Where should we focus to bring down the cost of gas?

My wife and I were having a discussion last night on gas prices. Prices at our corner gas station is $3.60 a gallon for regular. We concluded that there are an obvious number of factors that affect the price of gas at the pump.

What are your thoughts on what causes high gas prices and where can we trim so fat to lower prices?

Why should we focus on bringing down the cost of gas? If anything, we should focus on making it more expensive so that people stop using as much of it, and there is more incentive for energy/auto companies to innovate with alternative technologies. That's why I think we need a $2 per gallon gasoline tax, phased in at 10 cents per month.

Kandahar said:

Why should we focus on bringing down the cost of gas? If anything, we should focus on making it more expensive so that people stop using as much of it, and there is more incentive for energy/auto companies to innovate with alternative technologies. That's why I think we need a $2 per gallon gasoline tax, phased in at 10 cents per month.

Click to expand...

I do agree but I don't think there is a need for a tax. We can keep prices roughly the same but redirect the multi-billion dollar quarterly profits the gas companies siphon from the American public towards R&D of new technologies.

Gibberish said:

I do agree but I don't think there is a need for a tax. We can keep prices roughly the same but redirect the multi-billion dollar quarterly profits the gas companies siphon from the American public towards R&D of new technologies.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Lets have government 'fix' a 'problem' caused by the natural flow of supply and demand by taking someone's wealth away from them.

Where have we heard THAT before? :roll:

The free market is a wonderful thing -- like with anything else, if the price of something gets too high for the market to bear, the market will do something about it, and it will drop.. The government doesnt need to get involved here.

M14 Shooter said:

Yes.

Lets have government 'fix' a 'problem' caused by the natural flow of supply and demand by taking someone's wealth away from them.

Where have we heard THAT before? :roll:

The free market is a wonderful thing -- like with anything else, if the price of something gets too high for the market to bear, the market will do something about it, and it will drop.. The government doesnt need to get involved here.

Click to expand...

Supply and demand is fine, I don't have a problem with prices balancing supply and demand. What I have a problem with is once the gas companies get a hold of the barrels they mark the prices up so that they can receive a multi-billion dollars a quarter profit. That is capitalism though and the only way around it is the introduction of substitute products.

Gibberish said:

Supply and demand is fine, I don't have a problem with prices balancing supply and demand. What I have a problem with is once the gas companies get a hold of the barrels they mark the prices up so that they can receive a multi-billion dollars a quarter profit. That is capitalism though

Click to expand...

That's right. Supply and demand.
If the market thinks the mark-up is too high, it will stop buying, bringing the price down.

and the only way around it is the introduction of substitute products.

Click to expand...

And so, why is it the oil companies' responsibility to spend their profits - or the government's responsibility to take their profits - for the development of these alternate/substitute products?

Dont you think that if there were a market for these alternatives, the oil companies would already be invested in these alternatives?

M14 Shooter said:

Yes.

Lets have government 'fix' a 'problem' caused by the natural flow of supply and demand by taking someone's wealth away from them.

Where have we heard THAT before? :roll:

The free market is a wonderful thing -- like with anything else, if the price of something gets too high for the market to bear, the market will do something about it, and it will drop.. The government doesnt need to get involved here.

Click to expand...

If oil were just any other product, I would agree that we should let the free market take care of it. However, our dependence on oil is responsible for funding terrorists, polluting the earth, and getting us drawn into Middle Eastern conflicts that we otherwise would not care about.

This isn't just some random product with no harmful externalities to consider. Our dependence on it is a major problem. I don't think it's too much to ask for consumers to pay for the pollution/wars that they cause. It's certainly better than shifting the burden on to everyone else.

M14 Shooter said:

That's right. Supply and demand.
If the market thinks the mark-up is too high, it will stop buying, bringing the price down.

Click to expand...

Majority of Americans cannot stop buying the product. Many people live 20-50 miles from work with no public transportation. Such as it is in my area.

M14 Shooter said:

And so, why is it the oil companies' responsibility to spend their profits - or the government's responsibility to take their profits - for the development of these alternate/substitute products?

Click to expand...

It's not. I get frustrated when companies have a corner of the market of a mandatory product and exploit it at the consumer's expense.

The government should only step in if the government is the one controlling the influx of crude oil. If they are controlling this then they have a direct impact on the supply and demand.

M14 Shooter said:

Dont you think that if there were a market for these alternatives, the oil companies would already be invested in these alternatives?

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Why should they spend their profits to develop alternatives? They will just wait to see if an alternative is developed and then take that alternative and develop it themselves.

You don't try to figure out ways to create competition, but if competition arises you try to profit from it.

M14 Shooter said:

And so, why is it the oil companies' responsibility to spend their profits - or the government's responsibility to take their profits - for the development of these alternate/substitute products?

Click to expand...

Because there are negative consequences to oil use that affect "innocent bystanders." If Joe lives in the United States and rides a bike to work every day, he has minimal involvement in the oil industry as either a producer or a consumer. Yet Joe still breathes in the crap that the oil companies put into the atmosphere, he still pays taxes to support counter-terrorism and foreign wars caused by oil, and he still may be called upon to go fight overseas if he's in the military.

So to go off of your original question, why is it Joe's responsibility to spend HIS profits - or the government's responsibility to take Joe's profits - to pay for the messes that the oil industry and its consumers create?

M14 Shooter said:

Dont you think that if there were a market for these alternatives, the oil companies would already be invested in these alternatives?

Click to expand...

Sure, but that is slow going as of now. If gas were $5 a gallon instead of $3 a gallon, I guarantee you that we'd see innovation for new forms of energy happening at a much quicker pace.

Meanwhile, we continue to fund terrorists and pollute the earth.

Gibberish said:

Majority of Americans cannot stop buying the product. Many people live 20-50 miles from work with no public transportation. Such as it is in my area.

Click to expand...

The majority of Americans can buy less, which has the same effect. Drive less, get a smaller car, get a job closer to home or ahome closer to wor, etc.

It's not. I get frustrated when companies have a corner of the market of a mandatory product and exploit it at the consumer's expense.

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Why should they spend their profits to develop alternatives? They will just wait to see if an alternative is developed and then take that alternative and develop it themselves.

Click to expand...

They should (and will and have) worked on alternatives because oil will omnly last so long, and when its gone, they will need to sell something else. Whataver we use for furl, the oil companies will wind up selling us -- and as such, they will always make the profits you're complaining about.

Kandahar said:

Because there are negative consequences to oil use that affect "innocent bystanders."

Click to expand...

And how are the rights of these "innocent bystranders" - all of whom directly benefit from a oil-driven economy - trump the right of the oil company to make and keep a profit, to the point where the Federal Government needs to take those profits away?

You're trying to argue that these people arent involved in the consumption of oil and therefore deserve some sort of protection from the government, and should dnot have to 'pay' for the 'messes' -- when in fact they -are- involved in the consumption of oil, just not at the level as someone that drives 200 miles a day in an Excusrion.

Sure, but that is slow going as of now.

Click to expand...

OK, so whatever the source of energy is, the oil companies will likely supply it and certainly make a profit from it. Just so long as we agree on that.

Gibberish said:

Majority of Americans cannot stop buying the product. Many people live 20-50 miles from work with no public transportation. Such as it is in my area.

Click to expand...

Then they need to either move closer to work or work closer to home. Trust me, there was a time when I did a 120+ mile round trip drive to work every single day. It was insane and I simply ended up working closer to home. Now I can walk to work if I want, it takes me less than 2 minutes round trip to get to work and I'm a hell of a lot happier. I fill my tank about once a month.

It's not. I get frustrated when companies have a corner of the market of a mandatory product and exploit it at the consumer's expense.

Click to expand...

It's not a manditory product, nobody will die if they don't have gasoline, there are plenty of alternatives. They *CHOOSE* to rely on gasoline. Nobody holds a gun to their head and forces them to buy gas, they choose to have a lifestyle that requiures them to buy it.

The government should only step in if the government is the one controlling the influx of crude oil. If they are controlling this then they have a direct impact on the supply and demand.

Click to expand...

Which they are not. The government doesn't stop any of these companies from developing alternative energy sources, nor does the government stop any outside companies from developing alternative energy sources and marketing them to the public. In fact, the government already taxes the crap out of gasoline companies and the consumer for road costs, etc. and it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone.

You don't try to figure out ways to create competition, but if competition arises you try to profit from it.

Click to expand...

So long as consumers are willing to pay through the nose for gas, gas companies will take their money. When consumers refuse to pay through the nose, gas companies will have to find alternatives or go out of business. That's exactly how the free market works. Unfortunately, the consumer has chosen, of their own free will, to put themselves in situations that rely on immediate availability of gasoline and therefore *HAS* to pay through the nose for it. That's the problem and that's where the petroleum industry has them by the short hairs. Stop blaming the petroleum industry for a problem that the consumer has caused for themselves.

As has been said above, why should we be trying to bring down the price of gas?

RightinNYC said:

As has been said above, why should we be trying to bring down the price of gas?

Click to expand...

Because some people don't understand how a free market economy operates, apparently.

Here's a quickie. When a gallon of gas is sold, who has just made the most profit, the oil company or the government?

Patrickt said:

Here's a quickie. When a gallon of gas is sold, who has just made the most profit, the oil company or the government?

Click to expand...

Government by far.

I think we should go nuclear. That'll curb all the coal mining and oil drilling deaths. We could also get rid of the old crappy Nuclear power plants we are being forced to used and upgrade to the newer, cheaper more efficient and safe ones.

And for people concerned that our waste that is being stored @ Yukka Mt. may be unstable, or may get into the water; please research the location and the nature of nuclear waste and its containment.

I voted other, altho it does seem that we have a shortage of refineries. I suspect that one of the reasons oil companies don't want to build new ones is that there is a very good chance that the capacity we have will be more than adequate in the near future. Price goes up, we use less, or should! Congress mandates better fuel efficiendy, we use less.
There are NO viable alternative fuels on the horizon for us, perhaps for our grandchildren's grandchildren. If we make alcohol from green wastes (our only large source that does not impact the costs of our food) that might help. But think of the infrastructure that would have to be installed to do just that one thing.
You would think that getting rid of our current cars and buying more fuel efficient cars would be a good thing, but think of the waste, and the environmental impact of disposing of the old cars. And the issue is more cents per mile than miles per gallon. My old car that gets 15 mpg in town is a lot cheaper to operate than a new one that gets 30. New cars cost more to insure, get taxed more by the state when you renew your registration, and are more expensive to maintain. The more compllicated the car, the more $$$ you will spend paying "professionals" to do the repairs.
I think our focus should be on using less of our fuels. Carpools, planning our trips so we don't travel farther than necessary to get our errands done, and finding other ways to cut costs so we can better absorb the impact of higher gas prices. So my car that gets 15mpg used half as much as one that gets 30 mpg is just as fuel efficient, right? We shop once a week after perusing the store ads, and use coupons. If you can't control the price of gas, you have to lower other expenses.
One more thing we can do, and that is to never ever again vote an oil man into the presidency, or congress, or anywhere for that matter. They already have more than enough economic power over us, no sense giving them political power as well. I am old enough to remember the price of peanut products going up after Carter was elected. Coincidence?

M14 Shooter said:

Yes.

Lets have government 'fix' a 'problem' caused by the natural flow of supply and demand by taking someone's wealth away from them.

Where have we heard THAT before? :roll:

The free market is a wonderful thing -- like with anything else, if the price of something gets too high for the market to bear, the market will do something about it, and it will drop.. The government doesnt need to get involved here.

Click to expand...

Is national security something the government should get involved in?

Cremaster77 said:

Is national security something the government should get involved in?

Click to expand...

This is a free-market, not national security issue.

I voted "Other" because I don't think we should be "focusing on trying to bring the price down".

If you think it's too high, cut back on your usage. If enough people do that, the price will go down. It's really pretty simple.

M14 Shooter said:

This is a free-market, not national security issue.

Click to expand...

Guess again. If you don't see our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue, then I can't help you. There is a direct correlation between our involvement in the ME and the rise of terrorism against the US with our dependence foreign oil. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is absolutely part of the role of the government. IF all of our oil was generated domestically, then let the free market decide the price. The reality is, that ain't happening. So slap a tax on gas. Force the market to turn towards alternative energies and improve our national security.

Cremaster77 said:

Guess again. If you don't see our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue, then I can't help you.

Click to expand...

Our high gas prices arent a function of dependence of foerign oil, its a function of the price of the oil itself. Theres a much higher world-wide demand for oil (re: China, India) that there was a few years ago, and so the market price of oil goes up.

The cost of the oil we get from the ME isnt significantly different than the cost of the oil we get from Canada or the oil we get from Texas.

M14 Shooter said:

Our high gas prices arent a function of dependence of foerign oil, its a function of the price of the oil itself. Theres a much higher world-wide demand for oil (re: China, India) that there was a few years ago, and so the market price of oil goes up.

The cost of the oil we get from the ME isnt significantly different than the cost of the oil we get from Canada or the oil we get from Texas.

Click to expand...

Again, you're missing the point. The original comment was that it was no place of the government to get involved in the price of oil. It was not about what the market forces are that determine what the current price of oil is. My post addressed the fact that increasing the price of oil pushes the market towards alternative energies, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and improving our national security. You can try to change the subject if you like, but the fact remains that if there is one role for the government, it's to provide national security. Putting a tax on oil and forcing the market away from foreign oil is a national security issue.

Cremaster77 said:

You can try to change the subject if you like, but the fact remains that if there is one role for the government, it's to provide national security. Putting a tax on oil and forcing the market away from foreign oil is a national security issue.

Click to expand...

Aha. I misunderstood you.