2007-2008 Crude Oil Cost

[TheNiche]

I was first made aware of the so-called "Enron Loophole" in the Levin-Coleman Senate Report from June 2006.

I'm not impressed by Levin. I've listened to him on C-SPAN on several occasions and am convinced that he lacks the basic understanding that firms won't do something if they can't make money.

The Enron Loophole Helps OPEC Serve Up a Hefty Helping of Oil-Price Baloney

I've already explained the function of speculation.

I'll grant that the markets are far from perfect, either in their natural state or in their regulated state. However, much has indeed changed in the post-Enron era. ...especially that way that prices are reported to financial markets.

Based on everything you know, do you think the current price of gasoline (or barrels of oil) are priced just right? Too high? Too low?

What I know is insufficient to arrive at a meaningful judgement at present.

[houstonmacbro]

I'm not impressed by Levin. I've listened to him on C-SPAN on several occasions and am convinced that he lacks the basic understanding that firms won't do something if they can't make money.

I've already explained the function of speculation.

I'll grant that the markets are far from perfect, either in their natural state or in their regulated state. However, much has indeed changed in the post-Enron era. ...especially that way that prices are reported to financial markets.

What I know is insufficient to arrive at a meaningful judgement at present.

The question said FEELINGS, based on what you know. Surely you have feelings.

[TheNiche]

The law makes no distinction as to the reputation of the source (in fact, reputation evidence itself is often inadmissible, due to ITS highly dubious nature!), therefore, neither do I. All you have done is repeat unsubstantiated hearsay as fact because you heard it twice. Dick Cheney has claimed a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein dozens of time, but the number of times he repeats it does not make it more truthful.

I could care less what the law or Dick Cheney says. Neither are necessarily logical. If you cannot argue outside of the context of a courtroom, it is your loss.

I am not misleading anyone. I am merely stating that your purported truth is in fact hearsay, and your attempt to buttress it with your opinion of the reputation of the person who said it makes it no more believable. If others choose to believe it in spite of that, they are free to do so. I do not believe it, mostly because it cannot be a crime if it was a joke. There is no intent.

I did not claim that you were misleading anyone, just that you could be...exactly as you claimed that I might be. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of such an accusation.

...and yes, it can be a crime if it is not interpreted as a joke but rather as an intent. That was the case, and he was made an example of.

[mrfootball]

I'm not impressed by Levin. I've listened to him on C-SPAN on several occasions and am convinced that he lacks the basic understanding that firms won't do something if they can't make money.

I've already explained the function of speculation.

I'll grant that the markets are far from perfect, either in their natural state or in their regulated state. However, much has indeed changed in the post-Enron era. ...especially that way that prices are reported to financial markets.

What I know is insufficient to arrive at a meaningful judgement at present.

"I've already explained the function of speculation"...Niche, honestly who do you think you are?

You do realize that many people here know what the function of speculation is.

Did you read the report? Did you read the articles? Apparently not. Had you read it, you would then understand that it is not simply the act of speculation that has inflated our energy prices, it's the carefully crafted loopholes and opportunities for exploitation that exist today that didn't exist prior to the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000 and the "Enron Loophole".

[Pumapayam]

I'll agree with most of what you said ... so here is a new question for this topic...

Based on everything you know, do you think the current price of gasoline (or barrels of oil) are priced just right? Too high? Too low?

Too high, energy company's magical increase in profit reveal that clearly!

[Pumapayam]

I think I would feel better about gasoline prices if it were directly related to something. It just seems like sometimes it's up and sometimes it's down. No rhyme or reason.

And that is true about 90% of the time (BS statistic I know, but close enough)

Like why did oil go up today $1.39?

Oil prices leaped toward $68 a barrel on Thursday on concerns over low fuel production from hobbling U.S. oil refineries and a flare up of violence in the Middle East.

Concerned!!!

I guess if we all "get concerned" that we will have cheap gas, maybe we will make the prices go down. Who ever the hell is concerned; shoot them please! Every time "they" are concerned, oil prices goes up. I am not concerned about violence. Let them fight, just keep it in the streets.

[TheNiche]

"I've already explained the function of speculation"...Niche, honestly who do you think you are?

You do realize that many people here know what the function of speculation is.

Did you read the report? Did you read the articles? Apparently not. Had you read it, you would then understand that it is not simply the act of speculation that has inflated our energy prices, it's the carefully crafted loopholes and opportunities for exploitation that exist today that didn't exist prior to the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000 and the "Enron Loophole".

Yes, I'm sure that people here know what the function of speculation is. I've already explained to you that I've already explained the function of speculation. Prior to that, some were (and remain) clearly unaware.

Exhibit A:

Concered!!!

I guess if we all "get concerned" that we will have cheap gas, maybe we will make the prices go down. Who ever the hell is concerned; shoot them please! Every time "they" are concerned, oil prices goes up. I am not concerned about violence. Let them fight, just keep it in the streets.

And yes, I read the articles you posted. Based upon the content, I opt to maintain the totality of my previous response.

[VicMan]

TheNiche, ask your UH Professor friends to publish their comments on the university domains. That way, you can use them as a source

[Pumapayam]

TheNiche, ask your UH Professor friends to publish their comments on the university domains. That way, you can use them as a source

TheNiche always has some thoughful answers, but I just wished some of them were not reality and that more control of oil was implemented away from stupid politics. That is all. OPEC should never throttle back production ever. Not while it is about $45 dollars a barrel.

[TheNiche]

TheNiche, ask your UH Professor friends to publish their comments on the university domains. That way, you can use them as a source

By Red's use of the hearsay concept, the professor couldn't be trusted either because he is only telling what he had read in an article several years ago. It may resolve further uncertainty, but hearsay is what it is in Red's screwy world...completely unadmissible!

[VicMan]

By Red's use of the hearsay concept, the professor couldn't be trusted either because he is only telling what he had read in an article several years ago. It may resolve further uncertainty, but hearsay is what it is in Red's screwy world...completely unadmissible!

Oh? Were they published on a website? A journal? A book?

Citing names (of people and works) and URL's will help win arguments. So, what are the works where they explain this?

[brerrabbit]

I always love to read discussions like these on forums. I worked as an energy trader for nearly 15 years before it took a downturn and then kicked around until I wound up back in the energy business working for a major producer in theri retail division so I got to see the retail fuel side of the business as well. I currently price and buy about $200 to $250 million worth of oil a month for a major energy players Chemical division. I spent a seven year hitch with Enron and have stories to burn about that place. I was not there for the fall but still lost a lot of money as a result (goodbye early retirement). There are so many false beliefs, inaccurate data, and just plain lies put out there every day that no one knows the truth.

I will tell you this, markets set prices period. It's not the big bad oil companies, its not the government unless like Venezuela where they heavily subsidize the market to achieve $.40 a gallon gas costs. Leaded and a heavy polluter by the way. The reason so many other countries are not as shocked by rising prices is because they have been paying $4 and $5 a gallon for their gas for years. Why? Taxes! We pay a little over $.19 a gallon federal any anywhere from $.15 to $.40 a gallon for state taxes while the rest of the world has paid upwards of $3 to $4 a gallon in taxes for years. Why? Their governments have been trying and succesfully I might say to wean their populations away from individual autos to mass transit for a long time and apparently in a lot of places it has worked. We have been spoiled for a long time and now as the supply stays relatively flat and newly industrialized countries like China, and India enter into the bidding for international oil the prices have risen for crude. Gas prices are up partially because of crude prices and mostly because of demand. Demand continues to grow while the supply of refined products does not. We have not built a new refinery in the US in well over 20 years. To costly, to many regulations and to many people crying, not in my backyard.

Boycottes, get real would you? Go buy a tank of gas, and then tell me whose gas you just bought. Exxon? Really? Even though Exxon doesn't have a refinery within 1,000 miles of where you bought your last tankful? No you just bought Citgo gas refined down the road that was taken to an Exxon terminal where Exxon's additives were added and then it was loaded into a non descript tank truck and delivered to the local Exxon station. Wow! I thought you were boycotting Citgo! Didn't see that one coming did you. Gas is Gas is Gas! Its made to Federal standards and then it is sold as a commodity period. Can you trace the cotton fibers in your jeans to know what state or country the cotton was grow in? Didn't think so. It's a commodity, look that word up. A homoginous product that is made to a standard and traded on a regulated exchange in what many economist call the last true open market left in the world, a commodity trading floor. Buyers and sellers freely transacting in an open call market place. Now if you are a responsible CEO and you can sell your product out of Africa to a market in China for $65 a unit because the free market dictates thats what they are willing to pay, would you as an American say on hell no! I'm taking it to the US Gulf Coast for $55 a barrel plus a bigger transport cost to help out my fellow citizens. No, because you would'nt be a CEO for long would you.

I know, I know, lets all hate big oil because they are making so much money, its not fair. Windfall profits, price regulation, price caps, lets nail them to the wall. Well as little as five to six years ago where were you when those same companies were loosing money or barely making any money? Were you calling for subsidies to keep them afloat? No you were not. Look at a period of ten to twenty years and see what the average return was for the major oil companies. Also don't include the last two years in your calculation. The returns are not that great. Oh by the way their market capitalization is enormous, billions and billions of dollars and they are returning in some years as little as 2 to 3 percent. At that rate why not just put it in a money market account with no risk and make 4 or 5 percent? As major oil is making money in large chunks today they are putting it back into exploration and development. The problem is people all the easy oil has been found. Elephant hunting for the big reserves is not cheap. We have to go deeper, farther offshore, and into countries and place we have never gone before and it costs a lot more to do it.

I hate paying more for gas as much as the next guy but the reality of the situation is it along with all other carbon based energy sources is a scarce commodity. While technology has made DVD players fall from $700 to $880 when the were first introduced to something like $29.95 at Wal Mart today the same cannot be said for carbon based energy. We find better ways to extract it but we have to look more and more places to find it. Oh and by the way what is about 90% of that $29.95 DVD player made out of? You guessed it carbon based energy products. We use oil, gas, gas liquids and petrolem based products to make, plastics, polyester, latex, rubber, nylon, and about a thousand other everyday products that we all take for granted. We use it to generate power for homes and businesses and to even fuel the processes needed to turn the energy itself into the afore mentioned products.

The relality is we pay more and will continue to pay more for oil and gas. There will be price fluctuations down but the overall trend is up. In the interum energy producers i.e. Big Oil will show big profits but a some point in the not so distant future they will run out of the cheaper produced product and be forced to find more expensive stuff. Once they sell through the inventory their costs will increase significantly and their profits will crash. When it does I just hope all the people bashing them today will have a little sympathy for them then.

[Pumapayam]

I will tell you this, markets set prices period. It's not the big bad oil companies, its not the government unless like Venezuela where they heavily subsidize the market to achieve $.40 a gallon gas costs. Leaded and a heavy polluter by the way.

Well that explains a lot, they skip up on refining costs.

The relality is we pay more and will continue to pay more for oil and gas. There will be price fluctuations down but the overall trend is up.

The trend up I can accept, but when the trend up is above and beyond the rate of inflation is something I can't tolerate.

[brerrabbit]

Well that explains a lot, they skip up on refining costs.

The trend up I can accept, but when the trend up is above and beyond the rate of inflation is something I can't tolerate.

Not really sure what you mean by this comment. It's cheap down there because the government owns the oil, the government owns the refinery and they choose to sell it for $.40 a gallon to their citizens. Its a subsidy because they are selling to their own people for far less than they could get selling it internationally. Chavez sees it as a way to placate the masses.

[Pumapayam]

Not really sure what you mean by this comment.

You referenced that the gas their is very leaded, unlike our refined gas which is cleaner and unleaded.

We have to spend more money to refine our gas than they would.

[RedScare]

I could care less what the law or Dick Cheney says. Neither are necessarily logical. If you cannot argue outside of the context of a courtroom, it is your loss.

Actually, the Hearsay rules are some of the most logical in the law. It takes into account that since the witness did not observe the event, the witness cannot put the event into context, and further, that the jury cannot observe and listen to the person who saw the event to judge their credibility. The fact that you cannot even name the trader, give the location where it happened, or any other information about the supposed crime, just adds to the unreliability of your claim. The fact is, YOU cannot even claim it to be true, since you did not see it. You merely ask us to trust your source and your memory.

I did not claim that you were misleading anyone, just that you could be...exactly as you claimed that I might be. My point was to illustrate the absurdity of such an accusation.

...and yes, it can be a crime if it is not interpreted as a joke but rather as an intent. That was the case, and he was made an example of.

I have offered no facts to this statement. I have merely pointed out why it is of dubious value. I might point out that a google search turned up nothing remotely close to your assertion, but the reality is that your own weak statements doom the validity of your claim. If you would just do what VicMan said, and provide a cite or a link, your claim might be a bit more believable. If I remember correctly, YOU are the one who demands sources and proof for everything you disagree with. I am merely using your debate tactics. The absurdity is your expectation that we believe a hearsay statement just because you demand it. I am not even claiming it to be untrue...merely that it is unbelievable in the form you presented it.

[TheNiche]

Oh? Were they published on a website? A journal? A book?

Citing names (of people and works) and URL's will help win arguments. So, what are the works where they explain this?

Newspaper I think, but I don't know which one.

[TheNiche]

Actually, the Hearsay rules are some of the most logical in the law. It takes into account that since the witness did not observe the event, the witness cannot put the event into context, and further, that the jury cannot observe and listen to the person who saw the event to judge their credibility.

I would agree that that works really well in a courtroom, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. But even when the burden of proof may not be met by a prosecutor, that would not necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the crime or that any individuals' suspicions should be abated. ...but I'll remind you again, HAIF is not a courtroom.

The fact that you cannot even name the trader, give the location where it happened, or any other information about the supposed crime, just adds to the unreliability of your claim. The fact is, YOU cannot even claim it to be true, since you did not see it. You merely ask us to trust your source and your memory.

Well excuse me for conveying to you something that was told me by a professor in an academic setting. God forbid people go to a university with the intention from learning from people with experiences...and then talking about it to the outside world!

Your bottom line is correct, though. I can indeed only, "merely ask [you] to trust your source and your memory." ...I personally have to trust sources and my own memory all the time. I couldn't function professionally without it. Such is the nature of being human.

I have offered no facts to this statement. I have merely pointed out why it is of dubious value. I might point out that a google search turned up nothing remotely close to your assertion, but the reality is that your own weak statements doom the validity of your claim. If you would just do what VicMan said, and provide a cite or a link, your claim might be a bit more believable. If I remember correctly, YOU are the one who demands sources and proof for everything you disagree with. I am merely using your debate tactics. The absurdity is your expectation that we believe a hearsay statement just because you demand it. I am not even claiming it to be untrue...merely that it is unbelievable in the form you presented it.

I do not demand that you believe anything. You can choose to believe it or not. My claims are not unbelievable, but they are not 100% credible either. If you want to trust my memory of a professor's statement, by all means do. If not, don't. ...but a better approach may be to take a mixed approach. Take it as an uncertain anecdote, one of dozens that people come across each day.

[RedScare]

Well, the sum total of your statements and arguments, combined with the absence of any identifying facts, PLUS the unbelievable nature of the claim to begin with, leads me to the "outside world" conclusion that this incident did not occur...at least under the circumstances that you describe. In fact, the scenario you describe would never even make it to trial.

What others choose to believe is their choice. But, if you demand sources and substantiation of others, expect to be called out on it yourself.

With that, I will now slither back under the rock from whence I came.

[TheNiche]

Well, the sum total of your statements and arguments, combined with the absence of any identifying facts, PLUS the unbelievable nature of the claim to begin with, leads me to the "outside world" conclusion that this incident did not occur...at least under the circumstances that you describe. In fact, the scenario you describe would never even make it to trial.

What others choose to believe is their choice. But, if you demand sources and substantiation of others, expect to be called out on it yourself.

Fine.

[VicMan]

Newspaper I think, but I don't know which one.

Well, now's a good time to drop your friend a line and ask where he published his comments

[TJones]

Boycottes, get real would you? Go buy a tank of gas, and then tell me whose gas you just bought. Exxon? Really? Even though Exxon doesn't have a refinery within 1,000 miles of where you bought your last tankful? No you just bought Citgo gas refined down the road that was taken to an Exxon terminal where Exxon's additives were added and then it was loaded into a non descript tank truck and delivered to the local Exxon station. Wow! I thought you were boycotting Citgo! Didn't see that one coming did you. Gas is Gas is Gas! Its made to Federal standards and then it is sold as a commodity period. Can you trace the cotton fibers in your jeans to know what state or country the cotton was grow in? Didn't think so. It's a commodity, look that word up. A homoginous product that is made to a standard and traded on a regulated exchange in what many economist call the last true open market left in the world, a commodity trading floor. Buyers and sellers freely transacting in an open call market place. Now if you are a responsible CEO and you can sell your product out of Africa to a market in China for $65 a unit because the free market dictates thats what they are willing to pay, would you as an American say on hell no! I'm taking it to the US Gulf Coast for $55 a barrel plus a bigger transport cost to help out my fellow citizens. No, because you would'nt be a CEO for long would you.

You apparently didn't read post #56, to answer your question, YEAH, we all saw it coming. That's not the point Mr. Rabbit, you make the actual Citgo STATIONS bleed, in order to reduce the price at their pumps, and others will possibly follow suit. I only pick Citgo, because it is Govt. run by a dictator. I can't guarentee it would work, but if Chavez wants to sell gas @ $0.40 a gallon down south, perhaps we can see how long he can tolerate it up here in the Northern part of the Americas, after all, like you said, as CEO, where does Chavez's maximum profit margin lie, here, or in China ? The whole thing comes down to WHAT is a reasonable profit ? How reasonable is $132 of gas out of $60 of oil because of easier and better ways of refining these days, the cost to refine has minimalized. Is 50% profit reasonable ? After you breakdown what all the costs and taxes are on that barrell of refined Black Gold, that is about what is left. If you are comfortable with paying that, then would you PLEASE let me sell you a car at a 50% profit. Looks like you're the one that needs to "get real", because you aren't putting it into perspective.

Also, the fact that Chavez sells gas to the people at $0.40 a gallon, wouldn't you agree that is a little bit of a "Let them eat cake !" mentality ? How long do you think that can last there?

[Pumapayam]

Also, the fact that Chavez sells gas to the people at $0.40 a gallon, wouldn't you agree that is a little bit of a "Let them eat cake !" mentality ? How long do you think that can last there?

As long as Chavez is in power, and being a 3rd world country, I don't think the demand for gasoline is as big since I am sure not every family owns a car.

Well, the sum total of your statements and arguments, combined with the absence of any identifying facts, PLUS the unbelievable nature of the claim to begin with, leads me to the "outside world" conclusion that this incident did not occur...at least under the circumstances that you describe. In fact, the scenario you describe would never even make it to trial.

What others choose to believe is their choice. But, if you demand sources and substantiation of others, expect to be called out on it yourself.

With that, I will now slither back under the rock from whence I came.

Despite him not having sources per say, I think his (or the professors) ideas are validating enough to warrant acceptance, just like my conspiracy theoriest. Even sourced material gets debunked.

[TJones]

As long as Chavez is in power, and being a 3rd world country, I don't think the demand for gasoline is as big since I am sure not every family owns a car.

That's the point Puma, the people will cry, "We have no food to feed ourselves and our babies." Chavez's reply, "But look, you have $0.40 gas, while the stupid Americans pay $3.00 for the same thing. You are much better off than the Americans." The people then say," El Presidente, we have no cars though, why not have $0.40 corn and beans like the Americans have?Cvez says, " Because we don't have a surplus of THOSE things. I mean, IIIIIIIiiiiiii, have them in my Presidential Palace of course, but not you people, there is a shortage for YOU. So, it costs more, and that is why Beans and Corn are $3.00 here

If you need a car, go see Pablo over there, his family has two cars, and they only need ONE really, why don't you folks go show him how to be a good socialist, and convince Pablo that he should share his car with you, then you can participate in the glory that is $0.40 gas."

[musicman]

As long as Chavez is in power, and being a 3rd world country, I don't think the demand for gasoline is as big since I am sure not every family owns a car.

and chavez is taking from those who do. i know a dr who lives here now because he feels that his family's life there was too threatened by the govt.

[TJones]

and chavez is taking from those who do. i know a dr who lives here now because he feels that his family's life there was too threatened by the govt.

i.e. Cuba, under Castro in the 60's then again in the 80's. I know a few Cubans who have told me a thing or two, but I don't want to start up any "hearsay".

[brerrabbit]

You apparently didn't read post #56, to answer your question, YEAH, we all saw it coming. That's not the point Mr. Rabbit, you make the actual Citgo STATIONS bleed, in order to reduce the price at their pumps, and others will possibly follow suit. I only pick Citgo, because it is Govt. run by a dictator. I can't guarentee it would work, but if Chavez wants to sell gas @ $0.40 a gallon down south, perhaps we can see how long he can tolerate it up here in the Northern part of the Americas, after all, like you said, as CEO, where does Chavez's maximum profit margin lie, here, or in China ? The whole thing comes down to WHAT is a reasonable profit ? How reasonable is $132 of gas out of $60 of oil because of easier and better ways of refining these days, the cost to refine has minimalized. Is 50% profit reasonable ? After you breakdown what all the costs and taxes are on that barrell of refined Black Gold, that is about what is left. If you are comfortable with paying that, then would you PLEASE let me sell you a car at a 50% profit. Looks like you're the one that needs to "get real", because you aren't putting it into perspective.

Also, the fact that Chavez sells gas to the people at $0.40 a gallon, wouldn't you agree that is a little bit of a "Let them eat cake !" mentality ? How long do you think that can last there?

Boycotte Citgo all you want, your not hurting Chavez in the least or Citgo for that matter. Your hurting either the small independent who owns one station, or a mid size company that owns a chain of stations, and they usually don't brand all their stations the same anyway. Ever see the Bucee's brand. They fly about six or seven different brands depending on where the station is. They have Texaco, Citgo, Phillips etc. Boycotte their Citgo but go down the road and buy from their Texaco. The point is the retail site makes very little profit from selling gas. The majority of their money comes from inside sales at a 30% plus profit margin. Take one major brand, say Shell, they have over 16,000 retail sites across the country and yet with recent divestments they only have refineries in Houston and Louisiana. Do you think every Shell in America gets their gas from those refineries? No, they buy from whatever refinery is closest, put in their additive and away they go. Also of those sites the company actually owns and operates about 400. Wholesalers, jobbers and independents own the rest. Boycotte Citgo, organize, put them out of business, Chavez still makes his money, Citgo refineries still sell all their gas and you just ran some hardworking fellow Americans out of business without having any effect what so ever on the retail price of gasoline.

As far as the price of gas goes the price is up and guess what? Demand continues to grow. The market will set the price. Sell me a car for a 50% profit margin, if I like the car or better yet a lot of consumers like the car and want the car and are willing to pay that price then yeah, its going to sell. If the market says no and the car doesn't sell then no I and nobody else will buy your product. Demand for gasoline is inelastic and people including other countries will pay what it costs. The market, ie the commodities market is setting the price. Look at what RBOB trades for on Nymex. Add delivery and taxes and thats roughly what consumers are paying at the pump. The market has spoken. I will conceed you are the market as well and if you choose to boycotte a brand that is your right, but as far as having an effect on price it really won't. That will not happen until demand worldwide drops and we start weaning ourselves off the use of carbon based fuels. Run the economics and critize profits all you want. Its not about that, its about what the market says and right now they say they are willing to pay the price and do.

As far as market manipulation goes, yes Enron as well as other companies manipulated the California Power market. One thing to keep in mind though is that the California regulators wrote the rules that allowed the manipulation. While what Enron and others did was certainly unethical and immoral believe it or not not everything they did in that market was illeagal. Quite a bit of it was done because some really terrible rules were written and enacted by the California Public Utilities Commision. If you want to get really mad a someone for manipulating prices try some of the large hedge funds that play in the commodities markets. The have billions of dollars to play with and are not against moving markets counter to fundimentals in the market place to extract profit. They have no skin in the game so to speak because they are not physical players, own no assets and have no responsibility other than to their investors to make money. Price of the underlying commodity they are trading be damned.

As far as Chavez and his let them eat cake attitude, I really can't say. All I know is that in Saudia Arabia they have prices nearly as cheap and have for many years. Additionally they pay no taxes because the Royal family is flush with cash from selling oil. I ask you how long will that mentality last? Its been going on for about 40 years at this point.

Sorry I had to add this as well after rereading TJones comment about making individual sites lower their prices. In many states in the US there are laws on the books concerning the sales price of gasoline. The refiners and distributors are responsible for posting "rack" prices which equate to wholesale prices that individual dealers pay for fuel. What many of these laws say are that dealers cannot sell at the pump for less than the rack price. This law was enacted to prevent larger dealers with multiple sites and the majors from undercutting the Mom and Pop shops long enough to run them out of business. I know for a fact Florida has this law because Wal Mart tested it several years ago by selling gas under the rack rate. They got hauled to court and lost the case. So as you boycotte the retail site remember that many are very limited on how far they can actually lower their price and again your not hurting the majors but rather the independents.

[TJones]

I know full well that I by myself cannot change the world, but me and 100 million others can get a pretty good jump on it. I will criticize the profits and give people the numbers, because if more and more see how UNREASONABLE those profits are, then more and more of them are likely to see the light. You won't get me to believe for a second that you would pay a 50% profit margin on a new car. First of all, there isn't even that much profit to begin with, and the norm is about 7% profit. Imagin having a 7% profit margin on gas, you and I both know you wouldn't hear a peep out of anyone, even a 10% margin can be swallowed. The problem is that we have swallowed 10% then 20%, then 30% and so on. We yelp a little bit about it, then just shrug our shoulders and go "oh well, what can you do?" We need to stop doing that. Using your Wal-Mart story, even if the price of the gas was reduced to the minimum rack price and was sustained for a few weeks, the other competitors would be forced to do the same, what you would most likely run into though is the American consumer not being able to control him or herself and going back to purchase the least expensive stuff from Citgo, thus breaking the chain, and the wheels would come off of the whole thing.

I'll go pound some more sand for awhile,and keep on NOT buying form those companies you mentioned, and you go trade some more oil and drive the market up for the rest us with the knowledge that we don't appreciate what you are doing for us brerabbit.

[RedScare]

I love reading this thread. I especially love reading the complaints from US citizens that Capitalism (i.e., maximizing prfits on a scarce commodity) is unfair, and blaming a Socialist for the problem. Even more amusing is knowing that in other threads, some of these same posters who complain about the price of gasoline in a capitalist system, brag about the size of the engine in their car, and the fact that their spouse MUST have an SUV to drive, apparently oblivious to the fact that if they and others would drive less, and drive more efficient vehicles, the price of gasoline would drop.

I've done my part. I use on average, about 30 gallons of gas a month. $3 gasoline doesn't bother me. If you really want to stick it to Senor Chavez, buy a Prius.

[TJones]

I love reading this thread. I especially love reading the complaints from US citizens that Capitalism (i.e., maximizing prfits on a scarce commodity) is unfair, and blaming a Socialist for the problem. Even more amusing is knowing that in other threads, some of these same posters who complain about the price of gasoline in a capitalist system, brag about the size of the engine in their car, and the fact that their spouse MUST have an SUV to drive, apparently oblivious to the fact that if they and others would drive less, and drive more efficient vehicles, the price of gasoline would drop.

I've done my part. I use on average, about 30 gallons of gas a month. $3 gasoline doesn't bother me. If you really want to stick it to Senor Chavez, buy a Prius.

I am not gonna buy a piece of junk and sacrifice safety just so I can save on gas Red. $3 a gallon, doesn't bother me either because I can afford it just like you, I am talking about a way to lower the price, if you truly want to lower the price.

Like you, I do my part, just in a different way and buy from other retailers that I see fit to buy from. I know what they pay for gas across the pond in Europe, and they are paying for it per litre, not gallon, so I think $3 is ok. I spend , on average, about $40 a week on gas now. I don't believe that OIL is as "scarce" as a Lib. might have you to believe, in fact Red, you already know, from your reading, that I don't believe it to be "scarce" AT ALL. I also don't mind the oil companies making a reasonable profit, but not off the fears and worries and myths perpetuated by the media and greenpeacers like yourself. FAIR MARKET VALUE, not exploded pricing from "speculation" based on fears. No one is putting the "blame" on Socialist El Presidente Chavez either, simply showing a way to hurt HIS economy. Let that piece of Feces go sell his wares elsewhere. He needs us a whole lot more than we need him.