Ravenwood - 09/01/05 06:45 AM
There has been a lot of whining about rising gas prices lately, but very little has been done to propose realistic solutions to the problem. What it comes down to is simple economics. That is, demand remains high, so there is no economic pressure to lower prices. If you are serious about wanting to pay less at the pump, there are several things that can be done to alleviate the price pressure. (Not that I expect the United States to actually do anything intelligent when it comes to oil.)
Please understand that this list is by no means comprehensive:
Something else that is interesting is that they keep wondering why people aren't opting for more fuel efficient cars in the light of higher gas prices. Considering that people are buying $40,000 SUVs, it comes as no surprise to me that they aren't worried about an extra $150 a year for gas. Over the life of their car, that's just pennies a day.
But when it comes to gas prices, unless something is done about American supply and demand, expect to continue paying more at the pump.
This item was originally posted March 8, 2005.
Related articles:
Kerry's gasoline flip-flop -- 10/13/2004
Who to blame for high gas prices -- 05/19/2004
``Lower gas taxes = lower prices''
No. Limbaugh proposed that and I was amazed at the economic stupidity.
When the supply is fixed, the price rises to whatever is necessary to get you to stop driving as much as necessary to get demand to fall to meet supply.
The price must rise to this level, as seen by the consumer, to get him to stop.
If you eliminate the tax component, the profit component must take up the slack.
That's not true long term, when supply is free to rise as well. Then the profit component has other effects, like generating additional supply. The last guy online is not making much profit, in that case, but is contributing to the supply.
Gas prices are a solution, not a problem. The gas tax is no different from any other tax in reducing the standard of living.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at September 1, 2005 6:50 AMDrill ANWR it's noting but moss and ice, there is no wildlife there. We need to be dependant on ourselves not the theives in the middle east.
Posted by: Derek at September 1, 2005 8:45 AMThe problems with this rationale are
1) makes sense
2) we have to get rid of enviro whackos first
Time to start drilling in the ANWR and screw the enviromentalists and hollywood wackos why dont the eco-freaks go and feed the polar bears and killer whales and maybe these critters will decide to have little greens in their diets
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 1, 2005 2:40 PMGood reasoning, very similar to things I've posted around the net. Your "extra $150" is off a bit though. Less than 2 years ago gas cost $1.50 here. Yesterday a gallon of regular went for $3. Three weeks from now I expect it to cost $4, maybe $5. So fuel costs have doubled already and will triple soon. Even the folks who get 40mpg still use 500 gallons a year, which will soon equate to $1000 difference. $3000 at least for SUV drivers. Still, we are such an affluent country that this is little more than beer money, and will make no difference at all to nearly all of us.
Posted by: Drew at September 1, 2005 3:53 PMI say we use up as much Saudi Arabian oil as possible. The faster we use it, the faster they will run out. Once they run out, their economy will go down the tubes and their importance will shrink to nothing.
Then we can drill ANWR (or that shale oil stuff, if need be).
Posted by: Alcibiades at September 2, 2005 1:57 AMDrilling in ANWR, right now, is probably not the answer. Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would probably yield more oil sooner and more cheaply and is probably less likely to generate the level of opposition that ANWR already is seeing. After all, we are already doing some drilling there (just not as much as we could).
Posted by: Andrew Upson at September 2, 2005 1:50 PMIts up to $324 here in northern calfornia want anymore reason to tell the eco-wackos to screw it?
Posted by: screaming eagle at September 2, 2005 9:34 PMWe have untapped reserves off the Oregon and Washington coast ... the oil companies are too scared of the greenies and the 9th to explore.
I favor Nuclear-Powered SUVs ... 45 years between refueling with Strontium-90 powered batteries.
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014