[mac128k-1984]

msnbc reports that another senator filing a bill to take away big oil tax credits and direct them to help the poor pay for the gas

WASHINGTON - On the same day that Exxon Mobil Corp. reported higher first-quarter profits, a Pennsylvania senator took aim at the oil industry, proposing a tax on “excess” profits to help poor people pay for gasoline.

While this may seem against our capitalistic philosophy, oil companies are not a true market but rather are closer to a oligopoly. That is a few producers that effect the market.

Their excessive profits are the smoking gun that we are paying too much money at the pump but there seems to be nothing we can do as a citizen Other nations pay a whole lot more but that's mostly due to taxation.

The high prices here is a direct reflection of greed. Of course I wonder if congress does institute the changes, removing the credits and forcing them to pay into some sort of fund. who will actually pay for those, I believe the price of gas will go even higher as the oil companies pass on the higher cost of doing business to us.

[Aron Peterson]

That's a simplistic view of how the oil industry works.

[mac128k-1984]

Never said it wasn't

Besides this isn't rocket science. They buy oil, refine it, make various products (gas, heating oil motor oil etc) and charge a specific price.

How else could you explain the dramatic increase price of gasoline which coincided with an equally dramatic increase in their profits these past few years? I mean last year they were charging over 3 dollars a gallon and all of sudden they had record breaking profits. where there is smoke there usually is fire.

[Dakarʒ]

I just don't know how you can justify 'managing' their excessive profits. I find some of their practices interesting (such as charging themselves the market rate at refineries, when they don't actually have to pay the overhead), but so long as this is a capitalist country, this is the burden you bear.

I don't recall if any of the gas companies receive government subsidies, and even if they do I suspect they're relatively small, but that is one thing you could remove to...reduce their profits.

[peeb]

Well, just to be clear, the first bill takes away a tax credit, not money they earned. This is an attempt to remove some corporate welfare, not give an extra tax on windfall profits.
Also, we should go back to the notion of corporate charter - the people grant to corporations the right to exist because they create a public good (wealth). If it is not the public's view that corporations are serving the public good, then they need to be careful, because some kind of regulation is probably on the way. Corporations do not have the 'right' to operate - they are granted that by the people.
On the notion that the US is a capitalist economy - it is, but it is far from an unregulated market economy. Oil is highly regulated already, and for good reason - instability in energy markets is clearly bad for everyone.

[Dakarʒ]

Well, I'm sure to a lot of people around here, regulation is a dirty word.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, just to be clear, the first bill takes away a tax credit, not money they earned.

If they take away the tax credit, all that will happen is you'll pay $4.12 at the pump instead of $3.58.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 

Never said it wasn't

Besides this isn't rocket science. They buy oil, refine it, make various products (gas, heating oil motor oil etc) and charge a specific price.

How else could you explain the dramatic increase price of gasoline which coincided with an equally dramatic increase in their profits these past few years? sually is fire.

The dramatic increase in the price is largely because of manipulation by OPEC. Whatever they do the rest of the economy follows and raises prices accordingly.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that some, not all, of the major western petroleum companies have an ever increasing research and development budget. It's getting higher each year as consumers, politicians and car manufacturers are looking for a green alternative to petrol. The major petroleum companies today will one day be providers of clean alternative fuels. For that to happen, and to bring it on sooner, they need the profits to invest in R+D.

About execs and their bonuses, that's another story. At least they're not like them lot in OPEC funding genocide, terrorism and crime to continually hike the price of oil. Only a tiny percentage of OPEC profits go to development while the rest pays for palaces and limousines in nations where the majority are illiterate and hungry. No investment in alternative fuels to see here.

Chavez in Venezuela is selling petrol dirt cheap to Venezuelans. Sounds noble, until you realize they'll overuse their petrol, contribute more to global warming and pollution, and there won't be enough profit to invest in social development or R+D. Chavez uses the majority of whatever profit is being made to grab more power and to line the pockets of politicians in neighbouring nations. Whatever money is left over he builds a few small schools with and shows them off on his TV show so he can say he is building a modern country. There's no investment in clean fuels by Chavez and he even slandered Brazil for working with the US to develop alternative fuels.

But we know that, don't we?

[Orion27]

I think Exxon has just decided to go "Green". They find it the responsible and in this case the profitable thing to do. By taking advantage of limited refinery capacity, mostly in response to environmental restrictions in this country, the price of refined petroleum has risen. That has the effect of lowering the overall carbon footprint by reducing consumption by making gasoline less affordable but more profitable. That's a good thing right? After all the environmetalists want a reduced carbon footprint. All Gore plans to make money by lobbying the government to tax ones's carbon footprint and then selling a non-existant carbon offeset through his company. The EXXON model eliminates the middle-man, the government and Al Gore while also having the benefit increasing the the incentive to come up with a technological solution to our energy needs. EXXON shareholders make money too so everybody is happy. I don't see a problem here.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Nevertheless, keep in mind that some, not all, of the major western petroleum companies have an ever increasing research and development budget. It's getting higher each year as consumers, politicians and car manufacturers are looking for a green alternative to petrol. The major petroleum companies today will one day be providers of clean alternative fuels. For that to happen, and to bring it on sooner, they need the profits to invest in R+D.

And yet, despite those costs, profits keep rising.

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

About execs and their bonuses, that's another story. At least they're not like them lot in OPEC funding genocide, terrorism and crime to continually hike the price of oil. Only a tiny percentage of OPEC profits go to development while the rest pays for palaces and limousines in nations where the majority are illiterate and hungry. No investment in alternative fuels to see here.

Are you justifying the bonuses by comparing us to OPEC, or just way OT?

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Chavez in Venezuela is selling petrol dirt cheap to Venezuelans. Sounds noble, until you realize they'll overuse their petrol and there won't be enough profit to invest in social development. Chavez uses the majority of whatever profit is being made to grab more power and to line the pockets of politicians in neighbouring nations. Whatever money is left over he builds a few small schools with and shows them off on TV so he can say he is building a modern country. There's no investment in clean fuels by Chavez and he even slandered Brazil for working with the US to develop alternative fuels.

But we know that, don't we?

I know this doesn't affect the fact that our oil companies are making money hand over fist.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I just don't know how you can justify 'managing' their excessive profits. I find some of their practices interesting (such as charging themselves the market rate at refineries, when they don't actually have to pay the overhead), but so long as this is a capitalist country, this is the burden you bear.

Laissez-faire is not the only form of capitalism.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Laissez-faire is not the only form of capitalism.

I know, and I'm glad.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Are you justifying the bonuses by comparing us to OPEC, or just way OT?
I know this doesn't affect the fact that our oil companies are making money hand over fist.

They make money hand over fist and take home huge bonuses (that should remain in R+D or even taxed) because of the consequences of OPEC's actions. That's why I made the comparison to them. Western companies by far are the lesser of the two evils. Added taxes could help or could hinder. It's impossible to tell until it is done. I would prefer R+D over taxation because it could result in job creation and thus faster research and results.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I think Exxon has just decided to go "Green".

I thnk it's more akin to Philip-Morris running anti-smoking commercials. If they wanted to convince me, they'd stop selling cigarettes.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I thnk it's more akin to Philip-Morris running anti-smoking commercials. If they wanted to convince me, they'd stop selling cigarettes.

Makes perfect sense to me. Better yet, why don't we just start arresting fossil fuel users much like we arrest drug addicts.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

And yet, despite those costs, profits keep rising..

Exactly my point, I've had a lot of people defend big oil saying that the whole situation is very complex and you cannot draw any conclusions to the increase in gasoline to their profits. I disagree, while opec does manage to some degree the cost of oil, its interesting and in spite of the high cost of oil exxon is making money hand over fist yet they say the sudden increase in gas has nothing to do with it

As for removing the corporate welfare, I'm all for it on one hand, why should they get tax credits and when they're making billions of dollars of profit yet I'm not naive to know that the increased cost will be passed on to us.

[placebo1969]

What do you mean "excessive profits"? According to this CNN page Microsoft's profits as a percentage of revenues was 28.5%. By comparison, ExxonMobil, the percentage is 11.4%. According to the same list, WalMart is making 3.2% profit. Apple is 10.3%. Should be take profit from them because it is "excessive"? Honest questions.

[Dakarʒ]

The big difference I see between MS, WalMart, Apple and Exxon, is that what Exxon sells is a 'necessity' and is pretty much guaranteed to sell a certain amount, no matter what the price. They also move a whole lot more 'product'.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

The big difference I see between MS, WalMart, Apple and Exxon, is that what Exxon sells is a 'necessity' and is pretty much guaranteed to sell a certain amount, no matter what the price. They also move a whole lot more 'product'.

It also costs them more to buy it, refine it, move it, invest in new production regions (which come with the risk of terrorism), and invest, research and develop completely new technologies, namely the alternative fuels we want. It's rather fascist to dictate to companies what their profit margins should be. These companies also have the grease the palms of some looney people around the world because our governments don't do a good enough job of diplomacy (and governments can't pay bribes). Without those bribes and gifts, which are written off as company expenses, we'd have greater political divide in the world.

This business is one of the trickiest to talk about because the grey area is vast and deemed by those involved as a necessary evil on the road to betterment.

[placebo1969]

Not to sound disrespectful, but so what? The point is that people see a large number and just look at that when there are numerous other companies that are making way more profit. Plus some would argue that computers, software and kitty litter from Wal Mart are "necessities."

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

The big difference I see between MS, WalMart, Apple and Exxon, is that what Exxon sells is a 'necessity' and is pretty much guaranteed to sell a certain amount, no matter what the price. They also move a whole lot more 'product'.

There is a lot of waste and unnecessary use of petroleum products. Conservation measures and altrnatives will offset the price burden of current cosumption. Lifestyle changes would minimize dependence and the economic burden posed by higher prices. What's the problem?
There is going to be some pain during the transition away from our dependence of fossil fuels. I still don't get what you are trying to argue.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

There is a lot of waste and unnecessary use of petroleum products. Conservation measures and altrnatives will offset the price burden of current cosumption. Lifestyle changes would minimize dependence and the economic burden posed by higher prices. What's the problem?
I still don't get what you are trying to argue.

Yeah, I have no idea what you're arguing either.

[wolfen]

Their profits should be used to pay back the subsidies they are given from my tax dollars, all tax breaks, and so on. It makes no sense to give citizens' money to the richest organizations in the world.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I thnk it's more akin to Philip-Morris running anti-smoking commercials. If they wanted to convince me, they'd stop selling cigarettes.

Exactly. What PM doesn't tell us, and what they'd rather not have us find out, is that while smoking in the U. S. is declining, they're pushing smoking in many underdeveloped countries, and their sales and profits are up dramatically overseas. Their first interest is to their shareholders, as is Exxon's, not to some conscience they've supposedly suddenly acquired. Anyone who thinks that Exxon and Philip-Morris have suddenly become altruistic corporations with a conscience doesn't understand how corporations make their money. Just because they run ads on tv telling us that they're having a change of heart, doesn't make it so. That's not to say that Exxon and others aren't spending some R&D money researching alternative energy sources; they no doubt are. I don't know where Exxon sits on ethanol based fuels, which is another big scam, but I'd bet they're at least looking at it, with the hopes of making money on it, not with the hopes of being altruistic.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Not to sound disrespectful, but so what? The point is that people see a large number and just look at that when there are numerous other companies that are making way more profit.

I think the main problem people have with the industry is it has them by the balls, complains refineries are too expensive to build and then brings in crap loads of money (partly because they refuses to build refineries).

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Plus some would argue that computers, software and kitty litter from Wal Mart are "necessities."

They could, but I imagine they'd still rank fuel way higher.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I think the main problem people have with the industry is it has them by the balls, complains refineries are too expensive to build and then brings in crap loads of money (partly because they refuses to build refineries).

The oil companies have been complaining about the high costs of building new refineries (none have been built in the U. S. in the last twenty years), yet they keep making higher, and record, profits. They do have us by the balls, but the problem is getting them to invest some of those profits in new refineries. Without governmental pressure to do so, and as long as we continue to buy their product at the prices they charge, there isn't much incentive for them to change their tune. It's a Catch-22 situation.

[wolfen]

The Republican redistribution system funnels my money to undeserving corporations instead of undeserving poor in the hopes that these corps are better for America in the long run. If Republicans are anxious to point at the inefficiencies of social programs, they should be equally willing to explore the inefficiencies of throwing piles of money to wealthy monopolies.

[nonhuman]

I want to know why people think there's been a huge increase in gas price. There hasn't. Gas is as cheap as it's ever been. Prices have just risen over the years to keep pace with inflation.

TheStar.com - Wheels - Problem? Gasoline is basically free

Originally Posted by Jim Kenzie

Bottom line: the car industry can build more efficient vehicles, and is in fact doing so.

So, why don't we buy more of them?

Because, as I have said a million times, gasoline is basically free.

Despite all the whining, gasoline is as cheap now as it has ever been, on an inflation-adjusted basis. It is the cheapest fluid you can buy at a gasoline station. Water is three bucks a litre, fer cryin' out loud.

[Dakarʒ]

Four years ago I was paying literally half of what I'm paying now for gas. That's a huge price increase.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If they take away the tax credit, all that will happen is you'll pay $4.12 at the pump instead of $3.58.

Help me out here - why should the general taxpayer subsidize gas consumption? If it really costs 4.12, why should I not pay 4.12? Why should the difference be hidden in my tax bill?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Well, I'm sure to a lot of people around here, regulation is a dirty word.

Really? What about the steel industry, the cell phone industry, the farm bill. Goodness me, the US has one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world - it's far from a laissez faire economy. All the talk from the neocons about letting the market work is just that, talk. There is an enormous amount of regulation. I don't think that that is always a bad thing, and no serious economist would suggest that you could run a modern economy without a lot of regulation.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Exactly. What PM doesn't tell us, and what they'd rather not have us find out, is that while smoking in the U. S. is declining, they're pushing smoking in many underdeveloped countries, and their sales and profits are up dramatically overseas.

That's not totally true there. They aren't purposely 'pushing' smoking in those countries. There has always been higher tobacco consumption in China, South Asia and the Middle East than in Europe or North America. That and the cost of a pack of cigs is on average $1.50 in the Middle East and South Asia, and a $1 in China is another reason smoking is on the increase. The last reason being that Asian youth these days have more disposable income and like to look cool with their hair gel, sunglasses and cigarettes. This is cultural and is not forced upon them. They also have their own popular brands such as Kings, Salem, etc that are cheaper still (that's the reason why western brands have to be sold at a much lower price than in the West).

Nevertheless tobacco advertising is almost non-existent the world over thanks to the British government who were the first to ban it (I miss those Hamlet ads). That means cigarette consumption is a consumer and lifestyle choice.

[peeb]

No, there are massive pushes in the developing world to develop a new generation of smokers before regulation on advertising there is implemented.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Four years ago I was paying literally half of what I'm paying now for gas. That's a huge price increase.

Not really, when you consider how cheap gas is. The average gas price in the US as of four days ago is $2.869 per gallon. Doubling in price from four years ago basically means the price went up by a measly $1.435 per gallon. And gas is still much cheaper than it was during the early 80s. Adjusted for inflation, gas cost $3.07 in 1981.

This article is two years old, but still a good read: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/commen...ne_prices.html

The problem is not that gas prices have become ridiculously high. It's that people are driving more and salary increases are failing to keep pace with inflation.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, there are massive pushes in the developing world to develop a new generation of smokers before regulation on advertising there is implemented.

I'd love to see the evidence for that. I travel throughout Asia extensively. I can't remember the last time I saw a western brand advertised. It's been 10 years since I saw Salem ads let alone anything else. Smoking is part of the culture across Asia and North Africa. Always has been since the invention of the hookah and the days when Moses was burning that bush.

[peeb]

I think the problem is that gas prices are much too low. We will never move from a carbon economy until gas is 15-20 USD per gallon.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I'd love to see the evidence for that. I travel throughout Asia extensively. I can't remember the last time I saw a western brand advertised. It's been 10 years since I saw Salem ads let alone anything else. Smoking is part of the culture in across Asia and North Africa. Always has been since the invention of the hookah and the days when Moses was burning that bush.

Really? Where have you traveled lately? My experience is not 'evidence', but I have seen a lot of advertising in Central Asia, Africa, and South East Asia. Now, you may be right that not all of these are western brands - honestly, I don't know which brands are owned by international companies and which are truly local, but there is a vast amount of cigarette advertising going on.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not really, when you consider how cheap gas is. The average gas price in the US as of four days ago is $2.869 per gallon. Doubling in price from four years ago basically means the price went up by a measly $1.435 per gallon.

Measly? Anytime the price of something goes up 100% I wouldn't call it measly. That's a ludicrous position.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And gas is still much cheaper than it was during the early 80s. Adjusted for inflation, gas cost $3.07 in 1981.

Much cheaper? With how volatile the market is, we could be there in a few months. By the way, I wouldn't feel very good about gas only being 20¢ cheaper than at a time when gas prices were considered hell.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The problem is not that gas prices have become ridiculously high. It's that people are driving more and salary increases are failing to keep pace with inflation.

Price increases haven't helped. As for the salary part, that's for another thread.

[smacintush]

I'm all for the elimination of any special tax breaks, subsidies etc. for the oil companies, though I am not in favor of "special" taxes on them. They should be taxed as any other company.

Haven't we been through all of this before? Oil prices are not "set" by Exxon or any other oil company. They are determined by bidding on the open market. Gas prices are directly related to oil prices. Refineries "buy" the oil that they refine at the prices determined by the market.

No, I don't buy that they "can't" or at least can't justify building new refineries because of cost or environmental issues etc. Money talks and if they really wanted to build them they would either shell out the money or find a way to get the regulations relaxed or changed. They don't want new refineries because that would cut into their profits. Thing is…I'm ok with that. Why the hell SHOULD they deliberately cut into their own profits when they don't "have" to? Especially since refineries are so damned expensive to build.

Besides that, the last time I checked Exxon was making 10¢ per gallon of gas. Not exactly "obscene" IMO. Cutting into their gas profits would do NOTHING of significance to the gas prices. The government makes five times that amount off of the same gallon so who's the real criminal?

Over a 30 year period the number of refineries was cut nearly in half and yet the gas prices remained dirt cheap. The tells me that they had too many damned refineries. I would have shut them down too. Fewer, more efficient refineries is better then many many less efficient ones. Both in terms of the environment and financially. The gas prices shot up when the oil prices did.

All of this hubbub over "Big Oil™" is just jumping up and down, kicking your feet and screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR! I DON'T GET TO MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY AND I DON'T WANNA PAY THOSE PRICES WAAAHH WAAAHH!"

My work commute is 108 miles a day. I'm not complaining. Gas may be more expensive than it used to be but it is still a good deal IMO for what it does. Since I started that commute 6 years ago my weekly gas expense has gone up 10 whole dollars. I blow more than that on Diet Pepsi.

Of course there ARE the poorer people to consider but those of you far lefties and socialists who want "something done" about Big Oil™ don't really give a **** about the poor. You care far more about sticking it to the evil wealthy people who DARE to have money. If you really gave a **** about the poor you wouldn't be so supportive of so many taxes and regulations that raise the prices of EVERYTHING.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Measly? Anytime the price of something goes up 100% I wouldn't call it measly. That's a ludicrous position.

Any time the price of a ludicrously underpriced commodity goes up by $1.40 I'd consider that fairly measly. Our gas prices are artificially low because the US subsidizes the oil industry by as much 3x the amount that Europe does.

Much cheaper? With how volatile the market is, we could be there in a few months. By the way, I wouldn't feel very good about gas only being 20¢ cheaper than at a time when gas prices were considered hell.

Sounds like a good reason to reduce the amount of driving you do to me.

Price increases haven't helped. As for the salary part, that's for another thread.

True. I won't say the price increases are a good thing for anyone other than the oil companies, but as someone in this thread pointed out their profit margin is not really all that high. Prices are higher than they could be, the reason the oil industry is making billions is not price gouging, it's volume.

Regardless of what gas prices do, the best solution for everyone is to reduce their consumption. That will save money no matter what. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will make it easier for people to consider alternative fuel vehicles. It will be good all around.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

All of this hubbub over "Big Oil™" is just jumping up and down, kicking your feet and screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR! I DON'T GET TO MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY AND I DON'T WANNA PAY THOSE PRICES WAAAHH WAAAHH!"

I think that's a simplistic and highly speculative position. All of the outrage is because of materialistic jealousy? There aren't any altruistic or even logical reasons for casting a critical eye on Exxon? We're just supposed to "trust the system" and fall in line?

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Any time the price of a ludicrously underpriced commodity goes up by $1.40 I'd consider that fairly measly.

I think it was way underpriced in 1998. Anyway, I think it's gone from moderately underpriced to moderately overpriced.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Our gas prices are artificially low because the US subsidizes the oil industry by as much 3x the amount that Europe does.

Question: The US subsidized the oil companies to keep the gas price low, but it also put taxes on gas. Is this not a contradiction? (Honest question I don't understand the nuances of this crap)

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Sounds like a good reason to reduce the amount of driving you do to me.

I've noticed the only driving I do anymore is commuting to work. It's depressing.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

True. I won't say the price increases are a good thing for anyone other than the oil companies, but as someone in this thread pointed out their profit margin is not really all that high. Prices are higher than they could be, the reason the oil industry is making billions is not price gouging, it's volume.

Yep, which is why I don't see what the solution to this 'problem' would be from a regulatory perspective.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Regardless of what gas prices do, the best solution for everyone is to reduce their consumption. That will save money no matter what. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will make it easier for people to consider alternative fuel vehicles. It will be good all around.

You have my agreeance.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The oil companies have been complaining about the high costs of building new refineries (none have been built in the U. S. in the last twenty years), yet they keep making higher, and record, profits. They do have us by the balls, but the problem is getting them to invest some of those profits in new refineries. Without governmental pressure to do so, and as long as we continue to buy their product at the prices they charge, there isn't much incentive for them to change their tune. It's a Catch-22 situation.

Any open tracts of land near your home KarlG? If not maybe we can build one in Alaska, away from everybody. Maybe the Democrats could propose one and discuss it at their next debate.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Help me out here - why should the general taxpayer subsidize gas consumption? If it really costs 4.12, why should I not pay 4.12? Why should the difference be hidden in my tax bill?

What I'm getting at is if you take away the Big Oil's tax credits, they'll make up their losses by just increasing the price at the pump. It's not going to save anyone any money. They have 100% control of a comodity that the U.S. depends on, and they'll set it at any price they want.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by wolfen 

We're just supposed to "trust the system" and fall in line?

Trust what system?

I haven't seen one single solitary thing that Exxon has "done wrong" except make too much money. They are being accused of being greedy because they aren't doing anything to make their profits drop? How ridiculous!

NOT ONE of you would refuse if over the next few years your income started to double, then triple, then quadruple…NOT ONE.

But that's different right? Because it's OK for one of "us" to earn more because we somehow deserve it more?

So yes, envy is certainly part of it.

Some people are acting like there is some fat, cigar-chomping republican behind a large desk somewhere at Exxon with a magic pencil marking up gas prices at will. It just doesn't work that way.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They have 100% control of a comodity that the U.S. depends on, and they'll set it at any price they want.

No. They. Won't.

Again, oil prices are not determined by the oil companies, and gas prices are directly tied to oil prices. They make a small, NOMINAL percentage per gallon.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What I'm getting at is if you take away the Big Oil's tax credits, they'll make up their losses by just increasing the price at the pump. It's not going to save anyone any money. They have 100% control of a comodity that the U.S. depends on, and they'll set it at any price they want.

Well, for sure it would save some people some money - people who use less oil. So I would be more likely to buy a hybrid, or bike, or take the bus. The taxpayer subsidizing oil is a terrible thing.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The taxpayer subsidizing oil is a terrible thing.

The taxpayer shouldn't be subsidizing anything, but history has proven that the taxpayer is a fool.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Trust what system?

I haven't seen one single solitary thing that Exxon has "done wrong" except make too much money. They are being accused of being greedy because they aren't doing anything to make their profits drop? How ridiculous!

NOT ONE of you would refuse if over the next few years your income started to double, then triple, then quadruple…NOT ONE.

But that's different right? Because it's OK for one of "us" to earn more because we somehow deserve it more?

So yes, envy is certainly part of it.

Some people are acting like there is some fat, cigar-chomping republican behind a large desk somewhere at Exxon with a magic pencil marking up gas prices at will. It just doesn't work that way.

Whaddya mean "what system?" The system that gives BILLIONS of tax $$ to oil corporations without me getting a vote about it. The system that pays for their pipelines. The system that gives them public land and mineral rights far below market value. The system that retains p*ss poor mpg standards despite the obvious benefits to the environment, and the extended lifetime of available oil fields. The system that has sinultaneously done JACK **** to develop alternatives in the last 40 years.

That system. The system my tax money and my consumer dollar maintains against my wishes. The system that DOES NOT work for the benefit of the consumer -- which is what in theory a capitalist market is meant to do. And, finally, the system that perpetuates a rationale for US involvement in the middle east.

I think there are plenty of valid arguments for not trusting "the system" at work. And none of it involves petty jealousy and complaining for me. One can argue against the validity of these issues, of course, but that doesn't mean people who hold my position on these matters are being disingenuous.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I think it was way underpriced in 1998. Anyway, I think it's gone from moderately underpriced to moderately overpriced.

That could be. I seem to remember it cost me right around $40 to fill my tank back then. I was driving a Camaro with a 16 gal tank, so that works out to about $2.50/gal (this was in California). I don't think prices have done anything but go up since then.

Question: The US subsidized the oil companies to keep the gas price low, but it also put taxes on gas. Is this not a contradiction? (Honest question I don't understand the nuances of this crap)

I don't really get it either, but they do seem to do both. I don't know how they balance out.

I've noticed the only driving I do anymore is commuting to work. It's depressing.

I sold my car back in October. Now I use Zipcar maybe once or twice a month when I need to go somewhere that's not on public transportation or buy something that would be unreasonable to transport without a car.

Yep, which is why I don't see what the solution to this 'problem' would be from a regulatory perspective.

I agree. Regulation is not the answer. Things are actually working as they should be. If gas prices are too high for people, that creates demand for alternatives and so someone will start to provide them. Capitalism at work.

You have my agreeance.