2004 GASOLINE PRICES
J Corona
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 GASOLINE PRICES
I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by the summer. Want
gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united
action. Phillip Hollsworth, offered this good idea: This makes MUCH MORE
SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going
around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because
they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas.
It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.
BUT,whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really
work.
Please read it and join with us .By now you're probably thinking
gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $1.97
for regular unleaded in my town Now that the oil companies and the OPEC
nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is
CHEAP at $1.50- $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that
BUYERS control the marketplace....not sellers. With the price of gasoline
going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we
are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the
pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting
ourselves. How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying
gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force
a price war. Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY
gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and
MOBIL.. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce
their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to
follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of
Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't whimp out
on me at this point...keep reading and I' ll explain how simple it is to
reach millions of people I am sending this note to about thirty people. If
each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) .. and those 300
send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)...and so on, by the time the
message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over
THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on
to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it
goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!
PLEASE HOLD OUT
UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS
CAN REALLY WORK.
Mike Simmons
control of ExxonMobil.
Mike
"J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:c2t6f4$p...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
vlj
<snip> Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some
>intelligent, united action. <snip>
Indeed, but that isn't going to happen and none of your recommendations are
in that aforementioned intelligent category. If you want lower gas prices
(a commodity priced on the WORLD market), you have to do 2 things:
1. Drill more wells to produce more crude
2. Build new refineries to increase system capacity
Well, that isn't going to happen in the USA because every handwringing
eco-socialist bedwetting wilderweenie is going to yell, scream, protest and
file lawsuits to stop it while claiming that drilling wells makes wildlife
abort their young, stomp on it, eat half of it and then jump off the nearest
cliff in abject terror.
The biggest problem in the spiking gas prices is limited refining capacity.
Nobody is increasing their refining capacity because the environmental
regulations are such that if you modify or add to an existing refinery, you
are legally required to add in all the environmental bell$ and whi$tle$
thereby putting you at a competitive di$advantage becau$e you have to $ell
your ga$ for more than your competition and take a rap for being a greedy
oil company. So, everyone is running 25 year old plants held together with
spit and duct tape and pushing them to as close to capacity as they can when
they are not down for repairs or minimal maintenance.
In the mean time, why don't *you* surprise everyone and do something
intelligent and buy a motorcycle that'll still keep up with the flow of
traffic, get 60+ mpg, only use hundreds of pounds of metal instead of
thousands and will only set you back a few thousand instead of tens of
thousands. You'll take up less road, need a smaller parking spot, and when
the dumb-shit safety nazis, politicians and traffic cops figure out that
other countries in the world allow lane-splitting without problem (can they
*really* be that much more competent than us?), maybe they'll even let us do
that here in the good old USA.
Whadda ya say, sport? Until then, fill up, pay up and shut up.
Good ridin' to ya,
VLJ
--
J Corona
Supply and demand
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:HIqdnTeU_vU...@fidnet.com...
Stephen Harding
> It may, what else are they going to do if nobodies buying their gas.
>
> Supply and demand
This is the, now annual, gasoline populists movement,
spring offensive. This has been going on for about
5 years or so now.
Check http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/exxon.html
for some background.
Basically though, what do you think happens to the price
of gas at the non-Exxon/Mobil station everyone goes off
to?
SMH
J Corona
that made them go up?
There is more oil from the Netherlands and Asia, but the prices go up and
then they close refineries. Two in California, but the profit of the gas
companies is going up... Why because its cheaper to control the flow and
make excuses. "Supply and demand," Supply is down and prices go up.
Not believe everything you hear, when was the last time you heard if a gas
price war??? We need to have supply, but who controls the supply???
We need to control the demand. What are they going to do if they're not
selling gas??? By going somewhere else they have to drop prices, if they
don't, then the monopoly will be evident.
Do you work for a greedy oil company???
"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
news:cup4c.70697$vn.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
J Corona
to predict the market will be forced to rethink their market strategies. Yes
these other gas prices will go up, but the over all effect would cause the
market to change.
I hope you are at least aware that all gasoline comes from the same
pipeline. So when Shell or Mobile buy gasoline they fill up in the same
location and then add their own "additives" to make it theirs... So when you
go to Shell instead of Mobile the gas will be the same, but Mobile will not
make the money....
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:40522812$1...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
vlj
> Get a clue, Electricity, Natural Gas, and Gasoline. What changed in the
past
> that made them go up?
More people using the stuff, duh.
> There is more oil from the Netherlands and Asia, but the prices go up and
> then they close refineries. Two in California, <snip>
Natch, it was more economical to mothball them than to bring them up to EPA
spec.
<snip> but the profit of the gas
> companies is going up... Why because its cheaper to control the flow and
> make excuses. "Supply and demand," Supply is down and prices go up.
Its the refining capacity, dude. Crude is great, but you can't just pump it
into your tank. You gotta make distillates from it before its useful.
> Not believe everything you hear, when was the last time you heard if a gas
> price war??? We need to have supply, but who controls the supply???
For the most part, OPEC. Ever hear of them? We should have formed OGEC
(Organization of Grain Exporting Countries) along with Canada and Australia
and jacked up the price of wheat on them while they're squeezing us for oil.
Nah, we were too *nice* for that and, well, using food that way just isn't
fair they said.
> We need to control the demand. What are they going to do if they're not
> selling gas??? By going somewhere else they have to drop prices, if they
> don't, then the monopoly will be evident.
If the refineries aren't selling their refined product to Exxon/Mobil
stations (independently owned franchises), they'll be selling it to the
independent operators that you are buying from. The nearest refinery and
pipeline makes all the gasoline that is being sold in your area irrespective
of who you buy it from.
> Do you work for a greedy oil company???
Nope, I'm a software weenie wondering what I'll be doing when my job goes to
India and/or China which, by the way, are really importing oil like
gangbusters with all of the industrial growth of manufacturing to produce
all the cheap shit commie crap we're buying at Home Depot that isn't made in
this country any more. So all that benefit of buying a plastic $5.73 toilet
valve that only lasts for 16 months over the $19.45 brass unit that used to
be made here and would last for 20 years is lost by the jacking up your at
the pump gas price. Gotta luv it, eh?
As a younger man, I used to work on a drilling rig mixing drilling mud and
throwing chain on drill pipe so I actually know something about what it
takes to get energy from the ground into a nice easy form to be bought by
clean 'n dainty poofters like you.
When my computer career is all washed up, maybe I'll get back into the oil
'n gas biz ... hell, we're gonna need a lot more natural gas to make the
hydrogen that all the eco-weenies claim will save the planet.
Mike Simmons
> What will happen, buying trends and patterns will be broken. People trying
> to predict the market will be forced to rethink their market strategies.
Yes
> these other gas prices will go up, but the over all effect would cause the
> market to change.
>
> I hope you are at least aware that all gasoline comes from the same
> pipeline. So when Shell or Mobile buy gasoline they fill up in the same
> location and then add their own "additives" to make it theirs... So when
you
> go to Shell instead of Mobile the gas will be the same, but Mobile will
not
> make the money....
Mr Corona:
You are proceeding on the incorrect assumption that ExxonMobil (or any other
big oil company for that matter) is responsible for the high prices at the
pump. They are not. The price you pay is primarily dictated by the
producer at the well head, therefore even if you quit buying from a major
oil company (you pick one!) you will still buy your gasoline from another
retailer. That retailer is still dependent on the producer for his source
of crude, thus while you may be hurting the major retailer by boycotting his
station you haven't affected the source of the high price one iota.
Sorry, the scheme sounds attractive, but it ain't gonna work!
Mike
Michael J. Gulley
drive prices down? No. In fact, it would likely have the opposite effect, if
any at all. Gas is a commodity. Commodity markets work on the law of supply
and demand. When supply is higher than demand, sellers lower the price until
the two factors equalize again. When demand is higher than supply, sellers
raise the price to curb use and stretch supplies until, once again, the two
factors equalize.
Just for the sake of argument, let's say we successfully organize the
ExxonMobil boycott (I know this is fantasy, but hang with me here).
ExxonMobil loses business and lowers prices to lure you back. The other
stations will follow suit and lower prices to compete, right? Not quite. To
avoid ExxonMobil you go to the Speedway across the street, instead.
Speedway's business increases, causing them to raise their prices to try to
control demand, otherwise their supply would be quickly depleted. Their
higher prices drive customers to Shell, who in turn raise their prices and
drive customers to BP, and so on. Eventually, supply and demand will
equalize and all stations will have the same price again.
As consumers, we can do little to control supply, but we can control demand.
However, effectively doing so means reducing demand overall, not just at one
station. The reduction in demand must be severe and long-lasting. If you
want to save money at the pump, slow down on the freeway, plan outings to
get everything in one trip, walk more, and trade in that gas-guzzling SUV
for an economical compact car for starters. "
Quote from http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/exxon.html
Sorry won't work..... we all just gotta stop buying so much gas is all.
"J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:c2t6f4$p...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Corona
foreign software companies or of loosing my job. It's called self-worth, as
you can see I have not lowered myself to using names or writing insulting
replies. It's a mater of tact and taste. As with everything else its
survival of the fittest. as a further example I submit, that I am trying to
do something. I wasn't the originator of the letter, but I do agree with it.
And what have you done, other than showing your ignorance?
Maybe you do know something about the industry, but what are you doing about
it? It's the difference between a leader and a follower. If you have an
opinion share it, if your going to criticize some one do it tactfully. I
mean do you really know as much as you think you know??? Remember millions
of people see these post and the only thing you show is what???
There are many variables to this problem. lets figure out one that works.
Yes I hate overpaying for gas, but I hate not doing anything about it even
more. If by doing this little bit, makes me feel better, so be it. If you
want to help fine, if you don't, well I would start looking into that job in
the "oil 'n gas biz" you talked about.
Let me share a reply from another person;
"A truth that the public isn't suppose to know. I heard, on the radio no
big news agency will cover it, that tankers full of refined gasoline is
being turned away at port. Due to EPA restrictions, not many new
refineries haven't been built. So to meet the demand for gasoline, many oil
exporters refine locally and ship over gasoline verses crude oil to the US.
The EPA has passed a recent regulation that requires any sales of gasoline
in the US, that the original refinery must meet USA's clean air emission
standards. We can't force them to meet our standards but we can embargo
their product. If the paper work isn't in for a specific group of
refineries, the deadline has passed, all refined products from those
refineries must not be allowed to enter the US."
Yet another bit of the puzzle...
"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
news:Ncq4c.70699$vn.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Mike Simmons
Mr Corona:
I suggest you visit your local library and check out books on economics and
oil production. Read 'em and then (hopefully!) you will see the fallacy of
what you are suggesting.
Mike
Roy
>
> > It may, what else are they going to do if nobodies buying their gas.
> >
> > Supply and demand
>
> This is the, now annual, gasoline populists movement,
> spring offensive. This has been going on for about
> 5 years or so now.
At least that long!!
Roy
Ken Shelton
bought from ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips (including 76), and other
companies, they'd run short in their refining capacity and buy gasoline from
whoever has surplus...ExxonMobil. The only losers would be the poor
schmucks working in Exxon & Mobil stations for paychecks, and small business
independent gas station owners.
Ken
Paul Jensen
capacity.
This problem is compounded by government regulations that require a
gazillion different grades of gasoline to be sold by region and/or season.
FMB
refineries would be selling direct to all the other stations that are now
selling to ex-ExonMobile customers. The loosers would be the station
employees and owners, not to mention you as you are now buying fuel in a
more crowded station.
To have any success to legally hurt the refiners, is to drasticly cut down
on the use of fuel. Just like someone else already said, buy a motorcycle
or fill up, pay up and shut up.
--
FMB
(only one B in FMB)
"J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:c2t6f4$p...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2004 GASOLINE PRICES
>
> <crap snipped>
Dan J. S.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2004 GASOLINE PRICES
>
> I hear we are going to hit close to $3.00 a gallon by the
> summer. Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some
> intelligent, united action. Phillip Hollsworth, offered this good
> idea: This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain
> day" campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil
> companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue
> to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an
> inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT,whoever
> thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work.
$3 is still cheap and it keeps the riff-raff from driving and on public
transportation buses.
Joseph Myers
saudiarabia, then we got it all. And also , no more terrorists.
On 12 Mar 2004 15:27:16 EST, "J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com>
wrote:
Speeker
> Mr Corona:
>
> You are proceeding on the incorrect assumption that ExxonMobil (or any
other
> big oil company for that matter) is responsible for the high prices at the
> pump. They are not. The price you pay is primarily dictated by the
> producer at the well head, therefore even if you quit buying from a major
> oil company (you pick one!) you will still buy your gasoline from another
> retailer. That retailer is still dependent on the producer for his source
> of crude, thus while you may be hurting the major retailer by boycotting
his
> station you haven't affected the source of the high price one iota.
>
> Sorry, the scheme sounds attractive, but it ain't gonna work!
>
> Mike
Good points Mike and I couldn't agree more. Why don't we add this one in
too. We should all rush out and by those nice neat cute little gas/electric
hybrid cars or the other ones that run on electricity alone. Then we would
have the gasoline companies knocking our doors down to sell us gasoline that
we don't need. Or would we? I think if that happened, our electric bills
would go up to compensate for it, thus all of the power plants that run
using crude or some derivative thereof would need those products that we as
consumers stopped using.
Have you ever seen that commercial for Carmax I believe where the guy shows
a balloon with it marked off into 4 equal sections? He explains that if you
pinch one side such as interest, it increases other areas such as down
payment. Let's face it. We live around a balloon economy. Not buying
gasoline from certain companies does nothing but increase the prices at
other stations because they have more demand and generally have to pay more
to get the gas at their station.
Let's look at history also. In the Boston Harbor, they didn't just decide
to get tea from another source, they dumped it. I'm not preaching dumping
gasoline in the oceans or lakes, but boycotts is a long drawn out process
(remember the bus boycotts for blacks?)
And finally, keep in mind that when you look at the price of gasoline, a
large portion of the dollar amount is..... TAXES!!!!
Speeker
vlj
<snip>
> And finally, keep in mind that when you look at the price of gasoline, a
> large portion of the dollar amount is..... TAXES!!!!
Which will go up dramatically when the consumption of gasoline goes down
because the overhead to maintain the transportation infrastructure is not
elastic.
Mike Simmons
<Ram...@dodgecity.cc> wrote in message
news:ck4650d3oo3m8hrd5...@4ax.com...
> In article <c2v1ln$7...@library1.airnews.net> "Speeker"
> <spee...@hotmail.net> writes:
>
>
> >Good points Mike and I couldn't agree more. Why don't we add this one in
> >too. We should all rush out and by those nice neat cute little
gas/electric
> >hybrid cars or the other ones that run on electricity alone. Then we
would
> >have the gasoline companies knocking our doors down to sell us gasoline
that
> >we don't need. Or would we? I think if that happened, our electric
bills
> >would go up to compensate for it, thus all of the power plants that run
> >using crude or some derivative thereof would need those products that we
as
> >consumers stopped using.
>
> in" to recharge. It actually recharges itself via a tiny bit of horsepower
> robbed from the gasoline engine.
>
> Here in Texas I live a mere 50 miles from the refineries. Yesterday I paid
> the most I've ever paid to fill up, $1.53/9 at a Diamond Shamrock station
> (one of the major name brands in Texas). In my opinion, those of you
> already paying more than $1.80 a gallon for 87 octane regular are getting
> gouged because it doesn't cost 30¢ a gallon to transport. Most of it flows
> through pipelines and pipeline transport costs are measured in terms of
> fractional cents per gallon. Over-the-road truck transport is by far the
> most expensive delivery method, which is why the only transport rigs you
> see on the nation's highways today are only doing regional deliveries,
> seldom any further than 150-200 miles. NO ONE is hauling gasoline on 1000+
> mile cross-country routes, so the truckers aren't to blame either.
>
> Well-head prices for unrefined crude are set by the market, currently
> around $37 a barrel. Refinery costs are fixed and do not fluctuate.
> Distribution costs (via the network of interstate underground pipelines)
> are also fixed and do not fluctuate.
>
> Gasoline taxes vary quite a lot from state to state, but do not fluctuate
> with the price. They are set on a per-gallon basis and only change when
> your state legislature sees fit to raise (or lower) them. Same for federal
> taxes.
>
> This leaves the finger of guilt pointing at the major oil companies
> themselves, along with their regional distributors and local retailers.
> These folks aren't in the gasoline business, they're in the gasoline
> shortage business.
>
> The $3/gal prices everyone is predicting are likely to happen, but only to
> satisfy a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you'd like to see fuel prices
> stabilize and return to under $1/gallon, then do what Alan Greenspan
> recommended we do, put the US dollar back on the gold standard and leave
> it there. The measure of wealth in Saudi Arabia is in how much gold one
> has, not how many dollars. When we buy their oil with dollars, the only
> thing that matters to kings is how much gold those dollars will buy. If
> anyone recalls, it was President Richard M. Nixon who took the USA off the
> gold standard in the 1970's. Anyone remember the "gasoline shortages" that
> almost immediately followed, and the huge price hikes that subsequently
> got the gasoline flowing again?
While the gold standard "may" stablize the economy "somewhat" it is not the
universal panacea that you envision. The pump prices we are seeing are a
direct reflection of the cost of crude at the wellehead, plus the refning
and transportation costs plus federal and state taxes, nothing more.
If you are correct and crude is now $37.00/bbl, let's do a little math, OK?
First of all, crude is measured in barrels at 42 gal/bbl, not the 55 gal/bbl
that we may think. Secondly, not all crude can be refined into gasoline
economically, thus the heavier fractions will go to oil, tar, asphalt, etc.
At a distillation temperature of 275 degrees F, a refinery can recover about
75% gasoline from crude.
So...... 42 gal. x .75 = 31.5 gallons of recoverable crude. Therefore, at a
base cost of $37.00/bbl a gallon of gasoline costs $1.17/gal. If you add in
the refining, transportation and marketing and addtive costs, plus the taxes
imposed on the product, where exactly are the "windfall" profits the oil
companies are enjoying? Hmmmmm?
Absolutely correct, they ain't there!
Finally, not all refined gas is the same..... California has a special blend
as do certain other areas of the US that are deemed by the EPA to be gross
polluters. Those specal blends cost extra $$ to produce.
The refineries CAN convert more crude to gasoline and do during the summer
months, but as the desire to recover more gasoline from a barrel of crude
increases, the cost to refine the product ALSO increase due to the necessary
increase in distillation temps required to recover more gasoline as a
finished product... that's why gas prices usually go up in summer.
The production, refining and marketing of petroleum products is complex and
fascinating..... and we should keep in mind that in spite of the spike in
prices at the pump we still have the cheapest energy supply of ANY
industrial nation in the world!
Chryco Service Manager
Member SAE
>
>
TOM
Let 'em eat cake...
--
Tom - Vista, CA
Speeker
>
> Let 'em eat cake...
>
> --
> Tom - Vista, CA
HAHAHAHA That's a good one
Stelios Grigoriou
> I would much rather drop a BIG Neutron bomb in the middle of
> saudiarabia, then we got it all. And also , no more terrorists.
>
terrorists...
Saudi Arabia used to be one of the best friends of US of A in the
region, until a lot of people started talking about «ragheads» and the
like...
Bullying countries «a few thousand miles» away, for THEIR natural
resources, is not exactly the best way to expect respect and
admiration...
I live in Greece, in Southern Europe, and throughout history,
oppression and foreign intervention ALWAYS turned AGAINST the
intervening nation... (We did it first - a couple THOUSANDS years
back, and eventually lost. The Romans did it after us, and eventually
lost, etc.,etc.)
Instead of threatening a coutry with war, it is much more «convenient»
(in terms of soldier's lives AND in terms of expenses) to buy them off
-or even better, deny them the market: If you do not buy, they will
not sell...
But for that to happen, we all will have to learn to be smart
consumers...
Boycoting one or two companies, will do nothing.
DECREASE the total consumption (by a large percentage) will definately
change the international Oil prices...
By the way, in Greece the price of petrol is something like 3.8
dollars per gallon (and 85% is TAXES).
Can we all «live» with less amenities?
I really don't know...
I LOVE my Dakota (I just dont drive it so often as I would like-
actually more often than I REALLY need to...).
My other car is having 3 times the mileage of my Dak...
Trey
we will still be demanding the same amount of fuel, just not from them. So
all the other fuel manufacturers will have an increase on their demand, and
be forced to raise their prices while Exxon/Mobil stays unchanged. As all
the other fuel prices rise, Exxon/Mobil will start to look more appealing
since their price has not gone up!
Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited supply only
hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity demanded. In other words
just plain buy less gas, from everyone! That's right, You are endorsing
these high gas prices when you buy these gas guzzling SUVs and giant trucks
that never haul anything more then your fat butt.
Many car companies are offering alternative fuel vehicles, Natural gas cars,
electric cars, etc. Dumping the Ever-enlarging SUVs and getting smaller,
more fuel efficient, more economical cars that use less fuel will not only
cause the fuel demand to go down, but most of these fuel efficient cars are
much cheaper (to buy AND to own and some give a tax break) this way you
will then have more money to spend on other things. OR maybe, just maybe you
can... -gasp- SAVE some money in the bank! I know, I know. a Honda Civic
hybrid, or a Toyota Pirus doesn't exactly have that "Bling" factor that so
many weak-minded Californian's have grown dependent on. So next time you
fill up. just remember, YOU bought your car. YOU can choose what ever car
you want. Gas prices are what they are and if we continue to buy SUVs and
trucks that use a lot of gas, then the gas prices will continue to rise. Its
simply the price you pay for your status. Swallow some pride and trade in
that Hummer H2, or YukonXL and get an Envoy, or Highlander. Still nice SUVs,
still just as capable as many larger SUVs.
Beyond the car market, there are other solution to saving gas. Take the bus!
Walk, ride a bicycle, or really push yourself and CARPOOL! That's right!
share the commute with a coworker! Not only will this cut down on gas
consumption, but it will also remove cars from the freeways causing less
traffic. with less traffic, the cars will be able to actually move, a car
moving at 60 MPH on the freeway in over drive is more fuel efficient then
the same car in second gear doing 20 MPH. Use less gas, AND get to work
sooner, and less stressed out from the drive.
So you want to pay less for gas? prices are not going to fall. so you will
just have buy less gas.
Here is another thought. How much time do you spend sitting in your car in
line at the drive through? How much gas is burned in California while they
wait for their food to be cooked? Park your car, turn it off, get your lazy
but out of your car, and into the restaurant and eat inside. Or better yet,
just don't eat out! Most home made food is more healthy then fast food. and
is MUCH cheaper. AND you will not be using your precious gas to go get it.
Just throw a cooler in the trunk, and your set, fresh food on demand!
just my $.02 do what you will, its your money.
"J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:c2t6f4$p...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
TBone
"vlj" <v@l.j> wrote in message
news:Ncq4c.70699$vn.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> "J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com> sez:
>
> > Get a clue, Electricity, Natural Gas, and Gasoline. What changed in the
> past
> > that made them go up?
>
> More people using the stuff, duh.
More like more people wasting it, sorta like the early 70's. How quickly we
forget.
>
> > There is more oil from the Netherlands and Asia, but the prices go up
and
> > then they close refineries. Two in California, <snip>
>
> Natch, it was more economical to mothball them than to bring them up to
EPA
> spec.
In order for that to be true, then we must already have an adequate supply.
>
> <snip> but the profit of the gas
> > companies is going up... Why because its cheaper to control the flow and
> > make excuses. "Supply and demand," Supply is down and prices go up.
>
> Its the refining capacity, dude. Crude is great, but you can't just pump
it
> into your tank. You gotta make distillates from it before its useful.
But you just said that it was more economical to close some of them down.
Supply and demmand says that makes no sense. Sorry dude, you can't have it
both ways.
>
> > Not believe everything you hear, when was the last time you heard if a
gas
> > price war??? We need to have supply, but who controls the supply???
>
> For the most part, OPEC. Ever hear of them? We should have formed OGEC
> (Organization of Grain Exporting Countries) along with Canada and
Australia
> and jacked up the price of wheat on them while they're squeezing us for
oil.
> Nah, we were too *nice* for that and, well, using food that way just isn't
> fair they said.
LOL, grain is a renewable resource, oil is not. Do you expect these
countries to pump themselves dry at a give away price just so the typical
American can drive his 6 MPG SUV to work to the grocery store?
>
> > We need to control the demand. What are they going to do if they're not
> > selling gas??? By going somewhere else they have to drop prices, if they
> > don't, then the monopoly will be evident.
>
> If the refineries aren't selling their refined product to Exxon/Mobil
> stations (independently owned franchises), they'll be selling it to the
> independent operators that you are buying from. The nearest refinery and
> pipeline makes all the gasoline that is being sold in your area
irrespective
> of who you buy it from.
Very true, the only way to really effect demand is to reduce consumption but
most Americans are sadly far to stupid and selfish to ever do that.
However, the price war idea is valid if done on a more local level. Picking
a particular dealer by name only makes no sense, it should be done by the
price they sell gas for. If everyone went to the dealer with the lowest
price in an area and stayed away from the ones that are even a penny more,
the more expensive ones will drop their price.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
Trey
>
> In the mean time, why don't *you* surprise everyone and do something
> intelligent and buy a motorcycle that'll still keep up with the flow of
> traffic, get 60+ mpg, only use hundreds of pounds of metal instead of
> thousands and will only set you back a few thousand instead of tens of
> thousands. You'll take up less road, need a smaller parking spot, and
when
> the dumb-shit safety nazis, politicians and traffic cops figure out that
> other countries in the world allow lane-splitting without problem (can
they
> *really* be that much more competent than us?), maybe they'll even let us
do
> that here in the good old USA.
>
> Whadda ya say, sport? Until then, fill up, pay up and shut up.
>
> Good ridin' to ya,
> VLJ
> --
>
>
Trey
> Very true, the only way to really effect demand is to reduce consumption
but
> most Americans are sadly far to stupid and selfish to ever do that.
> However, the price war idea is valid if done on a more local level.
Picking
> a particular dealer by name only makes no sense, it should be done by the
> price they sell gas for. If everyone went to the dealer with the lowest
> price in an area and stayed away from the ones that are even a penny more,
> the more expensive ones will drop their price.
>
>
with the shift in demand, the lower priced company will have to raise its
prices to compensate for the increase in demand, thus making them more
expensive then the station you were boycotting to start with.
Trey
> Let 'em eat cake...
>
WOOHOO! cake!
TBone
"Trey" <treydo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gTl5c.30542$Zo6....@twister.socal.rr.com...
LOL, what a complete load of crap. I guess that the idea of volume selling
is unfamiliar to you. On what basis would the lower priced companys cost
increase that would require it to raise its prices???? The total demand has
not changed, just the point of access which has little effect on supply.
Every minute that a stations pumps and workers sit idle costs it money and
every minute that gas is being pumped makes it for them In my younger days
I worked at a gas station that sold its gas for about 5 cents less per
gallon than the Mobil accross the street. We had lines down the street at
times and never had to raise our price due to demmand. And the Mobil did
lower its price to more closely match ours after its pumps sat pretty much
empty most of the time.
Jerry
> Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited supply only
> hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity demanded. In other words
> just plain buy less gas, from everyone! That's right, You are endorsing
> these high gas prices when you buy these gas guzzling SUVs and giant trucks
> that never haul anything more then your fat butt.
Most countries, especially asian countries have been driving small
economy cars and trucks for years now and they pay some of the highest
prices around. You can cut the consumption in half in the US and it
won't change a thing. The price of gas is controlled by the world
market, not the US market. Add to that the 15 or so states that have
special blend gas laws on the books then you see where the cost to
produce, package, and transport to those states only raises the cost to
other states because of low supply availability. Might as well get use
to the higher prices because as third world nations continue to prosper
then their demand of oil will increase which plays into the old saying
of supply and demand. Saw a interview with a oil man from Texas the
other day and he stated that only when crude reaches $40 a barrel and
stays there will it pay for him to start drilling again.
Jerry
TOM
And remember skin grows back, sheet metal doesn't... :>))
In the emergency room, motorcycle riders are known as "donors."
You can ride a motorcycle and do your part to save the world, but as for
me, I'll keep my 16 year-old Toyota pickup and feel a little safer
having my skin surrounded by steel rather than air.
Good ridin' and make sure your insurance policy has a good death and
dismemberment clause...
Tom - Vista, CA
Paul Jensen
> Supply and demmand says that makes no sense. Sorry dude, you can't have
it
> both ways.
What sort of governmental/environmental whacko hoops would have to be jumped
through to get a new refinery online in the U.S.? When it comes to refinery
capacity, there may be more in play here than simple supply and demand.
S&D only works without government intervention.
TBone
"Paul Jensen" <pjense...@gnt.net> wrote in message
news:c35so2$nfr$1...@news.utelfla.com...
> > But you just said that it was more economical to close some of them
down.
> > Supply and demmand says that makes no sense. Sorry dude, you can't have
> it
> > both ways.
>
> What sort of governmental/environmental whacko hoops would have to be
jumped
> through to get a new refinery online in the U.S.?
What does this have to do with the point being made? We are talking about
closing existing refinery's. But even at that, exactly what hoops need to
be jumped????
> When it comes to refinery
> capacity, there may be more in play here than simple supply and demand.
Like what?
> S&D only works without government intervention.
LOL, yea right
>
>
TBone
"Speeker" <spee...@hotmail.net> wrote in message
news:c2v1ln$7...@library1.airnews.net...
> >
> > Mr Corona:
> >
> > You are proceeding on the incorrect assumption that ExxonMobil (or any
> other
> > big oil company for that matter) is responsible for the high prices at
the
> > pump. They are not. The price you pay is primarily dictated by the
> > producer at the well head, therefore even if you quit buying from a
major
> > oil company (you pick one!) you will still buy your gasoline from
another
> > retailer. That retailer is still dependent on the producer for his
source
> > of crude, thus while you may be hurting the major retailer by boycotting
> his
> > station you haven't affected the source of the high price one iota.
If this were true then all gas prices in a given State should be around the
same price for a specific brand and grade and that is simply not the case.
I have seen an over 10 cent difference for the same brand and grade within a
15 mile span and both of these station were large Exxon stations and both on
major roadways. The only difference was the higher piced one had less
competition. The retailer has a much greator influence on the price than
you give them credit for.
> >
> > Sorry, the scheme sounds attractive, but it ain't gonna work!
> >
> > Mike
>
> Good points Mike and I couldn't agree more. Why don't we add this one in
> too. We should all rush out and by those nice neat cute little
gas/electric
> hybrid cars or the other ones that run on electricity alone. Then we
would
> have the gasoline companies knocking our doors down to sell us gasoline
that
> we don't need. Or would we? I think if that happened, our electric bills
> would go up to compensate for it,
Our electric bills would increase because we would be using more electricity
to charge these cars up but that would not be the case with the hybrids or
just using more fuel efficient vehicles for general commuting.
> thus all of the power plants that run
> using crude or some derivative thereof would need those products that we
as
> consumers stopped using.
LOL, what plants run on crude and why would their usage change just because
the population got smarter and used less?????
>
> Have you ever seen that commercial for Carmax I believe where the guy
shows
> a balloon with it marked off into 4 equal sections? He explains that if
you
> pinch one side such as interest, it increases other areas such as down
> payment.
That means nothing and only happens if the demand goes up due to the
interest drop.
> Let's face it. We live around a balloon economy. Not buying
> gasoline from certain companies does nothing but increase the prices at
> other stations because they have more demand and generally have to pay
more
> to get the gas at their station.
That is complete bullshit and goes completely against all of the principles
of our economy and volume selling. Doing this does not change the demand,
only the access point for delivery and as long as the demand from the
refinery remains unchanged, there is no reason to change prices.
> Let's look at history also. In the Boston Harbor, they didn't just decide
> to get tea from another source, they dumped it. I'm not preaching dumping
> gasoline in the oceans or lakes, but boycotts is a long drawn out process
> (remember the bus boycotts for blacks?)
LOL, I hope not and what does this have to do with anything anyway??? That
was a protest and was effective. If Americans would wise up and begin using
more fuel efficient vehicles that truly fit there needs for their general
commuting, this country would be much better off in every way, even if the
price uf gas remanins the same or even goes up a little. But we all know
that is never going to happen. I figure that this country has about 10 to
20 years left.
>
> And finally, keep in mind that when you look at the price of gasoline, a
> large portion of the dollar amount is..... TAXES!!!!
>
LOL, that depends on the State and has nothing to do with our growing
dependency on foreign nations for our survival. Exactly how do you want to
pay for the roads that we all use????
TBone
> While the gold standard "may" stablize the economy "somewhat" it is not
the
> universal panacea that you envision. The pump prices we are seeing are a
> direct reflection of the cost of crude at the wellehead, plus the refning
> and transportation costs plus federal and state taxes, nothing more.
While the cost of production, transportation, and taxes sets the base price,
it is hardly the complete picture.
>
> If you are correct and crude is now $37.00/bbl, let's do a little math,
OK?
>
> First of all, crude is measured in barrels at 42 gal/bbl, not the 55
gal/bbl
> that we may think. Secondly, not all crude can be refined into gasoline
> economically, thus the heavier fractions will go to oil, tar, asphalt,
etc.
> At a distillation temperature of 275 degrees F, a refinery can recover
about
> 75% gasoline from crude.
I think that we are forgetting a few things here. Hiow about all of the
high profit petro-chemicals that are also being produced. IIRC, diesel fuel
and gasoline were actually waste products in the early days.
>
> So...... 42 gal. x .75 = 31.5 gallons of recoverable crude. Therefore, at
a
> base cost of $37.00/bbl a gallon of gasoline costs $1.17/gal. If you add
in
> the refining, transportation and marketing and addtive costs, plus the
taxes
> imposed on the product, where exactly are the "windfall" profits the oil
> companies are enjoying? Hmmmmm?
> Absolutely correct, they ain't there!
LOL, I hope that you don't actually believe this. Just a quick look at the
stock market proves this to be a load of crap. I don't know many non-profit
buisnesses that carry stock prices and gains like the refineries are
currently getting. While gas and diesel may not be a huge profit, if they
can manage to sell it for the break even price that you mentioned, all of
the other chemicals that they distill from it are pure profit.
>
> Finally, not all refined gas is the same..... California has a special
blend
> as do certain other areas of the US that are deemed by the EPA to be gross
> polluters. Those specal blends cost extra $$ to produce.
>
> The refineries CAN convert more crude to gasoline and do during the summer
> months, but as the desire to recover more gasoline from a barrel of crude
> increases, the cost to refine the product
It is mole like the loss of the higher profit chemicals that must be
sacrificed to produce more fuel.
> ALSO increase due to the necessary
> increase in distillation temps required to recover more gasoline as a
> finished product... that's why gas prices usually go up in summer.
I doubt thaty has much to do with it. It is nothing more than marketing.
The demand does go up in the summer and regardless of the supply, higher
demand, higher price. Like they say, something is only worth what someone
is willing to pay for it. Supply only comes into play when you have
multiple sources to get it from. If the supply is restricted to a few
areas, it no longer comes into play in the equation because it is
artificially controled by the suppliers.
>
> The production, refining and marketing of petroleum products is complex
and
> fascinating..... and we should keep in mind that in spite of the spike in
> prices at the pump we still have the cheapest energy supply of ANY
> industrial nation in the world!
And this means what???? That we should just grab our ankles and be grateful
that they sell it to us at all???? If we do nothing and let this continue,
then we will get what we deserve, that freedom only comes to those who can
afford it.
J Corona
why I'm writing.
Without going into a lot of detail; "Supply and Demand" if demand drops for
the below companies??? Demand for the competitors (small and large) will go
up and yes prices will go up. but the ripple effect will cause the market to
fluctuate (I hope).
Not to mention the message we will send to the Oil Companies, maybe they
will think twice before they raise the prices. Like when the conflict in the
gulf and many other excuses. It may have affected the flow of oil, but the
prices went up the first week some within 24 hrs. Why??? there is no way
that the production of oil could have affected us that soon. I know of many
gas stations that still had the underground tank full but the prices went
up. Did you notice the stock prices?
Many people argue that it cost to much to build new refineries. But why do
that when they make a bigger profit making excuses. I'm in California, there
maybe two refineries closing here. Yet prices went up with just the
announcement. There is no way that could have affected us so soon, but
prices went up. That's why when I came across this letter and placed it in
many news groups.
I hear many arguments stating that it wont work, it can if we do it. I we
band and not buy any gas from even one gas station we should have an affect.
we need to buy gas, so get it from the many others. Just the threat of being
targeted should be enough to keep them honest.
As consumers we should be controlling the market, not trying to.
With all this, i'm tryin to say one thing "Break the Monopoly". Before you
argue that there isnt one, I would like to add that when they all sell the
same thing and they all do (raise prices at onece) the same thing it is one.
Mike Simmons
add. You are just attempting to understand the situation on a micro scale,
to understand it you have to look at the BIG picture.
Mike
"J Corona" <AMPhate...@linkline.com> wrote in message
news:c3ane2$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...
TBone
<Ram...@dodgecity.cc> wrote in message
news:spnh50lg43287ui3i...@4ax.com...
> In article <X116c.10$qH5....@twister.southeast.rr.com> "TBone"
> <t-bone...@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >LOL, I hope that you don't actually believe this. Just a quick look at
the
> >stock market proves this to be a load of crap. I don't know many
non-profit
> >buisnesses that carry stock prices and gains like the refineries are
> >currently getting. While gas and diesel may not be a huge profit, if
they
> >can manage to sell it for the break even price that you mentioned, all of
> >the other chemicals that they distill from it are pure profit.
>
> (Wednesday Mar 17) at $1.1525 per gallon for May 4th delivery. Of course
> that's wholesale for raw, unaltered unleaded regular gasoline with no
> additives or "blending". Now add in transportation costs, a couple
> "middlemen" (wholesale distributor and your corner retailer)
You just said that the wholesale price was $1.15 per gallon. Maybe I'm
wrong but isn't the wholesale price what the wholesale distributer gets? As
for the retailer, that is the end of the line so yes, they get to mark it up
and they are the ones that we are talking about.
> plus state
> and federal gasoline taxes and whatever the costs may be for local
> blending requirements, etc. and you arrive at the pump price. Your corner
> retailer is typically working on a profit margin of 2-3¢ per gallon.
LOL, not hardly. Most of them would not be able to stay in business at
that. Most blending can be done in the tanker during transit and the cost
of additives for unleaded regular would be what, 5¢ a gallon. Then we can
say that distribution will cost about 10¢ a gallon and when added to your
$1.15 pushes the price to $1.30. I don't know what the taxes may be in a
given area but even at 15¢, that still puts the estimated cost at $1.45.
The national average is $1.79 as of yesterday which is 34¢ higher than our
estimated cost and over 30¢ more than your suggested profit margin per
gallon. I realize that even at this that there is not a whole lot of wiggle
room and would not want to put a retailer of business but I do see a 3¢ to
10¢ price difference between close areas or even stations on the same road
and things can be done to help even that out. Of course, the only real way
to fix this is for the American people to wise up and not be so selfish and
ignorant, but we all know that will not happen until it is too late.
Paul Jensen
> > retailer is typically working on a profit margin of 2-3¢ per gallon.
>
> LOL, not hardly. Most of them would not be able to stay in business at
> that.
That's why you don't see too many retailers relying on selling gasoline to
make a living anymore. Gasoline retailers are now mostly convenience stores
with grossly overpriced food items. Even large convenience store chains,
with bulk purchasing capability, has the same high prices as mom-and-pop
stores.
If selling gasoline was so profitable, someone would try to get an edge by
cutting prices, either at the pump or inside the store. I just don't see
that happening.
milesh
Jerry wrote:
> Most countries, especially asian countries have been driving small
> economy cars and trucks for years now and they pay some of the highest
> prices around.
Thats only partly true. The high prices in countries such as England
are because of large taxes imposed, not because of demand.
Stephen Harding
European countries also favor the production of heavier
weight distillates from oil such as kerosene, JP and diesel.
The refinery system isn't optimized for gasoline, as it is
in the US, so the unit costs are higher.
SMH
TBone
"Paul Jensen" <pjense...@gnt.net> wrote in message
news:c3ccfn$5g4$1...@news.utelfla.com...
> > > Your corner
> > > retailer is typically working on a profit margin of 2-3¢ per gallon.
> >
> > LOL, not hardly. Most of them would not be able to stay in business at
> > that.
>
> That's why you don't see too many retailers relying on selling gasoline to
> make a living anymore. Gasoline retailers are now mostly convenience
stores
> with grossly overpriced food items. Even large convenience store chains,
> with bulk purchasing capability, has the same high prices as mom-and-pop
> stores.
LOL, the mom and pop stores usually only have 1 or maybe two islands with
one pump set at each one. They simply cannot pump gas fast enough to make a
whole lot of money trying to sell in volume. The large convenience store
usually have 5 or more islands with two pumps sets per island and can pump
six or more times the gas per minute than the mom and pops can. But since
most people are lazy and don't want to wait even a few minutes in line for
their fuel, they can sell for the same price or even raise the price a few
cents and know that they will lose practically no business and any that they
do will be made up for by the higher profit.
>
> If selling gasoline was so profitable, someone would try to get an edge by
> cutting prices, either at the pump or inside the store. I just don't see
> that happening.
Then I guess that you live in a special area. There are many stations by me
that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo stations.
The funny thing is that they are in sight of each other and people still go
to the more expensive one (for usually dumb reasons) so what is the
motivation to lower prices.
TBone
also much more of a luxury than a necessity in many of those countries so
they tax the hell out of it like milesh said to both pay for things like
nationalized medicine and to encourage people to use public transportation.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:4059d0e4$1...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
TBone
"Jerry" <jlr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4055FD8A...@earthlink.net...
> Trey wrote:
> > Come on folks. boycotting one supplier when there is a limited supply
only
> > hurts yourself. We need to decrease the quantity demanded. In other
words
> > just plain buy less gas, from everyone! That's right, You are endorsing
> > these high gas prices when you buy these gas guzzling SUVs and giant
trucks
> > that never haul anything more then your fat butt.
>
> Most countries, especially asian countries have been driving small
> economy cars and trucks for years now and they pay some of the highest
> prices around.
Where is the breakdown of why it costs so much???? Could it possibly be
taxes or other government intervention for reasons beyond your limited
understanding????
> You can cut the consumption in half in the US and it
> won't change a thing. The price of gas is controlled by the world
> market, not the US market.
Oh really, is the US not part of that world market? Do we purchase so
little that a 50% reduction would be unnoticed in the world market?
> Add to that the 15 or so states that have
> special blend gas laws on the books then you see where the cost to
> produce, package, and transport to those states only raises the cost to
> other states because of low supply availability.
LOL, how would a reduction in usage result in a reduction in supply???? Did
you graduate the third grade???
> Might as well get use
> to the higher prices because as third world nations continue to prosper
> then their demand of oil will increase which plays into the old saying
> of supply and demand.
But I thought that you said that a reduction of 50% of the US consumption
would have no effect, and now it does when it is another country....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what an idiot!!!!
Jerry
Awwww...... poor little boy. Nobody will play with him so he is
starting his usual spin and lies to get one of his moronic troll flames
started. No go back to you sandbox little man before mommy takes your
shovel and bucket and puts it on the top shelf again.
Jerry
TBone
only makes sense for you to attack me with more of your senseless and
unproven accusations rather than attempt to back up this complete load of
shit. Now I'll wait for the next attack complete with your standard 3rd
grade attempt at reverse psychology.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Jerry" <jlric...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:405A17D4...@earthlink.net...
Paul Jensen
Again, when government inserts itself into the equation, the supply and
demand model doesn't work. Prices go up not because of supply or demand,
but because of taxes.
Paul Jensen
me
> that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo
stations.
> The funny thing is that they are in sight of each other and people still
go
> to the more expensive one (for usually dumb reasons) so what is the
> motivation to lower prices.
I live in a metro of 250,000+ population and know of no station that sells
only gas. The margin on gas is only a few percent for the retailer. You
seem to be discounting the retailers expenses.
Paul Jensen
"TBone" <t-bone...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ijq6c.1887$qH5.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> LOL, it is just too easy to get you to come out and whine. I guess that
it
> only makes sense for you to attack me with more of your senseless and
> unproven accusations rather than attempt to back up this complete load of
> shit. Now I'll wait for the next attack complete with your standard 3rd
> grade attempt at reverse psychology.
When one gets defeated by logic, it is common for them to respond with
name-calling, profanity and personal insults. Congratulations on making it
clear to us who that would be.
TBone
"Paul Jensen" <pjense...@gnt.net> wrote in message
news:c3dlo0$dd5$1...@news.utelfla.com...
>
> "TBone" <t-bone...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ijq6c.1887$qH5.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > LOL, it is just too easy to get you to come out and whine. I guess that
> it
> > only makes sense for you to attack me with more of your senseless and
> > unproven accusations rather than attempt to back up this complete load
of
> > shit. Now I'll wait for the next attack complete with your standard 3rd
> > grade attempt at reverse psychology.
>
> When one gets defeated by logic, it is common for them to respond with
> name-calling, profanity and personal insults.
True, but that is just the way that Jerry is, defeated by logic or not.
> Congratulations on making it clear to us who that would be.
>
Thanks, glad I could help.
TBone
> > Then I guess that you live in a special area. There are many stations
by
> me
> > that sell nothing but gas and at a price lower than the big combo
> stations.
> > The funny thing is that they are in sight of each other and people still
> go
> > to the more expensive one (for usually dumb reasons) so what is the
> > motivation to lower prices.
>
> I live in a metro of 250,000+ population and know of no station that sells
> only gas.
And what area would that be? There are about 3 of them just down the road
from me. Well one does have a little store but all they really sell are
cigarettes and soda.
> The margin on gas is only a few percent for the retailer.
Really, then lets see the numbers.
> You seem to be discounting the retailers expenses.
Not at all and if you bothered to follow the thread, you would see that I
also stated in another post that there was not a whole lot of wiggle room
for them. But when two stations owned by the same company only a few miles
away from each other can have a 10 cent price difference, it shows that the
pricing is not as solid as many in here claim or like to believe that it is.
Since the higher priced stations still seem to get a reasonable number of
people going to them I'll ask you again.... Exactly what is the motivation
for them to lower their price????
t thome
> Not at all and if you bothered to follow the thread, you would see that I
> also stated in another post that there was not a whole lot of wiggle room
> for them. But when two stations owned by the same company only a few
miles
> away from each other can have a 10 cent price difference, it shows that
the
> pricing is not as solid as many in here claim or like to believe that it
is.
> Since the higher priced stations still seem to get a reasonable number of
> people going to them I'll ask you again.... Exactly what is the
motivation
> for them to lower their price????
I have a friend of mine who is in the business. There are a few things...
1) Zone based pricing - this is highly dependent on the postal code (zip
code). The minimum price is basically set by the "brand" for a zone, and the
retailers must follow or lose either supply or other incentives. There is a
preset margin, which is typically just enough to get by... hence the rise of
the gas station and convenience store.
The stores that sell labeled brands, they are bound to the zone based
protocols...
2) "Factory Stores" and Franchises - It's hard to tell sometimes who owns
the "store", either it is the company (Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, Chevron, etc),
or a dealer that has purchased the right to sell under the label. What is
interesting is that the dealer has some flexibility in pricing, and
purchasing of fuel inventory from the label (hint here, a dealer can and
often does purchase gas on the open market, but is bound to the label for a
specific amount of fuel sold every month, miss the quote and pay additional
for the labelled fuel).
How to tell, find out if the person on the license is a "manager" or a
"owner". Not all stations are owned by the same "company"...
3) Independents - My friend was a dealer selling gas for a label, and went
independent about two years ago. He's got four islands and eight pumps, and
moves more inventory now than he did when he was a franchisee. Motive for
going independent and buying out his franchise was that his "label" set up a
factory store 2 miles down the road, and sold gas at a loss (big battle
between him and the label, he owned the land that the station was on, and
the lease that the label signed ran out, rather than negotiate, they tried
to run him out of business, long story).
In the end, he ran the factory store out of business by taking a loss for a
while, and is now fairly successful...
His net margin on gas, after state and federal taxes, along with insurance
and payroll and other overhead, is about one percent.
Where it gets interesting is that if you pay at the pump with your VISA
card, they get 25 cents on the authorization, and a .5 cent commission on
each dollar, which means that pay at the pump on the card, his margin is
even lower.
Where he makes his money is on sheer volume... he has the lowest price in
the region, is not bound to the label's zone-based pricing, and believe it
or not, it is the same exact gas that you buy at the label outlets... in our
area, we have one pipeline that comes down from Long Beach, and this
pipeline supplys the same gas to all dealers, factory stores, and
independents.
Tim
rr
I have been self employed for about 15 years and you gave some insite to the
world most do not understand
RR
"t thome" <t_t...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mQu6c.39308$Zp.2485@fed1read07...
Stephen Harding
> Yea, but not that much higher. An automobile in many of these countries is
> also much more of a luxury than a necessity in many of those countries so
> they tax the hell out of it like milesh said to both pay for things like
> nationalized medicine and to encourage people to use public transportation.
I visited the Netherlands last year and learned that new
car taxes on some models (maybe all of them; I forget)
approached 35%!!!
SMH
TBone
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:405ad84f$1...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
J Corona
Healthcare,etc... each for their own reason is on the rise.
What I'm trying to convey and maybe understand is "Why!" each for whatever
reason is on the rise. Why the excuse of "not enough" but the profits of the
parent companies are on the rise.
I am aware of NAFTA and other factors that affect our economy, but my anger
comes from being told one thing and meaning other things (being lied too).
I believe in capitalism, and above all I love this country, but have you
noticed that as a whole it's going down. It seams big companies take
advantage of the little guy, and they get away with it. The politicians do
nothing or are paid to look away (yes it happens, have you ever seen a poor
politicians?) and we as a people get lied to...
So stating all the above, my point is. If the cost of making gas is on the
rise, the profit margin should remain constant. It costs them 30 cents more
to make per gallon, they pass the cost to consumers and we pay 30 cents more
per gallon. Profit should remain constant or a small increase for their
trouble. But have you seen their stocks and earning reports?
There was a congressional investigation about a year ago, what was the
results? Read for yourself, this will confirm what I've been saying.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2002-04-29-gas-price-probe.htm
But my what are our elected officials doing about it? Why is it happening
again.
That's why I boycotted Mobile and that's why I started this small
campaign...
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:PZydndse4Z0...@fidnet.com...
J Corona
them, the Oil Companies are just being greedy at our expence.
This is something I found, that prompted me to start this...
Boycott Mobile and send the message...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2002-04-29-gas-price-probe.htm
Senate probe says oil firms manipulate supply
WASHINGTON (AP) - While the industry often blames gasoline price spikes on
market-driven shortages, a congressional investigation has found that some
oil companies reduce supplies when markets are tight to force up prices and
profits.
The investigation by a Senate subcommittee found that industry manipulation
of gasoline supplies exacerbated tight fuel markets and helped produce some
of the sharp price spikes over the last three years, especially in the
Midwest.
"In a number of instances, refiners have sought to increase prices by
reducing supplies," says the 396-page report released Monday by Sen. Carl
Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Permanent Investigations
Subcommittee.
Levin, in a statement, said that the subcommittee investigation "confirms
what a lot of us have been saying for some time - that when it comes to
gasoline, there is too little competition and too much concentration in many
markets."
The investigation, he continued, "documents the actions by major oil
companies to keep supplies tight and inventories low in order to increase
prices and maximize profits." Levin plans a hearing on the report Tuesday,
including testimony from oil industry representatives.
An industry spokesman said the Senate panel's report was still being
reviewed.
"There have been numerous investigations into the pricing practices of the
oil companies and every investigative agency including the Federal Trade
Commission has found zero indication of any illegal activity," said Mike
Shanahan, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, the trade group
for the major oil companies.
The investigation by the Democratic staff of Levin's subcommittee also cited
no antitrust violations nor collusion among companies. But it said that
growing industry concentration as a result of oil company and refinery
mergers has made it easier for a company to impact prices.
The report cited several internal memos, dating back to 1998, from major oil
firms that outline a general strategy of using supplies to influence prices.
An internal "confidential" memo written in 1999 by BP Amoco - now known only
as BP - suggests "significant opportunities to influence" the balance of
supply and demand in the tight Midwest gasoline market to assure higher
prices.
Among the potential actions cited in BP's "Midwest, Mid-Continent Strategy"
memo was to reduce refinery production, ship supplies to Canada, fill
limited pipeline capacity from the Gulf to the Midwest with products other
than gasoline, provide incentives to other producers not to provide
additional gasoline, or lobby for environmental regulations to slow fuel
shipments.
Last summer, the Senate report said, "major refiners reduced gasoline
production even in the face of unusually high demand ... contributing
significantly to the price spike."
The report cited a decision by Marathon Oil in the spring of 2000 to
withhold some of its cleaner burning gasoline from the market "so as not to
depress prices."
That case, although the company had not been named, was cited previously in
an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission as contributing to supply
problems and soaring prices in early 2000 in the Midwest.
Separately, the report cited another Marathon document as an example showing
little concern by oil companies over tight supplies.
An internal economic analysis by Marathon Oil, dated, Oct 1, 1998, and
marked "confidential" appear to welcome OPEC and other oil exporters'
"efforts to rein in output" to try to prop up prices. It also noted that a
major Gulf hurricane has provided some "storm induced optimism" about
prices.
"Nature stepped in to lend the oil producers a helping hand in the form of
Hurricane Georges which caused some major refinery closures, threatened
offshore oil production and imports, and generally lent some bullishness to
the oil futures markets," said the Marathon memo, which analyzed the
short-term gasoline price outlook.
The Levin panel's report cited "extraordinary price spikes" and increased
volatility in gasoline prices over the last three years: a 35 cent a gallon
increase on average between 1999 and 2000 and price spikes in parts of the
Midwest in the spring of 2000 and again in 2001.
Although gasoline prices late last year declined dramatically, this spring
"retail prices have increased faster than at any time in the past 50 years,"
said the report.
Mike Simmons
The article you reference indicates that the oil companies have
"manipulated" supplies to keep oil prices high..... I would ask what company
does not do this? Keep in mind the "oil companies" are NOT some monolith
that operates in a vacuum. The oil companies are truly people like us,
individual investors who insist that the company that they have their money
tied up in produce a profit. The companies are simply reacting to investor
demands and attempting to maximize their ROI.
Even though the price spikes are annoying, I still submit that we in the US
have the cheapest, most reliable sourec of energy on the planet.
So don't get your undies in a bunch over a momentary price spike.... before
long the towelheads will open the spigot and you will see gas prices back
down to more reasonable levels.
If you want to talk about price gouging, how 'bout the water bottlers,
hmmmmm? I posted here several months ago that I saw a young couple leaving
a gas station, both with bottles of water in their hands and they were
complaining about the gas prices..... :^). They didn't even stop to think
that they had just paid over $8.00 per gallon for WATER! Plain old water!
Yet NOBODY bitches about that.
How can you reconcile this?
Mike
>
>
Paul Jensen
> from me. Well one does have a little store but all they really sell are
> cigarettes and soda.
Yesterday you said these stations sell only gasoline. Today it's gasoline,
cigarettes and soda. Which is it? Is it gasoline only? Or is it gasoline,
cigarettes and soda? There's one helluva difference here, since cigarettes
and soda are high margin items, especially in a convenience store. Don't
forget to keep changing your story to suit your needs. And how do you know
what they really sell?
>
> > The margin on gas is only a few percent for the retailer.
>
> Really, then lets see the numbers.
O.K....
http://retailindustry.about.com/b/a/062705.htm
The margin on gas for 2004 so far is under $0.09 a gallon, which is 4.7% at
$1.70 a gallon. For Murphy, the margin so far this year is a whopping $0.02
per gallon. Oh yeah - the retailers are screwing you. LOL!
Paul Jensen
> Where it gets interesting is that if you pay at the pump with your VISA
> card, they get 25 cents on the authorization, and a .5 cent commission on
> each dollar, which means that pay at the pump on the card, his margin is
> even lower.
Tim...Your response was very interesting. I have heard of zone pricing,
which helps to explain the difference, say, in two Citgo stations a few
miles apart. I wasn't familiar enough with it to explain it, but you have
certainly helped. But the Pay at the Pump thing has me intrigued. As a
consumer, I LOVE pay at the pump, because that way I can avoid the smokers,
lottery players, and long lines due to slow unmotivated employees.
Is the pay at the pump VISA fees higher than taking a VISA inside? And has
pay at the pump hurt inside (read high margin) sales? Since I don't go
inside, I won't be tempted by their marketing of these products. That
danish doesn't look good to me because I never see it.
mgg
first hundred lines.
--Mike
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:EuOdnTmWOoY...@fidnet.com...
Mike Simmons
"mgg" <mi...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:zoQ6c.26429$sF4....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> No offense Mike, but if you had a post there, I gave up after scrolling
the
> first hundred lines.
>
> --Mike
Yeah, I guess I shoulda snipped a bit, huh? Sorry!
:^)
Jose Corona
not pay for luxury items.
And yes, investors have a right to make some money. I mean the Enron people
thought so to, after all this is capitalism.
But like the Enron people someone got hurt and someone made money. Well the
oil companies are making money and consumers are getting hurt.
So I say again boycott Mobile!
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:EuOdnTmWOoY...@fidnet.com...
>
Paul Jensen
news:ZtidndBbWue...@adelphia.com...
> I think that battle water is unrealistic analogy. I have a choice to pay
or
> not pay for luxury items.
>
>
>
> And yes, investors have a right to make some money. I mean the Enron
people
> thought so to, after all this is capitalism.
>
>
>
> But like the Enron people someone got hurt and someone made money. Well
the
> oil companies are making money and consumers are getting hurt.
>
>
>
> So I say again boycott Mobile!
You are comparing Enron stockholders with oil company customers. What kind
of comparison is that? Talk about an unrealistic analogy! What about Mobil
stockholders? Mobil employees? The independent Mobil owner-operator? The
employees of the Mobil station? Your little boycott would hurt everyone
except the "greedy oil company."
Paul Jensen
<Ram...@dodgecity.cc> wrote in message
news:dpmp5014npmsaoshb...@4ax.com...
> If your owner's manual calls for 87-octane (regular) unleaded fuel and you
> use "premium" or the mid-grade because *you* think it's better for your
> vehicle, then IMO you're a fool. If your vehicle calls for regular
> unleaded but runs poorly on it, maybe it's time for a tune-up. I'd also
> try switching brands before going to a higher octane.
I thought all brands were the same?
I agree with almost all of what you said, but isn't there a small handful of
gasoline brands that have additives added to their base gas, such as Chevron
with their Techron. Or is every Chevron station I've seen guilty of false
advertising?
TBone
>
> "TBone" <t-bone...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:O_t6c.3371$tP4.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > And what area would that be? There are about 3 of them just down the
road
> > from me. Well one does have a little store but all they really sell are
> > cigarettes and soda.
>
> Yesterday you said these stations sell only gasoline. Today it's
gasoline,
> cigarettes and soda. Which is it? Is it gasoline only? Or is it
gasoline,
> cigarettes and soda? There's one helluva difference here, since
cigarettes
> and soda are high margin items, especially in a convenience store. Don't
> forget to keep changing your story to suit your needs. And how do you
know
> what they really sell?
Are you trying to be an asshole or does it just come naturally? I said ONE
station has a dinky dirty little store in it and probably sells cigarettes
and soda. Since I have never gone into it and have never seen anyone else
go in it either, I have no idea. Just about every gas station I have even
been to sells cigarettes including the Arco that I worked at many years ago.
And the funny thing is I could count on one hand the number of packs of
ciggs I sold during a shift while we were going non-stop pumping gas and
entertaining the Mobil crew who were standing around near their empty pumps.
And with the high taxes currently on cigarettes, I doubt that they are so
high margin anymore.
>
> >
> > > The margin on gas is only a few percent for the retailer.
> >
> > Really, then lets see the numbers.
>
> O.K....
>
> http://retailindustry.about.com/b/a/062705.htm
>
> The margin on gas for 2004 so far is under $0.09 a gallon, which is 4.7%
at
> $1.70 a gallon. For Murphy, the margin so far this year is a whopping
$0.02
> per gallon. Oh yeah - the retailers are screwing you. LOL!
>
Once again, I see that you see only what you want to see. I never said that
the retailers are trying to rip anyone off and if you think so, show me
where I said it. I did notice in this article that the more aggressive
companies (such as Arco) are underselling others by 6 or more cents. How is
this possible with an only 2 cent margin. And also, lets not forget that
margin is profit, after all expenses including salaries. With what you are
saying, it actually makes far more sense to target a specific company rather
than staying away from the more expensive retailers.
Harry Krause
It's the Bush Administration and its buddies in the oil business here
and abroad, and its close friends in Saudi Arabia.
Jerry
> "PREMIUM" unleaded is ordinary "regular" 87-octane gasoline which has
> simply had additives (i.e., MMT) blended with the fuel causing it to burn
> slightly longer (measured in nanoseconds). That's right, it's a longer
> burn, not a hotter burn, not a faster burn. - and no, it's not a more
> highly refined gasoline.
The difference in the 87 and 92 octane gas is simply the antiknock
properties. Whether it is done at the factory through the distilling
process or by additives I don't know but other than that you ar correct
in that a gallon of 87 octane has the same number of btu's as does a
gallon of 92 octane.
Jerry
t thome
> Is the pay at the pump VISA fees higher than taking a VISA inside? And
has
> pay at the pump hurt inside (read high margin) sales? Since I don't go
> inside, I won't be tempted by their marketing of these products. That
> danish doesn't look good to me because I never see it.
It's the same whether you pay inside or out, charge it on the card, and the
retailer has to pay the commission... putting card readers on the pumps is
just to make it easier for the customer. It all goes through the same
system.
Tim
t thome
> I thought all brands were the same?
>
> I agree with almost all of what you said, but isn't there a small handful
of
> gasoline brands that have additives added to their base gas, such as
Chevron
> with their Techron. Or is every Chevron station I've seen guilty of false
> advertising?
It's not false adverts, see Techron is a trademark, as are the others.
The link above is interesting...
Gasoline is a fairly complex formula, and one that is tightly regulated by
the EPA and state agencies such as the CARB, as it is neccessary for the
proper operation of the clean air systems on our vehicles.
The "additives" to keep your injectors clean, everybody has them... they can
use their trademarks as needed to convince you, the customer, that their
product is somehow better... in the end, it's all the same gas... the grades
between regular, mid, and super, there are additives there, and these are
typically introduced at the distribution center, where it is poured into the
tanks of the truck prior to drive-off...
Most stations only have two tanks, and the middle grade is blended at the
pump. Some stations do have three tanks, and these will offer 'pure'
mid-grade, but again refer to the above statement. If you see a station that
has recently introduced diesel, then mid is usually blended...
The issue of "Bad Gas" has more to do with the dealer and his maintainance,
or lack thereof, of his tanks and pumps.
Tim
Nosey
TOM
I live in Southern California and we have several brands that have pay
at the pump available. ARCO (formerly Richfield) charges $0.35 (or maybe
more now) per transaction. Thus, if you're getting, say, ten gallons,
you need to add on $0.035 per gallon. Today I looked at the prices and
ARCO is $2.07.9 per gallon and Chevron is $2.11.9 per gallon, so, for my
hypothetical 10 gallons, you save a nickle. A larger fillup would
increase the savings.
I can understand the reason for the surcharge. That way, those who pay
cash can save $0.04 per gallon at ARCO and not have to pay extra for
those who use their cards. At Chevron, every one pays more...
As for my situation, the Chevron station is closer plus my 22R seems to
run better with Chevron than it does with ARCO.
I always use the lowest priced unleaded (87 octane)...
Tom - Vista, CA
TranSurgeon
prices varried from 1.55 to 2.08 (N. Platte NE)
"TOM" <to...@catz.org> wrote in message
news:lW87c.47554$506.44083@fed1read05...
pete carb
supply so there is always a dmenand and they can overcharge for it at
the same time. if only the japs could make better, cheaper fuels like
they do bikes!!
zach
Maybe the prices have gone up, but the margin remains? My friend owns
a mini-mart. He says he could probably survive not selling gas (10-15
cent margin), but he would go out of business if he could not sell
cigarettes. Cig's are more important to his bottom line than his wine
and beer. Cig. sales also contribute to the sales of other high margin
items like coffee and sodas, since people often buy the latter, when
they really came in for the smokes, initially. Our state (CA) would
probably go permanently bankrupt of tobacco products were suddenly
made illegal.
rr
You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
IMHO of course
Ron M.
> other day and he stated that only when crude reaches $40 a barrel and
> stays there will it pay for him to start drilling again.
I'm from West Texas, which at one time was pretty much the Oil Capitol
of the Universe. Then Saudi Arabia came along. Drive out there now,
and you see pumpjacks sitting dead, rusting, hundreds and hundreds of
them, because the price of oil doesn't cover the cost of pumping it
any more. That's a very critical ratio.
It costs $30 - $40 a barrel to drill and pump oil in West Texas. In
the Middle East, it's so cheap you can practically scoop it out of the
ground with a teaspoon.
The West Texas economy has been utterly devastated the last few
decades because of this. I travelled in that area recently, and small
towns like Crane, Big Lake, and Sterling City are dying, with
boarded-up storefronts everywhere. It's sad to watch. There are very,
very good, decent people in those towns.
The West Texas oil industry itself has withered, as well. If you
wanted to drill a well out there tomorrow, it would take at least 6
months to even get started, because the support industry is all gone:
the roughnecks, the suppliers, oilfield equipment companies, etc.
There's just NOTHING left.
What's happened to the American oil industry is really what's happened
to many other industries: production has shifted to foreign sources
because of lower cost. Why pay an American call center worker $25 an
hour plus benefits, when a guy in India will do it for $2 a day? Why
spend $30-$40 a barrel to pump oil from West Texas when you can pump
it in the Middle East for $8 a barrel? It's the same principle at
work. And the resources ARE here: there's enough oil under West Texas
to kiss the Middle East bye-bye forever, but it's not going to happen.
And all that oil is just SITTING there. Billions and billions of
barrels of it.
Now, of course, if you want to get fabulously rich, save the country,
and a bunch of other nice things, crank your brain up to "10" and
figure out a way to get that oil out of the ground cheaply. Any ideas?
Ron M.
5th generation Native West Texan
tango
news:d7fc3008.04032...@posting.google.com:
Good Oil Industry Commercial. What is needed is for the our oil industry
and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels
and power plant program using NASA and the patents held by the people and
not given to the monopolies. If a serious government sponsored program
without political corruption were started, you would find petroleum
products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear.
FMB
news:Xns94B9DAA...@216.168.3.44...
And what planet did you say you were from???
--
FMB
(only one B in FMB)
mgg
--Mike
"FMB" <FM...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:DaMac.44813$Sh6....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
Mike Simmons
While you may think that government intervention would in some way cause
prices to drop and supply to increase, NOTHING is further from the truth!
Show me even ONE example of this idea being successful in history. As the
previous poster alluded to, it is simply the laws of economics at work and
left to themselves, they work very well.
Mike
Iman Nassoul
must have taken delivery of a taker full of higher priced gas? WTF?
TBone
"Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
news:OsidnXjglck...@fidnet.com...
> > Good Oil Industry Commercial. What is needed is for the our oil industry
> > and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels
> > and power plant program using NASA and the patents held by the people
and
> > not given to the monopolies. If a serious government sponsored program
> > without political corruption were started, you would find petroleum
> > products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear.
>
> While you may think that government intervention would in some way cause
> prices to drop and supply to increase, NOTHING is further from the truth!
Really??? Got proof??? I bet that these things would in fact happen but as
long as big buisness continues to run the government, we will never know.
> Show me even ONE example of this idea being successful in history.
What is your definition of success? How about you show us even one example
of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company.
> As the previous poster alluded to, it is simply the laws of economics at
work and
> left to themselves, they work very well.
LOL, you are kidding, right?!?!?!?! Do you own a television or ever leave
the house or are you so blind not to see what is happening to this country
and its people?
Jerry
> Did anyone else notice that overnight every gas station you could find
> must have taken delivery of a taker full of higher priced gas? WTF?
Didn't pay attention to gas price but did notice that diesel dropped 2
cents a gallon at the local Flying-J station since about four days ago.
Jerry
Stephen Harding
>>>and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels
>>>and power plant program using NASA and the patents held by the people and
>>>not given to the monopolies. If a serious government sponsored program
>>>without political corruption were started, you would find petroleum
>>>products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear.
>>
>>While you may think that government intervention would in some way cause
>>prices to drop and supply to increase, NOTHING is further from the truth!
>
> Really??? Got proof??? I bet that these things would in fact happen but as
> long as big buisness continues to run the government, we will never know.
Prices are quite stable. An organization called OPEC tends to want
to keep it that way.
In fact, adjusted for inflation, current gas prices aren't really
much more expensive (I've actually read as much as 30% *below*) gas
from around 20 years ago.
If the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall,
and "supplies reappear" (didn't know they'd gone missing), how would
that encourage alternative energy development? What's the incentive?
>>Show me even ONE example of this idea being successful in history.
>
> What is your definition of success? How about you show us even one example
> of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company.
How about airlines? Without deregulation, there would be more
airlines charging about the same price.
Unfortunately, that price would be so high that only business or
wealthy people could commonly fly. Forget the family flying off
to Disney World for a week vacation. Way too much!
Current air fares can fluctuate wildly, but you'd never find a
$150 (or less!) round trip fare to FL from New England under
regulated airlines. Why would they ever offer such a fare if
the price is set by the government at $580?
>>As the previous poster alluded to, it is simply the laws of economics at
>>work andleft to themselves, they work very well.
>
> LOL, you are kidding, right?!?!?!?! Do you own a television or ever leave
> the house or are you so blind not to see what is happening to this country
> and its people?
Well, the Soviet Union had a policy of government dictating exactly
how many cars or refrigerators were going to be built and at what
price. That method of government control of economics didn't seem
to work very well.
The Chinese *communists* seem to pretty much agree it doesn't work
well either. Don't take my word for it, turn on the TV!
SMH
Roy
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:406d...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
Deregulation brought us the guy who owned Continental Airlines who by the
time he was done ruining a couple of other airlines the FAA ruled him
incompetent and banned him from the industry. Oh, while he was ruining
airlines he was also ruining jobs by the thousands. I think the name was
Lorenzo sp.
Roy
TBone
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:406d...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
> TBone wrote:
> > "Mike Simmons" <mik...@fidnet.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>>Good Oil Industry Commercial. What is needed is for the our oil
industry
> >>>and automotive monopolies to be negated by a 10 year alternative fuels
> >>>and power plant program using NASA and the patents held by the people
and
> >>>not given to the monopolies. If a serious government sponsored program
> >>>without political corruption were started, you would find petroleum
> >>>products suddenly fall in pricing and stable supplies reappear.
> >>
> >>While you may think that government intervention would in some way cause
> >>prices to drop and supply to increase, NOTHING is further from the
truth!
> >
> > Really??? Got proof??? I bet that these things would in fact happen
but as
> > long as big buisness continues to run the government, we will never
know.
>
> Prices are quite stable. An organization called OPEC tends to want
> to keep it that way.
Really????? Then where are these record prices comming from.
>
> In fact, adjusted for inflation, current gas prices aren't really
> much more expensive (I've actually read as much as 30% *below*) gas
> from around 20 years ago.
While this may be true, the typical American also has many more expenses
than they did 20 years ago which equates to less disposable income for
necessities such as fuel.
>
> If the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall,
> and "supplies reappear" (didn't know they'd gone missing), how would
> that encourage alternative energy development? What's the incentive?
I think that you missed the point. It was not suggested for the government
to "make gas prices fall" as you put it. It was for the government to
release technology and assist inventors in developing alternate technologies
which if successful, would reduce our demand on oil. Currently there is no
incentive to develop alternate energy methods and if someone does, the oil
companies make that disappear real quick.
>
> >>Show me even ONE example of this idea being successful in history.
> >
> > What is your definition of success? How about you show us even one
example
> > of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company.
>
> How about airlines? Without deregulation, there would be more
> airlines charging about the same price.
LOL, with the exception of the few small point to point airlines, just about
all prices have gone way up. Look at the price difference between buisness
and coach classes or better yet, look at the outragous price for a ticket if
you need to fly somewhere at the last minute.
>
> Unfortunately, that price would be so high that only business or
> wealthy people could commonly fly. Forget the family flying off
> to Disney World for a week vacation. Way too much!
What plannet are you on? What proof do you have to back this statement?
>
> Current air fares can fluctuate wildly, but you'd never find a
> $150 (or less!) round trip fare to FL from New England under
> regulated airlines. Why would they ever offer such a fare if
> the price is set by the government at $580?
Funny, but I never see these fairs offered during peak or the most desired
times and why would a regulated airline not offer them? Regulation only
sets the top price, not all pricing.
>
> >>As the previous poster alluded to, it is simply the laws of economics at
> >>work andleft to themselves, they work very well.
> >
> > LOL, you are kidding, right?!?!?!?! Do you own a television or ever
leave
> > the house or are you so blind not to see what is happening to this
country
> > and its people?
>
> Well, the Soviet Union had a policy of government dictating exactly
> how many cars or refrigerators were going to be built and at what
> price. That method of government control of economics didn't seem
> to work very well.
It failed for the same reason that ours is currently failing, GREED and
CORRUPTION. I never said that I wanted a communist or socialist government
but the absolute greed of the American business man is completely out of
hand.
>
> The Chinese *communists* seem to pretty much agree it doesn't work
> well either. Don't take my word for it, turn on the TV!
>
Where did I or anyone else say that they wanted such a government but that
does not mean that our system is perfect either. Perhaps you should pick up
a history book and read about the industrial revolution and the state of the
economy then. Do you see some similarities now? Then take a look at the
late sixties and early seventies in regards to the auto industry and gas.
They say that history not remembered is often repeated and we are dead on
the same course now that we were then, how sad.
Paul Jensen
> What is your definition of success? How about you show us even one
example
> of deregulation doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company.
The airline industry was deregulated, and now consumers can get cheap
flights and the airlines are going broke.
Stephen Harding
> "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
>
>> TBone wrote: Prices are quite stable. An organization called OPEC tends to want to keep it
>> that way.
>
> Really????? Then where are these record prices comming from.
A high benchmark price for a barrel of standard crude oil,
brought about by more competition in possessing that barrel
of oil from places like China and India, and probably soon
Indonesia, Malaysia, S Korea and the likes.
The price would be even higher if OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
didn't pump more oil to counter the upward trends. They've
just announced "intent" to reduce production in order to
counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the
northern hemisphere winter. It will be surprising if they
really do, but the idea is to keep oil prices stable.
Lastly, the Saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their
oil dollars. Problem is, the dollar is cheap right now, so
it takes more of them to buy the toys. A stonger dollar would
result in a lower barrel of oil price.
>> In fact, adjusted for inflation, current gas prices aren't really much more expensive (I've
>> actually read as much as 30% *below*) gas from around 20 years ago.
>
> While this may be true, the typical American also has many more expenses than they did 20 years
> ago which equates to less disposable income for necessities such as fuel.
Everything costs more! Including oil. I'm sure we spend more on
gas outlays as a proportion of income than we did 20 years ago, but
we also drive cars (SUVs/LTs) that are not as fuel efficient as
the typical car on the road then either, despite the fact that individual
*car* models are more fuel efficient.
>
>> If the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall, and "supplies reappear"
>> (didn't know they'd gone missing), how would that encourage alternative energy development?
>> What's the incentive?
>
> I think that you missed the point. It was not suggested for the government to "make gas prices
> fall" as you put it. It was for the government to release technology and assist inventors in
> developing alternate technologies which if successful, would reduce our demand on oil. Currently
> there is no incentive to develop alternate energy methods and if someone does, the oil companies
> make that disappear real quick.
The government should do more to promote new energy technologies, but
it generally can't make a technology inexpensive. That's pretty much
the job of private industry, which aren't going to go into the
technology until there is more promise of economic benefit.
Electric cars? OK for around town or short commuting work. Hybrids
work quite well but aren't exactly breakthrough technology. Fuel
cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety
and fuel volume (range), not to mention they'll also run at least
initially on gasoline. So what then? We don't have impulse or warp
power yet and aren't likely to have it for quite some time to come.
A change over to alternative energy can be better encouraged by
government, but I really don't believe there can be some sort of
"government proclamation" that will suddenly change the energy
picture for the US.
>>>> Show me even ONE example of this idea being successful in history.
>>>
>>> What is your definition of success? How about you show us even one example of deregulation
>>> doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company.
>>
>> How about airlines? Without deregulation, there would be more airlines charging about the same
>> price.
>
> LOL, with the exception of the few small point to point airlines, just about all prices have gone
> way up. Look at the price difference between buisness and coach classes or better yet, look at
> the outragous price for a ticket if you need to fly somewhere at the last minute.
Not so! If it wasn't for deregulation, you would be paying that
"outrageous" price for all your flights. The highly variable fares
for air travel is a result of deregulation. There would be no
cheap fares without it!
>> Unfortunately, that price would be so high that only business or wealthy people could commonly
>> fly. Forget the family flying off to Disney World for a week vacation. Way too much!
>
> What plannet are you on? What proof do you have to back this statement?
The Heritage Foundation has a very comprehensive article on airline
deregulation. Yes, the Heritage Foundation tends toward conservative
thinking, but there is a lot of information, economic and political,
in the [very long] article.
From http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/BG1173.cfm
<quote>
* Prices have declined steadily since deregulation.
The best measure of trends in airline prices is the "yield"
(revenue generated per passenger mile) that airlines receive.
The inflation-adjusted 1982 constant dollar yield for airlines
has fallen from 12.27 cents in 1978 to 7.92 cents in 1997.
This means that airline ticket prices are almost 40 percent
lower today than they were in 1978 when the airlines were
deregulated. Chart 2 illustrates the price decrease.
These reported declines are bolstered by the recent work of
economists Jerry Ellig, senior research fellow at the Center
for Market Processes at George Mason University, and Robert
Crandall, senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the
Brookings Institution. In their 1997 study Economic Deregulation
and Customer Choice: Lessons for the Electric Industry, Ellig
and Crandall found that real price reductions of roughly 13
percent occurred as early as two years after deregulation, that
reductions of almost 30 percent were evident ten years after
deregulation, and that the annual value of consumer benefits
generated by deregulation equals $19.4 billion in 1993 dollars.
</quote>
I might add that these reductions were noted at *all* airports,
not simply a few with high volume, and all occurring while the
ridership of airlines was dramatically rising.
>> Current air fares can fluctuate wildly, but you'd never find a $150 (or less!) round trip fare
>> to FL from New England under regulated airlines. Why would they ever offer such a fare if the
>> price is set by the government at $580?
>
> Funny, but I never see these fairs offered during peak or the most desired times and why would a
> regulated airline not offer them? Regulation only sets the top price, not all pricing.
Airline deregulation most assuredly did result in setting prices.
It also involved what new air carriers could enter the market (basically
none), what routes they could fly, when and where they were allowed to
stop, percentage of off-route trips, and more. It fostered inefficiency
in the industry which typically translates into higher cost for users.
So what would you rather do? Happily pay a standardized, high fare while
knowing that you can't do any better, or "shop around" for a deal, and
perhaps end up a bit steamed because you later find you could have done
even better using a different route, carrier or day to fly?
>>>> As the previous poster alluded to, it is simply the laws of economics at work andleft to
>>>> themselves, they work very well.
>>>
>>> LOL, you are kidding, right?!?!?!?! Do you own a television or ever leave the house or are
>>> you so blind not to see what is happening to this country and its people?
>>
>> Well, the Soviet Union had a policy of government dictating exactly how many cars or
>> refrigerators were going to be built and at what price. That method of government control of
>> economics didn't seem to work very well.
>
> It failed for the same reason that ours is currently failing, GREED and CORRUPTION. I never said
> that I wanted a communist or socialist government but the absolute greed of the American business
> man is completely out of hand.
Corruption is merely an extension of greed, and greed is everywhere.
Corporations don't have a sole use patent on it, nor is it anything
new.
>> The Chinese *communists* seem to pretty much agree it doesn't work well either. Don't take my
>> word for it, turn on the TV!
>
> Where did I or anyone else say that they wanted such a government but that does not mean that our
> system is perfect either. Perhaps you should pick up
Didn't mean to imply you wanted a communist government. You simply
seemed to believe a regulated economy might be better than one left
to regulate itself through supply and demand forces.
> a history book and read about the industrial revolution and the state of the economy then. Do you
> see some similarities now? Then take a look at the
The industrial revolution was a 200 year or more process. I'd say the
condition of average human beings over that period (largely in the West)
improved quite dramatically.
> late sixties and early seventies in regards to the auto industry and gas. They say that history
> not remembered is often repeated and we are dead on the same course now that we were then, how
> sad.
Not certain what you're getting at. The 60's and 70's saw a decline in
the US auto industry, and manufacturing in general. You know, "globalization"
and all that.
I think we are a shallower, more materialistic nation than we were
30-40 years ago, but I'm not certain supply-demand economics or
deregulation is really a reason for it, if that's what you were
implying.
SMH
Stephen Harding
Yep a bad, selfish type driven by a desire to self-enrich.
But deregulation doesn't necessarily result in loss of an
industry or employment. Regulation can do that too!
Regulation forbid new carriers (along with new employment)
into the industry.
You're a railroad guy right? How did regulation of passenger
train lines help the industry? It held off closure of
unprofitable passenger route, thus saving, for a time, the
jobs of those working the line. Yet it made the overall
health of the railroad company poorer, by increasing the
amount of money it had to pay out for non-profiting activities,
like passenger rail. The end result was a hastening of the
death of many railroad lines, freight and passenger, and the
loss of those jobs too.
Times change. A company has to be adaptable to change.
Regulation limits that adaptability in response to market
forces, and I think, ultimately causes more harm.
BTW, since I've got you here...
I heard on the radio several weeks ago that trains coming
into rail yards will typically stop ahead of their final
resting spot, in order to back up a little ways.
The purpose, it was claimed, was to "unload" the tension on
the couplings so that when the engine starts up again, it can
gain momentum by pulling an initially small, but then increasing
number of cars behind it. If it didn't do this, the weight of
the train cars would be so great the engine would have much
more difficulty getting moving.
Does this sound right? Seems logical, but I always thought
those diesel engines were simply monster power and torque
producers that could handle the weight of the cars it pulled
in "one clump", rather than needing a slight spacing advantage
to slowly build up to its full pulling weight.
SMH
Moonraker
> Lastly, the Saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their
> oil dollars. Problem is, the dollar is cheap right now, so
> it takes more of them to buy the toys. A stonger dollar would
> result in a lower barrel of oil price.
>
Of course, drilling our OWN oil in the ANWR would do a lot to remove the
demand for middle-eastern oil. One thing I've never seen discussed is the
fact that we are virtually funding the terrorist activities against our own
selves by buying oil from the Arabs. If we were to open the ANWR and tell
the towelheads to go peddle their oil in a more competitive market, we'd
soon see the benefit in two areas. At the pump, and in less money in the
hands of those murderous muslims.
Roy
> Roy wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> > news:406d...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
> >>airlines charging about the same price.
> >
> > Deregulation brought us the guy who owned Continental Airlines who by
the
> > time he was done ruining a couple of other airlines the FAA ruled him
> > incompetent and banned him from the industry. Oh, while he was ruining
> > airlines he was also ruining jobs by the thousands. I think the name was
> > Lorenzo sp.
>
> Yep a bad, selfish type driven by a desire to self-enrich.
>
> But deregulation doesn't necessarily result in loss of an
> industry or employment. Regulation can do that too!
>
> Regulation forbid new carriers (along with new employment)
> into the industry.
Seems to me that there are less airlines and for that manner less railroads
due to merger's
> You're a railroad guy right?
Yup, have 32 years into it.
> How did regulation of passenger
> train lines help the industry? It held off closure of
> unprofitable passenger route, thus saving, for a time, the
> jobs of those working the line.
Steve, there is no passenger railroad in the world that is profitable that
I'm aware of.
> Yet it made the overall
> health of the railroad company poorer, by increasing the
> amount of money it had to pay out for non-profiting activities,
> like passenger rail. The end result was a hastening of the
> death of many railroad lines, freight and passenger, and the
> loss of those jobs too.
Heck for an example of how wonderful deregulation is look around here in NE.
In 1986 there were 4 profitable railroads, now there are one. Tim Mellon
from that wonderful banking family did a "wall street" on them. To the point
of (iirc) the state of NY became involved and took over the D&H and tossed
Mellon.
> Times change. A company has to be adaptable to change.
> Regulation limits that adaptability in response to market
> forces, and I think, ultimately causes more harm.
>
> BTW, since I've got you here...
>
> I heard on the radio several weeks ago that trains coming
> into rail yards will typically stop ahead of their final
> resting spot, in order to back up a little ways.
>
> The purpose, it was claimed, was to "unload" the tension on
> the couplings so that when the engine starts up again, it can
> gain momentum by pulling an initially small, but then increasing
> number of cars behind it. If it didn't do this, the weight of
> the train cars would be so great the engine would have much
> more difficulty getting moving.
>
> Does this sound right? Seems logical, but I always thought
> those diesel engines were simply monster power and torque
> producers that could handle the weight of the cars it pulled
> in "one clump", rather than needing a slight spacing advantage
> to slowly build up to its full pulling weight.
>
First I heard of it, then again I haven't been involved in frieght since
1986 (Mellon). Most engineers I know like to keep things "stretched out".
Engineers pulling a standing train that is "bunched" have been known to
break a few knuckles or drawbars. My brother in law is a engineer that works
passenger but has a extensive frieght background, I'll ask him or one of the
other frieght guy's(there aren't many left) when I bump into them.
You are correct, a locomotive with enough traction power can get anything
moving. If one can't simply put on another and so on.
Roy
> SMH
>
Stephen Harding
>>train lines help the industry? It held off closure of
>>unprofitable passenger route, thus saving, for a time, the
>>jobs of those working the line.
>
> Steve, there is no passenger railroad in the world that is profitable that
> I'm aware of.
Certainly not in the US or Canada, but Europe and Japan have
fantastic passenger rail lines. I know Europe's especially
is heavily subsidized, but I think Japan's might be a money
maker.
Also India I would think. Low wages and lots of people with
cars too expensive for most make for a good pool of train
passengers...even eating and sleeping on top of the cars
(5th class tickets??)!
How much rain did you get out there the last few days?
We got about 4 inches and the CT River is about to burst its
banks! Finally seem to be done with it today.
SMH
Roy
> Roy wrote:
> > "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >>How did regulation of passenger
> >>train lines help the industry? It held off closure of
> >>unprofitable passenger route, thus saving, for a time, the
> >>jobs of those working the line.
> >
> > Steve, there is no passenger railroad in the world that is profitable
that
> > I'm aware of.
>
> Certainly not in the US or Canada, but Europe and Japan have
> fantastic passenger rail lines. I know Europe's especially
> is heavily subsidized, but I think Japan's might be a money
> maker.
>
> Also India I would think. Low wages and lots of people with
> cars too expensive for most make for a good pool of train
> passengers...even eating and sleeping on top of the cars
> (5th class tickets??)!
>
> How much rain did you get out there the last few days?
About 5-6".
> We got about 4 inches and the CT River is about to burst its
> banks! Finally seem to be done with it today.
Lucky that there wasn't a lot of snow on the ground. Hell just think if this
rain was snow!
Roy
>
> SMH
>
TBone
"Moonraker" <not...@noway.nev> wrote in message
news:dVzbc.4310$ts4....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> news:406e...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
> > Lastly, the Saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their
> > oil dollars. Problem is, the dollar is cheap right now, so
> > it takes more of them to buy the toys. A stonger dollar would
> > result in a lower barrel of oil price.
> >
>
> Of course, drilling our OWN oil in the ANWR would do a lot to remove the
> demand for middle-eastern oil.
Really, and how do you know this? Perhaps you should work for the drilling
companies since even they don't know how much oil is currently there.
> One thing I've never seen discussed is the
> fact that we are virtually funding the terrorist activities against our
own
> selves by buying oil from the Arabs.
It must be nice to just group everyone from a specific nationality into one
group that al do the same thing. What purpose would funding terrorists do
for them?
> If we were to open the ANWR and tell
> the towelheads to go peddle their oil in a more competitive market, we'd
> soon see the benefit in two areas. At the pump, and in less money in the
> hands of those murderous muslims.
>
Now you are just dreaming. Even if the ANWR had all of the oil that you
seem to think it has, it still would not help. The "towelheads" as you call
them would simply reduce production to keep the prices up and conserve their
resources while we expend ours due to typical American greed and stupidity.
It sounds like you would be doing them a favor with no benefit to the
average consumer.
TBone
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:406e...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
> TBone wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >> TBone wrote: Prices are quite stable. An organization called OPEC
tends to want to keep it
> >> that way.
> >
> > Really????? Then where are these record prices comming from.
>
> A high benchmark price for a barrel of standard crude oil,
> brought about by more competition in possessing that barrel
> of oil from places like China and India, and probably soon
> Indonesia, Malaysia, S Korea and the likes.
Competition for processing would reduce the cost of finished goods, not
raise them. If you are referring to demand for these goods then I would
agree and that further boosts the point that we need to get started
developing alternate sources of energy. The sad thing is that there just
may not be any viable ones out there and we had better find that out now
while we can still somewhat conserve what we already have.
>
> The price would be even higher if OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
> didn't pump more oil to counter the upward trends. They've
> just announced "intent" to reduce production in order to
> counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the
> northern hemisphere winter. It will be surprising if they
> really do, but the idea is to keep oil prices stable.
LOL, oil consumption tends to increase douing the summer with the much
higher demand for gasoline and the much higher demand for electricity to run
air conditioners. But yes, they do intend to cut back production but they
are doing it to make more money from less oil and why, because they can.
>
> Lastly, the Saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their
> oil dollars. Problem is, the dollar is cheap right now, so
> it takes more of them to buy the toys. A stonger dollar would
> result in a lower barrel of oil price.
LOL, that increases their buying power. If the American dollar is weak,
that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more
(from us).
>
> >> In fact, adjusted for inflation, current gas prices aren't really much
more expensive (I've
> >> actually read as much as 30% *below*) gas from around 20 years ago.
> >
> > While this may be true, the typical American also has many more expenses
than they did 20 years
> > ago which equates to less disposable income for necessities such as
fuel.
>
> Everything costs more! Including oil. I'm sure we spend more on
> gas outlays as a proportion of income than we did 20 years ago, but
> we also drive cars (SUVs/LTs) that are not as fuel efficient as
> the typical car on the road then either, despite the fact that individual
> *car* models are more fuel efficient.
On this we agree on and is what I'm talking about when I say "American greed
and stupidity". This is also what I was referring to when I was talking
about the early 70's but we will get back to that later.
> >
> >> If the government does something to suddenly make gas prices fall, and
"supplies reappear"
> >> (didn't know they'd gone missing), how would that encourage alternative
energy development?
> >> What's the incentive?
> >
> > I think that you missed the point. It was not suggested for the
government to "make gas prices
> > fall" as you put it. It was for the government to release technology
and assist inventors in
> > developing alternate technologies which if successful, would reduce our
demand on oil. Currently
> > there is no incentive to develop alternate energy methods and if someone
does, the oil companies
> > make that disappear real quick.
>
> The government should do more to promote new energy technologies, but
> it generally can't make a technology inexpensive. That's pretty much
> the job of private industry, which aren't going to go into the
> technology until there is more promise of economic benefit.
And that is exactly what the OP was talking about. The government can
create a promise of economic benefit to spur the creation of newer
technologies. If left to big buisness, they will be squelched as quickly as
possible. Don't believe me, how about the PC industry. M$ has made a
buisness out of crushing the competition and who knows how many amazing
products will never be created because of it. BTW, did you ever hear of a
man named Tucker?
>
> Electric cars? OK for around town or short commuting work. Hybrids
> work quite well but aren't exactly breakthrough technology. Fuel
> cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety
> and fuel volume (range), not to mention they'll also run at least
> initially on gasoline. So what then? We don't have impulse or warp
> power yet and aren't likely to have it for quite some time to come.
I think that you are confusing hybreds with fuel cells. Hybreds use
gasoline but I don't believe that fuel cell vehicles do. But even if they
did, 60+ MPG beats the hell out of 15, doesn't it. The point is that
currently, their is no motivation to create a new technology and if it were
attempted, the oil and / or automotive industry would crush it unless the
government or some outer overseeing body was there to prevent it. There is
that Tucker thing again.
>
> A change over to alternative energy can be better encouraged by
> government, but I really don't believe there can be some sort of
> "government proclamation" that will suddenly change the energy
> picture for the US.
Of course not and that is exactly why something needs to be done ASAP.
Nothing will be able to suddenly change the energy picture for the US and
that makes us extremely vulnerable. What would happen in this country if
OPEC decided to stop all oil production for two months??? How about a full
depression.
>
> >>>> Show me even ONE example of this idea being successful in history.
> >>>
> >>> What is your definition of success? How about you show us even one
example of deregulation
> >>> doing anything for anyone but the owners of the company.
> >>
> >> How about airlines? Without deregulation, there would be more airlines
charging about the same
> >> price.
> >
> > LOL, with the exception of the few small point to point airlines, just
about all prices have gone
> > way up. Look at the price difference between buisness and coach classes
or better yet, look at
> > the outragous price for a ticket if you need to fly somewhere at the
last minute.
>
> Not so! If it wasn't for deregulation, you would be paying that
> "outrageous" price for all your flights.
Bullshit and you have no proof of that. If they did that they would go out
of buisness.
> The highly variable fares
> for air travel is a result of deregulation. There would be no
> cheap fares without it!
That depends on what you mean by cheap. If you are referring to fairs in
which the airline will lose money, you are probably correct but what is the
real purpose of such fairs anyway besides to kill the new competition.
>
> >> Unfortunately, that price would be so high that only business or
wealthy people could commonly
> >> fly. Forget the family flying off to Disney World for a week vacation.
Way too much!
> >
> > What plannet are you on? What proof do you have to back this statement?
>
> The Heritage Foundation has a very comprehensive article on airline
> deregulation. Yes, the Heritage Foundation tends toward conservative
> thinking, but there is a lot of information, economic and political,
> in the [very long] article.
LOL, the Heritage Foundation is about as right wing as you can get, give me
a break. The problem with them is most of their information is incomplete
which is a typical far right tactic used to mislead people.
>
> From http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/BG1173.cfm
>
> <quote>
> * Prices have declined steadily since deregulation.
Hahahahahahahahaha, did you even bother to look at the chart. They were
falling steadily since the early 50's and their was no significant change in
the curve after deregulation. Actually, the curve even flattens out a
little after deregulation which could show by their misleading
representation to have actually slowed down the reduction in prices.
>
> The best measure of trends in airline prices is the "yield"
> (revenue generated per passenger mile) that airlines receive.
> The inflation-adjusted 1982 constant dollar yield for airlines
> has fallen from 12.27 cents in 1978 to 7.92 cents in 1997.
> This means that airline ticket prices are almost 40 percent
> lower today than they were in 1978 when the airlines were
> deregulated. Chart 2 illustrates the price decrease.
This is nothing more than volume selling and incomplete information. While
the yeild per passenger mile has gone down (and was doing so long before
deregulation), how much was the passenger mile going up?
>
> These reported declines are bolstered by the recent work of
> economists Jerry Ellig, senior research fellow at the Center
> for Market Processes at George Mason University, and Robert
> Crandall, senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the
> Brookings Institution. In their 1997 study Economic Deregulation
> and Customer Choice: Lessons for the Electric Industry, Ellig
> and Crandall found that real price reductions of roughly 13
> percent occurred as early as two years after deregulation, that
> reductions of almost 30 percent were evident ten years after
> deregulation, and that the annual value of consumer benefits
> generated by deregulation equals $19.4 billion in 1993 dollars.
> </quote>
More bullshit. Just look at the chart that is in the article and you will
see that these price reductions were occurring anyway in direct correlation
to the increase in passengers. Deregulation had nothing to do with it.
>
> I might add that these reductions were noted at *all* airports,
> not simply a few with high volume, and all occurring while the
> ridership of airlines was dramatically rising.
If you bother to actually look at chart 1, you will see a significant drop
in ridership immediately AFTER deregulation. Why do you think that
happened? I bet that it had a lot to do with the typical price spike that
occurs after deregulation. The difference is that the airlines saw the
error in their ways and reduced prices again. Now here is another point for
you to think about. If regulation was what was holding prices so high, why
did it take 2 years to get a 13% reduction AFTER deregulation? If
regulation was causing the high prices, the drop should have been immediate.
Just look at the chart that you provided.
> >> Current air fares can fluctuate wildly, but you'd never find a $150 (or
less!) round trip fare
> >> to FL from New England under regulated airlines. Why would they ever
offer such a fare if the
> >> price is set by the government at $580?
> >
> > Funny, but I never see these fairs offered during peak or the most
desired times and why would a
> > regulated airline not offer them? Regulation only sets the top price,
not all pricing.
>
> Airline deregulation most assuredly did result in setting prices.
> It also involved what new air carriers could enter the market (basically
> none), what routes they could fly, when and where they were allowed to
> stop, percentage of off-route trips, and more. It fostered inefficiency
> in the industry which typically translates into higher cost for users.
Nothing in that huge article actually backs any of this up. It is just a
bunch of misleading information. They also claim that deregulation improved
safety. What a complete load of shit. Like the improvements in technology
in both the aircraft and airports along with stricter rules had nothing to
do with it. Even their chart 3 shows a rapid improvement in safety long
befor deregulation so how in any way could you attribute it to deregulation.
>
> So what would you rather do? Happily pay a standardized, high fare while
> knowing that you can't do any better, or "shop around" for a deal, and
> perhaps end up a bit steamed because you later find you could have done
> even better using a different route, carrier or day to fly?
According to the charts in your article, it would have happened anyway,
regardless of deregulation.
>
> >>>> As the previous poster alluded to, it is simply the laws of economics
at work andleft to
> >>>> themselves, they work very well.
> >>>
> >>> LOL, you are kidding, right?!?!?!?! Do you own a television or ever
leave the house or are
> >>> you so blind not to see what is happening to this country and its
people?
> >>
> >> Well, the Soviet Union had a policy of government dictating exactly how
many cars or
> >> refrigerators were going to be built and at what price. That method of
government control of
> >> economics didn't seem to work very well.
> >
> > It failed for the same reason that ours is currently failing, GREED and
CORRUPTION. I never said
> > that I wanted a communist or socialist government but the absolute greed
of the American business
> > man is completely out of hand.
>
> Corruption is merely an extension of greed, and greed is everywhere.
> Corporations don't have a sole use patent on it, nor is it anything
> new.
But if left unchecked, it will destroy anything, hence regulations. Like
they say "absolute power corrupts absolutly".
>
> >> The Chinese *communists* seem to pretty much agree it doesn't work well
either. Don't take my
> >> word for it, turn on the TV!
> >
> > Where did I or anyone else say that they wanted such a government but
that does not mean that our
> > system is perfect either. Perhaps you should pick up
>
> Didn't mean to imply you wanted a communist government. You simply
> seemed to believe a regulated economy might be better than one left
> to regulate itself through supply and demand forces.
If it were actually regulated by pure supply and demand forces then I would
agree with you but these things can easily be altered and usually are so
because of that, regulations need to be put into place unless of course, you
want the middle class to just go away.
>
> > a history book and read about the industrial revolution and the state of
the economy then. Do you
> > see some similarities now? Then take a look at the
>
> The industrial revolution was a 200 year or more process. I'd say the
> condition of average human beings over that period (largely in the West)
> improved quite dramatically.
I guess that you don't know what the industrial revolution actually is. I
suggest that you go look it up and get back to me.
>
> > late sixties and early seventies in regards to the auto industry and
gas. They say that history
> > not remembered is often repeated and we are dead on the same course now
that we were then, how
> > sad.
>
> Not certain what you're getting at. The 60's and 70's saw a decline in
> the US auto industry, and manufacturing in general. You know,
"globalization"
> and all that.
LOL, lost in the trees again I see. Let me explain it to you. In the late
60's and very early 70's, the American auto manufacturers were producing
bigger and bigger cars using ever increasing amounts of fuel and the
American consumer was buying them up as fast as possible even while there
was known unrest in the mideast. At the same time, the Japanese auto
manufacturers were building high mileage, dependable, and comfortable cars.
In 73, the mideast problems boiled over and oil production stopped, the gas
crisis began, and all hell broke loose. People quickly wanted higher
mileage cars and who had them, not the US auto makers and BTW, they never
recovered the ground that they lost. Now here we are in the present. The
American auto manufacturers are producing bigger and bigger cars (SUV's)
using ever increasing amounts of fuel and the American consumer was buying
them up as fast as possible even while there is known unrest in the mideast.
At the same time, the Japanese auto manufacturers are still designing and
building high mileage, dependable, and comfortable cars.... This would be
funny if it were not so scary
Stephen Harding
>>didn't pump more oil to counter the upward trends. They've
>>just announced "intent" to reduce production in order to
>>counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the
>>northern hemisphere winter. It will be surprising if they
>>really do, but the idea is to keep oil prices stable.
>
> LOL, oil consumption tends to increase douing the summer with the much
> higher demand for gasoline and the much higher demand for electricity to run
> air conditioners. But yes, they do intend to cut back production but they
> are doing it to make more money from less oil and why, because they can.
No. *Gas* consumption increases in the summer, not overall *oil*
consumption.
We run our heating systems all winter, 24/7 because it's *cold*
out. We *have* to.
Air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power
plants that run constantly the entire year. Turning on the
air conditioner doesn't typically involve adding generating
capacity. We don't have much additional electric generating
capacity since we haven't been building new power plants for a
decade or so.
>>Lastly, the Saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their
>>oil dollars. Problem is, the dollar is cheap right now, so
>>it takes more of them to buy the toys. A stonger dollar would
>>result in a lower barrel of oil price.
>
> LOL, that increases their buying power. If the American dollar is weak,
> that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more
> (from us).
Yes but the oil standard currency is dollars, not dinars or euros
or whatever. So the Saudis are using dollars to buy their Western
products, which doesn't buy as much with its low value.
> And that is exactly what the OP was talking about. The government can
> create a promise of economic benefit to spur the creation of newer
> technologies. If left to big buisness, they will be squelched as quickly as
> possible. Don't believe me, how about the PC industry. M$ has made a
> buisness out of crushing the competition and who knows how many amazing
> products will never be created because of it. BTW, did you ever hear of a
> man named Tucker?
Not off the top of my head. There was a Tucker automobile at
one time IIRC.
>>Electric cars? OK for around town or short commuting work. Hybrids
>>work quite well but aren't exactly breakthrough technology. Fuel
>>cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety
>>and fuel volume (range), not to mention they'll also run at least
>>initially on gasoline. So what then? We don't have impulse or warp
>>power yet and aren't likely to have it for quite some time to come.
>
> I think that you are confusing hybreds with fuel cells. Hybreds use
> gasoline but I don't believe that fuel cell vehicles do. But even if they
> did, 60+ MPG beats the hell out of 15, doesn't it. The point is that
> currently, their is no motivation to create a new technology and if it were
> attempted, the oil and / or automotive industry would crush it unless the
> government or some outer overseeing body was there to prevent it. There is
> that Tucker thing again.
No I'm talking two different vehicle types. The hybrid as you say,
is combination gas and electric, and the fuel cell running on hydrogen,
which will initially be supplied from gasoline, since there are supply
problems providing the pure H2 and the fact that H2 is rather dangerous
stuff. Think Hindenburg disaster.
>>Not so! If it wasn't for deregulation, you would be paying that
>>"outrageous" price for all your flights.
>
> Bullshit and you have no proof of that. If they did that they would go out
> of buisness.
Prices are documented to have dropped considerably almost
immediately after the industry was deregulated. Seems fairly
good proof to me.
>>The highly variable fares
>>for air travel is a result of deregulation. There would be no
>>cheap fares without it!
>
> That depends on what you mean by cheap. If you are referring to fairs in
> which the airline will lose money, you are probably correct but what is the
> real purpose of such fairs anyway besides to kill the new competition.
How about simply to capture business? If another airline is
inefficient at how it does business, it either goes out of
business, or adapts to become more efficient and recapture
or gain business.
>>The Heritage Foundation has a very comprehensive article on airline
>>deregulation. Yes, the Heritage Foundation tends toward conservative
>>thinking, but there is a lot of information, economic and political,
>>in the [very long] article.
>
> LOL, the Heritage Foundation is about as right wing as you can get, give me
> a break. The problem with them is most of their information is incomplete
> which is a typical far right tactic used to mislead people.
But their sources of raw data and analysis are not necessarily
so. Harvard and George Mason Universities are not known as
bastions of right wing conservativism.
There are plenty of articles out on the web that support or
reject airline deregulation as a good thing. You'll just have
to look some over to get a feel for what is correct. I believe
deregulation of the airlines to have been overall a good thing.
>> From http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/BG1173.cfm
>>
>><quote>
>> * Prices have declined steadily since deregulation.
>
> Hahahahahahahahaha, did you even bother to look at the chart. They were
You're a veritable laughing hyena today!
> falling steadily since the early 50's and their was no significant change in
> the curve after deregulation. Actually, the curve even flattens out a
> little after deregulation which could show by their misleading
> representation to have actually slowed down the reduction in prices.
Do you understand the concept of inflation? Do you know what
the inflation curve for the US looks like through the 70's and
early 80's? Did you note the tremendous increase in *demand*
for airline travel over this period? A force that tends to
*raise* prices?
>> The best measure of trends in airline prices is the "yield"
>> (revenue generated per passenger mile) that airlines receive.
>> The inflation-adjusted 1982 constant dollar yield for airlines
>> has fallen from 12.27 cents in 1978 to 7.92 cents in 1997.
>> This means that airline ticket prices are almost 40 percent
>> lower today than they were in 1978 when the airlines were
>> deregulated. Chart 2 illustrates the price decrease.
>
> This is nothing more than volume selling and incomplete information. While
> the yeild per passenger mile has gone down (and was doing so long before
> deregulation), how much was the passenger mile going up?
Passenger miles were going up during this period because they
could! Before deregulation, the number of airlines, flights,
stops, cities, *everything* was pretty much fixed!
>> These reported declines are bolstered by the recent work of
>> economists Jerry Ellig, senior research fellow at the Center
>> for Market Processes at George Mason University, and Robert
>> Crandall, senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the
>> Brookings Institution. In their 1997 study Economic Deregulation
>> and Customer Choice: Lessons for the Electric Industry, Ellig
>> and Crandall found that real price reductions of roughly 13
>> percent occurred as early as two years after deregulation, that
>> reductions of almost 30 percent were evident ten years after
>> deregulation, and that the annual value of consumer benefits
>> generated by deregulation equals $19.4 billion in 1993 dollars.
>></quote>
>
> More bullshit. Just look at the chart that is in the article and you will
> see that these price reductions were occurring anyway in direct correlation
> to the increase in passengers. Deregulation had nothing to do with it.
See above.
> If you bother to actually look at chart 1, you will see a significant drop
> in ridership immediately AFTER deregulation. Why do you think that
> happened? I bet that it had a lot to do with the typical price spike that
> occurs after deregulation. The difference is that the airlines saw the
> error in their ways and reduced prices again. Now here is another point for
> you to think about. If regulation was what was holding prices so high, why
> did it take 2 years to get a 13% reduction AFTER deregulation? If
> regulation was causing the high prices, the drop should have been immediate.
> Just look at the chart that you provided.
Because airlines *don't want* to lower fares. Competition
*forces* them to. If they could get away with charging more,
they would, and they did...for a while.
>>Airline deregulation most assuredly did result in setting prices.
>>It also involved what new air carriers could enter the market (basically
>>none), what routes they could fly, when and where they were allowed to
>>stop, percentage of off-route trips, and more. It fostered inefficiency
>>in the industry which typically translates into higher cost for users.
>
> Nothing in that huge article actually backs any of this up. It is just a
> bunch of misleading information. They also claim that deregulation improved
> safety. What a complete load of shit. Like the improvements in technology
> in both the aircraft and airports along with stricter rules had nothing to
> do with it. Even their chart 3 shows a rapid improvement in safety long
> befor deregulation so how in any way could you attribute it to deregulation.
I've noted information you don't agree with tends to be
"bullshit" or "misleading". I never expected you to think
too much on any of this as your mind is usually always
made up before-hand.
There are plenty of articles out there on airline deregulation.
Some present it as favorable, and others as horrid. Overall,
I think they show it as successful.
>>The industrial revolution was a 200 year or more process. I'd say the
>>condition of average human beings over that period (largely in the West)
>>improved quite dramatically.
>
> I guess that you don't know what the industrial revolution actually is. I
> suggest that you go look it up and get back to me.
What the hey is that supposed to mean?
Are you disagreeing that the Industrial Revolution was a 200
year or more process? Are you disagreeing that the human
condition, at least in Western countries, where this revolution
was underway, largely improved during that period?
>>Not certain what you're getting at. The 60's and 70's saw a decline in
>>the US auto industry, and manufacturing in general. You know,
>>"globalization" and all that.
> LOL, lost in the trees again I see. Let me explain it to you. In the late
> 60's and very early 70's, the American auto manufacturers were producing
> bigger and bigger cars using ever increasing amounts of fuel and the
> American consumer was buying them up as fast as possible even while there
> was known unrest in the mideast. At the same time, the Japanese auto
> manufacturers were building high mileage, dependable, and comfortable cars.
> In 73, the mideast problems boiled over and oil production stopped, the gas
> crisis began, and all hell broke loose. People quickly wanted higher
> mileage cars and who had them, not the US auto makers and BTW, they never
> recovered the ground that they lost. Now here we are in the present. The
> American auto manufacturers are producing bigger and bigger cars (SUV's)
> using ever increasing amounts of fuel and the American consumer was buying
> them up as fast as possible even while there is known unrest in the mideast.
> At the same time, the Japanese auto manufacturers are still designing and
> building high mileage, dependable, and comfortable cars.... This would be
> funny if it were not so scary
Which is the long way of repeating what I said: "globalization".
SMH
TBone
"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:4072...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
> TBone wrote:
> > "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >>The price would be even higher if OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
> >>didn't pump more oil to counter the upward trends. They've
> >>just announced "intent" to reduce production in order to
> >>counter the normal reduction in demand with the end of the
> >>northern hemisphere winter. It will be surprising if they
> >>really do, but the idea is to keep oil prices stable.
> >
> > LOL, oil consumption tends to increase douing the summer with the much
> > higher demand for gasoline and the much higher demand for electricity to
run
> > air conditioners. But yes, they do intend to cut back production but
they
> > are doing it to make more money from less oil and why, because they can.
>
> No. *Gas* consumption increases in the summer, not overall *oil*
> consumption.
And where do you think that gas comes from?
>
> We run our heating systems all winter, 24/7 because it's *cold*
> out. We *have* to.
Are you saying that all home heating comes from oil furnaces? Is so then I
think that you are in for a suprise. All of my houses have been heated by
gas.
>
> Air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power
> plants that run constantly the entire year. Turning on the
> air conditioner doesn't typically involve adding generating
> capacity. We don't have much additional electric generating
> capacity since we haven't been building new power plants for a
> decade or so.
Do you really think that load has no effect on the amount of fuel a power
plant uses? Sorry to burst your bubble here but it does. The more load
placed on a generator, the harder it is to turn and the more steam that is
required to turn it (in a steam driven turbine that is). Th only way to get
that is to BURN MORE FUEL and many of our power plants are oil fired.
>
> >>Lastly, the Saudis like to buy lots of nice things with their
> >>oil dollars. Problem is, the dollar is cheap right now, so
> >>it takes more of them to buy the toys. A stonger dollar would
> >>result in a lower barrel of oil price.
> >
> > LOL, that increases their buying power. If the American dollar is weak,
> > that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more
> > (from us).
>
> Yes but the oil standard currency is dollars, not dinars or euros
> or whatever. So the Saudis are using dollars to buy their Western
> products, which doesn't buy as much with its low value.
Let's get real here dude.
>
> > And that is exactly what the OP was talking about. The government can
> > create a promise of economic benefit to spur the creation of newer
> > technologies. If left to big buisness, they will be squelched as
quickly as
> > possible. Don't believe me, how about the PC industry. M$ has made a
> > buisness out of crushing the competition and who knows how many amazing
> > products will never be created because of it. BTW, did you ever hear of
a
> > man named Tucker?
>
> Not off the top of my head. There was a Tucker automobile at
> one time IIRC.
Bingo, and what happened to the tucker automobile and why?
>
> >>Electric cars? OK for around town or short commuting work. Hybrids
> >>work quite well but aren't exactly breakthrough technology. Fuel
> >>cells will probably do the trick but there are still issues of safety
> >>and fuel volume (range), not to mention they'll also run at least
> >>initially on gasoline. So what then? We don't have impulse or warp
> >>power yet and aren't likely to have it for quite some time to come.
> >
> > I think that you are confusing hybreds with fuel cells. Hybreds use
> > gasoline but I don't believe that fuel cell vehicles do. But even if
they
> > did, 60+ MPG beats the hell out of 15, doesn't it. The point is that
> > currently, their is no motivation to create a new technology and if it
were
> > attempted, the oil and / or automotive industry would crush it unless
the
> > government or some outer overseeing body was there to prevent it. There
is
> > that Tucker thing again.
>
> No I'm talking two different vehicle types. The hybrid as you say,
> is combination gas and electric, and the fuel cell running on hydrogen,
> which will initially be supplied from gasoline, since there are supply
> problems providing the pure H2 and the fact that H2 is rather dangerous
> stuff. Think Hindenburg disaster.
H2 is no more dangerous than any other flamable gas such as propane or even
gasoline for that matter. As for the Hindenburg, it has been now proven
that it was the highly flamable fabric covering the aircraft and the diesel
fuel contained within it to power the engines that fell and burned the
people on the ground running from it. Hydrogen has no color when it burns.
>
> >>Not so! If it wasn't for deregulation, you would be paying that
> >>"outrageous" price for all your flights.
> >
> > Bullshit and you have no proof of that. If they did that they would go
out
> > of buisness.
>
> Prices are documented to have dropped considerably almost
> immediately after the industry was deregulated. Seems fairly
> good proof to me.
Where??? Clearly not in the article that you posted. Like I said, the
price drop leveled off when deregulation occurred
>
> >>The highly variable fares
> >>for air travel is a result of deregulation. There would be no
> >>cheap fares without it!
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by cheap. If you are referring to fairs
in
> > which the airline will lose money, you are probably correct but what is
the
> > real purpose of such fairs anyway besides to kill the new competition.
>
> How about simply to capture business? If another airline is
> inefficient at how it does business, it either goes out of
> business, or adapts to become more efficient and recapture
> or gain business.
Are you serious? Did you not learn anything from M$ and its business
practices. When a business is making a fortune in one area, it is easy for
it to sell services way below cost in others to kill new competition before
it has a chance to gain a foothold. There is no way to become efficient
enough to make money selling below cost.
>
> >>The Heritage Foundation has a very comprehensive article on airline
> >>deregulation. Yes, the Heritage Foundation tends toward conservative
> >>thinking, but there is a lot of information, economic and political,
> >>in the [very long] article.
> >
> > LOL, the Heritage Foundation is about as right wing as you can get, give
me
> > a break. The problem with them is most of their information is
incomplete
> > which is a typical far right tactic used to mislead people.
>
> But their sources of raw data and analysis are not necessarily
> so. Harvard and George Mason Universities are not known as
> bastions of right wing conservativism.
I don't recall the article saying that these places agreed with this, only
that a few people who worked at them did. But any way you look at it, the
charts tell the story and there is no significant change in any of them to
back up the points being made in that article.
>
> There are plenty of articles out on the web that support or
> reject airline deregulation as a good thing. You'll just have
> to look some over to get a feel for what is correct. I believe
> deregulation of the airlines to have been overall a good thing.
IOW, you need to find the ones that back up your personal beliefs but the
charts that you provided do not back you up.
>
> >> From http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/BG1173.cfm
> >>
> >><quote>
> >> * Prices have declined steadily since deregulation.
> >
> > Hahahahahahahahaha, did you even bother to look at the chart. They were
>
> You're a veritable laughing hyena today!
What do you expect when you post such a comic link?
>
> > falling steadily since the early 50's and their was no significant
change in
> > the curve after deregulation. Actually, the curve even flattens out a
> > little after deregulation which could show by their misleading
> > representation to have actually slowed down the reduction in prices.
>
> Do you understand the concept of inflation? Do you know what
> the inflation curve for the US looks like through the 70's and
> early 80's? Did you note the tremendous increase in *demand*
> for airline travel over this period? A force that tends to
> *raise* prices?
But deregulation did not occure until well into this period and by the shape
of the curves on these charts shows that it had no measurable effect on the
outcome.
>
> >> The best measure of trends in airline prices is the "yield"
> >> (revenue generated per passenger mile) that airlines receive.
> >> The inflation-adjusted 1982 constant dollar yield for airlines
> >> has fallen from 12.27 cents in 1978 to 7.92 cents in 1997.
> >> This means that airline ticket prices are almost 40 percent
> >> lower today than they were in 1978 when the airlines were
> >> deregulated. Chart 2 illustrates the price decrease.
> >
> > This is nothing more than volume selling and incomplete information.
While
> > the yeild per passenger mile has gone down (and was doing so long before
> > deregulation), how much was the passenger mile going up?
>
> Passenger miles were going up during this period because they
> could! Before deregulation, the number of airlines, flights,
> stops, cities, *everything* was pretty much fixed!
That is untrue and once again, attributed to incomplete information. While
there were controls then (and even now) on such things, unless the flights
were 100% booked 100% of the time (and they were not), deregulation had no
effect and your charts CLEARLY show that.
>
> >> These reported declines are bolstered by the recent work of
> >> economists Jerry Ellig, senior research fellow at the Center
> >> for Market Processes at George Mason University, and Robert
> >> Crandall, senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the
> >> Brookings Institution. In their 1997 study Economic Deregulation
> >> and Customer Choice: Lessons for the Electric Industry, Ellig
> >> and Crandall found that real price reductions of roughly 13
> >> percent occurred as early as two years after deregulation, that
> >> reductions of almost 30 percent were evident ten years after
> >> deregulation, and that the annual value of consumer benefits
> >> generated by deregulation equals $19.4 billion in 1993 dollars.
> >></quote>
> >
> > More bullshit. Just look at the chart that is in the article and you
will
> > see that these price reductions were occurring anyway in direct
correlation
> > to the increase in passengers. Deregulation had nothing to do with it.
>
> See above.
See above what?
>
> > If you bother to actually look at chart 1, you will see a significant
drop
> > in ridership immediately AFTER deregulation. Why do you think that
> > happened? I bet that it had a lot to do with the typical price spike
that
> > occurs after deregulation. The difference is that the airlines saw the
> > error in their ways and reduced prices again. Now here is another point
for
> > you to think about. If regulation was what was holding prices so high,
why
> > did it take 2 years to get a 13% reduction AFTER deregulation? If
> > regulation was causing the high prices, the drop should have been
immediate.
> > Just look at the chart that you provided.
>
> Because airlines *don't want* to lower fares. Competition
> *forces* them to. If they could get away with charging more,
> they would, and they did...for a while.
So exactly how did deregulation help? What you just said here contradicts
your entire argumnet. It was not deregulation that helped the consumer, it
was competition. Something that the oil industry doesn't have to worry
about.
>
> >>Airline deregulation most assuredly did result in setting prices.
> >>It also involved what new air carriers could enter the market (basically
> >>none), what routes they could fly, when and where they were allowed to
> >>stop, percentage of off-route trips, and more. It fostered inefficiency
> >>in the industry which typically translates into higher cost for users.
> >
> > Nothing in that huge article actually backs any of this up. It is just
a
> > bunch of misleading information. They also claim that deregulation
improved
> > safety. What a complete load of shit. Like the improvements in
technology
> > in both the aircraft and airports along with stricter rules had nothing
to
> > do with it. Even their chart 3 shows a rapid improvement in safety long
> > befor deregulation so how in any way could you attribute it to
deregulation.
>
> I've noted information you don't agree with tends to be
> "bullshit" or "misleading". I never expected you to think
> too much on any of this as your mind is usually always
> made up before-hand.
Boy, talk about Pot, Kettle, Black. Even when I point out the obvious on
the charts that you provided, all you can do is say that I'm stubborn and
hava already made up my mind. Like I said, look at your own charts. Like
chart 1 for example. In big bold letters across the top it says "AIR TRAVE
HAS INCREASED STEADLY SINCE DEREGULATION" but fails to mention that it was
also doing it way before so as well. Hell, just after the deregulation
marker there was a significant drop in it which makes the caption a complete
lie. In order for thes charts to be valid, you should be able to remove the
deregulation markers from them and just by looking at them, be able to tell
exactly where deregualtion began and you can't do that on a single one of
them. Enough said.
>
> There are plenty of articles out there on airline deregulation.
> Some present it as favorable, and others as horrid. Overall,
> I think they show it as successful.
That is because that is what you choose to believe and so be it. I don't
think that deregulation had any effect either way.
>
> >>The industrial revolution was a 200 year or more process. I'd say the
> >>condition of average human beings over that period (largely in the West)
> >>improved quite dramatically.
> >
> > I guess that you don't know what the industrial revolution actually is.
I
> > suggest that you go look it up and get back to me.
>
> What the hey is that supposed to mean?
Like I said look it up. Here is a link.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577952_3/Industrial_Revolution.html
Now pay attention to the parts concerning the labor market.
WTF does this have to do with globalization?????? Are you really this
scared to see the truth about what is happening around you? Oh well, lets
just wait for the next embargo and the American auto makers to lose another
40% of the market along with the possible full recession (although with the
number of outsourced jobs, I doubt that we will even notice). Maybe then
you will get it.
Stephen Harding
> "Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
> news:4072...@news-1.oit.umass.edu...
>
>>TBone wrote:
>>
>>>"Stephen Harding" <har...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
>>No. *Gas* consumption increases in the summer, not overall *oil*
>>consumption.
>
> And where do you think that gas comes from?
People don't run their cars 24/7 like they do their house
heating systems during winter. The net is decrease in
consumption for northern hemisphere consumers.
>>We run our heating systems all winter, 24/7 because it's *cold*
>>out. We *have* to.
>
> Are you saying that all home heating comes from oil furnaces? Is so then I
> think that you are in for a suprise. All of my houses have been heated by
> gas.
And some electric. Doesn't change it. The number of cars burning
gas doesn't suddenly go up in the summer. The miles they run does,
but not enough to counter the very large heating oil demands.
You think the Saudis would feel the need to lower production in
the summer to keep prices high if there was no change in oil
demand?
>>Air conditioners run on electricity which is produced by power
>>plants that run constantly the entire year. Turning on the
>>air conditioner doesn't typically involve adding generating
>>capacity. We don't have much additional electric generating
>>capacity since we haven't been building new power plants for a
>>decade or so.
>
> Do you really think that load has no effect on the amount of fuel a power
> plant uses? Sorry to burst your bubble here but it does. The more load
> placed on a generator, the harder it is to turn and the more steam that is
> required to turn it (in a steam driven turbine that is). Th only way to get
> that is to BURN MORE FUEL and many of our power plants are oil fired.
A generator can only produce so much electricity. The amount to
be generated is capped by the number of plants you have, not
how much oil to pump into it. We don't build new power plants,
so we're stuck, and the power company asks us to turn off our
airconditioners instead.
>>>LOL, that increases their buying power. If the American dollar is weak,
>>>that means that all of the competing currency is stronger and buys more
>>>(from us).
>>
>>Yes but the oil standard currency is dollars, not dinars or euros
>>or whatever. So the Saudis are using dollars to buy their Western
>>products, which doesn't buy as much with its low value.
>
> Let's get real here dude.
Ever hear the term "petrodollar"?
There is some concern that the Saudis might replace the dollar with
the euro for oil transactions, due to political and economic reasons.
The dollar is the standard of exchange for oil markets because it
has been very stable. It's currently rather low in value compared
with the euro. The Saudis are stuck with a low value currency.
>>No I'm talking two different vehicle types. The hybrid as you say,
>>is combination gas and electric, and the fuel cell running on hydrogen,
>>which will initially be supplied from gasoline, since there are supply
>>problems providing the pure H2 and the fact that H2 is rather dangerous
>>stuff. Think Hindenburg disaster.
>
> H2 is no more dangerous than any other flamable gas such as propane or even
> gasoline for that matter. As for the Hindenburg, it has been now proven
> that it was the highly flamable fabric covering the aircraft and the diesel
> fuel contained within it to power the engines that fell and burned the
> people on the ground running from it. Hydrogen has no color when it burns.
Yes that actually is the case. I believe H2, like propane is more
explosive under ignition than gasoline. Gasoline vapor is very
dangerous stuff.
The problem for fuel cells is the tank and its volume. To get any
comparable range with a car, you'd need to seriously compress the
H2 to get enough volume. The high pressure tank is what would be
very dangerous in a collision. Gas tanks aren't pressurized to what
an H2 tank would be.
>>Prices are documented to have dropped considerably almost
>>immediately after the industry was deregulated. Seems fairly
>>good proof to me.
>
> Where??? Clearly not in the article that you posted. Like I said, the
> price drop leveled off when deregulation occurred
Yes in the document I quoted. Elig and Crandall 1998 study
determined a 13% decrease within 2 years, and 30% drop 10
years of dereg, as measured in constant 1993 dollars (I think).
You don't like the Heritage Foundation, so you probably also
won't like the Cato Institute either, but they say closely
similar things in a series of reports listed at
http://www.cato.org/research/regulatory-studies/airline.html.
How about the Economic Encyclopedia,
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html. This
report says average fares droped 30% between 1978 and 1990.
As you pointed out earlier, they were declining before dereg
as well, according to this report because of the changeover to
jet and jumbo jet aircraft, but best estimates are fares dropped
10-18% on average, over what they would have been under previous
regulatory formulas.
>>But their sources of raw data and analysis are not necessarily
>>so. Harvard and George Mason Universities are not known as
>>bastions of right wing conservativism.
>
> I don't recall the article saying that these places agreed with this, only
> that a few people who worked at them did. But any way you look at it, the
> charts tell the story and there is no significant change in any of them to
> back up the points being made in that article.
There absolutely is! See additional articles I've posted above.
>>There are plenty of articles out on the web that support or
>>reject airline deregulation as a good thing. You'll just have
>>to look some over to get a feel for what is correct. I believe
>>deregulation of the airlines to have been overall a good thing.
>
> IOW, you need to find the ones that back up your personal beliefs but the
> charts that you provided do not back you up.
<Sigh>
The charts do backup the statement. You don't think they'd include
charts that showed just the opposite of what they were claiming do
you? The reason for the pre-deregulation decline in fares is the
industry changeover to jets and jumbojet aircraft. In otherwords,
the airlines introduced an *efficiency* that the regulation board
couldn't object to!
Even with these declines, the post dereg decreases were 13-30% lower
measured in constant dollars.
> But deregulation did not occure until well into this period and by the shape
> of the curves on these charts shows that it had no measurable effect on the
> outcome.
The studies say it did.
>>Passenger miles were going up during this period because they
>>could! Before deregulation, the number of airlines, flights,
>>stops, cities, *everything* was pretty much fixed!
>
> That is untrue and once again, attributed to incomplete information. While
> there were controls then (and even now) on such things, unless the flights
> were 100% booked 100% of the time (and they were not), deregulation had no
> effect and your charts CLEARLY show that.
The year of deregulation, 279 million people flew (flights made).
Today it is something on the order of 600 million. This would
simply not be possible without dereg, because regulators weren't
allowing more airlines to enter the field, and were setting the
numbers of flights and stops.
We're reaching a limit now because of ground control deficiencies,
which are entirely government owned. Another de facto type of
regulatory limit.
>>Because airlines *don't want* to lower fares. Competition
>>*forces* them to. If they could get away with charging more,
>>they would, and they did...for a while.
>
> So exactly how did deregulation help? What you just said here contradicts
> your entire argumnet. It was not deregulation that helped the consumer, it
> was competition. Something that the oil industry doesn't have to worry
> about.
No it doesn't. It shows market forces at work lowering prices. Regulation
came off, prices initially rose. More players got into the game. Players
become more efficient. They lowered their prices. Competition forced
other players to become efficient and lower prices too, or die! And thus
we have lower, sometimes highly variable, airline fares.
>>I've noted information you don't agree with tends to be
>>"bullshit" or "misleading". I never expected you to think
>>too much on any of this as your mind is usually always
>>made up before-hand.
>
> Boy, talk about Pot, Kettle, Black. Even when I point out the obvious on
> the charts that you provided, all you can do is say that I'm stubborn and
> hava already made up my mind. Like I said, look at your own charts. Like
> chart 1 for example. In big bold letters across the top it says "AIR TRAVE
> HAS INCREASED STEADLY SINCE DEREGULATION" but fails to mention that it was
> also doing it way before so as well. Hell, just after the deregulation
> marker there was a significant drop in it which makes the caption a complete
> lie. In order for thes charts to be valid, you should be able to remove the
> deregulation markers from them and just by looking at them, be able to tell
> exactly where deregualtion began and you can't do that on a single one of
> them. Enough said.
No you can't because it doesn't fully reflect what other market
forces were also in play. You'll note the fare drop levels off
just before deregulation, then falls off after at varying rates.
As already stated, the drops in fares previous to deregulation were
the result of airlines changing over from prop to jet, and small
jet to jumbo jet. These aircraft carry passengers at much greater
speed than the old props did. So you get faster throughput. The
jumbos put more people at faster speeds through the routes. This
is effectively a form of deregulation, since it's an efficiency
that isn't being countered by the regulatory agency! It's stealth
deregualtion!
Look over the studies that did the comparisons using constant
dollars over the period. There is a significant drop in fares!
>>There are plenty of articles out there on airline deregulation.
>>Some present it as favorable, and others as horrid. Overall,
>>I think they show it as successful.
>
> That is because that is what you choose to believe and so be it. I don't
> think that deregulation had any effect either way.
Yep, OK.
>>>suggest that you go look it up and get back to me.
>>
>>What the hey is that supposed to mean?
>
> Like I said look it up. Here is a link.
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577952_3/Industrial_Revolution.html
> Now pay attention to the parts concerning the labor market.
>>Which is the long way of repeating what I said: "globalization".
>
> WTF does this have to do with globalization?????? Are you really this
Globalization: Selling Japanese cars in the US market. A better,
foreign built product cutting into domestic sales.
Further globalization: Japanese cars being built *in* the US and
further cutting into domestic sales.
Repeat the same with any industry or product you wish. Globalization!
It can send jobs offshore, like Dodges built in Mexico, or it can bring
jobs onshore, like Toyota factories in wherever they are (TN??).
It can reduce your income, by eliminating an entire occupation, like
the US steel industry, or it can give people a higher standard of
living by bringing products to them from cheap source of labor markets,
that they would otherwise be unable to afford.
American cars got better in the late 80's not because Detroit suddenly
felt it needed to produce a better product out of the goodness of its
heart. It did so because people were buying Toyotas and Hondas which
were better built and better priced. Global competition made American
cars better. But it is a mixed bag.
SMH