$3.07 for Regular.

[Buzzatronic]

The taxes are hardly overblown and the fact that they're so low just means that they aren't affecting social behavior like they should (think cigarette taxes -> quitting).

This is where we disagree. In my opinion taxes should not be used as a deterrent for behavior the government doesn't agree with. One reason for this is I hate the nanny state idea but another is that the government also becomes complicit in behavior they claim is harmful solely for the tax revenue. Imagine if tomorrow every smoker in the country stopped and no one bought anymore cigarettes. Within days the government (local, state and federal) would be shitting themselves regarding the huge budget shortfall they were about to find themselves in. They'd then propose a tax to address the shortfall.

In my opinion, it's completely immoral (and hypocritical) for the government to profit from behavior it doesn't approve of. And if you think that 100% of the sin tax collected goes towards treating those "injured" by these sins, think again.

[quote]Exxon is now #1 on the Fortune 500, and last quarter for them was the most profitable in the history of American business.

Yet their profit margin per unit sold is smaller than other companies in the country. They are the most profitable due to the high demand of for their product even though they make less profit than other companies.

On top of that, they get billions in subsidies every year, with no strings attached apparently. Lowering taxes won't change this, and it probably won't lower prices either, it will just give the companies more freedom to raise prices.

Actually it will lower prices right away. The taxes are applied at the pump, not at the wholesale level meaning if the government cuts their profits in half, you'll instantly see a 15-30 cent per gallon drop in gas prices.

Besides, gas taxes pay for (logically) road construction and road maintenance. What expenditure do you propose we get rid of to cover that?

I'd say we start with with 10-1 rule when it comes to state workers working on the roads. You know the rule, you've all seen it in action where one guy is working and 10 guys are watching.

The government (in all its forms) is notorious for completely inefficient use of resources and labor. Instead of addressing this, the government instead takes more from us to pay for their inability to properly manage labor and resources.

[Diff-chan]

Actually it will lower prices right away. The taxes are applied at the pump, not at the wholesale level meaning if the government cuts their profits in half, you'll instantly see a 15-30 cent per gallon drop in gas prices.

Which will mean what, everyone will start driving more, which means demand will go up, which means prices will go up again. There's only X amount of oil. At this point it doesn't matter what the price is, that fact is not going away.

THE ERA OF CHEAP OIL IS OVER. If the companies are gouging us, and they definitely are, they will keep doing it because the Middle East is a powder keg. But even if it wasn't future supply is a major problem. So let's focus on ways to relieve ourselves of this black gold instead of finding a way to artificially suppress the price.

Yet their profit margin per unit sold is smaller than other companies in the country. They are the most profitable due to the high demand of for their product even though they make less profit than other companies.

Thats not because of taxes, though. It's because their gravy train ended in the 1970s, they have to spend more and more money to find and drill for smaller amounts of oil. Their stock performance isn't so hot, guess why, its because oil isn't gonna be around forever and once oil is gone so is ExxonMobil (especially since they drop about $0.00 in new energy research).

[Fe 26]

The government (in all its forms) is notorious for completely inefficient use of resources and labor. Instead of addressing this, the government instead takes more from us to pay for their inability to properly manage labor and resources.

That is a topic in and of it’s self.

Nothing we do in regards to gas will change it. It would take mass destruction and death for the gov to get off its ass and reform the way it handles money. And even then it would probably botch it. It would probably set up a department to check into such things, and said department would become corrupt and worthless in a few generations.

[Mikey]

Until now you've practically had gas and oil for nothing with little incentive to cut down or save energy. The party has to stop some time.

[Buzzatronic]

Which will mean what, everyone will start driving more, which means demand will go up, which means prices will go up again.

In case you haven't noticed ... even though the price of gas has gone up more than 100% in the last 10 years, more people than ever are driving.

That fact contradicts your assumption that making gas cost more will make people drive less. Making something artificially expensive doesn't mean people stop using it. It's that type of faulty logic that drives stupid city councils to adopt stupid ideas like carpool lanes to try and make people act a certain way (i.e. ride the bus or carpool) only to find that the buses are empty and the carpool lanes are a waste of space during rush hour.

There's only X amount of oil. At this point it doesn't matter what the price is, that fact is not going away.

Yet no one knows what "X" is and by no account is "X" something we'll run into in the immediate future so while it's all well and good to remind people of the finite aspect of fossil fuels, it doesn't apply to the here and now which is what 99% of people make decisions based upon.

THE ERA OF CHEAP OIL IS OVER.

I disagree. I believe the era of cheap oil is being hampered by an overzealous EPA, an unhinged environmental lobby and a foreign oil cartel that has no interest in becoming a "public service" for the world's oil needs.

If the companies are gouging us, and they definitely are, they will keep doing it because the Middle East is a powder keg.

How is 9 cents profit on the dollar gouging? How much profit per dollar does your company make on what it sells?

Also the middle east issue is a self made problem and only one aspect of gas prices. The other key issues are refining capacity and formulation regulations from state to state meaning you can't sell California gas in Colorado. This means supply is artificially constrained by region which impacts prices.

But even if it wasn't future supply is a major problem. So let's focus on ways to relieve ourselves of this black gold instead of finding a way to artificially suppress the price.

How are we not looking for ways to relieve ourselves? Every new hybrid model that comes out has a huge waiting list of people willing to buy them. No where do you see a backlog of hybrid cars because people aren't interested in alternatives to gasoline.

The simple fact is there is a slow shift in our transportation fuel strategy in this country. Emphasis on the word slow. The good news is there is enough oil available to allow for this slow shift to happen. Environmentalists and other anti-oil people don't want to acknowledge that but it's the truth. They want cars that run on the farts of babies right now and anything else is unacceptable. It's these people I ignore and mock when at all possible. To everyone else I sympathise with whether it costs $35 to fill their 12 gallon tank (like me) or $70 to fill up their SUV.

Thats not because of taxes, though. It's because their gravy train ended in the 1970s, they have to spend more and more money to find and drill for smaller amounts of oil.

Actually in regards to the prices in the US it's more about refining capacity than finding oil. Not once have you ever heard of an oil company running out of oil, yet we see gas shortages due to refining capacity issues. Katrina knocked out a number of refining facilities which directly impacted the price of gas last year. This had nothing to do with oil availability.

Their stock performance isn't so hot, guess why, its because oil isn't gonna be around forever and once oil is gone so is ExxonMobil (especially since they drop about $0.00 in new energy research).

XOM has doubled in price in the last 3 years. How is that not performing so hot?

Looks it's obvious you have a chip on your shoulder about the oil companies (and that's fine) but I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment. How else could a stock price doubling in 3 years be considered not "so hot"?

I'd recommend anyone who's not clear on how refining gas works check out this link: http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm ... it's about much more than you may think.

[Sweet Daddy K]

I disagree. I believe the era of cheap oil is being hampered by an overzealous EPA, an unhinged environmental lobby and a foreign oil cartel that has no interest in becoming a "public service" for the world's oil needs.

Environmentalists and other anti-oil people don't want to acknowledge that but it's the truth. They want cars that run on the farts of babies right now and anything else is unacceptable. It's these people I ignore and mock when at all possible.

pot

Looks it's obvious you have a chip on your shoulder about the oil companies (and that's fine) but I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment.

calling the kettle black

XOM has doubled in price in the last 3 years. How is that not performing so hot?How else could a stock price doubling in 3 years be considered not "so hot"?

Actually, it's 83.3% and it's some what misleading. In comparison, the S&P grew by 45.7% in the same period -- Toyota(TM) 164.4%, Chysler (DCX) 80.3%, Sony (SNE) 90.0%, Sprint (S) 127.1%, and all of our favorite, Halliburton (HAL) 275.9%.

[Buzzatronic]

pot calling the kettle black

Nice retort yet I find it lacking substance. Don't confuse rational enthusiasm for the facts of an issue with a conditioned emotional response. Refute my positions if they are wrong.

Actually, it's 83.3% and it's some what misleading. In comparison, the S&P grew by 45.7% in the same period -- Toyota(TM) 164.4%, Chysler (DCX) 80.3%, Sony (SNE) 90.0%, Sprint (S) 127.1%, and all of our favorite, Halliburton (HAL) 275.9%.

Yes my "doubling" comment wasn't exact. Still I submit that an 83.3% increase in stock price over three years is far from "not doing so hot". I'd be interested in arguments otherwise beyond the "well Company X is doing even better" since if that's the only argument, then I think the oil companies are even less guilty of price gouging and we should be looking at Sprint and Toyota instead.

And what about an 83.3% increase in the stock price is misleading when being used to counter the statement that "Their stock performance isn't so hot."?

[Sweet Daddy K]

I wasn't picking on the fact that you were off by a small margin, rather I was trying to prove how realative your statment is. Scince the 2000-2002 crash, the market has been all over the place. So saying a stock doubled in 3 years ten or fifteen years ago may have ment something good, but in this time period it could mean anything.

Really I could care less about Exon now and am more curious about Halliburton's drastic steady climb since March 21, 2003.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s...l&c=&c=%5EGSPC


And as far the pot thing... Come now, you're telling me your remarks on enviromentalists weren't a little overplayed and emotional, especially considering how this administration has been the hardest on the EPA scince it's inception back in Nixon's day. I'll look for budget cut info and other mismanagement, if anyone thinks i really need to argue this.

[Buzzatronic]

I wasn't picking on the fact that you were off by a small margin, rather I was trying to prove how realative your statment is.

The point is my statement wasn't based on a relative argument regarding XOM performance compared to Toyota, it was based on someone saying the stock wasn't "doing so hot", period. They didn't say "not so hot compared to Toyota" so your point, while valid on its own really isn't relevant to my statement.

Scince the 2000-2002 crash, the market has been all over the place. So saying a stock doubled in 3 years ten or fifteen years ago may have ment something good, but in this time period it could mean anything.

Umm actually what it means is simple ... if you bought stock in early 2003 you'd make $1.83 per $1 you spent on it. No one in their right mind can argue that this type of return is "not so hot" even without the details of other stocks and their performance.

And as far the pot thing... Come now, you're telling me your remarks on enviromentalists weren't a little overplayed and emotional, especially considering how this administration has been the hardest on the EPA scince it's inception back in Nixon's day. I'll look for budget cut info and other mismanagement, if anyone thinks i really need to argue this.

So the environmentalist lobby hasn't been blocking the building of new refineries in this country for decades? They aren't blocking drilling for oil domestically so we're not beholden to the middle east oil cartel? They aren't pushing more strict fuel regulations in places like California without considering the long term impact of these regulations to the companies providing cars and fuel and the consumers who use these items every day?

Yes I think the environmental movement in this country is off the hinges but I base this one the facts above and their inability to compromise for the good of everyone involved, not an inner hatred I have for environmentalists or the environment itself.

There's a difference between being passionate about an issue and using facts to back up your position, and spouting off comments based on a conditioned emotional response.

[bandit]

Fuck man.. I went to BP to fill up since I had less then quarter tank. It was $3.09 for regular. I get out of car and what I see? A sign saying only Ultimate ($3.29). I hop back in, drive to Mobil and how much is regular? $3.17. Costs me $33 to fill up 10 gallons. ARGH!