Parties Seeking to Blame Each Other’s Policies for Gas Prices

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Define properly.

[Jon Miller]

That takes into account their scarcity/cost to the environment/cost to society with roads/etc.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Just think strategically.

The US is a lot more dependent on gas/oil then european countries/etc. This is because our country is set up so as to require a larger expenditure of gas/oil. Our cities are very large, our public transportation systems are really ****ty. Why is this the case? Because we had cheap (somewhat artificially) gas and oil for the last 50+ years.

This makes us a lot more dependent on gas and oil, we have to worry about politics in far away parts of the world because of what they can do to the gas prices, and so on. Additionally, our cities will be in trouble and we will have huge expenses if there isn't a straight replacement for gas and people end up having to travel less... already (with the current gas prices, and they should just go up do to scarcity) many areas where people live have stopped being economical due to being too far away from where the jobs are.

This is all because of relatively low taxes on gas and oil.

Subsidizing gas and oil more to keep prices down will just mean that the hurt will be even more later.

JM

[dannubis]

1. We should be drilling more domestic oil, but not because prices are too high.
2. Speculation is not the root cause of high oil prices.
3. Stop bombing Libya if you want oil prices to go down.

I wonder how junior is going to reconcile points 2 and 3 here.

Regarding point 1: why else would you want to drill for more oil ?

[giblets]

Regarding point 1: why else would you want to drill for more oil ?

Maybe his daddy owns stock in ExxonMobil.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That takes into account their scarcity/cost to the environment/cost to society with roads/etc.

You mean artificially imposing penalties to account for unquantifiable and unverifiable costs. A quandry of how many angels on the head of a pin to detemine how fair those penalties are. For I may argue that the $0.50/gallon taxes paid on fuel more than make up for externalities, you may hold to the position that to 'properly' account for all perceived externalities taxes should be on the order of $2.00/gallon whether paid by the company or the consumer. In the end the consumer always pays.

Just think strategically.

The US is a lot more dependent on gas/oil then european countries/etc.

Debateable but leave the comment pass.

This is because our country is set up so as to require a larger expenditure of gas/oil. Our cities are very large, our public transportation systems are really ****ty. Why is this the case? Because we had cheap (somewhat artificially) gas and oil for the last 50+ years.

Disagree. Your central premise is that the US cities are large and innefficient. US has but 9 cities topping out over 1 million (circa 2007). Europe has 36. Its no wonder with that kind of population density that transportation systems evolved to account for it. Furthermore the reduction in mobility in European zones has economic and development impacts as well. Unless you are advocating a mass reintegration back to the cities the population densities do not warrant the mass transit systems. Its not the existence of more cost effective fuels that created the situation but moreover the scarcity of population to date i nthe US.

This makes us a lot more dependent on gas and oil, we have to worry about politics in far away parts of the world because of what they can do to the gas prices, and so on.

So in order to solve this, normal taxable deductions akin to every other indsutry (not special subsidies) should be stripped from the oil companies in order to ensure that less capital is invested into what overnight becomes more risky development efforts. Artificial scarcity. (I know ...I know the claims again are what really is left to find and recover... but the point remains why impede the supply even if limitted)

Additionally, our cities will be in trouble

Why would cities be in trouble save for cost associated with transport of goods and services, heating oil etc. Large population densities that require little mobility are least imapcted by high fuel costs?

and we will have huge expenses if there isn't a straight replacement for gas and people end up having to travel less... already (with the current gas prices, and they should just go up do to scarcity) many areas where people live have stopped being economical due to being too far away from where the jobs are.

The last sentence is an interesting one. Areas where people choose not to live because its uneconomical due to proximity to employment. Which is more likely a) a higher density of employers where fuel prices are lower and not impactful to cost of business or
b) a lower density of employers and hence less employment opportunites in high cost areas?

Subsidizing gas and oil more to keep prices down will just mean that the hurt will be even more later.

Much depends on the development of alternatives no doubt. So far its been a big meh.

[Jon Miller]

Why would cities be in trouble save for cost associated with transport of goods and services, heating oil etc. Large population densities that require little mobility are least imapcted by high fuel costs?

Did you not read what I said? Our cities are spread out. They cost a lot more for people to live in (and I count cities which you might not) when gas increases. European style cities where mass transit works well cost a lot less when gas prices go up.

The last sentence is an interesting one. Areas where people choose not to live because its uneconomical due to proximity to employment. Which is more likely a) a higher density of employers where fuel prices are lower and not impactful to cost of business or
b) a lower density of employers and hence less employment opportunites in high cost areas?

This is nonsense. The employers are often in the cities. The people often live way out in the suburbs and spend huge amounts to commute in. Or even to commute to a different city! In the US we have far more people who don't live in the cities for this very reason, the employers are all in the cities and the commute a long distance to them.

If gas prices were higher, more people would live in the cities because they wouldn't be able to afford living way out and commuting in.

I know many people who had to give up jobs/move because of this with the current gas prices (and wouldn't have had to when they were <2$).

Will reply to your other comments later.

JM

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I wonder how junior is going to reconcile points 2 and 3 here.

Regarding point 1: why else would you want to drill for more oil ?

At the risk of speaking for HC, I believe his point is that any amount of oil produced in the US provides some limitted buffer against strategic threats of or to foreign supplies. The amount to have a meaningful difference likely is not within the US's current oil reserves (even if one assumes them vastly understated as most in the industry think. ) Even game changers such as recovery of oil from novel sources such as oil shale etc. (and morevoer the likely funding for surface or subsurface retorting R&D efforts) are unlikely in the near future given the allergic reaction the administration has to oil.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This is nonsense. The employers are often in the cities. The people often live way out in the suburbs and spend huge amounts to commute in. Or even to commute to a different city!

Whats nonsense, the proposition that businesses don't exist where the costs are such that it is disadvantageous.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Did you not read what I said? Our cities are spread out. They cost a lot more for people to live in (and I count cities which you might not) when gas increases. European style cities where mass transit works well cost a lot less when gas prices go up.


JM

Not to nit pick but you never claimed the arguement of densely populated cities with vast swaths of unpopulated lands in between.

[dannubis]

At the risk of speaking for HC, I believe his point is that any amount of oil produced in the US provides some limitted buffer against strategic threats of or to foreign supplies. The amount to have a meaningful difference likely is not within the US's current oil reserves (even if one assumes them vastly understated as most in the industry think. ) Even game changers such as recovery of oil from novel sources such as oil shale etc. (and morevoer the likely funding for surface or subsurface retorting R&D efforts) are unlikely in the near future given the allergic reaction the administration has to oil.

This is of course assuming the companies that drill for domestic US oil are interested in bringing down the oil prices for the "good of the nation", which I was referring to in the first place.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

understood K.

[Hauldren Collider]

At the risk of speaking for HC, I believe his point is that any amount of oil produced in the US provides some limitted buffer against strategic threats of or to foreign supplies. The amount to have a meaningful difference likely is not within the US's current oil reserves (even if one assumes them vastly understated as most in the industry think. ) Even game changers such as recovery of oil from novel sources such as oil shale etc. (and morevoer the likely funding for surface or subsurface retorting R&D efforts) are unlikely in the near future given the allergic reaction the administration has to oil.

Partly, but also because domestic production means we don't have to import, so the money we spend on oil is spent in the US. Also, remember that the Canadians are never going to stop selling us oil over political reasons, so about 50% of our oil imports are secure. Add to that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and domestic production and I think we should be able to avoid catastrophe should OPEC decide to embargo us again.

[giblets]

Partly, but also because domestic production means we don't have to import, so the money we spend on oil is spent in the US. Also, remember that the Canadians are never going to stop selling us oil over political reasons, so about 50% of our oil imports are secure. Add to that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and domestic production and I think we should be able to avoid catastrophe should OPEC decide to embargo us again.

Canada doesn't provide anywhere near half of our oil imports. Now to be fair you forgot Mexico, so Canada + Mexico is something like a third of our imports IIRC.

[Hauldren Collider]

Huh, last I checked I thought it was something like 50% of US oil came from Canada? Guess I was wrong. Nevermind. Regardless, those plus SPR + domestic production could keep the farms running and the food trucks moving for a while so no one starves to death.