Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

Post by _cinepro »

Kevin Graham wrote:The best way to lower prices is to lower demand.


Why is lowering demand better at lowering prices than increasing supply? They're two sides of the same coin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Here in California, we've just had a really vivid lesson on what happens to prices when supply drops. Interestingly, even our most liberal politicians are looking at increasing supply to bring about lower prices. I haven't heard a single one suggest that we need to decrease demand to bring the prices down.

I would agree that there are many, many good arguments for decreasing demand for oil and gasoline. But if we're just looking at prices, decreasing demand is no more effective than increasing supply, because they're both inexorably linked together by the price.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

Post by _cinepro »

Kevin Graham wrote:As crude is a globally traded commodity, there is very little US policy could to to affect change in the price. Republicans have this all backwards, focusing more on production, which in their best case scenario, wouldn't make a dent in the price of gasoline for at least ten years anyway, and even then, at just a few cents per gallon.



That point is extremely true, and if anyone doubts it, we could ask why the USA exports oil!

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states ... ports.html

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHa ... REXUS2&f=M

You would think if "energy independence" were such a concern, the first thing the government would do would be to stop oil imports and exports. But in the end, it doesn't matter where the oil comes from. It only matters what it costs.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Why is lowering demand better at lowering prices than increasing supply? They're two sides of the same coin.


Quite simply, it is easier to reduce demand than it is to increase supply. This should be obvious. If it were easy to increase supply then we'd be doing it already, but all this talk about all the oil we have in our soil already is mostly myth. The time and money it would take to extract that oil is almost never discussed, and by the time it became available to the market we'd be talking about saving only a few cents per gallon at the pump. The only reason the Right wing is so focused on increasing supply is because they are in the back pockets of the oil industry. They are lobbied constantly so they can keep their monopoly on our primary source of energy. They ridicule any attempts to shift our dependence from one form of energy to another because the big loser in that shift is the oil industry.

Also, there is only a finite supply of crude in the earth and at some point we're going to run out. By increasing supply we say it is OK to keep letting demand increase as it is, which makes our dependence on oil more dangerous than it already is. Can you imagine the chaos throughout the world when we do in fact run out of crude? Republicans don't even think ahead. They don't care. For them it is all about the quick buck. The future doesn't matter because to most of them Jesus is going to come save them anyway, so to hell with the economy.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

Post by _cinepro »

Kevin Graham wrote:Quite simply, it is easier to reduce demand than it is to increase supply. This should be obvious. If it were easy to increase supply then we'd be doing it already, but all this talk about all the oil we have in our soil already is mostly myth. The time and money it would take to extract that oil is almost never discussed, and by the time it became available to the market we'd be talking about saving only a few cents per gallon at the pump.

Also, there is only a finite supply of crude in the earth and at some point we're going to run out. By increasing supply we say it is OK to keep letting demand increase as it is, which makes our dependence on oil more dangerous than it already is.


If the government can stay out of this (and this includes Republicans resisting influence from the "oil industry"), the problem will fix itself.

As summarized on wikipedia:

The four basic laws of supply and demand are:

- If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and higher quantity

- If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and lower quantity.

- If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and higher quantity.

- If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, then it leads to higher equilibrium price and lower quantity.


You are describing the last scenario. As we "run out" of oil, the price for it will go up. As oil becomes more expensive, other alternative forms of energy will become more feasible.

But as long as oil is plentiful (and cheaper than other forms of energy), you would be a fool not to use it.

I do acknowledge that the sticker price isn't the only "cost" in using certain types of energy. We also have to factor in pollution, dead birds, possible radioactive contamination etc. when judging the "cost" of energy. There are also governments and groups like OPEC that artificially manipulate the supply and screw with the market forces. These are all valid concerns and factors in evaluating our energy use.

Can you imagine the chaos throughout the world when we do in fact run out of crude?


There won't be much chaos. As supplies slowly dwindle and oil fields get taken off-line, the price will go up. This increase in price will encourage suppliers to find additional sources for oil, as well as encouraging consumers to find alternative forms of energy.

It won't be "chaos" as long as the government can stay out of it. If the government tries to "hide" the dwindling supplies with price controls or artificially manipulating the market, suppliers and consumers won't be able to adjust, and when the government can no longer hide the problem, the adjustment may be too swift and that could be chaotic. But a natural wind down in oil supplies would give us enough time to adjust (and if forward thinking entrepreneurs can time the wind-down correctly, they could make a fortune!)

But woe be unto those who misjudge the market! Hopefully taxpayers won't be on the hook for future misjudgements...
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

I will be long dead before we run out of crude. The latest estimates of proven reserves--which is the only statistic that counts--suggest that, given population and economic growth, there are still more than 200 years' worth of economically viable crude in the known reserves. Even that is misleading because oil companies keep finding huge new sources of crude oil. The big push will be in Brazilian offshore drilling, which could eclipse Middle Eastern production.

And as far as the XL pipeline, my understanding is that the Chinese are offering to help pay for the pipeline to BC in exchange for discounted rates on Canadian oil. That means that it won't be traded on the open market at market rates. That's why we are incredibly stupid for not approving the pipeline. We will lose potential jobs and provide an economic advantage to China.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Before Obama: Gas was $1.84 a gallon in 2008

Post by _Kevin Graham »

If the government can stay out of this (and this includes Republicans resisting influence from the "oil industry"), the problem will fix itself.


There is no evidence of this. You seem to be treating this like the simplistic examples capitalists love to use to explain market efficiency. You know, like the local shoe salesman who charges too much for shoes contrary to demand, so he goes out of business. Or the local ice cream man who makes sour ice cream, so he loses business to an ice cream maker whose product is sweet and creamy.

But do you really not understand that crude is a global commodity, and that the US government has no power at all to control the price of crude? DO you not understand that the price of gasoline has gone up and down pretty much in parallel with the way it has in other countries? The only thing our government can realistically do is try to implement measures to reduce demand, which should be viewed as a national security issue in my view. Increasing supply from US oil fields is a joke of a suggestion. At best we're talking about a drop in the bucket compared to the output from other countries. You mention OPEC but don't seem to fully understand their role and influence. It is funny you worry about some possible economic collapse due to China refusing to purchase treasuries, but at the same time you have no problem with our energy being controlled by oil producing nations who have a history in using oil as a weapon against us. For this reason alone we should be desperately trying to move towards alternative forms of energy. We rely on countries who hate us. They supply us with out primary source of energy. But you seem to think we don't need them as much as we do. As if the USA could produce enough oil for its own purposes. That's simply not the case. We are dependent on oil from other countries, and without it our economy would collapse.

You say when the oil runs out, it will be all hunky-dory because then we'll just move to some other form of energy. Well you seem to think there needs to be no transition phase, as if we can all just afford to switch to $400,000 electric cars over night. That's the whole point of the government trying to move our nation to energy dependence. Let the market do its thing but at least get the ball rolling by increasing demand so that such a market can mature. And for that reason demand for alternative energy is on the rise. Technological advancements have improved the efficiency of the life of solar panels, battery life, etc, all thanks to investment funded by government. If left to the free market alone, we'd still be at square one and that's where we'd be up until the time energy providers decided to move away from petroleum.

There won't be much chaos. As supplies slowly dwindle and oil fields get taken off-line, the price will go up. This increase in price will encourage suppliers to find additional sources for oil, as well as encouraging consumers to find alternative forms of energy.


Again, it is amazing that you think this won't cause chaos. Do you have no earthly clue how dependent we are on oil? Given the outrageous level of demand now, imagine what it would be at some future point the oil begins to run out. The prices would increase tenfold easily within a week, which means the price of everything else will skyrocket accordingly. Pizza places will go out of business because no one is going to pay $80 for a pizza to be delivered, just because the delivery guy has to spend $40 per gallon of gas. Fast food places will go out of business because no one will want to spend that kind of money just to get a bite to eat. I mean this are just a couple of examples and the tip of the iceberg.

It won't be "chaos" as long as the government can stay out of it.


You can't even begin to make sense of this. The government has done nothing, I repeat NOTHING, that could negatively affect the supply and demand of crude. You haven't even tried to present examples, but instead just keep inserting this Right Wing article of faith (the market will fix itself without government) as if it should be taken for granted. I'm sure you've learned nothing from recent history that sheds light on that myth.
Post Reply