Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

[HungLikeJesus]

Who do you blame for the recent increase in the price of oil and of gasoline?

As part of my job, I read a lot of articles on the cost of energy. Everyone is blaming someone, but no one is taking the blame.

Who do you think is responsible? I've listed all those that I've seen pointed at in recent weeks, though very few seem to be looking in the mirror.

Some of the categories overlap.

[classicman]

I also blame tw, but thats just me :P

[lumberjim]

A friend of mine was out on his boat last weekend. A friend of his who was further out on another boat called him and told him to come to where he was, there was something he had to see. When he got there, it was about 40-50 oil barges sitting waiting for the price of oil to go up. apparently, the price is set when they hit the dock, not when they leave the home port. how fucked up is that?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

apparently, the price is set when they hit the dock, not when they leave the home port. how fucked up is that?

That pricing is why free markets work so effectively. You would have us implement socialism, communism, or government subsidized prices?

Fictional example of speculation: Market parameters suggest that a severe oil shortage will exist this winter. But oil is currently plentiful. So we should keep oil prices down? Yes according to those foolishly blaming speculation (as promoted by extremist propaganda). Of course not if one believes in free markets.

With plentiful oil, only market prices can send proper messages throughout an economy. Even though oil is plentiful, speculators (working for the benefit of all) run prices up. The market now conserves all summer as instructed by market prices. Then vehicles and homes still have oil six months later.

Speculators are why prices send useful and constructive messages throughout an economy. Speculators are also blamed because 'Karl Rove' types broadcast more Rush Limbaugh propaganda. It works on the naive. Blame someone else. Those who don't understand or appreciate free markets will blindly believe propaganda - blame the speculators.

Those who understand, appreciate, learn, and advocate a free market knew immediately that speculators are the 'good' market forces being blamed by ignorant and self-serving political types. Propagandists directed this 'blame the speculators' message to same people who believed Saddam had WMDs.

Blame the speculators. Then another major reason for higher oil prices - ie falling dollar - is not blamed. A most significant reason for a 60% depreciated dollar: George Jr's administration including tax cuts, "Mission Accomplished", massive government spending including corporate welfare, fiscal mismanagement, encouraging Enron style accounting, protecting 40% too high drug prices, inflation, cost of living increases created by 'stimulating the economy', and other problems that have not yet hit the headlines. Most of the world is not suffering such massive price increases found in America.

Better to tell the naive how to think: blame speculators so that other reasons (ie falling dollar, uncooperative allies who are tired of America blaming everyone else, administration efforts to keep mileage standard down and make passenger cars heavier, etc) does not get blamed. Government that can create bogeymen does not get blamed.

Often those barges are queued; not waiting for price increases. We have burned all the good stuff. Oil all over the world is being held because of sour or heavy type. For example, we must now burn Caspian Sea oil - some of the most sour. The world was built mostly for light sweet crude and assumptions that oil companies will continue to keep prices so low and oil supplies high by innovating. We burned up all the easy stuff as if it would always exist.

Saudi Arabia managed to find another 10 million barrels to add to their exports. IOW a zero increase because Saudi Arabia has no more oil to export. We kept asking the Saudis to increase production while making zero effort to use that oil more efficiently (see repeated posts about the 70 Hp/Liter engine as one example). Reality, as predicted by T Boone Pickens in the 1970s, is now taking revenge.

Who do we blame? People who were warning of this problem for generations? People who stifled innovation to maximize profits? Or the larger number (most of us) who denied all this was coming - even ignored the same history lessons from the 1970s.

[lookout123]

I blame the bean counters at GM. They should have listened to the electrical engineer who emailed his application in on a weekly basis.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I blame the bean counters at GM. They should have listened to the electrical engineer who emailed his application in on a weekly basis.

Back then (when the problem was being created), email did not exist.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by tw

(see repeated posts about the 70 Hp/Liter engine as one example).

Debunked. You have provided no support for this statement.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sycamore

You have provided no support for this statement.

Sycamore again posts irrelevant numbers because he did not grasp what was posted.

GM developed a 70 Hp/liter engine in the early 1970s. Honda, et al developed their 70 Hp/liter engines about 1992. 30 years later and 15 years after everyone else sells 70 Hp/liter engines, GM still does not sell 70 Hp/liter engines in all vehicles. Sycamore posts 1988 Honda numbers to prove that engine did not exist after 1992? That is proof? Sycamore - read numbers? 1992 is after 1988. Get in the game.

GM products, 13+ years after developing a the 70 HP/liter engine, had 10% LOWER performance, lower gas mileage, higher pollution, more interior noise, higher failure rates, higher production costs, etc. Sycamore also forgot to post the standard number for most 1988 GM products - only 52 Hp/liter - 17% less performance. No wonder GM would teeter on bankruptcy in 1991. Numbers before 1992 demonstrate GM products were worse even before 70 Hp/liter became the world standard. Sycamore – how do I make this any simpler?

I have probably confused Sycamore by claiming 1988 and 1992 are different years. Nine numbers and two paragraphs. Sycamore foolishly praised GM's 2008 J-car that is finally doing mid-1990 gas mileage numbers. GM's J-car was renamed after a long history of bad products. The Vega, Sunbird, Cavalier, and Cadillac Cimarron all were the same J-car platform. Cobalt is a J-car now renamed. Putting lipstick on a pig does not make a thoroughbred.

No wonder GM stock is now worth less today than in 1982. GM stifled technology for 30 years. GM opposed every higher mileage standards. It's still the J-car doing today what the world was doing 10 years ago. Sycamore again forgot to read (grasp) numbers before posting.

Of course, TheMercenary or UG would then call Sycamore a dumb fuck because he acted as one - buying and praising a GM product that is 10 years obsolete. But that is what they do - attack others.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Of course, TheMercenary or UG would then call Sycamore a dumb fuck because he acted as one - buying and praising a GM product that is 10 years obsolete.

Prove that claim tw. Where did I bash Sycamore?

Oh, and while you are at it, prove this one:

Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary lied about his service record.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by tw

Sycamore again posts irrelevant numbers because he did not grasp what was posted.

GM developed a 70 Hp/liter engine in the early 1970s. Honda, et al developed their 70 Hp/liter engines about 1992. 30 years later and 15 years after everyone else sells 70 Hp/liter engines, GM still does not sell 70 Hp/liter engines in all vehicles. Sycamore posts 1988 Honda numbers to prove that engine did not exist after 1992? That is proof? Sycamore - read numbers? 1992 is after 1988. Get in the game.

GM products, 13+ years after developing a the 70 HP/liter engine, had 10% LOWER performance, lower gas mileage, higher pollution, more interior noise, higher failure rates, higher production costs, etc. Sycamore also forgot to post the standard number for most 1988 GM products - only 52 Hp/liter - 17% less performance. No wonder GM would teeter on bankruptcy in 1991. Numbers before 1992 demonstrate GM products were worse even before 70 Hp/liter became the world standard. Sycamore – how do I make this any simpler?

I have probably confused Sycamore by claiming 1988 and 1992 are different years. Nine numbers and two paragraphs. Sycamore foolishly praised GM's 2008 J-car that is finally doing mid-1990 gas mileage numbers. GM's J-car was renamed after a long history of bad products. The Vega, Sunbird, Cavalier, and Cadillac Cimarron all were the same J-car platform. Cobalt is a J-car now renamed. Putting lipstick on a pig does not make a thoroughbred.

No wonder GM stock is now worth less today than in 1982. GM stifled technology for 30 years. GM opposed every higher mileage standards. It's still the J-car doing today what the world was doing 10 years ago. Sycamore again forgot to read (grasp) numbers before posting.

Of course, TheMercenary or UG would then call Sycamore a dumb fuck because he acted as one - buying and praising a GM product that is 10 years obsolete. But that is what they do - attack others.

Well, Tommy, you certainly wrote a lot of words...words that mean nothing, because--again--you have provided no support of your statements. Some of what you've posted might be indeed facts, but since only you and 20 other people probably know of it, it would help if you provided sources.

Now, let's get to the meat here. Remember this thread? Let review some of your cute statements:

40 MPG is standard mileasge for Cobalt sized cars even 15 years ago.

I used 1998 numbers from our friends at the EPA, but let's go with some 1993 models, okay?

Cavalier: 26/33
Civic: 35/41
Corolla: 23/31
323: 25/33

So...what standard are you talking about from 1993?

Did you do numbers on that Saturn Astra? It finally has what has been standard all over the world for almost 20 years - the 70 HP/liter engine.

To which I pulled the following information:

1988 Toyota Corolla with 4A-F engine: 59hp/L
1988 Honda Civic with 1500cc engine: 61hp/L
1988 Chevy Cavalier with 2.0L engine: 55hp/L

Almost 20 years? What does that mean? That generally means 19 or 18 to me...not 15 or 16. Who's having problems with numbers now?

But let's go with 1993 models, shall we? Nah, let's go with the first model year of a new generation after the glorious 70hp/L motor became the "world standard":

1996 Honda Civic DX (with the D16Y7 engine): 1.5L, 115hp, 66hp/L
1995 Chevy Cavalier (with the GM 122 engine): 2.2L, 110hp, 50hp/L
1998 Toyota Corolla (with the 1ZZ-FE engine): 1.8L, 120hp, 67hp/L

(All of these are from their respective Wikipedia entries...who the hell would try and doctor some shit like this?)

Close...that's not 70, though. Again, who's having problems with numbers now?

I'm in the game, Tommy. I'm at Citizens Bank Park, waiting for the first pitch at the Phillies game. Meanwhile, you're sitting over at a ball field somewhere in Montgomery County all alone, wondering where the action is.

You hear that whooshing sound, Tommy? Listen closely...

*whoooooooosh*

That's the sound of the last remaining pieces of your credibility slipping away.

[footfootfoot]

"How much will this cost?"
"How much have you got?"

[Pie]

I voted 'other'. It's all consumers, not just US. Humanity is seeing the tip of the iceberg w.r.t. our dependence on fossil fuels.

[SteveDallas]

I blame everybody who was in a position to do something about US dependence on oil in the late 1970s and didn't.

[Clodfobble]

I voted, but I have reservations about the negative connotations of the word "blame." Sure, it hurts in the short term, but the price of oil going up is inevitable and necessary. The price spiking is the only thing that's ever going to push alternative fuels beyond a curiosity.

[glatt]

I think (but don't actually know) that market speculators, the weak dollar, and increased demand from China caused the recent spike.

But I voted for consumers because we are a bunch of gluttons with oil, especially in the US, and our waste of oil is going to bite us back.