Interesting WSJ article on gas prices and Obama

[Stoked]

I doubt it, at least here in Utah. UTA is already a big time loser and imo, is going to have a hell of a time staying afloat without some sort of government interference. Taxi's don't do anything to help this situation, since you know, they use the same gas.

Actually they would. As the taxis are already there. Now it is 1 car instead of 2 lol.

Also the argument can be made that the public transit is a dud here in Utah because there is a very low demand. But what if that demand dramatically increased because the average person cannot afford gas.

 

[TroutBum]

Actually they would. As the taxis are already there. Now it is 1 car instead of 2 lol.

Also the argument can be made that the public transit is a dud here in Utah because there is a very low demand. But what if that demand dramatically increased because the average person cannot afford gas.

I guess I don't understand your point on Taxi's, but you may have a point on mass transit, although I don't see it happening.

 

[Stoked]

I guess I don't understand your point on Taxi's, but you may have a point on mass transit, although I don't see it happening.

Oh I do not either. Just an outloud thought I guess.

As far as taxis they are already all over the place. For example I call my local taxi service to take me somewhere. Well now my car is off the road and less gas is used. That taxi would have been on the road anyways.

Edit: I guess one could argue that an increase demand would lead to more taxis and thereby negate the savings.

 

[franklin]

I personally can't wait until gas is over 6 or 7 bucks a gallon. Then, and only then, will things change. We're drug addicts, and our drug is oil. If our drug of choice becomes too expensive, or is limited in its supply, then we find something else. It's natural, it happens. As a nation and as a worldwide community, we simply must go forward with alternate energy solutions, and high gas prices is a great way to kick it in the *** and get things going.

I love getting 45mpg in my prius, by the way.

I'm a huge proponent of an additional $1.00 gas tax completely offset with a payroll deduction and a prebate to social security recipients. Then, you remove the ethanol/electric car subsidies as a $1.00 tax is an effective subsidy to all alternative fuel. I'd also like to pair it with a roll back of some EPA stuff as the decreased fuel consumption would more than offset any increase in stationary emissions.

Everyone wins here. Free marketers win, consumers win (by having a choice of saving that tax break and oil prices would drop), industry wins which means job seekers win, trade deficit wins, and the federal deficit wins. You can see why there is no political party for me. We can't do anything that makes sense.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

The liberal economic plan is as simple as this:

Step 1. Cause problem.
Step 2. Fix problem by causing more problems.
Rinse and repeat until the entire system falls apart.

In practice now:
Step 1. Artificially stimulate demand for business products so businesses will hire by handing out endless welfare checks and increasing
social security payouts.
Step 1a. This pushes business margins higher.
Step 1b. Higher business margins squeeze the middle class while enriching the business class.
Step 2. Fix by cutting taxes on middle class and hand out endless welfare checks.
Step 2a. This pushes business margins higher.
Step 2b. Higher business margins squeeze the middle class while enriching the business class.

Genius plan isn't it.

What's your solution to the problem(s)?

 

[PearlWatson]

I personally can't wait until gas is over 6 or 7 bucks a gallon. Then, and only then, will things change. We're drug addicts, and our drug is oil. If our drug of choice becomes too expensive, or is limited in its supply, then we find something else. It's natural, it happens. As a nation and as a worldwide community, we simply must go forward with alternate energy solutions, and high gas prices is a great way to kick it in the *** and get things going.

I love getting 45mpg in my prius, by the way.

The audacity of retardation^

Screw change, hope, and Obaaaamaaa sheep too.

There ain't no "alternate energy solutions" for oil.

 

[The Thriller]

Man I just can't wait until Thriller unloads one of his lengthy dialogues on the evilness of the conservative party in this thread. Woohoo!

I'm sorry, that I didn't hate Obama for that whole Solyandra or Birth Certificate nonsense the repubs were trying to promote.

Gas prices will continue climb as they have for decades. Why (some) Americans feel like this is the fault of the President or economic policy is beyond me. It's a limited commodity in high demand. No pipeline or opening of some ice refuge in Alaska is going to change that.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I'm sorry, that I didn't hate Obama for that whole Solyandra or Birth Certificate nonsense the repubs were trying to promote.

Gas prices will continue climb as they have for decades. Why (some) Americans feel like this is the fault of the President or economic policy is beyond me. It's a limited commodity in high demand. No pipeline or opening of some ice refuge in Alaska is going to change that.

So you're calling it a supply and demand issue and then claiming more supply to meet that demand doesn't do anything to prices? Brilliant.

 

[TroutBum]

So you're calling it a supply and demand issue and then claiming more supply to meet that demand doesn't do anything to prices? Brilliant.

I can't believe I'm about to step in and defend oGathriller... But he's right. Would it be a short term fix? Of course. "Short term" is the question though. 100 years? 200? 1,000? Who knows, but I'm not interested in just putting a bandaid on so my kids, grandkids, etc have to fit the bill because we were too damn lazy and ignorant. (see Millsapa)

 

[PearlWatson]

I'm not interested in just putting a bandaid on so my kids, grandkids, etc have to fit the bill because we were too damn lazy and ignorant. (see Millsapa)

Did you start smoking pot again?

 

[TroutBum]

Did you start smoking pot again?

I wish.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

I can't believe I'm about to step in and defend oGathriller... But he's right. Would it be a short term fix? Of course. "Short term" is the question though. 100 years? 200? 1,000? Who knows, but I'm not interested in just putting a bandaid on so my kids, grandkids, etc have to fit the bill because we were too damn lazy and ignorant. (see Millsapa)

He didn't say anything about alternative energy in his post other than that he doesn't care that we burn cash on crappy companies. Everybody wants alternative energy. I don't want to pay for anything. Let's get the whole world running on water, sun, and wind. But anybody that thinks those that have claims to US oil are just going to let those reserves go to waste is nuts. They're going to tap everything once they push oil much higher. Whomever is the president when oil is high enough will allow it to be exploited.

 

[TroutBum]

He didn't say anything about alternative energy in his post other than that he doesn't care that we burn cash on crappy companies. Everybody wants alternative energy. I don't want to pay for anything. Let's get the whole world running on water, sun, and wind. But anybody that thinks those that have claims to US oil are just going to let those reserves go to waste is nuts. They're going to tap everything once they push oil much higher. Whomever is the president when oil is high enough will allow it to be exploited.

Everybody wants alternative energy? So sorry Charlie, but that's just not true. I agree with you on your last statement though, which is pretty damn sad.

 

[The Thriller]

So you're calling it a supply and demand issue and then claiming more supply to meet that demand doesn't do anything to prices? Brilliant.

Use your head.

It's a commodity that is going bye bye. Every day there is less of it than before.

Barring some devastating global depression that leads to industrial collapse or some epidemic that kills billions, supply will continue to decrease as demand continues to increase.

By the time we build some stupid pipeline or drill in Alaska, the demand will have already outpaced the "new" supply that x pipeline and x well would have created.

Of course, there are other variables such as how commodities are sold. But the base supply and demand concept that you repubs worship should be pretty obvious to you. $2 dollar gas isn't coming back. Gas hasn't declined in price substantially and for very long in decades. It's pretty obvious why.

7 billion people, 3rd world countries industrializing, etc.

the sooner you folks realize that cheap gas went the way of the dinosaur, the better.

The sooner we vary our energy portfolio, the better.

Please, join the rest of us into the 21st century. This goes for everyone, independent of political ideology. Cheap gas is gone and no amount of drilling is going to change the demand nor will it "increase" the gross amount of oil this planet has remaining. Get over it. And lets stop blaming Presidents and start looking for alternatives.

I remember when digital cameras first started to be produced. Kodak called it foul. They failed to endorse these new gadgets for the future. They stubbornly insisted that their traditional cameras were the way to go.... I read a few months ago that Kodak was selling off its patents in struggles to survive...

I hope our children and grandchildren don't look back at us for our lack of foresight. The future isn't oil. The future is alternative energies. The sooner we get off oil, the better.

 

[TroutBum]

Dear Hayward...

What OGat said.



/slits wrists

 

[Duck Rodgers]

.

Just read the article again because he's right. Horrible monetary policy and geopolitical risk. That's the oil story right now. No supply and demand issues exist. The economy is on life support and cheap money is the only thing it has and it naturally seeps into oil markets. Today. I don't care about 100 years into the future. That's not the debate we're having. That's not the debate the article was presenting.

 

[The Thriller]

Just read the article again because he's right. Horrible monetary policy and geopolitical risk. That's the oil story right now. No supply and demand issues exist. The economy is on life support and cheap money is the only thing it has and it naturally seeps into oil markets. Today. I don't care about 100 years into the future. That's not the debate we're having. That's not the debate the article was presenting.

I love how you didn't address half my message. Which, you know, basically torpedoed your ridiculous rant against Obama. Seriously, why didn't you address it? why didn't you consider the supply and demand of oil? And how it's a very limited commodity that will only see less supply and more demand as more countries continue to industrialize?

Actually, you're absolutely right. Gas prices would be sub $2 right now if it weren't for Obama. had McCain been elected, we'd all be driving around in our Hummers without any problem or pain filling up. Our sanctions against Iran, Iran's threats to not sell, the overall instability of the mid-east, supply/demand, speculators taking advantage of this unstable situation to inflate prices... All of nothing to do with this. It's all Obama's fault.

riiiighhhtttt....

And Magical Mitt is gonna wave his wand and solve this? As if gas prices haven't been increasing steadily since 1950? Only during Obama.

You Obama haters are taking your stupidity to a whole new level. Can't wait for him to be President, since he's gonna bring prices down just like every President has done OTHER than Obama!

Prices increased under Bush (when supposedly we went into Iraq for oil lol...) and they're increasing under Obama (despite our fuel production breaking records).
They've been increasing for decades.

The common factor? Oil is going away and more people are using it.

I don't care about 100 years into the future.

You act as if this is an issue that will only become a "problem" in 100 years. Yet, it already is! Your own article cites how the ME's instability creates fluctuations in oil prices which create fluctuations in the price of gas. The problem is already here!

Just imagine, had we in the 70s, been determined to "go green" how much further ahead we'd be? Imagine how much better off we'd be right now if these price fluctuations in oil didn't have any real affect on us because of our complex and varied alternative energy portfolio?

I don't expect you to respond to this, because you're just playing your role. We all know that you don't believe the nonsense you're spewing.

Once again, I encourage you to leave your political ideology at the door and join the rest of us into the 21st century. It's not even an environmental issue anymore to find and develop alternative energies, but an economic. If anything, the bad economy and Arab Spring has emphasized the need to develop this part of the private sector. The 21st century isn't a race on who can drill in the ocean and arctic the most, it's about who can grow and develop alternative energies the fastest and get off oil. Sadly, even in this, the subsidized Chinese solar panel industry is kicking our asses.

As far as the article's criticism of Obama's monetary policy... Ummmmm you do realize that an increase in interest rates RIGHT NOW would be disastrous? We're still trying to revive the real estate industry. Right now, affordable mortgages are more important than shaving a few cents off the price of gas.

Radicals (like duck) need to realize that these simple solutions often placed on bumper stickers (ex. DRILL BABY DRILL) for complex problems doesn't work. More importantly, you need to realize holding onto AM radio political ideologies and interpretations of the Constitution aren't going to help our political situation nor propel us successfully into this century. Oh, and btw, nearly every single economist would have reacted in the same way. High interest rates in a bad economy=a horrific economy making recovery impossible.

 

[TroutBum]

Off topic, but I was listening to Fox News Radio today -- there was NOTHING ELSE ON -- and lo, their tag line is "Fair and Balanced". I'm sure you all have heard this a million times, but today was my first. I literally laughed out loud. How do you people live with yourselves? How do you people support that network? When they have to TELL you how fair and balanced they are, then it's certain that they are anything but. Unbelievable.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Use your head.

My problem is that I don't have multiple voices in my head like you seem to. I've never seen you directly respond to anything the other person says. You just watch Sean Hannity at night or something and then respond to Sean Hannity through Jazzfanz. Guess what? Sean Hannity doesn't post here! Go call his show or something.

It's a commodity that is going bye bye. Every day there is less of it than before.

Oil doesn't trade on the filth in the ground at any moment. It trades on what is, and what will be in 3-month and 6-month windows. They don't care about what's in the ground. That's what stock speculators trade on. Market caps rise and fall based on what is/isn't in the ground. Again, supply and demand doesn't come into play until oil is scarce. That isn't the case right now. Demand is being met and will continue to be so for many years to come.

Barring some devastating global depression that leads to industrial collapse or some epidemic that kills billions, supply will continue to decrease as demand continues to increase.

That's simply untrue. There is plenty of supply to meet demand right now and the foreseeable future.

By the time we build some stupid pipeline or drill in Alaska, the demand will have already outpaced the "new" supply that x pipeline and x well would have created.

Again, what are you talking about? Demand is not outpacing supply right now and it won't be that way for a long time. In fact, the in ground projections grow all the time. New avenues of extracting oil are coming online. There is going to be plenty of oil for the foreseeable future. Drop your scarcity argument, it isn't rooted in facts. You sound like the depopulation idiots.

Of course, there are other variables such as how commodities are sold. But the base supply and demand concept that you repubs worship should be pretty obvious to you. $2 dollar gas isn't coming back. Gas hasn't declined in price substantially and for very long in decades. It's pretty obvious why.

$2 gas would be possible in a world of stable monetary growth and peace. But one other important aspect to consider since you're so intent on playing the role of a futurist is that currencies are going to change again. How much is oil going to cost in a world flooded by special drawing rights, instead of dollars?

.

Where did I go on a rant against Obama or say any of the things you're claiming? You're just a big ****ing wind bag. But it doesn't matter, you'll happily pay whatever prices they want you to pay. Obama doesn't set monetary policy, you bonehead. He does deserve some blame for continued Middle Eastern adventurism however which fits in quite well with the spike of oil all over the place over the past two decades. The nice thing about life is that you can continue to be a big ****ing wind bag and it won't matter. Just don't change careers and move to Dubai to trade oil futures and you might still do okay.

You do have one thing right though, we need a visionary leader that will set this country on a better energy course. I think Obama already has had his chance and proven he's not up to task. Since I don't endorse anybody except Ron Paul and it seems extremely unlikey that he is going to win, I think I have the same expectations for poor energy policy in the near term.

 

[Surely]

"Fed officials and Mr. Obama want to take credit for easy money if stock-market and housing prices rise, but then deny any responsibility if commodity prices rise too, causing food and energy prices to soar for consumers. They can't have it both ways, as not-so-stupid Americans intuitively understand when they buy groceries or gas. This is the double-edged sword of an economic recovery "built to last" on easy money rather than on sound fiscal and regulatory policies."

I think the point of the article is that by printing billions of dollars, Obama has weakened how much a dollar will buy you. Obama wants to take credit for certain things that resulted from the printing, yet deny any negatives that were caused by the printing. Is the article wrong?