Diesel in Scranton is already at $4.149/gal. I got 149 gallons and the price tag was over $600!

And I'm going to "waste" 12 gallons of it tonight to stay warm.

This is getting out of hand.

I read that they project people are going to finally start saying "that's enough" and drive a whole lot less. I'll believe it when I see it. That's what we can hope for. That is what I think those who say "in my country it's 5000 qwerty a ha' litre or whatever measurements they use, so you should be happy" don't understand. This IS America and we do expect that our government listen to the people who are saying "this is enough when I must choose between feeding my family and gasoline" by boycotting, cutting down, and aggressive feedback.

I don't believe gas prices are on an unavoidable upswing. I do believe that if we get a president (et al) who is (are) not in the pockets of the oil companies we could effect some changes.

Shawnee, I wish that were possible, but I don't think that this as a political issue. There is an ever declining amount of oil in the ground, constraints on extraction, shipping and refining, and an increasing world-wide demand.

The only changes that can be instituted to reduce oil prices significantly are those that result in reduction in demand. These could include: greatly improved mass transit, greatly increased vehicle fuel efficiency, rationing, massive recession, and rapid conversion and implementation of alternative fuels.

Some of these options are possible, but not immediate. Conversion to alternative fuels might be possible one day, but this will still require drastic conservation measures - we cannot meet more than 25 to 30% of our current demand using cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel.

Rationing of conventional oil would spur implementation of most of the other options on that list.

Don't bombard me with facts, Mr Jesus. ;)

Seriously, if it's not a political issue, why is no one in the government addressing this? Why don't we hear on the news, when they interview disgruntled people all the time, someone in the "know" explain to the people why they care but are powerless? Reeks of typical sweeping issues under the rug in hopes that we just go with the flow.

I still think we have an awful lot of folks in the wrong pockets.

I undertsatnd that the reason for current soaring prices is because with dollar being a turd and the financial markets in a tizzy. Investors are buying oil as a commodity. Nothing to do with supply and demand of the actual stuff, just trading to prop up portfolios and 401Ks.
So it is a political problem, if the economy was more stable, these investors wouldn't be switching to oil.

They also said this artificial price bubble could continue to inflate or burst at any time, 6 month price predictions range equally from $30-$150 :eek:

Do you mean keeping your engine running while you sleep?

If so, wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a room? (And probably more environmentally friendly too) Or do you have to keep the engine running anyway to stop the diesel freezing? Or something?

/nosy

(love the technical jargon there, beest.)

Um, because it's not a political issue? The only way a politician can affect your cost for fuel is by removing or reducing the taxes on the fuel - something they don't want to consider.
Commodities trade on future expectations of price, it is very much a supply and demand issue. Money managers buy and sell anything that is able to be held within a portfolio by their prospectus. It isn't a propping up issue, it's a "where can we make some money?" issue. That is what you pay them for - to make money where they can and hedge losses where they can.
Stable? Recession and price spikes in various asset classes are very much a normal part of the economic cycle. This isn't an accident - it is just part of life. The government shouldn't even try to interfere in markets hoping to prevent indices from dropping - it isn't there job.

Your sarcasm aside, you can't tell me the politicians aren't usually the first ones to jump up and say " WE DIDN'T DO IT. HE DID IT. LOOK OVER THERE" in response to repeated questions from the people. Or is that directly related to how much bullshit is spewing out their asses?

My point is they don't address it, even to point their pointy little fingers and say they have no control. If they don't have control they would certainly point those pointy little fingers everywhere, thereby addressing it.

lookout, if I'm reading your response correctly, the money managers aren't pushing the price up, they're anticipating that the price of oil will increase due to external factors and they're just riding that increase.

Does that mean that they expect the price to go significantly above $110/barrel?

What they are trading is the future price of oil. Those contracts have different conditions for time, price, quantity, etc. Some traders will buy at a future price of $110 and turn around and buy another at $90. They're trading options to purchase or sell at set pricepoints. It really is complex. Right now, more people think it will go higher than feel it will go lower.

S123 - Politicians don't get to decide the cost of fuel beyond the amount of tax they slap on it. They talk so that you can hear their voices and feel like they care about you. Right now there are plenty of reasons for them to worm their way into the evening news - the war, the election, peers getting hookers... Wait for the next news cycle slowdown and they'll be concerned with the price of gas again. They'll lay it at the feet of big oil robber barons and forget to mention that the government makes a bigger profit per gallon that the company selling it.

The politicians absolutely have some influence on all of this. It's called leadership, and we don't have any right now.

They control purse strings for research into areas that might spawn new technologies and alternative fuels. They pass or don't pass fuel consumption standard for vehicles. They offer or don't offer tax breaks for purchasing Hummers. They offer or don't offer tax breaks for people who spend money making their homes more energy efficient.

You can either try to increase the supply, which this administration has done by invading Iraq and pushing to open wildlife refuges to drilling.

Or you can try to decrease demand, which this administration has fought at almost every turn, going so far as to give tax breaks to purchasers of Hummers. Remember Jimmy Carter putting on that sweater and telling us he was turning the thermostat in the White House down a few degrees? The government can easily pass laws dictating fuel economy of fleets of vehicles.

Or you can pump money into research of alternative fuels in order to think outside the box. Germany, for example has done this a lot. Many farmers in Germany have planted solar panels in their fields instead of crops because of government programs that make it financially attractive. There are many ideas out there that haven't been tried yet. High altitude kites that have wind turbines on them, buoys in the ocean that harness wave power are two that come to mind. Businesses aren't going to risk trying them until the price of oil justifies it, but then it may be too late. You need governments to kick start programs like this, much like the space race.

You can point to the markets and say that it's all the markets' fault, but the truth is that the government has a hell of a lot of influence here, and they aren't using it wisely. There's no leadership.

OK, so we want the government to step up and push money into alt fuel? How? What areas? Who gets the money? How much? Who decides? What benchmark must they hit to receive the money? If something proves viable, who gets to profit? How much? If the price of oil comes down should we quit spending money on something that is more expensive and less efficient than oil? Where is the cutoff?

I'm not saying alt fuel is a pipe dream. I'm not saying it isn't a worthy goal. I'm saying it is more complicated than having a schmoe in a suit say "we need to ween ourselves from foreign oil".

As the price of fossil fuels goes up, alternative energy becomes more attractive and research and testing ramps up. It takes time for new ideas to be explored, tested, approved, and developed to the point that they can go to market with an expectation of profitability. Remember, companies aren't making products because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get. They have to harness new ideas into profitable scenarios before they can bring them to you. Part of the process is preparing for any backlash as well.
New high efficiency light bulbs? Awesome. They are more hazardous when disposed of? damn.
New hybrid cars? Love them! oh, they're more expensive and the manufacturing process vs savings takes 8+ years to offset? Hmmm.

I don't want my government to just throw money at the problem so they look concerned. I fully support a reasonable and rational expenditure that has a reasonable chance of proving effective.

ok thanks :)

I'm lucky,I'm lucky. does anyone want to buy an SUV?

When the collapse comes, you won't be able to get gas for your SUV, but at least you could live in it.