Gas Price Relief and Oil Conservation Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
- Thread starter Joejojoba111
- Start date
- Status
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
And how exactly do "we" do that? Are you proposing that we nationalize the oil industry? Nationalized industry worked great in the Soviet Union, so let's try it here...
The only thing that will keep oil prices in line is the free market. When prices go up, we'll cut back on usage. Demand will drop and prices will go back down.
Fact is, gasoline is still darned cheap, even at $4.00 a gallon. If you don't want to pay $80 a week to fill up your tank, then trade in that SUV for a Honda or a Harley Davidson. Or quit driving so much. Until then, quit griping.
There are some things that government simply can't prevent. Huricanes and high gas prices are prime examples.
Lucky
Member
I think that it's a good point that the oil industry is far from 'free market' so standard free-market practices are pointless.
Also, if the gov't is going to interfere 'for the good of the economy' they could simply slap a 200% tax on gasoline, and you get a full refund when it comes time to pay taxes. Result? Gasoline costs more in the short-run, such that people actually do find alternatives. But in actuality people don't pay more, because they get their money back. In reality gov't doesn't give money back, though, so it won't work.
But in any case the price will and should go up, and it will be feasible to use alternatives.
Also, if the gov't is going to interfere 'for the good of the economy' they could simply slap a 200% tax on gasoline, and you get a full refund when it comes time to pay taxes. Result? Gasoline costs more in the short-run, such that people actually do find alternatives. But in actuality people don't pay more, because they get their money back. In reality gov't doesn't give money back, though, so it won't work.
But in any case the price will and should go up, and it will be feasible to use alternatives.
There is a little problem here ....
If our Congress should slap a 200% tax on gasoline they might not be able to stay in office long enough to lose in the next election ...
Now, since you seem to favor "alternatives," what do you suggest that might be practical, workable, and implemented in the short term?? Or for that matter in the more distant future?
If our Congress should slap a 200% tax on gasoline they might not be able to stay in office long enough to lose in the next election ...
Now, since you seem to favor "alternatives," what do you suggest that might be practical, workable, and implemented in the short term?? Or for that matter in the more distant future?
jefnvk
Member
I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a definition of 'gouging' and 'excessive profit' past 'big oil making money'.
The new definition of price gouging. Oil conpanies raised the price of fuel. Now my paycheck won't cover gas, house payment, RV payment, four car payments, maxed out credit card minimum payment, and every other thing under the sun.
Thin Black Line
Member
What's next? A Peak Oil debate?
Seriously, do we need price controls or should "consumers" learn to
modify their own behavior? Will the people screaming the loudest for
socialist price controls be the same ones driving aorund in the vehicles
with the worst mpg? "Darn it! How am I suppose to make my Hummer
H2 payment when gas is this expensive!"
Oh, well, gotta keep everyone happy at the Roman Circus.
Seriously, do we need price controls or should "consumers" learn to
modify their own behavior? Will the people screaming the loudest for
socialist price controls be the same ones driving aorund in the vehicles
with the worst mpg? "Darn it! How am I suppose to make my Hummer
H2 payment when gas is this expensive!"
Oh, well, gotta keep everyone happy at the Roman Circus.
SMMAssociates
Member
Couple things we might try....
Short-term reductions in the fuel taxes might be possible - a simple mandate to justify the taxes, perhaps. Bear in mind that the actual dollar level of the taxes has become a windfall profit for the taxing authorities because it's keyed to the retail pricing and not some fixed standard.
Dumping the taxes entirely could be very bad for our infrastructure, as the trough-feeders are dependent on the current values, but backing the dollar value down to, say, June 1, 2005, might be equitable all around.
We need to stop the one form of gouging (if it's possible) wherein some Arab gets an itch and our prices at the pump go up $0.30 instantly because the producer prices will increase in four months., and the same sort of situation where the producer price drops but the pump price stays up for another month past when that oil gets to market.
(This is probably a little simplistic, but the current system is a rip-off, IMHO.)
The EPA mandated "blends" - practically one for each State and season - do little to change anything, but do result in spot shortages all over the place. Either drop the whole thing entirely, or at least use a much coarser "cut" - like the time zones.... I don't mind paying a little more for clean air, but the EPA has gotten carried away here. This will smooth out pump prices without hurting too many people.
Finally, there are alternatives.... Ethanol and Hydrogen may not be practical right now, but they could be. Stop the EPA from forcing us into spending ten years to get a "license" to build a refinery, or forever to put up a nuclear plant. Stop everybody from restricting drilling beyond common sense reasons. (Yup, not in my backyard, but there are plenty of places where gas and oil wells could be placed that wouldn't bother anybody.)
Just IMHO....
Short-term reductions in the fuel taxes might be possible - a simple mandate to justify the taxes, perhaps. Bear in mind that the actual dollar level of the taxes has become a windfall profit for the taxing authorities because it's keyed to the retail pricing and not some fixed standard.
Dumping the taxes entirely could be very bad for our infrastructure, as the trough-feeders are dependent on the current values, but backing the dollar value down to, say, June 1, 2005, might be equitable all around.
We need to stop the one form of gouging (if it's possible) wherein some Arab gets an itch and our prices at the pump go up $0.30 instantly because the producer prices will increase in four months., and the same sort of situation where the producer price drops but the pump price stays up for another month past when that oil gets to market.
(This is probably a little simplistic, but the current system is a rip-off, IMHO.)
The EPA mandated "blends" - practically one for each State and season - do little to change anything, but do result in spot shortages all over the place. Either drop the whole thing entirely, or at least use a much coarser "cut" - like the time zones.... I don't mind paying a little more for clean air, but the EPA has gotten carried away here. This will smooth out pump prices without hurting too many people.
Finally, there are alternatives.... Ethanol and Hydrogen may not be practical right now, but they could be. Stop the EPA from forcing us into spending ten years to get a "license" to build a refinery, or forever to put up a nuclear plant. Stop everybody from restricting drilling beyond common sense reasons. (Yup, not in my backyard, but there are plenty of places where gas and oil wells could be placed that wouldn't bother anybody.)
Just IMHO....
JohnBT
Member
"I'm still waiting for anyone to give me a definition of 'gouging' "
I've seen reports of two stations, one in GA and one in northern VA, charging $6/gal when other stations in their area were still at the $3.30-$3.50 level. When approached by state reps they both backed down on their prices and continued selling gas.
John
I've seen reports of two stations, one in GA and one in northern VA, charging $6/gal when other stations in their area were still at the $3.30-$3.50 level. When approached by state reps they both backed down on their prices and continued selling gas.
John
jefnvk
Member
The first is the first definition I have seen that can even be remotely construed as a definition for gouging. However, it says that you cannot make more money than you made last year. If that were applied to every market there is, what do you think the response would be.
Maybe that is how we should look at it. How would this go over if it were applied to another industry. What if we just told Dell or Apple that htey can no longer make any more money than they traditionally have, because everyone needs a computer, and they are gouging the price?
John's response could be an example of gouging, if we had a definition.
Maybe that is how we should look at it. How would this go over if it were applied to another industry. What if we just told Dell or Apple that htey can no longer make any more money than they traditionally have, because everyone needs a computer, and they are gouging the price?
John's response could be an example of gouging, if we had a definition.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Someone please tell me why a given gas station shouldn't be allowed to set its own price for its product. Why shouldn't a busines owner be permitted to make a profit from his labors?
So what if one particular store wants $6 a gallon rather than $3? As the owners of the stores, they (ought to) have that right. This is still America, isn't it?
As a consumer, you have a right to buy from whichever store you want. So if you don't want to pay $6/gal, then just drive down the road to the other guy who only charges $3/gal.
It really is that simple. No lawmakers required.
So what if one particular store wants $6 a gallon rather than $3? As the owners of the stores, they (ought to) have that right. This is still America, isn't it?
As a consumer, you have a right to buy from whichever store you want. So if you don't want to pay $6/gal, then just drive down the road to the other guy who only charges $3/gal.
It really is that simple. No lawmakers required.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Assuming that both stations have gasoline, and I see one at $5 and the other at $3, I'm not gonna worry about anything. I don't even need Nanny Gov to tell me what to do, nor will I care one iota about Mr. $5. It's his deal; he can do what he wants.
I note that the present pricing of some $2.75 to $3.00, nationwide, has already reduced demand. Labor Day vacation travel is down. Shopping trips are down. People are already trading out of their Suburbans--getting their drawers ripped--and into econoboxes.
We're already into a repeat of the 1970s, and we don't need Congress' help at all. Around 1972, the average US-made car got 11 mpg. Even before Congress came up with the CAFE, people were buying into 25mpg to 35mpg cars.
In 1978 or so, "Oil's nearly $30/bbl, and it's going to $100!" Yeah, right. By 1985, oil was "up" to $10/bbl and Odessa went broke. I don't believe we'll see that dramatic a repeat, but folks betting on an uninterrupted trend of higher oil prices better copper their bets.
Art
I note that the present pricing of some $2.75 to $3.00, nationwide, has already reduced demand. Labor Day vacation travel is down. Shopping trips are down. People are already trading out of their Suburbans--getting their drawers ripped--and into econoboxes.
We're already into a repeat of the 1970s, and we don't need Congress' help at all. Around 1972, the average US-made car got 11 mpg. Even before Congress came up with the CAFE, people were buying into 25mpg to 35mpg cars.
In 1978 or so, "Oil's nearly $30/bbl, and it's going to $100!" Yeah, right. By 1985, oil was "up" to $10/bbl and Odessa went broke. I don't believe we'll see that dramatic a repeat, but folks betting on an uninterrupted trend of higher oil prices better copper their bets.
Art
Higher prices encourage conservation, and that's a good thing. Higher prices also drive up the cost of everything else, and that's not a good thing. It is not reasonable, IMO, that one industry should be able to force increase costs on all goods and services throughout the economy. Now it is true that the refineries, distributors and retailers have no control over the cost of crude oil; a price that is largely set by OPEC nations; and a price that must be passed along. Keep in mind that we're not just talking gasoline and oil here. How many other goods are made from petroleum? Look around you right now; I'd wager that more than half of what you're looking at came from oil.
So it's bad enough that we're stuck with whatever price OPEC wants to charge (and that's a whole 'nother argument). But we can't have one (domestic) industry manipulating prices and/or supplies simply to increase their bottom line.
That's all I'm sayin'.
So it's bad enough that we're stuck with whatever price OPEC wants to charge (and that's a whole 'nother argument). But we can't have one (domestic) industry manipulating prices and/or supplies simply to increase their bottom line.
That's all I'm sayin'.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
The oil industry isn't the guilty party here. They have very little control over the price of crude and gasoline. They aren't manipulating prices domestically, and they don't have control over the entire economy. The domestic oil industry suffers more than most other industry when the price of gas/crude goes up.
Think about it... As gas prices rise, people buy less from the oil industry. Drivers trade in their SUVs for Hondas. They travel less. They carpool. People everywhere clamor for Big Brother to "do something", and the government steps in with all sorts of stupid price fixing regulations (which amounts to throwing an anchor to a drowning man). The auto industry finds it profitiable to market hybrids, and consumers find it profitable to buy them. The oil industry's customer base dwindles, while their competitors thrive. All of their capital investments (refineries, pipelines, deep-sea rigs, etc) generate less revenue due to lower demand, while their operating costs remain steady. The industry must raise its prices to cover the difference. The cycle continues...
Do you think this is good for the long-term profitiability of Exxon Mobil, Amoco and Texaco?
The point is that the oil industry has little incentive to raise the price of its product. They don't do it because they want to, and they are NOT increasing their bottom line.
So who does receive all that extra money we're paying at the pump? Well, let's just say that there are lots of folks praising Allah for the windfall that Katrina gave them.
Think about it... As gas prices rise, people buy less from the oil industry. Drivers trade in their SUVs for Hondas. They travel less. They carpool. People everywhere clamor for Big Brother to "do something", and the government steps in with all sorts of stupid price fixing regulations (which amounts to throwing an anchor to a drowning man). The auto industry finds it profitiable to market hybrids, and consumers find it profitable to buy them. The oil industry's customer base dwindles, while their competitors thrive. All of their capital investments (refineries, pipelines, deep-sea rigs, etc) generate less revenue due to lower demand, while their operating costs remain steady. The industry must raise its prices to cover the difference. The cycle continues...
Do you think this is good for the long-term profitiability of Exxon Mobil, Amoco and Texaco?
The point is that the oil industry has little incentive to raise the price of its product. They don't do it because they want to, and they are NOT increasing their bottom line.
So who does receive all that extra money we're paying at the pump? Well, let's just say that there are lots of folks praising Allah for the windfall that Katrina gave them.
Last edited:
carnaby
Member
Should properly read
A BILL
To provide consumers with relief from high gas availability.
They don't approve of windmills either. The windmills destroy the view of the "pristine land", generate noise that disturbs wildlife, and kills birds that collide with the blades. Sort of like the people with beach houses that don't want to see oil rigs.
Sergeant Bob
Member
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Last night, O'Riley was nattering away and danged-sure spinning against the "evil oil companies" excess profits of the recent three months. It was pointed out that the average profit for this period represented a 6.7 percent return on sales. That's less than restaurant chains or clothing chains.
O'Riley didn't care. I assume these Congressfolks don't, either.
Art
O'Riley didn't care. I assume these Congressfolks don't, either.
Art
- Status