Gas price petition?

[Cruentus]

Thank you for very much for your response.

I didn't find where you really disagreed with me, and I didn't really find much in your post with which I disagree.

Oh...I apologize. I must have misunderstood.

I agree with your last post and Micheal Edwards comments as well.

One thing that is missing from the equation is the issue of manufactured consent, and lack of effecient product to choose from.

Sure, it is the consumer who should buy more energy effecient vehicles. But first of all, those need to be available in a cost effecient manner. They are becoming more available now, but right now it is at high out of pocket cost to buy these vehicles. Plus, the vehicles offered now are no where near the potential they could be.

I just think that people need to realize that it isn't solely the responsability of the working consumer to just simply buy more effecient vehicles. We forget that big oil and auto has driven us to be relient on oil, and to believe that technology for more effecient vehicles is far off in the future somewhere. They need to be burden with consequence much more then the working people that are the driving force of the economy to begin with.

I'll use myself as a real world example of how the consumer gets screwed. I am in the process of finalizing a deal on a 3/4 ton truck that I need for working purposes. The MPG is not the greatest, to say the least. Yet, because I am buying it for working purposes, and because I nailed a sweet deal and it is used, it is only costing me a few thousand dollars, well under its blue book value. If I wanted to buy a more effecient vehicle with the working capabilities of this truck, it would cost me in excess of $30K. And even at that price, the MPG tradeoff isn't significant, and other trucks that could utilize alternative fuel sources are unavailable or not able to fit the criteria needed for a working vehicle. So, I have to choose which will screw me less. Do I get screwed at the pump, or on the initial buy? Since I don't want to financially enslave myself from the get-go, I am forced to get screwed at the pump.

There are many people in similar situations as I; people who have to chose between how they want to be screwed. This is not a choice that working people should be forced to make. It's bad for our economy more so then anything. This is why our Government should step in and start making oil and other companies accountable for the situation they drove to create, so that we aren't the ones making all the sacrifice.

 

[beau_safken]

Unfortunatly, we are the ones that need to be responsible and ultimately accountable for the actions our country takes.

I am not going to dispute that the cost of a used vehicle that gets worse MPG vs a new vehicle with better MPG wont screw you on the initial investment. My family has a Ford F350 diesel dually for hauling around a camper and car trailer, so they really aren't in any position to complain about that amount of gas that they use or the costs involved. Coming from a famly of construction workers, I also realize the need of constractors to have a vehicle for work purposes where MPG isnt the driving concern.

But for every 1 guy that is in the above situation there are 10 or 20 that don't need it but like the look. That is what I am really driving at. Its the urban cowboy mentality that is kinda out of control. Also a nice chunk of that is the family tank of protection known as the SUV. People use the SUV for transporting kids, pets and stuff..thats fine. ITs the times where the drivers are not hauling kids, loads or anyone but themselves that concerns us all. Why do they do it...for the look and comfort of driving a massive car. Vanity and a false sense of security...

Consumers need to bear the brunt of the gas prices to get the wake up call to use vehicles for their intended purpose. When you don't need your truck, drive a smaller car. If all you do is commute point a to b, get a smaller car and spend money on a kickass seat. OR better yet, take the money you would spend on a SUV and buy a 4 banger Honda/Toyota/VW. Invest the difference in a safety cage and seats from a SUV and boom there ya go. All the safety and preceived luxury in a car that gets good gas mileage.

 

[crushing]

Sure, it is the consumer who should buy more energy effecient vehicles. But first of all, those need to be available in a cost effecient manner. They are becoming more available now, but right now it is at high out of pocket cost to buy these vehicles. Plus, the vehicles offered now are no where near the potential they could be.

On a related NPR story, the guy that does the money show Kai Risdall (sp?) was at an automobile museum that had a hybrid car from 1917. It seems like it may have been a Citroen. Anyway, the gasoline engine would charge the battery system. The problem was that batteries were huge and heavy, plus they didn't have the computer systems to manage the two engines.

It seems that 90 years after that hybrid car, we would have something affordable and practical.

Best Regards,

 

[Cruentus]

Unfortunatly, we are the ones that need to be responsible and ultimately accountable for the actions our country takes.

It is pricisely that mentality that allows corporate slavery to occur. It is philisophically imbalanced to believe that individuals should have accountability but that corporations shouldn't.

If companies are considered citizens (and by definition of the 14th amendment and case law they are), then they need to be held accountable as in the same sense. Those who should bear greater accountability are those that do the most to create and profit from the circumstance. In this case, it would be the companies rather then the consumer.

 

[beau_safken]

It is pricisely that mentality that allows corporate slavery to occur. It is philisophically imbalanced to believe that individuals should have accountability but that corporations shouldn't.

If companies are considered citizens (and by definition of the 14th amendment and case law they are), then they need to be held accountable as in the same sense. Those who should bear greater accountability are those that do the most to create and profit from the circumstance. In this case, it would be the companies rather then the consumer.

I am not advocating any kind of socialist behavior...far from it. Companies will provide what the market wishes to buy. Since companies are not gonna change what makes money right now, big cars/trucks, the only person that can do anything is the consumer. However, there are most tax loopholes regarding larger vehicles than smaller ones which benefit the companies and consumers alike. What can we do to companies that are simply providing what the market wants? Tax them, fine them, pull a south park and torch the store only to shop at the next one?

People need to realize what they are doing and make the appropriate changes to their lifestyle. I don't think anyone in the government or big business is gonna do anything to upset the status quo of big vehicle = big profits for gas and car companies. I'm just saying that realistically the only place change can happen is with the individual. Government isn't gonna change until its too late, and companies care for profit now not later. Thats just how the life of a a freemarket society treats the problem, so the only way to successfully fight it is to not buy the problem.

 

[Andrew Green]

Not necessarily. That could be just the logic I need to retire my SUV to winter beater status and talk myself in to buying that Honda S2000 convertible I've been lusting after.

Please don't, :s SUV's are the source of most driving problems on winter roads. When they aren't slidding around or in a ditch they are.... well... actually we don't really know, it's not been witnessed yet.

Petition, IMO, is misplaced.

If we want to cut gas prices, we need conservation. Supply and demand remember. SUV's to go back and forth between work, just you and your lunch, is silly.

And you American's...well your gov't, need to quite getting the people that have the oil to dislike you and feel threatened by you.

 

[Cruentus]

What can we do to companies that are simply providing what the market wants? Tax them, fine them, pull a south park and torch the store only to shop at the next one?

The idea that there is nothing we can do but try to behave differently has also been manufactured for you. It simply isn't true.

It's a common misunderstanding to assume that companies will always regulate themselves according to consumer demand. On the contrary, with the broad scope of media and Public Relations now adays, companies are used to creating the demand, them providing it.

Example: fast food. Consumers didn't demand that McDonalds chains be put in place to provide low cost food at the expense of our health. This is something that was created and cleverly advertised by the company, which created the demand.

Large expensive gas gussling vehicles were also a created "demand." Yet, sometimes companies are no longer able to effectively create demand due to the economic environment, which ends up costing the consumer/worker once again. The big three auto companies are perfect examples of this. Look at General Motors. They miscaculated the environment we are in, thinking that they could continue to manufacture the need for large expensive gas guzzlers from SUV's and trucks to higher cost luxury vehicles. The consumers NEED for smaller more economical vehicles, as well as the need to cut spending because of a poor economy has driven the consumer to buy foriegn, or to buy used, or to buy more effecient vehicles. GM thought they could use effective advertising to continue to manufacture the ideas and desires of the consumer, and therefore remain on top. They miscaculated. So now people have lost jobs, have taken pay cuts and benefit cuts, are worried about security, and the local economies driven by plants and offices for GM are in danger. All because of a miscaculation in ability to manufacture need.

So, the end game once again is that the consumer/worker/middle class suffers at the expense of decisions made by large companies.

I can appreciate that individuals need to have personal responsability. But corporate entities need to be held accountable for their actions as well. Just don't mistaken consumer need with manufactored demand.

Because of the fact of manufactured demand, responsability goes both ways between company and consumer, not just in one direction.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

If we want to cut gas prices, we need conservation. Supply and demand remember.

That is the biggest misconception we have going so far. There isn't a supply issue right now; that notion is illusionary. And if you've looked at the numbers, the costs for gas remain high regardless of the supply demand balance because the oil industry is a monopoly run by only a few companies, rather then many competing for business. It's essentially a game of the oil industry charging whatever they feel we can tolerate rather then what they need to run their operation.

 

[beau_safken]

The idea that there is nothing we can do but try to behave differently has also been manufactured for you. It simply isn't true.

It's a common misunderstanding to assume that companies will always regulate themselves according to consumer demand. On the contrary, with the broad scope of media and Public Relations now adays, companies are used to creating the demand, them providing it.

Example: fast food. Consumers didn't demand that McDonalds chains be put in place to provide low cost food at the expense of our health. This is something that was created and cleverly advertised by the company, which created the demand.

Large expensive gas gussling vehicles were also a created "demand." Yet, sometimes companies are no longer able to effectively create demand due to the economic environment, which ends up costing the consumer/worker once again. The big three auto companies are perfect examples of this. Look at General Motors. They miscaculated the environment we are in, thinking that they could continue to manufacture the need for large expensive gas guzzlers from SUV's and trucks to higher cost luxury vehicles. The consumers NEED for smaller more economical vehicles, as well as the need to cut spending because of a poor economy has driven the consumer to buy foriegn, or to buy used, or to buy more effecient vehicles. GM thought they could use effective advertising to continue to manufacture the ideas and desires of the consumer, and therefore remain on top. They miscaculated. So now people have lost jobs, have taken pay cuts and benefit cuts, are worried about security, and the local economies driven by plants and offices for GM are in danger. All because of a miscaculation in ability to manufacture need.

So, the end game once again is that the consumer/worker/middle class suffers at the expense of decisions made by large companies.

I can appreciate that individuals need to have personal responsability. But corporate entities need to be held accountable for their actions as well. Just don't mistaken consumer need with manufactored demand.

Because of the fact of manufactured demand, responsability goes both ways between company and consumer, not just in one direction.

Paul

That is one damn fine point. The effect of marketing the product to create a market is a really important point. I'm gonna go with a big +1 on that one for sure.

 

[Andrew Green]

Sure there is, oil is limited in quantity. There is only so much in the ground, people that have it know this and when they start running out, charge more and sell less.

As the really big oil deposits get used the cost of getting it out of the ground increases as well.

Fuel prices are going up, and they will keep going up. Faster if we use more, slower if we use less.

 

[Phoenix44]

and c) stop threatening every country with an oil well.

Yeah. Pretty soon we're going to hear that Bolivia was responsible for 9/11...

 

[Cruentus]

Andrew, you've got one false assuption that clouds an otherwise logical arguement.

oil is limited in quantity.

true

There is only so much in the ground,

true

people that have it know this

true

and when they start running out,

False assumption. They haven't started running out yet. We know that eventually (meaning real soon, like within 10 years) supply will become a major issue. But that hasn't actually occured yet. What has occured, however, is the illusion of a supply problem. Thus leading to your conclusion:

charge more and sell less.

Which is a false conclusion due to the false data point provided. Because supply hasn't actually become an issue yet, the justification for the high prices on gas that exist today aren't there.

I do agree with your point that less use will = less depletion of the resource. However, the solution to "less use" is far more reliant on a change in the product being used (in this case, changing the nature of automobiles that run on gasoline) rather then a change in frequency of use of the product. Right now, people are commuting heavy due to the travel reliant society that has been built. It would take a complete social-economic transformation to change that, which isn't practical or possible.