Marx's Role in Gas Prices

The Senate also forgot to mention that they had voted for a mandantory reduction in imported oil without increasing domestic production in June of 2007. I wonder what that would do to gas prices?

When the masses realize that Congress is the main reason for high gas prices by not allowing domestic prodution to be increased over the years maybe they will get the boot.

This windfall production tax is a hoot

here is a sweet little bill that the Senate will probably pass also

here is the CBO report....

EPA would distribute allowances to emit specific quantities of those gases. Some of the allowances would be allocated to the Climate Change Credit Corporation (the Corporation), an entity created by this bill.

S. 2191 also would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. The most costly mandates would require certain types of private-sector entities to participate in the cap-and-trade programs for GHG emissions created by the bill. CBO estimates that the cost of those mandates would amount to more than $90 billion each year during the 2012-2016 period, and thus substantially exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).

translation: the companies will have to pay for these....and guess who the costs will be passed to?

So when your electric bill and gasoline prices increase even more...they will call the CEOs in and blame the cost increases on them also even though they created and passed the legislation.

Your Congress in action.... sapping your pocketbooks and blaming the evil companies....
 
When the masses realize that Congress is the main reason for high gas prices by not allowing domestic prodution to be increased over the years maybe they will get the boot.
And just how to you back up that assuation???
 
And just how to you back up that assuation???

domestic oil production = about 5.3 million barrels which will decrease as the wells age and cant produce as much.

oil imports = 13 million barrels a day

OPEC contols 80% of oil production

It takes years to get a well from the drilling stage to the production stage.

Do the math if we dont drill new wells now the oil imports will increase as the wells age and Congress does not allow any new drilling.

No Rocket Science involved.....

In fact the Congresional critters are so smart they want to pass reductions on the amount of oil we import to reduce it. If domestic production is pretty much a straight line with a slight decrease over the years and they want to cut 35% of the imported oil production to 8.5 million barrels that will put us at 12.5 million barrels of oil daily with demand at 20 million + barrels a day.

If you think you are paying high prices now...wait till Congress has it way and passes the oil reduction law and doesnt increase domestic production.

As the Shell CEO says your going to be crying big alligator tears
 
That doesn't show in any way that congress is responsible for gas prices. That is just a skewed perspective that the oil companies use to validate high prices and new drilling (which does little to affect oil price or availability but does puts billions of dollars in grants and funded studies into the pockets of oil companies...not to mention all the money made by the suppliers and other profiteers). Since price is NOT folloing the laws of supply and demand now, how can someone be so naive to think that it suddenly will if there is just a little bit more of it available?
 
So what? What I took from that is an over-paid oil executive threatening the American people with ever increasing gas prices if they are not given impunity to do as they see fit.

So what is you she used the word socialized. I completely agree with the government stepping in and protecting it's people from a cartel/monopoly that actively seeks to damage the economy and the individual citizen for personal profit.

You notice he did not respond to whether the drilling would lower prices. He deliberately sidestepped the question and returned a threat of increased cost...and in a very pompous and arrogant manner.
 
She didn't say break up your companies or proceed with anti-trust action, she said 'take over ALL of your companies. That's what socialism is, government OWNERSHIP of industry. Now they can't just DO it, they need to throughly villianize them first and they promise free stuff to the people first.

I understand that you and liberals in general agree would have with, and have no issue with what she said. The reality is that liberalism is socialism by a different name. Marxism has it's influence also of course but these are truths everyone has been aware of for quite some time and why 'liberal' has the stigma it does (hence the re-branding to 'progressive').

I like the GOP tact. Let the American public experience the Carter years again. Same environment as 1976. Same economic ideas (raise taxes and public programs), same foreign policy ideas (appease the terrorists and middle east sponsors), same energy policies (regulate these energy companies). And the same result, the utter disdain for anything Democrat for a couple decades. We've had one Democrat President since Carter and now Carter II is about t win the Democrat's nomination. Difference is Carter was more experienced then Carter II.

Maxine Waters has let it slip. Liberals are dancing the Chavez cha cha. The Kennedys LOVE this guy and the Democrat leadership in Congress is following his lead.
and passing legislation to give his oil company advatages over domestic companies.

Nationalize industry. That's a GREAT idea. Look how well they run everything else. What could go wrong....... After all, business having a 9% profit margin is obscene.
 
She didn't say break up your companies or proceed with anti-trust action, she said 'take over ALL of your companies. That's what socialism is, government OWNERSHIP of industry.
If the current owners cannot run their business without piracy and extortion then maybe the people should take back the infrastructure we paid for and run public utility companies.
The reality is that liberalism is socialism by a different name.
Absurd statement
Nationalize industry. That's a GREAT idea. Look how well they run everything else
Yeah, look how we have the worst interstate road systems (a government controlled and regulated system) in the world...err...wait...we have one of the best.

Well, look at how we have one of the least safe drinking water systems ( a highly government regulated industry) in the world...err..wait...we have one of the safest and most advanced.

And who do you think did almost all of the development and maintenance on the energy systems we have now. The government did with taxpayer money.
 
As I said. Liberals have zero quams with socialism. You called it absurd then defended it, brilliant, thank you.

Carter was a genius too right?

Social Security is going SPENDIDLY........opps.........no it's not, well they'll do better with health care.

Fact is Waters let it go that the REAL purpose of the hearings was to justify taking over the oil industry. None of them made any cogent arguments. They want to fix it then purpose the breaking up of their companies ala the Bell Telephone break up. Want to give them a fighting chance against the per barrel gouging, let them explore the areas that were set aside FOR oil exploration. Competion self regulates. Force them to be unable to compete with oil producers and legislate advantages for foreign competitors and play off the ignorance of the populace to demonize them. Chavez will be proud.
 
As I said. Liberals have zero quams with socialism. You called it absurd then defended it, brilliant, thank you.
You are using fauly logic by saying they are the same thing. I am a liberal and I love strawberries. That does not make liberalism and strawberries the same thing.
 
I guess your point is that all socialist may be liberals but not all liberals are socialists, gotcha. In all fairness I did say Marxists had their seat too. Bottom line is the belief that Government is the answer and capitalism is evil is the commonality. Call it whatever you like, a rose by any other name and all.

BTW. The Feds build highways and run construction companies?

And what water utilities are the feds running?

OH.....NONE......gotcha. Is that the faulty logic your referring to?

I believe the intelligent person would realize that when water companies ARE publicly owned it is by LOCAL municipalities NOT the feds.

Again you have proven my assertions. First by making an argument relying on an uninformed audience (the water roads thingy) AND by arguing FOR the socialism proposed by Waters while proclaiming your liberalism.

Strawberrys aren't representative of political mindset where proclivity toward socialism IS. More sub-par logic.

This is getting too easy...........:p
 
BTW. The Feds build highways and run construction companies?

And what water utilities are the feds running?
Both are heavily government regulated...and both seem to do quite well. The oil industry has almost no oversight what-so-ever and look where that has put us.
 
So what? What I took from that is an over-paid oil executive threatening the American people with ever increasing gas prices if they are not given impunity to do as they see fit.

So what is you she used the word socialized. I completely agree with the government stepping in and protecting it's people from a cartel/monopoly that actively seeks to damage the economy and the individual citizen for personal profit.

Personal profit? What do you toil for?

What pays you bills?

You notice he did not respond to whether the drilling would lower prices. He deliberately sidestepped the question and returned a threat of increased cost...and in a very pompous and arrogant manner.

The pomposity and arrogance of her question was dwarfed by the inane quality of her assumption that those men control the price of oil.

If the government had been responsible of petro development in the last century, we would still be riding horses and lighting our houses with whale oil.
 
Bottom line is the belief that Government is the answer and capitalism is evil is the commonality.

The liberals and socialists are often wrong on this point. But there is a flip side: many conservatives (especially libertarians) put too much faith in the free market. The truth is that capitalism only thrives under significant government regulation. Otherwise you end up with abusive monopolies and disasters like S&L junk bonds, Enron, and the mortgage crisis. Without strict government regulation, you also suffer from the tragedy of the commons -- this primarily results in environmental problems and pollution.

I'll posit that our current energy problems, as well as environmental problems are due to insufficient governmental regulation of the oil industry. (Global warming especially... scoff all you want, but as a professional scientist I can't help but laugh at the wishful thinking, ignorance, and FUD spread by the nay-sayers.) For decades, the government has allowed oil to be extracted with only token compensation; this was done because cheap energy is good for the economy. Well, now we're just beginning to pay the price for that, because we have a huge economy (and all the benefits that come from that, including a huge population which demands cheap energy) but the cheap oil is running out.

We've never paid the true cost for oil. We don't pay the cost of producing the energy... only extracting it. The cost of emissions and pollution have been largely ignored as well. If we had paid the true cost, then renewable energy would have been economically viable long before now and we wouldn't have this problem. Of course, we also wouldn't have such a large economy, either.

We should have used fossil fuels to bootstrap cleaner, renewable (sustainable) energy sources. Unfortunately our political "leadership" :barf: has been short-sighted We're using a gas motor to rapidly travel upstream, with no paddle...
 
If the current owners cannot run their business without piracy and extortion then maybe the people should take back the infrastructure we paid for and run public utility companies.
Piracy? Extortion?

What do you call a 42% net tax rate, under threat of severe punishment for failure to pay? What do you call blocking development of new supplies while damning someone else for failing to develop those supplies?

We can't run our cars on Congress' hot air.

What do you call a single oil company paying more income taxes than the entire bottom 50% of US taxpayers combined? A single oil company with a global tax bill equal to the entire economic output of the nation of Chile?

A 10% profit margin is not piracy. Selling fuel to people who want to buy it is not extortion.

I made a 2 1/2-hour car trip to visit the in-laws with my wife and son, consuming around six gallons of gas - but the oil companies didn't extort me into doing so, my wife did.
 
Point fingers and call names all you want....

But understand the fact that the enlightened social engineers we have been electing to run our nation for the past 50 years have done their utmost to make operating any business (including the energy business) in the USA as difficult and expensive as they could.

Taxes, regulations, environmental restrictions, and just general red tape, enacted by both the elected officials and the unelected bureaucrats have made it increasingly costly and time & energy consuming to own and operate any kind of manufacturing business that produces a real physical product, and only slightly less so for those companies whose output is something less tangible. No matter what label they use, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or conservative, together they have brought us to this.

We, the people are at fault as well, both in our shortsighted "what's in it for me?" attitude and for our failure to choose leaders who would actually be to our long term benefit, instead of the short term.

We have adopted a policy of crisis management, in that we generally refuse to manage any problem until it becomes a crisis. There was a TV ad back in the 70s with two congressmen in a big car, driving down the highway. The driver bore a more than passing resemblance to the then Speaker of the House. The camera shows the gas gauge, setting on "E". The passenger points out "Hey, we're running out of gas! The driver reassures him with a condescending "we're fine". variations on this are repeated several times, until the car's engine stops. At this point, the driver looks at the gas gauge, acts astonished, and says "Hey!, we're out of gas!"

It was true then, and sadly has remained mostly true through today. Except that we aren't out of gas, we are just out of gas that we can afford.

My last raise, actually the largest in several years, has disappeared into my gas tank, and I drive a 35mpg car! I understand basic economics, and I understand how the dollar number for goods generally goes up, although after adjustment, the actual value doesn't change that much, usually. But this past year of seeing gas increase about a nickel per gallon, twice a week or even more often is freaking horrible! What bothers me most is not just the increase, but the rate of increase! Something is drastically wrong, and sure as the sun rises, someone is screwing us up. And doing a fine job of it too!

After he lost the election and became the "crusading environmentalist" Al Gore boasted that "America will have $5 a gallon gas, whether they want it or not". And while I expected him to be proven true in the long run, I never thought it could happen so soon, and so rapidly. Like the man who had a tombstone that read "I expected this, but not so soon".

I agree that it isn't just the oil companies, it is a lot of people, in business, and in government that have brought this about, and I think we are being mislead by being told to focus on foreign oil costs, lack of drilling, and the other "critical issues" of this crisis. I don't think we should expect relief from the costs by "conserving". I believe that is just a red herring. After all, suppose we did all conserve and reduce the demand. What stops the oil companies and the speculators from just selling the oil to someone else? If we cut back on demand, they will cut back on production. Nobody is going to voluntarily reduce their profit.

Our system is rather flexible, and able to adapt and absorb quite a lot, over time. When I started buying my own gas, it was $0.39 per gallon, and when premium was $0.60 it was expensive. But things are happening too fast today. Way too fast. Our system is straining, and at risk of fracture. Greed, corporate and individual is putting it at greater risk that ever in the past. And when it does break, what then? A lot of folks might not be able to afford gas (or when it comes to it, food), but some of them will have bullets that they already paid for. And some of them just might decide to use them.

Desperation?, sure. But what some will see is "what have we got left to lose?" Sadly, I'm pretty sure that if this comes to pass, most of the bullets won't be aimed at those actually responsible. It might actually come down to open class warfare. I don't see this as a given (yet), but I feel it is a risk we should not ignore.
 
What bothers me most is not just the increase, but the rate of increase! Something is drastically wrong, and sure as the sun rises, someone is screwing us up. And doing a fine job of it too!

Simply greed, no more no less, like wolves they smell blood and the feast
is now.
 
Back
Top