gas prices

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:24 pm

we're at 2.97 for cheap unleaded what are you at?

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:39 pm

briannell wrote:we're at 2.97 for cheap unleaded what are you at?

2.88 just down the road from me

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:12 am

here's the political spin.

As Gas Prices Go Up, President Bush's Approval Ratings Go Down

Friday , April 21, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

A brand new Gallup polls says Americans believe rising energy prices are the third most important issue in the country behind Iraq and immigration. And a brand new FOX News poll says President Bush's approval rating is down to 33 percent, 14 points lower it was this time last year.

There is no question that Americans are getting hurt at the gas pump. And the leader of the country will always take a hit when that happens. But the oil situation is largely out of the president's control. All he can do is commit government resources to alternative fuels down the road. And he says he's doing that.

Right now, the only force that can drive oil prices down is us. We, the people. Analysts say that if Americans cut back driving just three percent gas prices would tumble.

"Talking Points" has suggested a symbolic protest of not buying any gas on Sundays. And I am not buying ExxonMobil ever again because of it's $700 million payout over the past 13 years to former CEO Lee Raymond. No more Exxon for me.

Now I explained this in detail on my just-published newspaper column available on billoreilly.com and hundreds of fine newspapers across the country. And also on billoreilly.com, a poll question. Do you believe you are being gouged by the oil companies, yes or no? We'll have the results on Monday.

So let's all rally here. Americans should wise up and buy less gas. We can control this, if we all begin to conserve. Last month, gas use was down 0.6 percent. But we can do far better than that. The American oil companies are not looking out for us. So let's fight back. Buy less from those people. Send them a message they won't soon forget.

"The Factor" boycott of France impacted that country greatly. A cutback in gas consumption in the USA would immediately scorch the oil companies.

As they said in the '60s, "power to the people." We are being hosed here. And the oil fat cats are lapping up the dollars. Enough is enough. Buy less gas, please.

And that's "The Memo."

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:49 pm

Philosophically, I am not opposed to what Bill is trying to do with this one ... but he is just repeating mistakes we have been through 100 times before in the past. I have actually pissed off some friends of mine by "replying to all" explaining the flaws in the idea of the "gas buying boycott" that went around constantly over the past 10 years or so.

What this idea ignores is that if everyone refuses to buy gas for one day, they are creating an artificially high run on gas purchases the day before and after the boycott day. As gas is delivered on essentially just in time quantities, disrupting the normal consumption of gas by spiking it on two days of the week will cause shortages on those days, and will probalby lead to gas prices going even higher because of it.

The only effective boycott involves using less gas (similar to refusing to buy French goods to protest France's lack of support for our invasion of Iraq to destroy Saddam's WMD, to keep it in the context of his argument) ... not merely buying it only on certain days of the week. So the second part of his argument makes perfect sense ... use less gas (which will happen as a simple result of Econ 101), but the act of not buying on Sundays while not reducing overall consumption will only make gas prices even higher.

I'm just disappointed that he couldn't finger liberals directly for this problem, but a little diversity of evil is a good thing.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:15 pm

I'm currently charging $2.61 for unleaded and paying $2.59 for it.

BAC is right, in order for a boycott of gasoline to actually work, people would have to STOP DRIVING one day a week; that would cut consumption by 14.3% and that WOULD have some impact on the market. The problem is, Big Oil might just as likely respond by RAISING wholesale prices instead of lowering them. IF the 1 day/week boycott lasted a few months, it WOULD create a glut and prices would come down eventually; of course, following Labor Day, they'll naturally/historically do that anyway.

2 interesting things to remember about Big Oil:

1) ALL the BO companies KNOW what their "competitors" are charging for fuel in every market in America and, believe it or not, they ARE in collusion when it comes to pricing (although not directly and not in any way they could be prosecuted for).

2) (This one really irks me, even though I am a staunch capitalist) Exxon/Mobil reported the largest annual PROFIT last year of any company in the history of the planet. That wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that I believe I've read that same fact in probably 4 or 5 of the last 10 years! Big Oil is NOT simply covering the higher costs of crude oil, exploration, extraction, and/or refining, they are reaping/realizing HUGE profits. A true capitalist might not mind this on the surface because they might presume that the shareholders are benefitting from the profits. HOWEVER, the stock prices DON'T reflect that actually taking place. I hate to sound like a communist or a liberal, but when you see that the head of Exxon/Mobil is going to receive close to 400 million dollars in retirement benefits, you realize that a vast majority of those ridiculous profits are being funneled to a very small, select group of people who won't truly ever recirculate those $$$ through the economy.

The gentleman from Kalispell yields the remainder of his time...

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:18 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Philosophically, I am not opposed to what Bill is trying to do with this one ... but he is just repeating mistakes we have been through 100 times before in the past. I have actually pissed off some friends of mine by "replying to all" explaining the flaws in the idea of the "gas buying boycott" that went around constantly over the past 10 years or so.

What this idea ignores is that if everyone refuses to buy gas for one day, they are creating an artificially high run on gas purchases the day before and after the boycott day. As gas is delivered on essentially just in time quantities, disrupting the normal consumption of gas by spiking it on two days of the week will cause shortages on those days, and will probalby lead to gas prices going even higher because of it.

The only effective boycott involves using less gas (similar to refusing to buy French goods to protest France's lack of support for our invasion of Iraq to destroy Saddam's WMD, to keep it in the context of his argument) ... not merely buying it only on certain days of the week. So the second part of his argument makes perfect sense ... use less gas (which will happen as a simple result of Econ 101), but the act of not buying on Sundays while not reducing overall consumption will only make gas prices even higher.

I'm just disappointed that he couldn't finger liberals directly for this problem, but a little diversity of evil is a good thing.

As much as I would like to believe that American oil consumption will decrease, sadly I don't believe we will not stop drinking our fill at the pump.

We have been fed a self fulfilling prophecy of entitlement. We believe we are entitled to... whatever. Oil at cheap prices. Sure the oil companies are racking it in. That is capitalism at it's finest. We market it globally and we like it when we are the Exxons. But when Exxon is gouging us we scream like a gut shot cougar. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee, our appetites are the problem not the price of gas. We are American's by God, and should be able to drive our pickups wherever, whenever, at affordable prices!!!

True BAC, if we would simply drive less... then China could drive more. Man's problem is not "the man", it is our appetites. Which I contend are simply selfish at the core. Evil--yes. So let's "stick it to the man" again, and discover we are the man.

If we don't stick it to the man, then market pressures will put controls on our behavior, and we certainly can't complain too loudly about that--can we?

Bobcat4Life · Post by **Bobcat4Life** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:39 pm

This is a very simple economics equation. Higher demand = higher prices. China consistently used to export oil to other nations like ours. Their country and its incredible economic growth has forced the country into importing oil. This increased demand in the market has led to higher and higher prices worldwide. China will most likely continue to import more oil.

As to Exxon posting the largest profit and not distributing it to the shareholders is a problem, but you can only blame the shareholders of Exxon. They should demand by voting their individual shares at the annual meeting to elect a board that pushes dividends instead of huge retirement payouts for upper management.

The big question is how high does the price have to get before you trade in the SUV for the a bus pass?

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:33 pm

Bobcat4Life wrote:This is a very simple economics equation. Higher demand = higher prices. China consistently used to export oil to other nations like ours. Their country and its incredible economic growth has forced the country into importing oil. This increased demand in the market has led to higher and higher prices worldwide. China will most likely continue to import more oil.

As to Exxon posting the largest profit and not distributing it to the shareholders is a problem, but you can only blame the shareholders of Exxon. They should demand by voting their individual shares at the annual meeting to elect a board that pushes dividends instead of huge retirement payouts for upper management.

The big question is how high does the price have to get before you trade in the SUV for the a bus pass?

Did you ever think that Exxon shareholders want to have the profits invested back into the company via exploration, expansion, research, technology?? This is why they invest in the stock in the first place. And why is it so bad to pay the CEO of one of the most successful and largest companies a $400 Mill retirement? The BOD felt it was deserving and by the recent performance of the stock price, the investors think so as well. Who is it of anybody to say any retirement or salary of a company is too much in a capitalist country? The shareholders and investors can punish the compnay if they felt it was undeserving. Would any of you turn down a $400 Mill retirement if you ran a company like Exxon?

I am more upset at the price of a gallon of milk. It's nearly $3 a gallon! Why are we not demanding this price to go down? Big Milk is killing us and raking it in. What is Big Milk's overhead compared to Big Oil? I bet it's not even close.

RyeCat · Post by **RyeCat** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:11 pm

The difference is, my family uses 1 gallon of milk per week versus the 20 or so gallons of gas per week.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:51 pm

we definitely changed our travel plans because of the prices. I spent the last 3 days trying to plan for vacations around WA state rather than the usual trips to CA, MT and CO. Also, we have to take two vehicles, which sucks when we have high gas prices. one filled with kids and Dogs and one free of all distractions, but loaded down with WAY too much S**T.

guess who gets stuck with kids and dogs?

resolved itself, found a beach house here on the coast that we can bring pets to, and reserve the rest of summer for fun "day" trips.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:42 pm

http://russell.visitmt.com/scenicbyways ... breaks.htm

Who needs gas when ya'll can head into this country. Can't believe there's people on this board who actually left this country for the city life

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:31 am

RyeCat wrote:The difference is, my family uses 1 gallon of milk per week versus the 20 or so gallons of gas per week.

Of course. So does mine. My point is when you consider the price of a gallon of milk and all that goes into it vs the price of a gallon of gas and all that goes into it (exploration, extraction, transportation, refining, distrobution, etc.) it seems appropriately priced, to me anyhow.

Why not demand that the taxes on a gallon of gas be reduced? I beleive that it's nearly .80 per gallon in Montana. (I might be wrong but I think I'm close)

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:11 am

BO does not set the price of oil. The oil traders at the Amex and other trading outpost around the world sets the price for a barrel of crude oil. BO buys oil at the market price, refines the oil into products, marks up a profit and sells to the market products like gasoline. The historic markup has not changed. Profits are higher because the base cost is now higher.

The oil traders are forecasting oil shortages which I thing is a bunch of cra%. There is enough oil in the world to meet demand. Even after the hurricane last fall, the oil market covered the short falls. Sure, there were a few places that had a shortage of gasoline, but this lasted only for a week. If you want to place blame on out of control oil prices, then these men should be taking the blame. They are looking at the oil market as if the worst-case scenario is happen right now.

In the long run, this high price of oil will only encourage more exploration, with the greens fighting it. Oil prices will crash again. The greens want to see even higher gasoline prices. The green want us to ride buses, live in high raise apartment blocks. I have been to other countries that live such a live style and it is not for me.

If you think that our new Governor is so wonderful because of the surplus budget, you can thank Eastern Montana oil, gas and coal taxes. The taxes are based on cost percentage and not a btu or per barrel. Higher price means more taxes to the state.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:33 am

Who needs gas when ya'll can head into this country. Can't believe there's people on this board who actually left this country for the city life

it's called a job!

actually, we wont be staying in the Army anymore after hubby pays back the last few years he owes. we want to move "home". and I'd like a hubby who's home. that may mean us ending back in his home town of Belt, but I think I could make do.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:22 pm

Oh my gawd...I've got a brother-in-law from Belt and a cousin in a very high profile position with one of the local watering holes

Small state indeed.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:53 pm

Hey Belt isn't so bad, I shot huge whitetail up by Tiger Butte, and the pheasants taste "yummy" when they're fed off good ol winter wheat.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:22 pm

Hey Belt isn't so bad, I shot huge whitetail up by Tiger Butte, and the pheasants taste "yummy" when they're fed off good ol winter wheat.

hubby refers to it as the black hole, it sucks you in and you never get out!

actually supposed to goto a wedding there in June. I like that it's little, and everyone knows your business. So it wasn't too shocking the first time I went there and everyone was in mine!

he has options for work has his PE and Master's in Engineering. They like that he'll be a 12 year Army vet when it comes to applying for those gov't jobs/state jobs. if we're lucky he'll get on with MSU, but the pay stinks. We just love Bozeman.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:47 pm

briannell wrote:
Hey Belt isn't so bad, I shot huge whitetail up by Tiger Butte, and the pheasants taste "yummy" when they're fed off good ol winter wheat.

hubby refers to it as the black hole, it sucks you in and you never get out! actually supposed to goto a wedding there in June. I like that it's little, and everyone knows your business. So it wasn't too shocking the first time I went there and everyone was in mine!

he has options for work has his PE and Master's in Engineering. They like that he'll be a 12 year Army vet when it comes to applying for those gov't jobs/state jobs. if we're lucky he'll get on with MSU, but the pay stinks. We just love Bozeman.

For some thats true. I know some there who "fell in" and now 3 generations later they are all stuck. There are many there who know "my business" too...
I'd take Bozeman over Belt anyday

duh

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:01 am

Stevicat wrote:...Why not demand that the taxes on a gallon of gas be reduced? I beleive that it's nearly .80 per gallon in Montana. (I might be wrong but I think I'm close)

You're not.

Fed excise tax on gasoline is approximately 18 cents/gallon.

MT excise tax on gasoline is approximately 28 cents/gallon.

gas prices

gas prices

Re: gas prices