Is $1.99 gallon gas good for the USA?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rehmwa

Have a good weekend, Dek.

(I was specifically talking about increased taxes used to artificially manipulate the market. Not so much about taxes used to pay for the minimal things necessary to run the government. That might clarify a bit.
You know me, my default is money is better off in the hands of the citizens vs the government, and that the US is on the 'spend too much' side, very much, of the tax/spend pendulum today. YMMV in Canadia)

You know us communists up north, we just hand our whole paycheck the the government.

Have a good weekend!

[lawrocket 3]

SkyDekker

Quote

what Bill recommends is interesting, but the only win for the people is when taxes go down. the gov loses when they go down.

You don't think that the government paying down debt, increasing emergency funds, increase allocations for education etc is "good for the people".

Bill's idea to start smoothing out gas price fluctuations makes perfect sense.

We have plenty of experience with price floors and ceilings in the US. Smoothing the price necessarily implies that. Price ceilings create shortages. Price floors create overages. Neither of which is usually very good.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,990]

>3 - artificially mucking with the market and prices is subject for debate (read as
>hijacking a private market as an excuse to take more money from the citizenry)

In general I agree. However, in this case, OPEC is artificially mucking with the market to try to maintain their market position. In such a case, it makes sense (IMO) to limit the damage they can do to the US economy by reducing the effect their market hijacks can have on the price of gasoline.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>3 - artificially mucking with the market and prices is subject for debate (read as
>hijacking a private market as an excuse to take more money from the citizenry)

In general I agree. However, in this case, OPEC is artificially mucking with the market to try to maintain their market position. In such a case, it makes sense (IMO) to limit the damage they can do to the US economy by reducing the effect their market hijacks can have on the price of gasoline.

taking the money from the consumer and giving it to the government = "limits the damage to the economy"

???

I think we have to accept that our philosophies are not aligned...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Iago

***>Well anyone that listens to Dave Ramsey like me better be doing what im doing

I think the people who plan well will continue to plan well - and the people with big credit card bills with nothing in the bank will continue to make those choices as well. Unfortunately the latter outnumber the former.

Also known as 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.'

And as government gets bigger this is more the case

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>taking the money from the consumer and giving it to the government = "limits the
>damage to the economy"

Damage is done to economies through rapid and unexpected changes in basic consumables (food, fuel, water.) Organizations like OPEC use the fear of such a change to distort the market for things like oil. By reducing the magnitude of the change they can cause, it both limits the damage to the economy they can do and limits the power they have.

[lawrocket 3]

It's not good for our neighbors to the North, either. In fact, hits them where it really hurts.

[Url]http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/01/currency-and-ice-hockey?fsrc=rss?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/frozenfinances[/url]

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

billvon

>3 - artificially mucking with the market and prices is subject for debate (read as
>hijacking a private market as an excuse to take more money from the citizenry)

In general I agree. However, in this case, OPEC is artificially mucking with the market to try to maintain their market position. In such a case, it makes sense (IMO) to limit the damage they can do to the US economy by reducing the effect their market hijacks can have on the price of gasoline.

actually, opec isn't artificially mucking with the market at all. they're simply supplying a product that's wanted, and can do so at a cheaper price than some other suppliers. But they have the capacity, it's not like they're trying to limit their competitors production by nefarious means... One might say that when they would reduce production to lower than capacity in order to keep prices high, they are mucking with the market. That makes more sense then saying that producing at capacity to supply a product that is wanted is mucking with it.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[billvon 2,990]

>actually, opec isn't artificially mucking with the market at all. they're simply supplying a
>product that's wanted

Except when they want to drive up prices. Then they don't supply a product that is wanted. Via clever use of this mechanism, they can drive other suppliers (like tight oil suppliers) out of business, then increase prices once they fail - thus guaranteeing profits for themselves and reducing competition in the market. It's a proven strategy to deal with a free market that's a little too "free" for their liking.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]But they have the capacity, it's not like they're trying to limit their competitors production by nefarious means

[skypuppy 1]

lawrocket

[Reply]But they have the capacity, it's not like they're trying to limit their competitors production by nefarious means

Actually, think that's exactly what OPEC is doing.

[lawrocket 3]

As libertarian as I am, I believe that a free market has to have many participants on all sides to make it free. Right now it's good. In a couple years there are problems.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

lawrocket

As libertarian as I am, I believe that a free market has to have many participants on all sides to make it free. Right now it's good. In a couple years there are problems.

in a couple of years, the price of oil goes up, companies starting producing shale oil again. The oil doesn't go away, people just stop developing it until the price goes up enough to make it worthwhile...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>taking the money from the consumer and giving it to the government = "limits the
>damage to the economy"

Damage is done to economies through rapid and unexpected changes in basic consumables (food, fuel, water.) Organizations like OPEC use the fear of such a change to distort the market for things like oil. By reducing the magnitude of the change they can cause, it both limits the damage to the economy they can do and limits the power they have.

If people truly believe that, then they should be arguing for the countries to take direct action against OPEC countries for unfair trade practices.

Call me skeptical when the response is to rationalize increased taxation against the public. Even more suspicious when hyper taxing gas is a staple of the green movement even before the price came down. It's one of the end goals - this cycle is just convenient to push that agenda.

For government it's just another money grab. Nothing more, nothing less. Any excuse will do.

"OH NO - look at evil OPEC.... we'll show them, we'll increase taxes on our own citizens in an impotent attempt to link some oddball tangential market leverage theory that doesn't work over a bunch of nations that don't care. Oh - on a completely unrelated note, now we can subsidize more windfarms and bankrupt solar cell companies and all of Congress can take nice vacations."

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[richravizza 28]

rehmwa

***>taking the money from the consumer and giving it to the government = "limits the
>damage to the economy"

Damage is done to economies through rapid and unexpected changes in basic consumables (food, fuel, water.) Organizations like OPEC use the fear of such a change to distort the market for things like oil. By reducing the magnitude of the change they can cause, it both limits the damage to the economy they can do and limits the power they have.

If people truly believe that, then they should be arguing for the countries to take direct action against OPEC countries for unfair trade practices.

Call me skeptical when the response is to rationalize increased taxation against the public. Even more suspicious when hyper taxing gax is a staple of the green movement even before the price came down. It's one of the end goals - this cycle is just convenient to push that agenda.

For government it's just another money grab. Nothing more, nothing less. Any excuse will do.

I couldn't agree more.
Look at the second responce to this thread:

Now, the Fed,State can Raise Tax to $1.00 a gallon and
increase, "FOOD FOR FUEL" Program by 100%.

This drop in price has been boom for the Politicians and Bureaucrats to take more from the People.

Look at CA,
State & Fed gas tax in our State alone
Equals All the income tax collected in all the US states Combined.
Some 620 Billion
of course this isn't enough.
So CA, will increase the extortion again by.06 and increase it by .01 for the next six years.
This doesn't include the subsidized Ethanol that they are planning to increase, not by 1,10 or even 25 %.
The Plan calls for a 100% increase.
Doubling the amount of Food we Burn as Fuel, ya that's the ticket
So when prices go up, we we can grind our teeth at the Oil co. for shafting the public with they're greed and record profits, and demand the Gov't take More from Us. LOL

We will be Pointing our finger at the Big Bad Oil Co. for making that 4% Profit.
While the gov't cut is OVER 30%.

Three Fingers will be Pointed back at the Public.

One, for allowing the Gov't extortion at the scale it has become.With no end in sight.
Two, for allowing the scam that is the Gov't controlled ethenol markets and the so called environmental progress.
Three, believing the Gov't can do more with our money,to improve our quality of Life.

[richravizza 28]

ryoder

***In the upper midwest the Keystone pipeline looks like it will go through bringing Candaian oil to the Texas refineries and there is another one that is proposed from North Dakota to Indiana. Not to mention that they tried to go through with a new refinery up here, it failed but there will be other refineries coming. Hell why not Detroit? Maybe that would save them up and bring them back to the greatness they once were.

Last night's Daily Show skewered *both* sides on the Keystone XL debate, and pointed out that not only will tar sand oil come into the US even w/o the pipeline, it is *already* coming in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHIwyxfQ2j8

Thanks for the Fresh perspective and the Laughs...