Just filled up the Cutlass today...

Just filled up the Cutlass today...

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

May 16th, 2012, 2:09 am #1

... at $4.759 per gallon.

Gotta love that Obamaconomy. What's gas cost in your neck of the woods?

Doc.
Quote
Share

MarkT
MarkT

May 16th, 2012, 2:18 am #2

$3.699 at the moment nt
Quote
Share

S7G
S7G

May 16th, 2012, 2:36 am #3

... at $4.759 per gallon.

Gotta love that Obamaconomy. What's gas cost in your neck of the woods?

Doc.
Price has gone up 17 cents in less then a week.


S7G
Quote
Share

Latrans
Latrans

May 16th, 2012, 2:58 am #4

... at $4.759 per gallon.

Gotta love that Obamaconomy. What's gas cost in your neck of the woods?

Doc.
Phoenix, Arizona. I last filled up at $4.699.

And I hate to disagree, but I highly doubt that it's just Obama, or even remotely Obama that's driving gas prices. There are a large number of factors that lead to increased prices, not the least of which is our willingness to pay. This is the primary reason I've been using my motorcycle for 99% of all my driving anywhere.

Also, considering the absolute tailspin our economy was in just four years ago, we've turned around pretty well. Consider, also, that it isn't just the US. Europe's having an even worse time than we are. The fact that the US is doing comparatively well, especially considering how closely tied our economies are, says a lot for the efforts made by our current administration.

That's not to say that I'm 100% Obama supporter. There are a LOT of things I absolutely hate about our current administration, the economy just happens to not be one of them.
Quote
Share

Latrans
Latrans

May 16th, 2012, 3:00 am #5

That should have been $3.699, not $4.699.
Quote
Share

Webwolf
Webwolf

May 16th, 2012, 3:06 am #6

... at $4.759 per gallon.

Gotta love that Obamaconomy. What's gas cost in your neck of the woods?

Doc.
From an economics standpoint, as devoid of politics as I can make it:

Oil is a global economy. It responds to net global demand, not according to what any one country does. The US is conserving oil, but it's not helping because the demand for oil from China and India so far outstrips our decreased demand, it's not even funny. The Chinese auto market is now bigger than the US's now.

Oil drilled for at home, in the US, does not stay in the US. This is why "Drill Baby Drill" doesn't work. It goes out onto the global market, where it is bought and sold like all the rest of the oil coming out of the Middle East. After all, why would oil companies want to sell oil for anything less than the maximum price they can get for it, on the world market?

Oil companies aren't drilling in land they already own in America. The Department of the Interior found that 2/3rds of land leases to oil companies are laying unused, yet the oil companies are still grubbing for more land.

Last fillup was $4.579.
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

May 16th, 2012, 3:46 am #7

I knew I shouldn't have put that part in there, but sometimes I can't resist a little jab.

Now then... (cracks knuckles)

Oil drilled for at home, in the US, does not stay in the US.

-True, to a small extent. While we do, in fact, export some oil to allies, the bulk of what we produce stays in the US. Also, most of what we export is refined product- IE, gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. Meaning we supply the jobs and labor to refine it, and get a little extra profit from selling a finished product.

This is why "Drill Baby Drill" doesn't work.

-Horsesh*t. Oil has to come from somewhere. The current strategy when there's a crisis- like Iran threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz- is to ask the Saudis to increase production. Why is it preferable to have the Saudis increase production instead of us increasing our own production?

We currently import over 40% of the oil we use a day from Canada. If we could increase our own production by just 5%, that's 5% less that we'd have to import. It's not rocket science. "Drill, baby, Drill" is how we get oil. To say that "doesn't work" means you're trying to say that since we have a shortage of a product we get by drilling for it, that we shouldn't drill for it. Excuse me?

After all, why would oil companies want to sell oil for anything less than the maximum price they can get for it, on the world market?

-Because in many cases the oil companies producing the oil, also have to buy oil to refine. There's far more producers than refiners, after all.

Up until Obama blocked the Keystone XL line (again) we used to get a sweetheart deal on oil from Canada, with them selling to us at some 40% under market prices, since we were a guaranteed buyer. With Obama's rejection, the Canadian Government basically said that even just the idea that the US could say no, shows that they (the Canadians) need to diversify their market, so they're not beholden to one customer- who could, potentially, say no to a resource they've already invested billions on, under the assumption that we'd buy it.

That was a massive mistake on Obama's part. And it was all, one hundred percent Obama, not his administration, not his advisors, not one of his czars. That one mistake is going to cost us billions in the long run, and has had direct influence over gas prices in the short run.

Oil companies aren't drilling in land they already own in America.

-Of course not, because not all land contains oil. A lease might encompass hundreds of thousands of acres, but only one corner of it might have oil. That's why we have what's called exploration- the oil companies buy a lease, explore it, see if there's anything recoverable there. If there is, they drill. If there isn't, they don't. The oil companies don't get their money back for the lease, of course, and a lease might have a 20 year lifespan- whether or not they drill. So naturally enough, each oil company winds up owning the rights to drill millions of acres that have nothing worth drilling.

Doc.
Quote
Share

S7G
S7G

May 16th, 2012, 4:23 am #8

Oil companies aren't drilling in land they already own in America.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/nd_beco ... _producer/

I wonder what if fueling all the new jobs in ND,WY and eastern MT then?



P-3
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

May 16th, 2012, 4:56 am #9

Phoenix, Arizona. I last filled up at $4.699.

And I hate to disagree, but I highly doubt that it's just Obama, or even remotely Obama that's driving gas prices. There are a large number of factors that lead to increased prices, not the least of which is our willingness to pay. This is the primary reason I've been using my motorcycle for 99% of all my driving anywhere.

Also, considering the absolute tailspin our economy was in just four years ago, we've turned around pretty well. Consider, also, that it isn't just the US. Europe's having an even worse time than we are. The fact that the US is doing comparatively well, especially considering how closely tied our economies are, says a lot for the efforts made by our current administration.

That's not to say that I'm 100% Obama supporter. There are a LOT of things I absolutely hate about our current administration, the economy just happens to not be one of them.
Also, considering the absolute tailspin our economy was in just four years ago, we've turned around pretty well.

-No, we're not. The '80-'81 recession that Reagan inherited from Carter, was almost as bad, by percentage of GDP. However, after less than two years, the economy came roaring back, with spikes of 10% growth and averages of 7%.

The key here is how long it took to regain the status quo. As in, after a drop in production, GDP, employment, etc. how long did it take to get back to the peak before the recession started. And some four years after the recession "officially" ended, and after three years of the Obama administration, we haven't even gotten to that point yet.

After Reagan's recession bottomed out, we were back to the status quo and still accellerating just six months later. Right now, we've had at least four quarters of barely 2% growth, which really doesn't even keep up with the population growth.

Consider, also, that it isn't just the US. Europe's having an even worse time than we are. The fact that the US is doing comparatively well, especially considering how closely tied our economies are, says a lot for the efforts made by our current administration.

-What "efforts"? Additional quantitive easing which has devalued our dollar by about a third? (Which is itself in large part responsible for gas prices- when the dollar doesn't buy as much as it used to, things naturally cost more. And the Obama Administration has been printing money like there's no tomorrow in a desperate- and utterly stupid- attempt to shore up the economy.)

Seriously- what efforts have they made that actually did help the economy?

That's not to say that I'm 100% Obama supporter. There are a LOT of things I absolutely hate about our current administration, the economy just happens to not be one of them.

-The economy is literally the only thing that matters. Once we're back on our feet and enjoying steady growth again, then we can worry about gay marriage or "Fast & Furious" or how much Michelle paid for her shoes or what happened to all the money they threw at Solyndra or Lightsquared or Fisker.

Obama- and most of his administration- literally has no idea how the economy works. Everything they've tried has failed. The $800 billion stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%? It hasn't been under 8% for three years. Quantitive Easing? As above- all it's done is barely shore up a house of cards, while badly devaluing the dollar. "Saving" GM? Yeah, with billions in taxpayer money they have yet to repay, and by closing several hundred privately-owned dealerships. Oh, and illegally bypassing federal law to stiff shareholders too, let's not forget.

I could care less what the man's opinion is on gays, or what his religion is, or who he picked for March Madness, or his wife's nagging us to eat broccoli while she scarfs down a double-cheeseburger, or how much money he makes, or how many autobiographies he's written. The only thing that matters right now is the economy. That's his single most important task right now, and he has no idea whatsoever what to do about it.

If he did, he would have. It's as simple as that. He's smart enough to know the economy is the anchor that will sink his chances for a second term, and if he could, he'd do anything to jump-start it. If he just knew how.

And don't tell me that "Bush's recession" was worse than anyone figured- so bad that even after three years, we still haven't started recovering in earnest. As above, Reagan's was nearly as bad- relative to GDP- yet three years into his administration, the economy was roaring.

If you want to insist that the economy was that bad, at this point- three years later, with zilch to show for it- you have to admit that he's either incompetent, or at best, simply too inexperienced to know what to do.

And it's not out of the question for him to be both.

Doc.
Quote
Share

Doc Nickel
Doc Nickel

May 16th, 2012, 5:29 am #10

The most common excuse for Obama on the economy is the fact that the President has no direct influence on the economy. He can't force a company to hire or expand, he can't- though he's actually trying- force people to buy any products, he can't set prices on goods, etc.

But if that's the case, why is it "Bush's Recession"? Why is it "the mess Bush left behind"? Why is it "Bush messed things up so badly that Obama's struggling to set things right"?

You can't have it both ways. Either the president can influence the economy, or he can't.

If Bush was able to manipulate things to screw it up, then Obama is able to manipulate things to help it. Meaning if you agree the recession was Bush's fault, then you agree that the lack of recovery after more than three years is Obama's fault.

Doc.
Quote
Share