i say let's nationalize big oil and let uncle sam tax us even more. we can lower the deficit and never wonder why gas prices are so high!
We can buy hybrids, electric cars, vehicles with higher mileage, carpool, etc. Consumers are so much more powerful than you give them credit for. Of course, that would require a sacrifice by consumers, something we don't want to do right now. Since you say the oil industry should be treated differently b/c it involves our national security, should our goverment nationalize the oil and gas industry like Venezuela? That would eliminate profits, passing on those savings to the consumers. They could control prices at the pumps.
I have no problem with any of this. Only with martin suggesting that we can just refuse to buy gas if we don't like the price. That is not practical. No, this is a free economy. But we must collectively make sure that cartels and trusts don't collude to rip off the citizens. Some regulations and oversights are in order. This year, like the previous 20 or so, they are blaming the shortage of gasoline on lack of refining capacity. Yet they haven't spent any of these record profits on building enough refineries to meet demand with no new refineries in 30 years. So they just raise prices on us . . . good for their bottom line, too bad for us. They don't really want the shortage to go away, they can make too many profits on it. I think Congress should be able to look at this and say "enough".
exactly. i think 157 put it best when he mentioned he has a family, and familes like his need SUVs. they NEED! them. when i was at lsu, i hardly put any miles on my car, it was cheap to live near school. i never lived more than 2 or 3 miles from campus. also i rode a motorcycle or to class, which cost next to nothing. i also had a tiny toyota for when i wanted to ride a couple friends around. i spent almost nothing on gas. it was easy. and i wasnt even purposely trying to save gas. actually my senoir year i moved so close to campus i rode my bicycle. i loved it. also i had a job near government street, which was very close as well. with planning you dont have to burn 10 gallons a day. your colleague from livingston parish, maybe he lives out there because it is cheaper and he can have a huge house with a massive yard. thats cool for him, but it should be noted that he made the choice to live far away, he made the choice that forced him to buy gas. the oil companies didnt make him live out there. perhaps you should move to the bahamas, take a private jet to work every day, then whine about your fuel and pilot costs. true but doesnt apply here. true. i like when companies make profits. it means their employees and stockholders are doing well, and they are buying things as well, and keeping the economy running, helping me and you out. ultimately, no matter how much you think things are terrible, whatever plan you have to intervene is worse. what do you think should be done?
you can certainly reduce. you don't have to commute to work in a suburban. but people do, and they complain. after they say "enough" what do you propose they do? price controls?
I say they inform the oil companies that it is high past time that they end this contrived shortage and build sufficient refining capacity or else windfall taxes will kick in when they hose us every summer.
what % of revenue do you believe is a fair profit? do you think restricting profit will help motivate them to increase capacity, particularly at a time when we are desperately trying to find alternatives to oil? do you agree that forcing our prices on the oil companies and asking for increasing production is destructive to the environment, which allegedly cannot stand much more fossil fuel burning? do you think you stances on increasing oil refining capacity and reducing carbon emissions because of global warming are consistent? are you unwilling to just sacrifice and use less oil, even as you scare us with dire preditions of global warming?
i'm sure they would gladly asorb these taxes and not find a way to pass them along? wouldn't this additional cost, in effect, a new tax be regressive in that, those least able to pay would be affected the most? i am curious (thanks martin) as to your response to his question regarding what % of profit is fair for "big oil" as opposed to wal-mart.
Congress can change the law to eliminate all the different types of gasoline. From the chart below, there are 18 different types refineries must make. They could change it to one or two types which would eliminate these excuses from the refineries. Why do we need 18? ... environmentalists! Congress could also ease the regulations to build a new refinery and force communities to accept them. But environmental groups have been extremely successful in making it more difficult to build new refineries. Here is another example of more regulations. So yes, there are many things Congress can do. Unfortunately, the only thing they want to discuss are more taxes on oil companies. That will not solve the gas shortage or make prices drop. It only gives our government more money to piss away.
Unfortunately, the environmentalists are not the driving force behind industry not wanting to expand present capacity. Industry is the main reason. Despite operating at 99% of capacity on a daily basis, Industry does not want to build new capacity. In fact, Industry shuts down smaller refineries on a regular basis. I do agree that the environmentalists hamper a lot of efforts. However, WRT the referenced article, Congress mandates changes to environmental law, and EPA implements the changes in the form of promulgated regulations. In this particular case, EPA was supposed to amend the NSPS regs for refineries, and failed to do so in a timely manner. The environmentalists sued to get EPA to move off its bureaucratic rump. The kicker is that unless the refineries either build grassroots facilities, significantly expand, or make major modifications, the subject NSPS regs will not be triggered anyway. Its kinda moot. As far as the different fuel types, many states' environmental agencies have been delegated authority over many of the federal programs. As such, the states implement their own rules to comply with the federal programs. As demonstrated by your chart, the individual states require the different fuel types, mostly due to local issues related to failure to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to smog, etc. If the EPA decided to mandate a single fuel type nationwide, you would be placing higher fuel costs on areas in compliance with the NAAQS (it costs more money to manufacture cleaner burning fuels). This issue alone would be tied up in the courts for years, and I am not sure that EPA could win this, despite it being good for the environment. Its back to the price of being green argument. I don't like to side with the tree-huggers, but the at-fault on the capacity issue does not lie squarely in their hands this go round.
