Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But is higher oil prices only a problem in the US lately, or are we looking at a global problem? I suspect no matter how you want to evaluate the value of a barrel of oil, that ain't going to change it.
Depends upon how well each countries exchange rates have performed against the base oil trading currency that is the US dollar.
The 3rd link I provided you explains the Canada - US scenario quite nicely.
The simple answer is that it's a global problem, demand is high and the supply is non-renewable and increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain. There are other economic factors as well.
There can be short-term impacts and fluctuations, speculation, disruption, political fears and whatnot. However the 10 year trend is supply\demand driven and also impacted by the declining value of the US dollar.
Depends upon how well each countries exchange rates have performed against the base oil trading currency that is the US dollar.
The 3rd link I provided you explains the Canada - US scenario quite nicely.
The simple answer is that it's a global problem, demand is high and the supply is non-renewable and increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain. There are other economic factors as well.
There can be short-term impacts and fluctuations, speculation, disruption, political fears and whatnot. However the 10 year trend is supply\demand driven and also impacted by the declining value of the US dollar.
And yet how often do you see (or make) an argument that dares to look beyond the USA? Heck, we're discussing the genius of a person who thinks cheap oil can be legislated in the USA.
In the end the only solution is to start now to prodcue and place into the system crude at refineries at the lowest price. That includes raising the supply;then getting it to refineries and then to consumer at cheapest transport cost.There is no magic bullet but cost rise very day to do the same thing at cheaper price now and sooner it happens the lower the price overall for gasoline and other 13000 esential; products produced form crude.If one looks at the average per centage of profit from investment the oil companies are not that high on the list.If you beleive they are go full into investing in them and see.
Supply is not the problem. We have so much supply, American oil companies are selling our gas overseas.
So continuing, and even expanding, tax breaks to a chosen industry isn't "crony capitalism?"
no it is not. Why does our big inefficient government need to expand? Government needs to shrink. Revenue isnt the problem, spending is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
And yes, outside of nationalizing oil on the extraction and distribution end, there is no way for the government to control the price of gas. Dropping the corporate tax burden of oil companies will NOT equal a proportionate reduction in cost of vehicle fuel. The only thing that will is a drop in price of a barrel of oil.
Why does government need to control the price? When the price of a barrel of oil was lower 2 years ago the gallon price was lower.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 03-28-2012 at 05:53 PM..
First off you're conflating gasoline tax with corporate profits. But let's go with that... Suppose we took that $.18 in federal gas taxes and handed it over to the oil companies, are they suddenly going to build and maintain our highways and bridges? Better hope they do because you just took away a major funding mechanism for our transportation infrastructure.
Funds are fungible. You can move revenue around. How about we stop funding the industrial war complex, bring the troops home and use that money? As a side note we can save lives. I realize to some that isn't as important as saving money. Not saying you are saying that.
We need mini diesel cars like Europe, our oil consumption habits are horrible for our trade deficit
"At the British International Motor Show, Ford has introduced the ECOnetic version of its Ford Fiesta. The engine is a 1.6-liter Duratorq TDCi (diesel) that has been tweaked for efficiency. Fuel economy for the ECOnetic Fiesta is 3.7 L/100km (63.6 mpg US) combined, or 3.2 L/100km (73.5 mpg US) on the highway! It's not exactly a race car, with 0 to 60 mph in 12 seconds, but those who will buy it won't care, the mileage will more than make up for it."
Why should we decrease their tax burden while they continue to waste tens of millions of dollars on over paid CEO's and lobbyists?
When they clean house and pay their CEO just a little more than they do the people drilling the wells and putting their lives on the line every day for them, then I will listen to them cry about taxes.
Essentially what they want is the disappearing middle class to take the brunt of their tax bill while they rip us off.
Agree about lobbyists. But treat the cause not the symptom. Look to Congress for whose fault it is.
Why do you want to tell private companies what to pay their employees? It pays to know how to work the system. Which goes back to what I said earlier in my post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
