Gas Prices - what do you think?

A thread with thins name was closed due to a personal argument, however i thought it was interesting and so have restarted it

I don't like the idea of weighing vehicles at petrol stations as that would be frightfully expensive and so petrol prices would rise further, also busses would have to pay a fortune for their fuel.

I think hydrogen power is a bit dumb, if i a m not mistaken the fuel companies get it by extracting it from methane. Dumb as you may as well burn the methane in the car, however i like the idea of electric cars, unless they are powered by a coal burning power station somehwere, which is dumb.

I say we introduce cheap electric cars (subsidised by the government (subsidised by rich people)) and build a huge nuclear power station to cope with the extra power required.

Yeh

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, with a comment like that one, it's plain to see that you're not seeking an intellectual discussion.

...let the rich people pay for it all while the rest of the poeple just sit around and enjoy it all? Really intellectual, huh?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like the NHS
and schools
and the police
and lots of things in the UK

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah. Britain.
The country that went from the empire upon which the sun never set, owning most of the freaking world, to a second-rate nation incapable of action by itself.

 

Thanks for resurrecting my thread...

Getting rich people to pay for the entire populace is one that should be discussed in a politics thread.

Having said that, I think it would still be wise if the government still subsidized mass transit. I mean, if you look at the huge dramatic changes at the efficiency of fuel, like in BTUs/person, the value is always a magnitude or more lower for buses and trains. This is because the concept of everybody driving a car routinely to work by themselves is flawed. It creates more road rage and you also haul along an extra 2000kg of steel with you for your gasoline.

I say this because I am from Los Angeles, and I have experience some of the worst driving conditions in the world. We also have an embarassingly primitive means of public transport that seems to go thru enormous hurdles to advance despite the obvious need.

 

This being the "Economics" forum, I think it's important to view this in terms of economics. With a basic capitalistic system, "obvious need" is always a matter for "supply and demand" to decide, not the idealism of one individual. You say "obvious need", yet is it so obvious to others that they're willing to pay additional taxes to support that need? If not, then perhaps the "need" isn't so great or obivious after all?

You seem to be firm in your convictions that the government and/or rich people should pay for all of this ....how can you arrive at a reasonable explanation for that scheme? Government money comes from taxes of all of the people. Rich people have gotten they're money by legally working for it. (And if you want to make accusations of "theft" or "corruption", please provide some evidence or credible documentation!)

If Californicators wanted a mass transit system, they'd be willing to pay for it. But how can you ask the federal government to susidize something that ONLY Californicators can/will use?

Many people make statements about the "goverenmt" paying for things as though that money just grows on trees on the White House lawn!!

Baron Max

 

I didn't mean that i wnat rich people to pay for it but anything that is paid for by the government is paid for by the rich, after all it is the rich who pay the most tax

 

Shouldn't the residents of Californication pay for their own fucking transit system? And more importantly, don't you think the residents of Los Angeles should pay for their own system?

If LA wants a mass transit system, surely you don't think that the people of, say, San Diego should pay for it?! Or worse, are you saying that the people of Boston should help pay for a transit system for LA?? ...surely not!!

As to the rich paying more taxes, I'd agree. But please dont forget ...there's only a few rich people, the rest aren't so rich. If the rich paid 90% taxes, it wouldn't change the state coffers much, now would it??

Baron Max

 

Re-partitioning of state funds will work without the need of raising taxes.
Raising corporate income taxes is another alternative.

I have never explicitly stated this for fear that this would spiral into a political discussion.

That explanation is political. I stated this in my last post :

Are you easily entertained?

 

Facial, this is a forum on Economics. So ...can you give me a decent explanation of what the benefits are to ALL residents of CA in order to provide money to build a transit system in Los Angeles? I.e., how do the residents of small, northern CA cities benefit from the transit system? And if they don't, why should their taxes go to pay for it?

Baron Max

 

Because you don't pay taxes just for your own benefit.

 

Oh, I agree, Spurious, but taxes shouldn't be thrown about so recklessly ...as we Americans seem to want to do! And I do feel that there should be SOME benefit to all citizens, even if it's some convoluted, weird-ass economic explanation! And that's what I'm asking Facial to provide.

It's just one more good reason for states' rights, versus federal powers. In fact, the further down the ladder one goes, the better it is for tax purposes.

Baron Max

 

The benefits are less pollution and less deaths from car accidents, if, by any chance, you visit LA from the middle of nowhere.

They don't. But they get other things like agricultural subsidies that cities don't get; and because their population is miniscule compared to Los Angeles, they certainly won't be able to support it solely through their own taxes. We trust the state on proper allocation of funding, and we are quite aware that if anyone is the financial loser, the city would certainly be. This is the concept of collective responsibility, and if we see some doofus like Arnold jacking up the state budget then yeah we recall them just like we did to Gray Davis; this is the consent of the governed.

 

Which THEY shouldn't get either!!

Ye're playing the same game that politicians do when they try to justify a gazillion dollars for some pet project of their own!!! ....LOL!

Other than a very few essentials, the federal government has no right to interfere in the rights of the states or regions or cities or towns. IMHO, that's not the role of the federal government and I think the Constitution is pretty clear on that ...until we started fuckin' it up, that is!

And how does that help the people in Maine? Or Vermont? And if it doesn't help them, then why should they pay ANY of their taxes to support ANYTHING in California (or anywhere else)?

If Exxon wants to sell their gas for $$ gazillion dollars a gallon, then they should have the right to try. Anyone, including the federal government, who tries to stop them should be shot! And if people can't get to work some other way, then they should get fired!

Baron Max

 

Economically speaking.... as long as they have it and we need it, they will charge as much as we are willing to pay. As soon as we don't need it as bad as they want to sell it to us, the price will drop. Kind of basic supply and demand. If you think prices are too high, don't buy as much. If you've put yourself in a position where you are dependent on their product, too bad. It will all change when it is ready to change and not any sooner.

 

Personally, I believe that there is no reason why gas prices should be so high. The U.S. owns most of (if not all) oil resources. We should be getting it cheaper than any other country. It's merely a way for the government and big businesses to make extra profit off of this war.

 

This is a fundamental difference in our opinions.

 

SativaDiva: "Personally, I believe that there is no reason why gas prices should be so high. The U.S. owns most of (if not all) oil resources. We should be getting it cheaper than any other country. It's merely a way for the government and big businesses to make extra profit off of this war."

Gas prices should be as high as consumers are willing to pay. It is the business of business to make a profit, it's what repays the investors who put up their money to get the business started or who buy shares that provide capital for businesses to grow. Just because you were not astute enough to buy oil company stocks and share in the wealth, well too bad. Profit is GOOD! More profit is BETTER! Maximum profit is BEST!! BY the way, governments don't make a profit since they don't make anything. the only money they collect is from us via taxes. "Excess money" is called a surplus, not profit, and is a bad thing for a government to have.

 

Rita could equal $5 gas

 

Corrupt u.s. government and oil companies, rather, will cause gas to jump to even more exorbitantly outrageous prices.