Crude Prices WAY DOWN, but prices at the pump still going up

I just wanted to point out that prices at the pump are not tied as tightly
to crude prices as some like to claim. Crude prices are down, and demand in
America is also down, but prices are not falling as they should if the
Supply & Demand Model was responsible to set the stage for pump prices.

I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again, why would they sell a
gallon for a dollar when we have a system that lets them sell a half-gallon
for two dollars?

I hate to advocate government regulation of the energy markets, but we had
regulated energy -- regulated electricity -- for most of my life, and the
energy companies made lots of money. I get that electricity and gasoline are
different, but they have much in common. Mostly, the consumers are
compulsory participants, not voluntary participants.

I can elect to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or switch to tuna
fish or egg salad if peanut butter becomes too costly. But, I can't plug my
'fridge in somewhere else, and I can't stop going to work. So, I volunteer
to participate in the PB&J market, and pay whatever they demand or change my
diet, but in the energy markets, I can't change anything. I can get a more
efficient 'fridge, but I still have to plug it in to the same hole in the
wall which still gets its juice from the same energy plant. And, I can get a
cheaper car, but it still needs gas. I can't change enough of my life to
affect a change in energy markets, but I can make a change in the PB&J
market.

As much as it pains me to advocate government regulation of the energy
markets, consumers need protections from predatory business practices.

Jeff Strickland wrote:[color=blue]
> I just wanted to point out that prices at the pump are not tied as tightly
> to crude prices as some like to claim. Crude prices are down, and demand in
> America is also down, but prices are not falling as they should if the
> Supply & Demand Model was responsible to set the stage for pump prices.
>
> I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again, why would they sell a
> gallon for a dollar when we have a system that lets them sell a half-gallon
> for two dollars?
>
> I hate to advocate government regulation of the energy markets, but we had
> regulated energy -- regulated electricity -- for most of my life, and the
> energy companies made lots of money. I get that electricity and gasoline are
> different, but they have much in common. Mostly, the consumers are
> compulsory participants, not voluntary participants.
>
> I can elect to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or switch to tuna
> fish or egg salad if peanut butter becomes too costly. But, I can't plug my
> 'fridge in somewhere else, and I can't stop going to work. So, I volunteer
> to participate in the PB&J market, and pay whatever they demand or change my
> diet, but in the energy markets, I can't change anything. I can get a more
> efficient 'fridge, but I still have to plug it in to the same hole in the
> wall which still gets its juice from the same energy plant. And, I can get a
> cheaper car, but it still needs gas. I can't change enough of my life to
> affect a change in energy markets, but I can make a change in the PB&J
> market.
>
> As much as it pains me to advocate government regulation of the energy
> markets, consumers need protections from predatory business practices.[/color]

We'll fix it in 2006 (the Democrats, that is). Just remember how high
your energy bill has been lately during that private moment in the
voting booth. I won't tell anyone.

Oh, the Democrats are going to build more refinerys. That's great
because that's where the bottleneck currently is ;)
Frank

The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction of
new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.

They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
that rich?





"Frank" <frank.logullo@dol.net> wrote in message
news:1128974934.079493.264620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Oh, the Democrats are going to build more refinerys. That's great
> because that's where the bottleneck currently is ;)
> Frank
>[/color]

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WIKdnagXa4z0UNfeRVn-tw@ez2.net...[color=blue]
> The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction of
> new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
>
> They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
> that rich?
>[/color]

It's the oil companies that are getting rich. They're no different than
slimeballs jacking up the price of bread after a hurricane.

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170118,00.html[/url]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:53:43 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I just wanted to point out that prices at the pump are not tied as tightly
>to crude prices as some like to claim. Crude prices are down, and demand in
>America is also down, but prices are not falling as they should if the
>Supply & Demand Model was responsible to set the stage for pump prices.[/color]

I wonder if we could imply that the oil companies are threatening us?

Wonder if your new Florida law would allow

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM
;-)

[color=blue]
>
>I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again, why would they sell a
>gallon for a dollar when we have a system that lets them sell a half-gallon
>for two dollars?
>
>I hate to advocate government regulation of the energy markets, but we had
>regulated energy -- regulated electricity -- for most of my life, and the
>energy companies made lots of money. I get that electricity and gasoline are
>different, but they have much in common. Mostly, the consumers are
>compulsory participants, not voluntary participants.
>
>I can elect to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or switch to tuna
>fish or egg salad if peanut butter becomes too costly. But, I can't plug my
>'fridge in somewhere else, and I can't stop going to work. So, I volunteer
>to participate in the PB&J market, and pay whatever they demand or change my
>diet, but in the energy markets, I can't change anything. I can get a more
>efficient 'fridge, but I still have to plug it in to the same hole in the
>wall which still gets its juice from the same energy plant. And, I can get a
>cheaper car, but it still needs gas. I can't change enough of my life to
>affect a change in energy markets, but I can make a change in the PB&J
>market.
>
>As much as it pains me to advocate government regulation of the energy
>markets, consumers need protections from predatory business practices.
>
>
>[/color]

On 10 Oct 2005 13:01:27 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Jeff Strickland wrote:[color=green]
>> I just wanted to point out that prices at the pump are not tied as tightly
>> to crude prices as some like to claim. Crude prices are down, and demand in
>> America is also down, but prices are not falling as they should if the
>> Supply & Demand Model was responsible to set the stage for pump prices.
>>
>> I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again, why would they sell a
>> gallon for a dollar when we have a system that lets them sell a half-gallon
>> for two dollars?
>>
>> I hate to advocate government regulation of the energy markets, but we had
>> regulated energy -- regulated electricity -- for most of my life, and the
>> energy companies made lots of money. I get that electricity and gasoline are
>> different, but they have much in common. Mostly, the consumers are
>> compulsory participants, not voluntary participants.
>>
>> I can elect to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or switch to tuna
>> fish or egg salad if peanut butter becomes too costly. But, I can't plug my
>> 'fridge in somewhere else, and I can't stop going to work. So, I volunteer
>> to participate in the PB&J market, and pay whatever they demand or change my
>> diet, but in the energy markets, I can't change anything. I can get a more
>> efficient 'fridge, but I still have to plug it in to the same hole in the
>> wall which still gets its juice from the same energy plant. And, I can get a
>> cheaper car, but it still needs gas. I can't change enough of my life to
>> affect a change in energy markets, but I can make a change in the PB&J
>> market.
>>
>> As much as it pains me to advocate government regulation of the energy
>> markets, consumers need protections from predatory business practices.[/color]
>
>We'll fix it in 2006 (the Democrats, that is). Just remember how high
>your energy bill has been lately during that private moment in the
>voting booth. I won't tell anyone.[/color]

The ONE thing that WON'T fix a damned thing is the Demorat party!

I will tell everyone...you can take that to the bank!!!!!!!

Case in point?

Louisiana and New Orleans....

On 10 Oct 2005 13:08:54 -0700, "Frank" <frank.logullo@dol.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Oh, the Democrats are going to build more refinerys. That's great
>because that's where the bottleneck currently is ;)
>Frank[/color]


GOTCHA!

Good one Frank!!!!!!

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:22:00 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction of
>new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
>
>They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
>that rich?[/color]

It surely is wonderful!

The grass roots conservatives are in a big time revolt. ALL in
Congress had better watch out.

They were sent to Washington to whip the crap out of the idiotic
liberal ideas and they are wimping out.

Look for a big change in Congress in 06!

.....and no....Learning it will not be a takeover by the Demorats...

[color=blue]
>
>
>
>
>
>"Frank" <frank.logullo@dol.net> wrote in message
>news:1128974934.079493.264620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>> Oh, the Democrats are going to build more refinerys. That's great
>> because that's where the bottleneck currently is ;)
>> Frank
>>[/color][/color]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:36:10 -0700, "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:WIKdnagXa4z0UNfeRVn-tw@ez2.net...[color=green]
>> The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction of
>> new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
>>
>> They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
>> that rich?
>>[/color]
>
>It's the oil companies that are getting rich. They're no different than
>slimeballs jacking up the price of bread after a hurricane.
>
>[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170118,00.html[/url]
>[/color]

....then it is time to invest in those companies...instead of
bitchin...

Oh yes you are a liberal...I forgot...

No brain...

In article <XLSdnRHbMJ4lJdfeRVn-pg@ez2.net>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I just wanted to point out that prices at the pump are not tied as tightly
> to crude prices as some like to claim. Crude prices are down, and demand in
> America is also down, but prices are not falling as they should if the
> Supply & Demand Model was responsible to set the stage for pump prices.
>
> I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again, why would they sell a
> gallon for a dollar when we have a system that lets them sell a half-gallon
> for two dollars?
>
> I hate to advocate government regulation of the energy markets, but we had
> regulated energy -- regulated electricity -- for most of my life, and the
> energy companies made lots of money. I get that electricity and gasoline are
> different, but they have much in common. Mostly, the consumers are
> compulsory participants, not voluntary participants.
>
> I can elect to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or switch to tuna
> fish or egg salad if peanut butter becomes too costly. But, I can't plug my
> 'fridge in somewhere else, and I can't stop going to work. So, I volunteer
> to participate in the PB&J market, and pay whatever they demand or change my
> diet, but in the energy markets, I can't change anything. I can get a more
> efficient 'fridge, but I still have to plug it in to the same hole in the
> wall which still gets its juice from the same energy plant. And, I can get a
> cheaper car, but it still needs gas. I can't change enough of my life to
> affect a change in energy markets, but I can make a change in the PB&J
> market.
>
> As much as it pains me to advocate government regulation of the energy
> markets, consumers need protections from predatory business practices.[/color]

Pump prices here are trending down. Down another penny from yesterday
and down twenty cents from a couple weeks ago.
--

ToMh wrote:[color=blue]
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:WIKdnagXa4z0UNfeRVn-tw@ez2.net...[color=green]
> > The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction of
> > new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
> >
> > They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
> > that rich?
> >[/color]
>
> It's the oil companies that are getting rich. They're no different than
> slimeballs jacking up the price of bread after a hurricane.
>
> [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170118,00.html[/url][/color]

Key thing to remember is that oil companies don't set prices.

"WHAT?". That's right, they don't set prices. They sell a commodity
into a world market. Why was oil cheaper than bottled water for so
long if it's so easy to jack the price up? Oil was $15 a barrel in the
early 1990s...why?

AS for the OP question, it's becuase there's a disconnect betweeen oil
prices and refined product, gasoline. Usually they move in tandem, but
now there is a refinery shortage. There's a bottleneck in refineries,
there's no spare capacity and 1/3 of all capacity was sidelined due to
Katrina and Rita, something like that. Last figures I saw, IIRC, were
refineries were 70% of capacity instead of 98% like ususal.

If 1/3 of the supply goes away....well then the price goes up. Not
because they're "gouging", but because that's what the bidders are
willing to pay. The high prices are attracting imports of refined
product from Europe, but they don't have much spare capacity either.

If you're auctioning off a rare coin that you found are you gouging for
charging $100 for something that cost you nothing? Should there be a
law requiring you to sell it for 50 cents? Why not? It cost you
nothing, therefore you shouldn't profit from it. That's gouging and
gouging is wrong.

If there should be such a law, then what about the guy willing to pay
$100 for it? He doesn't get the coin even though he'll pay $100? Who
would you give the coin to? You'd have to have a lottery. In this
country we ration by price...highest bidder gets the coin, or the
gasoline.

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:03mlk19c15gav2c479jnuq6p00lgvpf3vq@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:36:10 -0700, "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:WIKdnagXa4z0UNfeRVn-tw@ez2.net...[color=darkred]
>>> The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction
>>> of
>>> new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
>>>
>>> They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
>>> that rich?
>>>[/color]
>>
>>It's the oil companies that are getting rich. They're no different than
>>slimeballs jacking up the price of bread after a hurricane.
>>
>>[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170118,00.html[/url]
>>[/color]
>
> ...then it is time to invest in those companies...instead of
> bitchin...
>
> Oh yes you are a liberal...I forgot...
>
> No brain...
>[/color]
I do have oil company stock, but that's not the point. But since I showed
that the
price of gas has little to do with refineries or OPEC, you certainly can't
dispute it with any kind of intelligent response now can you? But then
you support Bush, so intelligence has nothing to do with your thinking.
Maybe you can demonstrate that big conservative brain of yours for
us and dispute O'Reilly and the University of Wisconsin study.

In article <03mlk19c15gav2c479jnuq6p00lgvpf3vq@4ax.com>,
Scott in Florida <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:36:10 -0700, "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:WIKdnagXa4z0UNfeRVn-tw@ez2.net...[color=darkred]
> >> The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction of
> >> new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
> >>
> >> They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
> >> that rich?
> >>[/color]
> >
> >It's the oil companies that are getting rich. They're no different than
> >slimeballs jacking up the price of bread after a hurricane.
> >
> >[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170118,00.html[/url]
> >[/color]
>
> ...then it is time to invest in those companies...instead of
> bitchin...
>
> Oh yes you are a liberal...I forgot...
>
> No brain...[/color]

liberals don't do stocks. They do very young women, LOL Maybe liberals
have more fun without the responsibility???
--

In article <1128979901.55c61022d3714511857a71148fb397e5@teranews>,
"ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
> news:03mlk19c15gav2c479jnuq6p00lgvpf3vq@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:36:10 -0700, "ToMh" <nospam@no_spam.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>
> >>"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:WIKdnagXa4z0UNfeRVn-tw@ez2.net...
> >>> The irony in that is, the environmentalists that block the construction
> >>> of
> >>> new refineries are by and large liberal Democrats.
> >>>
> >>> They are the problem here, and they blame the Bush Administration. Isn't
> >>> that rich?
> >>>
> >>
> >>It's the oil companies that are getting rich. They're no different than
> >>slimeballs jacking up the price of bread after a hurricane.
> >>
> >>[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170118,00.html[/url]
> >>[/color]
> >
> > ...then it is time to invest in those companies...instead of
> > bitchin...
> >
> > Oh yes you are a liberal...I forgot...
> >
> > No brain...
> >[/color]
> I do have oil company stock, but that's not the point. But since I showed
> that the
> price of gas has little to do with refineries or OPEC, you certainly can't
> dispute it with any kind of intelligent response now can you? But then
> you support Bush, so intelligence has nothing to do with your thinking.
> Maybe you can demonstrate that big conservative brain of yours for
> us and dispute O'Reilly and the University of Wisconsin study.[/color]

You never show anything objective, only subjective crap to suit your
liberal political anti-Bush agenda. The so called studies you cite,
like any other study is weighted depending on who is funding them. Do
you think we are fools to believe this liberal drivel. This is a free
market place in case you've forgotten or maybe never learned. As with
other posters of your ilk you also have a condescending attitude toward
others who you feel do not think like you or object to your stance on a
number of subjects.
--