Aggie87 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 Let me know when we get back to the whining instead of the arguing, guys! Agg's fault! Sorry, back at it then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 my truck No wonder he'$ pi$$ed about ga$ price$! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 my truck No wonder he'$ pi$$ed about ga$ price$! Plus, you still sail a boat, Goodie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 my truck No wonder he'$ pi$$ed about ga$ price$! Plus, you still sail a boat, Goodie? Nope....never have. That was a picture of me on somebody else's boat in the San Francisco Harbor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 BTW...I was wrong about the price of gas being $4.56 a gallon. It's $4.73 a gallon. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 my truck No wonder he'$ pi$$ed about ga$ price$! Plus, you still sail a boat, Goodie? It's not a sail boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 Again....it is not the profit margin, Aggie...it's the cost per gallon. Which is controlled by the cost of a barrel of crude oil coming into this country moreso than anything else. NOT oil companies profit margins. Your whole argument about profits has been irrelevant. edit - cost per gallon of gas here was $3.94 this morning. Up from $3.89 the past few days. Your prices for EVERYTHING are higher in California. edit 2 - that 10 cents per gallon doesn't add up to THAT much. If you fill up weekly with 15 gallons of gas, that's $1.50. Multiplied by 52 weeks, that's $78. PER YEAR. Bank on that. OK. Prices are higher...and? California is also the most populous state in the Union, too. That means huge profits for the oil companies. And that $78 bucks buys me a tank and a 1/4 of gas. Now unless you figure that I'm the only one driving in California....that adds up to huge amounts of money saved for us Californians. BTW....my wife drives a car and so does my son. Now we're talking about $230-250 dollars saved per year. That's pretty damn relevant to me, Aggie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 my truck No wonder he'$ pi$$ed about ga$ price$! Plus, you still sail a boat, Goodie? It's not a sail boat. Maybe he meant "sale" boat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) Ok, so 8.5% of $4.56 is $0.36. So if the oil companies suddenly decided they didn't want to make any profits at all and instead "help the American consumer", instead of paying $4.56 a gallon, you'd pay $4.20. Whoopie. Frankly, I'm over getting pissed off about it. Now we are being forced to make a change. Shit, if we had stuck with the fuel efficiency standards that Ford/Carter put into place back in the 1970s, we would've been off foreign oil by the late 80s. There is no reason why cars shouldn't be getting at least 40mpg, if not 50, 60, or even 70. The technology has been here for a long time. Agreed. But as to your pricing example, the point I have been making all along is that they do not need to charge as much per gallon AND if they took those huge profits and reinvested them into the business from time to time, they could reduce the cash outgo by using that money to balance out the increased cost of oil. See what people aren't getting is this isn't a consumable in the sense a box of corn flakes is or a new pair of shoes. It is a commodity we cannot do without. That is a marked difference in necessity relative to doing what is in the best interest of the American people. Pardon my love of country, but these guys made their billions off of us, with tax subsidies no less and with little regulation. They have a duty to help out their county in times of crises. Not to be the money grubbing profiteers that they are. Edited July 2, 2008 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 my truck No wonder he'$ pi$$ed about ga$ price$! It's a Toyota. I get 25-27 MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 But as to your pricing example, the point I have been making all along is that they do not need to charge as much per gallon AND if they took those huge profits and reinvested them into the business from time to time, they could reduce the cash outgo by using that money to balance out the increased cost of oil. That makes no sense. You don't think they already use some of their profit and reinvest it in their business? HELLO! That's going on already. See what people aren't getting is this isn't a consumable in the sense a box of corn flakes is or a new pair of shoes. It is a commodity we cannot do without. That is a marked difference in necessity relative to doing what is in the best interest of the American people. Everybody in this thread gets that - not sure who you're referring to. The difference is the demand for gasoline hasn't gone down as prices have gone up, as they would for corn flakes and nice shoes. Pardon my love of country, but these guys made their billions off of us, with tax subsidies no less and with little regulation. They have a duty to help out their county in times of crises. Not to be the money grubbing profiteers that they are. Can you show me where it says that in their business plan? Or a contract they signed with the U.S. government? Where it's their DUTY? Even if they did everything within their power to "help out the country in times of crises" right now (by eliminating all profit from their business), your California gas price would only go down from $4.56 to $4.20. So the major problem of high gasoline price still exists, and now you've created companies that can't sustain their business or attract shareholders any longer, ultimately putting people out of jobs while still paying high prices at the pumps. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 So these speculators are refining their own oil? Without a place to sell the stuff they wouldn't make a dime. The two are irrevocably linked, my friend. Speculators sell futures over the commodities exchange. There is no connection between the oil companies and individuals who go long on oil futures. They don't take physical delivery of the oil, but they help set the price of oil on the market. If there is a connection between the oil companies and the speculators, or if they are working together as you suggest, then it would be a violation of Federal laws. It would be called market manipulation. People have to be very careful about that. Speculators aren't completely to blame for rising oil prices but they have definitely contributed to the quick runup of prices. BTW, commodities are notoriously fickle, and oil companies went through their hard times too. I imagine they feel that their windfall profits help to offset the slow times, of which they experienced several before this spike up on oil. I'm not necessarily defending them but I don't see a point in singling them out for abuse. I hope they will be using some of these windfall profits to increase exploration. TBH, I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying they are working together or that speculators are on the oil company payroll [though I wouldn't be surprised...remember the insider trading scandal of a few years back and today's mortgage investment/loan scandal; it is possible]. What I am saying is they would not speculate on anything that wasn't needed, being bought or could be resold at unchecked prices. That is how they are undeniably linked. Why speculate on something nobody has a use for later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) But as to your pricing example, the point I have been making all along is that they do not need to charge as much per gallon AND if they took those huge profits and reinvested them into the business from time to time, they could reduce the cash outgo by using that money to balance out the increased cost of oil. That makes no sense. You don't think they already use some of their profit and reinvest it in their business? HELLO! That's going on already. See what people aren't getting is this isn't a consumable in the sense a box of corn flakes is or a new pair of shoes. It is a commodity we cannot do without. That is a marked difference in necessity relative to doing what is in the best interest of the American people. Everybody in this thread gets that - not sure who you're referring to. The difference is the demand for gasoline hasn't gone down as prices have gone up, as they would for corn flakes and nice shoes. Pardon my love of country, but these guys made their billions off of us, with tax subsidies no less and with little regulation. They have a duty to help out their county in times of crises. Not to be the money grubbing profiteers that they are. Can you show me where it says that in their business plan? Or a contract they signed with the U.S. government? Where it's their DUTY? Even if they did everything within their power to "help out the country in times of crises" right now (by eliminating all profit from their business), your California gas price would only go down from $4.56 to $4.20. So the major problem of high gasoline price still exists, and now you've created companies that can't sustain their business or attract shareholders any longer, ultimately putting people out of jobs while still paying high prices at the pumps. ... At $125 billion dollars in free and clear profit, they aren't investing very much now, are they. Again, if your sole motvation is profit, your company is no better than a leach. A cancer on society. I would compare that to another time of myopia in the days after the 9/11 attacks; when stockholders rushed the market and it took a huge drop. It hurt our economy and in a time of crisis. Selfish people we got, Aggie. Now how about giving back to the country which made it possible for them to make their billions, eh? BTW...you apparently missed my edit: Gas is $4.73 a gallon so a 50 cent drop would be most welcome. You are correct in pointing that out, Aggie. Thank you! Edited July 3, 2008 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 I'm not saying they are working together or that speculators are on the oil company payroll [though I wouldn't be surprised...remember the insider trading scandal of a few years back and today's mortgage investment/loan scandal; it is possible]. What I am saying is they would not speculate on anything that wasn't needed, being bought or could be resold at unchecked prices. That is how they are undeniably linked. Why speculate on something nobody has a use for later? Speculators trade whatever is moving good. The more "action" in an investment, the more speculators get attracted to it. Speculators are therefore exaggerating the price on oil right now. I don't see what this has to do with the oil companies. Nobody likes overvolatile prices. I doubt the oil companies do either. It makes it harder to budget and come up with reasonable quarterly goals. Screws up planning, basically. There is a role that speculators play, btw. They help create a more efficient pricing mechanism and provide market liquidity. Nevertheless, prices overshoot, and that's what has been happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 There is a role that speculators play, btw. They help create a more efficient pricing mechanism and provide market liquidity. This is really the problem. A huge problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) I'm not saying they are working together or that speculators are on the oil company payroll [though I wouldn't be surprised...remember the insider trading scandal of a few years back and today's mortgage investment/loan scandal; it is possible]. What I am saying is they would not speculate on anything that wasn't needed, being bought or could be resold at unchecked prices. That is how they are undeniably linked. Why speculate on something nobody has a use for later? Speculators trade whatever is moving good. The more "action" in an investment, the more speculators get attracted to it. Speculators are therefore exaggerating the price on oil right now. I don't see what this has to do with the oil companies. Nobody likes overvolatile prices. I doubt the oil companies do either. It makes it harder to budget and come up with reasonable quarterly goals. Screws up planning, basically. There is a role that speculators play, btw. They help create a more efficient pricing mechanism and provide market liquidity. Nevertheless, prices overshoot, and that's what has been happening. Makes good sense. I would compare that to flipping or spec'ing houses. All I'm saying is speculators won't trade what won't sell. Oil sells and is needed. Hence, it works well for them. Sucks for the rest of us. What is has to do with the oil companies is they get to further jusify that new spike in cost at the pump AND they have a made-to-order scapegoat to blame it on. Edited July 3, 2008 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Late last week regular unleaded was $3.93 a gallon here, last night on my way home I noticed many stations were selling it at $3.75 a gallon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 My station has been $3.79 for a few weeks. If it went up or down, I didn't notice. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen archer Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Yesterday we bought gas for $3.85 that is the cheapest i have seen it in a very long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I paid $3.65 in Pennsylvania on the way back home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 $3.72 at the Admiral this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 I know it's just a drop in the bucket...but 18 cents a gallon less feels pretty damn good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 When there's a Republican administration oil prices tend to go down as elections approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 $4.23 in Eugene OR. But that's less than it was. Glad I only drive about 3000 miles a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted July 28, 2008 Report Share Posted July 28, 2008 Dropped by 5-6p a litre over here during the past few days. A bargain ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.