in my case, i'm looking at buying another Jeep (either CJ or Wrangler). if i keep it pretty mild, it'll get in the high-teens...if I go with a chevy V8 swap, big tires, etc, prob closer to 12 or so.

however, I'm gonna get another motorcycle, too, which will get 35 (MAYBE 40) mpg, and try to drive it a lot of times.

5/21/2007 1:28:52 PM

Quote :

"ok people have been saying the euro thing for a long time... you see, they don't really HAVE to drive. they're all sort of packed in like sardines. ohh and their hamburgers cost twice as much too."

thats because we have so heavily subsidized corn and beef in this country

ever wonder why you can go to Wendy's and get two Whopper Jrs. for $1.98
but two tomatoes at the grocery store are almost $3? Subsidies.

5/21/2007 1:38:12 PM

$10

i wouldn't change my car for a hybrid....

$5-7 (premium) I would definitely consider biking.... that and I need a new bike anyways...

5/21/2007 1:52:29 PM

Quote :

"Do you have any arguments against the sinking ship example?"

Oh, I'm sorry, i thought that was an argument against gouging laws. If you follow the authors reasoning, the tug would not have been there if it was not able to charge far in excess of the costs of salvage, since the tug owner incurred losses during the 99% of the time that a ship was not sinking. As such, if the tug was forced to charge only what it charges to tow a ship when summoned and guaranteed a 100% chance of getting paid, which is the non-gouging price, then there would be no tug and everyone suffers.

So, by the authors own admission, price gauging laws would be a horrible loss to society; as no tugs would ever be available, since the owners could never recoup their costs, and ship owners would be overly cautious.

For optimal outcomes, your author proposes, tug owners must be allowed to at least charge 100 times their normal price during rescues, otherwise they would never be available for rescue. The discussion was whether they should be allowed to charge 10,000 times their normal price just because they can. As both sides lose if negotiations break down, I suspect both sides will become more agreeable to compromise as the ship sinks.

But this scenario is quite different from what we call gauging laws. If you fail to procure gasoline you do not lose ownership of your car, just as you do not lose your house if you fail to acquire a motel room. I am willing to concede that governmental involvement in situations of duress are valid if you are willing to concede that the threat of discomfort does not constitute duress.

Quote :

"thats because we have so heavily subsidized corn and beef in this country ever wonder why you can go to Wendy's and get two Whopper Jrs. for $1.98"

Corn prices are at record highs; so is beef. The reason a whopper is cheaper than a whole tomato is obvious: tomatoes are expensive. You can make eight whoppers out of a single tomato, so as long as the remaining ingredients are cheap it is no surprise the whopper is cheaper.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/21/2007 3:06:15 PM

^ I would add this:

Quote :

"The cost of inputs in the production of any good or service does not determine the price of the output it helps to produce. That is, prices of outputs cannot be 'justified' by their costs of production. If this were true, no business firm would ever take a loss, since the prices at which it sells its output would always cover the costs of production, including the entrepreneur's profits. Instead, prices are a function of relative supply and demand conditions. Input costs can influence, however modestly, the supply of outputs. And, changes in the supply of outputs can alter output prices."

5/21/2007 6:25:22 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr, your argument in favor of source disclosure works if he is quoting statistics or the like so you can look up where they came from and attempt to counter the method used to determine them. But there were no statistics in his post, only a logical argument. As such, who is speaking is irrelevant, all that matters is whether or not you can counter the argument or otherwise poke holes in the reasoning."

I want to see the individuals sources and whether or not they are qualified to speak on the matter. It is proper to post where you are getting your information for things other than statistics.

5/21/2007 7:35:05 PM

Quote :

"Corn prices are at record highs; so is beef. The reason a whopper is cheaper than a whole tomato is obvious: tomatoes are expensive. You can make eight whoppers out of a single tomato, so as long as the remaining ingredients are cheap it is no surprise the whopper is cheaper."

A burger is made out more than a tomato.... the main ingredient is of course beef, which is derived from a cow that has to be fed thousands of pounds of food and thousands of gallons of water during its lifetime (conservatively estimated). How can a slice of beef, derived from a living animal, be less expensive than a frigging tomato, which requires none of this?

You argue that the reason whopper jrs are cheaper than tomatoes are because that tomatoes are expensive. No shit! Thats the whole point of my post. Tomatoes are more expensive than whoppers because of subsidies. We don't subsidize tomatoes, but we do subsidize beef and corn heavily.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2007 9:27:19 PM

Easy. Human hands never had to touch the beef; a mechanized dis-assembly plant did that. However, the tomato had to be picked, washed, inspected by human hands and then carefully transported to prevent contamination since it was destined to be eaten uncooked. And what for all those tomatoes that did not pass inspection? Since customers refuse to purchase blemished produce, even if it is perfectly healthy and tasty, distributors are forced to dispose of tons. And where do you think that rejected produce ends up? That's right, Wendy's! The food at Wendy's is recycled produce that would have otherwise been thrown away by Food Lion. Since you do not see it until it is safely sliced up and shoved in a bun you don't have the chance to notice the blemishes.

[Edited on May 21, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/21/2007 9:57:12 PM

Do some research before you respond again in this thread. Please.

5/21/2007 10:08:08 PM

Quote :

"I want to see the individuals sources and whether or not they are qualified to speak on the matter."

nutsmackr

How would you know? You're not qualified to speak on the matter, much less determine whether a source is or not--but that doesn't stop you.

5/21/2007 10:32:54 PM

Quote :

"Do some research before you respond again in this thread. Please."

Why? Have I said anything that you can demonstrate and or reason to be false?

I suspect you have read a single article railing against subsidies and automatically conclude anything you can't figure out must be a conspiracy. Well, I hate to break this to you, but most U.S. farm subsidies go to keeping prices high by paying farmers not to farm. It can be argued that the price for many commodities would be lower if not for the subsidy.

As for the commodities you mention, beef and corn, you have nothing to stand on. The wholesale price of corn has doubled in the last few years. "Growing demand for ethanol has pushed corn prices to record levels and farmers are now serving pigs and cattle people food (cookies, licorice, cheese curls, candy bars, french fries, frosted wheat cereal and peanut-butter cups), since it is cheaper than corn."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117971270570109153.html?mod=djemITP

5/21/2007 10:46:38 PM

Shell considers halting U.S. refinery plans
SAN FRANCISCO: Royal Dutch Shell, the biggest European oil company, may shelve a joint venture plan to create the largest U.S. refinery because of President George W. Bush's efforts to reduce gasoline use, a Shell executive said Monday.

"If you're an investor getting ready to put several billion dollars into expanded capacity, would you do that when the president himself says we want less gasoline?" John Hofmeister, Shell's top U.S. executive, said at a conference in Santa Clara, California.

At stake is a $3 billion plan by Shell and Saudi Arabia's state oil company, partners in the Motiva Enterprises venture, to more than double the processing capacity of a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, to 600,000 barrels of crude a day. Bush called in January for the country to increase use of renewable and alternative fuels to curb reliance on imported oil, seeking a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use by 2017.

Motiva in April 2006 said it planned to begin the expansion in 2007 and complete it in 2010. The expansion would vault the Port Arthur refinery past Exxon Mobil's plant in Baytown, Texas, currently the largest in the United States.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/21/business/shell.php

5/22/2007 8:40:17 AM

Quote :

"How would you know? You're not qualified to speak on the matter, much less determine whether a source is or not--but that doesn't stop you. "

I'm not posting myself and acting like it is an expert opinion. But I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand standard operating procedure for a message board.

And it is easy to tell if someone is capable of speaking on the matter. Look at their field of study. If it was a professor of design, I wouldn't take their opinion on economics with very much weight.

Now it is time for you to take your fiber and relax.

5/22/2007 9:08:33 AM

^ You have yet to post any comments in disagreement with the arguments presented. Does that mean you found nothing disagreable, just wanted to know who it was that convinced you?

5/22/2007 10:38:23 AM

Quote :

"Oh, I'm sorry, i thought that was an argument against gouging laws."

Nah, you misread the excerpt.

It clearly shows that the efficient price is somewhere between the cost of the rescue and the value of the boat.

The gouging comes into play when the tug boat says "Ill save you for $9 million" and the ship owner really doesn't have time to bargain while his ship is sinking.


Now, I'm totally with you that government is WAY too quick to enforce gouging laws. I mean, if the tugboat owner was only allowed to charge for the price of the tow plus a small profit margin then he wouldn't have as much incentive to rescue ships and that would be clearly inefficient in many cases.

But this does show there are some examples where gouging laws are efficient when properly enforced (unfortunately politicians often don't know or don't care about efficiency)


I realize its a long excerpt so perhaps if you just focused on the initial paragraph

Quote :

"Your ten million dollar ship has been caught in a storm, disabled, and is gradually going down. Fortunately, a tug comes by and offers to rescue it. Unfortunately, the tug captain, knowing the value of the ship, proposes to charge nine million dollars for his services. If you turn that offer down, he will be happy to take you and your crew to safety, leaving the ship to sink. You agree to his price, he tows the ship safe into harbor, and you refuse to pay, claiming that your agreement was obtained under duress. The admiralty court concludes that a reasonable price for the tow is one million dollars and rewrites your agreement accordingly."

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 10:39 AM. Reason : a]

5/22/2007 10:38:41 AM

I still don't know if I would want the government involved in that situation. Did the ship owner get a bad deal? How much is his boat worth to him? Clearly he was willing to risk that 10 million when he went out to sea. He gambled and lost, but here comes a tug boat to rescue him, something which he could not have counted on being there. So now he has a chance to get out of his 10 million + error for 9 million. If that's worth it to him then what's the problem? The fact that afterwards he doesn't feel 9 million was worth it is his own fault.

5/22/2007 12:07:58 PM

^ because that is highly inefficient.

Quote :

"Our conclusion so far is that the efficient price is somewhere between the value of the ship and the cost of the rescue. A second conclusion is that there is no reason to expect bargaining to produce it. The bargaining occurs when the ship is sinking and the tug has already shown up, after all the relevant decisions, by ship owner and by tug owner, have already been taken. The only remaining decision is whether to rescue the ship or let it sink, and everyone already knows the right answer to that. Everyone knows it, but we may not get it. When the bargaining occurs, it is in a setting of bilateral monopoly. Each side is trying to get as much as possible; while they argue, the ship is sinking. That suggests one good argument for the present legal rule, which permits an admiralty court to rewrite a contract that is too favorable to one side. It reduces the risk that the ship will sink while the two sides are haggling."

[Edited on May 22, 2007 at 12:16 PM. Reason : a]

5/22/2007 12:11:41 PM

But this scenario is quite different from what we call gauging laws. If you fail to procure gasoline you do not lose ownership of your car, just as you do not lose your house if you fail to acquire a motel room. I am willing to concede that governmental involvement in situations of duress are valid if you are willing to concede that the threat of discomfort does not constitute duress.

5/22/2007 1:17:41 PM

^ absolutely I agree with that.


Price gouging laws are efficient for situations of "duress".

The problem is politicians are unable to correctly interpret what "duress" implies.


The fact that a tornado is coming and people want to buy generators at Home Depot does not mean its a situation of duress.

Its bullshit when artificial shortages are created because people are too scared to raise rates in times of high demand.

5/22/2007 2:39:32 PM

^X7 You're so full of shit. I POSTED the link, but you have yet to offer whether you "approve" of the source and you aren't addressing the argument I posited.

So. . .what are you doing? Oh, that's right. . .you're continuing your obsession with me as some sort of conservative bogeyman--when nothing could be further from the truth. That creative writing concentration of yours really helps with the fiction, doesn't it?

Try to focus, k?

PS: And I'll not have you maligning fiber and relaxation here--you obviously could use a little of both.

5/23/2007 2:34:09 AM

5/29/2007 11:12:01 AM

those numbers don't make the gouging right.

we're getting raped; it's wrong. there is no excuse for it. you can justify anything with the right numbers, but all i know is that i've cancelled several events this summer simply because i can't afford the additional cost of getting there.

5/29/2007 11:31:59 AM

So where exactly is the gouging occuring? In the refining process? An industry historically marked by extreme competition and low-to-negative margins?

I just want to make sure I understand the argument. Because the oil industry is one of the most scrutinized industries in business, and countless investigations have failed to turn up any evidence of gouging.

5/29/2007 11:38:07 AM

Well, we could outlaw the high prices; do away with the gouging.

Of course, that would mean people like you that have cancelled events because of the high price would not have done so; which would mean gasoline consumption would have been higher if not for the prices. Where do you suspect the extra gasoline would come from?

No where, is where. As people attempted to consume more gasoline than exists, shortages would develop, stations would run out, hoarding would kick in, and gas lines would return.

Instead of opting to cancel events, you would go anyway; only to find no gas in the pump when you ran out, stranding yourself in the middle of nowhere until the next gas truck came along.

Not to mention, most of our fuels are imported. As lower prices in America set in, the world price would fall, ingendering higher consumption everywhere: China, India, Europe, etc; all of which would be canibalized from America (if American's are only legally allowed to pay $2.50 a gallon, then other countries can have all our fuel for $2.51 a gallon).

To sum up, the gouging is not only justified, it is necessary. It would be immoral to do otherwise. Americans need fuel; if we were not made to pay for it then we would not have enough, and some of us would be made to go without, perhaps to our deaths.

5/29/2007 11:47:44 AM

gasoline is cheap

5/29/2007 3:54:27 PM

^^

5/29/2007 4:09:41 PM

we should all buy electric cars. Check out the tesla:
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php
Under 100k and accelerates faster than a stock ferrari or lambo all in a 70 pound electric engine.

5/29/2007 4:17:28 PM

100k dollars?

5/29/2007 4:24:07 PM

who else besides me gets company gas cards aka never has to buy gas out of their own pockets?

5/29/2007 4:30:50 PM

your penis must be huge

5/29/2007 4:34:11 PM

If my work had good showering facilities and I had a safe and enjoyable way to get to work, I would bike. In fact I'm going back to grad school and will be biking to campus.

5/29/2007 4:35:19 PM

^^yes it is...but more relevant to the topic at hand, i dont get as bent out of shape at higher gas prices because they dont affect my wallet directly as much as most other people

5/29/2007 4:39:20 PM

the electric car will never be a good idea until the power grid is completely nuclear

5/29/2007 5:39:54 PM

[Edited on May 31, 2007 at 7:38 PM. Reason : mpg]

5/31/2007 7:36:45 PM

^ And have you seen this:

Edwards Wants Probe Of High Gas Prices
Edwards Calls For Investigation Of Oil Company Mergers, High Gas Prices

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/31/ap/politics/main2868969.shtml

Damn panderer.

5/31/2007 11:32:43 PM

When it starts costing me $75 to fill my tank up, you better believe I'll never be leaving the house except for work and school.

6/1/2007 12:07:48 AM

cheap gas

7/19/2007 4:40:41 PM

$6 would be too high, and will happen by 2009.

that said, we'll see lower prices the rest of this year (as low as $2.50) before we restart the hike towards $6.

7/19/2007 6:43:57 PM

Odd, gasoline futures for that year are not that high, so what makes you think gasoline will be selling for that much by that time?

That said, I couldn't find actual prices, but I suspect futures contracts for then (just two years hence) are going for less than $2 a gallon. If you are sure the price will be $6, then I guess you have already purchased all the futures you can? I ask because, seriously, who doesn't want to get a 300% return over two years. You should take out a second mortgage on your house, borrow every penny you can get ahold of, and buy gasoline futures, you'll earn every cent invested back and then three more with it!

7/19/2007 7:48:52 PM

^^where'd you hear that? And nobody can predict that.

7/19/2007 11:08:35 PM

^ Well, probably no one can predict that. If they could then, as I explained, they would be fabulously wealthy.

7/19/2007 11:19:43 PM

too high for gas is about 15 a gallon

i think at that point it would actually cause people to buy better fuel efficient cars and change their driving habits

7/20/2007 8:54:33 PM

it would have to get pretty high for me to get a hybrid.


i already use public transportation when i can. no real effect from gas price.

7/20/2007 9:09:21 PM

^ $15 a gallon? At that price a plug-in hybrid would pay for itself in a matter of weeks.

7/20/2007 9:38:12 PM

maybe if i used more gas

as is, even at $15/gallon it would still be more expensive for me to make a car payment than buy gas for the one i already have

7/20/2007 10:28:24 PM

$15/gal would make the world economy implode

7/20/2007 10:50:12 PM

$15 a gallon would require an assertive and continuing effort from God.

7/21/2007 9:22:50 AM