Overblown I
To quote Hastert, "Anyone who is trying to take advantage of this situation while American families are forced into making tough choices over whether to fill up their cars or severely cut back their budgets should be investigated and prosecuted,"
Ok, let's take a look at how bad this "tough chice" is and how "severe" the cuts must be. This is not at all scientific, but here goes. I don't remember hearing much griping about gas at $2 a gallon. If it's now $3, then that's $1 more per gallon in cost. Figure if your car has a 10 gallon tank, that's a whopping $10 more per fill-up, or less than a movie ticket. Ohhhh, the humanity. Yes, if you have a Ford Expedition with its 8 mpg city rating (which is actually less given EPA flaws) and 44 gallon tank its almost $50 dollars more per tank, and you're filling it up a lot, but that's the consumers choice. Sell the Excursion, take that money, buy a car with better mpg, make some money and save at the pump. Or not. I don't see why Congress has to protect the consumers abiliy to own whatever they want.
This is far from crisis. An electoral issue maybe, but not a real one.
Posts
3 comments:
You are dead solid perfect on this issue, UBlo. There is no crisis. When even "low income" Americans pay $50 a month for their cable TV and $25 a month for their internet hookups show me the crisis. Don't get me wrong, this is an inconvenience, but it is tough to convince people in our wealthy country that luxury items are not a birthright.
The politicians are sliding into the ugly realm of populism where reason evaporates and pandering reigns. Now there will be more show trials and pathetic blustering by the sluggards who think the run the country.
In an attempt to keep the discussion in a familiar vein of argumentation, let me question aloud as to why no one complains about the added cost that results from the many environmental restriction placed on gas. The inefficiencies that arise from the multiple flavors of oxygenated fuels that are forced upon the petrol consuming public add a significant helping of salt to our collective wound...do they not? Refining costs are almost 25% of your whole bill and these mandates are a large driver of that cost. Again, I say all of this is much temporary whining by spoiled Americans...but if we want to start pointing fingers why do they only point at Big Oil? Ignorance? Or is it something more?
Just for the record, thie above comment was posted before the Bush initiative to lower refining costs by easing environmental restrictions was announced. This is the kind of foresight that Hydrablog is known for. Be the first on your block to be in the know!
There are two short term solutions, we'll see one, not the other, and neither will ultimately matter.
First the one we will see, the environmental regulations. I'm not sure how much a complete zeroing out of regs would save at the pump so I can't really guage the affect. Two things to consider though. First, if, as we're now being told, our addiction is a matter of national security, then these blends are neccessary to one, lessen the overall addiction, and two to help create market efficiencies that help bring the costs down, leading to more usage etc. I don't agree, but I'm trying here. Second, these blends do help with particulate emmissions. On of the few environmental studies that everyone agrees with is particulates are bad for health. It gets a touch cloudy trying to determine who should pay for the negatives of high emission fuel, but there it is.
The other "solution" is taxation. Dropping taxes means cheaper fuel. Can't argue with that, but do you really think that state and federal governments are going to let this go?
In the end neither will matter. yes the greenies will be attacked, and some will feel better, but it won't really help. Remember this is a market issue. The market only cares about spot prices. Will people pay $x for gas? If the market will bear $3 gas (and I think it will), then even if you dropped environmental costs and taxes the price would migrate up as oil companies do what they're supposed to do, maximize profits. Plus neither issue deals with the cold reality that world-wide demand is on the rise, and supply is going down.
My hope is that we'll get enough pandering and window dressing to get politicians through election season. My fear is that someone will come up with some "remedy."
By the way, since we're having a mini love-fest on this issue, "Now there will be more show trials and pathetic blustering by the sluggards who think the run the country" was an inspired sentence.
Post a Comment