Gas Prices

[lroche_nf]

That's a great deal, $1.25 a litre on the west coast.

 

 

That's $4.73 a US gal :eek:

 

1.225 in St. John's on the east coast. We're regulated and usually get some warning when it goes up. It expected to go up over 5 cents this week.

[AmericaWestCMH]

Per above; Just two weeks ago Exxon alone announced their first quarter profits of 9.2 billion.

 

Its gouging, I dont care how much it costs to produce, their profits are phenomenal and thats because of the prices we are paying. I remember when they were making a profit back when gas was down around $2 a gallon, pretty soon it will be twice that, their profit is at the consumers expense, something needs to be done about it.

 

They make large profits based on sheer volume. Their profit margins are not very high (8.5% for Exxon).

[beach410]

They make large profits based on sheer volume. Their profit margins are not very high (8.5% for Exxon).

 

 

Interesting, they were making a profit back when the prices were more reasonable as well. They rise the prices because they can, supply, demand, Libya, yada yada..comes down to they do it cause they get away with it.

 

I am not complaining, there are many out there that havent gotten raisies or who are unemployed, while the rising cost of getting to work is certainly impacting, its hurting the less fortunate the most.

 

There is nothing we can do about it, but sit back and watch and wait to see just how high they will go and for that dreaded fuel surcharge to be reinstated.

[hillbillycruisers]

I'm not really worried about paying a fuel surcharge..if they add it on, we'll all pay it. We wont like it, but unless you are one of the few...and fortunate ones who cruise several times a year ( poor me only gets to go once ), then its not THAT big a deal. I'm more concerned about gas prices at the pump and how THAT cuts into our budget. Believe me, if and when gas hits the same level it was a few years back..flirting with $4 a gallon ( I dont think it ever quite reached $4 here where I live in Missouri )...at that point we, and a whole lot of other people, will have to drastically cut back unnecessary spending. We start with not eating out as much...not going shopping unless we actually need something..more carpooling, etc....which...when you really think about it is the way we really ought to be doing things. I hope the fuel surcharge somehow gets left off, but if not, then we'll just spend a little less in port or the days before we cruise. Either way...we'll have a great cruise and will be ready to book another one for next year soon as our feet hit dry land!!:)

[Raven Days]

Gas here in San Antonio is $3.19 per gallon. I put in $30 last night and it didnt even fill up my tank...:( If and when the fuel supplement is reinstated and I want to cruise then I will pay it. Its part of the cost of cruising at that point.

 

Like someone else, I am more concerned with what I am paying NOW! I do happen to live in the 7th largest city in the US, however, it has one of the worst transit systems in the country. I live less then 15 minutes from where I work and it would take me over an hour to get there by bus. Which is better, I admit then when I worked in a different building. The bus only ran there every 2 hours, and that wasn't even close to our building. I called VIA the last time gas prices rose up so high and asked why they didn't have a better route system to that business park and I was told that it wasn't feasible. There are over 5K people who work in that business park so I am not sure what they considered feasible.

 

Now I just limit my trips. I will try to go once per week to the store or stop on my way home from work. I like, others will just have to limit my other spending. And as someone else pointed out. it is supply and demand. The greater the demand the less the supply and the higher the prices. I do however wish that each state could put a cap on what retailers could charge - like they do in a natural disaster - to keep those stations from price gouging.

[futaba951]

I've been spending about $800 a month for gas for the last 6 months or so. I guess it will be about $1000 a month now. My wifes car uses super unleaded and she never pays attention to how much gas costs, except for the one time when she made the comment about how fast it went from $0-$20 in about 15 seconds!

[cruisin53]

What do they do? Put it on your S&S? I guess I should plan for this.

 

If I remember right, it was added on as an extra charge that had to be paid before sail date.

[DEBnGAB]

It is $2.95 a gallon in Wyoming. We can't hoof it either, live too far from town and it is way too cold anyway. Fortunately we are lower than most other places. We are driving to CA in 2 weeks though, will have sticker shock I'm sure!

 

Yea, get ready...it was $3.75 last night.

[yst347]

I do however wish that each state could put a cap on what retailers could charge - like they do in a natural disaster - to keep those stations from price gouging.

 

This is the conventional wisdom but I'm of a different mind. When Hurricane Ike rolled through in the fall of 2008 Texas' anti-gouging laws kicked-in. Local news warned that merchants were forbidden to raise prices and citizens should report transgressors to the authorities, then the storm hit.

 

In the aftermath of the storm power was out in most of the city. For most of us ice was the only way to keep perishable food preserved. Naturally ice was covered by the anti-gouging laws and closely watched. The result was a shortage that began before the storm in the rush to prepare. After the storm ice could not be found anywhere except at relief stations organized by local governmental agencies or charities. Grocery and convenience stores ran out of ice before Ike hit and had none until power was restored, anywhere from a few days to weeks depending on location.

 

What do these anti-gouging laws do? The don't insure availability, they insure unavailability since price is removed from the transaction. If prices were allowed to rise after a disaster it would draw needed items into the disaster area immediately. And rather than standing in line for a rationed hand-out if available, people would have the option to buy what they needed at inflated prices and use their time cleaning up or helping others. Other than making ourselves feel better I don't see anything productive from these laws. If I am willing to pay inflated prices for things I need, why should laws prevent me from doing so? If some one is willing to bring needed items to a disaster area in the aftermath because it is profitable, why should the law tell them don't bother, we will fine you or lock you up?

[Kristi Williamson]

This is the conventional wisdom but I'm of a different mind. When Hurricane Ike rolled through in the fall of 2008 Texas' anti-gouging laws kicked-in. Local news warned that merchants were forbidden to raise prices and citizens should report transgressors to the authorities, then the storm hit.

 

In the aftermath of the storm power was out in most of the city. For most of us ice was the only way to keep perishable food preserved. Naturally ice was covered by the anti-gouging laws and closely watched. The result was a shortage that began before the storm in the rush to prepare. After the storm ice could not be found anywhere except at relief stations organized by local governmental agencies or charities. Grocery and convenience stores ran out of ice before Ike hit and had none until power was restored, anywhere from a few days to weeks depending on location.

 

What do these anti-gouging laws do? The don't insure availability, they insure unavailability since price is removed from the transaction. If prices were allowed to rise after a disaster it would draw needed items into the disaster area immediately. And rather than standing in line for a rationed hand-out if available, people would have the option to buy what they needed at inflated prices and use their time cleaning up or helping others. Other than making ourselves feel better I don't see anything productive from these laws. If I am willing to pay inflated prices for things I need, why should laws prevent me from doing so? If some one is willing to bring needed items to a disaster area in the aftermath because it is profitable, why should the law tell them don't bother, we will fine you or lock you up?

 

 

If citizens would not lack the courage of their convictions, people would be bringing that ice in for FREE and then encouraging people to buy their products AFTER the crisis had passed. Then, those same citizens who received that help should solely purchase from those that didn't look to profit from disasters. THEN, we could put these morons who gouge us out of business and at the same time make it clear that any who think to EVER take advantage of someone's trauma should think twice. But, no...as long as people can watch TV, shovel McD's down their throat and get their "truth" from the media, true citizenship doesn't really matter.

 

The biggest problem is that people have been indoctrinated to look to the government for hand-outs and help. The government doesn't make any money, merely taxes us for it. Our government was never designed to be what it's become. If we'd live what we preach, things would shape up quickly around the US. That will not happen as long as people forget that we didn't get where we are by standing around whining like a welfare mom with 5 babies by 4 different daddies. We became the greatest nation the entire world has ever seen by standing on our own two feet, working at whatever was needed to be done, and helping those who REALLY need it via charities and churches...not a handout from the government. Nothing but corruption follows allowing the government to determine who gets "help" and who doesn't. Apathy is not an attractive quality for any citizen.

 

Anyway, gas prices right now are gouging. Period. I've said it twice on this board and I'll say it again: We do NOT get our petroleum from the Middle East...or at least VERY little of it. Most people don't know that because as long as CNN or Fox says it...it must be so. This unrest has nothing to do with rising prices. Most of our gas comes from Canada and Latin America. If I'm not mistaken, our top 10 countries we purchase from have only one from the Middle East and it's Saudi Arabia.

[Kristi Williamson]

You would advocate the use of force to take away someone's property rights and establish a command economy? I didn't think that was what your country was designed to be either.

 

If people on here can afford to cruise they can afford to drive. If they think someone else makes too much money then enter their business and give them some competition. I was invested in an oil company that went broke in 1998. It happens. So when there's a chance to make good money they're gonna take it. As a shareholder I would demand they make hay while the sun shines. I only would have preferred the higher prices came from the demand of a stronger economy. But if someone has to make money off this instability it may as well be me.:)

 

Demanding that corporations in bed with the government be held accountable like any regular citizen or corporation isn't establishing a "command economy". Perhaps an economics 101 class is in order?

 

And as far as what my country was designed to be...perhaps you should grab a history book while you're picking up that economics book? This country was most certainly founded by regular people who were fed up with a tyrannical government who believed they had the right to tell people how to live their lives, while having those very citizens foot the bill.

 

America was founded because liberty was more valuable than safety, or comfort to a brave few. The thing that once made us great was that our citizens refused to be treated any other way than "for the people, by the people". I'd love to see that return...all this apathy and politically correct crap is like some drug we keep injecting ourselves with...even knowing it's killing us.

 

So yeah...I'd like to see the American citizens of old return. Democracy and fairness for ALL...special classes for NONE! Including the oil companies piling up in bed with a corrupt government. (that includes BOTH Dems and Repubs...they're all the same and anyone telling themselves otherwise is merely fooling themselves)

[yst347]

Demanding that corporations in bed with the government be held accountable like any regular citizen or corporation isn't establishing a "command economy". Perhaps an economics 101 class is in order?

 

And as far as what my country was designed to be...perhaps you should grab a history book while you're picking up that economics book? This country was most certainly founded by regular people who were fed up with a tyrannical government who believed they had the right to tell people how to live their lives, while having those very citizens foot the bill.

 

America was founded because liberty was more valuable than safety, or comfort to a brave few. The thing that once made us great was that our citizens refused to be treated any other way than "for the people, by the people". I'd love to see that return...all this apathy and politically correct crap is like some drug we keep injecting ourselves with...even knowing it's killing us.

 

So yeah...I'd like to see the American citizens of old return. Democracy and fairness for ALL...special classes for NONE! Including the oil companies piling up in bed with a corrupt government. (that includes BOTH Dems and Repubs...they're all the same and anyone telling themselves otherwise is merely fooling themselves)

 

How exactly do anti-gouging laws, which you advocate comport with my liberty to engage in commerce? Anti-gouging laws limit the price at which merchants can sell but they limit my freedom to buy at a price I am willing to pay.

 

You condemn paternal government and its consequences while advocating its machinations. :confused:

[Kristi Williamson]

How exactly do anti-gouging laws, which you advocate comport with my liberty to engage in commerce? Anti-gouging laws limit the price at which merchants can sell but they limit my freedom to buy at a price I am willing to pay.

 

You condemn paternal government and its consequences while advocating its machinations. :confused:

 

 

Then you didn't read anything I wrote. I'm not advocating ANY laws...including anti-gouging ones. I'm advocating for the American public to take a stand and bring large corporations who are controlling our economy to their knees and replace them with companies who are not interested in making 100 million dollar bonuses. I'm pretty sure the government, and the corporations and unions controlling it, could live on a little less than that?

 

I'd advocating that Americans quit looking for the easy way and stand up for the right way. The problem is that so many are now dependent on a corrupt government that the only way out is a tough road. And people like you who are willing to pay for convenience instead of what's right aren't helping matters. It's wrong that people are going broke simply trying their best to get to work. It's wrong that veterans can't get medical care, but someone who's not even a citizen can get it at their whim. There's tons wrong with our system and it will never be returned to the people without drastic measures....and that won't happen until convenience isn't valued above freedom. Period.

 

...and I'll drop it now as this kind of discussion always leads to animosity...that's not my intent...

[Ryancoke]

I think you are in desperate need of a cruise to help you relax a bit.

 

I believe 'anti gouging' laws contribute to shortages. But that's the economist coming out in me. I'd rather pay a high price for something than be told it's cheap but we don't have any. Do you feel better when you go to a gas station and the posted price is the same as last week but they're out? What pleasure do you derive from that?

 

And speculators even out prices by creating a demand when prices are low and having some for sale when prices are higher. I don't do that with commodities myself but appreciate those that do.

[yst347]

Ok.....you didn't advocate anti-gouging laws so I stand corrected.

 

I find your view of liberty quite odd however. You take issue with my liberty to pay an inflated price for things I need during a short term disruption as wrong because you believe it to be motivated by convenience. My argument was less one of convenience than ability to secure that which I need. But leaving that aside, if I was motivated by convenience what issue is it of an advocate of liberty?

 

If liberty must be pass a purity test (yours or mine or anyones) it isn't liberty at all in my opinion.

[yst347]

I believe 'anti gouging' laws contribute to shortages. But that's the economist coming out in me. I'd rather pay a high price for something than be told it's cheap but we don't have any. Do you feel better when you go to a gas station and the posted price is the same as last week but they're out? What pleasure do you derive from that?

 

And speculators even out prices by creating a demand when prices are low and having some for sale when prices are higher. I don't do that with commodities myself but appreciate those that do.

 

well said

[Kristi Williamson]

I think you are in desperate need of a cruise to help you relax a bit.

 

.

 

And I think this is one of those typical comments designed to be ad hominem, but cloaked in a way others will laugh at because it gets them off the hook from having to give a crap about anything but themselves. It's a tired line. Someone can be concerned, and politically involved, without needing to "relax". Caring about people, the economy and the direction our country is going doesn't mean I'm not relaxed, it means I care. Perhaps a little less relaxing would do many people a great deal of good? It quickly turns to apathy...

 

And I've only been to a gas station out of gas maybe twice...ever. There's no "shortage" of petroleum. Never has been, and we're quite a ways from there ever being one. What you mean is that when there's any kind of situation that appears as though the public will buy the line that there's a "shortage", big oil takes full advantage of that.

[Kristi Williamson]

Ok.....you didn't advocate anti-gouging laws so I stand corrected.

 

I find your view of liberty quite odd however. You take issue with my liberty to pay an inflated price for things I need during a short term disruption as wrong because you believe it to be motivated by convenience. My argument was less one of convenience than ability to secure that which I need. But leaving that aside, if I was motivated by convenience what issue is it of an advocate of liberty?

 

If liberty must be pass a purity test (yours or mine or anyones) it isn't liberty at all in my opinion.

 

Thanks for acknowledging that I wasn't advocating laws that hinder us. I'm not. And I do think liberty has a litmus test. It begins and ends with equality of said liberty. It does not begin with one having the means, nor the inclination, to purchase convenience. That would create a class system, and that's exactly where we're headed and what I'm most opposed to. It may not be affecting you or me right now, but we are next. Of that, you can be most sure. There will be no middle class if we continue on the road we're currently traveling. That includes us middle and upper middle class citizens. Reaction is the worst place to be...I prefer proaction. Hence, my previous post.

[yst347]

And I've only been to a gas station out of gas maybe twice...ever. There's no "shortage" of petroleum. Never has been, and we're quite a ways from there ever being one. What you mean is that when there's any kind of situation that appears as though the public will buy the line that there's a "shortage", big oil takes full advantage of that.

 

This is true however.....in the 1970's there were two periods where gasoline was unavailable at any price. Many myths have been spun about this period but the shortages were due to public policy restricting prices. I think we both would agree those policies were counterproductive.

[blakey]

enough said?

[yst347]

Thanks for acknowledging that I wasn't advocating laws that hinder us. I'm not. And I do think liberty has a litmus test. It begins and ends with equality of said liberty. It does not begin with one having the means, nor the inclination, to purchase convenience. That would create a class system, and that's exactly where we're headed and what I'm most opposed to. It may not be affecting you or me right now, but we are next. Of that, you can be most sure. There will be no middle class if we continue on the road we're currently traveling. That includes us middle and upper middle class citizens. Reaction is the worst place to be...I prefer proaction. Hence, my previous post.

 

Egalitarian Liberty! :cool:

[Kristi Williamson]

This is true however.....in the 1970's there were two periods where gasoline was unavailable at any price. Many myths have been spun about this period but the shortages were due to public policy restricting prices. I think we both would agree those policies were counterproductive.

 

Absolutely!

[Kristi Williamson]

Egalitarian Liberty! :cool:

 

 

...sigh...Not at all. At least not from me. I am a Libertarian to the bone. ;)

[Kristi Williamson]

enough said?

 

 

....and the crowd goes wild... Amen!!! :D:D:D

[futaba951]

Someday, someone will come to their senses and realize that higher prices may create short term profits, but at the end of the day, the economy is torn to shreds by it and EVERYONE suffers. But, what do I know? I make my living in foreclosures and times have literally never been better. High gas prices for me are more than offset by the work it generates. Keep it up.