1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gas to hit $4 a gallon in August

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Mmmm_Donuts, Jul 16, 2006.

  1. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Here's my problem: Why do prices go up because Iran is threatening to decrease the amount of oil they supply? They haven't decreased it, therefore the supply remains the same and the demand remain the same. By extension, prices should remain the same.

    It's just like back in March when they said that gas prices were going up because the demand is expected to go up in the summer. Well, WTF? Why don't the prices go up in summer when, you know, the demand actually goes up?

    Anytime the oil companies get an excuse to raise prices they do. "There's a tropical storm in the Caribbean and it may turn into a hurricane. Let's jack up prices!"

    And instead of doing anything about it, we are all just taking Bobby Knight's advice.
  2. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    They ... U.S. refineries... are making their highest profits of any companies in history right fucking now. Exxon will come close to a record $40 billion in pure profit this year.

    They are, by and large, getting fucking rich off oil.

    Are you saying there is a reduced need for capacity now?

    You say supply and demand. Others say price gouging, as is the case in many instances when prices are jacked when there is ZERO elasticity of demand.
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Since you're going to be that away about it I'll politely ask you to go fuck yourself instead. That seems to be a level of discourse more suited your intellect based on your response to what I posted, which was not a wise-ass comment. I guess it'd help if you'd do a better job of explaining what you're posting. Given your response to my post I guess that's too much to ask.
  4. Ok, simple, civil question.
    Why does your chart say "present=1950?"
  5. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    For the same reason the markets react in anticipation of what Ben Beranke is going to say. Or for the same reason markets try to anticipate any other bad news. Markets don't sit there and wait for things to happen. And oil companies started buying crude way back in March in anticipation of the summer demand -- it is not as if they can refine it and get it to us overnight. They have to plan ahead.

    And lets put the oil company profits into perspective. Yes, Exxon made a staggeringly high profit as a gross number. As a percentage of revenue, Exxon has an 11% profit margin. Microsoft has a 32% profit margin. Coca-Cola comes in at 22%. Exxon has been making their money the Wal-Mart way: a ton of sales with a small profit per sale that add up exponentially.
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Again, this is uninformed. Oil doesn't get priced on an "as bought today" basis. This isn't a widget that if demand goes up, you just build more widgets and can have them rolling off the assembly line immediately.

    It isn't that there are people "looking for an excuse" to screw you.

    Oil is a commidity and gets sold as one. People who deal with commodities try to level off price spikes by selling futures in their commodity. There is an actual futures market, where people are placing bets on what the price of oil will be 6 months down the line. And this locks in prices.

    Because a commodity is subject to all kinds of political, natural disaster, etc. factors--to protect themselves, people who make their actual living dealing in the commodity hedge things by trying to lock in a reasonable price in the future that may be slightly too low or slightly too high based on actual supply conditions. They'll trade predictability for what might have been higher profits, if it means protecting themselves from disastrous profits.

    The problem is that commodities markets are like Vegas bookmakers. The people trading in them who are kind of like gamblers, don't place their bets blindly. They want info--same way a gambler does. They are out there right now looking at the situation, and when they are setting a commodities market price for a contract on an oil future for September, they are taking into accoung the fact that Iran is rattling its sword and there is an X percentage chance that things might be bleak by then. This drives up the price of that future, which could drive up prices pretty soon.
  7. Idaho

    Idaho Active Member

    A few ways to fight it:

    1: Bite the bullet and switch to a more fuel-efficient vehicle. The downside, the expense of vehicle.
    2: Bite the bullet and switch to a house or job with less commuting involved. The downside, the expense of moving and/or changing jobs.
    3: Ride a bike, ride a train, ride a bus or carpool. The downside, very few other than a longer commute to and from work and having to sit next to other mass transit users.
    4: Telecommute. The downside, it's not always the most productive or efficient way to work.

    One thing is for sure. The only way we'll see in the future to decrease our oil expenses is to decrease our oil consumption. I'm 100-percent for hybrid/alternative fuel development and I hope it happens really, really soon. That said, as soon as it does happen and millions of people lose jobs at oil companies, car companies and such, we'll just have another thing to gripe about. :-\
  8. Idaho

    Idaho Active Member

    Simple, civil reply

    When the charts are going back 400,000 years, 1950 is pretty dang close to present. And, from what I see, the ups and downs have been very cyclical. That does not mean, however, that I think our current activities as dwellers on this planet are not impacting the current cycle.
  9. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Perhaps, but those charts also show that CO2 levels peaked at 300 ppmv before 1950 but now we're up over 400 ppmv. Why is that? Is it possible all the burning of fossil fuels is causing that?
    It'd have to be considered a factor but I have a hard time believing it's the only factor. I also have a hard time believing the US is the biggest problem among industrialized nations, which many would have you believe.
  10. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member


    About 320,000 years ago, the carbon dioxide levels hit 300 ppmv. And temperatures went up. On average, before the industrial revolution, it was at 278 ppm. Right now, we're hovering at nearly 400 ppm.  And temperatures are going up.

    The problem, much like our gasoline prices, is the curve keeps going up. And when it drops, it doesn't drop as low as it was a year ago.

    And AQB, I don't think it's the only factor. But I do think CO2 emissions are the only factor we can control.
  11. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    Those charts are really incredible.
  12. 85bears

    85bears Member

    Is that what a lot of this dissent stems from? Because you think it's just more of liberals "hating America"?

    I don't think anybody on here is denying that this is a world-wide problem, not just a United States problem. I've seen flaming liberals on here who were pissed that countries who signed the Kyoto Treaty proceeded to piss all over it.

    No one is blaming the United States and the United States alone, but the vast majority of us on here are U.S. voters. And as they say, you can only worry about what you can control.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page