Gas prices and the economy

[Schu]

I just read an article about gas prices dropping being caused by a downturn in the economy, which maybe right, but folks, do
not believe the so called economists, or the press, that are saying, "Dropping gas prices are a sign of the economy possibly
failing again, or getting worse". That is bullshit and a lie, economists should know better, and need to go back to school, or
learn how to balance a bank book. If anything the economy could pick up due to the drop.

When gas prices fall considerably, more people will be taking longer trips, and spending that extra money on other things.
That in turn will boost the economy. Lower gas prices mean lower food costs along with other essentials, as well as lower
materials cost for housing or repairs. Again that extra money will be spent in other areas that will help boost the economy.

Now some of these so called economists are saying that the average worker in the United States, will have to take a pay-cut
due to the loss of revenue because of the lower prices. That is an out and out lie. I have not heard of anyone who has gotten a
raise in pay do to increasing fuel costs, in fact, many had to take a cut in pay due to the economy tanking. So why would the
American worker agree to a cut in pay due to lower gas prices?  Well, they wouldn't.

All of that extra money would give us larger savings accounts. That would help the banking system, which in turn would cause
an increase in interest rates, due to the fact that people could afford them. Higher interest rates are not a bad thing
people, higher interest rates are a sign of a strong economy. Out of control interest rates are a sign of bad management.

High gas prices have done more to damage the US economy than any other aspect of it, including the corrupt corporate
banking system. Yes they were a cause of our current economic situation, but not the sole cause. Big oil company's have been
showing record quarterly profits every year since 2006 (when gas was at, or below $2.00 a gallon, depending on state). Yet
wages have not increased to meet the cost of living brought on by higher fuel costs. We are told "too suck-it up and spend
less" so we can afford the gas, just to get to work. Our food costs have nearly tripled in just a few years, all because of higher
fuel costs. And these nitwits cant figure out why we aren't spending our money like we did just 5 years ago, or why the
economy isn't showing strong signs of recovery.

There are those who think that we just got spoiled by not having to pay huge fuel bills. Well, we also used to get "cost of
living" increases that matched the economy, I don't know of anyone who has gotten one in the last 4 or 5 years, in fact many
people have taken a cut in pay, while the cost of living is going up, all due to high fuel prices.

Some think that raising the wages of the American worker will help the economy. Sorry to say, it would only make things
worse, by increasing the cost of goods and services even more (a catch 22). Where lowering fuel prices (dramatically) would
lower the cost of goods and services in time. A farmer or rancher would spend less money on fuel to grow crops and ship
them to market. Our trucking/shipping industry would be spending less on fuel, so in turn shipping costs would drop. The
same gos for the Airline industry, lower fuel costs means lower competitive prices. In some parts of the country electricity
and heating would cost less, due to the reduced expense on fuel needed to turn turbines, or heating oil or natural gas for
furnaces.

See where I'm going folks? If you see or here one of these nitwit economists stating that falling oil/fuel prices may hurt our
economy, call them out on it. The only ones who would feel a pinch is the big oil company's and it won't hurt them one bit.
In fact, if they lowered the price per gallon (of gasoline/diesel) too about $2.00, they would be the hero's of the west, and
accredited for helping jump-start the economy. Unfortunately corporate greed trumps all. That and the middle east want us
bankrupt.

Man, when I get on a rant, look out.

[Tessera]

I disagree with you, Schu.

Prices are dropping because everyone has less and less money to spend.

Which would indeed be a strong sign that the economy is going straight into the shitter.

[Schu]

Oh I agree. We have less and less money, but that is because the cost of fuel is so ingrained into our economy.

Lower the cost of fuel, and the cost of everything else eventually drops, because it will cost less to grow, make or ship the goods that we use.

Just watch, if gasoline prices do drop to below 3.00 a gallon as predicted (and hopefully stay there), I'm willing to bet that the price of most things will drop too (in time), and the economy will recover faster, if fuel prices stay lower than they are currently. If fuel prices go back up because the economy starts picking back up, then we will be right back in the same boat we're in now.

In a bad economy, the cost of living should eventually begin to drop, because of the lack of money being put into the supply and demand system. If you have the supply, but no demand then prices drop. If you have low supply, but high demand prices go up. Now look around you, housing prices are down, prices on conveniences such as electronics/automobiles are down, yet our "cost of living" continues to go up like we are in a strong economy.

Here's a good example: We payed out more money in just bills last month, than many make in a month. That covers gas for the cars, food, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, phones and ADSL2 internet (yuk) , I canceled the cable, the T1 service and the MSN services due to costs. If we still owed money on the house or cars, we never would have made ends meet. Now to give you a hint, gas for the cars and food costs alone were well over 2k, all the others combined, were under 800. Just a year ago all of those bills including cable, 2 T1 lines and MSN for 4 of us had a cost of about 2500 a month. I cut costs through-out the house, and our bills continue to grow out of control. All because of fuel prices.

Yeah Tess, I confiscated all gas cards, cut them into tiny pieces in front of everybody, and closed the account. Then told the kids that they were responsible for their own gas bill.

[perez007usa]

I done that, but we are all still in the hole! As long as the country have these, these, (help me with the proper wording here, I'm calling them with every name the book.) Yea, I am seeing the gas go down, but get real, a penny every other day! They are doing this cause its an election year. So the higher ups are bending over backwards to please us( remember me at the polls cause I lowered the gas prices  and then some) Yea right.  All of the people in my neck of the woods said, if Mitt gets in, ( already a done deal by the GOP) you might as well kiss the pooch goodbye.

[Cylnar]

Speculation on oil futures by Wall Street gamblers adds, on average, 56 cents in price per each gallon of gas. This is Wall Street, as usual, creating nothing of value, but extracting more money from the economy (read: the pockets of everyone who drives) and sucking it up into the elite stratum of the 1 percent (or the .01 percent). Not to mention that we are giving billions of dollars per year in massive subsidy giveaways (corporate welfare) to these immensely profitable (and perhaps more to the point, immensely powerful) corporations, thus effectively raising those prices even more.

That said...

The costs you are NOT paying (at the pump, anyway) are the costs of the environmental degradation of petroleum extraction, refinement, shipment and combustion.

Many communities, mostly in the developing world, have been devastated by petrocorporate land grabs, leakage of crude into water and land, toxic fumes, and flagrant human rights abuses including destruction of property, assault, rape, torture, maiming and murder by employees and mercenaries working for these companies. Leaking crude pollutes drinking water and farmland and renders massive tracts of land uninhabitable, or nearly so, by higher life forms. And that's just on land.

At sea, unknown but significant quantities of crude spill every year, and are discounted by the petrocorps as a cost of doing business (that's in addition to the big spills you hear about). Yet the food chain is polluted and the carrying capacities of our oceans diminish a few fractions of a percent every year. Royal Dutch Shell has a fleet on its way to the Arctic Ocean right now with the intent of drilling in one of the most sensitive, difficult and biologically important ecosystems on the planet. When (not if) there is an oil spill in arctic conditions, the technology does not exist to clean it up. The last oil spill cleanup drill was in 2000, and was a dismal failure. Prince William Sound is still suffering the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill over 20 years later. And we all know how well the Gulf coast has weathered the Deepwater Horizon spill, in much more hospitable weather.

Refinement has its own costs. Even "light sweet" crude (the most common and easiest-to-extract-and-process form) has to be refined in a huge evaporation tower, which produces all manner of toxic hydrocarbons from the morass of dead dino sludge. These can leak into the air, or spill, though large-scale catastrophes in refining plants are fairly rare. If you're dealing with tar sands bitumen, or shale kerogen, you have a much more energy- and carbon-intensive process on your hands. Both of these fuel sources aren't quite petroleum, you see, and man has to complete the process by basically baking them until they become a useable form of crude. This takes a lot of energy to accomplish...and the end result is much dirtier, both in combustion byproducts and in carbon dioxide released, than regular crude. The only thing dirtier is "gasified" coal. And the processes devastate everything for miles around. Large swaths of boreal forest around the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada have been felled to clear land for refineries which will leave that land poisonous for centuries.

Then you have to transport it. You can do that by sea...with a risk of a big spill (and of course, the damn things are leaky anyway), by truck (which of course burns fossil fuels) or by pipeline. Pipelines leak like sieves at just about every major join, elevation change and dogleg, and have major leaks/spillages on a regular basis, dumping crude or refined products into rivers and onto the land.

And of course we're all familiar with the consequences of actually burning this shit. Greenhouse gases, global warming, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, melting icecaps, defrosting permafrost, feedback loops, and we're all well and truly fucked, in detail and without lube, within the next generation or two. So just maybe, anything that keeps us using less of this crap is a good thing. And that includes higher gas prices. The more expensive gas is, the less of it people use. They make fewer extraneous trips (though the cost of necessary trips hurts more and more) and tend to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

However, we do need to get rid of the damn Big Oil subsidies, and maybe stop Wall Street from speculating (and may as well wish for a dragon and a pot of gold while I'm at it) which should save something like a dollar per gallon. Then slap a 50-cent (or more) green-energy development tax on each gallon sold, to finance the development of alternative, sustainable energy sources. Though that still wouldn't be enough. I read somewhere (wish I could remember where) that, if we were to accurately calculate and quantify the total costs involved in fossil-fuel energy production (that I discussed above), the prices would have to approximately TRIPLE.

So yeah...

[Tessera]

Oh I agree. We have less and less money, but that is because the cost of fuel is so ingrained into our economy.

We have less money to spend because nobody has any work.

[Schu]

Oh I agree. We have less and less money, but that is because the cost of fuel is so ingrained into our economy.

We have less money to spend because nobody has any work.

That too, but I was thinking of those who are luckily still working...so I do apologize, but I also posted some information about the cost of living in a bad economy. Which may or may not be accurate, but is close.

Cylnar, I see what you are saying, and yes, as a country, we need to get off the oil addiction, but the big oil company's have been making sure that alternatives are being held back. Just look at the last time gas hit 4 bucks a gallon. Every one of the big 3 were working on E85, Bio Diesel, Hybrids, and Electric/battery powered cars...now look at them...we get nothing.

Ford dropped their E85 projects, and they had a full sized Crew-Cab 4X4 F-150 PU that got 30+ miles per gallon, using gasoline, 20+ miles per gallon E85. Yeah guys it existed. Before my dad passed on, he had one, and I used to drive it, it was a great Pick-Up with killer mileage and good power. It was a 5.4 liter (340 cid) V6. That was one big V6 and I liked it. Now they are doing nothing.

Chevrolet dropped their E85 projects (for the most part), you can only find one in the mid-west, and they get good gasoline mileage as well, from what I have heard. But nothing is available in the rest of the US.

Chrysler/Mopar never experimented with E85 too my knowledge, but they had built Bio-Diesel vehicles in the past, as well as having the information from Willy's, Kaiser and AMC. Willy's and Kaiser both built Bio-Diesel Jeep CJ's. Yeah man they ran on vegetable oil...literally. Plus, just a couple of years ago, Mopar was experimenting with an Electric Jeep JK, that would have had a small generator to back-up the battery system for long distances. This thing was real folks, and worked, I saw it at Easter Safari Weekend at Moab, Utah. Yes I am a Jeep fan people. But where the hell is it? I saw it back in 2009.

Now until we can get the big oil company's out of the picture...we are screwed...we are at their mercy...and we are fucked.
Big Oil have us all in the USA by the short hairs, and we are at their mercy until they die or we do. The worst part about all of this, is they are in control of our economy. If they wanted, they could 100% crash the US economy by increasing fuel prices to $6.00 a gallon, or more, and the only reason they don't...is because they wouldn't make any money.

The whole thing is, I'm in your court Cylnar. I'm all for alternatives, and I am an old school 4X4 off-roader, like my friends. We tread lightly and respect nature, and we all are for alternative fuel sources, but until we can get rid of the Big Oil, we are all screwed.

Old school, which has little to do with this discussion:
International Harvester before they closed down their PU and SUV lines made diesel engines that were bio-diesel compatible,  and it was a 6.5 liter monster that got great fuel economy in both the Scout and the Pick-Up. Man talk about power from hell.

Now for a heads-up. I have owned Jeeps (1948 to current) and early IH-Scouts (1961 to 72) that have gotten great fuel economy. I'm saying that my first Jeep got over 20 MPG average, and it was made in 1954. My first IH-Scout, with a slant 4, made in 1960 (it was called a 1961 model 80) got over 25 MPG average. My 1965 IH-Scout with a 304 V8 got about 22 MPG average.

So I have to ask. What in the hell is going on with the MPG? I have owned 4X4's and Muscle Cars that have gotten better MPG than today's mousy pieces of shit. I have owned cars and PU's with 427-RAT, 383, and 440 engines (yeah guys, big blocks) that got better fuel economy than today's cars. Today's cars run (MPG wise) like they are running 351-Cleveland's or 426-Hemi's (high power, gas guzzlers) without the power, and this is coming out of a V6 or a tiny V8. Give me a break, I owned a GMC Pick-UP with a 305 V6, that had more power than anything today, which includes today's V8's, and got similar MPG to today's cars and trucks.

[Zoli]

Cylnar, I agree with the global warming, but I have some serious(fact based) doubts regarding the men-made part. Hint: the Sun & carbon credits.

[Cylnar]

Hint: the Sun & carbon credits.

Please feel free to elaborate. My post was not meant to be an all-inclusive breakdown of every single issue regarding petroleum production, and more discussion in any thread is very welcome.

[Zoli]

Thank Cylnar; it is a technical explanation, but I will try to keep it as simple as possible.

One: The Sun
For simplicity, I will assume that the Sun is 100% responsible to keep the Earth at 300 ^oK(in reality is ~99% and ~290 ^oK). Why ^oK, and not ^oC or ^oF? Because the temperature in space is 0 ^oK, and without the Sun, the Earth temperature would be 0 ^oK. I will assume that the Earth temperature is linearly proportional with the energy emitted by the Sun(the reality is much more complicated, but I talk about small(<5%) changes, so the linear correlation is OK).
Historical data regarding the energy emitted by the Sun is available from the first half of the 20th century till the '90s with 5% precision(Earth surface measurements, satellite measurements begin in the '90s); this would translate in a 15 ^oK(=15 ^oC, 5% of 300 ^oK) uncertainty. In the same period the Earth average temperature increased with ~1 ^oC(=1 ^oK). To establish the Sun's role in the Earth average temperature over a period of time, you need to know the Sun emitted energy with ~ten times higher precision then the target temperature precision; as example, to get 1 ^oK precision, you need 1/(10*300)(=0.0333... %) precision in the energy readings; currently available data(not even the satellite)does not fulfill this requirement, is out of precision with one(satellite) or two(historical) orders of magnitude.

Two: Carbon credits
Choice a: Conspiracy theory
When the global warming become a mainstream term? With the "an inconvenient truth". And who's behind that movie?
Choice b: Opportunistic move
Given the hype over the "men-made global warming", the governments see an opportunity for new income: the carbon credits.

Bonus: Climate models
The current climate models used for simulation are so broken, then the current generation of AAA games looks bug-free in comparison.
One example: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

[Tessera]

Over 3,000 scientists around the world agree that global warming
is the result of man-made CO₂ in the atmosphere.

And they are absolutely right.

[Zoli]

Over 3,000 scientists around the world agree that global warming
is the result of man-made CO₂ in the atmosphere.

And they are absolutely right.

I disagree.
Watch: http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

[Tessera]

I've seen it.

And there isn't a single bit of hard science in that ridiculous pile of disinformation. Not one shred. Although I can understand why non-scientists might think that there was.

You need to be aware that the fossil fuel industry has been spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars upon a disinformation campaign regarding global warming.

The only "swindle" is the one that is the one being perpetrated by Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, the coal industry, Haliburton, et al.

This is an issue that many... if not most... people are misinformed about. And in a situation like this, when you are unsure as to where to place the blame, I think it is helpful to remember a little speech that Donald Sutherland gave in the movie "JFK." It went something like this...

Who stands to profit the most..? Who has the power to pull it off..? And who has the power to cover it up..?

The answer to all three questions is: the fossil fuel industry, that's who. It certainly isn't a bunch of scientists, who stand to gain little or nothing by deceiving us all about the true source of global warming. But the fossil fuel industry stands to gain ENORMOUSLY by keeping everyone deceived. They will even go so far as to disseminated deliberately deceptive viral videos, such as the one that you have linked to in your post.

This is not rocket science. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is a fact. And humans have been producing an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Now that countries like India and China are becoming increasingly industrial, the amount of CO₂ production has effectively doubled during the past 30 years.

Do humans produce dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..? Yes. Do greenhouse gases cause the temperature of a planet to steadily rise..? Yes... just look at the planet Venus, if you have any doubts. So if humans are producing billions of tons of CO₂ each year... and if CO₂ is a greenhouse gas... then ipso facto, humans are responsible for accelerated global warming on this planet.

Emotions are not a substitute for science.

[Cylnar]

Follow the money, Zoli.

Which lobby has BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars on the line, and the backing of most of the world's plutocrats? Hint: not the legitimate scientific community. Answer: climate change denial.

If global warming "doesn't exist" or is "an entirely natural process" or in the words of one Republican U.S. legislator, "Only God can change the climate!" then we can keep on doing as we have been: burning fossil fuels with nonchalance and impunity. And not incidentally guaranteeing a hefty profit stream for some of the most powerful and wealthy special interests on the planet: the petrochemical industry.

And of course these cynical fucks are very well aware of the true score...but they're addicted to the acquisition of ever-greater profits - greed is a drug worse than any other, because as you acquire more money and power, you can better insulate yourself from the consequences of your escalating need for an ever-increasing fix. So they use the well-oiled right-wing noise machine to convince the masses of sheeple that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. And the masses eat it up, because doing nothing is much easier than doing something.

And what we're talking about here, if we want to be serious, is a complete reworking of society, from the ground up, to immediately and drastically curtail, and eventually end, our dependence on fossil fuels. Things like redesigning cities so you no longer have to drive miles away from your residence in one direction to go to work, and miles in another direction to go shopping, but can do both within a walkable or bikeable distance. Band-Aids like cap-and-trade and carbon offsets only address the symptoms, without touching the root problem. Shit, we can't even get our corporate-controlled governments to apply the fucking Band-Aids!

Yes, some people do stand to make money from climate science and development of alternate energy sources. And some people will make money from these things in sleazy ways. It's human nature, after all; if there's money to be made, someone will make it. And if not them, then somebody else. But in the end, if we want to maintain anything remotely resembling a technological lifestyle, and sustain human (and other) life on this planet for longer than a few more generations, we need to get rid of anthropogenic global warming as quickly as possible. Or we can bury our heads in the sand and wait for our coastal cities to flood, a mass die-off of species to accomplish itself due to man-made (or at least man-accelerated) climate change that occurs much to quickly for evolution to occur, devastating the food chain in our oceans and on land, and then to fight one another over the last remaining resources (arable land, fresh water and of course, energy resources). It's your call...it's our call.

I for one am not holding my breath for a global epiphany. Maybe some few savage scraps of humanity will survive, in the rubble, having eaten all their neighbors. Maybe hundreds or thousands of years down the road, some semblance of society will rise again from the ashes. If they're lucky, there may still be some metal, not yet rusted and washed into the sea, left in the dead cities to salvage and make their tools, because we've done a pretty good job of stripping the Earth's surface of anything easy to extract. Ah well, enjoy your cars and computers while you can, I guess.

[Zoli]

@Tessera: Can you present me a numerical correlation(estimate) between the atmospheric CO₂ concentration and the global temperature? Because I can imagine that the current CO₂ concentration is responsible only for 0.1 ^oC in the average temperature; if the concentration will get double(at current rate is ~50years), it will be responsible for 0.4 ^oC(because I feel generous). My point is that presently nobody can prove beyond doubt that the CO₂ is responsible for the global warming. Regarding the planet Venus: it's the methane responsible for the situation not the CO₂.

@Tessera&Cylnar: I'm following the money with the carbon credits, and not only the governments are the profiteers from the credits, the entities involved in the trade can profit more then the governments over time.

And to clarify my stand a little bit further, I'm against fossil fuel industry and the mindless burning of the fossil fuels, but for different reason: pollution. As for my carbon footprint: I never owned or intend to own a car or any other fossil fuel burning engine. Of course this situation can change if I win a lottery
Anyway, the current climate science (IMO) will try to prove that the CO₂ emission is responsible for the global warming, even if something else is the root cause. And yes, I have big problems with the government sponsored research, which the climate science become; for some reason it reminds me Hitler's Übermensch program.

[Tessera]

@Tessera: Can you present me a numerical correlation(estimate) between the atmospheric CO₂ concentration and the global temperature?

Sorry, I don't have my mass spectrum analyzer handy right now.  

Why don't you watch "An Inconvenient Truth," if you want to see some actual data..?

Or, why don't you ask some climatologists to tell you about the significance of rising sea levels during the past 150 years..? And how the accelerated rate of that rise in sea level correlates to the rapid increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere..?

Regarding the planet Venus: it's the methane responsible for the situation not the CO₂.

That is entirely incorrect, Zoli. There is essentially no methane at all on Venus. Mainly because the temperature is 900 degrees Fahrenheit... much too hot for methane to exist without causing it to spontaneously combust. The atmosphere is primarily CO₂, which accounts for 97% of the atmosphere... with much smaller amounts of nitrogen, water vapor and sulfur dioxide.



It is the CO₂ which is entirely responsible for the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. That is a fact. As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said: "Venus is a warning."

Zoli... do you watch Fox News, by any chance..? I'm just curious. Because your comments match what they spiel on that channel almost word for word.

[Zoli]

@Tessera: Can you present me a numerical correlation(estimate) between the atmospheric CO₂ concentration and the global temperature?

Sorry, I don't have my mass spectrum analyzer handy right now.   

Why don't you watch "An Inconvenient Truth," if you want to see some actual data..?

Or, why don't you ask some climatologists to tell you about the significance of rising sea levels during the past 150 years..? And how the accelerated rate of that rise in sea level correlates to the rapid increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere..?

Well, if you manege to figure out the correlation between the atmospheric CO₂ concentration and the global temperature with a mass spectrometer, you can count on a Nobel prize.
An Inconvenient Truth is propaganda, not scientific analysis; I'd rather stick to scientific facts.
And how the accelerated rate of that rise in sea level correlates to the rapid increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere: I don't know - and so far I didn't see any relation proven on scientific base.

Regarding the planet Venus: it's the methane responsible for the situation not the CO₂.

That is entirely incorrect, Zoli. There is essentially no methane at all on Venus. Mainly because the temperature is 900 degrees Fahrenheit... much too hot for methane to exist without causing it to spontaneously combust. The atmosphere is primarily CO₂, which accounts for 97% of the atmosphere... with much smaller amounts of nitrogen, water vapor and sulfur dioxide.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/AtmosphereofVenus.svg/800px-AtmosphereofVenus.svg.png

It is the CO₂ which is entirely responsible for the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. That is a fact. As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said: "Venus is a warning."

My bad, I quoted from memory, and my memory isn't what it used to be . Fact: to combust methane, you need some oxygen, even on Venus...

Zoli... do you watch Fox News, by any chance..? I'm just curious. Because your comments match what they spiel on that channel almost word for word.

I don't watch any fox channel, not even for The Simpsons; but according to your detailed knowledge about fox news, looks like you watch them a lot ; is part of "Know Your Enemy" approach ?

[Tessera]

I'd rather stick to scientific facts.

I see.

So then, you are scientifically asserting that CO₂ is not a greenhouse gas..?

Or are you asserting that humans do not make a lot of CO₂..?

You must be saying one or the other, because otherwise you would be agreeing with me.