their kids. people ride bicycle to work and get together. don't blame government for your luxury demand.
- gaqua, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7actually most of our gas comes from Canada.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3But But But can't we just blame someone else for everything? Please? It's the liberal way of life. And isn't "Government" easy enough to blame since it is a nefarious non-being. And can't we just ignore the fact that we create our government by electing our government officials.
- MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Yeah, I'm tired of these small government liberals with their baolanced fiscal policy and distrust of government, .
We need more big-government conservatives who spend us into the red and have unending trust of the government. - VinceNoir, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1LOL!!! You actually believe that when you vote it counts?! Bwahahaha!!!! That's rich!! Idiot.
- jerger23, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2@Mweather: Umm small government liberals? You mean the liberals that want a program for every issue under the sun; paid for through tax increases (which incidentally is their solution to balance the budget)? Of course, each program will need some administrative offices, leading to a much smaller government.
- MWeather, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1So you prefer going bankrupt to paying your bills?
- MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Yeah, I'm tired of these small government liberals with their baolanced fiscal policy and distrust of government, .
- gaqua, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7actually most of our gas comes from Canada.
- jbmcb, on 05/08/2008, -6/+7> The government causes geopolitical instability in oil-producing regions
This causes spikes in prices, the other oil-producing countries adjust production to compensate. It's not in their interest for prices to be high - cheap oil = continuing demand for oil.
> The government enacts poor fiscal policy that leads to devaluation of the dollar
You mean trying to prevent a depression by lowering interest rates? The poor fiscal policy was banks providing loans to people who had no business trying to take them out in the first place.
> The government does little if anything to promote alternative fuels
That isn't the government's job.
> The government wastes billions of dollars on an unjust war
This has little to do with the price of gas aside from devaluing the dollar a bit from deficit spending.
> The government protects the interests of Big Oil
They probably do, and that shouldn't be the government's job, either.- BM5k, on 05/08/2008, -3/+9Buried because you seem to think I'll need to drive less if gas becomes more expensive.
- jbmcb, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Nobody is forcing you to own a car. If you choose to live a lifestyle that requires driving that's your choice.
- o0joshua0o, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5jbmcb, you must live on a college campus where everything is within walking distance, or a city with an excellent public transportation system. Some of us live in places where you can't get to the grocery store or a doctor's office without a car.
- kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1yea jbmcb mus tbe on a college campus. I lived on a college campus for awhile, and just now recently moved off campus. I have to drive to work. I am sorry but when you live in Oklahoma city or any US city... Unless you're on the east or west coast. You have to bit the ***** bullet and just pay for gas. A car really is just a black hole for your money to be thrown in never to return, but we don't know what to do, but I am thinking of getting my local community together to try and push for more investment on public transit. Especially within OKC and its suburbs. I am kinda tired of missing the last bus at 7pm because I don't get off of work until 9pm. Thus I drive. If
gas becomes more expensive. Then Americans will just have to expect to pay more. Either things will change for the better and businesses will be closer to residential areas, and public transit improves, or we keep with the same model of designing and planning our cities solely relying on a car to be the main mode of transit within the city thus further isolating low income people because trust me there will come a point where it will cost more for someone to drive to work than it pays for them to work. It's already happening.
- jbmcb, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Nobody is forcing you to own a car. If you choose to live a lifestyle that requires driving that's your choice.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -3/+9True. It's funny how it's the same people that say the US went to war to steal Oil yet blame the price of Oil on going to war. Something isn't adding up.
- MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5The instability leads to higher, and the oil is now being pumped by American companies. Pretty simple really.
- kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1yo seems confuse the gov't. with the corporations that control the gov't. YEa the US went to Iraq to steal oil and other resources. At the same time these things were given to corporations whose only purpose in life is to make money. Now by doing so they keep the price high and the supply steady. Also OPEC just announced that they were cutting the oil supply, and Saudi Arabia decided to stop drilling into newly discovered areas were oil has been found.
VEry few people are coming up with creative ideas and the ones who do get told to stfu.
Like an alternative fuel source from hemp. Since we don't use hemp for anything else and it grows in the wild in N.America. Why the hell aren't we exploiting this for the short term until we figure something out for the long term.
Point being said. Our civilization isn't going to survive as long as we might of thought it would. Why? Simply put we stopped innovating. Of course I am only talking about America. Other countries are still pushing and striving in areas such as technology and development. Even in mag-lev power. It's being tested in a lot of countries but the US. Hell I bet we're the only developed nation not trying to invest in different modes of transit, or different ways to get and harnest electricity. Wind power is doable. The media ignores the key fact that our current way we power our grid is more ***** expensive, and they neglect the fact that initial investments are expensive, but necessary, but America has stopped doing that just for that reason, and so nothing will change in America. If there is change it will be for the worse. Anyway I think as Americans we haven't done enough and we might actually deserve a ***** backward ass country more so now than ever.
- MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6"This causes spikes in prices, the other oil-producing countries adjust production to compensate. It's not in their interest for prices to be high - cheap oil = continuing demand for oil."
So you've never heard of OPEC?
- BM5k, on 05/08/2008, -3/+9Buried because you seem to think I'll need to drive less if gas becomes more expensive.
- Hendo, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3The government won't let oil companies drill in ANWR, etc...
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4That has more to do with the tree hugging liberal lobbyists that pay the Democrats for their support.
- MWeather, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7That's 50-150 days of oil. Lack of drilling in ANWR isn't affecting oil prices. Stop drinking the kool-aid.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1It's substantially more than that, but still not enough to significantly affect prices. The USGS survey of the area gave a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels, which is enough to supply the needs of the US for 525 days. In more realistic terms that's enough to supply 5% of US needs for about 30 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drillin ...
- asskicker32, on 05/08/2008, -1/+9And thats a good thing. The government also wont let Oil companies rip up the rockies to get at the deposits under Colorado and Utah. At some point, you have to realize that the price to pay for oil is too great.
- RonBurgundy76, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3"At some point, you have to realize that the price to pay for oil is too great."
Probably the most sensible thing I have read all day. - slezzzter, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1That's really for the market to decide.
- RonBurgundy76, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3"At some point, you have to realize that the price to pay for oil is too great."
- IslandDog, on 05/08/2008, -23/+5And most of that which does not affect the price of gas.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Yes, but with the people that these stories are intended for; The people you can fool ALL of the time. This sort of thing works.
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Shoot, I'm already paying almost 4 dollars for the cheapest gas. 10 cents to go.
- vinnyvenus, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8Yet somehow SUV's sales are still going strong. Americans want cheaper sas perice yet they still gas guzzling cars. Amazing.
- Joeyrev, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Truck and SUV sales are actually down across the board. GM down 32%, Ford down 25% and Toyota down 15%.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/24409772- RonBurgundy76, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3But since a lot of people still haven't paid them off and the resale value is ***** on these vehicles, they'll still be stuck with them for a few more years.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3They're down, but they're still way above reasonable levels. I don't want to tell people what to buy, but I'm sick of seeing soccer moms being interviewed on the news complaining about the price of gas as they fill up their Excursion they use to shuttle their two kids around.
- mckinnej, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1It's gotten so bad some dealers won't take an SUV or big truck on a trade. They can't get rid of them.
- Joeyrev, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Truck and SUV sales are actually down across the board. GM down 32%, Ford down 25% and Toyota down 15%.
- o0joshua0o, on 05/08/2008, -7/+90The government causes geopolitical instability in oil-producing regions
- wynja, on 05/08/2008, -15/+10I'd say so. I don't think Chrysler would be giving away 3 years of oil at 2.99$, if they didn't know for sure that gas prices would level out around 3$ in the near future. To do otherwise would be suicidal.
- alanthing, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8The more customers that spring for the $2.99 gas deal, the more that Chrysler will save, which will save approx. $400 a year for 3 years is $1200. The other option is a $2000 cash back rebate. Unless gas skyrockets to some insane amount, it's a ripoff/clever marketing ploy.
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/06/chrysler-critic ... - petska, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2not necessarily, they could have simply bought oil futures so they are hedged against rising prices. If they did, that is one smart move in financial management &marketing.
- davewashere, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I would say there's about a 99% chance that's exactly what they did, or at the very least bought insurance that would serve the same purpose. This is really a great marketing ploy that has nearly zero risk and tons of free word-of-mouth appeal.
- PabloMac, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4The government would surely bail them out...again.
- mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3How exactly would Chrysler be able to know that. Unless when they were working on the new Crossfire they accidentally made a time machine...
- alanthing, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8The more customers that spring for the $2.99 gas deal, the more that Chrysler will save, which will save approx. $400 a year for 3 years is $1200. The other option is a $2000 cash back rebate. Unless gas skyrockets to some insane amount, it's a ripoff/clever marketing ploy.
- yodaj007, on 05/08/2008, -9/+32I pray the current gas prices are the peak.
- GreyICE, on 05/08/2008, -8/+19Why? I pray they haven't peaked yet. I haven't seen so much interest in energy efficiency EVER.
- skipdog172, on 05/08/2008, -7/+24Why? Because I don't like paying higher prices for EVERYTHING and having less money. We are waiting for a company who can mass-produce very efficient cars and their motivation is making a TON of money. There has been TON of investment in alternate energy and I feel like all we can do is wait...I don't feel like continued higher gas prices will all of a sudden make these companies come up with a magic idea they never thought of before or spur investment to a point beyond the investments that have already been made. I don't see additional investment all of a sudden making these companies come up with their "magic idea". I am tired of seeing all of these "gas has to be $8/gal for us to get motivated to change"!!! Apparently these folks aren't aware of the massive amounts of money already poured into these investments so it is not like there aren't many companies trying to find a solution. $8/gal gas doesn't make these companies decide "hey we should work on that whole energy efficient thing". I don't think this call for "lets see $8/gal gas RIGHT NOW SO SOMETHING GETS DONE!" has much merit. All it means is that our economy will suffer for longer and I can't understand why some of you would wish that upon America. If a company could mass-produce affordable cars that consume much less gas and be profitable, THEY WILL MAKE THEM! They aren't waiting for gas to get extremely high and some of these companies already have enough invested in them that it is not like investing a bunch more in them will let them come up with their magic idea that nobody else thought of.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5"I don't feel like continued higher gas prices will all of a sudden make these companies come up with a magic idea they never thought of before"
More money means you can hire more people to solve the problem. What if the person with the answer is working elsewhere because you haven't offered enough money for that person to uproot his life and enter such a risky business?
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5"I don't feel like continued higher gas prices will all of a sudden make these companies come up with a magic idea they never thought of before"
- skipdog172, on 05/08/2008, -7/+24Why? Because I don't like paying higher prices for EVERYTHING and having less money. We are waiting for a company who can mass-produce very efficient cars and their motivation is making a TON of money. There has been TON of investment in alternate energy and I feel like all we can do is wait...I don't feel like continued higher gas prices will all of a sudden make these companies come up with a magic idea they never thought of before or spur investment to a point beyond the investments that have already been made. I don't see additional investment all of a sudden making these companies come up with their "magic idea". I am tired of seeing all of these "gas has to be $8/gal for us to get motivated to change"!!! Apparently these folks aren't aware of the massive amounts of money already poured into these investments so it is not like there aren't many companies trying to find a solution. $8/gal gas doesn't make these companies decide "hey we should work on that whole energy efficient thing". I don't think this call for "lets see $8/gal gas RIGHT NOW SO SOMETHING GETS DONE!" has much merit. All it means is that our economy will suffer for longer and I can't understand why some of you would wish that upon America. If a company could mass-produce affordable cars that consume much less gas and be profitable, THEY WILL MAKE THEM! They aren't waiting for gas to get extremely high and some of these companies already have enough invested in them that it is not like investing a bunch more in them will let them come up with their magic idea that nobody else thought of.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -2/+20I pray that people start to rethink how they use oil so that we aren't having this exact same discussion when gas hits $10/gallon.
- halobender, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10People are very inventive when ***** hits the fan.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2The only problem is that it will take a minimum of 20 years to make a significant change in how we generate and use energy. If we wait until the ***** hits the fan that's going to be a long, dark 20 years.
- Armagetto, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8The whole post-depression/WW2 era was a testimony to this. Unfortunately, we forgot everything we learned then and just lapsed into lazy careless consumption immediately after.
- halobender, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10People are very inventive when ***** hits the fan.
- dsmx, on 05/08/2008, -1/+12Gas prices are only going to get higher as the dollar falls in value and the demand for oil rises ever higher.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Forgive my economic ignorance, but since oil is always sold in US dollars, ignoring the external side effects of the relative increase in value of other currencies, wouldn't the price of oil/gas remain constant?
- yodaj007, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5What happens when oil is no longer sold in US dollars?
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Then the price will fluctuate based on the rate of exchange. However, that is not the case here.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1"However, that is not the case here."
Yes it is. Regardless of what currency oil is sold in (and it's already starting to shift away from the dollar) it will still vary on the rate of exchange. The people selling oil are not idiots. If the dollar is worth less than what it was a week ago it's going to require more dollars to buy a barrel of oil. Oil companies aren't going to take a cut in revenue just because of a weaker dollar.
- dsmx, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2The production of oil will not be increase by enough to offset the rise in demand so the price will go higher. While oil is sold in dollars the countries where oil is produced do not pay their workers in dollars, they pay it in there own currency unless the value of that currency falls at the same rate of the dollar the price to produce oil goes up as well. Anything that is produced outside the US will go up in price as the dollar falls in value relative to the currency in another nation.
- yodaj007, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5What happens when oil is no longer sold in US dollars?
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Forgive my economic ignorance, but since oil is always sold in US dollars, ignoring the external side effects of the relative increase in value of other currencies, wouldn't the price of oil/gas remain constant?
- uga2, on 05/08/2008, -9/+6And how exactly do you "pray"? Is it: "Dear, God. I am too weak to walk or bike and too concerned about what my "friends" are going to think of me if I take public transportation. I bought my house 30 miles away from my work because I though I could always drive to work. I am too afraid to sacrifice my comfort for independence from OPEC and fossil fuels. Please, lower the gas prices so I could keep driving my fat car and hope that our friendly car companies come up with cars that run on renewables without any economic pressure." It's high time gas prices in US went towards the levels of the rest of the world. It is actually better for the US, because it will create an incentive to wean you off the oil addiction. Right now you are sending 500 billion USD to OPEC every year and growing. Oil companies are enjoying record profits when the rest of the country is in recession. Doesn't any of this seem wrong to you?
- killer63, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6You are right. I'm too weak to walk or bike the 60 miles that I have to drive for work and school everyday. I would love to take the nonexistent public transport. I bought my house so far away because it was half the cost of houses in the city. If the car companies come up with a new car running on alternative fuel how do you expect lower income people to afford this new, expensive car. I guess I will be stuck driving the car I have now but with extremely high fuel cost. Which means I won't be able to save up for the new car.
- uga2, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1That is exactly the problem. You should not wait. Demand for oil is growing faster than the supply. US government does not have a magic wand to change that trend. They can only come up with stupid ideas like gas-tax holiday and destroying national parks. You should ask the government to provide better public transportation. You should ask the government to plan cities efficiently. I for my part don't own a car and I bought a small apartment closer to the center of the city for money that could get me a house three times the size 30 miles away. I hope this tips the statistics in the right direction by declaring that I want to lead a more efficient and independent from cars and gas life.
And last but not least, vote for Obama - the candidate that is not afraid of telling the truth, the hard truth about the situation. His team has the best energy policy so far. Even if you are a hard-core conservative, vote for Obama. The republicans only call themselves conservatives, but in reality they are just a bunch of hypocrites controlled by corporations, especially the oil companies. And believe me, oil companies are least interested in seeing low gas prices. Conservatism is not about preserving the corporations, habits and addictions. Conservatism is about preserving traditions, culture and moral values. As of now the Democrats are better conservatives than the Conservatives themselves. - EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I'll get buried for saying this, but people are going to have to start making lifestyle changes. As fuel prices continue to rise more and more people are going to have to change where they live, work, and go to school. We've thought nothing of long commutes because fuel was cheap, but that's not the current reality. I feel for people that are "trapped" in situations such as yours, but I've been trying to warn people for years.
- uga2, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1That is exactly the problem. You should not wait. Demand for oil is growing faster than the supply. US government does not have a magic wand to change that trend. They can only come up with stupid ideas like gas-tax holiday and destroying national parks. You should ask the government to provide better public transportation. You should ask the government to plan cities efficiently. I for my part don't own a car and I bought a small apartment closer to the center of the city for money that could get me a house three times the size 30 miles away. I hope this tips the statistics in the right direction by declaring that I want to lead a more efficient and independent from cars and gas life.
- killer63, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6You are right. I'm too weak to walk or bike the 60 miles that I have to drive for work and school everyday. I would love to take the nonexistent public transport. I bought my house so far away because it was half the cost of houses in the city. If the car companies come up with a new car running on alternative fuel how do you expect lower income people to afford this new, expensive car. I guess I will be stuck driving the car I have now but with extremely high fuel cost. Which means I won't be able to save up for the new car.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5That's part of the problem. Everyone is wasting their time "praying" when they should be taking responsibility into their own hands and DOING something rather than waiting on a Jesus-miracle.
- DeFex, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8Hi this is god, cant come to the pray-o-phone right now I am on a smiting holiday in Myanmar. please leave a message, they will be ignored in the order in which they are received.
- 80hd, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I wish I could buy gas for $3.70 :(
It's 3.95 almost everywhere here in the chicago area! - umdigger, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1You Pray! What are you doing on digg?
- yodaj007, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1To all of the people griping about praying, I'm not a Christian nor a Muslim or any other godforsaken religion. It's a figure of speech, guys, not a literal statement about prayer.
- umdigger, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I think most comments were implied jokes. At least mine was...
- GreyICE, on 05/08/2008, -8/+19Why? I pray they haven't peaked yet. I haven't seen so much interest in energy efficiency EVER.
- dupswapdrop, on 05/08/2008, -13/+17Come on stop being slackers buy more gas your uncle George needs the money!
- Waterrat, on 05/08/2008, -12/+5 Stop praying and go do something.
Do you really think praying will cause your imaginary friend to reach down and smite the gas corps or something?
Get real. - dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -7/+13Yep, GWB makes money on every gallon of gas bought by the American consumer.
Idiot.- Stemnin, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Maybe he was talking about senior?
- IslandDog, on 05/08/2008, -6/+8This is the kind of stupidity that democrats believe in.
- dupswapdrop, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2HA HA you must be a republican, hows that foot tapping going at the airport bathroom for you, meet any new suckers?
- Waterrat, on 05/08/2008, -12/+5 Stop praying and go do something.
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -14/+73Exxon shatters profit records
Oil giant makes corporate history by booking $11.7 billion in quarterly profit; earns $1,300 a second in 2007.
By David Ellis, CNNMoney.com staff writer
February 1 2008: 2:26 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil made history on Friday by reporting the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company, boosted in large part by soaring crude prices...
----------
Mission accomplished!- eLuminx, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5Mission Accomplished indeed.
- PabloMac, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I see what you did there.
- jbettineski, on 05/08/2008, -2/+27Question: Are they making record profits, or record profit MARGINS?
Because if the price of gas goes up, it makes sense that they would ultimately get more money. But is their cost of doing doing business inflating at the same rate? It should, since the barrels cost more....- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11If they were spending all the extra on the cost of oil, then I don't believe that would be profit. That would be record revenue.
- billbugger, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2if the ration stays the same, then yes it would be record profit. and the ratio is staying the same. Infact the profit margin of the oil companies is much smaller them other companies like apple
/love apple, hate gas prices- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2True and it's the same whiners that go to Starbucks yet don't complain about the price of their grande double latte.
- billbugger, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2if the ration stays the same, then yes it would be record profit. and the ratio is staying the same. Infact the profit margin of the oil companies is much smaller them other companies like apple
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -6/+9It's about time someone asked that question. Everyone on here talks about "oil companies making record profits", but no one pays attention to the margins (currently at 7.3% if I remember correctly). If you all want to cut down on your cost of gas, drive your car more efficiently, slow down, take the bus, ride a bike, invest in oil companies stocks to offset the price.
It's really not that difficult.- yevkasem, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1but he made a george bush joke, so, he's right.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Naw, they would rather drive to Starbucks (wasting gas) to spend their money somewhere that has a much higher profit margin.
- Wonderama, on 05/08/2008, -0/+07.3% is a pretty good ROR. But you won't hear people here pissing and moaning if Starbucks were getting 10%+.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I'm not concerned about their profit margin, but I am concerned about their sheer size. Exxon Mobile made $373 billion last year. That's greater than the GDP of all but 26 nations in the world (by comparison Greece has a GDP of $315 billion). That's a lot of power to be concentrated in one corporation.
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2After taxes and expenses, you know, profit. The cost of their raw materials has risen and yet they are making more pure profit than ever.
- CedEx, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1But the record profit might be coming from the record DEMAND they are experiencing this year. They profit more because they sold more, but at the same margins.
- asskicker32, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3typically, 90-110% of that "profit" goes right back into the exploration and search for new oil sources. As soon as these sources dry up, the oil company falls apart...
Now, those record high bonuses and salarys, on the other hand...
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11If they were spending all the extra on the cost of oil, then I don't believe that would be profit. That would be record revenue.
- FrankTheTank17, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5Damn Shareholder Primacy, only reason Exxon has to make a profit... People think the stock market is a great idea but they don't know how it began.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4It's ok, I'll help.
Go to www.sharebuilder.com You can open up an account with no minimum. Do some research on a particular stock at http://finance.google.com Look for the Price/Earnings ratio. The higher the better, generally speaking. For example, I have some money in Occidental Petroleum. (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=oxy)
Which is up 13% for me since I bought it in March (I believe, might have been April).
Everyone, please take note. There's a reason the rich get richer. They invest their money and MAKE money with that investment by doing NOTHING but allowing some company to use that money to grow.
If you REALLY want to get wealthy, it can be done, even with starting out with no money. Take $25 a paycheck and throw it into a stock. Invest in bonds. If you're spending $60 on the new GTA IV game, that's $60 you could have invested.
I took my tax return and threw it into Visa at $58.08 a share when it went public about a month ago. It is as of this morning at $87.48. That's a little more than a 50% gain in my money. 50%!!! And all I did was give my money to my broker.
It can be done, I grew up VERY poor (we had goulash a lot, and if you know what goulash tastes like, you were poor), and if I can do it, you can too. You just have to WANT to do it.- iamabear, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Word. Goulash isn't so bad though, I kind of like it.
Thank you for this incite. I suppose that's about the most simple I've ever seen stock investment spelled out before.- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2you're welcome! :) I'm a firm believer in "helping a man to fish" rather than "giving a man a fish". Although I did get a digg down, I'm wondering if it's because I let people know that their purchase of GTA IV was a bad one. :) Did you have goulash with the tomato sauce or tomato paste? With meat?
My parents used to use tomato paste because it was cheaper and then they added water. blech! :)
If you'd like to know more about investing, add me to your friends list, send me a shout, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2you're welcome! :) I'm a firm believer in "helping a man to fish" rather than "giving a man a fish". Although I did get a digg down, I'm wondering if it's because I let people know that their purchase of GTA IV was a bad one. :) Did you have goulash with the tomato sauce or tomato paste? With meat?
- xtrememotion, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Agreed. Now where can I buy your book?
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Heh,
I don't have one, but I'll be happy to help you out if you do need it. :)
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Heh,
- iamabear, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Word. Goulash isn't so bad though, I kind of like it.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4It's ok, I'll help.
- clemsontiger, on 05/08/2008, -7/+10You people have no grasp on economics.
The supply has been down. What is the only way that you can keep product on the market granted the demand doesn't change? Thats right, raise the price. The way they are making record profits is simple economics. I would be more pissed about what they are doing with that money then them actually making it.- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5According to what you are saying, raising the price should lower the demand, instead you just see people spending all their extra cash on gas. So the demand is not really down all that much yet we can all still pretty much get gas meaning there is no real shortage all it is are record profits for the oil companies.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4You are correct. A commodity which is a necessity doesn't completely obey the Econ 101 Supply & Demand "laws". That's exactly why it's essential to ween ourselves from the crude oil tit and develop alternate fuel sources/methods.
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7@clemsontiger you have no grasp of price elasticity. Demand for gasoline, like demand for food, does not respond quickly to changes in price. That's why the greedy oil companies have such an easy time charging whatever they want for it.
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5According to what you are saying, raising the price should lower the demand, instead you just see people spending all their extra cash on gas. So the demand is not really down all that much yet we can all still pretty much get gas meaning there is no real shortage all it is are record profits for the oil companies.
- IslandDog, on 05/08/2008, -6/+7LOL. Typical rhetoric about hating the profits of "big oil". The democrats solution to the gas problem.....raise taxes. Idiots.
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3Yeah, we need to go with republicans that feel it is necessary to stay in Iraq no matter what the cost is to this nation. I guess it's all part of the big plan to bankrupt this country, form a new country or union with Canada and Mexico and to abolish our constitution and to go to the Amero instead of the dollar.
Idiot Republicans.
Sorry I like Ron Paul though, unfortunately that is not what the republican party is supporting.- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2I wouldn't say the Dems are "Idiots". Some of them are just uninformed and/or don't understand the perceived energy problem. However, your doom and gloom conspiracy thinking is idiotic. Even Ron Paul isn't THAT crazy but I'm sure he would probably be happy to have you as a supporter.
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1What exactly is idiot about it?
If we continue to spend all our money in Iraq and put this nation into more debt pretty soon our debtors will no longer loan us any money.
I would like to know if we stay in Iraq, and continue spending ridiculous amounts of money, what do you think is going to happen to our currency?
The North American union is real, maybe you haven't heard of it but apart of that plan is the Amero which is also very real, it's not just some made up thing, do some research on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
What about the whole abolishing the constitution, well perhaps this to you might be the most far fetched part of the plan but do you see how our government is power hungry? Look at the patriot act, they have given themselves powers they never had before and if we are no longer the united states and instead the North American Union they will look to put new policies in place for "safety's" sake, if US no longer exists they can argue the constitution is null and void and needs to be changed now that we are joining with 2 other countries.
So you can call it idiotic but probably pretty soon this will happen. Whether there is any presidential candidate that will stop it is unknown. I know Ron Paul would not go for it but obviously he has no chance of winning :(
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1What exactly is idiot about it?
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2I wouldn't say the Dems are "Idiots". Some of them are just uninformed and/or don't understand the perceived energy problem. However, your doom and gloom conspiracy thinking is idiotic. Even Ron Paul isn't THAT crazy but I'm sure he would probably be happy to have you as a supporter.
- jp12380, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3Yeah, we need to go with republicans that feel it is necessary to stay in Iraq no matter what the cost is to this nation. I guess it's all part of the big plan to bankrupt this country, form a new country or union with Canada and Mexico and to abolish our constitution and to go to the Amero instead of the dollar.
- Number23, on 05/08/2008, -7/+7Hey retard, it’s only a “record profit” when measured in raw, unadjusted dollars. By that measure, I could argue the minimum wage is record high. Why, minimum wage earners have never had it better, right?
You are an empty-headed, useful idiot in spreading this leftist, agitprop, *****. The left and their useful idiot, fellow travelers (that would be you) always use unadjusted dollars when agitating about profits, but use buying power when agitating about wages. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.
STFU.- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7I'm not a "fellow traveller," (whatever that means) I am a leftist. And yes, I can point out that corporate America's wealthiest 1% is reaping windfall profits on the backs of consumers as I simultaneously complain that inflation is ruining the working classes lives. Those are only facts.
And I'm not going to stop pointing these inequities out. But thanks for your input.- Number23, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3So then minimum wage earners have never had it better then, right? After all, the minimum wage is a RECORD HIGH!
Your screed is either a product of stupidity or deceit; which is it?- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3"So then minimum wage earners have never had it better then, right?"
That is completely true.
Which is not to say that the poor in the USA don't deserve a still better deal than they currently have. They do deserve more. And if we want it to be so, we can elect people who actually want to help the workers instead of the Exxons and Enrons.
I'm glad you see my point. - dagnome1984, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3More? What a joke. The local Mcdonalds here pays 8 dollars an hour with free medical, dental, plus money for college, and on top of that a yearly bonus based on sales. All of which not mandated by government. If there is a demand for loyal employees, than there is someone who is willing to pay the price. What someone is worth is best left to the market to decide.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2@chicofaraby
I've been screwed over and cheated by far more people outside fo work than corporations, so I don't know where you come up with this stuff. - chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Oh well if Mconalds is paying $8 then we can all relax.
The Magic Market surely won't screw the workers again. THIS time it'll be different. - izackcarson, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage ... as mentioned when looking at economics over a long time frame you cannot use absolute figures, but need to look at the inflation adjusted numbers. The minimum wage is now lower than it was in 1979. However, what are your sources for showing that these profits are not obscene in the historical context?
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3"So then minimum wage earners have never had it better then, right?"
- Number23, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3So then minimum wage earners have never had it better then, right? After all, the minimum wage is a RECORD HIGH!
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7I'm not a "fellow traveller," (whatever that means) I am a leftist. And yes, I can point out that corporate America's wealthiest 1% is reaping windfall profits on the backs of consumers as I simultaneously complain that inflation is ruining the working classes lives. Those are only facts.
- wattersm, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6How dare those companies make money!
- metaliq, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6Should read: "How dare those companies capitalize on their monopoly!"
- dagnome1984, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4You need one company to be the sole supply of for the demand and a government to back it up in order for there to be a monopoly.
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3So as long as there are two corporations we're safe and the Magic Market will fix everything.
- dagnome1984, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1What problem is there to fix?
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3An oligopoly can be nearly as damaging as a true monopoly (witness US cell phone companies).
- metaliq, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You are correct.
I was thinking that all of the oil companies were somehow acting together, thus sort of being "one". - kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Veringular-" YEs, we purposely drop your calls wtf can you do about it?"
- dagnome1984, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4You need one company to be the sole supply of for the demand and a government to back it up in order for there to be a monopoly.
- metaliq, on 05/08/2008, -4/+6Should read: "How dare those companies capitalize on their monopoly!"
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/08/2008, -0/+510% return, wow, that's really special.....why stop at gas gouging, and claim gouging for any product/sevice where the company makes more than 10% profit.
- eLuminx, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5Mission Accomplished indeed.
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -15/+8OK, hybrid/electric car, with a wind turbine built into the grill,bumper, wherever to charge the battery. Whats the problem here? You can power a house on a 15 mph wind, why not a car with 30-60mph winds? Add in a couple solar panels too, what am i missing?
- matschig, on 05/08/2008, -6/+6You're not missing anything - the government would just be missing their money. See how that works?
- jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Surely when you typed that you didn't REALLY think that the reason why this isn't happening is because the government, did you? That would make you an idiot in both politics AND physics.
- thawkth, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8You don't really know much about physics do you? Neither do I.
I do know that you would create drag using such a system - the energy would have to come from somewhere to get up to 60 mph first of all - second of all, the wind would push against the turbine and totally kill any aerodynamics of the car.
Plus I'll bet accidents could be kinda interesting- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1radiator fans,alternators,belts, superchargers, tires, pistons, and especially turbochargers move at very high speed.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Here at digg, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1with an initial charge from a solar panel, grid, or gas engine. what would stop it from recharging with wind if you can use energy from braking?
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Oh I don't know, how about the laws of physics?
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1so a car with a gas engine cannot charge a battery using wind...explain
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2@potisreallygood - The turbine cannot create more energy than the energy required to push the turbine through the air. A gas engine spinning a generator is a more efficient way to charge that battery.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Here at digg, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1radiator fans,alternators,belts, superchargers, tires, pistons, and especially turbochargers move at very high speed.
- YZBot, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Wow, just wow. That creates and overunity situation. It won't work, period.
- GreyICE, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Remember, overunity is just a term big oil uses to keep the power out of the hands of the people.
To understand this thinking, you need to think like an idiot. Smash your head into a brick wall until you're bleeding and near-unconscious, it's a decent start. You'd probably need a bit more to buy overunity, but, well... start.
- GreyICE, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Remember, overunity is just a term big oil uses to keep the power out of the hands of the people.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4A few brain cells, I'd say.
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1well explain it to me, its a ***** question i asked genius. tell me, why wouldnt wind power extend the range of a hybrid/electric vehicle.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Cars already use wind for other purposes (i.e. radiators) and that wind wouldn't generate enough appreciable energy to do much of anything. Furthermore, the battery of hybrids is already charged... by the heat generated by brakes. That's why the manual of a Prius is very specific on how you should be stopping at red lights.
- Narcism, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1because the force you'll gain from the turbine will be LESS then the additional power required by the engine to keep up the same speed with the additional drag. Therefore losing energy.
What might be interesting, is having a set of turbines you'd turn on if you wanted to slow down.
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1well explain it to me, its a ***** question i asked genius. tell me, why wouldnt wind power extend the range of a hybrid/electric vehicle.
- bigmac7669, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Have you ever noticed that when someone has a good idea about a non-gasoline engine, they either seem to change thier ideas really quick by selling out....... or disappear???
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Nope. And this isn't one of those good ideas that appears to be a prerequisite.
- bigmac7669, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I forgot to mention that potisreallygood should be safe
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Hold on, I'll grab the popcorn and you can tell us the story about your "friend" that invented the engine that runs on water and then "disappeared" when the government found him.
- bigmac7669, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2OK, go get your popcorn........... got it yet? OK....
Think about it. Cars have been getting about the same MPG rating for the past 30+ years (minus the hybrids), but yet technology is increasing everyday. Oil companies are the wealthiest and most controlling companies that exist. Back in the 70's, a man invented a carburetor that would reuse gasoline and got about 50 MPG. Shortly after he applied for a patent on the carburetor, he disappeared. Nobody "knows" what happened to him.....
You don't have to believe me, but it is something to think twice about :)- jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Cool! The supposed guy who disappeared...That is the point of yojiffyskippy's mocking comment to you. You are posting *****! It never happened. It is ***** created by the anti-oil people who know that children like you will just lap it up and continuing posting is as if it really hapened.
Newsflash for you...gas companies spent a LOT of money into alternative fuels and car imporvements. Because if they come up with something, they get 100% of hte profits from it. They don't have to split it with all the other "big Oil" companies.- bigmac7669, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11) you're a dick
2) like i said, you don't have to beleive me, everyone is entitled to their own opinion
3) I read through some of your other comments, and you are DUMB! All you do is bash other people on here. Relax and realise that there is a bigger world out there and you don't know everything.
4) Stop being a dick
- bigmac7669, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11) you're a dick
- jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Cool! The supposed guy who disappeared...That is the point of yojiffyskippy's mocking comment to you. You are posting *****! It never happened. It is ***** created by the anti-oil people who know that children like you will just lap it up and continuing posting is as if it really hapened.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Nope. And this isn't one of those good ideas that appears to be a prerequisite.
- trixterIreland, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3because it creates drag and you end up slowing the car down. You cant get something for nothing. The power required to bypass the drag would exceed what you get from the windmill (there is loss, if there was not it would result in perpetual motion which diesnt exist).
Airplanes do have a power system that is similar to what you are talking about but its for when they have lost all engines and even then they have 500mph speeds as they glide towards certain d00m. The system is only enough for basic instruments and "life support" (temperature and air pressure), and does not even restore hydrolics to the plane, so its very difficult to steer in this situation.
There are regenerative braking systems, basically a small dynamo is connected to the wheels, when you apply the brakes it will capture some of the energy and store it in the batteries. But that dynamo creates drag, a resistive force, good for braking bad for just driving around, again you cant get something from nothing.- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I would think that the power required to maintain avionics and cabin pressure would be much greater than what is needed to give a trickle to some li-ion batteries. Would it really be that useless. I mean, convertibles and cars with windows down still move, that creates a massive amount of drag. The air-x charges batteries in 15 mph winds, solar panels work too. Better answer than others so far, but it hasn't really satisfied me. To make it more clear, if you are using a gas engine, why not use the wind to charge the battery when you are not using it.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No system is 100% efficient. It will require more additional energy to move the turbine through the air than you will recover, period (otherwise you've created a perpetual motion machine). You're thinking the energy to power the turbine is free because the car is already moving, but you're wrong. The whole point of aerodynamics is to move air smoothly around the car and to minimize the impact of resistance. A typical vehicle still uses something like 50% of its power to overcome air resistance at 50mph (and the percentage goes up rapidly from there).
Your turbine idea will create significantly more air resistance. The energy required to overcome that resistance will easily exceed the amount of power you generate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermody ...
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No system is 100% efficient. It will require more additional energy to move the turbine through the air than you will recover, period (otherwise you've created a perpetual motion machine). You're thinking the energy to power the turbine is free because the car is already moving, but you're wrong. The whole point of aerodynamics is to move air smoothly around the car and to minimize the impact of resistance. A typical vehicle still uses something like 50% of its power to overcome air resistance at 50mph (and the percentage goes up rapidly from there).
- thegreatgazoo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Yes, There was a case in Canada where an airliner ran out of gas. It was able to use that little wind generator to get the hydraulics back up and they were able to glide to a runway and land safely (other than everybody's pants).
They ordered gas in gallons, it was delivered in liters, and the gas gauge was broken.- jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Your story is accurate except the reason why they ran out of gas. (They don't "order gas" for planes.)
One of the tanks had a leak. The crew did not trust their computer readouts and made the problem worse by transferring fuel from another tank into the leaking tank. That is why they ran out of gas.
It also wasn't Canada.
- jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Your story is accurate except the reason why they ran out of gas. (They don't "order gas" for planes.)
- potisreallygood, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I would think that the power required to maintain avionics and cabin pressure would be much greater than what is needed to give a trickle to some li-ion batteries. Would it really be that useless. I mean, convertibles and cars with windows down still move, that creates a massive amount of drag. The air-x charges batteries in 15 mph winds, solar panels work too. Better answer than others so far, but it hasn't really satisfied me. To make it more clear, if you are using a gas engine, why not use the wind to charge the battery when you are not using it.
- JackOCat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Obey thermodynamics... It's the law!
- bigmac7669, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1@potisreallygood, were you high when you came up with this idea because it sucks?
- Jsmuli2, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Solar panel idea is a good one, just a couple of small ones on the roof would do.
- CedEx, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1His idea reminds me of Bugs Bunny who holds up a table fan to blow against the sails of his own boat to get moving.
- jerrycurley, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Seriously, potis...if you don't get it by now, you won't ever get it. It is just that you are expending more energy (due to increased drag on the car) than the turbine will create. It is like trying to turn a windmill using a fan that is powered by the windmill.
- matschig, on 05/08/2008, -6/+6You're not missing anything - the government would just be missing their money. See how that works?
- KyleRayner, on 05/08/2008, -28/+89*Yawn*
Wake me up when it hits $8.00 a gallon. The sooner we hit prices like that, the faster we kick the habit. When it costs more to commute to work than youll make at work that day, we'll see some real motivation for change.- AmusedToDeath, on 05/08/2008, -25/+53You'll also see a complete and utter financial system collapse. Lots of people will die. Lots of people will starve. Your life will most likely go in the ***** with the rest of us. Is that the kind of change you're looking for, you selfish deluded prick?
- slapded, on 05/08/2008, -12/+7well said.
- KyleRayner, on 05/08/2008, -7/+31*****. When gas was pennies per gallon, Im sure "experts" wouldve said the same thing about $4.00/gallon gas. Fact is, the news is just whipping people up over gas prices for ratings. I still see people buying Starbucks, buying McMansions, buying movie tickets. The price of gas is not hurting America as much as its made out to, and it will be a very long time indeed before that happens.
Calm down spanky. - privatejoeker, on 05/08/2008, -5/+8Another amen to that. What people don't understand is if it hits $8 a gallon, the ONLY people that aren't affected are the rich, who will STILL be driving their H2 and Escalades. The rest of us will be living paycheck to paycheck, losing our houses and struggling to feed our children. Is starving out the lower and middle class really the answer? These people are already driving small cars, probably Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics from the 90s. They aren't the problem. Don't you think that the poor and middle class would love to be able to afford a $25K hybrid? Hell yeah I would, but I am stuck with my '99 Saturn for at least another 3 - 5 years.
- mx3Taggert, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I drive a 93 civic hatchback, manual 5 speed 4 banger. Bought it new the year it came out, it now has 200,000+ miles on it and gets better gas millage then dam near all new cars on the road today, costs me little over 30 dollars to fill the tank and i have a half hour drive back and fourth to work 5 days a week. the problem isn't gas prices its out lack of technological advancement in the standard combustion engine or the replacement of
- ssawyer06, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3rant
That's what Ron Paul would do. Let the market drive alternative energy. Which, yes, means we don't move past oil until the lower and middle classes are starving. Of course, that's not the only option. We could mandate that utilities generate XX% of their power by solar, like they do in Arizona for example. Solar energy doesn't make financial sense in 2008, but R&D today will make it fiscally sensible in the future. And in the meantime, let’s build some nuclear plants, too. It's true that high gas prices are good for progressing past oil. That's why the gas tax holiday is the dumbest thing ever. If the average American family can't afford their roadtrip this summer, THEY WON'T DRIVE AS MUCH. Sorry you can't drive to Florida -- this country can no longer afford the mindset that driving is cheap. We have to decrease demand. As for people who can't afford to commute to work... yeah, that's a problem. If they can't find jobs closer to their home, and can't afford to live close to where the jobs are, we need to do something about that. But the solution is NOT making it cheaper/easier for them to drive. Damn, let's get them bus service or something. And if they don't like the bus, *****, stop equating quality of life with freedom on the highway and some house in burbs 2 hours from the city where you work. It's not 1950. And damn, I parked next to F150 in the parking lot this morning. If you're not a contractor and you own a pickup truck, kill yourself and let me syphon your gas.
/rant
- Narcism, on 05/08/2008, -3/+12Kyle doesn't understand that when gas prices go up, so does everything else. :)
- Jaablaze, on 05/08/2008, -3/+14Also, he doesn't realize that when people can't buy what they NEED, they TAKE what they NEED...likely from people like kyle.
- burningmanstan, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7I case you missed it we already had skyrocketing oil prices and shortages in the 70s. They did not cause total anarchy and suffering. They did however convince many people to by more fuel efficient cars and reconsider their energy use. Unfortunately we have failed to enact any long lasting change from those experiences. So its pretty apparent that we have to go through it again and this time the changes are going to have to be more significant and permanent because we are out of cheap oil. I wish we learned our lesson the first time.
- Phearce, on 05/08/2008, -2/+11Right. High gas price will be the end of society. As proof, I present these recent prices:
Date 4/28/2008, Belgium 8.69, France 8.30, Germany 8.53 , Italy 8.26 , Netherlands 9.45 , UK 8.26 , US 3.83
(U.S. Dollars per Gallon)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.htm ... In short, welcome to the global economy Mr. AmusedToDeath.- NTolerance, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2taxes
- computerguydk, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Comparing Europe gas prices to the US is stupid. European countries have much better public transportation systems than we do in the US.
- warriorscot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Allot of places in europe have truly ***** transport systems, case and point the UK the buses are rubbish and the trains both expensive and unreliable. They just drive more appropriate vehicles, the only people that need large vehicles usually qualify for duty free fuel and that leaves the rest of the population to pick cars of more appropriate size and fuel economy.
High fuel prices aren't the end of the world Europe does very well economically(the EU is the king of the economic roost of the world).- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Allot... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
There is a lot we can learn from Europe when it comes to fuel efficiency, but the above posters were right. Taxes and geography make their situation quite different from ours.
- EtherGnat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Allot... you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ;)
- asskicker32, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I think he was referring to the line about "When it costs more to commute to work than youll make at work that day, we'll see some real motivation for change." For most, that would require gas prices to be about $75 a gallon (30 miles round trip). That would be painful and without any alternatives, people would see what is happening now, but on a larger scale. Houses would be sitting on the market, airlines would go out of business faster, food prices would skyrocket,... People literally would die because one of the main cornerstones of our society would fall apart.
- warriorscot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Cause europe has high fuel prices and they are just in the ***** now?
High fuel prices are nothing, people adapt if food costs more to get from long distance people just eat local produce, most of the US is low density population wise(at least if you look at Europe) so there is no shortage of available land. It would also encourage more sensible planning, outside of cities allot of places in the US are badly planned with huge distances between residential areas and commercial meaning that it would be difficult to walk even if you wanted to that is stupid you build homes near to the amenities the people need not far away.
- warriorscot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Cause europe has high fuel prices and they are just in the ***** now?
- kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I actually don't care at this point as I will be in Japan very soon.
- houndeyex, on 05/08/2008, -2/+11...or we'll just all whip out the plastic and continue to cry. We're getting boiled like frogs here with the slowly but surely rising prices.
- asskicker32, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1You watched "An inconvenient truth" one too many times.
- JJ2K1, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8the sooner we collapse the sooner we can re-build. Until then we're just going to keep crying as we pay at the pump, why prolong that even longer and send more of our hard earned money to Dubai?
- stinkypickles, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4The people with the skills and equipment to develop alternative fuels are rich; they couldn't care less about the price of gas. Just because something's expensive doesn't mean all the sudden we'll find an alternative.
- oce222, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8This is a blessing as well as a curse. We're finally starting to see Americans shifting in larger numbers to smaller vehicles. That's a great start.
- lukemann, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2I still see these SUV driving idiots speeding down the fast lane at 80mph. Wonder how high it has to go before they change their ways.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Actually we saw that back in the 70's (for those of us old enough to remember) too but it won't last long before a lot of people revert back to their old ways.
- Jorin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4I never drive anywhere. I just ride my bike. The only way I pay more for rising gas prices is because of its affect on other things like food. Eventually this system will collapse, and maybe AmusedToDeath is right that it will be horrible and people will die. I somehow doubt that. All you need to live is food, water and shelter, and communities can help ech other with that. We live in a society where 99% of what we use is crap. Once that's gone people will see what's important, and life will go on.
- GRTWHT, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1"communities can help ech other with that" - if you really believe that, God bless you! It's the dreamers that accomplish great things....but it's the realists that survive the worst of times.
- arjie, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5I'm sorry, but you guys are horribly whiny. Gas prices in India are more than $5 a gallon if you convert. In my city (Madras), they're slightly over $5 per gallon (Rs. 55 per litre at the Shell pumps). I travel some 25 km (some 15 miles) to college every day, but I can do that in less than half an hour by bus or around twenty-five minutes if I switch halfway to train. A large percentage of the 4 million or so who use the public transport every day travel long distances to get to work from the suburbs and we aren't even the largest city.
New York got it right. The rest of you seem to be incapable of getting your act together. I'd like to know just how many other big cities have good public transport in your country.- TheSoupNazi, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Wait...are you serious? "The rest of us seem to be incapable of getting our act together?" Do you realize that many people live OUTSIDE of metropolitan areas in the United States and have no means of public transportation?
Get a clue.- arjie, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3The sentence after the one quoted would allow any level individual to conclude that I was talking about cities. Correct me if I'm wrong with the following, I'm listening. Los Angeles, the second most populous city, has a public transport system which only 11% of commuters use? Explain that. Is the system screwed up? (in which case, you're responsible) Or are the commuters screwed up? (in which case, you're responsible)
- mizike, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1that was kind of his entire point......mass transit can solve so many problems, but we north americans have the mind set that buses are for the poor and you're nothing without a car.....this isn't entirely our fault though; our municipal and federal governments need to commit to public transit before people will realize the massive benefits. For example. I live in Ottawa which has ridiculously poor public transit options; I try to ride my bike / walk / take the bus whenever possible, but there are some situations where I know it will take me 3x as long to get somewhere on the bus as opposed to just driving, so I drive. When I go to Toronto, for example, having a car feels like a huge burden. Parking is expensive and inconvenient, traffic downtown always sucks; 99% of the time it's just easier and cheaper to take a combination of bus / subway / streetcar to get where you're going in half the time and with half the effort. When more people have the option of getting where they need to go for a flat $2 (I guess $4 cause they will need to get back home as well), not having to worry about driving and parking and having to leave an hour early cause the bus system sucks so much, is when we will see a real break from dependence on cars and cheap oil (although oil is used for basically everything, getting 1/2 the cars off the road will make a HUGE difference in consumption)
- itsthemechanic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Well, so maybe you should elect leaders who make it a priority to provide you with a decent public transport infrastructure, you moron.
- GRTWHT, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Are you serious!? We can't even elect anyone that's mostly honest, how they hell are we going to elect someone that is going to do something that is good for us vs good for them, their investments and their lobbyists?
Either you don't understand how corrupt our country is, or you must think that all Americans can afford to buy their own politicians (only the top 1% or so have that kind of money).
- GRTWHT, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Are you serious!? We can't even elect anyone that's mostly honest, how they hell are we going to elect someone that is going to do something that is good for us vs good for them, their investments and their lobbyists?
- TheSoupNazi, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Wait...are you serious? "The rest of us seem to be incapable of getting our act together?" Do you realize that many people live OUTSIDE of metropolitan areas in the United States and have no means of public transportation?
- DeFex, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3since the 1930s to The car, Oil, and tire companies systematically bought up most US city and inter-city public transport and dismantled it.
not a conspiracy theory. a fact.
- AmusedToDeath, on 05/08/2008, -25/+53You'll also see a complete and utter financial system collapse. Lots of people will die. Lots of people will starve. Your life will most likely go in the ***** with the rest of us. Is that the kind of change you're looking for, you selfish deluded prick?
- pkon, on 05/08/2008, -6/+5Damn, looks like when fall comes around I'll have to find another method of transportation when I am commuting to school T_T, looks like it is time to take the bus. It is already so damn hard to afford the gas prices for me in Canada =(
- Waterrat, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8 The bus is not so bad.
- Densetsu, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Depends where you are. In Edmonton, when I lived downtown and commuted to the University -- both major hubs for busses -- things were fine.
Now that I'm in the suburbs... I can either drive 20 minutes to get to work, or sit on a bus for 75 minutes. Hell if I'm wasting away 2*(75-20) = 110 minutes a day taking public transportation to work.
If we had better busses and a larger LRT (e.g. subway) system here, things would be a lot different. But the city is *much* to sprawled out for something like that to happen in the near future.- kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I live in OKC after 6pm what bus am I going to take?
- kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I live in OKC after 6pm what bus am I going to take?
- Densetsu, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Depends where you are. In Edmonton, when I lived downtown and commuted to the University -- both major hubs for busses -- things were fine.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 05/08/2008, -10/+1stop cussing
- m3th0dm4n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Are you referring to 'damn'? If so.... wow.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Yep its a bad word.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2stop breathing.
- m3th0dm4n, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Are you referring to 'damn'? If so.... wow.
- apetrie, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5If you live in the GTA or Montreal, or Vancouver etc. you're a fool if you aren't using public transit already!
- Waterrat, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8 The bus is not so bad.
- FearFactory, on 05/08/2008, -9/+8I wouldn't be suprised if it hits $6.00 for regular by the end of June.
- Danzig777, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Looks like the SUV drivers are digging you down
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Hehe. It's the modern day equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. If we digg it down then it will make it not true.
- Witchbaby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3That seriously makes me wanna puke...
- FecalHurler, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1So you expect the price to double in a month? Isn't that just a tad far-fetched?
- Danzig777, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Looks like the SUV drivers are digging you down
- manstein01, on 05/08/2008, -19/+12As soon as we stop printing dollars like they are postcards oil will stop going up.
And stop bitching people. Learn to sacrifice a little. I am sorry you will not be able to buy each member of the family a new laptop, new SUV for the wifey, and take three vacations this summer to a destination of your choice. Deal with it.- Samohtneas, on 05/08/2008, -2/+14Not everyone has that kind of money, mind you... just getting around on a part time job in school can be a problem sometimes.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Okie, Ron.
- Jaablaze, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Buried for not understanding what life is like for the majority of the country...
- slifty, on 05/08/2008, -1/+31I get your reasoning - people need a kick in the pants and high prices is a good way of doing it, but "praying" for that is like praying for a war in Iraq that everyone will hate just so that a Democrat can get office in 08.
Just remember that rich hogs with H2's aren't the only ones who use gas. - fishroy, on 05/08/2008, -13/+17Quit complaining. If oil companies are making record profits, invest in them and get in on the action. High food prices? Invest in GE foods. Complaining about prices doesn't help. Take action.
- RustyJ, on 05/08/2008, -3/+9I would invest, But I have to go fill up my car so I can make it to work.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Turn off your internet, stop buy frivolous things (like xbox games), bring your insurance deductible up, there are a ton of ways you can raise some cash, you just have to be creative.
- RustyJ, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1i'm on the internet at work, I've never owned an xbox, my insurance is just fine. Thanks for the tip, but it was sarcasm.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Turn off your internet, stop buy frivolous things (like xbox games), bring your insurance deductible up, there are a ton of ways you can raise some cash, you just have to be creative.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -5/+6See why you're getting dugg down? You're telling people to stop bitching and do something about their predicament. That's not the Digg way. The Digg way is to bitch about something, blame it on Bush, regardless of the problem, and praise be Almighty Obama/Ron Paul.
- SpacePoet, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Whatever, how dare you presume to know who i am or any digg user, you aren't the judge, you are in the jury just like the rest of us. I think he is getting dugg down for the same reason i dugg him down. He believes that greed is good, that we should sit back and rake in some profit from the same shady practices that got us here in the first place. Sure, he might make some money, but if money is the only objective, his practice leads to the selling of your soul. If I am going to invest, it will be in commodities that are going to help get us away from this crap.
- Wargalas, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1you forgot your /sarcasm tag.
- SpacePoet, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Whatever, how dare you presume to know who i am or any digg user, you aren't the judge, you are in the jury just like the rest of us. I think he is getting dugg down for the same reason i dugg him down. He believes that greed is good, that we should sit back and rake in some profit from the same shady practices that got us here in the first place. Sure, he might make some money, but if money is the only objective, his practice leads to the selling of your soul. If I am going to invest, it will be in commodities that are going to help get us away from this crap.
- sagenhoney, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Yea, just "sell out" already ...oops I mean "buy in" Whatever floats your boat I guess. There is nothing wrong with success, but I find it to be a problem when other people suffer from it.
- FecalHurler, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Invest in ExxonMobile? At nearly $90 a share we wouldn't make much unless we have thousands upon thousands to invest. And because most of the people here are either students or recent-grads, that seems an unlikely scenario. Plus let's not forget the student loans that easily go over the $100,000 mark for many people.
What you're saying just isn't realistic. - mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1When prices rise, it does not necessarily mean that the company is making more money. Take your example, GE Foods, the prices are not rising because management wants to buy private jets; the prices are rising because the prices of transportation and raw materials are going up and they have to pass those costs onto the consumer.
- DeFex, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5yes everyone has tons of cash lying about to invest.
what a stupid comment. its like "who cares if the ocean is polluted, get a swimming pool"
- RustyJ, on 05/08/2008, -3/+9I would invest, But I have to go fill up my car so I can make it to work.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 05/08/2008, -9/+13Oh come on -- who doesn't know this? The military is buying up diesel because they KNOW the price will top $140 per barrel this summer. Prices rise in the summer and usually fall slightly in the winter -- it doesn't mean it won't be up in the summer of 2009 -- but of course, everyone will have forgotten this article by then, or the Democrats may bring back oversight -- which will reduce the price gouging. Yeah, sure their MIGHT be peak oil, and the war and China's consumption raising prices -- but we also don't know how rigged the "market" is for gas. We also can assume that the devaluation of the dollar has an impact, because the price rise isn't happening so much in other countries.
Oil Industry: record profits.
ADM and Monsanto: record profits.
Banks: Record profits (or did you think Bear Stearns was everything?)
Who is winning and who is losing? It's pretty simple if you look at what industries are making money and where we are hurting in our economy.
With elections in November, the Banks and Big Oil will make everything seem as good as possible so that they can raise prices again. After January, they will go back to stealing every dollar that isn't nailed down.
And what is this with corn going up? We exported more corn than ever before even after the 20% going to Ethanol. Is EVERYONE trying to gouge the public because they've realized we have nobody looking out for us?
Hey, Bill O'Reilly, I really appreciate how you got my back covered. Thanks for never reporting about anything that would actually impact our lives.- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10"And what is this with corn going up?"
Perhaps the farmers have learned that they can actually make a profit on their crops and will give their product away at a loss no more? I guess that's just wishful thinking.- SpacePoet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3We are getting boned. Why are we still subsidizing these farms to either make corn, a highly profitable crop, or to let fields sit empty to inflate the bubble.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1$6/bu. isn't highly profitable. Input costs are roughly $4/bu. and then you have all the other expenses of running a farm operation. But you're right, subsidies aren't needed at the current crop prices.
- SpacePoet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3We are getting boned. Why are we still subsidizing these farms to either make corn, a highly profitable crop, or to let fields sit empty to inflate the bubble.
- stinkypickles, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6If you've lived in America for more than a month, you'd realize that it's every man for himself here. That's the habbit that needs to be kicked. We have higher gas prices because OUR OWN PEOPLE ARE PRICE GOUGING US! Everything is about money and greed in this country and I'm getting really ***** tired of it!
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1And it starts with the outrageous taxes the government (State & Fed) puts on gasoline. The same government that all the liberals think is going to save them from high gas prices.
- sparkrainfir, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The outrageous 18 cent tax? Where do you suspect the other 3.55 goes? Funny, when gas was .99 a gallon no one complained about being taxed then! You ***** people make me sick.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1And it starts with the outrageous taxes the government (State & Fed) puts on gasoline. The same government that all the liberals think is going to save them from high gas prices.
- kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2the devaluation of the dollar is a big deal, but wages haven't been raised to offset it thus we are in a real pickle.
- skidooer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10"And what is this with corn going up?"
- elig, on 05/08/2008, -20/+53I pray for $10 per gallon! To hell with your sense of entitlement to unlimited, cheap nonrenewable resources. We won't be dumping our oil addiction until there's pain in our dependency on it.
(I just took a high speed train through Germany - windmills and solar panels everywhere. They're building nearly a GIGAWATT per year of solar capacity alone.)- executorzz, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Pray for your $10 a gallon...rich people will buy oil commodities to hedge against the increase of gas price, while the poor continue to suffer with higher food prices and everything else that also increases with gas. Praying for $10 is quite short-sighted indeed.
BTW, the U.S. is building some of the biggest solar energy farms in the nevada desert.- fuzed, on 05/08/2008, -2/+10Wrong - the rich will realize the raising cost of oil and go out and buy hybrids and electric cars. The poor will go out and get rediculous loans for Escalades and Hummers with tinted windows and 20 inch rims - not realizing they can't afford it in the first place. But hey, at least they'll look cool playing their stereos at an absurd level in their driveway.
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Gee, nice litany of ignorant right wing assumptions.
The poor spelling is bonus.- fuzed, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Too bad I'm about as liberal as they get. The truth hurts. Sorry.
...and how about this for spelling: go fcuk yourself. - chicofaraby, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Yeah, the way you said that poor people are stupid and lazy sounded totally liberal.
And it's not my fault you can't use spell check. - kuzotz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1fuzed I'm really liberal, but you're just an idiot. Only the middle class take out loans for SUVs. Most Americans are within their means of what they can afford, and deal with the social implications of it. Anyway the current problem isn't the fact that it's costing more to fill up an SUV. Its costing more to fill up my ***** car. Something that use to cost 20 dollars is now costing me 50 dollars, and I am a student, and I am in an area were you need a car to ***** survive. It's getting to the point where I am going to spend more on gas than I am earning in a day at my job. But since I am a student if worse comes to worse. I might have to just get an on campus job, and live on campus. With that being said. College students can easily go unaffected by the current economy, but what happens after graduation, and after graduate school. You see. This is going to be my problem in the future rather I like it or not, but anytime we try to propose solutions people like you have already lost hope, and then most people tell you to STFU. Even if gas hits 10 bucks a gallon. Well nothing will change. That's just America. America right now isn't about what's good for the people. It's thinking about what's good for those who have money because apparently money equates into better genetics.
- fuzed, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Too bad I'm about as liberal as they get. The truth hurts. Sorry.
- chicofaraby, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Gee, nice litany of ignorant right wing assumptions.
- fuzed, on 05/08/2008, -2/+10Wrong - the rich will realize the raising cost of oil and go out and buy hybrids and electric cars. The poor will go out and get rediculous loans for Escalades and Hummers with tinted windows and 20 inch rims - not realizing they can't afford it in the first place. But hey, at least they'll look cool playing their stereos at an absurd level in their driveway.
- SpacePoet, on 05/08/2008, -0/+11And to think we bombed them into the stone age 60 years ago, now they are way beyond. Got to hand it to the Germans and a lot of European countries, they are smart thinkers and doers.
- cadmiumpaint, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4$10/gallon would solve traffic congestion and smog problems in big cities......not to mention sending hybrid sales through the roof.
- executorzz, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Pray for your $10 a gallon...rich people will buy oil commodities to hedge against the increase of gas price, while the poor continue to suffer with higher food prices and everything else that also increases with gas. Praying for $10 is quite short-sighted indeed.
- wukillabee, on 05/08/2008, -17/+44hertes an idea.. STOP USING SO MUCH ***** GAS!
- jbettineski, on 05/08/2008, -3/+17Stop consuming goods.
Considerably more oil is used by the commercial and industrial sectors then the amount used by drivers.- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Wait for it......
"Dat damn Dubya is somehow causin all dat consumerin."
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Wait for it......
- daschupa, on 05/08/2008, -1/+18We all can't have our mom drive us.
- jbettineski, on 05/08/2008, -3/+17Stop consuming goods.
- Altotus, on 05/08/2008, -9/+13Since Bush took office, the price of oil has gone up 400%, but the price of gas has gone up about 125% (in the US). Our taxes on gasoline just aren't high enough to account for the mismatch. So why isn't gas $6.50 / gallon?
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -1/+14Because we don't pour crude into our cars.
- mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1They should be related though. It takes just as much crude to make gas as it did 8 years ago but the prices have not increased at the same rate.
- Number23, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5And they've nearly doubled since Polesi took control of Congress and she promised that the dems would lower gas prices.
- dexter411, on 05/08/2008, -1/+14Because we don't pour crude into our cars.
- ncc74656m, on 05/08/2008, -11/+15I am looking forward to the most expensive gas possible. I drive a Corolla which gets 35 MPG, and you know what? I don't think it's enough. It isn't sparking enough innovation. And to be honest, unless I need to go hundreds of miles, I can bike most places I need to go.
Who else here is holding out hope for the VW 1L, among many others options?- neosolace, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6It kinda sucks though, when you commute an hour to work, no trains are available, and you cant bike 10 miles to the grocery store...
- DCesque, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4That does suck. Now you know better than living in the burbs in an area with no transit. Some of us read between the lines and saw this crisis coming a long time ago. We've ditched our cars, using bikes, public transit, and our own two feet. When job hunting, we PRO ACTIVELY look for jobs nearby, instead of looking for the job with the highest pay, even if that means becoming a commuter.
We ALL have a choice.
- WileyK, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0I think I just got bukkaked with pretentious.
You, sir, are a *****.
- WileyK, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0I think I just got bukkaked with pretentious.
- DCesque, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4That does suck. Now you know better than living in the burbs in an area with no transit. Some of us read between the lines and saw this crisis coming a long time ago. We've ditched our cars, using bikes, public transit, and our own two feet. When job hunting, we PRO ACTIVELY look for jobs nearby, instead of looking for the job with the highest pay, even if that means becoming a commuter.
- executorzz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Well the poor guy who goes to the market and sees the run up on food which is linked to increase in gas will think that it's about enough. Or do you not buy your own groceries?
Admittedly I too drive a corolla and it's pretty fuel efficient. A better option than a prius if you ask me. - wattersm, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3I hope you enjoy everything else being as expensive as possible too, food doesn't get to the grocery store by itself.
- neosolace, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6It kinda sucks though, when you commute an hour to work, no trains are available, and you cant bike 10 miles to the grocery store...
- FearisFailure, on 05/08/2008, -7/+11WHOOOHOOO!! It took me $100 bucks yesterday to fill up my truck! just like Queen said I want to ride my bicycle!! I like to ride to my bike!
- homerjs, on 05/08/2008, -7/+1That was Nazareth...not Queen
- metfuel, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Wow did google tell you that or are you just a reatard?? :D
- crashcarstar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+9Unless you are a contractor or it's a work truck, maybe you should ditch the truck Tex.
- smackafiyah, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Dugg you up because I love that song.
- homerjs, on 05/08/2008, -7/+1That was Nazareth...not Queen
- s0ul5, on 05/08/2008, -11/+9World's oil production will peak very soon (if already hasn't), so it's no use worrying about gas prices. Meaning that there will be bigger things to worry.. :/
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil- SteelFrog, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8Whether we want to accept it or not, oil is going to run out eventually; it's non-renewable and we'll have to seek out other means of producing cheaper, cleaner energy in the near future. I just hope I get to live long enough to see the day.
- jbettineski, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6nuclear is here now.
- mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Most people seem to think that nuclear reactors are scary and dangerous on Digg. When in fact, when implemented correctly, it is one of the safest forms of power. (Obviously solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are cleaner, but they produce far less energy and at greater cost)
"According to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not listed in this report and is probably unknown."
(Cliffnotes: coal power plants put off 100 times as much radiation as nuclear plants of the same size.)- mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1lol, digg hive mind at work. 'Oh no! He is defending nuclear power! Better digg him down before anyone reads it.'
You can believe what you want; but we will run out of oil some time in the not-so-distant future. The technology for wind and solar power is not really ready to be implemented on a large scale yet. Hydroelectricity is not an option for most places. Nuclear power is one of the best options at the moment. Eventually we will have Fusion Power and everyone can be happy, at least everyone who understands how it works.
- mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1lol, digg hive mind at work. 'Oh no! He is defending nuclear power! Better digg him down before anyone reads it.'
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Is that really an option? GW can't say it and the liberals are afraid of it.
- mxmj, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Most people seem to think that nuclear reactors are scary and dangerous on Digg. When in fact, when implemented correctly, it is one of the safest forms of power. (Obviously solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are cleaner, but they produce far less energy and at greater cost)
- jbettineski, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6nuclear is here now.
- blackgt93, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Hey wait, if we're at peak oil production shouldn't it be cheaper? WTF is gonna happen when oil becomes more scarce? *shudder*
- SteelFrog, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8Whether we want to accept it or not, oil is going to run out eventually; it's non-renewable and we'll have to seek out other means of producing cheaper, cleaner energy in the near future. I just hope I get to live long enough to see the day.
- Andysan, on 05/08/2008, -3/+10While we may be paying a stupid tax at the pump for not developing new domestic oil sources, the politicians responsible will almost certainly pay a reelection price in November.
- YZBot, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Maybe, the vast majority of the population doesn't seem to understand the connection. Politicians have intentionally inhibited domestic oil development with one hand, while the other hand scolds the oil industry. The general public is falling for it hook-line-and-sinker too. We are beyond any ease of pain now. Any move towards either an alternative or an increase in domestic oil production will take at least a decade. The pain is here to stay.
- lukemann, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Who are we to blame. Neither the democrats or the republicans did jack sh*t. They're all asleep at the wheel.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Nor should they except for lowing the taxation on it. It's the profitable private sector that needs to step up and start developing alternate fuel systems and products. They are just now starting to do it so it will take a while but they are starting to realize that there are some profits to be made.
- lukemann, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1The government funds research into new drugs and treatments. How come they're aren't funding research into alternative energy. Energy is fundamentally vital to this country and they're ignoring it.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Nor should they except for lowing the taxation on it. It's the profitable private sector that needs to step up and start developing alternate fuel systems and products. They are just now starting to do it so it will take a while but they are starting to realize that there are some profits to be made.
- secrity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I dugg you up for optimism.
- MattB123, on 05/08/2008, -2/+19"Domestic gasoline consumption is likely to fall more steeply than expected this year, the Energy Department said, an indication that higher prices are cutting into the driving habits of many Americans."
I see this as a good thing. Maybe people will take energy consumption seriously now.- Arkonnan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1And the oil companies will raise their prices to compensate. This is what happened after our provincial government tried to push the conservation agenda. The utility monopoly didn't take too kindly to the drop in profits and adjusted prices to meet their projected revenues.
- MattB123, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4That's to be expected. But as people use less and prices continue to rise, they will hopefully continue to decrease consumption.
This will also make alternative energy sources look more appealing. We need to get our collective heads out of our asses and address this crisis. And when I say address the crisis I don't mean just suspending taxes so people can continue to over-consume fuel. I mean alternative energy sources, carpooling, increased public transport, bike commuting, etc.
- MattB123, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4That's to be expected. But as people use less and prices continue to rise, they will hopefully continue to decrease consumption.
- Arkonnan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1And the oil companies will raise their prices to compensate. This is what happened after our provincial government tried to push the conservation agenda. The utility monopoly didn't take too kindly to the drop in profits and adjusted prices to meet their projected revenues.
- lead2thehead, on 05/08/2008, -7/+2On the bright side, paying $4.00 for a gallon of gas is really going to motivate people to find alternative fuels. And after the oil companies go out of business, I can drive my brand new, clean, quiet, environmentally-friendly, fusion powered car all over Texas, pointing and laughing at the abandoned refineries.
- Tiemmothi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I'm paying $4 a gallon now in Nebraska, but my car gets good enough gas mileage i fill it up once every month and a half driving too and from work.
- lead2thehead, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Well good for you. But those of us who have to drive farther than half a mile per day want something better.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1A month and a half? You work in your garage?
- Hendo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Really? Where can I find an electric vehicle, or hydrogen that doesn't cost $100,000?!
I live in a rural area and drive 20 miles to work. I can't afford this crap, let along find an alternative fuel.- lead2thehead, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2They don't exist yet. That's why I said it will MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO FIND alternative fuels... you know... invest a little more time and money into making something that's affordable? Because eventually, replacing your car will be cheaper than filling it up with gas every week.
- Tiemmothi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I'm paying $4 a gallon now in Nebraska, but my car gets good enough gas mileage i fill it up once every month and a half driving too and from work.
- Bratan1, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7Oil is predicted to come down, even this year, because it's over priced:
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13536
Good try though- earlycj5, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Might be getting dugg up not down if you posted a link to something you could read:
http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/200 ... - Bratan1, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but the link worked for me
- earlycj5, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Might be getting dugg up not down if you posted a link to something you could read:
- centran, on 05/08/2008, -4/+7What is with all these people hoping gas prices will continue to go up? You do realize that we are heading into the big old "D" word and one of the major factors that will determine how far we fall is gas prices.
- wukillabee, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1D...igg?
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2D...onuts?
- MattB123, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1That's what it will take for things to truly change. Until a big economic incentive (pain) is there to change our ways, we will continue with the status quo. It's human nature.
- 2612, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2A depression?? Are you kidding? We're not even in a recession (recession = negative growth; get it? the economy RECEDES) and things are starting to pick up already. To use the "D" word is to be a drama queen
- centran, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Several states are stated as being in a recessions. We are at a very delicate tipping point. Higher gas prices are just going to push us over the ledge and I fear that the fall will be a long one.
- MiserJ, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1YAY!!! Depression! One more reason for me to put a gun to my head.
- centran, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Don't do it!!!!
um... I really don't know you enough to convince you not to do it... so, um... I love you? there does that work?
- centran, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Don't do it!!!!
- wukillabee, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1D...igg?
- b00le, on 05/08/2008, -10/+7Here in Italy it's $8.50 a gallon, but I haven't owned a car for 30 years. I take a lot of taxis, hire a car when I need one: no insurance, no worries about it getting stolen, lots of time to read on the train. The car is an anachronism in a city like Rome. The US could supply all its energy needs from renewable sources and it wouldn't cost as much as this war, and you wouldn't have to shoot anyone. $10? Make it $100!
- MaxPayne3476, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3First, I'm going to Rome in 15 days :-D then Venice and Florence FTW
Second, there's a few problems that the United States in relation to energy
1) Most people live in Suburbia. 25 miles from their job. 5 miles to a grocery store. 35 miles to the relatives. It all adds up. Mass transit in these places simply dont work, because trying to accommodate these people proves very difficult and the effectiveness is minimal. (see Burlington, NJ Burlink)
Second, Philly has a very similar program to what you described called PhillyCarShare you rent the car when you need it, don't pay for it when you don't. Insurance is covered as is gas. It's a really genius move for cities and I hope to see a similar plan in all cities soon.
Taxis around here are sketchy at best, they work in the city - but around here, I wouldn't trust a taxi driver to get me anywhere. But they're expensive as all holy hell. More expensive then putting gas in your car.- yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Of course taxis are more expensive than putting gas in your car. They RUN ON GAS!
- YZBot, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6What works transportation-wise in Italy, or other countries in the area, doesn't always work in the U.S. Outside of the older urban areas mass transit is still in its infancy. In Minneapolis, MN, U.S. we are just now getting a light rail system. It's operates at a loss each year because ridership is so low. Many, many U.S. cities do not have the population density to effectively utilize mass transit systems.
- simbait, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1As long you own a house in one of the most expensive city centers in the world and have money for the most expensive Taxis in the world you are absolutely fine
- MaxPayne3476, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3First, I'm going to Rome in 15 days :-D then Venice and Florence FTW
- barney74, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6As a common place, where I live (northern Indiana) is within a few cents of the national average, and as of this morning I saw $3.85.
- trixterIreland, on 05/08/2008, -5/+11The price of gas in the US is higher than what you pay at the pump because of how you pay for it. Federal income tax money is used to give subsidies to the oil industry, while I personally havent researched exact figures, I have heard that it amounts to a couple of dollars per gallon of refined gas (its paid to the refiners as I understand it, and based on crude gallons, which are then refined into what you put into your car). The federal excise tax goes to the highway trust fund not the general fund such as income tax so that really isnt used for the subsidies.
With that said gas here is about $9/gallon (1.55€/litre). 70% or so is dutch taxes, making the real cost of a gallon of gas $2.40 or so. I do not know if there are subsidies here, but it would seem odd that given how costs are going to be close to the same in both places to turn it from crude and get it to the pumps, that its actually cheaper when you strip out all the taxes. This makes me think that refiners have additional taxes that they pay in the US that arent present here (or that dutch subsidies are larger, I dont even know if they exist).
In my opinion it is stupid to tax one place then give subsidies in another, there is a cost to levy and collect taxes, there is a cost to disburse funds. The people who basically just shuffle money around have salaries, benefits, buildings they work in, etc. It would be cheaper to the public at large to do away with the subsidies (making the people that use gas actually pay for it instead of those that do not) and also to drop many of the taxes associated with it that pay for those subsidies (giving relief for those that really do not use much if any gas).
The overhead associated with collecting from peter to pay paul would be removed and in theory allow for those same dollars to be used more effectively. This would also make for a much more reasonable tax incentive type program, while people will feel the pinch a little more at the pump they wont feel it from their paycheck as much. And is it really fair that people who try to conserve, people who carpool, people who take mass transit, people who have electric vehicles subsidise the prices for those that dont? I think people should pay for what they use, and no more (this argument applies to many many things not just gas).
Then we get onto the issue of refineries, there are about 14 different blends of gas used in the US. Bush tried to stop that madness many years ago and make 1 national blend that everyone could agree on so that regional shortages and thus higher prices in some places, could be avoided. 2 of the loudest opponents were Diane Fienstein and Barbra Boxer both dem senators from california. The oil company was siding with the democrats on this one they did not want regional shortages and thus higher prices to go away. All of this is public record if you doubt that bush was against hte oil companies and democrats were siding with them, even in the "liberal media".
Now we get to the last issue with gas prices, some of it is with the supply of crude, but some of it is with the refinery capacity. There have been many instances where you could not get more rude into the country because the refineries couldnt handle it. There are those that fight tooth and nail to stop them from being built, law makers who pass laws to prevent gas from being imported into their states (crude is fine though), etc. This sillyness has to stop sometime, until there is a viable alternative gas is required, and unless you want increasing prices at least 1-2 more refineries really do need to be built.
If any one of these 3 things were done it would have an impact, the first one would actually offer real relief to those that want to conserve, and if proposed on the floor of both the house and senate would show who is in the oil companies pockets (hint its not limited to a single party here, why do you think no