Gas prices too high?

Wasn't this just overturned by a Federal Appeals Court? Bush's interpretation of the Clean Air Act, I mean.

 

Much nicer way of saying it!

It is odd how often I hear "let the free market handle it." Almost sounds like some people think we HAVE a free market? Or *could* have a free market? They want alternative energy sources to be built up without subsidy (we'll get them if we need them!) yet igore how much money we spend to support the oil industry to keep it happy and healthy. We NEED oil at this point. I'd just like to see the consumer pay the price DIRECTLY instead of spreading it out to all of us tax payers. There's no easy answer here, of course. We should be paying for the roads we use, regardless of the fuel we burn - I'm just tired of subsidizing my fellow SUV commuters.

We can start fixing our problem now while we have the cheap oil to help us. Or we can wait until it is expensive and painful, and on our children's shoulders.

 

That's my favorite one too. People just don't have a clue how much money the oil industry saves in tax breaks, depreciation writeoffs, etc. Coal gets similar perks.

 

Fuel for transportation is heavily subsidized. The retail cost of fuel in the US should be comparable to Europe, where taxes support infrastructure (i.e., light rail). We as a society need incentives to conserve and use resources wisely. Present structure encourages wasteful use of fuel and land.

 

"Nuclear power is the way to go. The most friendly way to produce power and be environmentally friendly."

Where does the waste go...or should I say, end up? How DOES Europe handle this, I really don't know. Real question...

I kinda understand nuclear is safer than 3-mile Island or Chernoble (or is it? lots of literature saying it is, but put out by whom?) Has the waste issue been 'magically' solved too?

 

Get out of my head, or help clean up !

 

As stated by Darell and others, the government is already affecting the price of gas, but less obviously than by taxes. The problem with letting market forces dictate things is that is inherently reactionary. The government (if done correctly) can be be proactive and the transition to a future of lowering oil supply will have less pain overall. Add in global warming gases, and we're on the expressway to a cliff because people think it's their right to drive over 55 mph anywhere anytime.

As for low-income people, they will get hit harder proportionately. But they also drive old Civics and Escorts which tend to get 30 mpg. (The cheap cars get good mileage, if you haven't noticed). Or they take the bus, if there is one, ride a bike if able. The people using Land Rovers and Chevy Subdivisions to go to the grocery store are the ones who will be paying the highest total price, and they should be strongly encouraged to think about their actions.

The prospect of global warming scares me, but it will be our blinders on peak oil that will throw the U.S. off the world stage. Compared to almost any other country, we're the least able to handle a major increase in gas price.

nerfer

 

dbermanmd. if your going top post within a quote, please help us by changing the color of your text or boldiong it...Yes, yes, I found your answers, but 1) it was hard on my eyes and 2) since most posts are after the quote, I scrolled right by it.

 

Uh, you are asuming a lot here. There are many different ways to accomplish both the goals of financing our attempt to break the stranglehold of foreign oil AND minimizing its impact. Just because you THINK yours is the only way and it is WRONG does not make it so.


To paraphrase...I thought so you IGNORANT and SINGLE-MINDED little man. B)

 

The fallacy of the free market argument is that big corporations act in their own interest, not in the public interest. In transactions strictly between two individuals, a buyer and a seller, where buyers have a wide range of choice, the free market tends to produce goods people want at prices close to the cost of production. But where there are few or no choices, buyers cannot "shop around," and where corporations are large enough they can distort the playing field by using their money to influence public decisions.

Also, and this is extremely important in economic considerations, frequently there are third-party effects, where a third party, not involved in the transaction, is effected by it. This is the case of pollution: the people who have to breathe the dirty air or drink the dirty water have no way of affecting the transactions that cause pollution, except by turning to government to pass laws restricting pollution. But large corporations often have more influence over corrupt lawmakers than citizens do.

Finally, the desire to make a profit is often inconsistent with the public interest. Farmers do not grow food to feed people, they grow food to sell. If you have no money, you get no food. Similarly, when Ford realized, before the Pinto ever went on sale, that it was a lethal firebomb, it was clearly in the public interest to withdraw the car from the market. But this would have cost too much money. So Ford put the cars on the car lots, killing many people for profit.

No mainstream modern economist believes any longer in slavish adherence to Adam Smith. The free market is not a magic pill. It is a tool which does some jobs well and other jobs poorly, and it is a force which must be taken into account. But left unhindered, the free market would end in one big company owning everything, and its board of directors running the world as a ruthless, profit-seeking hydra-headed tyrant.

 

my bad

 

The 'user pay' concept suggests that the people who enjoy the benefits of something should be the ones paying for it. If we were to add up all the costs of using gasoline, and spread it among all the users, we'd have a price far higher than we do now. Note I do not use the terms 'price' and 'cost' interchangeably: they are not the same. Anytime the cost is higher than the price, there's a subsidy involved: somebody else is paying for something they didn't buy. In the case of petroleum, the subsidies are provided by the government in the form of favourable tax treatment, and by all living things in the form of reduced quality of life.

 

I think they should drill in the gulf !!

hell give me a horse and buggy i'll be happy

 

I think the should drill in the gulf and Alaska. It's illogical to increase the usage of gasoline without building new refineries and drilling for new sources. This is a dangerous path the US is on due to greedy, incompetant fools in charge of everything that's important to most people.

I still have a hard time believing George Waah is as stupid as he appears to be. Nobody could be that dumb. Let the Chinese scan for nukes in our ports? There are better ways to commit suicide. I don't want to be anywhere near a port when the s--t hits the fan.

 

Wet clean up on isle six!

 

I've always kind of liked the idea of going back to horses. There are some drawbacks, like manure in the streets and longer travel times. But I wonder how much our quality of life has really improved by being able to go faster. And I've worked on a dairy farm, so I do not speak from ignorance when I say that smog is worse than the smell of fresh manure, though neither is pleasant.

And we can produce "fuel" for horses here at home. Here's a slogan:

Stop funding terrorism: Drive a horse.

 

At the time, cars were considered an improvement over horses, because they polluted less.

 

Quite true... And for a while there, I think it was relevant. MOST cars in the early 1900's were ELECTRIC. The internal combustion engine didn't catch on until (ironically!) the electric starter motor made it user-friendly.

Can you imagine NOT having had gasoline this whole time - pretend that we managed to get the energy that drives our society some other way - and then TODAY trying to commercialize gasoline as a fuel that people would be happy to have in their lives; parked in their attached garages; dispensed by untrained personnel around hot vehicles? I honestly don't think it would happen.

I'm all for horses. They can even drive themselves. Turns out that THEY don't want to crash either.

Waxing them can be a real bitch though.