What Goes Up Probably Won't Come Down

[Guest Utopia]

I live in California and over the past few weeks I've seen gasoline prices go to the highest they've been in my lifetime. What I have a hard time accepting is that we have the most expensive gas prices in the nation. No one is even close. Fuck Bush!

 

State Regular Mid Premium Diesel

California $2.18 $2.32 $2.36 $2.05

Hawaii $2.10 $2.22 $2.26 $2.22

Nevada $2.06 $2.17 $2.25 $1.90

Arizona $1.91 $2.00 $2.11 $1.90

New York $1.83 $1.96 $2.00 $1.86

Oregon $1.82 $1.92 $1.95 $1.82

Washington $1.80 $1.86 $1.95 $1.88

Alaska $1.78 $1.89 $1.99 $1.69

Connecticut $1.77 $1.92 $1.97 $1.83

Rhode Island $1.75 $1.86 $1.92 $1.81

Wisconsin $1.75 $1.81 $1.90 $1.70

Idaho $1.74 $1.83 $1.88 $1.74

Maine $1.74 $1.87 $1.93 $1.80

Illinois $1.73 $1.86 $1.92 $1.74

Utah $1.73 $1.82 $1.90 $1.68

West Virginia $1.73 $1.81 $1.90 $1.74

Florida $1.72 $1.86 $1.89 $1.74

Massachusetts $1.71 $1.83 $1.90 $1.78

Michigan $1.71 $1.81 $1.89 $1.66

North Dakota $1.71 $1.77 $1.84 $1.65

Vermont $1.71 $1.84 $1.92 $1.86

District of Columbia $1.70 $1.81 $1.87 $1.83

Pennsylvania $1.70 $1.79 $1.87 $1.76

South Dakota $1.70 $1.81 $1.88 $1.63

Indiana $1.69 $1.81 $1.86 $1.63

Nebraska $1.69 $1.73 $1.78 $1.63

Maryland $1.68 $1.78 $1.83 $1.73

Minnesota $1.68 $1.75 $1.80 $1.62

New Hampshire $1.68 $1.82 $1.88 $1.76

Ohio $1.68 $1.80 $1.87 $1.69

Delaware $1.67 $1.77 $1.85 $1.74

Kansas $1.67 $1.71 $1.78 $1.64

Iowa $1.65 $1.74 $1.82 $1.62

Montana $1.65 $1.72 $1.80 $1.73

Kentucky $1.64 $1.75 $1.83 $1.58

North Carolina $1.63 $1.73 $1.81 $1.64

Colorado $1.62 $1.74 $1.81 $1.66

Mississippi $1.62 $1.71 $1.79 $1.57

New Mexico $1.62 $1.73 $1.80 $1.64

Alabama $1.61 $1.72 $1.78 $1.61

Arkansas $1.61 $1.70 $1.81 $1.61

Louisiana $1.61 $1.72 $1.80 $1.60

Missouri $1.61 $1.67 $1.77 $1.54

New Jersey $1.61 $1.73 $1.79 $1.63

Tennessee $1.61 $1.71 $1.79 $1.60

Virginia $1.60 $1.68 $1.75 $1.61

Texas $1.59 $1.68 $1.74 $1.58

Wyoming $1.59 $1.66 $1.77 $1.60

Georgia $1.57 $1.69 $1.76 $1.56

Oklahoma $1.57 $1.63 $1.72 $1.50

South Carolina $1.57 $1.67 $1.75 $1.57

[Guest msclonly]

Yep, San Diego and the Bay area are the highest and we don't know why!

 

}( }( }(

[seaboy4hire]

I think that it is all about supply and demand. Look at how many cars are on the roads in California. 3 or 4 in the morning and it looks like rush hour from what I have seen on my trips down there. Heck I get rode rage just watching some of the drivers in Ca. The more cars being driven the more gas being brought in and the more the owners of the stations feel they can charge. If you don't like paying the high gas prices don't drive. Take the bus, walk, ride a bike, take the subway whatever just don't drive. It's as simple as that. I got tired of paying the high gas prices and the up keep on my car and once it died I got rid of it and haven't regretted it once.

 

Hugs,

Greg

Greg Seattle Wa [email protected]

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/gregseattle.html http://briefcase.yahoo.com/seaboy4hire

[Guest skrubber]

And you think this is Bush's fault?????

 

Everybody loves Backa Baa.

[Luv2play]

In a way it is Bush's fault. He and his economic team have decided that the US$ was too high and as it has declined in world markets for currencies, the price of oil, which is traded internationally in US$, has been rising. This only makes sense as the demand for oil has not declined (indeed countries like China are importing more) and the oil exporters want to maintain their oil revenues.

 

All of this is bad news for US consumers of gasoline, particularly those that drive huge, gas-guzzling, vehicles such as SUVs. If you look around the world, most people drive smaller cars because the cost of gasoline in their countries is so high. For some reason, many US consumers have forgotten the '70's, when gas prices went through the roof and people switched to smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Well, those days may come back again :o

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>For some reason, many US consumers have forgotten

>the '70's, when gas prices went through the roof and people

>switched to smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

 

Perhaps they have forgotten because their leadership has not only not reminded them, but has practically made it a point of principle that Americans shouldn't have to make sacrifices (read: adjustments of any kind) to their lifestyles, because "that would be giving in to the terrorists." Bill Maher has riffed at great length on the contrasts between WWII-era patriotism (in which the home front was promoted and experienced as a vital part of the war effort) and its contemporary counterpart, which consists of flags, most of them on bumper stickers, and elevates avoiding sacrifice to an ethos. Indeed, Bush and Cheney have helped promote that style of patriotism so effectively that the only times they went off-message and linked fighting terrorism to reducing our dependence on oil from the Middle East -- in order to win drilling rights for the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve -- they were victims of their own success. If the war on terror wasn't worth switching to fuel-efficient cars, no way could it be worth damaging a pristine wilderness. That would REALLY be letting the terrorists win.

[HooBoy]

I live in New York when the weather is good.

 

I walk.

 

I take the subway.

 

When I am in Amsterdam, I ride a bike or take the tram.

 

When I am in Hong Kong, I walk or take the subway.

 

When I am Sao Paulo, I do not leave my hotel room, but when I do, I take a cab.

 

When I am in Rio, I try to leave as quickly as I can.

 

When I am in London, I take the tube or the bus - never a black cab.

 

When I am in Houston, I take the bus. But god forbid I ever go back to that city again, except for Grandma's. I just get the room overlooking the showers, watch the videos and ....well, whatever.

 

Gas prices? That's why I take Pepto - that pink stuff.

 

Just my two cents worth and for those who take me seriously, this was written as a regular poster and not the owner of the website.

[Paul Revere]

There was news story on the radio this morning that the Bush administration has just noticed that gas prices are rising out of control. Energy Secratary Spencer Abraham said that the administration was very concerned about this, but they had no plan to deal with it!

 

I'm betting that gas prices fall dramatically in October, just before the election.

 

You might think that an administrationn with so many intimate ties to the oil industry would understand what drives the price of a gas at the pumps. Oh, yeah they do, and all of their friends are getting rich from it. Never mind.

[MichiganMan]

Sure...let's blame Bush instead of ourselves. Never mind our obsession with vehicles like H2's, Escalades, Explorers, 400 plus horsepower vehicles etc,etc. I'm very much involved in the auto industry and know whats's popular. Trust me....there is a bumper supply of smaller vehicles that don't sell....

[+ Hoover42]

I overheard a news report on television last night that suggested that gas prices may reach $3.00 a gallon in many areas by this summer.

 

The report also claimed that a gas station owner somewhere in California already tried to raise his rate to $3.60 a gallon but quickly dropped the price back down after a storm of customer protest.

 

...Hoover

[+ Charlie]

As your list should make obvious, the difference in gas prices is determined largely by state governments, not the Bush administration. (Good god, don't tell me I'm actually trying to exonerate Bush for something!) I live in PA and buy gas across the river in NJ simply because the state taxes on gasoline are much lower there.

[+ Lucky]

RE: What Up Come Down

 

Well, I definitely take you seriously. It is just a suggestion, but maybe you should post under a different handle when not speaking as the owner of the website. Then we could hold a contest to see hoo would be the first person to discover your alter ego!

[+ glutes]

>Energy Secratary Spencer Abraham said that the

>administration was very concerned about this, but they had no

>plan to deal with it!

>

 

Wow, what a suprise.

And they had a plan for 'post-war' Iraq??

[JamesK840]

As much as I hate to admit it, California's high prices aren't entirely Bush's fault. The high nationwide, yes; CA specifically, not really.

 

California, like most states, lets counties regulate gas sold in each individual county. So it's entirely possible for LA county to require a different formulation then Orange County, and for San Diego County to require yet another.

 

Further, we have 'winter' and 'summer' blends, summer burns cleaner, with less pollution, but may be difficult for some cars to use in cold weather, especially older ones. So there's a reason for the county differences right there, climate difference as you travel north in the state.

 

So on top of the high price per barrel of crude (Bush and the Bush family friends: the Saudi royal family and other members of OPEC...), in California especially we are switching between blends, plus we are switching from MTBE, and on top of that, we now have very few refineries in the state.

 

So there's pain at the pump. The thing is though, intellectually I'm for higher gas prices. They make people reconsider asshole purchases of things like H2s and especially H1s for their daily commute. They also encourage public transportation, car pooling, and self-propelled transportation. I'd prefer it be done through taxes though, and that money go to roadway improvement as well as public transportation instead of oil industry executives and despotic governments who fund terrorists...

 

Maybe if the state consolidated as many formulations as possible, gave breaks, incentives, etc, for more refineries and pipelines in the state (big fight with environmentalists there though) they could set some kind of sliding scale to keep it at $2 or even $2.50 average price, but part of those taxes should go into savings to also keep it at $2.50 when market pressures want to make it $3... That money should also go as an incentive to manufacturers for making better, more fuel efficient vehicles--to make them profitable, and to consumers for buying them. But politicians don't have the balls for real change (or get campaign contributions to derail change--remember Clinton's 100MPG cars initiative?), so that's just a pipe dream.

 

Anyways, odds are the prices will fall some, but on the other hand the median will continue to creep up. Considering we're using up a finite resource and using most of the world's supply ourselves, it does seem inevitable.

 

But what can you do about it in the near term? Vote for somebody in November who at least knows consumer interests exist and are usually opposed to that of the big gas companies, and put yourself on the waiting list for a Toyota Prius. And read up on the issues, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells aren’t nearly the panacea some would have you believe (hell, if Bush is pushing it you know it must be better for big oil then consumers!).

[Guest Merlin]

It is absurd to blame Bush for the high gasoline prices. Remember he has tried to open up US supplies but has been blocked by the Democrats in Congress. We should be tapping into the Alaska waste land and our off-shore fields, so we would not be dependant upon mid east oil. You liberals complain about prices but get all in a tizzy when someone talks about opening up our own supples. And California has blocked the attempts on build new refineries on the west coast. You want cheap gasoline but don't want any nasty ole oil wells or refineries. In the meantime China's use of oil has been exploding, and to a lesser extent, India and other developing countries.

[JamesK840]

As I said, more refineries and pipelines would help, especially if the state or nation while ensuring they met the highest possible environmental standards helped pay for them...

 

The Gas companies will do what's cheapest, it's that simple. There is still plenty of oil under Texas and even California, there are already wells, but it costs more to raise and refine then that from the mideast. Still profitable mind you, just not *as* profitable. Kind of like many corporations involved in corporate finance scandals, a ton of money isn't enough if I could have a ton and a half, no matter the consequences...

 

With big oil and the Bushies it's never about what's best for the American consumer (shocking, I know) or even for the country. It's about what's the very most profitable for the company--environment and any other concerns be damned! So no, they don't need to go into our parks or immediate coastal waters. If that oil was nearly that important to them and our entire economy they could get at it through slant drilling and other methods, but that costs more, so it's "bad for the nation" for them not to be able to plant themselves right in the middle of a park or scenic bay. Uh huh. It's bad for the nation for the country to be able to regulate their environmental impact or corporate governance... yep, Ken Lay was just shouting that from the rooftops a couple years ago, wonder why...?

[+ Charlie]

For those who are worried about the environment, depletion of resources, etc.: probably the best solution is one the Europeans have used for years. Make gas so expensive that most people are forced to buy fuel efficient cars and drive them only when necessary. Even luxury cars like Mercedes are often sold in Europe with engines that are the size Americans associate with a small Toyota. Most Europeans think California gas is laughably cheap, and are rightly disgusted with our wastefulness as we bitch about rising oil prices.

[Paul Revere]

Sure...let's blame Bush instead of ourselves. Never mind our obsession with vehicles like H2's, Escalades, Explorers, 400 plus horsepower vehicles etc,etc. I'm very much involved in the auto industry and know whats's popular. Trust me....there is a bumper supply of smaller vehicles that don't sell....

 

Mich Man;

 

The reason that sales of obscenely large vahicles are so high is that the Federal Government refuses to classify SUV's as automobiles and make them hold to higher fuel efficiency standards. If they did't play that game of classifying SUVs as trucks, made them match the fuel efficianecy regulations of regular autos, or be taxed, then the sales figures would change dramatically. Yes, the American's taste and lack of concern for the enviornment is part of the problem, but our federal government policies add to the problem.

 

And can anyone explain to me why in cripes name anyone needs a freaking Hummer as a regular road vehicle? I subscribe to the theory that folks driving large vehicles are compensating for their own feelings of inadequacy, and probably they have very small dicks. Women in big SVU's is just blatant penis envy.

[Guest YFSC]

>The reason that sales of obscenely large vahicles are so high

>is that the Federal Government refuses to classify SUV's as

>automobiles and make them hold to higher fuel efficiency

>standards. If they did't play that game of classifying SUVs

>as trucks, made them match the fuel efficianecy regulations of

>regular autos, or be taxed, then the sales figures would

>change dramatically. Yes, the American's taste and lack of

>concern for the enviornment is part of the problem, but our

>federal government policies add to the problem.

 

Yes, and in addition to that, there is a huge special tax writeoff for buying one, if you can connect it some way with business. And there is no shortage of tax advice websites and articles telling people about that.

[+ Charlie]

Sometimes the federal regulations have unintended consequences. The new law allowing people who buy new trucks for their jobs to write them off as a business expense was intended to help people like farmers. Instead, since SUVs are classified as trucks, people like real esate agents, who use their personal vehicles for work, are buying luxury SUVs and writing them off. And believe me, Land Rover dealers aren't hesitating to contact them about the possibility.

[+ deej]

>If you don't like paying the high gas prices

>don't drive. Take the bus, walk, ride a bike, take the subway

>whatever just don't drive. It's as simple as that. I got tired

>of paying the high gas prices and the up keep on my car and

>once it died I got rid of it and haven't regretted it once.

 

I ditched the car 20+ years ago, kiddo. Of course, at the time I was living in an area where mass transit was readily available, cheap, and convenient. In fact, I only ditched the car after getting a note from my landlord about fixing a flat tire or they'd tow the car. I hadn't driven it in so long I didn't know it had a flat!

 

For 20 glorious years, I completely avoided paying taxes, tags, insurance, gas, and maintenance on an automobile. The few times I needed to go somewhere and didn't have an otherwise convenient way to get there, I rented a car.

 

When I moved to SoCal, I continued my no-car existence for 8 months. I rode my bike to work every day. (And my butt was never firmer! ;-)) But I live & work in a rural area in Ventura county, where mass transit is nonexistent. If a place wasn't walking or biking distance (and not much is), it was out of reach.

 

Not everyone *can* do without a car. It's just a necessity of life in some areas.

 

And don't get me started on road rage. }( I was almost run over IN THE BIKE LANE almost daily during my 8 months of riding. Generally by a tiny blond woman driving a huge SUV while yakking on a cell phone. Proves the stereotype, I guess. x( Driving skill in SoCal is generally inversely proportionate to the size of the driver's vehicle.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Alaska

 

It is simplistic to suggest a one or other argument. For example, the amount of oil in ANWAR (Alaska) is far less than, as James points out, the available oil in California or Texas. It simply would be less expensive as their would be less restrictions and the oil companies would potentially get reasonable lease terms (akin to the extraordinarily reasonable grazing terms which cattle and other ranchers get on federal lands). This country needs a reasonable engery policy and that policy needs to take into account both conservation and preservation of natural resources.

 

Finally, as James points out, a portion of the costs, most likely a significant portion after the formulation variables, is the lack of refining capacity in California. This is due as much to a corporate unwillingness to either modernize or build both energy efficient and non-pullting refineries as anything else. The only significant opposition to new refineries is the same type of "NIMBY" attitudes which are pervasive everywhere, including so-called red states.

[Spida]

Lets see.. ExxonMobil's profits rose over 38% in the 4th quarter of 2003. Hmmm.. Interesting! Lets see how many of Bush's friends CONTRIBUTORS family are in the oil business.. Oh and Cheney he doesn't even pretend that he wants to help america! Pleeeessee.. I agree that americans should be more conscious of their consumption yes. however that is not why the prices are so high! We know why they are high people NEED gasoline and heating oil etc so they can basically charge what they want. Lets see who do we vote for the multi millionare George W. Bush or the Multimillionare John Kerry who is really going to look out for the average american.. Neither! Politicians suck!!

[Spida]

So James you are all for communism aye.. You think that prices should be high just so people will conserve, do you think that people who make over a certain amount of money should give it all to people who don't make that much money? I must be mistaken but I thought we lived in a "Free" country.. Hmm.. I am so confused..