http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_9129249

What do you guys think of this proposed "gas tax" holiday in the summer? Personally, I find Clinton and McCain's pandering for votes and preying on the short-sightedness of voters is striking. This won't solve any problems at all and, in fact, will only make it worse - Americans are going to go, ":downswords: Hey, gas is cheaper, so let's drive halfway across the country now!" Thus, we use more gas, driving up demand...ugh.

My roommate has postulated that gas companies will hike pre-tax prices a bit so that they can charge more after the taxes are repealed. Then, when taxes go back into effect, hey, look, they're making more money than before! It seems plausible to me, though I realize it's pure speculation.

I don't think it is pandering but of course Clinton is only talking about it because McCain proposed it. I think anything that reduces tax from the government and decreases price at the pump is a good thing. I highly doubt the oil companies would raise the price to compensate for the lack of tax. They don't have any reason to. That's like saying if OPEC reduces the price of crude the oil companies would keep the price high to compensate and there is a historical record that proves that false. Everybody demonizes the oil companies but the fact is the price of gas is dictated by the cost they are charged for crude and the expenses they incur from things such as taxes and fees by various governments, among other things of course. Those costs are simply passed on to the consumer.

However, I'm sure I just posted something nonsensical and retarded above so feel free to disregard my opinion.

They need to cap the prices like they did last year, not cut the taxes out.

1. When did they cap prices last year? I must've forgotten about that...
2. So you want the taxes to remain? Why exactly SHOULD gas be taxed in the first place...
3. Price caps are the last thing we want. You know those stories about those gas stations that have sold gas for like 1.00 on their opening day of business? Massive lines, and they RUN OUT OF GAS. You want that to happen, but everywhere?

1. Sometime right before summer when it was hitting $5/gallon in Georgia. Edit: Actually, I think it was 2005, not last year. Point still stands.
2. Because, as mentioned earlier, it won't solve anything. Oil companies will just use it as an opportunity to jack prices up higher, and the government will make less money. Which means we'll pay more taxes elsewhere. Which means, in the long run, we're paying more.
3. They won't run out of gas because it's not centralized on one pump, every station will be about the same price. Are you really trying to say that every single gas station will run out of gas if they cap the prices? Look, it's already been done before and as far as I can tell it was rather successful.

They would run out of gas because gas companies would stop selling it to them. Why the hell would they sell it to the US? They will pursue more profitable venues if the government is going to force them too. Believe it or not, I'm sure other places would LOVE gas...

It's not worth my time to explain basic Economics 101 of price ceilings/floors and shortages/surpluses, so that's basically all I'll say. Just look at what happened with Katrina when price ceilings were put on things like batteries and **** because of "price gouging". You had a minority of people buy up all the batteries, and those who needed them couldn't get them.

The shortages weren't caused by price caps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Well, except for the fact that we're one of the leading buyers of oil, so going elsewhere is hardly realistic. They're not going to be able to simply dump all the oil they sell us on another country. Even with our price caps we're still paying far more than some third world country would be capable of paying. And regardless, doing that would result in their prices dropping like a bomb, because of the basic rule of supply and demand.

But hurr I guess I don't get basic Economics 101 of supply and demand.

Erm, how about the externalities it has? Your use of petrol has a proportional impact on the wear and need for upkeep of the road system provided to you by the state as well as the negative impact the pollution from your vehicle burning those fossil fuels has upon the environment and the public health.

I believe the cap you are talking about was to prevent unscrupulous gas station owners from profiteering due to a perceived shortage caused by Katrina. That is wholly irrelevant in this case. It would be oppressiveness bordering on communism for the government to impose a cap to what petrol companies can charge without regard for the ever rising crude oil prices the petrol companies are forced to pay.

God damnit you guys always manage to draw me back in

First, Wookie is correct...



You don't if you think you can impose price caps or floors on whatever you want and expect no shortages or surpluses. If price caps can solve anything, why don't we just put price caps on EVERYTHING so it'll ALL be cheap!

Ever think about what happens when the sale price < cost of production? But that's okay, price caps will work and they'll just take the hit

If gas is scarce, making it cheaper and therefore consuming more of it because you think you can, that will lower supply, causing more shortages, in addition to the shortages already resulting from stockpiling, and then prices will rise more.

Do you remember when Hawaii introduced a gas price cap? Prices rose....the second week, and not just a bit, a ton. Price caps DO NOT allocate goods to where they are most valued. Instead there is overconsumption.

Oil to too valuable a resource to be burning in our cars, it's about time gas prices start to reflect this.

I propose we INCREASE taxes on gas, and use the additional revenue generated NOT to research alternative fuels, but to fund a nation wide program for public transportation.

The thing that is fundamentally broken here is not the auto manufacturers, or big oil, or the government, its YOU, the drivers. No amount of reasonable technological improvement in the field of fuels and fuel efficiency will be able to offset the unreasonable dependency we currently have on personal transportation.

Now, go feel bad and shut up about $5.00 gas prices, you deserve them.

[/rant]

I'm fully supporting West Wind here, though I do think alternative fuels need to be up there too. Oil is a limited commodity, it gets used up without being replaced. Public transportation will still need a fuel source

It's most certainly pandering on the part of McCain and Clinton. The gas tax holiday will primarily benefit the oil companies and not the consumer. Removing the tax will stimulate consumption, and the refineries aren't going to be able to ramp up production so suddenly to meet a spike in demand, so prices will rise. It's not because oil companies will sinisterly raise prices--it's because increased demand will drive up the price. We'll save very little at the pump. Besides the tax is only 5% of the price anyway. (Washington Post, Tax Policy Center)

The tax holiday will increase the budget deficit by over $10 billion, while having very little positive effect for the average citizen.

Public Transportation is already in place, where it is effective. The problem is most people can't efficiently use public transportation regardless how overly funded you propose it be.

Oil being too valuable to burn in our cars. That's pretty funny.

Increasing the tax to fund public transportation which you believe will lessen the demand for fuel, and thus fewer people consuming, meaning less tax revenue generated leads to other taxes being raised to keep up with a large public transportation system. And you're proposing this at a national level? You, sir, don't understand a federal republic but that's okay. Most of our elected officials don't either.

People always overlook this but one reason people don't like public transportation in a typical commute is because they value their time. My roommate takes the bus to school but it takes like 1-1.5 hours each way, whereas if he drives it only takes him 1/2 an hour.

Public transportation is ****ed in the US because of urban sprawl. People don't live in high enough densities to make it work, they all live in nice big (I'm talking by European standards) detached houses spaced quite well apart and by virtue of that quite a long distance from the main conurbations.
Public transport works in Europe because we've built our roads and houses since the days before cars and when people needed to be relatively close to work. And our population density is so high we can't possibly live in nice ½ acre+ plots like you guys do.

If the day comes when driving to work becomes too expensive, you'll start to see migration to the cities to live in high rises, you'll see new residential areas built in formerly industrial areas with small, tightly packed houses. And then you'll see bus routes serving those areas profitably and hopefully by then the image of public transportation in the US won't be that it's purely the domain of the very poor.

Urban Sprawl has NOTHING TO DO with how inefficient our public tranportation is IN OUR CITIES

I currently live in a city with one of the "best" public transit systems in America (Chicago). Ask ANYONE here who uses public transit here if it can be made more effective and they will always say yes.

The mentality that public transportation is ineffective in the majority of population centers is a very poorly formed. Suburban populations can be very well serviced by bus/train feeder systems just as well as dense urban populations can. Unfortunately suburban populations, which are often the ones that could benefit most from improved public transit, are also the ones who are most resilient to the idea of funding it, and adverse to the idea of giving up the personal cars.



Talk to ANYONE in the petrochemical industry, the will tell you right now that if our oil reserves are depleted, lack of automotive gasoline will be the LEAST of our problems. Virtually every industry reliant on synthetic materials or industrial processes require chemicals most easily derived from oil refinement. Without a cheap supply of oil, prices for everything from food (Plastic packaging), clothing (synthetic fibers), electronics (Industrial adhesives and solvents) will skyrocket.



Increased taxes for public transportation would just be a jump start measure, primarly to overcome the initial capital needed to construct the necessary infastructure (Lay tracks, buy trains and busses, build stations and create routes).

Operating costs for public transportation are substantial, and i would not propose that they would be self-sustaining, but I can think of no better use for state, local, and property taxes. ([Edit] Except for Education [/Edit])

I went to Chicago once.

When you get there they give you a giant pamphlet that folds out to be like 10 feet wide.


You basically need to be able to make spreadsheets to understand that ****!

I thought it was at least half decent in your cities? No? NY subway, Chicago "L", buses in general?

I can't speak for new york because the only time I was there I got food poisoning, but Chicago was so hella confusing and inefficient I ended up just walking everywhere.

Actually, by definition they were.

Erm, no. Read the article. The caps were a measure to try to deal with the shortage which was caused by opec.

No, no, unfettered prices naturally fluctuate to compensate in changes in supply. The drop in supply wasn't what caused the lines, it was the price caps. If prices are not allowed to reach equilibrium, there will be more people who want to purchase the product than there is product to sell. Caps are *stupid*. If you want to ration a limited resource with out letting the price go through the roof, you should at least distribute rationing cards so we don't have to waste time waiting in line.
You can't just force the price down and expect everyone to have enough.

Price caps also hurt production as well, so they're generally not a good idea even if you do have some organized method for rationing, unless you happen to be fighting a war.



Well, the fact that so few people live in cities compared to the general populace make intercity public transportation less useful. The point of public transportation is to take the giant commuter crowd off the streets. Putting public transportation in the middle of some of our largest cities does nothing to help the massive amount of people that drive to work every day by themselves in their SUVs.

$.18 off a $4 gallon of gas isn't squat as far as I'm concerned. Gas is still expensive either way.

I think it's fairly ridiculous that at a time when rising gas prices are creating major problems in not just our own country, but in the world, oil companies are reporting the highest profits in American history.

How is it ridiculous? It's basic supply and demand.

I would be extremely surprised if oil companies were losing money.

But the supply of oil is not in any danger of being depleted for hundreds of years although anybody can find kook sources that claim we'll go through the entire supply within the century. The pace of technological improvements will far out pace our ability to deplete oil fields. There are so many untapped already not to mention the amount of oil that could be extracted from the ocean that basically is already just pouring into it for the ocean to devour.

Government run programs are never self-sustaining. I'm not opposed to public transportion but I am to a massive, expensive, unneed albatross of a program run by the federal government. State and local governments are capable of instituting and funding their own programs, preferably privatized, as and where they see fit. Of course Americans keep migrating toward a nanny-state mentality where they think some disconnected federal politicians should be the ones to solve every issue down to the smallest community.

If you look at it purely by the volume of business they do I don't see any issue with the profits. Only one cent of profit per gallon for the amount of oil our nation consumes on a daily basis would be $6,510,000 which adds up to $2,376,150,000 a year. I would certainly hope their profits would be much better than a penny a gallon.

Yeah, but its popular to blame oil companies instead of actually trying to think about how the market actually works. Never mind that the government makes far more money per gallon in taxes then oil companies make in profit. Or the fact that they use more of those profits in researching alternative energies then the government ever does.

If you think we have hundreds of years worth of oil left, you're a fool. Furthermore, we're not going to "run out" of oil. It's going to become too expensive to effectively exploit. With greatly increasing demand for oil, especially from China and India, oil's days are numbered.

We've got exactly once chance to find an effective fuel source. The days of cheap energy are coming to a close. Oil is a spring board to give us the power we need to leap to higher technologies, and we've already squandered it. I mourn our society, and wonder what sort of world our children will live in. It will probably have lots more horses.

I don't understand why people think that one day we're going to wake up and find out that no more oil's left. As oil becomes more scarce, and difficult to extract, the price will go up until we gradually turn to alternatives.

I don't disagree with anything in your post but I just wanted to comment that the government really has no justification to research alternative energies, or must other things. Certainly not on any large scale.

I also believe that most oil company alternative energy research is basically just a PR stunt. They don't have much incentive to perfect the technology that will adversly affect their bottom line. I guess the best they can hope for is to make money from the patents seeing as the industry as a whole will doubtfully be compatible with the type of energy that is developed.

And why on Earth do people think the Earth is going to run out of oil in the tiny amount of time people have been extracting it? That's almost like saying if the population keeps growing, all the water will be consumed by thirsty creatures.

Obi-Kwiet's last post was pretty good. Funny thing is the thing that most makes oil difficult to extract is politicians.

They have record profits because of overwhelming demand (enter the growing India and Canada) and speculation that drives prices upward. They sell a product that a lot of people want more and more. Why wouldn't prices, and thus profits, jump?

The only strong way to offset the continual prices is to increase supply by drilling for more. Conservation has marginal impact. No existing alternative fuel can compete on the oil's scale. If you are concerned about prices, you have to support more drilling and the loosening of regulations.

Actually, water shortages are another big problem.

BTW, if we keep using more oil, oil will run out. Its not a selfreplicating goo down there.

There will always be oil and it won't easily "run out". The means, economic and physical, changes. You can't put a multi-million dollar installation and pay huge sums of investment money for the work and equipment to extract a small patch of oil. Not only that, the demand for the oil and a constant supply of it has to be considered, especially since the human population is still steady going up. Then there are other significant factors such as the price of land to drill on and distribution costs. Big wells of oil eventually get used up, then what? Saudi Arabia can only hold out so much. Waste money going after smaller sites that probably won't get you returns profit-wise?

what we should really research is a good way to get rid of corpses.

Wait, are you honestly trying to tell me that oil companies are going to lose money if the price is capped at, say, $3/gallon?

Oil companies make ridiculous profit. We're talking on the order of 100% profit. They are nowhere NEAR the cost of production, and that's why capping it makes sense. It's just gouging, not reflecting an actual limit on supply, although the oil companies would love you to think that.



But there aren't shortages. Oil companies make crap up all the time in an attempt to justify their ridiculous overcharging.


Yes, overconsumption of a commodity that will not increase or decrease in usage because of how our society works. It doesn't matter how high the prices go, the amount of people who will actually change their habits of driving are infinitesimal. People won't start using alternative fuels/forms of transportation until they can't afford their current form. And as demonstrated in the past, we're nowhere near that limit right now.