In light of record profits....

[tazinib1]

I havn't gone through this entire thread so I'm not sure if this was brought up or not. But according to my local TV news station, gas companies are not installing a simple device at gas pumps that would control the temperature in the tanks. Hotter temperatures lead to the expanding of the gas, so I'm led to believe, which results in less bang for the buck. I have been filling up in the mornings when the ground temperature is colder and personally, I can tell the difference in the amount of fuel I get for my dollar. The reason the gas companies will not install this device, resulting in massive savings for the consumer? $1000 per station for the temperature regulator. You've got to be freaken kidding me. Gas companies need some SERIOUS legislation thrown at there arses as far as I'm concerned. Of course this won't happen until guess who is out of office.

[Kid Cid]

I havn't gone through this entire thread so I'm not sure if this was brought up or not. But according to my local TV news station, gas companies are not installing a simple device at gas pumps that would control the temperature in the tanks. Hotter temperatures lead to the expanding of the gas, so I'm led to believe, which results in less bang for the buck. I have been filling up in the mornings when the ground temperature is colder and personally, I can tell the difference in the amount of fuel I get for my dollar. The reason the gas companies will not install this device, resulting in massive savings for the consumer? $1000 per station for the temperature regulator. You've got to be freaken kidding me. Gas companies need some SERIOUS legislation thrown at there arses as far as I'm concerned. Of course this won't happen until guess who is out of office.

People think the gas companies own the stations. That may have been true in the past, but it isn't now. They are independently owned and operated. So the onus to put in these devices is on the staion owner, not on the gas company. $1000 IS a big deal to them.

[TimC]

I can't wait to get all the poor people off the road and really open her up.

[Kid Cid]

So a few lucky people may have invested enough in Exxon to offset the increased costs of gas heating and electricity? That's how Exxon's $40,000,000,000.00 in profits in 2007 benefited America?

 

That doesn't change my opinion at all.

I'm not necessarily trying to change your mind about anything Club. You seem pretty set in your ways about this. I'm just putting out some facts, you can take them for what you will.

 

The first point is that it's not about some lucky people, it's about anyone that has a 401k, an IRA, a retirement plan run by their workplace or money in a savings account. All of these are invested in mutual funds to a lesser or greater degree of which the majority of these funds invest in oil companies. So you'll find that a large portion of Americans do in fact own stock in oil companies. Unfortunately, since so many people don't actually research the fund they are investing in, they are blissfully unaware of the fact that they own this stock. Odds are that you own some oil company stock through one of these funds yourself.

 

The second point is that you're only looking at this topic through the lens of an individual family's budget. That's quite a different perception point than looking at the pure economics of the subject. From your perspective, there are three choices: 1) earn more money 2) spend less money 3) find a way to get companies to stop raising prices on you. You should be focusing your energies on options 1 and 2, not option 3. Option 3 benefits you, the individual consumer in the short run but hurts everyone in the long run by forcing the company out of business because they can't make enough to survive.

 

Your argument may be that you're only taking some of the cream off the top in the form of windfall profits tax, you're not taking all of their profits. In effect you are. Let's say that the current profit margin for an oil company is 5%. You impose this windfall tax on them leaving them with only 3% profits. What do you think an investor is going to do with a 3% return on their investment? They will move their money somewhere where they can get a better return. No money coming in the form of investments means that the company has to RAISE prices in order to meet sharehold demand or cut costs in the form of employees (in almost every sector labor accounts for over 50% of a company's operating cost and it is one of the first places to feel the cut of the budgetary knife). Now exactly who have you helped other than yourself with this tax?

[Cunning Runt]

People think the gas companies own the stations. That may have been true in the past, but it isn't now. They are independently owned and operated. So the onus to put in these devices is on the staion owner, not on the gas company. $1000 IS a big deal to them.

 

If a $1,000 investment is a that big deal to them, they're in the wrong business. It's not like it's $100,000. I would think that investment would repay itself many times over if they let their patrons know they had this available. Goodwill, actual savings, etc... would lead to much more repeat business and presumably greater sales on the convenience store side of things where they gouge their customers on prices and make their money.

[Perchoutofwater]

If a $1,000 investment is a that big deal to them, they're in the wrong business. It's not like it's $100,000. I would think that investment would repay itself many times over if they let their patrons know they had this available. Goodwill, actual savings, etc... would lead to much more repeat business and presumably greater sales on the convenience store side of things where they gouge their customers on prices and make their money.

 

Unless there is a law requiring this, why would a station owner decide to pay for this in lieu of $1,000 in additional cameras to monitor drive offs, or hopefully catch the guy that robbed him? That $1,000 could be spent on restroom cleaning supplies. Where is the incentive to do this?

[Cunning Runt]

Unless there is a law requiring this, why would a station owner decide to pay for this in lieu of $1,000 in additional cameras to monitor drive offs, or hopefully catch the guy that robbed him? That $1,000 could be spent on restroom cleaning supplies. Where is the incentive to do this?

 

Increased sales. Sounds like a great marketing tool. Pretty obvious to me.

[Perchoutofwater]

Increased sales. Sounds like a great marketing tool. Pretty obvious to me.

 

95% of people don't know about it, and when was the last time you saw a local gas station advertise?

[Cunning Runt]

95% of people don't know about it, and when was the last time you saw a local gas station advertise?

 

A placard at the station - a flyer given at the station. See it all the time.

[AtomicCEO]

95% of people don't know about it, and when was the last time you saw a local gas station advertise?

 

Do they not all have giant signs with their prices on them?

 

That's how I choose a gas station.

Edited June 27, 2008 by AtomicCEO

[TheShiznit]

Unless there is a law requiring this, why would a station owner decide to pay for this in lieu of $1,000 in additional cameras to monitor drive offs, or hopefully catch the guy that robbed him? That $1,000 could be spent on restroom cleaning supplies. Where is the incentive to do this?

 

You are right....why would anyone ever decide to do the right thing if the law doesn't compel them to...great attitude!

[Azazello1313]

Well, captain Wordy McWordpenis... you said it was a price people "want" to pay... not a price they are "willing" to pay.

 

And, in economics, a want is something desired.... distinct from a need/. So you are semantically incorrect in your argument.

 

Burn.

I believe this is the quote that Atomic was referring to. Though I'm guessing Az didn't mean to say "want".

 

maybe it would have clearer for slows like atomic if I said "a price you still want to pay". as in, do you still want to drive by yourself to work every day instead of taking public transit, biking, buying a moped, carpooling, or making other arrangements? do you still want to fly 2000 miles across the country to watch old men dance around in tights?

 

in the sense atomic means it, nobody "wants" to pay any price...after all, wouldn't they rather have it for free? if the question is, "what price do you want to pay for oil?" probably only al gore will answer 4+ bucks a gallon. if the question is, "I have gas for sale for 4 bucks a gallon and you won't find it cheaper, do you want to buy some?" well then obviously for most americans the answer is 'yes'.

[Ursa Majoris]

do you still want to fly 2000 miles across the country to watch old men dance around in tights?

Remind me, who exactly are these old men in tights?

[Clubfoothead]

I'm not necessarily trying to change your mind about anything Club. You seem pretty set in your ways about this. I'm just putting out some facts, you can take them for what you will.

 

The first point is that it's not about some lucky people, it's about anyone that has a 401k, an IRA, a retirement plan run by their workplace or money in a savings account. All of these are invested in mutual funds to a lesser or greater degree of which the majority of these funds invest in oil companies. So you'll find that a large portion of Americans do in fact own stock in oil companies. Unfortunately, since so many people don't actually research the fund they are investing in, they are blissfully unaware of the fact that they own this stock. Odds are that you own some oil company stock through one of these funds yourself.

 

The second point is that you're only looking at this topic through the lens of an individual family's budget. That's quite a different perception point than looking at the pure economics of the subject. From your perspective, there are three choices: 1) earn more money 2) spend less money 3) find a way to get companies to stop raising prices on you. You should be focusing your energies on options 1 and 2, not option 3. Option 3 benefits you, the individual consumer in the short run but hurts everyone in the long run by forcing the company out of business because they can't make enough to survive.

 

Your argument may be that you're only taking some of the cream off the top in the form of windfall profits tax, you're not taking all of their profits. In effect you are. Let's say that the current profit margin for an oil company is 5%. You impose this windfall tax on them leaving them with only 3% profits. What do you think an investor is going to do with a 3% return on their investment? They will move their money somewhere where they can get a better return. No money coming in the form of investments means that the company has to RAISE prices in order to meet sharehold demand or cut costs in the form of employees (in almost every sector labor accounts for over 50% of a company's operating cost and it is one of the first places to feel the cut of the budgetary knife). Now exactly who have you helped other than yourself with this tax?

 

You missed my point. The current price of oil is the least of our problems, although nobody has elected to debate my assertion that high gas prices stagnate the economy and nobody has argued that the alternative fuel replacements (including nuclear power) would not employ and spend like big oil in teh absence of big oil.

 

My argument in support of the downfall of big oil is as follows:

 

A. Drilling for it and using it is very bad for the planet (we don't even debate that anymore)

B. Our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil forces us to make bad foreign policy decisions (a military presence in the Gulf to ensure it gets here is one)

C. The prcie will do nothing but rise - oil is a finite resource yet more and more people want it see those who argue the price increases are due to increased demand in China and India

D. Continued investment in big oil makes A, B and C worse

 

So I don't advocate my mutual fund manager putting my 401k pennies into big oil.

 

On January 1, 2006 the president stated "Here we have a problem, America is addicted to oil". A few months ago John McCain explained that drilling in ANWR and the Gulf would take years to produce oil and that it would "only postpone or temporarily relieve America's addiction to oil'. Sure he flip-flopped his position last month in support of drilling but he never took back the characterization. Both characterize our need for oil as an addiction - that can't be good. Anything that doesn't get America moving away from fossil fuels is a step in the wrong direction, including Exxon averaging $39.5 billion in profit over the last two years.

 

There are currently around 20 million cars in China by most estimates I've read. The expect to have over 100 million cars by 2020. Most projections show China having as many cars on the road as in the United States by 2030. Mexico and India aren't getting smaller either but China owns almost between $1/2 and $1 trillion in US security bonds and a military to challenge us for an even more rare and more sough-after resource that our nation happens to be addicted to. That should prove intersting for my kids and grandkids.

 

My argument is that big oil is reaping record profits at the short and long-term expense of America and that as long as big oil generates record profit and continued investment inboth terms of money and resources, we are shirking our obligation to at least future generations of Americans (if not ourselves) to do something about a problem that is staring us directly in the face. Maybe all I can do as an individual is spend less amd drive less (which further stagnates a poor economy) but as a nation, we can get serious about our addiction and if that means making Exxon less attractive to investors and less likely to receive tax breaks while setting record profits, well then screw Exxon. They are crack dealers in suits.

[AtomicCEO]

Its polluting

We get it from people funding terrorism

It's inefficient

It's expensive and getting worse

 

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, what is it going to take to convince some people that alternatives are a good idea, and that maybe we should stop subsidizing oil and start subsidizing something else?

[Perchoutofwater]

Its polluting

We get it from people funding terrorism

It's inefficient

It's expensive and getting worse

 

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, what is it going to take to convince some people that alternatives are a good idea, and that maybe we should stop subsidizing oil and start subsidizing something else?

 

I don't think you will find anyone arguing against any of the items listed above with the exception of subsidizing, I would rather the government not subsidize anything.

[AtomicCEO]

I don't think you will find anyone arguing against any of the items listed above with the exception of subsidizing, I would rather the government not subsidize anything.

 

Aiming the country toward something more favorable to the whole population is what leadership is all about.

[H8tank]

I have been filling up in the mornings when the ground temperature is colder and personally, I can tell the difference in the amount of fuel I get for my dollar.

 

No you can't.

[Perchoutofwater]

Aiming the country toward something more favorable to the whole population is what leadership is all about.

 

Then use your own money and become a leader, stop using mine. You are for subsidizing what your pet projects. Rather than asking the government to subsidize my pet projects, I'll do it my self if I think it warrants it.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Perchoutofwater

[AtomicCEO]

Then use your own money and become a leader, stop using mine. You are for subsidizing what your pet projects. Rather than asking the government to subsidize my pet projects, I'll do it my self if I think it warrants it.

 

That would be smart except that we already subsidize oil.

 

And our national security is not a pet project.

[tazinib1]

No you can't.

 

lol..yes..I can

[H8tank]

How much is it in milliliters?

[tazinib1]

How much is it in milliliters?

 

What? seriously? lol...The last thing I wanna do is offend you, but if you seriously cannot physically see the difference on your odometer when you fill up at noon compared to morning, then I don't think you understand what the temperature regulator does.

 

And to answer you in short...milliliters? Who knows...All I know is I get around 10 more miles per $20 filling up in colder ground temperature than I do otherwise.

[H8tank]

I am greatly offended you damn dirty LIAR!

 

Q. Should I buy fuel in the mornings when temperatures are cooler?

 

A. No.

 

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/gastips.asp

[tazinib1]

I am greatly offended you damn dirty LIAR!

 

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/gastips.asp

 

roflmao...thanks man. Seriously that made my day. After getting my infusion check in the mail today, opening it up and seeing I got a whopping $80 (court fee's I assume) when I was expecting $600, you actually made me laugh harder than I have all day with that post. Awesome man...thank you.

 

BTW: I will single handedly spend every penny of this $80 to stimulate our economy. When we breach this recession, you can thank me. It all went to Russia btw..them and Florida.

 

And just so you know...your link is very informative. I buy my gas from an auction company..for those that read this and do not know, a NON brand name gasoline company..ya know..the ones that are cheaper than everybody else...well they are that way cause they bid on OVERFLOW from all the name brands..so you never really know what brand of gas goes into your tank from week to week...back to the point...I know when the tankers come in to fill .... and its usually around 10p.m .... so I like to let that liquid gold cool for at least 10 hours before I fuel up..usually around 5-6a.m. And yes I can tell the difference...and its NOT $30 a year.

Edited June 30, 2008 by tazinib1