High gas prices? Blame the real culprits.

[MethodMan]

Sure. Let's say I increase my revenue by 100%. The layman would expect my profit to double, but he would be wrong.

I could agree somewhat that most people do not understand what revenue is.

However, with that added revenue I may have added additional workforce, bought equipment, etc. These things would be generally considered good things.

However, it's also possible that the extra money is squandered on frivilous items like excessive bonuses for executives. This would generally be considered bad.

In any case how a company spends it's revenue it will it will lower profit.

Yet in the case of a publicaaly held company, this isn't easliy passed by the shareholders.

When we hear of $450 million retirement bonuses one gets an idea of where some of the money is going.

less that .5% of the revenue from the first quarter. Nice try.

Simply looking at profit to make the claim that a company isn't making more money is a simplictic view and demonstrates little understanding of how businesses operate.

Yet no one was looking at the oil company profits when they operated in the red, did they?

 

[kermit]

Yet no one was looking at the oil company profits when they operated in the red, did they?

Is that an admission that profit is a weak and possibly deceptive indicator?

If so, then why were you using it?

 

[MethodMan]

Is that an admission that profit is a weak and possibly deceptive indicator?

Absolutely - When It is being misused by the media and politicians to hype the idea that gouging is going on.

If so, then why were you using it?

 

[kermit]

Absolutely - When It is being misused by the media and politicians to hype the idea that gouging is going on.

Profit is either a good or a poor indicator. If you are going to say that some are using it to present falsehoods then you are saying it's a poor indicator.

Yet you used it as evidence for your stance. Using evidence that you know it potenially misleading is very deceptive.

 

[MethodMan]

Profit is either a good or a poor indicator. If you are going to say that some are using it to present falsehoods then you are saying it's a poor indicator.

Yet you used it as evidence for your stance. Using evidence that you know it potenially misleading is very deceptive.

You might want to go read post #13 one more time. Then read what I actual did say in my first post.

 

[Grizzly]

.

No one wants that option. We like our cars. We will pay the higher prices and continue to complain as we drive our $3/gal cars to Starbucks for the $4 cup of coffee every morning.

I ride my bike to work every morning (rain or shine). It's 7 miles each way. I do it for health reasons (it's great excersize). But when all is said and done, I am not saving a tremendous amount of money by doing it. My car gets about 21 miles to the gallon back and forth from work. At 70 miles per week and 21 miles per gallon, I would consume about 3 and a 1/3 gallons per week. At $3.00/gallon, that's about 10 bucks. At 2 dollars a gallon, it would have been about $6.60. So, if I were driving to work and back instead of biking, the increase would have been about $3.40 a week. Pretty much the cost of lunch for one day.

 

[kermit]

You might want to go read post #13 one more time. Then read what I actual did say in my first post.

Post 13

Point was that oil company profit isn't either.

You are claiming that oil profits are not to blame for increased gas prices. In essence, you are saying that oil companies are not benefitting; that they are merely passing higher crude costs on to the consumer. This implicit claim is based upon profit which you later admit is a poor indicator.

Why don't you put the shovel down before the hole gets any deeper.

 

[MethodMan]

Post 13

You are claiming that oil profits are not to blame for increased gas prices. In essence, you are saying that oil companies are not benefitting; that they are merely passing higher crude costs on to the consumer. This implicit claim is based upon profit which you later admit is a poor indicator.

But it was a reply to the calim that it wasn't taxes.

Why don't you put the shovel down before the hole gets any deeper.

Why don't you go read my first post and you will see how barried you are by that shovel?

 

[kermit]

But it was a reply to the calim that it wasn't taxes.

That doesn't change the nature of your claim.

Why don't you go read my first post and you will see how barried you are by that shovel?

Your claims are not mutually exclusive. In fact they work quite well together.

From post 9

My real issue is with the folks setting the oil prices out of irrational feal of the future. Toss that in with refining capacity, fuel formualtions (to many to count) and lack of exploiting our own oil reserves leads me to believe that the Gov't doesn't have the capability to solve this issue.

So you are saying that oil prices are artifcially high which may be true. Your later claim about profits says that the oil companies are merely passing on the extra cost and are not benefitting.

Perhaps I am reading too much into your words, but so far you have yet to deny my interpretations.

 

[MethodMan]

That doesn't change the nature of your claim.


Your claims are not mutually exclusive. In fact they work quite well together.

From post 9

So you are saying that oil prices are artifcially high which may be true. Your later claim about profits says that the oil companies are merely passing on the extra cost and are not benefitting.

Perhaps I am reading too much into your words, but so far you have yet to deny my interpretations.

Of you excluded the rest of the post

 

[kermit]

Of you excluded the rest of the post

Exactly what part of post 9 contradicts your later claim about profits?

Care to point it out?

So what are the real reasons for the high prices?

You can't deny the Democrats have been trying to establish higher gas taxes. Republicans aren't doing much to reduce them.

Between Fed & state, the gas tax in PA is .495 per gallon or around 4-5X oil Company profit on a gallon. Seems a little hypocritcal of any Gov't official to opine about Oil Co. profit when they profit most from every mile you drive.


My real issue is with the folks setting the oil prices out of irrational feal of the future. Toss that in with refining capacity, fuel formualtions (to many to count) and lack of exploiting our own oil reserves leads me to believe that the Gov't doesn't have the capability to solve this issue.

We do. Stop driving your car. Not merely reducing how much you drive but stop completely.

No one wants that option. We like our cars. We will pay the higher prices and continue to complain as we drive our $3/gal cars to Starbucks for the $4 cup of coffee every morning.

 

[Arkanin]

I'm just curious, Methodman, what do you think of my thoughts on taxing oil production? I understand that it's easy for republicans to rip on the somewhat ignorant people who disagree with them, but when you get right down to business, you can make a highly informed argument that policies which discourage overuse of oil will benefit the world economy in the future.

Also, it's not the duty of an economist to ensure that a certain group's gas-guzzling SUV's will be able to continue to eat through oil at the lowest price possible; rather, economists should be interested in the long-term stability of the economy.

 

[MethodMan]

I'm just curious, Methodman, what do you think of my thoughts on taxing oil production? I understand that it's easy for republicans to rip on the somewhat ignorant people who disagree with them, but when you get right down to business, you can make a highly informed argument that policies which discourage overuse of oil will benefit the world economy in the future.

I believe I already stated that I don't think Gov't can solve anything. Especially taking more of the pie.

Also, it's not the duty of an economist to ensure that a certain group's gas-guzzling SUV's will be able to continue to eat through oil at the lowest price possible; rather, economists should be interested in the long-term stability of the economy.

You aren't a supply-sider are you? The problem with trying to restrain demand in this fashion is that you will choke off incentive to produce. Couple that with the rest fo the world's increase in demand and you won't achieve the desired result.

No - the answer would be to increase the supply while developing alternative means of energy AND transportation ( I am talking about moving goods more than people).

 

[kermit]

No - the answer would be to increase the supply while developing alternative means of energy AND transportation ( I am talking about moving goods more than people).

Now that makes sense.

 

[TheReasoner]

I believe I already stated that I don't think Gov't can solve anything. Especially taking more of the pie.

Do you think your govt is incompetent?

No - the answer would be to increase the supply while developing alternative means of energy AND transportation ( I am talking about moving goods more than people).

Exactly how would you suggest that would work?
Sounds a litle like trying to quench a fire by pouring gasoline on it... Almost literally actually, so I must admit I am intrigued.

 

[MethodMan]

Do you think your govt is incompetent?

Not by pandering to whiners, no.

Exactly how would you suggest that would work?
Sounds a litle like trying to quench a fire by pouring gasoline on it... Almost literally actually, so I must admit I am intrigued.

1. Don't force it by Gov't mandate.
2. Give people an incentive to develope these.

The best way to develope things is to creat a market where the investor has a reasonable chance to make money for his risk without getting spanked by taxes. Keep Gov't out of it as much as possible.

 

[nvxplorer]

The best way to develope things is to creat a market where the investor has a reasonable chance to make money for his risk without getting spanked by taxes. Keep Gov't out of it as much as possible.

When a finite commodity is controlled by an oligopoly, it’s no longer a matter of incentive. It’s a matter of stifling the competition, and that is where government should get involved.

What do you think ExxonMobil plans to do with its record profits? How do you think the name Mobil got added to Exxon?

 

[Alarum]

Brilliant, a classic Coulter work. It's not that the increasing number of SUVs and electricity consumption have driven the demand for gas up. It's not that the increasing cost of finding oil - offshore platforms, deep drilling, recovery programs, are driving the cost up. It's the fact that the left wants people to ride bicycles!

According to Coulter, if it wasn't for the left everyone would have lots of money, buy cheap gas, live happily and healthily, have low prices and plentiful supply. Sadly this idyllic world doesn't exist. There are costs you have to pay, and the left isn't responsible for the fact that there's a limited supply of oil and an increasing demand.

BTW, the misconceptions don't stop with Coulter:

It's the same up here in Canada; Liberal politicians raise gas taxes through the roof so they can rake in the cash as the price of oil increases. I'm trying to figure out how Alberta, with enough oil reserves to keep the entire country driving, has prices as high as the rest of the country. Then they complain about the oil companies making money. Yes, they're making a lot of profit, and yes, the Exxon chairman who just got a $400 million retirement package is a knob, but the left-wing politicians are the absolute last people on earth with the right to complain about being gouged at the pump.

I'm trying to figure out what would happen if you filled your gas tank with crude oil. Do you think that the fuel line would jam or do you think it would make it into the pistons?

The answer, Borealis, is simple: Gas refineries. All the crude oil in the world won't move your car one single foot.

 

[variant]

It's always everyone’s fault except the fifteen or twenty SUV's that pass me every day on my way to work. Or the people that I work with that live 50 miles away.

They all complain a bit too much if you ask me.

I do get a bit of a chuckle at the gas station every week or so.

It really doesn’t matter to me.

 

[JustJack!]

I say raise them. I say raise them high.

And it's gonna be real bad for the world when America goes into a recesion because of outrageous gas prices.

It's going be even worse when everyday Joe America can't afford to drive to work. That comes when gas hits about 6$ a gallon. Then it will be blood for oil.