Got Gas?

[RedScare]

Always looking for the grey cloud in every silver lining aren't you?

So let me get this straight...from 1980 to 2006, fuel consumption per mile increased by an average of 3 miles per gallon (or 13.95%); meanwhile Americans transitioned to heavier vehicles that have greater utility to them. In other words, they paid a price for a good of higher quality.

And then, the real cost per mile increased by only a third of a cent per mile (or 2.6%)??? And that is consequential? Did you make a typo?

Meanwhile, Real GDP chained to 2000 dollars increased from $5.16 trillion per year in 1980 to $11.13 trillion per year in 2005 (or 215.70%). In other words, the cost per mile went up slightly, but as a percentage of average household income, each mile traveled had much less of an impact on the average household's budget; the average household today would have to drive nearly 83 times as many miles in order to endure the same level of fuel cost as a percentage of its income as in 1980.

Something isn't right here. My facts are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). Please check yours or explain the miscommunication.

Yes, I showed calculations that showed the cost of driving only went up a third of a dollar (not a cent)....from the worst gas crunch the country has ever experienced. I wasn't saying the economy was collapsing, merely that, for a majority of today's drivers, this is the most expensive time to drive. And this, at a time when the president claims technology will solve our oil problems.

As for GDP, I am curious why you assailed my calculations for not accounting for inflation, yet then threw out unadjusted GDP numbers yourself. You also fail to account for the larger 2006 population in throwing out this figure. Of course, we both know that household income is a better indicator of how well off a population is, not GDP.

In all reality, going back to 1980 is all but useless anyway. Many posters on this forum were not alive in 1980. I did not own a car in 1980. Households do not compare their finances to 25 years ago. They go off of relatively recent periods. In that vein, household income has actually DECLINED since 2000, while the price of gasoline has risen from $1.10 to $2.80 per gallon. This is why it feels like a punch in the gut, and also why there are comparisons to 1980. The rapid increase in gas prices wreaks havoc with budgets, causing financial pain.

In January, the price of gas was $2.10. It is now $2.80. A 33% increase in just a few months, where it was not budgeted, makes the average family cut back on savings (like Americans save!), going out to eat, movies, and, if it continues to rise, vacations and other big ticket items. Or, more likely, they put it on credit, compounding the problem.

None of this is meant to demand a government "solution" per se. It IS meant to rebut the rosy exclamations that the economy is great because GDP increased. The average American doesn't look at GDP to decide his financial health. He looks at his checkbook and credit card statement and paycheck. The president's poll numbers on the economy reflect this. The reason 60% give him low marks on the economy is because, financially, THEY feel bad. And, presidents and GM ignore these things at their peril.

My impression on the price of gas is that it is never going back to pre-2004 levels. I don't consider that a bad thing. At artificially low levels, people waste fuel. Once the price rises, most suddenly decide that driving a Tahoe alone to work is a luxury, not a necessity. That is good for the environment.

[editor]

Here's an interesting gas-related statistic I came across yesterday:

Average passenger-miles per gallon:

Automobiles 34.9

Personal trucks 30.8

Motorcycles 55.0

Transit Buses 30.3

Airlines 33.8

Intercity trains 25.9

Commuter trains 46.1

Now, this is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. But I really thought that by taking the train and bus to work every day I was doing more good for the environment than these numbers would allow. My last car averaged 37 MPG on the run to work, so I guess I don't get to be so sanctimonious anymore.

[RedScare]

Can't speak to the planes, trains, etc., but I know this for an absolute fact. Personal trucks do NOT average 30.8 mpg. There are 4 of them, all Toyotas, owned by members of my family, and not one of them gets within 10 mpg of that figure. GMs average less.

Autos are not at 34.9 mpg, either.

[jm1fd]

Can't speak to the planes, trains, etc., but I know this for an absolute fact. Personal trucks do NOT average 30.8 mpg. There are 4 of them, all Toyotas, owned by members of my family, and not one of them gets within 10 mpg of that figure.

Sounds to me as though you can't speak to any of it. It is a chart of PASSENGER MPG.

Example: 4 landscaping Mexicans (or, if you prefer, Hispanic Yard Maintenance Technicians) in a Chebrolet that gets 15 MPG is getting 60 Passenger MPG.

[TheNiche]

I must admit that I've been off my game lately, missing important particulars in regards to various statistics...not that I've been alone in that regard. So I've taken my time and gone through all the important macroeconomic indicators surrounding these issues for the last 25 years. Here is what I've got:

Firstly, some basic inflation-adjusted historical data chained to the value of the 2000 U.S. Dollar:

__________GDP___Personal Income (per capita)_____Population

________(billions)_________(dollars)

1980_____5,161.7_________16,940________________227,726,000

1985_____6,053.7_________19,476________________238,466,000

1990_____7,112.5_________21,281________________250,132,000

1995_____8,031.7_________22,153________________266,557,000

2000_____9,890.7_________25,472________________282,434,000

2005_____11,134.8________27,370________________295,000,000 (roughly)

25-yr:____115.72%________61.57%_______________29.54%

The sources are the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Note that even as the population increased by a substantial sum, the inflation-adjusted per capita level of personal income managed to increase at an even more substantial rate.

Lets now look at transportation data. The total number of miles driven in passenger cars for these various years are shown below:

___Passenger Vehicle-Miles______Passenger Vehicle-Miles Per Capita

_________(millions)_______________________(miles)

1980_____1,111,596_______________________4,881

1985_____1,246,798_______________________5,228

1990_____1,408,266_______________________5,630

1995_____2,422,696_______________________9,089

2000_____2,746,925_______________________9,726

2004_____2,962,513 (use 3 million in 2005)____10,169

25-yr:____166.51% increase________________108.34% increase

Now for the key issue--as per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov). The data displayed below are the average gasoline costs per mile travelled:

1980___$0.059

1985___$0.056

1990___$0.054

1995___$0.058

2000___$0.069

2004___$0.065 (assume $0.075 for 2005)

25yr change: 10.17%

Strange, isn't it? Granted, we don't have 2005 or 2006 data yet, and I'm sure that the cost has gone up...but you would've thought that the impact had been greater. Instead, improvements in engine performance seem to have substantially offset rising fuel prices.

So lets put it all together in inflation-adjusted dollars chained to the year 2000 and make the final comparisons:

In 1980, the average household of 2.76 persons earned $46,754 per year. They drove an average of 13,472 vehicle miles per year and paid $0.059 worth of gasoline per mile, totalling $795 per year, or 1.7% of their total income.

In 2005, based upon reasonable assumptions where data was not yet finalized, the average household of 2.58 persons earned $70,615 per year. They drove an average of 26,236 vehicle miles per year, totalling $1,968 per year, or 2.79% of their income. However, factoring out the increased cost of gasoline, the average household is still $22,688 (or 48.53%) wealthier in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

So yes, rising gas costs are putting a pinch on consumers. That said, its not exactly a crippling blow that'll put our nation in the poor house.

So, Red, to respond directly to your comments:

And this, at a time when the president claims technology will solve our oil problems.

Ultimately, technology WILL solve our problems...whether new technologies allow more inexpensive exploration and production of hydrocarbons or the exploitation of renewable resources, eventually technology will solve the problems, whatever they may be. You just have to step back and consider how far we've come in even the last few decades. New inventions will be built upon the old. Progress will be made...and we've reasonably got about 40 years to make it.

It may turn out that necessity is the mother of invention...we hit peak oil decades from now and suddenly it becomes profitable to engage in massive R&D into alternative energies. But I do have faith in humanity's ability to adapt. Even war, such a negative thing, has produced many of the technologies that make our very conversation possible. Negative can beget positive.

I am curious why you assailed my calculations for not accounting for inflation, yet then threw out unadjusted GDP numbers yourself.

I gave you real GDP, not nominal. Everything else you suggested has been included, above.

going back to 1980 is all but useless anyway

I'd disagree. Doing so provides a longer-term context for an economic analysis. Granted, its not perfect because we're measuring from one peak in oil prices to the next, rather than taking a broader, more adjusted view...but it'll work. Besides, I was just working from the limited amount of data that you'd cited before. If I hadn't have put it in that context, it would have been completely useless for the sake of comparison (although I'll admitt that in hindsight, it wasn't that useful anyway).

household income has actually DECLINED since 2000

Uh...no. I'd post a link to the BEA tables displaying Personal Income for each year from 2000 to 2005, but I'm getting an error message. The after-tax (a.k.a. Disposable) inflation-adjusted Personal Income rose from $7.19 trillion to $8.12 trillion from 2000 to 2005, an increase of 12.93%. On a per capita basis, it has risen from $25,472 to $27,370, or by 7.45%. Unless the average household size has declined by some precipitous amount over the course of only five years, average inflation-adjusted household income cannot have declined.

None of this is meant to demand a government "solution" per se. It IS meant to rebut the rosy exclamations that the economy is great because GDP increased. The average American doesn't look at GDP to decide his financial health. He looks at his checkbook and credit card statement and paycheck. The president's poll numbers on the economy reflect this. The reason 60% give him low marks on the economy is because, financially, THEY feel bad. And, presidents and GM ignore these things at their peril.

I actually agree with you on this point. People do feel bad...and poll numbers disproportionately tend to reflect very short-term concerns. A big part of this is that gas prices affect everyone in an economy, rather than just a margin of people that suddenly become unemployed. In a recession, there's usually still a majority of people that have their jobs, and they're usually not subject to really volatile consumer price conditions. But right now, everybody is made to be at least a little bit uncomfortable, despite low unemployment.

Pollsters generally don't ask questions like "is America's long-term vitality in question?"...and if they did, responses would still be biased heavily toward short-term influences. That's just one of the realities pertaining to surveys. I should know...I've designed and conducted them before.

The President probably doesn't need to worry too much...I don't forsee a revolution occurring anytime soon. GM does need to worry...for any number of reasons. I don't even know where to begin with them...

My impression on the price of gas is that it is never going back to pre-2004 levels. I don't consider that a bad thing. At artificially low levels, people waste fuel. Once the price rises, most suddenly decide that driving a Tahoe alone to work is a luxury, not a necessity. That is good for the environment.

Although I don't share your bottom-line opinions, regarding the environment or the long-term future of gas prices, I do thank you for not proposing a government solution. That would have forced me to write many paragraphs more...and I'm getting pretty tired of this thread to be quite honest.

[TheNiche]

The U.S. trade deficit increased 17% in 2005, and 9% in the fourth quarter alone (see Trade Picture, February 10, 2006). Rapidly rising oil prices and imports explained about two-thirds of the increase. But U.S. trade deficits increased with every major area of the world, including China (34%), OPEC (18%), Africa (15%), Europe (15%), Mexico and Canada (13% combined), Latin America (12%), and all Asian countries besides China (5%). Note that the largest increase was with China, from whom the United States does not import oil.

Don't worry about trade deficits. Seriously, think about the United States as a household with extremely good credit history that wishes to consume goods and services before it has yet to earn the money. It's like you or I buying a car, and there's always a lender willing to finance it at a very good rate because our credit is so good. So we get the benefit of driving the car without necessarily having to provide goods or services up front. It works out for us (obviously, or the citizenry wouldn't make the aggregate decisions that create these macroeconomic statistics), and it works out for our trading partners. Ultimately, in the very long term, the balance of payments will clear. It took me a few hours of studying to grasp that notion when I was taking my International Monetary Economics coursework a few years back...but in the long term, it's all good as long as we pay up and maintain our credit. All that being said, the model I just gave you is incredibly simplistic. Please don't attempt to disect it. Instead, go to this website; it provides a fairly balanced view of the issue.

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

managed to provide my guys with "adverse economic effects" such as SS, health insurance and pensions.

Well that's great...although I'm sure that you didn't provide SS so much as the government did. When private employers opt to pay benefits to their employees, their employees tend not to jump ship. Its just another form of compensation, albeit a form that has tax advantages. Furthermore, if you just did it out of kindness, that's fine too. I have no problem with generous people; I have a problem with people that have political agendas having to do with forcing me to be generous with my money.

I didn't do it to accummulate wealth on the backs of others.

Who said anything about accumulating wealth upon the backs of others? Among the best way to become wealthy is to craft government policies that help everyone else become wealthy. I could care less about being wealthier than everyone else, btw. With some people, its about status...with me, its about comfort. But part of it is also just the fun of wealth creation.

I think that you're taking the national wealth as a pie that has to be divided up, and me as simply wanting a bigger peice of it, regardless of social consequences. My solution is to bake a bigger pie.

I can't tell you how fullfilling it is to attend an employee's daughter's high school graduation and know I might have had a small role in it. That girl and others like her is what makes a strong economy-if only some of the more Republican hacks who have built up the largest budget deficit in history would just stand aside and let the grown-ups take the wheel-they may have a real chance

I agree with you...education provides for future economic growth. How that directly relates to Republicans and budget deficits is beyond me.

From a completely financial perspective, however, I'd argue that among economies with a great deal of sustainable vitality, a well-run government will almost always have some level of deficit that expands as long as the economy (its tax base) expands. Borrowing money isn't necessarily bad; it all depends on the terms of the deal and an ability to meet cash flow needs when the debt comes due, which if properly set up, should be on a day-to-day basis.

In regards to the social welfare programs, there are a couple of key points. One is ethical, the other is economic. My ethical perspective on social welfare programs is that for the government to tax my income without my personal consent and transfer it to people who have not worked for it is an act of theft. In my ideal little dream world, I'd not be forcibly taxed, but given the option of contributing to a charity that isn't run by a government bureaucracy. Not only would the theft be avoided, but every charitable dollar would be more effectively utilized to do the most good possible. The economic implications of transfer payments are to discourage the least educated of our labor force from working if welfare is too accessible, to breed in order to get larger payments, and to foster a 'culture of poverty'. For instance, if welfare was generous enough, I'd stop working and devote my life to nothing but leisure time. My ambitions can be bought out...and very easily too. The danger is that there are others out there like me that have a lower buyout threshold.

Transfer payments to the elderly are one thing that I'm very starkly against. Granted, those that have planned and budgeted with social security in mind need to be accomodated. But I'd rather give up my share of social security in the future in order to reclaim the money that I put into it at present. I could do things with that money...things that generate more money, taxable money. And then I can save and invest those monies so that I won't need social security. All it takes is responsibility and education about the financial system in order to minimize (or nearly eliminate) the risk of catastrophic losses. I really liked the Bush plan. I thought that he was being very accomodative to folks that have always planned for SS...and he even left in the option for younger folks to stick with the traditional SS route.

As for Medicare, apply the same principle as above. If the money runs out, then privately-operated hospitals have the choice of providing healthcare as a charity service or not. But the current system is so wasteful and frought with fraud...it also has the effect of crowding hospitals and keeping the price of healthcare very high. Just give me the money...I'll take my chances in exchange for a higher quality of life in my earlier years (and quite possibly on into old age, if managed correctly). In an ideal world, there'd at least be some kind of an opt-out provision.

Fundamentally, I haven't got anything against generosity; just compulsory generosity. Any more questions?

[RedScare]

So lets put it all together in inflation-adjusted dollars chained to the year 2000 and make the final comparisons:

In 1980, the average household of 2.76 persons earned $46,754 per year. They drove an average of 13,472 vehicle miles per year and paid $0.059 worth of gasoline per mile, totalling $795 per year, or 1.7% of their total income.

In 2005, based upon reasonable assumptions where data was not yet finalized, the average household of 2.58 persons earned $70,615 per year. They drove an average of 26,236 vehicle miles per year, totalling $1,968 per year, or 2.79% of their income. However, factoring out the increased cost of gasoline, the average household is still $22,688 (or 48.53%) wealthier in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

So yes, rising gas costs are putting a pinch on consumers. That said, its not exactly a crippling blow that'll put our nation in the poor house.

You've actually inadvertantly proven my point. Based on the price of gas and the number of miles driven, an average family's budget toward gasoline increased 59%. And given that gasoline is up more than 30% this year, it is even worse.

Your figure of $22,688 is both wrong and not germain to the gas bite on the budget. Everything else has gone up in price, as well, due to inflation. The $22K is eaten up by that. But, more importantly, my only point was that gas prices are taking a bigger chunk of our budget, and your numbers support that.

I DO agree that 3% of a person's budget will not break the bank. However, if none of the budget is being saved, a 1 to 1.5% increase in the budget for gas means a corresponding 1 to 1.5% decrease in discretionary spending, such as meals, movies or cable TV. So, this will affect the economy, by moving that spending over to the gas side, and ultimately, 60% of it overseas.

[TJones]

Just hit $3.15 for Super here in Katy. Hunker down !

[nmainguy]

Just hit $3.15 for Super here in Katy. Hunker down !

$4.50 in Brooklyn.

Purchased today, crude for June delivery is at $74 a barrel.

But hey, according to some on this board, things are going just swimingly!

[TJones]

$4.50 in Brooklyn.

Purchased today, crude for June delivery is at $74 a barrel.

But hey, according to some on this board, things are going just swimingly!

Everyone needs to run out and buy a new Nissan TODAY or at least before the end of the month. Nice roomy Sentra will get you 30 to 32 mpg, 25mpg in the city, and they use Regular not Super.

[RedScare]

The president of Iran says oil is way underpriced.

He did not explain why.

[TheNiche]

You've actually inadvertantly proven my point. Based on the price of gas and the number of miles driven, an average family's budget toward gasoline increased 59%. And given that gasoline is up more than 30% this year, it is even worse.

Your figure of $22,688 is both wrong and not germain to the gas bite on the budget. Everything else has gone up in price, as well, due to inflation. The $22K is eaten up by that. But, more importantly, my only point was that gas prices are taking a bigger chunk of our budget, and your numbers support that.

I DO agree that 3% of a person's budget will not break the bank. However, if none of the budget is being saved, a 1 to 1.5% increase in the budget for gas means a corresponding 1 to 1.5% decrease in discretionary spending, such as meals, movies or cable TV. So, this will affect the economy, by moving that spending over to the gas side, and ultimately, 60% of it overseas.

I thought that I made it perfectly clear: ALL MY DATA WAS CHAINED TO THE VALUE OF THE U.S. DOLLAR IN THE YEAR 2000. In other words, inflation is accounted for and all the data is comparable.

I figured that you'd twist the data and throw out the 59% figure. Its not incorrect, but it doesn't mean anything...its just a scary number, and that's all. The only thing that I was arguing with the data provided was that over the long run, the increases in real household income have completely offset (and then some) the price of gasoline. The short run sucks; I won't and can't dispute that. But you know what...we'll adapt. It's not the end of the world.

By the way. Read up on the notion of Balance of Trade if you get an opportunity. And even if it were necessarily a bad thing, a fair chunk of those lost discretionary dollars would go toward imported goods and services anyway, offsetting the 60% figure.

[RedScare]

What am I twisting? Way back in post #54, I stated that it has never been more expensive to drive a vehicle than today. YOU provided figures that prove that. The only twisting being done is you trying to twist my original point into something else. Saying that it doesn't hurt as much doesn't change the fact that it is more expensive than 1981.

And the Balance of Trade has nothing to do with the $54.00 I just paid to fill up my car.

[editor]

The president of Iran says oil is way underpriced.

He did not explain why.

Because like many Middle Eastern countries, including Dubai and Saudi Arabia, Iran is freaked out about running out of oil. Unlike Dubai and the Saudis, Iran has not made a successful transition to an open market economy and is not a welcome member of the world comunity, so it's having a hard time hoarding hard currency (dollars and euros, baby).

So, Iran is worried about running out of oil to sell to the Russians and the French, which would mean it's out of money, which means its already poor people get even poorer. And as my old boss used to say, "Civilization is only three meals deep." Even in Iran, the government will be overthrown if things get really bad.

The Iranian government doesn't want to be overthrown. So, what does it do? First, it uses what power it has with OPEC to keep oil prices high. Second, it throttles its domestic production so the oil lasts longer and prices are inflated. And third (and most interestingly) it starts an aggressive nuclear program in order to produce the electricity needed for its growing and modernizing population without having to burn off its only substantial source of income: oil. And if the nuclear program just happens to develop a weapon along the way, driving Washington nuts is just a bonus.

[RedScare]

I thought he was just torqueing Americans who are freaked over the price of gas/oil, but your take on the matter is interesting. It suggests that 'peak oil' may be a reality...in Iran, at least...and Iran may be being truthful when it says it needs nuclear power...even if the warheads are a bonus.

[westguy]

Iran may be developing nuclear power not to conserve oil or build weapons. I don't think anyone here knows that the air pollution over Tehran is really awful.

[nmainguy]

I figured that you'd twist the data and throw out the 59% figure. Its not incorrect, but it doesn't mean anything...its just a scary number, and that's all.

First you say he twisted the data and then you say it's not incorrect.

What do you mean? [talk about doing the twist].

If you think a 59% increase doesn't mean anything, I'd say you are clearly in the land of Pollyanna Republicans.

[TheNiche]

What am I twisting? Way back in post #54, I stated that it has never been more expensive to drive a vehicle than today. YOU provided figures that prove that. The only twisting being done is you trying to twist my original point into something else. Saying that it doesn't hurt as much doesn't change the fact that it is more expensive than 1981.

And the Balance of Trade has nothing to do with the $54.00 I just paid to fill up my car.

Fine, substitute the 'twist' for a 'spin'. Semantic arguments don't impress me. You know what I'm saying.

Quoting a single number, the cost of an item in a basket of goods, is for all intents and purposes irrelevent if utilized out of context. I put it in context for you and all others to see.

And actually, I provided data that proved that gasoline costs per vehicle-mile are higher today in inflation-adjusted terms than they have been since at least 1980. The cost of operating a car has gone up a whole lot more on a per-vehicle-mile basis than the cost of gasoline would account for, but most of the rising cost has more to do with maintenance, repairs, insurance, and deprecation than it does with gasoline.

Also, I addressed the Balance of Trade issue because you seemed to have brought it up. And I quote:

So, this will affect the economy, by moving that spending over to the gas side, and ultimately, 60% of it overseas.

First you say he twisted the data and then you say it's not incorrect.

What do you mean? [talk about doing the twist].

If you think a 59% increase doesn't mean anything, I'd say you are clearly in the land of Pollyanna Republicans.

Do I hear an echo? Come on nmainguy...at least come up with your own content.

[dbigtex56]

meanwhile Americans transitioned to heavier vehicles that have greater utility to them. In other words, they paid a price for a good of higher quality.

I'm puzzled about the greater utility. What needs to be hauled so many miles on a daily basis? Barrels of Cheez-Whiz from Sam's Club? Illegal immigrants?

I suspect they're hauling lots and lots of air. Good thing their vehicles are heavy enough to handle it.

[TheNiche]

Because like many Middle Eastern countries, including Dubai and Saudi Arabia, Iran is freaked out about running out of oil. Unlike Dubai and the Saudis, Iran has not made a successful transition to an open market economy and is not a welcome member of the world comunity, so it's having a hard time hoarding hard currency (dollars and euros, baby).

So, Iran is worried about running out of oil to sell to the Russians and the French, which would mean it's out of money, which means its already poor people get even poorer. And as my old boss used to say, "Civilization is only three meals deep." Even in Iran, the government will be overthrown if things get really bad.

The Iranian government doesn't want to be overthrown. So, what does it do? First, it uses what power it has with OPEC to keep oil prices high. Second, it throttles its domestic production so the oil lasts longer and prices are inflated. And third (and most interestingly) it starts an aggressive nuclear program in order to produce the electricity needed for its growing and modernizing population without having to burn off its only substantial source of income: oil. And if the nuclear program just happens to develop a weapon along the way, driving Washington nuts is just a bonus.

I like your analysis...although OPEC is temporarily paralyzed. Attempts at cartel-based monopolization aren't economically justified because any higher prices would cause demand to fall off. And once people gear up to be energy efficient, they'd likely remain that way for a long time, cannibalizing future demand once backwardization kicks in again.

I think that they're legitimately pursuing nuclear power, just as we should be doing, and using the big question mark that it raises as a way to spook energy traders. That's a heck of a lot more effective strategy to maximize their oil production profits than OPEC is right now.

I'm puzzled about the greater utility. What needs to be hauled so many miles on a daily basis? Barrels of Cheez-Whiz from Sam's Club? Illegal immigrants?

I suspect they're hauling lots and lots of air. Good thing there's vehicles heavy enough to handle it.

I suspect that you're right about most drivers of large vehicles hauling around lots of air...but the fact is that there's no accounting for taste. They paid a higher price for a big vehicle for one reason or another. I don't know why, and I don't really care...but people won't pay extra for something they don't want (if given a choice). They've got choices, and seem to have made them.

Just because I don't understand their motivation is no reason to chastize them, though. My ignorance is no excuse for being all uppity and smug about the issue.

[713 To 214]

Can we at least all agree that gas is too damn high, right now?. . .and it ain't even Summer yet.

[nmainguy]

Come on nmainguy...at least come up with your own content.

You did not address my post. Many people agree with what Red and I have posted. There's nothing original there. Infact, it's rather common knowledge. Your attempt to pull a Coulter and Malkin diversion is lame and intellectually dishonest. As you so many times bloviate: respond to the question. "What do you mean?"

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Because like many Middle Eastern countries, including Dubai and Saudi Arabia, Iran is freaked out about running out of oil. Unlike Dubai and the Saudis, Iran has not made a successful transition to an open market economy and is not a welcome member of the world comunity, so it's having a hard time hoarding hard currency (dollars and euros, baby).

So, Iran is worried about running out of oil to sell to the Russians and the French, which would mean it's out of money, which means its already poor people get even poorer. And as my old boss used to say, "Civilization is only three meals deep." Even in Iran, the government will be overthrown if things get really bad.

The Iranian government doesn't want to be overthrown. So, what does it do? First, it uses what power it has with OPEC to keep oil prices high. Second, it throttles its domestic production so the oil lasts longer and prices are inflated. And third (and most interestingly) it starts an aggressive nuclear program in order to produce the electricity needed for its growing and modernizing population without having to burn off its only substantial source of income: oil. And if the nuclear program just happens to develop a weapon along the way, driving Washington nuts is just a bonus.

Please tell me you really dont believe what you typed here...............

[nmainguy]

Please tell me you really dont believe what you typed here...............

Actually there is a grain of truth in what editor posted. I'm not quite so sure they are worried about Russia but France, Italy, Greece and many other EU nations are an important market for Iranian oil and NG to a lesser extent. Iran seems to be just another country attempting to stave off the obvious: depleted energy reserves.

[nmm]

Please look into the other thread as well:

"The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourge"

please leave your thoughts and opinions.

[RedScare]

And actually, I provided data that proved that gasoline costs per vehicle-mile are higher today in inflation-adjusted terms than they have been since at least 1980. The cost of operating a car has gone up a whole lot more on a per-vehicle-mile basis than the cost of gasoline would account for, but most of the rising cost has more to do with maintenance, repairs, insurance, and deprecation than it does with gasoline.

Well, I must concede. I cannot provide any stats that prove this statement wrong.

[TheNiche]

You did not address my post. Many people agree with what Red and I have posted. There's nothing original there. Infact, it's rather common knowledge. Your attempt to pull a Coulter and Malkin diversion is lame and intellectually dishonest. As you so many times bloviate: respond to the question. "What do you mean?"

I responded to Red's comment:

You've actually inadvertantly proven my point. Based on the price of gas and the number of miles driven, an average family's budget toward gasoline increased 59%. And given that gasoline is up more than 30% this year, it is even worse.

With:

Quoting a single number, the cost of an item in a basket of goods, is for all intents and purposes irrelevent if utilized out of context. I put it in context for you and all others to see.

How is yours any different that it merits its own repetitious response from the one I've already given:

If you think a 59% increase doesn't mean anything, I'd say you are clearly in the land of Pollyanna Republicans.

The only thing further worthy of saying about your posts is that they are utterly inflammatory. You call me names (as far as I'm concerned, being called either a Republican or Democrat is an outright insult, and I'm pretty sure that that's how you intended it). You mischaracterize me and compare me to people with whom I'm not even familiar (who is 'Malkin', btw?), presuming in essence that I'm just a sheep bleating the rhetoric of a herd even after I spent over an hour putting together those objective statistics and analyses. That was original work, not copied/pasted...yet you still seem to think it worthless and somehow dishonest? And then you expect for me to provide some sort of cogent response to your attacks. It isn't going to happen: there's nothing of substance to respond to.

I'll only ask this one last question of you. How am I intellectually dishonest? Please give me as much detail and as many examples as possible. I feel obliged to defend my character before I relegate myself to lurker status. HAIFing just isn't worth the time I put into it if I have to bother with this nonsense.

[nmainguy]

I didn't attack your character. I don't know you. I merely asked you to choose. You cannot have it both ways-your inability to address your contridiction may lead some to presume that you may indeed be intellectually dishonest.

I don't need an hour to post what I can read elswhere in a more authoritative, condensed and precise form.

This is a casual forum-not an 11th grade economics class.

But if you accuse someone of twisting data and in the next phrase say the data in not "incorrect", expect to be asked what you really mean.

If you think being called a Democrat or Republican is an insult, I suggest you develop a thicker skin because otherwise, you are clearly in the wrong forum.

[tcole]

Are you guys REALLY arguing about a "59% increase" over a 25 year period?

Amazing...

as far as I'm concerned, being called either a Republican or Democrat is an outright insult, and I'm pretty sure that that's how you intended it

Niche, you do need to be a little tougher.

You did not address my post. Many people agree with what Red and I have posted. There's nothing original there. Infact, it's rather common knowledge. Your attempt to pull a Coulter and Malkin diversion is lame and intellectually dishonest. As you so many times bloviate: respond to the question. "What do you mean?"

Dude, Niche has addressed every single aspect of every one of your posts. You need to read them more closely.

Because like many Middle Eastern countries, including Dubai and Saudi Arabia, Iran is freaked out about running out of oil. Unlike Dubai and the Saudis, Iran has not made a successful transition to an open market economy and is not a welcome member of the world comunity, so it's having a hard time hoarding hard currency (dollars and euros, baby).

So, Iran is worried about running out of oil to sell to the Russians and the French, which would mean it's out of money, which means its already poor people get even poorer. And as my old boss used to say, "Civilization is only three meals deep." Even in Iran, the government will be overthrown if things get really bad.

The Iranian government doesn't want to be overthrown. So, what does it do? First, it uses what power it has with OPEC to keep oil prices high. Second, it throttles its domestic production so the oil lasts longer and prices are inflated. And third (and most interestingly) it starts an aggressive nuclear program in order to produce the electricity needed for its growing and modernizing population without having to burn off its only substantial source of income: oil. And if the nuclear program just happens to develop a weapon along the way, driving Washington nuts is just a bonus.

editor, I thought your were smarter than this statement would indicate.

I thought he was just torqueing Americans who are freaked over the price of gas/oil, but your take on the matter is interesting. It suggests that 'peak oil' may be a reality...in Iran, at least...and Iran may be being truthful when it says it needs nuclear power...even if the warheads are a bonus.

Red, "warheads" are never the bonus for enriching uranium for fuel purposes. In fact, it is the other way around. Nuclear fuel is the beneficial residual from weapons grade enrichment.

Lastly, who was the genius that mentioned an "11th grade economics class"? I ask, because it appears to me that you might want ton invest in a more advanced text; although you have not necessarily indicated a mastery of mentioned subject level.

Is the price of gas today painful? You bet. And I say that as one who benefits greatly from said increase. Is it economically crippling? Not yet. Could it be? Sure, if it goes up a good bit more. Whose fault is it for the price increase? Brace yourself - the market of free choice. Not China, OPEC, George Bush, or some other conspiracy. And are we at/near peak oil/hydrocarbons? Aagain, brace yourself - we are ... if you accept 500+ years away as at or near. -source: Daniel Yergin, CERA.

I'm done. And feel like Dr. Seuss's proverbial worm...

[TheNiche]

I merely asked you to choose. You cannot have it both ways-your inability to address your contridiction

What contradiction?

This is a casual forum-not an 11th grade economics class

Seems like you're more interested in stating an opinion without disecting it. And if someone opposes you, then you lump them in with a group of people that you view as anti-intellectual, insult them, and consider the issue closed. I consider that in and of itself to be a very insulated way of critical thinking, possibly even hinging on 'anti-intellectual' in and of itself.

If you think being called a Democrat or Republican is an insult, I suggest you develop a thicker skin because otherwise, you are clearly in the wrong forum.

You'd do yourself a favor by abandoning this notion of categorization by party. By categorizing anyone that disagrees with you as a Republican, regardless of their full spectrum of political opinions, you are essentially making the same argument as President Bush: there is only 'black vs. white', 'good vs. evil', or 'with us vs. against us'. The world is more complicated than that, however. Am I right, Red?

tcole: Niche, you do need to be a little tougher.

Agreed. I'm just tired and frustrated, worn down to the point at which I nearly became jaded on the whole notion that public discussion makes democracies more efficient.