Finally paid $3 a gallon for gas for first time in life

Alex > wrote in
ups.com:


>
> In case you haven't notice most folks who buy F150's need their truck
> to haul stuff. A Focus ain't going to cut it.
> --------------
> Alex
>

I don't know if that's true anymore,about "most people *need their truck to
haul stuff*";
IMO,these days,most people are NOT "hauling stuff" in everyday
driving,mainly just one person per truck. I see a lot of women driving
trucks these days,and they are NOT "hauling stuff",just commuting.(to
office jobs!)
They like the big trucks,puts them up high,makes them feel "safe".
Even though they can't park them worth a damn.

"Most people" could get by with a Smart mini-auto.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

" wrote:
>
> On May 15, 4:51 pm, Ed White > wrote:
> > On May 15, 2:45 pm, Alex > wrote:
> >
> > > In case you haven't notice most folks who buy F150's need their truck
> > > to haul stuff. A Focus ain't going to cut it.
> >
> > I disagree - most of the pick-up truck I see are riding around empty,
> > and many even have hard covers over the bed. I suspect that more than
> > 50% of the pick-up haul nothing more than the driver 90% of the time.
>
> If a pickup is hauling just a driver 90% of the time, and hauling a
> load that requires a pickup 10% of the time, what else would you
> suggest that owner do? Many times people need a truck but can't have
> an extra vehicle for any of a multitude of reasons. Having a truck as
> their only vehicle may be necessary.
>
Only because the current system doesn't encourage right-fit driving. For
example, what prevents you from sharing your pickup with about ten of
your neighbours? One thing that makes it difficult is insurance costs
and how liability is determined. Literally you can't insure a vehicle if
you don't have a stake in it which effectively means you can't insure a
car you don't own.


> > At the plant where I work, more than 30% of the vehicles in the lot
> > are pick-ups. The plant is a 10 to 30 mile commute for most people.
> > All those pick-up are just wasting fuel.
>
> Assuming when not driving 10 miles to the plant, they need the truck.
> Do you think it would be more economical for them to pay for, insure &
> maintain an extra vehicle to save a couple mpg 100 miles per week to &
> from work?
>
I don't know. Do they just drive to work or do they drive to the store
too? What else do they use their vehicle for? In many cases, a small
electric vehicle could make all the difference. This would be especially
true if free train service existed that allowed the EV to be driven
aboard and transported for any long distance needed, charging on the
way, and then left to go wherever as the driver sees fit. This would
reduce road congestion, would reduce pollution in cities, and would make
electric cars practical. Is anyone doing this? Nope. I don't think
anyone in power is even talking about it.



> I recently had to trade in my car for a pickup for logistical
> reasons. I don't drive it daily, but when I do take it in to work
> we're talking 70 miles round trip - assuming I pedal to lunch. When
> my bed is empty and I'm driving I'm not "wasting gas", I'm using it to
> do what I need to do and get where I need to get. I lost 3-4mpg going
> to the truck, but it evens out in utilitarian needs.
>
An EV could be directly capable of 35 miles and recharge while you are
at work for the drive home.



--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <4649aa8f$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > Why do you need a conspiracy to charge more for gasoline? If was
> > running an oil company, and just raised the price by $0.30 and my
> > sales actually increased, I'd be inclined to raise the price some
> > more. The only conspiracy in the US is a conspiracy of dunces who keep
> > buying more gasoline and who refuse to change their gas wasting
> > habits. When more people buy Foci instead of F150s, the gas prices
> > will fall. I am not expecting this to happen in the near future.
>
> Have you kept track of what has gone in the last decade plus?
>
> http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/pr/?postId=5110
>
> "The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco (Click here to
> read the memos.) show different ways the oil giants closed down refining
> capacity and drove independent refiners out of business. The confidential
> memos demonstrate a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute,
> the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage the major
> refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s in order to raise the
> price at the pump.
>
> "Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline
> market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who
> successfully fought" to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its
> Bakersfield, California refinery this year. Oil companies know they can
> make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call
> to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system
> running on empty."
>
> "Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline
> market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who
> successfully fought" to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its
> Bakersfield, California refinery this year. Oil companies know they can
> make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call
> to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system
> running on empty.""
>
> We could cut our consumption by half, they would just cut the refining
> capacity by 2/3rds and the price would go up high enough so they actually
> made more money.
>
> There's no new competition coming in, no need to worry.
>
Why are you building a refinery? Isn't it true that eco-nuts, THE VERY
SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE HIGH GAS PRICES, fight to
prevent the opening of new refining capacity, the increase in domestic
drilling, nuclear power, etc.?


--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"

In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article <4649aa8f$1@kcnews01>, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> > Why do you need a conspiracy to charge more for gasoline? If was
>> > running an oil company, and just raised the price by $0.30 and my
>> > sales actually increased, I'd be inclined to raise the price some
>> > more. The only conspiracy in the US is a conspiracy of dunces who keep
>> > buying more gasoline and who refuse to change their gas wasting
>> > habits. When more people buy Foci instead of F150s, the gas prices
>> > will fall. I am not expecting this to happen in the near future.
>>
>> Have you kept track of what has gone in the last decade plus?
>>
>> http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/pr/?postId=5110
>>
>> "The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco (Click here to
>> read the memos.) show different ways the oil giants closed down refining
>> capacity and drove independent refiners out of business. The confidential
>> memos demonstrate a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute,
>> the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage the major
>> refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s in order to raise the
>> price at the pump.
>>
>> "Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline
>> market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who
>> successfully fought" to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its
>> Bakersfield, California refinery this year. Oil companies know they can
>> make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call
>> to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system
>> running on empty."
>>
>> "Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline
>> market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who
>> successfully fought" to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its
>> Bakersfield, California refinery this year. Oil companies know they can
>> make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call
>> to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system
>> running on empty.""
>>
>> We could cut our consumption by half, they would just cut the refining
>> capacity by 2/3rds and the price would go up high enough so they actually
>> made more money.
>>
>> There's no new competition coming in, no need to worry.
>>
> Why are you building a refinery? Isn't it true that eco-nuts, THE VERY
> SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE HIGH GAS PRICES, fight to
> prevent the opening of new refining capacity, the increase in domestic
> drilling, nuclear power, etc.?

I accidently got the same paragraph twice instead of the other one I
wanted to quote. However it's still there on the link which you obviously
didn't bother to read before making a knee jerk response. Big oil is
using regulation as a tool of market security.

Regulation has been used by existing businesses (often through some sort
of association) for many decades to block new comers from entering the
market. Ever wonder why big oil funds environmental groups? Ever wonder
why they support the peak oil and global warming (to a lesser extent) scams
these days? Look what it does to their bottom line. Regulation and
taxation works to push smaller companies out of the market. It keeps
others from starting.

By doing things this way, big oil can play off the insane two party
'team' nonsense that keeps people's eye off the ball. It has the added
bonus in that it even gets the people on one team actually supporting
the oil companies. So while the R team is out there saying it's the fault
of envrionmentalists and the D team is out saying big oil is cheating
people... meanwhile big oil is just laughing all the way to the banks as
it uses age old manipulations of the market and government.

In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:

>> http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroo....vtml?id=29028
>>
>> If the oil companies were truly short on refinery capacity they
>> wouldn't have gone from 223 refineries in 1985 to 149 in 2004 (and
>> yet production has increased by 30%). Go figure.

> They have been consolidating because it is difficult to be profitable
> *in refining* if you operate at a small scale. There is tightened supply
> in the US for refined products especially gasoline. If you want to help,
> don't drive.

It won't help. Reduce demand they'll just close off another refinery to
make sure the remaining ones need to run balls to the wall 24-7 just to
meet demand. That way every little hickup lets them cash in.

Gasoline needs to get back to a real fair market system where companies
compete with each other for market share. Where if prices get too high
new comers come in and take it down a notch or three. The other aspect is
to stop the taxpayer support of big oil through foreign aid and military
operations. Not to mention overthrowing foreign governments. The oil
companies have been supported by the US taxpayer (unwittingly) since at
least operation ajax in the 1950s.

Once that is done, then gasoline will really operate on a true free
market supply vs. demand principle.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroo....vtml?id=29028
>>>
>>>If the oil companies were truly short on refinery capacity they
>>>wouldn't have gone from 223 refineries in 1985 to 149 in 2004 (and
>>>yet production has increased by 30%). Go figure.
>
>
>
>>They have been consolidating because it is difficult to be profitable
>>*in refining* if you operate at a small scale. There is tightened supply
>>in the US for refined products especially gasoline. If you want to help,
>>don't drive.
>
>
> It won't help. Reduce demand they'll just close off another refinery to
> make sure the remaining ones need to run balls to the wall 24-7 just to
> meet demand. That way every little hickup lets them cash in.
>

That's one explanation, but another similar one is simply that a
refinery is most economically efficient when it runs as close to
capacity as it can get away with.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroo....vtml?id=29028
>>>>
>>>>If the oil companies were truly short on refinery capacity they
>>>>wouldn't have gone from 223 refineries in 1985 to 149 in 2004 (and
>>>>yet production has increased by 30%). Go figure.
>>
>>
>>
>>>They have been consolidating because it is difficult to be profitable
>>>*in refining* if you operate at a small scale. There is tightened supply
>>>in the US for refined products especially gasoline. If you want to help,
>>>don't drive.
>>
>>
>> It won't help. Reduce demand they'll just close off another refinery to
>> make sure the remaining ones need to run balls to the wall 24-7 just to
>> meet demand. That way every little hickup lets them cash in.
>>
>
> That's one explanation, but another similar one is simply that a
> refinery is most economically efficient when it runs as close to
> capacity as it can get away with.

I don't doubt that, but why did they act to buy up or otherwise put out
of business the other refineries as per their documents already cited. I
am just accusing them of carrying out their plans.

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS >
wrote in
link.net:

> I've avoided it so far but had to pay $3.19 today. Just
> amazing how gas keeps rising while oil is sinking. Oil has
> gone from $79/barrel last summer to $62 now. But remember -
> There are no conspiracies in america.
>

Cable news sez the price of gasoline will soon fall from these
high prices.....

Just in time to rise back up and top $4/gallon.

"C. E. White" > wrote in
news:4649ad32$1@kcnews01:

>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On May 15, 1:52 am, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>> > wrote:
>>> I've avoided it so far but had to pay $3.19 today. Just
>>> amazing how gas
>>> keeps rising while oil is sinking. Oil has gone from
>>> $79/barrel last
>>> summer to $62 now.
>>
>> Most of it is TAXES. Why else is gas in San Francisco a
>> dollar
>> more than here in central North Carolina? It sure isn't
>> plausible that it's because the Arabs are being generous to
>> us and hate Kalifornia - when they could make more money
>> screwing us.
>
> I persoanly think gas taxes are too low. Our military is
> being asked to fight terrorist who are largely financed by
> oil revenues. We should at least tax the imported oil at a
> rate high enough to fund the war on terror (aka the war to
> secure oil reserves for oil companies).
>
> California and NC fuel taxes as of Janruary 2006 -
>
> California: State Excise & Sales Tax: 41.6; Federal: 18.4;
> Total State & Federal: 60.0
>
> North Carolina: State Excise & Sales Tax: 26.4; Federal:
> 18.4; Total State & Federal: 44.8
>
> So at the most, California charges 15.2 cents/gallon more
> than NC because of taxes.
>
> Ed


Awwww, damn you, Ed. Dontcha know everyone knows reality has a
liberal bias; therefore, mustn't be used in debate between
thinkers and conservatives.

Ole redneck > wrote in
oups.com:

> On May 15, 7:39 am, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>> > wrote in
>> s.earthlink
>> .net...
>>
>> > I've avoided it so far but had to pay $3.19 today. Just
>> > amazing how gas keeps rising while oil is sinking. Oil has
>> > gone from $79/barrel last summer to $62 now. But remember
>> > - There are no conspiracies in America.
>>
>> Why do you need a conspiracy to charge more for gasoline? If
>> was running an oil company, and just raised the price by
>> $0.30 and my sales actually increased, I'd be inclined to
>> raise the price some more. The only conspiracy in the US is
>> a conspiracy of dunces who keep buying more gasoline and who
>> refuse to change their gas wasting habits. When more people
>> buy Foci instead of F150s, the gas prices will fall. I am
>> not expecting this to happen in the near future.
>
> Nancy thanks, you stupid bitch...I sure appreciate the $ 1.18
> increase in
> fuel prices since you assholes took office.
>
> Now are you tired of waiting on Nancy yet?
>
>
> The fastest way to lower fuel prices is to buy your fuel from
> anyone other than number one... thats right boycot
> ExxonMobile Corp.

Do reichwingers turn in their brains when they start voting?

Fuel is a required part of life nowadays, you may not have
noticed.

Ya see, oil companies have been merging for the last twenty years
(anyone recall reading about why Standard Oil was broken up). In
all declining industries, which is what you are posting about,
companies merge in order to avoid or at least limit price
competition. Back in the 50s, gasoline companies would cut prices
periodically to attract customers from other brands (ESSO,
Mobile, Texaco, etc).

IOW, declining demand will not lead to declining prices.
Companies will merge to reduce competition.

Prices will fall only when automobiles can use multiple types of
energy because gasoline supplies can be too easily restricted to
maintain price discipline.

>
>
> It may not be fair to ExxonMobile Corp., or their
> shareholders but you
> know I don't give a damn, they are the largest retailer of
> fuel products in the U.S. and when a large number of people
> start switching
> to a different retailer the entire oil industry will take
> notice.
>
>
> When you are being bullied you can give up your lunch money
> or if you are like me you can walk up to the biggist kid on
> the block and kick him in the balls.
>
>
> I don't know if giving up your lunch money works, I can
> assure you giving them a kick in the nuts usualy works very
> well.
>
>
>
>>
>> Ed
>
>
>