Gas Prices Are Rising

[Tiberius]

Quote

 

May 1 (UPI) -- The U.S. average retail price for a gallon of gas is approaching a point where at least one analyst said last year there may be economic consequences.

The average retail price for regular unleaded was $2.81 per gallon on Tuesday, according to motor club AAA. That's unchanged from the previous day, but 6 percent, or 16 cents per gallon, more expensive than one month ago.

https://www.upi.com/Gas-prices-could-be-testing-a-psychological-tipping-point/8521525168284/

 

Gees, I thought the regulation cuts and drill baby drill people would make these prices go down. This is seriously bad news for Trump. Obama saw low prices and now we get a Republican and the claims of price gouging are already flying.* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Ok, I'm the only one saying it now, but you just wait! 

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Gees, I thought the regulation cuts and drill baby drill people would make these prices go down. This is seriously bad news for Trump. Obama saw low prices and now we get a Republican and the claims of price gouging are already flying.* 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Ok, I'm the only one saying it now, but you just wait! 

I paid $2.43 yesterday but then again that was due to less taxes.

[Tiberius]

Pain at the pump: gas prices set to skyrocket this summer

KEYT-8 hours ago

A chance to repeal the gas tax is cruising toward the November ballot as some Central Coast drivers take drastic measures to afford their daily commute. From trading in their current vehicles for a hybrid, canceling summer vacation plans and even relocating to cut down on drive time, gas prices have folks ...

[row_33]

Free markets respond to supply and demand 

 

 

[Tiberius]

Deregulation in action baby. 

 

Feel that pump pain, oh ya. 

[Cinga]

2 hours ago, row_33 said:

Free markets respond to supply and demand 

 

 

Exactly... During Obummer we had a depressed economy and consumer confidence was at an all time low. All this of course lead to less driving, and less demand for goods.

Now under trump, the economy is opening up again, and consumer confidence is through the roof. This of course leads to more driving, and more demand for goods which of course have to be transported to the store or delivery.

 

Oil will level off soon, as it once again becomes more economical to produce oil from the shale fields. This will boost supply enough to level the price of oil off, I believe still low enough  to as not effect the economy in a negative way.

 

It's not rocket science, and I would think even Gator might be able to grasp the fundamentals but then..... 

 

Edit.... I'm ok since I just bought a plug in hybrid.... :-)

Edited May 1, 2018 by Cinga

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Edit.... I'm ok since I just bought a plug in hybrid.... :-)

 

I've got your back, man.  I'm currently on the market for a 1964 Lincoln Continental in the hopes that I can offset your decreased consumption. 

[B-Man]

As Summer approaches, the price of gas is going up ?..................................unprecedented !

[Tiberius]

23 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Exactly... During Obummer we had a depressed economy and consumer confidence was at an all time low. All this of course lead to less driving, and less demand for goods.

Now under trump, the economy is opening up again, and consumer confidence is through the roof. This of course leads to more driving, and more demand for goods which of course have to be transported to the store or delivery.

 

Oil will level off soon, as it once again becomes more economical to produce oil from the shale fields. This will boost supply enough to level the price of oil off, I believe still low enough  to as not effect the economy in a negative way.

 

It's not rocket science, and I would think even Gator might be able to grasp the fundamentals but then..... 

 

Edit.... I'm ok since I just bought a plug in hybrid.... :-)

So there is no production increase then under Trump? 

Can't have it both ways. Either Obama's regulations were hurting production or they were not. 

[IDBillzFan]

[Gugny]

http://then.gasbuddy.com/Retail_Price_Chart.aspx

 

[sherpa]

A good deal of yearly spring increases is systemic.

Refineries have to switch to summer blends, which are more expensive, by May 1.

It takes a bit of time to get this through the system, so you end up with an average $.51 increase on that alone.

Almost always works itself out by Memorial Day.

Nothing to worry about.

The massive, and largely untapped shale and nat gas options will keep the lid on it, unless something political happens. 

[PPP Is Full of Racism]

doesnt gas go up every summer?

[DC Tom]

24 minutes ago, sherpa said:

A good deal of yearly spring increases is systemic.

Refineries have to switch to summer blends, which are more expensive, by May 1.

It takes a bit of time to get this through the system, so you end up with an average $.51 increase on that alone.

Almost always works itself out by Memorial Day.

Nothing to worry about.

The massive, and largely untapped shale and nat gas options will keep the lid on it, unless something political happens. 

 

Usually that spikes a luttle earluer, though, as they take infrastructure off line to clean it for summer blends.

 

But it's standard progressive nonsense.  This happens every year for almost the past two decades, but they only complain when a Republican is in the White House.

[IDBillzFan]

49 minutes ago, Gugny said:

http://then.gasbuddy.com/Retail_Price_Chart.aspx

 

 

Wow, that's pretty cheap. And only a .20/gallon raise over the past month? That's amazing. California jumps that much when Jerry Brown manages to get out of bed. We average $3.64/gallon on unleaded, but part of that is yet another liberal gas hike to fund "infrastructure repair."

 

I mean, that was until they realized shortly after the hike that it wasn't enough, so now they want to start taxing you based on how much you drive, not just on gas, but the tree-huggers driving their Prius and Volts are very unhappy about that.

[Gugny]

4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Wow, that's pretty cheap. And only a .20/gallon raise over the past month? That's amazing. California jumps that much when Jerry Brown manages to get out of bed. We average $3.64/gallon on unleaded, but part of that is yet another liberal gas hike to fund "infrastructure repair."

 

I mean, that was until they realized shortly after the hike that it wasn't enough, so now they want to start taxing you based on how much you drive, not just on gas, but the tree-huggers driving their Prius and Volts are very unhappy about that.

 

If you view the last 10 years, you'll be reminded of the major spike a few years ago.

 

Taxing based on mileage is bull ****.  I drive a little Nissan Versa Note because I drive ~120 miles/day.  I get 40 MPG in the summers (versus ~35 in winters), but I still have to buy !@#$ing gas.  And if I was driving an electric or a hybrid, I'd be really pissed, too.

[TakeYouToTasker]

15 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Wow, that's pretty cheap. And only a .20/gallon raise over the past month? That's amazing. California jumps that much when Jerry Brown manages to get out of bed. We average $3.64/gallon on unleaded, but part of that is yet another liberal gas hike to fund "infrastructure repair."

 

I mean, that was until they realized shortly after the hike that it wasn't enough, so now they want to start taxing you based on how much you drive, not just on gas, but the tree-huggers driving their Prius and Volts are very unhappy about that.

 

Well, of course.  Liberals want punitive taxes on everyone else, and on behavior and things they dislike.

3 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

If you view the last 10 years, you'll be reminded of the major spike a few years ago.

 

Taxing based on mileage is bull ****.  I drive a little Nissan Versa Note because I drive ~120 miles/day.  I get 40 MPG in the summers (versus ~35 in winters), but I still have to buy !@#$ing gas.  And if I was driving an electric or a hybrid, I'd be really pissed, too.

 

Your vehicle does roughly as much damage to the roads and accompanying infrastructure as someone driving a 1971 Cadillac.  Why shouldn't you pay the same, per mile driven, as them to support its maintenance and repair?

 

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Gugny]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Well, of course.  Liberals want punitive taxes on everyone else, and on behavior and things they dislike.

 

Your vehicle does roughly as much damage to the roads and accompanying infrastructure as someone driving a 1971 Cadillac.  Why shouldn't you pay the same as them to support its maintenance and repair?

 

 

 

What damage does a rubber tire do to a paved road?  That's a serious question.

 

And why wouldn't I pay the same as someone driving a 71 Cadillac?  That doesn't/wouldn't upset me.

 

But if I'm an electric/hybrid car owner, I'm not down with big brother monitoring my mileage or taxing me based upon said mileage.  People buying those cars are already spending more money than similar model gasoline-powered vehicles; and they're helping the environment.

[boyst]

40 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

And they're helping the environment.

How?

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

What damage does a rubber tire do to a paved road?  That's a serious question.

 

And why wouldn't I pay the same as someone driving a 71 Cadillac?  That doesn't/wouldn't upset me.

 

But if I'm an electric/hybrid car owner, I'm not down with big brother monitoring my mileage or taxing me based upon said mileage.  People buying those cars are already spending more money than similar model gasoline-powered vehicles; and they're helping the environment.

 

Over time, traffic wears down the roads and supporting infrastructure (along with weather and other factors not necessarily related to motorists).  You and the Cadillac driver in question do roughly the same amount of damage, assuming the same amount of use.

 

The issue is that under the current funding mechanism, you are largely getting a free ride on the infrastructure maintenance to the detriment of those individuals who aren't driving electric/hybrids.  And while you may be paying more for your car in some instances (you wouldn't be paying more than I am looking to for the 1964 Lincoln Continental I'm on the market for, for instance) that cost is rather irrelevant to the cost of upkeep for the roads, because those dollars go to shareholders of Tesla (used for purposes of discussion), and not to the public coffers.

 

And while I think it's great that you're helping the environment (to some degree, possibly) that doesn't mean that everyone else should have to pay for the maintenance costs of the roadways while you get a break; and while I agree with you about big brother tracking your mileage, we need to find another way to fund our highway departments, especially as fuel efficiency and alternative fuel sources grow in popularity and carve away the existing tax base.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

....

And while I think it's great that you're helping the environment (to some degree, possibly) that doesn't mean that everyone else should have to pay for the maintenance costs of the roadways while you get a break; and while I agree with you about big brother tracking your mileage, we need to find another way to fund our highway departments, especially as fuel efficiency and alternative fuel sources grow in popularity and carve away the existing tax base.

 

As California is finding out now

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Over time, traffic wears down the roads and supporting infrastructure (along with weather and other factors not necessarily related to motorists).  You and the Cadillac driver in question do roughly the same amount of damage, assuming the same amount of use.

 

The issue is that under the current funding mechanism, you are largely getting a free ride on the infrastructure maintenance to the detriment of those individuals who aren't driving electric/hybrids.  And while you may be paying more for your car in some instances (you wouldn't be paying more than I am looking to for the 1964 Lincoln Continental I'm on the market for, for instance) that cost is rather irrelevant to the cost of upkeep for the roads, because those dollars go to shareholders of Tesla (used for purposes of discussion), and not to the public coffers.

 

And while I think it's great that you're helping the environment (to some degree, possibly) that doesn't mean that everyone else should have to pay for the maintenance costs of the roadways while you get a break; and while I agree with you about big brother tracking your mileage, we need to find another way to fund our highway departments, especially as fuel efficiency and alternative fuel sources grow in popularity and carve away the existing tax base.

 

I also think that a large part of the problem is the efficiency with which our roads are maintained (generally speaking).  Many DOTs don't staff/manage their staffs properly.  Instead of putting the work in to develop schedules that make sense, they just keep everyone on the same schedules and let overtime costs soar.

 

Using our beloved northeast as an example, we're paying plow truck drivers double time to run the plow on practically bare roads - completely !@#$ing them up.  Then paying them more OT to "fix" the damage they, themselves caused.  Don't even get me started on the stretch of lawn I need to replace every !@#$ing spring.

 

Furthermore ... how about finding a better way to "fix" damaged roads.  They're putting band-aids on severed limbs.  That's not cost effective.

 

Instead of targeting motorists, how about finding efficiencies, managing properly and find ways to achieve longer-term fixes, instead of fixing the same **** year after year.

14 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

How?

 

No emissions.

 

We need to get rid of cows, next.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I also think that a large part of the problem is the efficiency with which our roads are maintained (generally speaking).  Many DOTs don't staff/manage their staffs properly.  Instead of putting the work in to develop schedules that make sense, they just keep everyone on the same schedules and let overtime costs soar.

 

Using our beloved northeast as an example, we're paying plow truck drivers double time to run the plow on practically bare roads - completely !@#$ing them up.  Then paying them more OT to "fix" the damage they, themselves caused.  Don't even get me started on the stretch of lawn I need to replace every !@#$ing spring.

 

Furthermore ... how about finding a better way to "fix" damaged roads.  They're putting band-aids on severed limbs.  That's not cost effective.

 

Instead of targeting motorists, how about finding efficiencies, managing properly and find ways to achieve longer-term fixes, instead of fixing the same **** year after year.

 

You know we're talking about government boondoggles and unions negotiating protections for labor here, right?

 

And while I am in 100% agreement with you in demanding that government become more efficient, and do more with less; I'm rather surprised (pleasantly) to find you as an ally here, and hope that you'll take this exact same view and impose it on education, social programs, etc.

Edited May 1, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

9 minutes ago, Gugny said:

We need to get rid of cows, next.

 

I'm doing the best I can, one porterhouse at a time.

[Paulus]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Deregulation in action baby. 

 

Feel that pump pain, oh ya. 

Wow, this really validates all the claims posters make about you. Tibs, please choose a better way to attack the right. One in which you have some small clue what you are talking about. 

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, Paulus said:

Wow, this really validates all the claims posters make about you. Tibs, please choose a better way to attack the right. One in which you have some small clue what you are talking about. 

 

Again, for those of you just catching up, Tibs doesn't have a clue because he is paid to post here. 

 

Whether he signs in as tibs, gator or baskin, this is someone who cruises around political websites and comments sections of articles, posting what he's told to post, all with an eye on earning enough money to buy that Land Rover.

 

You know the guy who shows up in comments sections with "I just paid cash for a Land Rover and earned $7,000 this week! Ask me how!"?

 

That's Tibs. Earning a few bucks on the internet. Put him on ignore and do you part to clean up the pollutants.

[Gugny]

39 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You know we're talking about government boondoggles and unions negotiating protections for labor here, right?

 

And while I am in 100% agreement with you in demanding that government become more efficient, and do more with less; I'm rather surprised (pleasantly) to find you as an ally here, and hope that you'll take this exact same view and impose it on education, social programs, etc.

 

Absolutely.

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

What damage does a rubber tire do to a paved road?  That's a serious question.

 

And why wouldn't I pay the same as someone driving a 71 Cadillac?  That doesn't/wouldn't upset me.

 

But if I'm an electric/hybrid car owner, I'm not down with big brother monitoring my mileage or taxing me based upon said mileage.  People buying those cars are already spending more money than similar model gasoline-powered vehicles; and they're helping the environment.

As a new CMax Energi owner i agree with this to a point. I'm already paying higher tag fees because it is an electric hybrid to help make up to the state for the loss in fuel tax. Ironic that we bought it, for the wife, to save on gas, but in the long run it probably won't save us any money at all. Not sure what it's going to cost to charge the 7 kw battery yet, but I'm guessing that 15 - 20 miles of electric, before the hybrid kicks in, is probably still going to cost a good bit of electricity. The wife can probably do all her travelling for the most part on that charge. If I take it to work, 23 miles each way, but a free charging station at work to top it off again so in theory, I could manage only about 6 miles a day in Hybrid mode which is supposed to be about 43 mpg. 

Hmmm..... I think i just talked myself into driving it to work and leaving the wife the 25 mpg Fusion. :-) 

[Tiberius]

47 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Again, for those of you just catching up, Tibs doesn't have a clue because he is paid to post here. 

 

Whether he signs in as tibs, gator or baskin, this is someone who cruises around political websites and comments sections of articles, posting what he's told to post, all with an eye on earning enough money to buy that Land Rover.

 

You know the guy who shows up in comments sections with "I just paid cash for a Land Rover and earned $7,000 this week! Ask me how!"?

 

That's Tibs. Earning a few bucks on the internet. Put him on ignore and do you part to clean up the pollutants.

I beat this punk down so many times he put me on ignore and then sits and talks about me. A true coward. 

 

POS poster he is. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

POS poster he is. 

 

Like Yoda, you are.  Small, dim, pathetic Yoda.

[Paulus]

2 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Again, for those of you just catching up, Tibs doesn't have a clue because he is paid to post here. 

 

Whether he signs in as tibs, gator or baskin, this is someone who cruises around political websites and comments sections of articles, posting what he's told to post, all with an eye on earning enough money to buy that Land Rover.

 

You know the guy who shows up in comments sections with "I just paid cash for a Land Rover and earned $7,000 this week! Ask me how!"?

 

That's Tibs. Earning a few bucks on the internet. Put him on ignore and do you part to clean up the pollutants.

I find it hard to believe, but you might be onto something there. 

[/dev/null]

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

No emissions.

 

If you think Hybrid's produce no emissions you are fooling yourself.  But for devils advocate

 

What is more friendly to the environment?

A Encouraging motorists to keep their current higher emissions vehicles

B Encouraging motorists to buy Hybrid cars with all the steel, aluminum, plastic, and petroleum based products that goes into the body and power train.  Not to mention the chemicals needed to produce battery packs that have to be replaced every 5-10 years

[Wacka]

And the polluting coal to produce  the electricity in many parts of the country for the plug in vehicles.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

 

If you think Hybrid's produce no emissions you are fooling yourself.  But for devils advocate

 

What is more friendly to the environment?

A Encouraging motorists to keep their current higher emissions vehicles

B Encouraging motorists to buy Hybrid cars with all the steel, aluminum, plastic, and petroleum based products that goes into the body and power train.  Not to mention the chemicals needed to produce battery packs that have to be replaced every 5-10 years

 

And the mining for the nickel needed for the batteries.

 

Ever see how nickel mining is done?  Environmentally horrible.  

[3rdnlng]

16 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And the mining for the nickel needed for the batteries.

 

Ever see how nickel mining is done?  Environmentally horrible.  

Check the seat cushions on your Prius---do your part!

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

And the mining for the nickel needed for the batteries.

 

Ever see how nickel mining is done?  Environmentally horrible.  

 

 

I'll just go ahead and stop you right there.

 

If the average environmentally focused liberal understood supply chains or operational opportunity cost they wouldn't be an environmentally focused liberal.

[row_33]

Prices will fluctuate 

 

 

[Cinga]

22 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Ever see how nickel mining is done?  Environmentally horrible.  

Ever seen a lithium mine?
 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

This sounds more and more like Enron Part II:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-03/musk-says-don-t-buy-volatile-tesla-stock-investors-take-heed

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results-research/tesla-shares-bonds-drop-as-ceo-musk-snubs-wall-street-idUSKBN1I41IY

 

 

[Cinga]

8 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

This sounds more and more like Enron Part II:

He's been a darling of the media and government bureaucracy for a long time now but Tesla is an investment I would never make. It all sounds good, but I don't think Tesla has yet had a profitable quarter in their history