What a rip off! Gas is over $2 here!

Thanks Bush. Butthole. Even the one in cracktown's cheap stuff is almost $2. You'd think with all the gas that all the scumbag oil companies are stealing from Iraq, they'd be able to lower the price. Oil companies are truely lower than pond scum...right down there with whoever the troll is who came up with POP UP WINDOWS.

Lu Cifer, TO HELL WITH SHELL!

Join the club.

On edit: Went up 10 cents a gallon last night. Now $2.25 a gallon for regular.

They are stealing the American taxpayers money!

for premium here in New York

Rip...

When it gets close to the Election, gas prices will Magically fall
back to reasonably levels, causing a "feel good" mentality among the
voters...(isn't it wonderful how Bush brought the gas prices down?)

If you drive a gasoline-powered vehicle, you are really doing a number of non-progressive things, it seems to me.

You are involved in the depeletion of a completely non-renewable resource (unless you are using ethanol).

You are polluting the air.

You are taking more greenspace (since your gasoline-powered vehicle needs to have some place to park.

You are contributing to the enriching of the global corporate system.

Why do you buy gas?

Living in America's hellhole South FloriDUH, where the words PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION when uttered aloud will cause everyone in earshot to laugh their asses off. If you want to see a nice sunrise sometime, all you have to do is wait for the Palm Tran bus to come that is SUPPOSED to come at 9 PM! I drive a good 5 miles under the speed limit, for a couple reason: 1) save gas, 2) it pisses off the SUV drivers!, and 3) the pigs will write you a ticket for doing 2 miles over the speed limit (but they don't do shit about agressive driving...). Even though it's usually 120 in the shade, I rarely need to run my A/C. Trust me, there is not many other aspects of my life that I DESPISE more than driving, ESPECIALLY in this rathole where I must be the last person left who didn't trade their car in for an SUV or one of those stupid monster redneck trucks, and not to mention that 95% of the people here CAN'T DRIVE!!! And another thing, I think it's safe to say that you'll see respectable public transportation in South FloriDUH before you'll see people down here get hybrid cars.

Lu Cifer, thank you FloriDUH Dept. of Transportation

That you are driving an automobile.

I don't know your physical condition, but assuming that you are physically able to do so, you could do the following (neither of which involve the use of public transportation):

1. Carpool

2. Ride a motorcycle or other similar, less-gas-consuming, less-polutting vehicle.

3. Ride a bicycle.

4. Talk to your boss about the possiblity of doing a telecommute.

If South Florida (with its wonderful weather and no state income tax) is a bad as all that, have you considered moving?

Never took off my bike from the original movers box and spouse constantly had to evade red-necked pickups who would try to run the bike off the road just for the fun of it. Bike lanes? Bike trails? What a joke. This was Florida, not California or Minnesota.

One problems of Florida is that there are too many retirees who "already" paid taxes for good schools and other quality of life (for younger people) and now don't want to part from their millions, except for their golfs and their cruises and their dinner theatres oh.. and the "early bird specials.."

92mpg

http://www.thesmart.ca/index.cfm

Why do you eat food?

lets you compare prices from all over the place.

One thing I have noticed, is that you don't seem to have the wild fluctuations in gas prices that we do up here. Strange.

http://www.torontogasprices.com/retail_price_chart.asp?city1=Toronto&city2=Detroit&city3=NewYork&period=3&unit=US+%24%2FG&num=8

Here's a graph of Toronto compared to Detroit and New York for the last 3 months. Our line looks like a set of bad teeth :)

Sid

it seems like the increase you guys have had is not as steep as on the mainland. I went back to the Big Island about a year ago and was paying over $2 then.

Here in Florida, it is up .60 since Christmas day.

One thing you can say for the oil companies, they understand price elasticity very well.

Categorical imperative.

Are there any European or Canadian DUers out there who'd care to share what you pay for gasoline (aka "petrol")????

Bargain price of $61.25 (assumed exchange 1.75 $ to the £)

That's the U.K for ya.

80 p a litre gives you about $5.29 for an American gallon so quit all your whining.

I thought that the rest of the world paid more -- a LOT more -- than we do here in the USA.

85 cents a litre here in Toronto, converts to about $2.30 - $2.40

Sid

85 cents (Canadian) per liter converts to about $2.30 - $2.40 (US).

Is that the math you used?

.85 x 3.78 l/USG = $3.213 $CDN/USG
divide by 1.35 for conversion = $2.38 $US/USG

Sid

There is another post in this thread that suggests that if gasoline prices here in the USA go much higher than they are now (Close to $2.00 a gallon), then low-wage workers will be forced to choose between gasoline and food or between gasoline and housing.

Since gasoline in the U.K. is about the equivalent of $5.29 a U.S. gallon, how do low-wage workers there manage to make ends meet? Or do they?

There are several reasons why this doesn't affect low-wage workers in Europe and the UK as much as those in the US.

1. Low wage workers in Europe and the UK have a higher standard of living as compared to their counterparts in the US. They make a much greater percentage of the median income.

2. Public transit in Europe and the UK is actually invested in by the public sector. Therefore, the low-wage workers aren't as dependent upon automobile transportation to get to/from jobs and other destinations as tehir US counterparts.

3. Less overall reliance on automobiles -- people in Western Europe use an automobile for far less of a percentage of trips than people in the US. I read once that the average person in the UK uses an automobile for only somewhere around 40% of all trips, and that the highest percentage in Western Europe was Germany at 48%. The average American uses a car for something like 86% of all trips. This is because we don't have the investment in public transit that they do, and also because they have highly restrictive zoning laws that prohibit sprawl (which, in turn, encourages walking/biking/mass transit use) as compared to our zoning laws, which actually encourage sprawl.

I'm afraid I do not understand your post here, IrateCitizen.

For instance, when you say, "They make a much greater percentage of the median income.", what, exactly, does that mean? I am not trying to be obtuse -- I just want to understand.

DO you have a link to any information that shows that low-wage workers in the UK and Europe have a higher standard of living than in the USA?

Alos, I don't understand your second point -- the one about public transit being invested in by the public sector in the UK and Europe. In just about every city I know of in the USA -- New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Washington, DC, Omaha, and Miami -- the public sector (as opposed to the private sector) is heavily invested in public transit.

And the third point you make -- the one about sprawl -- is certainly a valid point, but I do not understand its connection to lower-paid workers in the USA. I think I hear you saying that it is not possible for workers in some cities to get to and from their low-paying jobs except by automobile (assuming they are unable or unwilling to go by bicycle), but I'm not quite sure if that is your point or not. It is no doubt true that in the USA it is much more possible to use a car than it is in the U K or Europe. But I'm not sure that that means that it is necessary to use a car, if you see what I mean.

where regular unleaded is going for 104 yen/liter, or about US $3.55/gallon

It's not the rich folks who get hit the worst by rising gas prices. To the person driving the Suburban, rising gas prices are an inconvenience, at worst a call for a small cutback in other expenses.

For a single mother working two low-wage jobs just to get by, rising gas prices are DEVASTATING. They can mean the difference between eating and not eating, paying rent or being out on the street.

Is THIS the scenario you want to effect, el gato? Please let me know, because if it is, I'm afraid that you can count me out of your strategies.

"countless low wage workers will starve" oh the horror

But we can take a closer look at what the situation:

The current economic framework is responsible for the situation
of workers. It is a system based on the purchase of commodities.
Commodities are basically chunks of nature ground up and
reconstituted in the form of sellable items. Some commodity
exchange is useful, primarily in the form of food.
However, most of the commodities that are produced are things
that humanity can do withhout. In fact, the world would be a
much better place without them. Examples of useless, or negative
impact, commodities are items like X boxes, televisions,
toys, etc. It is this production process that is destorying
the planet.

Now the tragectory that humanity is currently on will result
in massive starvation. We are heading towards disaster
based on the unchecked consumption of the worlds resources.
These resources are running out, yet no corrective factors
are being put in place. Thus we will continue on this path until
we hit a wall. When this wall is hit, massive starvation will ensue.
But, perhaps if gas prices rise enough, people will
begin to find a better way to survive.

The current system under which we are living is the problem.
People have to find a way to live outside of the current economic
framework which is being imposed on them.

In other words, your support for the maintenance of the status
quo will ultimately result in much more misery than the alternatives.

It's not an either/or scenario, as you depict, el gato.

Tell me, if you were one of the folks living at the margins of society, struggling with two jobs to be dead broke at the end of the month while raising kids at the same time, would you offer yourself up for sacrifice in the name of the greater good?

Or would you instead appreciate the efforts of those who focus their efforts on making sure you don't starve or get kicked out of your apartment?

to begin with. Poverty is a product of the economic
system in which we are living. It is by design.

Take a look at the creation of third world. Massive
poverty across the planet in Africa, South and Central
America, and right here in the U.S. is not an accident.
The colonial legacy is the very existence of the
impoverished third world. These places have been
economically and physically raped by the west for
centuries now. And the global capitalist system
that you see around you was made possible by this
rape and pillage. Furthermore, the disenfranchisement
right here in the u.s. is systematic as well.

An example of what i am referring to is shown
in the some the writings I have read by Gen. Smedley
Butler when he describes the use of the U.S. military
to run indigenous people off of the arable land to
make room for plantantions. These people lived an
independent existence. They did not rely on "jobs"
from the capitalist system and they were living in
a sustainable way. But the effort to impoverish these
people had a twofold benefit for the merchant class.
One it gave them the natural resources they needed
to produce these cheap exportable commodities and
two it produced a whole class of impoverished people
willing to work for very little pay. Thus you have the
intentionally created class of disenfrachised people.

Now when you say you hope that gasoline stays cheap
because it affects people in a negative way when
cost rises, I still think you are taking a short sighted
view of the situation.

The sooner people turn away from the fabricated world
that has been created to make the planet safe for capital
the better.

It is not gonna be easy, but the alternative is much worse.

But I should address the moral dilemma which you present.
Which is "if you were one of the folks living at the margins of society" would I stll say what I am saying?

I'm not quite sure how to address this question, but I'll take a stab at it. The current system is that is in place is producing these
marginalized people at a greater rate all the time. I am proposing
that we begin to realize what is happening and find a better way.
The rising cost of gasoline will do several things. One this
is that it will result in the rising cost of commodities, especially
those made for export. Thus I think it will result in a relocalization of commodity production. This could actually result in
local job creation which seems to be one of your concerns.

Two I think the resultant inflation will also produce a consideration of what is actually a worthwhile acquisition. Hence, people will be spending less on wasteful items such as video games and other forms of mediated time.

Three, the rising cost of gasoline is imminent and unstoppable.
I am sure you are aware of the perpetually declining reserves, peak oil etc. Running from the problem is irrational. Rising prices
in gasoline will result in behavioural changes that actually should be
taking place now rather than the all too late announcements of the problem in the market.

Finally, it is my hope that the depleting oil stocks will result in
a moving away from the commodification of the planet that is destorying our ability to exist on this planet. If the reserves hold
out long enough to make it possible to destroy the remaining intact
natural world, like the amazon rainforest, then we will all be living
on the margins. Right now, petroleum is the lifeblood of global capitalism, and this system is destorying the planet. If the supplies hold out long enough this system will destory the carrying capacity of the earth.

In other words, I think the moral dilemma that you have proposed is false.

Sorry for the rambling.

I actually agree with you about the greater effects of cheap gas. I'm also very familiar with the writings of Smedley Butler, so we don't need to go into detail on them either.

The fact of the matter is that if public transit were ever given a fraction of the public subsidy that is given to the automotive industry overall (road construction, tax breaks, etc.), we wouldn't even be having this discussion -- because the working poor would have adequate access to good, reliable public transit networks.

Hell, I take public transportation every day to and from work. I also live in a town, and use my bicycle to run errands on the weekends when the weather allows -- and refrain from making unnecessary trips when possible. And when I do drive, I drive a fuel-efficient Honda Civic. I walk my talk.

The things that you are discussing are all fine and good from an "ivory tower" perspective, and many of your points have a certain amount of validity. But when it comes to the people currently living "at the margins", there are much more pressing issues -- like hunger and homelessness. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed that you could present yourself as an advocate for the downtrodden while so blithely dismissing the suffering of working poor in the US within the same breath.

The onus is on each of us to affect positive change in the ways that are allotted to us. It's all well and good to discuss concepts like peak oil, deforestation, global warming, and so on -- and we should continue to educate ourselves on them as well. But we need to be vigilant to avoid focusing on these bigger issues so much -- issues that we, really, have little control over -- that we do so at the expense of areas in which we can actually make an immediate impact.

I view your focus on advocating rising gas prices at the expense of millions of people living "on the margins of society" to be a perfect example of this focus on the "big picture" at the expense of the small one.

so why are you advocating for something that is impossible.
Do you propose subsidies to sustain cheap gas? How will this
correct the problem, when it cannot be done in perpetuity.
Furthemore, you are trying to paint me as not caring about
the plight of the downtrodden yet you are advocating for the
perpetuation of the very system that has produced the problem.

Again, when the natural world is dead and gone and nothing is
left but the manufactured world we will all be disenfranchised.
This picture I am painting is not pie in the sky but in fact
is the trajectory in which we are headed. Seems to me I am
discussing something that is very grounded in the hard street level
reality in which we are living. Yet you are hoping to sustain
the unsustainable. Who here is advocating an "ivory tower" position?

BTW, I have calulated my weekly gasoline usage and it is less than
a quarter of a gallon a week. Why? Because I have taken alot
of effort to live a life that is not centered on the usage of
petroleum as much as possible.

People will adjust their behaviour based on the changing realities that are presented and I think your dire scenarios are exaggerated to say the least. As well, you seem to ignore the reason people are impoverished and redirect that cause to something that is tangential at best.

We have been talking about "energy policy" since the 70s, but then we were flushed with a lot of cheap fuel and we started, again, with the gas guzzlers "muscle cars." I remember in 1982 paying $1.50 a gallon so if you factor in inflation $2.00 is adequate, I think.

Now the only energy "policy" we have is drilling in Alaska. Also, I heard this morning that the booming economy in China is contribution to shortage of fuel, millions of Chinese now drive cars and compete for the limited supplies. This IS limited supplies, even though too many people "do not believe this" - yes, remember a co-worker saying this.

And now I hear that auto makers will be required to install side air bags in all cars. This added cost, of course, will be added to the price of the car. And why do we need these mandatory side air bags? Because of the SUVs, of course, whose bumpers go right through the windows of a regular sedan. Fine, add these, but shift the costs to the Denalis, and the Yukons and the Suburbans..

Oh, it IS already $3.00... in Santa Barbara, CA.. Do I hear $4.00? $5.00?

Isn't the cost of gasoline n ow (even at $2.00 a gallon) somewhat less than it was in 1970?

Quick -- what costs more -- a gallon of Starbucks Coffee or a gallon of unleaded gasoline?

}(

your attention also.

I guess I have it better than you guys, because the county I live in doesn't withold any taxes on our gas. We are paying $1.45 a gallon. I asked about it, and I was told that some strings were pulled by the Governer's office (Florida) with the Federal government to allow us to not have to pay it for the next 3 years. I don't know how true that is, but it is allot cheaper.

Which county in Florida do you live in?

It may be (but I seriously doubt it) that the State of Florida would exempt one or more counties from paying its own tax on gasoline.

But I cannot imagine the Federal Government exempting any one location from paying its tax on gasoline.

on edit -- Do you get your gasoline at a PX or BX, by any chance?

When I lived in So. Florida, I paid through the nose for taxes.

Message to George Bush: Start "Jawboning"

Last night on CBS's "60 Minutes," Bob Woodward, senior editor at the Washington Post, said Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar pledged to increase Saudi oil production and thereby lower gas prices before the 2004 election. This pledge has cost US consumers literally billions of dollars in higher gas prices.

During a debate in 2000, George Bush said, “What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots.” He continued: “The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.”
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/001556.html

So when, Mr. Bush???

It'll go higher.

Gas prices around here just went up by about 15 cents a gallon over the last week.

Everyone is counting on the fact that Americans will travel over the summer months and will pay whatever they charge.

So sorry, guys, but the food prices are going up too and while we don't have to go away from home over the summer, we do have to eat.

I still say... decide how much you want to pay for gas for the car each week and just spend that amount no matter how high the price goes. Get out a bike or walk sometimes. Or, just do without. When the corporations see that Americans can do without, they'll change their plans... before summer arrives!.

Trouble is, most Americans can't stand to do without.

to driving for mere convenience, I do support the right of every American to choose, based upon his or her own estimation of what is in his or her own best interests, to drive.

Or do what I did - Work yourself into a position to get laid off.

When I had a daily commute of about 13 miles each way plus frequent excursions for lunch I was filling my gas tank about once a week.

Since I'm in Jobless Recovery mode my gasoline consumption has gone down to about one-third of that.

but since another poster on this thread has suggested that if gas-prices go much higher, low-wage workers will have to choose between gasoline and food or gasoline and housing, how is it that you, an unemployed person, as able to support yourself -- including purchasing gasoline????

Plus I live alone except for my pets - divorced empty-nester.

I got a decent severence package, plus I have sufficient liquid assets and income from unemployment insurance to maintain my customary standard of living through about September. I have to get a job or start doing some contract work by then, otherwise things will start closing in on me financially.

Health care is a real biatch.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I see you've already been tombstoned, fool.

:evilgrin:

Because that's exactly what's going to happen this Summer - I'm getting the old bicycle ready to go.

$1.95 in KC