Fuel Prices Climbing

[Roadtoad]

One of the reasons gas prices are reaching stratospheric heights is the mandate by communities and states for "Designer Blends," which Pat Bedard discussed in Car and Driver. However, according to ABC News, it's more about turmoil in the Middle East and dwindling resources.

Just my own thought here: do you get the feeling that because of the actions of Environmentalists, we're going to wind up with drilling in the ANWR, anyway? I'd rather not, but it seems as though the news media has yet to really get the story right, (save for John Stossel), and public pressure might force the Government's hand.

[aerocontrols]

It's somewhat obvious to me that we'll end up drilling in ANWR eventually no matter what.

There is oil there.

As there becomes less and less oil in other places, and oil prices increas, how will the enviros will maintain the political strength to keep drillers out?

It doesn't seem to me to matter so much what they do or don't do. They've stopped any oil drilling for now, but eventually of course the oil there will be pumped out.

MattJ

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It's somewhat obvious to me that we'll end up drilling in ANWR eventually no matter what.

There is oil there.

As there becomes less and less oil in other places, and oil prices increas, how will the enviros will maintain the political strength to keep drillers out?

It doesn't seem to me to matter so much what they do or don't do. They've stopped any oil drilling for now, but eventually of course the oil there will be pumped out.

MattJ

I'm against drilling in ANWR but not for the usual reasons. I could give a rat's 4ss about the Porcupine Caribou (although I think drilling would actually increase their numbers but I digress). I'm against it because it's there and its ours and we don't need to use it at the moment. I think it is a rather good insurance policy -- a hedge against the peak-oil/oil-war/embargo/other scenero bets.

It's in the bank for a rainy day. Let's keep it that way.

I do support geological surveys to establish, to the greatest cost-effective degree, the amount that exists. I also think the results of those surveys are a matter of national security and should be classified. <---note to note that is probably already the case.

[kalen]

If the price of gasoline skyrocketed, I think that would be a great thing for the environment in that consumption would go down and less carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere.

Let's hear it for high oil prices!!

[priapus]

It was my understanding, from nearly everyone I've spoken with in the petroleum industry, that the rapid increase in demand and consumption by China mostly, but other countries with growing economies, was the primary reason for the rise in prices.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
One of the reasons gas prices are reaching stratospheric heights

Stratospheric heights? Compared to what?

Most places in the US, gas is $2/gal or lower. $2 today is the equivalent of 83&cent; in 1980. 83&cent; would have been a fantastic price in 1980!

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Stratospheric heights? Compared to what?

Most places in the US, gas is $2/gal or lower. $2 today is the equivalent of 83&cent; in 1980. 83&cent; would have been a fantastic price in 1980! Add that a dollar isn't worth more than 2/3 of what it was five years ago .... :(

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by shanek
Stratospheric heights? Compared to what?

Most places in the US, gas is $2/gal or lower. $2 today is the equivalent of 83&cent; in 1980. 83&cent; would have been a fantastic price in 1980!


Correct, as you pointed out gas prices need to be put in perspective. Maybe its not good to compare to the Consumer price index, but... Generally, if inflation is assumed at 4% per annum (based on averages over 100 years of inflation for CPI), its a pretty good deal. If an item in 1987 cost $1.00, It would cost $2.00 today. Gasoline prices fluctuate so much more wildly compared to other items. At times in the early 90s gas was a bargain. On average I'd say the consumer fares pretty well over the long term, and Americans have access to relatively inexpensive gas compared to other regions of the world.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Add that a dollar isn't worth more than 2/3 of what it was five years ago .... :(

Maybe not quite...going by CPI, $2 in 2004 is the equivalent of $1.76 in 1999. I filled up yesterday for $1.81, and that would have been $1.60 five years ago.

Of course, gas everywhere would be about 40&cent;/gal less if it weren't for Federal and state taxes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Correct, as you pointed out gas prices need to be put in perspective. Maybe its not good to compare to the Consumer price index,

Well, using the GDP Deflator it's not much better; around 97&cent;, more in line with the figure you calculated.

There's no perfect measure of inflation. Generally, if you want overall inflation you use the GDP Deflator but if you want to know how bad it impacts the pocketbook (IOW, relative to the cost of living) you use CPI. They both track pretty well together, though.

[Ed]

Isn't part of the problem that oil prices are not pegged to dollars anymore?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ed
Isn't part of the problem that oil prices are not pegged to dollars anymore?

I know that some opec members (and EU members as well) have talked about wanting that switch to happen but I wasn't aware it has. To my knowledge it is still pegged to the dollar.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Maybe not quite...going by CPI, $2 in 2004 is the equivalent of $1.76 in 1999. I filled up yesterday for $1.81, and that would have been $1.60 five years ago.I wasn't thinking inflation, just the fact that the dollar is worth a lot less compared to other currencies than it was five years ago. The dollar was worth 1.15 euros, compared to 0.76 euros today.

Some not-so-accurate-but-good-enough-to-show-my-point numbers:

In dollars:

Price per barrel year 2000: 30 dollars
Price per barrel year 2005: 55 dollars

However, in Euros the picture is different:

Price per barrel year 2000: 34.5 euros
Price per barrel year 2005: 41.8 euros

Originally posted by ed
Isn't part of the problem that oil prices are not pegged to dollars anymore?Oil is still traded in dollars, but "pegged" might not be the correct word as it usually indicates a fixed rate in dollars. The fall in dollar value has no doubt been an important factor in the raise of oil prices in dollars.

Some countries are discussing swapping to euros as the world's oil currency, partly because of the poor performance of the dollar (and the US economy). It would not be nice, to put it mildly, but that's another thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I wasn't thinking inflation, just the fact that the dollar is worth a lot less compared to other currencies than it was five years ago.

Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less. Inflation is the reduction in the real value of a currency. You're just referring to a different metric for measuring it; in this case, the exchange market index. There's also the employment cost index, the import price index, the producer price index, all sorts of ways of calculating it. But it really all boils down to the same thing.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Where's all this cheap Iraqi oil? You know, the real reaosn we went to Iraq?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less.
Inflation is the reduction in the real value of a currency. You're just referring to a different metric for measuring it; in this case, the exchange market index. There's also the employment cost index, the import price index, the producer price index, all sorts of ways of calculating it. But it really all boils down to the same thing. That's really stretching the definition of inflation, isn't it ? The inflation can be equal in two countries and still one of the currencies might lose compared to the other.

US inflation 2000-2005:

http://www.gpec.org/InfoCenter/Topics/Economy/USInfl4.gif

Inflation in the different countries within the EU ranged from 0.1% to 3.5% in 2004 (same rate or slightly higher than the US), and yet the Euro gained considerably compared to the Dollar. Overspending in the US, big deficits and a slight fear that the US might get into problems paying pack its loans, maybe?

Is there such a thing as a domestic inflation that was about zero, while the international inflation was, say, 10%?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
That's really stretching the definition of inflation, isn't it ? The inflation can be equal in two countries and still one of the currencies might lose compared to the other.

It all depends on how you measure it. Again, there's no perfect measure of inflation. And just as the price of (say) gas going up doesn't mean inflation any more than (say) the price of computers going down means deflation, but rather the overall prices (and that's not even a really good measurement there, because technoligcal advances tend to move real prices down), you can't just look at the dollar vs. the euro to see if there's overall inflation. It's really a big picture kind of thing.

Is there such a thing as a domestic inflation that was about zero, while the international inflation was, say, 10%?

In the short run, sure. In the long run, it'll balance out.

[Bjorn]

So what was the inflation in the US during the last five years?

Generally, if you want overall inflation you use the GDP Deflator but if you want to know how bad it impacts the pocketbook (IOW, relative to the cost of living) you use CPI. They both track pretty well together, though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
So what was the inflation in the US during the last five years?

If you go by CPI, it was about 12.9%. If you go by the GDP Deflator, 9.4%. If you go by ECI, 20.6%. If you go by MPI, 7%. If you go by PPI, about 9.6%.

Generally, the GDP Deflator is considered to be the most accurate measurement. And PPI gave us a very close result. So if we split the diff and consider 9.5% inflation over the last five years, that ends up being about 1.9% annual inflation.

However, it's usually the CPI that you feel with your pocketbook. By that measure, it's more like 2.6% annual inflation.

So, say two to two-and-a-half percent.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
If you go by CPI, it was about 12.9%. If you go by the GDP Deflator, 9.4%. If you go by ECI, 20.6%. If you go by MPI, 7%. If you go by PPI, about 9.6%.

Generally, the GDP Deflator is considered to be the most accurate measurement. And PPI gave us a very close result. So if we split the diff and consider 9.5% inflation over the last five years, that ends up being about 1.9% annual inflation.During the same time, dollars have declined at least 35% compared to euros, yet you say:

Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less. Inflation is the reduction in the real value of a currency.Obviously, you are distinguishing between inflation and what the dollar is losing compared to euro?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I'm against drilling in ANWR but not for the usual reasons. I could give a rat's 4ss about the Porcupine Caribou (although I think drilling would actually increase their numbers but I digress). I'm against it because it's there and its ours and we don't need to use it at the moment. I think it is a rather good insurance policy -- a hedge against the peak-oil/oil-war/embargo/other scenero bets.

It's in the bank for a rainy day. Let's keep it that way.

I do support geological surveys to establish, to the greatest cost-effective degree, the amount that exists. I also think the results of those surveys are a matter of national security and should be classified. <---note to note that is probably already the case. Good post. I hadn't considered that point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Obviously, you are distinguishing between inflation and what the dollar is losing compared to euro?

Reread what I wrote above:

It all depends on how you measure it. Again, there's no perfect measure of inflation. And just as the price of (say) gas going up doesn't mean inflation any more than (say) the price of computers going down means deflation, but rather the overall prices (and that's not even a really good measurement there, because technoligcal advances tend to move real prices down), you can't just look at the dollar vs. the euro to see if there's overall inflation. It's really a big picture kind of thing.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Reread what I wrote above:

You can't just look at the dollar vs. the euro to see if there's overall inflation. It's really a big picture kind of thing.Right. That's why I was confused when I pointed out that the dollar fall compared to euro was a strong contributing factor to raise in the nominal price (in addition to the inflation), and you answered:

Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less.However, we now seem to agree that inflation and currency fluctuation are two different things?

This was in the news a few weeks ago:

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday took a step closer to setting a formal inflation objective, releasing forecasts that show it expects inflation to remain at 1½-1¾ per cent for the next two years.Clearly, if inflation is to "remain" at such a level (indicating that it is the present one) the decline in the dollar value has not been part of the equation?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
However, we now seem to agree that inflation and currency fluctuation are two different things?

Not really. Currency prices are one measure of inflation. But you have to compare it to the currency market as a whole, not just a single currency.

Remember, we're talking about a chaotic system here. Particularly in the short run.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Not really. Currency prices are one measure of inflation.But as I pointed out, it certainly isn't Greenspan's way of measuring it, and I have yet to see a definition that does.

If we imagine that the US imported 10% of it's consumer goods and the currency fell 50%, those 10% of the goods would most likely become twice as expensive, driving inflation up to 5% if consumption stayed the same.

In other words, the fall in the currency is influencing inflation, but is in no way defining it. Again, my objections are to your statement:

Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
But as I pointed out, it certainly isn't Greenspan's way of measuring it, and I have yet to see a definition that does.

I have no idea how the Fed is calculating such a low inflation rate. The two most accepted metrics are CPI and the GDP Deflator, and as I showed they show inflation over the last 5 years being 2-2&frac12;% annually.

If we imagine that the US imported 10% of it's consumer goods and the currency fell 50%, those 10% of the goods would most likely become twice as expensive, driving inflation up to 5% if consumption stayed the same.

Well, other than inflation, the only reason a currency can fall in relation to the yen, euro, etc. is if there's not as much demand for it. Which would mean there's not as much demand for American goods as before. This would mean that, in relation to the yen or the euro or whatever, American goods are now cheaper for those countries to buy. This effect is really just supply and demand, and doesn't really have anything to do with inflation or deflation.

Of course, the reason it would be doing so is that some other country is now providing those goods at a cheaper price, and so the system is trying to obtain equilibrium. The reduction in the value of the dollar across the board, in realtion to all other currencies, would be an indicator of inflation since that metric would include the value of the currencies in the countries that were competing with American goods.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
I have no idea how the Fed is calculating such a low inflation rate. The two most accepted metrics are CPI and the GDP Deflator, and as I showed they show inflation over the last 5 years being 2-2&frac12;% annually.And whichever you pick it's still far from the rate of the fall in dollars. In other words, the fall in the dollar value "is" not inflation - which you in fact say below:

Well, other than inflation, the only reason a currency can fall in relation to the yen, euro, etc. is if there's not as much demand for it. Or not much faith in it, which is basically the same. Who wants to sit with billions of dollars if they think they'll fall further all the time? Sell dollars, buy euros, and for goodness' sake start paying me for my oil in euros, not those depreciating greenbacks.

Which would mean there's not as much demand for American goods as before. This would mean that, in relation to the yen or the euro or whatever, American goods are now cheaper for those countries to buy. This effect is really just supply and demand, and doesn't really have anything to do with inflation or deflation.Which was my point.

On the other hand, the dollar itself is a commodity, preferred for decades by many countries as a big chunk of their currency reserves. However, when faith weakens .... Greenspan said this a few years ago:

It has become a general principle that monetary authorities reserve only those currencies they believe are as strong or stronger than their own. Thus, central banks' reserve balances except in special circumstances hold no weak currencies of which I am aware, other than standard transaction balances that are not viewed as stores of values.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Or not much faith in it, which is basically the same. Who wants to sit with billions of dollars if they think they'll fall further all the time? Sell dollars, buy euros, and for goodness' sake start paying me for my oil in euros, not those depreciating greenbacks.

I wouldn't say it was the same. There's a difference between a drop in demand for the goods and services and investments in a country and a drop in demand for its currency, albeit a subtle one, and it's easy to look at them at the same thing.

If we produce widgets, and another country starts making widgets cheaper, resulting in us selling fewer widgets, then demand is going to drop even though the opinion of our currency never entered into it.

What you are describing, which is essentially not wanting to hold on to currency because you're worried it won't be worth as much, is essentially how people react to inflation, or at least the possibility of it.

See the difference?

On the other hand, the dollar itself is a commodity, preferred for decades by many countries as a big chunk of their currency reserves. However, when faith weakens .... Greenspan said this a few years ago:

And he's basically right.

[Bjorn]

So we finally agree that "the fall in the dollar value is not inflation"?

[Brown]

I remember well the very first time in my life that I paid $20 for a tank of gasoline. At the time, I thought it was steep.

But during the "administration" of little Bush:
I paid $25 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $30 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $35 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I fully expect that, the next time I go to the pump, I will be pretty darn close to $40 for a tank.

(In case you're wondering, I've driven three cars in that time, all made by the same manufacturer and all having the same size tanks. The latter two cars, however, used premium fuel, which is more expensive than regular fuel.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
So we finally agree that "the fall in the dollar value is not inflation"?

No, inflation is the fall in the dollar's value. That's pretty much the definition of inflation. But that's different than saying that if the value of the dollar in relation to the euro falls 20% then inflation must be 20%.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
No, inflation is the fall in the dollar's value. That's pretty much the definition of inflation. But that's different than saying that if the value of the dollar in relation to the euro falls 20% then inflation must be 20%. You seem to go around in circles here:

B: I wasn't thinking inflation, just the fact that the dollar is worth a lot less compared to other currencies than it was five years ago.

S: Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less.

B: But he inflation can be equal in two countries and still one of the currencies might lose compared to the other.

S: It all depends on how you measure it. Again, there's no perfect measure of inflation ..... you can't just look at the dollar vs. the euro to see if there's overall inflation

B: So what was the inflation in the US during the last five years?

S: Say two to two-and-a-half percent.

B: During the same time, dollars have declined at least 35% compared to euros. Obviously, you are distinguishing between inflation and what the dollar is losing compared to euro?

S: Reread what I wrote above. You can't just look at the dollar vs. the euro to see if there's overall inflation

B: We now seem to agree that inflation and currency fluctuation are two different things?

S: Not really.

B: The fall in the currency is influencing inflation, but is in no way defining it. Again, my objections are to your statement: Um, that's what inflation is; the dollar is worth less.

S: other than inflation , the only reason a currency can fall in relation to the yen, euro, etc. is if there's not as much demand for it .....

American goods are now cheaper for those countries to buy. This effect is really just supply and demand, and doesn't really have anything to do with inflation or deflation.

B: Which was my point.

So we finally agree that "the fall in the dollar value is not inflation"?

S: No, inflation is the fall in the dollar's value.Aren't you contradicting yourself?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You seem to go around in circles here:

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

No, I'm just trying to explain a distinction you don't seem to get.

[Oleron]

Obligatory UK whine coming up:

The USA still has petrol prices that countries like the UK dream about. $2 per gallon? In the UK we pay £0.83 per litre.

That's about $6.50-7.00 per gallon. Around 80% of it is tax.

Mind you, the advantage of having such high taxes is that we hardly notice when the price of the actual oil goes up...

:D

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
No, I'm just trying to explain a distinction you don't seem to get. Yeah - the distinction between

"other than inflation .. a currency can fall .. if there's not as much demand for it" and

"inflation is the fall in the dollar's value"?

:p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Yeah - the distinction between

"other than inflation .. a currency can fall .. if there's not as much demand for it" and

"inflation is the fall in the dollar's value"?

:p

Sigh....once again, the first one refers to the value of a particular currency exchange; i.e., dollars to euros. The second refers to the actual value of the currency across the board. It's the difference between nominal and real value.

[Rob Lister]

Edit: opps! wrong thread. I don't know how I did that.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Sigh....once again, the first one refers to the value of a particular currency exchange; i.e., dollars to euros. The second refers to the actual value of the currency across the board. It's the difference between nominal and real value. The dollar is declining across the board.

You seem to disagree with economists:

We as a country might not like it if the dollar's decline went far enough that it began to push up inflation in the economy as a whole. We have not seen that. Inflation is under control.Rising energy prices and a falling dollar would reinforce each other as in the 1970s and raise the spectre of renewed stagflation.C. Fred Bergsten has been director of the Institute for International Economics since its creation in 1981. He is chairman of the "Shadow G-8," which advises the G-8 countries on their annual summit meetings. He was chairman of the Competitiveness Policy Council, which was created by Congress, throughout its existence from 1991 to 1995 and chairman of the APEC Eminent Persons Group throughout its existence from 1993 to 1995. He was assistant secretary for international affairs of the US Treasury (1977-81); assistant for international economic affairs to the National Security Council (1969-71); and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (1972-76), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1981), and the Council on Foreign Relations (1967-68). He is the author, coauthor, or editor of numerous books on a wide range of international economic issues.

Kenneth Rogoff:

But I think in the end right now it's a good thing for the dollar to decline in value. I think it will help reduce the trade deficit. I don't see any consequences in terms of internal inflation in America that are very major.Professor of Economics, Harvard University, September 1999 – present; Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy, January 2004 – present.
Chief Economist and Director of Research, International Monetary Fund, 2001–2003.

Director, Harvard Center for International Development, 2003–2004.

Professor of Economics and International Affairs, Princeton University, 1992–94; Charles and Marie Robertson Professor of International Affairs, 1995–1999.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The dollar is declining across the board.

Yes, and I gave you the numbers showing how much.

FWIW, I don't trust any economist that ever uses the words "under control" to describe inflation. It's not as if we don't know what causes it...

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't trust any economist that ever uses the words "under control" to describe inflation. It's not as if we don't know what causes it... Personally I trust Bergsten, advisor to the G-8 countries, and Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, more than ShaneK. :p

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Personally I trust Bergsten, advisor to the G-8 countries, and Rogoff, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, more than ShaneK. :p

Sounds like argument by authority to me.

By what measure is inflation of the US dollar only 1%? I gave you the two most accepted metrics, and several of the lesser metrics. None of them came close to it.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
Sounds like argument by authority to me.Well, between you and the professors ..... :p

By what measure is inflation of the US dollar only 1%? I gave you the two most accepted metrics, and several of the lesser metrics. None of them came close to it. I mostly left it to you to tell me how big it was, remember?

However, I posted this "official" one from the Greater Phoenix Economic Council - feel free to find one from Greenspan, if you like.

US inflation 2000-2005:

http://www.gpec.org/InfoCenter/Topics/Economy/USInfl4.gif

Just to make sure: I'm not arguing if the inflation in the US was 2 or 3 or 4% per year during the last two-three years, I am arguing that a fall in dollars against other currencies "is" not inflation. So far, the experts agree with me.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Bjorn
If we imagine that the US imported 10% of it's consumer goods and the currency fell 50%, those 10% of the goods would most likely become twice as expensive, driving inflation up to 5% if consumption stayed the same.

In other words, the fall in the currency is influencing inflation, but is in no way defining it. This demonstrates the inertia within an economy, which is much, much greater than in the exchange markets (which decreases every year). I think about 90% of US business is within the US, and so not directly affected by exchange rates. Over time the effect of the other 10% filters through. One of the more immediate effects is on foreign tourism, of course, and another is on oil-prices (which filters through to other fuels). The price of a plumber will be affected more slowly, but they still need to run a van, buy materials and get the kids Japanese-built gizmos for Xmas. Unless the dollar recovers, US domestic inflation will take a hit over the next few years. Not good for the next Republican presidential hope.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
US inflation 2000-2005:

I really want to see the description behind that graph, because I think you're misinterpreting it.

Look at the CPI for 2004: it's 0%. 0% of what? And it seems to grow the further back you go, at one point going as high as what looks like about 6%. 6% of what?

Since the 2004 figure is 0%, and I don't believe for one second that we've had 0% inflation, what I think it's doing is looking at the CPI (and, by extension, the PPI) with 2004 as a base year. In other words, the difference between the nominal CPI and real CPI in 2004, in 2004 dollars, is 0% (go figure). In 1990 or whenever it hit its peak, the real CPI expressed in 2004 dollars was larger than what it is today. In other words, what this graph is showing (I think) is that real CPI has been declining when measured in current dollars. Which, while nice, doesn't tell you anything about the subject you're trying to cover.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by shanek
I really want to see the description behind that graph, because I think you're misinterpreting it.

Look at the CPI for 2004: it's 0%. 0% of what? And it seems to grow the further back you go, at one point going as high as what looks like about 6%. 6% of what?

Since the 2004 figure is 0%, and I don't believe for one second that we've had 0% inflation, what I think it's doing is looking at the CPI (and, by extension, the PPI) with 2004 as a base year. In other words, the difference between the nominal CPI and real CPI in 2004, in 2004 dollars, is 0% (go figure). In 1990 or whenever it hit its peak, the real CPI expressed in 2004 dollars was larger than what it is today. In other words, what this graph is showing (I think) is that real CPI has been declining when measured in current dollars. Which, while nice, doesn't tell you anything about the subject you're trying to cover. But I'm not arguing the size of the inflation in the US. I am, consistently, arguing your statement that the fall in dollars compared to other currencies is inflation. So far, the experts are agreeing with me - it isn't.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You seem to go around in circles here:

No, inflation is the fall in the dollar's value.
That's pretty much the definition of inflation.
But that's different than saying that if the value of the dollar
in relation to the euro falls 20% then inflation must be 20%.

I think what might help you out is thinking about purchasing power.
Inflation is the fall in the dollar's purchasing power. In euros the goods
we buy from europ are inflation, but the goods we buy from say china,
and mexico haven't been inflating at all. China for example wants growth
at all cost, so they devalue their currency against the eruo in step with
our currency. It means a loss for them, but then, it means never having
to face a collapsing economy.

[Tmy]

I wouldnt mind drilling in ANWAR if it was specifically going to be banked for ER purposes rather than just to add more oil to the world market.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Synchronicity
I think what might help you out is thinking about purchasing power.
Inflation is the fall in the dollar's purchasing power. In euros the goods
we buy from europ are inflation, but the goods we buy from say china,
and mexico haven't been inflating at all. China for example wants growth
at all cost, so they devalue their currency against the eruo in step with
our currency. It means a loss for them, but then, it means never having
to face a collapsing economy. And since many of the goods we buy in the US are not, or very little, influenced by the fall in dollars (even if we measure against a common 'basket' of currencies), this fall in dollars 'is' not inflation.

Most commentators, in the US and outside, merely point out that the fall in dollars compared to specific currencies or the 'basket' will influence inflation sooner or later - but that's a different thing.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I'm against drilling in ANWR but not for the usual reasons. ... I'm against it because it's there and its ours and we don't need to use it at the moment. What exactly do you mean by "ours"? Who exactly does this putative oil belong to? Or perhaps more to the point, who will it belong to when it comes up? If someone in China is prepared to pay more for it than, say, Rob Lister, in what way will it still be partially "yours"? A glance at the globe indicates that it's closer to China than to the US Eastern Seaboard. Those pesky Alaskans might decide it's actually theirs, and sell it to the highest bidder.

Of course, if there's evidence of them having WMD's they won't get the chance.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What exactly do you mean by "ours"? Who exactly does this putative oil belong to? Or perhaps more to the point, who will it belong to when it comes up? If someone in China is prepared to pay more for it than, say, Rob Lister, in what way will it still be partially "yours"? A glance at the globe indicates that it's closer to China than to the US Eastern Seaboard. Those pesky Alaskans might decide it's actually theirs, and sell it to the highest bidder.

Of course, if there's evidence of them having WMD's they won't get the chance.

By ours I mean "ours" as opposed to "theirs". Sorry it tripped your trigger. Needless to say it is less likely, for example, that we will engage in an embargo against ourselves when or if the actual need became clear. Until then we are all but guaranteed to do so, as we have for various odd reasons. If you don't like the fact that the Federal Government controls an overly huge portion of the state of Alaska, tell it to the hand. I'm not saying its right, or wrong, simply that it is. Should 'those pesky Alaskans' decide to drill anyway and do as they please they might well find a few of the left-over reserves from the Iraq conflict ready to greet them. Haven't we been through this already, more than a century ago?

You might also want to check out the agreements Alaska made as part of their gaining statehood. If there's bad to be had, a lot of it's on them.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
By ours I mean "ours" as opposed to "theirs".Not really very informative. I'm interested in how you see yourself owning a bit of it. Sorry it tripped your trigger. [???] Needless to say it is less likely, for example, that we will engage in an embargo against ourselves when or if the actual need became clear. Until then we are all but guaranteed to do so, as we have for various odd reasons.I find that a little unclear as well, but hey. You see six months' worth of oil (which I understand is what it amounts to, but I'm no expert; it's not my oil, after all) as a strategic asset, which is understandable. It will at least put off the evil day (whatever the evil is) for that long. If you don't like the fact that the Federal Government controls an overly huge portion of the state of Alaska, tell it to the hand. I'm not saying its right, or wrong, simply that it is.I have no particular interest in that issue. Should 'those pesky Alaskans' decide to drill anyway and do as they please they might well find a few of the left-over reserves from the Iraq conflict ready to greet them. Haven't we been through this already, more than a century ago?

You might also want to check out the agreements Alaska made as part of their gaining statehood. If there's bad to be had, a lot of it's on them. You're going to send in tanks and lawyers? That's downright unsporting.

From what I understand of the American Way, I don't see the US gumment drilling, pumping and allocating the oil themselves. I'd have thought somebody oil-related would get the franchise to do that (replacing "allocating" with "trading"). Government control over the oil would surely be bordering on the totalitarian.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Not really very informative. I'm interested in how you see yourself owning a bit of it. [/B]I find that a little unclear as well, but hey. You see six months' worth of oil (which I understand is what it amounts to, but I'm no expert; it's not my oil, after all) as a strategic asset, which is understandable. It will at least put off the evil day (whatever the evil is) for that long.[/B]I have no particular interest in that issue. You're going to send in tanks and lawyers? That's downright unsporting.

From what I understand of the American Way, I don't see the US gumment drilling, pumping and allocating the oil themselves. I'd have thought somebody oil-related would get the franchise to do that (replacing "allocating" with "trading"). Government control over the oil would surely be bordering on the totalitarian. [/B]

Capel, let me start by saying I honestly haven't a clue as to the point you are trying to make. I thought I might when I read your post before last but I was clearly mistaken. I note (now) that your post location is Wales. Are you at all familiar with the state/federal distinction in the U.S. I ask because both of your posts strongly indicate that you are not.

I guess I should start here: ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The N-word (one not spelled out in proper state forums) is the clue to answering all of your questions and implications. I'll leave it at that for now in hopes that other, more tolerant posters will fill you in on other details. If they don't, I guess it will become my responsibility. I'd like to shrug that particular atlas but I won't if it comes to that.

[Silicon]

And I'm so glad we're past arguing about what the pesky little W and R stand for.

(I say they stand for only about 5 more years.)


And Roadtoad, if it's the action of environmentalists that are causing the rise in oil prices, how do you explain this?



Crude Oil Price per barrel year 1998: 12 dollars
Crude Oil Price per barrel year 2005: 55 dollars


Surely it's not environmentalists and their pesky gasoline formulas causing that!

[Tmy]

Does the govt (or any oil produceing country) have specific rules on the % of oil that can be exported?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Not really very informative. I'm interested in how you see yourself owning a bit of it. [/B]I find that a little unclear as well, but hey. You see six months' worth of oil (which I understand is what it amounts to, but I'm no expert; it's not my oil, after all) as a strategic asset, which is understandable. It will at least put off the evil day (whatever the evil is) for that long.[/B]I have no particular interest in that issue. You're going to send in tanks and lawyers? That's downright unsporting.

From what I understand of the American Way, I don't see the US gumment drilling, pumping and allocating the oil themselves. I'd have thought somebody oil-related would get the franchise to do that (replacing "allocating" with "trading"). Government control over the oil would surely be bordering on the totalitarian. [/B]

Capel, please ignore my last post. Here’s how it (might) work:

Situation: Pesky Alaskans decide to drill in ANWR without congressional approval.

Solution: Pesky Alaskans are arrested, indited, tried in federal court, convicted, sent to prison. They may or may not pass “Go� but the 200 dollars will be eaten up in legal fees. This solution can take many forms but in the end this is pretty much how it would go, assuming such a silly thing went at all.

Situation: Crisis Requires Drilling in ANWR.

Solution: Congress approves appraisal (probably already done but not [accurately] reported), and a budget is cut for the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE issues a Request for Information (RFI) in the best case, a Request for Quote (RFQ) in a medium case, or in a worse case simply outright awards a contract to Halliburton to drill the oil and get it refined yesterday. The resulting fuel is sold to distributors under contract and with restrictions to sell only to approved outlets, whomever they (they being the government) in their oh-so infinite wisdom decide should get it. Meanwhile, congress approves embargos on all (unapproved) foreign exports of oil/oil products while the president is kept busy lining up tanks along the boarders of prospective importers.

What, you didn’t already know all that?

P.S. Silicon, thanks for the data. Do you have a graph? I don't want anyone to accuse you of cherry-picking oil prices so I think if you provide a, say...thirty or so year graph, adjusted for inflation, they would take your post more seriously.

[webfusion]

http://entranced.org/erin/arm%20and%20leg.JPG

[shanek]

Here's one I did for fark.com awhile back:

http://www.shanekillian.org/images/gas.jpg

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

P.S. Silicon, thanks for the data. Do you have a graph? I don't want anyone to accuse you of cherry-picking oil prices so I think if you provide a, say...thirty or so year graph, adjusted for inflation, they would take your post more seriously.


Only slightly cherry-picking. I chose a year with a dip to start. That dip was basically because of the asian banking crisis cutting demand for crude.

But the peak we have now is over twice the average of $21 a barrel adjusted.

Here's a graph from 1947 - 2003. You know we're at $55 a barrel now. We were at $21 a barrel on 9/11.

So I'd say, pretty reasonably, the current rise in gas prices has more to do with the doubling of the price of crude than the addition of new gasoline formulae. In fact, I don't think we've had a new gasoline formula in LA since the last dip in prices.




http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif





http://www.fintrend.com/ftf/images/charts/OilPrices.gif



Hope those help.


http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/images/gas_cpi_adjusted_70-01.gif

By the way, that chart shows the "spike" in gas prices caused by the required 1996 reformulation of California gasoline to include MTBE's. Look closely. Can you see that slight uptick in the mid nineties? Hardly a blip in gas price change compared to the current rise due to the rise in crude prices.




Here's a page that shows the gas price in California (probably the most expensive gas in the country, and the most specially formulated) adjusted for inflation.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html


They only go up to the first quarter of 2004. Adjusting the current gas prices in, we're currently at 2.22 a gallon acording to the department of energy.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp


So we've gone from a recent average of 1.40 adjusted a gallon through the 90's, to 2.22 a gallon rising alongside the exact same spike in crude prices.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Silicon
Only slightly cherry-picking. I chose a year with a dip to start.

Why would you do that? I'm pretty sure that scoring points in a political(ish) debate holds a lesser value to you than maintaining your integrity. Was it just an error on your part?

[Silicon]

I don't think it was dishonest. Personally, I compare the cheapest gas prices in recent memory to the highest ones that we have now.

To those who complain (like me) of rising gas prices, that complaint started after 98, not after we reached the average price of the last 50 years.

I don't think it's cherry-picking as much as proving this point: Crude oil prices fluctuate widely.

If you were looking for information on how much the current oil prices deviate from the average, my post didn't provide that information, nor did it claim to.

If you were looking for information on how much the price of crude varys, which is the point I was attempting to convey, then the figure is accurate.

The rest of the data I posted subsequent to your request for a graph also supports my main position, which was that the price of crude oil corrolates more closely with gasoline prices than the events of various legally mandated "designer formulations".

People eager to point the finger for high pump prices at environmentalists but not our nation's war policies have some splaining to do. They are, of course, welcome to post any and all data that supports that hypothesis.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Silicon
I don't think it was dishonest. Personally, I compare the cheapest gas prices in recent memory to the highest ones that we have now.

To those who complain (like me) of rising gas prices, that complaint started after 98, not after we reached the average price of the last 50 years.

I don't think it's cherry-picking as much as proving this point: Crude oil prices fluctuate widely.

emphisis mine. If that was the point you were trying to make then, true, it was not dishonest or a mistake but you should have your pee-pee whacked for not more clearly making it. Given the content and context of your post, the only way anyone would know you were making that point is to read your most recent post.

Still, I like you, kinda, for a lefty.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Given the content and context of your post, the only way anyone would know you were making that point is to read your most recent post.


And I should thank you for calling me on the data, because it caused me to make a better supported point. Especially my graph on gas prices in California, which corrolates much more strongly with worldwide oil prices than with the 1996 reformulation of California gasoline, for example.




I notice in adjusted dollars, $2.42 a gallon is the magic number that gets us circa 1980 levels of gasoline prices.

We're currently at 2.22. What I remember about the 80's is that people were really really pissed off at Jimmy Carter, and the energy crisis, and the economy and everything back then.

Are we 20 cents a gallon away from 1980's style American outrage?

And to address Roadtoad's original post:

do you get the feeling that because of the actions of Environmentalists, we're going to wind up with drilling in the ANWR, anyway?

I'd rephrase that: Do you get the feeling that because of the actions of the Bush Administration, we're going to wind up with drilling in the ANWR, anyway?


There's a word for that. Ironically, the word isn't "irony."

[Silicon]

Sorry, dumba$$ correction.

Replace '80's in my post above with "Late 70's." Doh.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Capel, let me start by saying I honestly haven't a clue as to the point you are trying to make.Forgive me for not ignoring this, but I'm asking a question, not making a point. In what practical sense do you share ownership in this oil? My tentative opinion is that you identify with the US, and thus see US ownership as making you a part-owner. But when it comes out of the ground, you're going to have to pay for it at the pumps just like any tourist or illegal immigrant. Unless you get issued vouchers as a citizen, or some such.
I note (now) that your post location is Wales. Are you at all familiar with the state/federal distinction in the U.S. I ask because both of your posts strongly indicate that you are not.Even in Wales, the literate elite has masses of information available. One thing I know is that the state/federal arrangement wasn't conclusively settled by the Civil War. That's still a work-in-progress. An Alaskan might choose to identify with Alaska, and regard the oil as belonging to Alaskans. I don't expect the future to be quite as entertaining as that, but the future is a foreign country.

I guess I should start here: ANWR stands for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The N-word (one not spelled out in proper state forums) is the clue to answering all of your questions and implications.And shanek things the Nazis were Socialists because, there's the word, National Socialist Party. The W- and R-words (Wildlife Refuge, not Oil reserve) might be more relevant legally.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Capel, please ignore my last post. Here’s how it (might) work:

Situation: Pesky Alaskans decide to drill in ANWR without congressional approval.

Solution: Pesky Alaskans are arrested, indited, tried in federal court, convicted, sent to prison.Meanwhile, pipelines are being sabotaged. Maybe the test-ground in Iraq will provide a solution to that problem. A fleet of UAV's riding shotgun, for instance. Or corralling the natives into Protected Villages. And all for six months' oil?

Situation: Alaskans don't want the oil pumped now, but the gumment does. Alaskans see it as an appreciating asset which they don't need to cash in just now, US gumment sees it as a way of keeping their army in the field for another six months.

Solution : Something ugly.

Situation: Crisis Requires Drilling in ANWR.

Solution: Congress approves appraisal (probably already done but not [accurately] reported), and a budget is cut for the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE issues a Request for Information (RFI) in the best case, a Request for Quote (RFQ) in a medium case, or in a worse case simply outright awards a contract to Halliburton to drill the oil and get it refined yesterday. The resulting fuel is sold to distributors under contract and with restrictions to sell only to approved outlets, whomever they (they being the government) in their oh-so infinite wisdom decide should get it. Meanwhile, congress approves embargos on all (unapproved) foreign exports of oil/oil products while the president is kept busy lining up tanks along the boarders of prospective importers.

What, you didn’t already know all that?I know such behaviour is Un-American. Is it worth that for so little oil?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Meanwhile, pipelines are being sabotaged. Maybe the test-ground in Iraq will provide a solution to that problem. A fleet of UAV's riding shotgun, for instance. Or corralling the natives into Protected Villages. And all for six months' oil?

Situation: Alaskans don't want the oil pumped now, but the gumment does. Alaskans see it as an appreciating asset which they don't need to cash in just now, US gumment sees it as a way of keeping their army in the field for another six months.

Solution : Something ugly.

[/B]I know such behaviour is Un-American. Is it worth that for so little oil? [/B]

Well, I tried to explain it to you and I think I did a fair enough job of it. You seem to not like the explaination. Sorry you feel that way.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Well, I tried to explain it to you and I think I did a fair enough job of it. You seem to not like the explaination. Sorry you feel that way. The only explanation you've given is about how the oil is US oil not Alaskan oil (tanks and lawyers), not why any of it is your oil. You did use the term "our oil", subsequently clarified as "ours, not theirs", which indicates a sense of ownership on your part, however communal. I don't yet see what practical effect you see that ownership as having.

I can play around with scenarios as well as the next guy, which is not to say that I see an Alaskan secession on the horizon. Not without Sino-Jap, Canadian and French backing, anyway, and that's got to be a few years down the line. Maybe decades. But why is Asaskan oil more yours than Mexican or Venezuelan oil?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The only explanation you've given is about how the oil is US oil not Alaskan oil (tanks and lawyers), not why any of it is your oil. You did use the term "our oil", subsequently clarified as "ours, not theirs", which indicates a sense of ownership on your part, however communal. I don't yet see what practical effect you see that ownership as having.

I can play around with scenarios as well as the next guy, which is not to say that I see an Alaskan secession on the horizon. Not without Sino-Jap, Canadian and French backing, anyway, and that's got to be a few years down the line. Maybe decades. But why is Asaskan oil more yours than Mexican or Venezuelan oil?

Is it your contention that a national asset (owned/controlled/reserved/protected/defended by the federal government) cannot be said to belong to the members of that nation any more than it can be said to belong to members of other nations?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Is it your contention that a national asset (owned/controlled/reserved/protected/defended by the federal government) cannot be said to belong to the members of that nation any more than it can be said to belong to members of other nations?
United States or United States of America (Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA)

A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It includes the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii and various island territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The area now occupied by the contiguous 48 states was originally inhabited by numerous Native American peoples and was colonized beginning in the 16th century by Spain, France, the Netherlands, and England. Great Britain eventually controlled most of the Atlantic coast and, after the French and Indian Wars (1754–1763), the Northwest Territory and Canada. The original Thirteen Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and formed a government under the Articles of Confederation in 1781, adopting (1787) a new constitution that went into effect after 1789. The nation soon began to expand westward. Growing tensions over the issue of Black slavery divided the country along geographic lines, sparking the secession of the South and the Civil War (1861–1865). The remainder of the 19th century was marked by increased westward expansion, industrialization, and the influx of millions of immigrants.

A PITY (Alaskan Petroleum Isn't Yours) is the United State's state-owned, nationalized petroleum company. In 2005, President George W Bush sided with 2,230,611 Ford Excursion owners against world oil companies and the law of supply and demand for a decrease in world oil prices. Unfortunately, Mexico, Venezuela, the United Kingdom, Iraq, Russia, Angola, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Norway, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Kuwait, Columbia, Egypt, Oman, Libya, Brazil and Indonesia all declined this proposal. In turn, Bush declared Alaskan oil to be US owned and state governed and embarked on the expropriation of the Alaskan resources and facilities.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Is it your contention that a national asset (owned/controlled/reserved/protected/defended by the federal government) cannot be said to belong to the members of that nation any more than it can be said to belong to members of other nations? Pretty much. It's one of the major frauds of nationalism that national benefit is presented as being the benefit of the populace in general, when all the benfit goes to an influential elite. Another great fraud is patriotism.

"It's Tommy this, and Tommy that,
And Tommy here's my boot.
But it's Tommy you're a hero
When the guns begin to shoot".

As Rudyard Kipling put it. I don't think you'll see the slightest benefit out of that oil personally, but some families will see a lot.



And thank you, as ever, Frank Newgent, for putting some perspective on things. Alaskans will have to accept the fact they were bought outright, top-to-toe and tickly bits, in 1867 by the Feds.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Pretty much.

Well, if that's your view then I fear we are far enough apart in rational idealism that no amount of debate is going to find common ground. Feel free to continue on your quest to be free from nationalism, however. Just don't bump your head against the white cliffs of reality while swimming in your sea of platitudes*.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*Ripped from a poet I don't have the motivation to properly credit or accuratly quote. Shame that.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Well, if that's your view then I fear we are far enough apart in rational idealism that no amount of debate is going to find common ground. Feel free to continue on your quest to be free from nationalism, however. Just don't bump your head against the white cliffs of reality while swimming in your sea of platitudes.
I don't need to seek freedom from nationalism, I am free of it, and always have been. I didn't fall for it in my youth, and I'm hardly likely to fall for it now, despite the white-haired reality of my 50 years. I can't speak for what might follow the onset of senility; perhaps our world-views may then become a little closer.

"Rational idealism"? Presumably the "idealism" derives the idea that patriotism is a virtue, rather than a self-inflating indulgence that leaves one vulnerable to being led by the nose. You've come up a little short on the rational when your explanation of a national asset being in some measure yourasset amounts to "It just is". I'm bound to suspect that you've never even questioned the idea before.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I don't need to seek freedom from nationalism, I am free of it, and always have been. I didn't fall for it in my youth, and I'm hardly likely to fall for it now, despite the white-haired reality of my 50 years. I can't speak for what might follow the onset of senility; perhaps our world-views may then become a little closer.

"Rational idealism"? Presumably the "idealism" derives the idea that patriotism is a virtue, rather than a self-inflating indulgence that leaves one vulnerable to being led by the nose. You've come up a little short on the rational when your explanation of a national asset being in some measure yourasset amounts to "It just is". I'm bound to suspect that you've never even questioned the idea before.

I was gonna' just let this go but I felt compelled to correct you. I never said it was mine, I said it was ours. Sure, that excludes you but if you want I can give you the URL to our immigration department.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I was gonna' just let this go but I felt compelled to correct you. I never said it was mine, I said it was ours.And thus, surely, "in some measure" your own. Sure, that excludes you but if you want I can give you the URL to our immigration department. Take on all that other crap for a purely vicarious share in Alaskan oil? I think not. I've seen the US rugby team in action; fine chaps, no doubt, and enthusiastic, but hardly comparable to the boys in red.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

I never said it was mine, I said it was ours.

http://www.monstertruckrides.com/Gifs/Clown%20Review%20070601.jpg


ROANOKE - On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, Virginia SUV owners marched to save their last national treasure: A PITY (Alaskan Petroleum Isn't Yours). Variously estimated from about a dozen or so up to 1,000,000 people, they were undisciplined, appropriately dressed, and in high spirits. The amount of organization necessary to call for, bring in, launch and evacuate such crowds boggles the mind.

In conjunction with the march, United States President George W Bush announced that "A PITY is safe in my hands" but avoided any references to the proposed sale of petroleum subsidiaries to "private investors", some of whom are believed to be foreigners.

[Brown]

I remember well the very first time in my life that I paid $20 for a tank of gasoline. At the time, I thought it was steep.

But during the "administration" of little Bush:
I paid $25 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $30 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $35 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I fully expect that, the next time I go to the pump, I will be pretty darn close to $40 for a tank.

(In case you're wondering, I've driven three cars in that time, all made by the same manufacturer and all having the same size tanks. The latter two cars, however, used premium fuel, which is more expensive than regular fuel.)While Little Bush was still fouling things up in office, I went from the US to Canada. Before moving, I paid $40 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life. One of the last things I did in the US was pay $45 for a tank of gas (in Michigan, on my way to Ontario), for the first time in my life.

I subsequently got a new (fuel-efficient) car in Canada, a car that uses regular gas. While Little Bush was still in office,
I paid $50 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.

Thereafter, Barack Obama became president, and
I paid $55 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $60 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.

Now, let it be remembered that Canadian gas prices are higher than US prices, in large part due to the taxes, and that the Canadian dollar is not the same as the US dollar. (When I checked the market two days ago, the Canadian dollar was worth more by about 2 cents, I believe.) Nevertheless, the US and Canadian markets track one another; when prices rise or fall in one country, they rise or fall in the other as well.

The reason I resurrect this thread is that there are now rumblings that a certain political party will try to convince voters that high gas prices are Obama's fault. This assumes, of course, that the electorate has no memory, or that it is made up of idiots (or both). When an oilmen-butt-smooching Texan dung-head held the office, gas prices rose more than just a wee bit. Is someone going to argue, seriously, that putting another oilmen's buddy in the White House is going to make gas prices more manageable for the consumer?

[Dymanic]

The reason I resurrect this thread is that there are now rumblings that a certain political party will try to convince voters that high gas prices are Obama's fault. This assumes, of course, that the electorate has no memory, or that it is made up of idiots (or both).Oh, there's a long shot. What could those members of that political party be thinking?

[DavidJames]

I blame the President now as much as I blamed the President then.

Not at all.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Add that a dollar isn't worth more than 2/3 of what it was five years ago .... :(

Someone should probably stop printing a trillion of them per year then.

[AlexW]

The Saudi's to the rescue! From Slate:



In a matter of days, Saudi Arabia has hired the largest number of super-tankers in years. When the tankers load their cargo in Ras Tanura, the world’s largest oil terminal, in the next couple of weeks and start a 40-day voyage towards the US Gulf coast, they will deliver a wall of oil with a single aim: to bring prices down.




“This is the first time in several years for [Saudi Arabia] to hit the market with such volume – and in such a short time frame,” says Omar Nokta, a shipping expert at specialist investment bank Dalham Rose & Co.

[The Don]

I subsequently got a new (fuel-efficient) car in Canada, a car that uses regular gas. While Little Bush was still in office,
I paid $50 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.

Thereafter, Barack Obama became president, and
I paid $55 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.
I paid $60 for a tank of gasoline for the first time in my life.


I know it's been said often enough but pshaw !

It currently costs me a touch over $200 to feed the Jaaaaaaaaag

The SAAB is up around $135

Even Mrs. Don's Skoda which will take a maximum of 40 litres costs $90 to fill.