Why is Gasoline so Cheap?

Dude, I start the IV drip at 7:00 and pull the plug at midnight! ;)

Yup, do that too! See, I love Garlic, but others don't, so if you eat a half a handful of roasted Coffee beans...voila!

I don't know if this plays in other parts of the country, but there's a Sealy matress commercial that has a woman asking how the salesmen stay awake, and the guy goes, D'heh...

Then it cuts to the back room and shows one guy just gulping coffe from the pot, and another guy eating big spoonfuls right from the can. My Mom says they must have gotten that from me...

It's kind of stupid to leave it running unattended in the USA, too - even if you put a "Club" locking bar on the steering wheel and lock the doors, you can come out and find your car stolen.

Or your luck really sucks, and you come back to find your car on fire/dead because it overheats or loses oil pressure (or something else happens that's seriously not healthy for an engine) and you weren't there to safely shut it down.

The base cost of fuel at the refinery is roughly the same in the US and Europe, but your fuel gets a VAT slapped on at each stop in the distribution network, and the taxes at the retail pump are higher.

Well, /somebody/ is still spending a good chunk of that money /you/ saved on fuel. All passenger rail transportation in the US is subsidized by government to some degree, through Amtrak and other agencies operating their own trains mostly over the private national rail system...

Passenger rail normally can't break into a true profit solely from the farebox income, or the US railroads would still be operating their own for-profit passenger rail services to make money. Diesel fuel is even higher than gasoline, and they still need to generate the power for electrified trains somewhere...

And I'll bet it's not much different in Europe, though the accountants can get out their 'sharp pencils' and make more of the costs "disappear" (Poof!) because they own and operate the national railroads. Creating the happy illusion of breaking even on the services, or allegedly making a profit.

-->--

All the more reason it should be priced by the market.

Of course it is. If it wasn't for consumer demand, the price would drop.

That is the problem. Too many people think they are paying the federal government to look out for them instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.

I've been waiting for 70 years now. It doesn't change that much.

Merritt

Nixon, Ford, Carter policy may have had a lot to do with it, but I don't think you can say any of them "planned" to have an oil shortage.

As to serving only one term, the only presidents in recent memory to serve more than one term are Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II. Nixon resigned, Ford was booted by Carter, Carter was booted by Reagan, Bush I was booted by Clinton (did I get that right?).

Like when, about a year ago, before his re-election, he whispered into the ear of his Saudi cousin, and by magic oil prices came down. Of course Bush wants the oil market to function. Oil is the Bush family business. High oil prices are good for people who sell oil. I don't think Bush letting the oil market function has anything to do with ideology, but has everything to do with making money (nothing wrong with that, just don't let yourself be fooled).

I agree, but Bush has little incentive to build competition to the oil market. Let's wait and see if Bush does anything to encourage the building of nuclear power plants.

The French are also smart in HOW they build nuclear power plants. They have a standard government approved design that is proven reliable and safe. When we were building nuclear power plants, each plant was a custom design, and government oversight, while no doubt extensive, was mostly incompetent.

Merritt

Of course we would. $2 had no impact, $3 is just on the verge of getting people's attention. At $5 there would be some impact on behavior, but there would be no major change. The impact would not be so much in reducing oil consumption, but the consumer would have less to spend elsewhere and that would negatively affect the economy.

Merritt

The last time I saw a list (a couple of days ago), Gasoline in Japan was cheaper than in most European countries.

Merritt

No, I drive economy cars (Toyotas only for the past 20 years) and voted for Kerry. I am a lifelong Democrat and liberal (practically a socialist). I advocate the expansion of public transit. But I understand (to some degree) how the economy works, and I know you can not set prices by government decree. The only leads to market distortion and inefficient allocation of resources.

Of course it doesn't. Inflation has to do with how much real goods a dollar will buy. Inflation has been under control for some time now. But an uncontrolled increase in oil prices can lead to inflation in the future, as most products depend to some degree on the price of oil.

What shortage? There would be a shortage if the price were kept artificially low inducing more demand. The rising price is how the market deals with and allocates a resource that is becoming more scarce. The higher price is exactly what prevents a shortage.

Merritt

Nothing but oil-speak for opportunistic profiteering.

More oil-speak for opportunistic profiteering.

Notice last quarter's oil company profits? Hardly makes me feel like donating to the "fund".

Sure'd like to see that calculation. Don't mind a check of your figures do ya oilman?

Frigging around with currencies is EXACTLY what you JUST SAID is "The absolute WORST thing that could be done". Makeup your mind!

Like I said: "We all pay [BIG time] for the federal government to look out for us in matters such as this".

Well, not quite. You are correct about supply and demand, but the Bush family business is OIL, and Bush is in a position to affect both. He can affect demand by his policies on fuel efficiency and the availability of public transit. When he felt it was politically helpful to lower the price of oil, he talked to his Saudi business partners and they lowered the price (increased the supply) at his request. Now that he is no longer going to run for re-election, it is best for the Bush family to let oil prices rise, so long at the rise is not so abrupt as to harm the economy to the degree that oil demand is diminished.

Merritt

Well, according to your definition (which is correct) the rising price of gas does LEAD to inflation, since energy is required for anyhting that gets to market, from manufacturing to transporting. What's up with the price of lettuce? Now, granted that went way up beforfe gas prices rose, but it has a LOT to do with the energy required to get the water to grow the lettuce, and then transport it to market. Hundreds of tons of lettuce are shipped cross-country by rail, and the price of this will be going up, so expect to pay even more for that head of lettuce.

Ya know, I don't really mind the price of gas, but screw with the price of my lettuce and you're a goner!

Don't move to Boston. Then you would have to get used to it being called "tonic".

Merritt (who calls it "soda pop")

You don't have to guess. Just use the CPI inflation calculator on the internet. From 1964 to 2004 the inflation factor is 6.094.

So that $3000 Ford would be $18,282 in 2004 dollars.

The $0.35 gasoline would be $2.13.

The calculator is at:

Or, if you don't like the CPI, go to

for a variety of other inflation indexes.

Merritt

Tonic=Carbonated beverage, like coke Soda=a drink, usually from a soda fountain, with carbonated water, flavoring, and usually, ice cream, like a Strawberry Soda

And it's pronounced something like twahnic...with no a lot of emphasis on the 'w'.

I'm from Western Mass. When I lived in Boston, I'd ask for a soda and people would look at me like I had three heads, because I was usually in a place where you couldn't get a 'soda'. Then I moved about 20 miles out of Boston and it was the same; but go 7 miles north into NH, and things become normal again...

And about, what, 60% (?) of that price is TAXES. Nothing to do with the cost of selling you the fuel.

...

"FanJet" wrote in news:LDSMe.68$ snipped-for-privacy@newshog.newsread.com:

Oil companies do not set oil prices, commodities markets do. Just like electricity, corn and pork bellies.

Please do. I'm quoting from memory there. $2 in 1979 might have been MORE than $10 in today's dollars. Consider that inflation was running about 20% per annum for a couple of years after that, and about 10% for a few more years again after that.

Central banks consider a 3% per year debasement to be a "correct" figure to adhere to, meaning they collect an annual 3% tax on your earnings, quite apart from the other overt and covert taxes they also collect. Bush's administration has been exceeding that figure by quite a bit over the least few years. The price of gold in US dollars is the telltale.

You are confused. Fiat currency is subject to arbitrary and potentially endless debasement, unlike gold, for instance.

Currency debasement is just another name for inflation.

If the stock of money were left unchanged, and its value increased and decreased according to the amount of capital and demand it represented, things might be more stable, but the government would lose a considerable sum in covert tax revenue.

You pay BIG time, that's for sure. And the more you want government to "look out for us", the more you PAY. Why are your taxes so high?

Suppose you believe Iraq was all about terrorists?

If he had successfully taken Iraq, or his father had taken Iran, then he would be setting worldwide petrol prices. And you can guarantee you'd be paying at least double.

-mark

Everyone can participate in making money from oil, check Vanguard energy fund, it's up to almost 46 percent over the last 12 months.

What would you rather have, high availability and high prices or fuel rationing and not quite so high prices?

For myself I don't want fuel rationing and I don't like lines. I have a choice to pay the price or walk. I can do both but I have a choice which is what I like.