Argument against high gas prices

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:56:52 -0700, wrote:

You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately,

Homeland Security.

Mail.

Welfare.

Medicare.

Coe out west and add "water" to that list.


Sometimes it seems that the only thing the government does well is
invading countries, though occupying them seems beyond its capacity
also.

That's their #1 job. They did pretty good in the past before they became
"sensitive".

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 3:49 pm, "gatt" wrote:
I'm not being
a big-government socialist when I say that the federal bureaucracy could
run
the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not necessarily more efficiently,
but in ways that are less damaging to the US economy, transportation
industries, etc.)

-c

JEEEEEEEPPPPPERS!!!
Don't EVER say that out loud!
You've seen how well the feds have run aviation lately, and then say
that they might run oil companies at a lower cost???
What's in your water? (OK, insert half a smiley here....)
We know how thick the paperwork and regs books are just to fly a
little ol' plane from point A to point B. I can't imaigine how bad
the oil business would be if the job-justifying feds started running
it.


Oh, I agree that they'd turn it into a bureaucracy. That's my point; it
would probably STILL be cheaper to consumer because even after all of the
red tape, we'd not be lining the pockets of price-rigging sheiks, tycoons
billionairres.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message Guys who bring
this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the national
interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it.
I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal
bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not
necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the US
economy, transportation industries, etc.)


If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be increasing
capacity
before any predicted shortage due to summer/winter blends or recurirng
spikes in demand.
This way they would try to to get a competitive advantge over one another,
and have more gas on hand to sell at the higher price. Eventually the
recurring, predictable shortage would go away.

The problem is collusion and cartels. This is illegal, and not the way a
free market is supposed to work.
In my company's industry, because of competition, we can't pass on every
price increase from our suppliers straight to our customers. Our competitors
would take advantage.

Dave

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:05:28 -0700, "dave"
wrote:

If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be increasing
capacity

How can they do that if you won't allow a refinery to be built in your
neighborhood?

Someone said 20 years; it's actually 30 since a refinery was built in
the U.S. The only capacity increases since the late 1970s have been in
adding to existing refineries.

Now go figure how much the population has increased in 30 years, and
how much more each American drives today than 30 years ago.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 07:05:28 -0700, "dave"
wrote:

If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be increasing
capacity

How can they do that if you won't allow a refinery to be built in your
neighborhood?

Someone said 20 years; it's actually 30 since a refinery was built in
the U.S. The only capacity increases since the late 1970s have been in
adding to existing refineries.

Now go figure how much the population has increased in 30 years, and
how much more each American drives today than 30 years ago.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

The OP said "You will see that the gas deliveries in Mar 2007 are lower than they
were in Mar 1984." Ok, just 20+ years, but LESS...

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...


Someone said 20 years; it's actually 30 since a refinery was built in
the U.S.

Yeah...apparently the oil industry can't afford them or something. It's
those pesky environmentalists. It's getting to be so as an oilman can
barely make a living anymore. That's why there haven't been any refineries
built. There's just no money in oil.

It's not because if there aren't any refineries it throttles the oil supply
and makes it more profitable. They'd never do a dastardly thing like that.
Why...look at how broke they are!

-c

"dave" wrote in message
. ..

"gatt" wrote in message Guys who bring
this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the national
interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and nationalize it. I'm
not being a big-government socialist when I say that the federal
bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost. (Not
necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to the
US economy, transportation industries, etc.)


If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be
increasing capacity
before any predicted shortage due to summer/winter blends or recurirng
spikes in demand.

They've been begging to do that for 30 years, but a certain group is very
good at intimidating the regulators (and many are EPA regulators themselves.

This way they would try to to get a competitive advantge over one another,
and have more gas on hand to sell at the higher price. Eventually the
recurring, predictable shortage would go away.

The problem is collusion and cartels. This is illegal, and not the way a
free market is supposed to work.

Like OPEC?

Get a freaking clue and can the high-school level conspiracy drivel.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"dave" wrote in message
. ..

"gatt" wrote in message Guys who bring
this up on or.politics are usually called socialists,
communists, or America-hating lieberals, and the advice they're given is
to invest in XOM. To me, that's tantamount to investing in organized
crime. At some point we're either going to force them to put the
national interest over record oil prices, or pull a Chavez and
nationalize it. I'm not being a big-government socialist when I say that
the federal bureaucracy could run the oil industry at lower user cost.
(Not necessarily more efficiently, but in ways that are less damaging to
the US economy, transportation industries, etc.)


If the market was truly working, then the oil companies would be
increasing capacity
before any predicted shortage due to summer/winter blends or recurirng
spikes in demand.

They've been begging to do that for 30 years, but a certain group is very
good at intimidating the regulators (and many are EPA regulators
themselves.

This way they would try to to get a competitive advantge over one
another, and have more gas on hand to sell at the higher price.
Eventually the recurring, predictable shortage would go away.

The problem is collusion and cartels. This is illegal, and not the way a
free market is supposed to work.

Like OPEC?

Get a freaking clue and can the high-school level conspiracy drivel.

So the US gas production is running flat out 24/7 at 100% capacity? They
can't produce 1 drop more?

A predictable, recurring shortage, such as due to switching processes every
season, should not persist year after year. One company should ask, "why not
start our summer production a month early so we can sell more at the higher
summer price while our competitiors are doing their change over". That
ladder climbing exec gets a promotion and a big fat bonus. Eventually others
catch on and try to undercut each other, until the benefit is marginal. But
this does'nt happen. I'm just asking why.

On Jun 5, 2:31 pm, wrote:

I think the truth is that the gasoline futures market is being
manipulated to maximize profits. Why else would the prices of av-gas
rise so much when demand has dropped by nearly 50% since 2000? Why
would auto-gas prices rise rapidly, when demand is flat?


I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
company stock, or invest in mutual funds that're specialized in the
oil sector. All major oil companies are public companies. I'm quite
certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what I paid
extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
energy sector.

In terms of 100LL avgas, there's something else in play here. Due to
the lead content requiring a separate infrastructure to transport and
distribute the fuel, a reduction of 100LL consumption will result in a
bigger price gap between 100LL and autogas, due to the largely fixed
cost of 100LL infrastructure needing to be spread among a smaller
overall sales. If the 100LL consumption dropped to 50% of today's
level (it probably won't be many years away), don't be surprised that
100LL costs more than $2/gallon over the autogas price.

On Jun 5, 10:34 pm, M wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:31 pm, wrote:



I think the truth is that the gasoline futures market is being
manipulated to maximize profits. Why else would the prices of av-gas
rise so much when demand has dropped by nearly 50% since 2000? Why
would auto-gas prices rise rapidly, when demand is flat?

I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
company stock, or invest in mutual funds that're specialized in the
oil sector. All major oil companies are public companies. I'm quite
certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what I paid
extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
energy sector.

In terms of 100LL avgas, there's something else in play here. Due to
the lead content requiring a separate infrastructure to transport and
distribute the fuel, a reduction of 100LL consumption will result in a
bigger price gap between 100LL and autogas, due to the largely fixed
cost of 100LL infrastructure needing to be spread among a smaller
overall sales. If the 100LL consumption dropped to 50% of today's
level (it probably won't be many years away), don't be surprised that
100LL costs more than $2/gallon over the autogas price.

Really? Got a $100K I can have to invest in the oil companies? I
don't have it myself, so your suggestion does me no good.