hmm... every thing ive seen about the companies people are complaining about, like Exxon/Mobil, shows them making between 8%-10% profit margins... that a far cry from 100%

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/
http://streetlevelauto.blogspot.com/2006/05/big-oil-profit-margins.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/02/01/exxons-profits-measuring-a-record-windfall.html

"The world is paying more for gas than the United States therefore the United States should match the world" doesn't cut it either. If market conditions make it so that gas is cheaper in the States than the world then that's what the market decides. I don't know the oil market very well to speculate why it's more expensive there than here. Is it higher oil taxes? Is it less demand?

I was just giving the point that, technically, there are foreign oil companies doing business in America so that some dweeb wouldn't come in to call me an ignorant retard for calling them all American oil companies.

True, my bad. The increased pump prices are entirely taxes as far as Europe is concerned. Prices here hover around £1 per litre. Regardless of the reasons for the cost of petrol here, it's clearly possible to live with such high fuel prices and still be a successful nation. I was mostly agreeing with Rob pointing out that the rest of the world handles far higher prices adequately, having to sacrifice some luxuries is hardly the tragedy it's been made out to be here.

CM: I guess I should have qualified it with "of 2008"
Here's the source on the Prius: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml
I'm afraid I find your anecdote about a generic car of the 80s being more efficient more unbelievable

European countries are (for the most part) tiny...you don't have to drive as far to get places. "Just move closer" isn't always a feasible option.

I've seen 44mpg out of my 1986 Toyota MR2. Believe what you like.

Modern Emissions standards in some cases require a sacrafice in fuel efficiency.

The Catalytic Convertor for example, only works effectively with an engine running with a rich fuel mixture.

My grandfather used to get 40+ mpg out of his '98 Corolla..

Some cases

That's true. Many times a lot of people would like to move closer, but only millionaires can afford it. It really a problem in the way our nation developed, and there's no easy solution.

I avoided this thread and the topic because I've been so busy lately, but...

How is this actually an idea being entertained by anyone? Anyone with a basic understanding of economy knows that this can't possibly work. I hate politics.

There's people such as myself, where my work is in a place you wouldn't want to be caught alone at night on the street. In order for me to move within 10 minutes of work (I currently live about 20 minutes at ~ 80 MPH on the highway), there'd have to be quite a few forced evictions based solely on people's criminal tendencies, which has all sorts of Constitutional issues.

You should have continued avoiding it since you obviously have nothing to add. What on earth does a basic understanding of economy have to do with reducing the cost per gallon of gasoline by the currently embedded federal tax?

I can only surmise that what you mean is a 0.3% reduction in federal revenue will adversely affect the "economy", a term far too wildly thrown around.

You know what I don't get? I'm taxed when I make money and I'm taxed when I spend it. What's up with that? Double-tax much?

O_o

Is this the same Freelancer?

Nope.

Am I that 5.5, -4 dot?

We have a rediculous tax code. It is completely political, designed to allow for class warfare and to reward and punish people, companies, and corporations for whatever behavior the government wants to influence. It drives employers away and artificially inflates the prices of all goods and services. Until our tax code is completely overhauled, this country will never see the kind of prosperity it is capable of.

Are the axises of that political coordinate plane liberal-conservative and fascist-libertarian?

Horizontal axis denotes economic left/right.
Vertical axis is for social issues civil liberties. Positive numbers are more authoritarian.
Typical liberal/conservatism runs roughly along a diagonal axis from bottom left to top right.
Libertarians occupy the bottom right and authoritarians are in the top left.

It'd be interesting to see how much people have changed since I made the image on the bottom of my signature back in 2004 (I think).

Economic: 2.5
Social: 1.9

I was in the mid fives prior.

Now I know I've gotten quite libertarian but more left economically??

Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

Nice cheap shot. I simply looked up the bill, and it isn't even fathomable logical. It's a "relief" based entirely around impressing people, and it's a cheap trick to pull in republican voters as Clinton realizes her inability to win the primary.

If I really have to show you why the entire proposal is ignorant of basic economics, I will. But my point is that it's kind of self evident, don't you think?

I actually know because we had to take the test for my American government class. I'm apparently at 4, -6 now, so not really a big shift.

Also, I really enjoyed Clinton's big "**** the economists" in her interview with George Stephanopoulos. Lots of noise about "elitist opinion-makers" instead of recognition that experts might actually know something about their area of expertise.

i'm about the same as i was (-4.25, -4.85)

slightly more authoritarian, and slightly more economically conservative.

Clinton screams "Elitist" whenever people are more intelligent than she is. I'm not even sure how "elitist" is a valid argument in political debate.

"You colored* folks be talkin' real big words for monkey* mouths! Be talkin' down to us white folks that be inventin' the cotton-pickin* language!"

* - Racism added for humor.

No cheap shot. Reducing the cost per gallon of gasoline (and hopefully diesel) by the price of the embedded federal tax is immediate relief for every consumer of the fuel. It isn't going to do anything to hurt the "economy". People like you always scream that when the amount of government profiteering is reduced.

Refineries cannot increase the supply of gas in that short of timeframe if we just call a holiday in the summer. Lower prices will drive up demand and drive up the price in the end.

Besides, one can make the argument (like Recuscant did at the beginning of the thread which I forgot to acknowledge as a good counter-argument) that the tax is a pretty good Pigovian tax to try and make up for the negative externalize of pollution. Pollution is one of those things that is really hard to argue against a Pigovian tax because it's almost impossible to find a real internal Coase-ian solution...

And Wookie, this isn't just some crazy economist disagreeing with the gas tax holiday. Like, hundreds have explained it's flawed intentions (like, the best economists in the world)

Even McCain admitted that its not really going to do anything, except provide a "psychological boost." Most likely a "psychological boost" to his campaign.

For those who want a very very good explanation of excise taxes, (particularly this one about gas....). Graphs and everything

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/who_will_reap_the_benefits_of.php

See, this is one thing I hate about economics; so much of it uses eponymous terminology in its normal use. No derived or latinate words we can deduce the meaning of, but completely opaque names like "Pigovian tax" which means that talk of economics on the internet turns into a mixture of interesting ideas and people showing off their econ-wang with the names they can drop.
It's not really anyone's fault but the measures of smugness and the complaints about people not knowing enough aren't helped when people use mystical terminology. P'raps if those who are schooled in Economics could expand slightly on things rather than leaving phrases like "Coase-ian" hanging there for us not to understand until we've read an entire book. </mini rant>

*Apologies if I'm stupid and everyone else knows the Coase theorem of the top of their heads*

Pigovian Tax - a tax that is meant to compensate for the negative externalities (you know about this though, cuz you brought up the point about the negative externalities and pollution)

Regarding the coase theorem, by putting the "internal" in front, I thought people would be able to grasp the concept. Coase theorem is basically if property rights are clear, transaction costs are low, then efficient allocation of resources can occur. What I was saying is that things like pollution are really tough to internalize just because the transaction costs of dealing with every single driver in the US are pretty high, not to mention the property rights of the air (so I was agreeing with your statement of the tax is probably a good way to compensate for the negative externality of pollution rather than trying to deal with it on an individual basis, cuz that would probably be terribly inefficient)

Sorry for leaving them out. Since you were using such words as "negative externalities" in your first post, you seemed to know the concepts already

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/



There really isn't much else to be said.

Yeah, because profits are evil!

Collegiate based answers are swell and all but not always directly applicable. Sure, the theories and fundamentals apply but in this case, not wholly.

The summer driving season is what will drive demand, not the tax break. I would argue that with or without the tax break, demand will stay roughly the same as it will be anyway. I can't imagine people are going to choose to drive significantly more simply because they might get gas at $3.80 versus $4.00.



Good job? Considering we use over 100 gallons per second just in gasoline.

I don't get it.

He has moved right economically.

Now i see....

I feel like slamming my head into a wall.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/refinery_capacity_data/current/refcap07.pdf

Refineries cannot add to their capacity in the summer in this short a time frame. Capacity in summer is already saturated enough as is during the summer. Short term supply is extremely inelastic and rigid. Regardless of whether summer driving or the tax break would stimulate demand, it would drive prices up

BTW, this kind of thing was tried in Illinois by none other than Barack Obama when he was a Senator. It did not work well....at all. And a state gas tax holiday is a lot easier to manage the supply of gas than an entire nation. There were some benefits, however, they were very thinly spread, and the government lost a lot of revenue meant for infrastructure

I already commented on everything in your post except failed BHO policy. Failed BHO policy doesn't surprise, and neither does a 51 page pdf.