[schizuki]

They're not "ridiculous" prices. As I said in an earlier thread, my 30-mile commute costs an extra buck a day at $3.00 per gallon than at $2.00.



"Ridiculous" is two bucks for a fancy cup of coffee or a buck for a bottle of water.



We're spoiled. If you're pissed about paying more for gas, think of all the money you saved on your $50 DVD player (they were $400 not so long ago), your $40 VCR (they were $500 back in the early '80s), or your $350 25-inch television (check out old Sears catalogs for what those used to cost.)



Or you could just remember that gas was pricier in 1981 when you adjust for inflation. So you want the government to "do something about it"? The last time they interfered with the free market in gas, we had shortages and rationing (basic economics, folks - price controls = scarcity.)



You can make up for the price hikes by doing things like giving up a snack cake one day, fishing under the couch cushions for change the next, checking the washer and dryer the day after that... you know, it's really not that tough to make up the difference.



This *****ing about three bucks a gallon is as annoying as when people gripe about a two-cent increase in the price of a stamp. They're both still good values.

 

[schizuki]

Nothing about increased Indian and Chinese demand. Nothing about Katrina-damaged refineries still offline. Nothing about multiple seasonal and regional reformulations causing refining bottlenecks. Nothing about resources in Arctic wastelands or offshore going untapped. Just the same old formulaic kcrap.



And Social Security trust fund? There's no such thing. It's a direct transfer from workers to retirees. That alone marks you as ignorant.

 

[schizuki]

Oh, well, golly, that's another TWO bucks a day.



Why is it that the same people who crab that we need to use less oil because it's causing global warming, er, cooling, er, climate change, are also crabbing about gas price increases that are reducing consumption? Are you people EVER happy?

 

[schizuki]

"why are the oil companies posting exorbitant RECORD profits?"



Because they're HUGE companies. Their profit MARGIN is around 10%. Hardly exorbitant for any company.



BTW, the real-estate boom has given millions of ordinary Americans a 50-100% per year profit on their homes the past five years. I don't hear anybody saying that's exorbitant.



BTW, can you define "exorbitant" profits? What's the cut-off margin?

 

[schizuki]

"arm-in-arm singing 'kumbaya' together?"



ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

 

[schizuki]

"if they think they are being gouged. It certainly looks like we are."



"Gouging" = high demand, low supply. Free Market Economics 101.



"Price controls" = scarcity.



You want $4.00 gas, or $2.00 gas but empty pumps?

 

[schizuki]

The definition of "rich" is "somebody with more money than me."



EVERY person posting on the Internet is rich by world standards. But some are also spoiled and jealous.

 

[schizuki]

"We'll see, but so far the signal people are sending is that prices can go higher and the oil companies are going to see what the traffic can bear."



Which makes them different from any other company in what way?



And how does that make them different from homeowners who charge what the market will bear, and have been raking in profit margins the past few years that the oil companies can only dream of?

 

[schizuki]

Re: Excellent Post

It IS the same. About 10%. That's my point, dolt.

 

[schizuki]

"Uhhh. . .did you flunk math?"



No, but you must have, given this statement:



"Uh, if their MARGIN was the same, they would be making the same profit or less, because volume is the same."



That's some awesome math, there, sparky. Say, do oil companies spend money on stuff like research, capital investment, rebuilding damaged refineries in the Gulf, etc? Or do they just have a big spigot they open up?



"Let's not get into semantics of exorbitancy."



Semantics? If you make a claim that someone's profit is "exhorbitant", then you must have a definition of "exhorbitant", and it must be a definable quantity. Or else "exhorbitant" is simply subjective... ah-HAH!



"Your analogy is severely flawed. Prices of American homes are dictated by what people want to pay. There is no shortage of residences in this country. The same is not true of oil."



No, YOUR statement is flawed. Prices of homes are determined the same way prices for everything else is - supply and demand. Dictated by what people WANT to pay? Uh, OK, I want to pay $500 for a 4800sq home. Do you think I'll find one? Good lord, what a silly statement.



"Thus, big oil can charge whatever it wants "



Sure. They can charge $50 bucks a gallon tomorrow and people will pay it. Right? So why don't they? Aren't they greedy and evil and stuff?



You're not really good at this economic stuff, are you?



"It used to be that the way you ran a business was to make a "fair and honest" profit."



Really? Where did you learn this? Where is this codified? What evidence do you have? The way that successful businesses have ALWAYS been run is to maximize profits. Your statement is utter nonsense. And I'll bet you can't quantify "fair and honest profit", either. Cuz defintions are just "semantics", right?



"This is the age of the robber barons all over again, execpt without all the philanthropy"



Really? So where do all of these foundations get their money?

 

[schizuki]

"There can be gouging if you have high demand, adequate supply, and a monopoly controlling prices."



Since there is no monopoly involved, then there is no "gouging".



And raising demand while keeping supply constant raises prices. This is basic economics. We REALLY need to start teaching this in high school.

 

[schizuki]

maladg, that's a Hall of Fame post. Beautiful.

 

[schizuki]

Re: Maladg: I thought I already told you to shut up about

"Ever heard of peak oil?... Bashing Paul Ehrlich ran out of style along with anyone who has any idea who Paul Ehrlich was (is? who really cares at this point)."

Let me get this straight - you seem to be acknowledging that Paul Ehrlich was a 100% wrong doomscreamer, while giving credence to current doomscreaming theory? Um, did you not learn anything?

 

[schizuki]

Re: Enough whining how about some positive alternatives

What model of biodiesal car do you own, kpaul?

(Someday you're going to answer this question...)

 

[schizuki]

Re: Enough whining how about some positive alternatives

So you don't put your money where your mouth is. And you're essentially saying that a biodiesel makes no economic sense for you. And despite constantly pimping it, you won't spend the cash to convert your car to biodiesel. But hey, it's the awesomest thing ever.

BTW, my car gets 38 mpg. Neener-neener-neener.