(click chart to enlarge)
The price of a gallon of Gasoline has fallen in the past three weeks about 15 cents nationally. What's causing this? My theory is the same one oil companies use to explain why it rises in the summer - supply and demand. More people want to drive, therefore they raise the prices. Or a refinery is down for maintenance, therefore the price goes up. However, this last month the price of gas got high enough that people started driving less, looking into public transportation, riding bikes (well, I've been riding one anyway) and carpooling. As a result demand for the product went down and the oil companies dropped prices again.
I know, that's crazy talk. the real truth is Republicans willed the price to go down by talking about it.
“I think the market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) at a joint press conference with other GOP lawmakers. “I think the market realizes this kind of pressure from Congress may, in fact, lead to a change in policy.”
The market has reacted to thinner stuff than this, but come on! Congress isn't even in session and there's little indication that there will be any action on this before the fall. And the futures speculators usually think six months ahead, not 20 years. Why start underbidding yourself now? And what role is S&D supposed to be playing in this scenario, Shadegg?
And if you guys are sure that just bringing the subject up is enough to affect the price, why the hell didn't you start talking in January of 2007, when gas was at a 14 month low? What are you, in the pockets of Exxon? Ha ha, just kidding. I mean, obviously you are. What I'm kidding about is having to ask the question in the first place.
14 comments:
I guess why the Dimo-crats aren't in session, is because their oh-so-wise leader, Pelost-it, let them GO ON VACATION for 4-6 weeks, un-like the Republicans, who a still mostly there, requesting that the Dem's come back and finish business.
Instead of burying their heads in the sand and leaving town.
It's true, if they'd come back and vote sooner, we'd have lower gas prices 6 weeks earlier in 2023. Then again, why did Republicans move 6 times during the previous session to adjourn Congress before they eventually did?
You know how your people are always whining about political theatre? I'd be amused to hear the explanation of why this stunt isn't.
I refer to the 16 second youtube link on WAMK about two weeks ago, from Jay Leno, when he said (to paraphrase):
"Now congress is saying if we start drilling offshore, it will be about ten years before we benefit from it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that what they were saying ten yerars ago?"
I'm glad to see you retreating on the political theatre angle; you'd have done yourself no service defending that one.
Also, though I'm not with you on this specific issue, I agree with you that the 1998 Congress sucked. I'm furious with them too! Look at all the common ground we're finding! Obama is right.
Still in 1998 Congress couldn't have gotten offshore drilling approved because the executive branch wouldn't have allowed it. How sad that there have been no opportunities for your wise-far sighted representatives to break that stalemate since then.
Oh wait... "dimo-crats"! That's so funny! I get it - it almost rhymes! You scamps.
So your belief is that the only reason why prices have dropped is supply and demand?
The majority of Americans wanting to drill, and voicing that opinion has had no effect at all?
Okay okay, oil is a big commodity and pricing is complicated. But I also wouldn't rule out the oil companies dropping prices (indpendently, of course) to make it look like the prospect of drilling was having an effect. In any event, the ultimate responsibility for oil prices is in the hands of oil companies, and I doubt giving them even MORE of what they want will lower prices for long.
If ya got too much of what is needed, and you're charging too much for it as is, then reality is you're gonna have to lower your prices to sell what 'cha got on the shelves.
Especially when your neighbor says he can get the same thing, for less, and the people say "go for it."
It's called supply and demand, for the 1st paragraph here.
It's called public demand, for the 2nd paragragh.
GWK, I had to re-read that a couple times... you know you're AGREEING with me, don't you?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting... which 1st & 2nd paragraphs are you talking about? Comments or original piece?
My comments were in re to my paragraphs... you know I can't agree wit 'cha, Piker! You and MD wouldn't have need for a blog, then..
Then you ARE agreeing with me. I think the reason the price dropped is because people were using less oil. We both believe that is the reason, not a few vacationing congressmen's Jedi mind trick.
As to your second point, 59% of people believe abortion rights should remain as they are; 60% want a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, If you support offshore drilling and oppose these other things, you're on the side of oil companies. That makes you arrogant and elitist.
We must have our wires crossed, Piker, on the oil issue. Sorry for the confusion.
RE abortion, consider this fact:
Abortion activists are on the attack again, and this time they're targeting the religious beliefs of pro-life medical workers.
New proposed regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services protect the rights of medical workers who refuse to perform abortions or prescribe abortion drugs.
The pro-abortion lobby considers this an outrage -- they think doctors and health care workers should be forced to violate their beliefs and participate in abortion.
Crazy, huh?
Why is it that when someone kills an early-term fetus from a pregnant woman, they can be tried for a double homicide?
But when a female wants an abortion 'cause she couldn't keep her legs closed, she can go to the corner 'shop' and abort the same early pregnancy?
And that's not murder, as in the same instance from the previous paragraph?
How hypo-critical.
Don't you believe in life, Piker?
An interesting question on a wholly different topic; I may tackle it some day.
I bring up the big A and the Iraq issue because they're also things the majority of Americans want. If one of your arguments for offshore drilling is popularity, how do you reconcile your position on the other two?
Incidentally, I don't recall you saying this but I've heard other WAMK commenters insist they wouldn't mind bombing Iraq until the people are vapor and the sand is glass. They too respect unborn life.
Sorry, I promised I'd take up that topic elsewhere.
I personally don't believe in war; however, I believe war is unfortunately neccessary sometimes. 6.5 billion people in the world currently, and eventually, people are going to disagree to the point of war.
Many, many people who disagree with this war claim we are in it for oil. As far as I can tell, we haven't taken, stolen or asked for one drip from Iraq, yet. Even with the oil issues we are currently facing domestically.
Am I happy Saddam is gone? Yes. especially for the 600,000+ people he killed during his reign, and I'm happy for Iraq's liberation from him.
I don't believe in vaporizing the people there and changing the sand. We are on the road to where we need to be there, so let's let progress continue, instead of pulling everyone out now, when we are so much closer now than 15 months ago.
Does the madman in Iran worry me? You bet. More than Saddam did. Should we go to war there, as well? Something needs to be done prior to them gaining nuclear capability. 'Cause if they do, this world as we know it is over.
Post a Comment