Boycott Mobile and Exxon

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Johnnyo-



I have a degree in Economics as well. Your comments are what I have been saying for years about Steel, Gas, and other similar commodities.



Without new capacity, the gas output is nearly maxed out. Supply and demand are in constant fluxuation in the "real world", but can easily be summed up over the long-term by simple supply and demand equations and charts. Rightnow, as for the past 30 years or so, demand has been far outpacing supply. Up until recently, that seems to have been fine, maybe it was a ploy or conspiracy to get people to buy gas guzzling vehicles, multiple vehicles, etc. then hit -em-up with high prices after we're used to paying $1.10/gal.



Prices are going to go up until demand falls off. It's called being on the margin. Once we get there, a $.25 swing one way or another will make a big difference for refiners. +$.25/gal and demand will drop. -$.25/gal demand will skyrocket.



A year from now when we are paying $2.25/gal we will be proclaiming that we are getting a bargain....
 
Fools. It's all a plot perpetrated by aliens from Mars that have blended into our society and are trying to keep us preoccupied while they finish installing the little chips in our brains.
 
The only way the American consumer has ever reduced his consumption of anything is by raising the price of buying it. We need to reduce our fuel consumption. We need to be more efficient. I'm not an "earth first" person, but I do believe in making the best use of our resources. After all, these are the same resources that our kids will have to depend on. I don't like the current gas prices either, but I hope it will spur new technology to reduce consumption.
 
Alright this is my plan, might sound a little crazy but hear me out:



So hitch hiking is illegal, right? I figure if we can get just a ton of people in every state all across the country to stand on the side of the road we can make a point. When the police come we simply say that we can not afford the gas and have been left with no other option. This will of course be on the news and cause the government to step in, which is exactly what we want because it is such bull s**t that the government can not do anything about this. Do you think that the price of gas has affected George Bush? Damn straight it has he get's a fatter pay check with the tax and all. So here we are cutting down on things like travel, boating, 4 wheeling and such because the gas is so damn expensive while the government rakes in the dough. :angry:
 
Heather in NY -- your comments are off base. In most cases, gas taxes are a fixed cost per gallon, not a percentage of the total sale. So assuming the demand hasn't changed, the government isn't gettting any more money due to the increased cost of gas.



And the presidents salary is fixed. George doesn't get any more money no matter what happens.



There are alot of things to blame the government for in this debate -- lack of new refineries, environmentalist having too much say in government, etc -- we don't need to make any up.

 
dont just blame the US government......blame your state and local government too!



Here in NY, I think like 60 cents of the $2.69 I am paying for 87 octane is NY state tax.
 
MTU- First I'm just venting, it seems like all of these "great deals" on new cars, trucks and SUV's happened quite convienently for the government seeing as how right after these deals were introduced and auto sales boosted we were hit with a 5cent average increase on a daily basis? I mean think about that, I'm sure it's not a coinsidence, the timing was too perfect, face it we all got screwed............................
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps it's time to learn Chinese.

Spanish, Portuguese & French haven't helped me a lot lately... Except maybe to get cheap labor to cut the grass and fix the fence...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MTU, the president's salary (as government official) is fixed--but George's (and the entire Bush family's) money is significantly from oil. So don't for a minute think that the increase in oil prices isn't putting more money in his pockets. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a conflict of interests--but you'd have to have your head in the sand to think that this hasn't affected his net worth.
 
Greg,

You will not reduce gas prices by boycotting any particular brand of gas. You would have more luck just writing them a letter complaining about the price.



People have tried to start boycotts against one of the major oil companies for years now, and none have made a dent in the gas prices



The problem is that the gasoline market is driven by demand. The more people want gasoline, the more the gas the oil companies have to make from crude oil. Thes refineries are currently operating at maximum capacity and several have been destroyed by fire in the last year. In addition to shortages in refineries, many states will not permit the oil companies to build refieries in their states.



Perhaps it would be fairer to charge a higher price for gas only in those states who will not permit refineries to be built in their states? The more refineries in your state the less you pay for gas!



Realistically, I've only heard of one way to recoup some of your money back that you give to the oil companies for gas. Buy stock in those companies. When they make obscene profits, the money goes back to the share holders, and if you own stock, that's money that goes back to you.! You probably won't get back all your money you spent for gas, but if you can get back 10 or 20 cents per gallon your getting your gas cheaper than anyone else.



...Rich
 
BillV-



So the president's family made wealth off oil. SO? I've made money off conveyors. Guess what? The military buys conveyors. The Chinese buy conveyors. If my ability to make money off others NEEDS a bad thing too? Anytime someone says "The president's money came from oil", immediately translates to "I am an uninformed jelous liberal who thinks that no one should have any money but what the government gives them". If you are not this, say so and quit wining about how the president made his money.



Jimmay carter was a peanut farmer. Do you use peanut butter? How about the rest of the world. Peanut butter is more expensive PER QUART than gas is PER GALLON (4 quarts to a gallon). Are you pissed off at the Carters since they made their money selling peanuts to Jif?
 
Increasing oil prices can put money in a lot of peoples' pockets. After dropping or sitting stagnant for a number of years, my 403b in Fidelity's Energy Services Fund has almost doubled in the last year. I'm not the President. Further, when one is elected President they are required to put their investments into a blind trust, except for the Clintons who took about a year to do that.

There is nothing wrong with someone making money. This is America, it's what we do. Communism is dead and Socialism is following, because they don't generate enough wealth to keep up. (China may be Communist at home to keep labor costs low, but they're raging capitalists as far as their economic behavior.) :cool:
 
R Shek,



I think what BillV is leaning towards is that it is ironic that for someone that is into oil as president and that gas prices are at an all time high without an actual shortage.



I personally do think the war in Iraq is really about getting control of oil to prevent OPEC from dumping the US Dollar as it's trading currency. Drug smugglers have already started using the Euro. OPEC was going to follow suit.





Tom
 
You guys think if a oil-poor country like Sudan was found to have an army of Al Queda terrorist that Bush would send troops there? I think not. It's all about oil and money.



Don't even start me on the 'no bid' contract that Cheney got for his ex-employer, Halliburton. So, he's not affiliated with them now... what about when he leaves office? Guarantee you he'll be back on the board of directors.
 
Darin,

Are you just drinking the kool-aid, or do you have your own opinion of halliburton's contracts based on facts. A good portion of Halliburton's exisitng contracts was based on extensions or addtions of contracts that were awarded in a bid process under the Clinton administration. Sure they have an inside track but that is because they are in place, perform some specialized duties, and are big, and could do things more efficiently than the mom-and-pop that "should have been given the oppurtunity to bid"
 
R Shek, you completely missed my point. MTURocks said that "...the presidents salary is fixed. George doesn't get any more money no matter what happens." I was just pointing out that this isn't true. That's all. I didn't at all say that there's anything wrong with that, or that it's affecting his decision-making. I'm not pissed off about it. In fact, I specifically said that I'm NOT saying there is a conflict of interests. I just pointed out that George--and anyone else whose interests lie significantly in the oil business--have not exactly been losing money because of the developments in the past year or so.



Anytime someone says that something "immediately translates to 'I am an uninformed jelous (sic) liberal'", that in turn immediately translates to "I'm a closed-minded paranoid right-wing zealot who dismisses any point I don't agree with, and thereby justifies my original closed-minded position, by labeling it 'liberal'".
 
Darin said:
You guys think if a oil-poor country like Sudan was found to have an army of Al Queda terrorist that Bush would send troops there? I think not. It's all about oil and money.
Click to expand...

I dunno, last I heard there wasn't any oil in Afghanistan. ;)



They typical liberal will say that invading Sudan or Bosnia or Afghanistan because of human rights abuses is okay because no one will make money at it. Invading Iraq because of terrorism and human rights abuses is wrong because someone might make money at it.



The war isn't all about oil. It's partly about oil, but I'm perfectly okay with that. The free flow of oil at market prices is vital to the global economy. I'd like nothing better than to not need any mideast oil and watch them starve because they don't produce anything but oil and terrorists, but right now that's not practical.



BTW, I'm not happy with the way Bush is conducting the war either. He's going way too easy on them. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darin,

Afganistan has no oil resorces and the president set the troops there first.



You imply that Bush sent troops to Iraq to seize control of their oil?? Bush's father sent troops into iraq and then stopped when iraqi troops pulled out of Kuwait. We could have taken over both Iraq and Kuwait, if all we wanted was the oil.



The whole world wants and need oil and the US is just protecting the oil resources by trying to stabilize the political and military powers in that area. If terroirst or other extremist take over the oil wells, they could easily hold the US and the rest of the world as their hostages. Oil can be used as a weapon. I think that is a greater risk than the possibiltiy of terrorist getting access to nuclear weapons.



All presidents for the past 50+ years have had to deal with the instability in the middle east and the various oil crisis that continue to pop up every few years. None of the former presidents have any known connections to the oil industry. Saying tha President Bush is only in Iraq is for their oil because he was in the oil business before he became president is taking a big leap without looking at the facts.



...Rich













 
Osama Bin Laden lived in Afghanistan. Bush HAD to go into Afghanistan. If he didn't, he would not have ever been re-elected.





Tom
 

Latest posts

Top