What’s Wrong With This Picture: Complacency Edition

• Back to Top
• End of Comments

38 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: Complacency Edition...”

• 	schmitty8225 October 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
  I dont see anything wrong.

• 	criminalenterprise October 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
  It’s not $4.139 and for that we’re happy. Happier still are the oil refineries, oil producers who squeeze extra margin from higher prices. Happiest of all are Wall Street firms who juice the oil market contango. With federal tax dollars.

• 	John Horner October 24th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
  Uh, the bottom most display has a burnt out light bulb? I’m kind of a stickler for replacing burnt out light bulbs. I’ve been known to put new bulbs in the tail lights of visitors cars when I notice one burnt out. Yes, I keep a stock of various sizes on hand :).

• 	George B October 24th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
  You’re paying way to much tax with your gasoline or you’re not shopping for a good price. $2.912/gallon is at the upper end of current gasoline prices according to GasBuddy.com Gasoline Price Map http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx Gasoline Tax Map http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/Gasoline_Map_10-2009.pdf

• 	OldandSlow October 24th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
  I sure wish we’d just called an even $2.92 instead of subtracting 1 Mill to make $2.919 in the hope everyone thinks it is a penny cheaper.

• 	new caledonia October 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
  It’s about 25 cents a gallon more than it was about two weeks ago.

• 	UnclePete October 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
  It’s about .50 more a gallon than I paid to fill the Jeep today.

• 	rocketrodeo October 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
  Credit card sales shut off before the tank is full these days, huh? I hate that. Looks like a premium price.

• 	MMH October 24th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
  Not sure. I initially thought the pic was referring to creeping gas prices and the fact that we’re gone back to being complacent as both consumers and manufacturers, but the following from WSJ seems to indicate a dip in light truck sales as a percentage of the overall market. http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html So, what is it then? Complacency in terms of manufacturers forecasting unrealistic SAAR’s in light of gas sneaking back up? Or maybe I’m reading too much into this. Maybe it’s the lightbulb.

• 	johnthacker October 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
  Not only that, it is far lower than it should be, because it does not include any of the ‘externalities’ or ‘external costs’ to actually produce the damned gallon. If you do include them (pollution, the trillions we spend keeping oil lanes open in the Middle East etc), the price should be more like $8. And no, this is different than just arbitrarily imposing a tax. it is also the right thing to do from the viewpoint of economic literacy. Your principle is fine, but do you have a citation for a price of $8 a gallon, or did you just make up a number that sounds good? The AEI-Brookings study found that gas taxes should be raised by $1.75 to cover the externalities. It did not find that the price of a gallon of gas should be $8. Liberal economist Brad Delong figures a social cost of a gallon of gasoline at $2 per gallon, which would indeed make for a $1-$2 tax raise, but again not to $8 a gallon. And the difference is, if we went to $5 via a tax or externality pricing, the difference of $5-$3 would stay right here in the US, but when we wait for the world econ growth to drive oil prices up again, the entire $5 will go to the Osama funding OPEC clowns. To some degree this is true, but it’s inaccurate to suggest that if gas would rise by $5 a gallon in the absence of a tax increase, then it would rise by $5 a gallon even with a tax increase. It would rise somewhat less than $5 per gallon, due to effects of the tax, and we would indeed be keeping some of the money in the country instead of going to Canada and Mexico. (Oil is fungible, so yes, our increased usage would mean the countries that buy mostly OPEC oil would pay higher prices.) It’s difficult to speculate exactly how much prices would rise with the $3 per gallon tax; almost surely less than the full $3+$5 = $8 price, but also almost surely more than just $5. Happier still are the oil refineries, oil producers who squeeze extra margin from higher prices. With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Look at the official US government data. Refining margins were way down in September 2009, just as they were way down in the maxima in June and July 2008. Sometimes high gas prices go along with high refining profits, but sometimes the price of barrel of oil rises more quickly than the price at the pump, as has been happening recently. In any case, if you wanted to keep refining profits down, it would make sense to build another refiner, but thanks to environmental permits and local opposition, no refinery has been built in the US is a long time. That’s fine, if people prefer the environmental benefits, but they shouldn’t complain about the refining profits that follow. Retailers often make a higher profit when prices at the pump are falling, because the price of a barrel falls faster than the price at the pump.

• 	seabrjim October 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
  Autosavant – millions of people who struggle to simply feed their kids are glad youre not an elected politician. The Rockefellers, who largely control oil DISTRIBUTION refer to people like you as “useful idiots”.

• 	Areitu October 24th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
  Is it “high” for your area? That’s cheaper than anything in my area, at least by a few cents. ihatetrees : October 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pm Could an anti-tax entrepreneur add a display that indicates all combined taxes? I’ve seen some gas stations post placards that show how many cents of each gallon of gas goes where, including local, state and federal taxes.

• 	John Williams October 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
  I know exactly what’s wrong with this picture. The price should be $1.39/gallon.

• 	Ion October 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
  is it the 9/10’s of a cent? or that the price per gallon is not lit? or is it that (assuming you were filling up the GLK with it’s 17.4 gallon tank) you just barely made it into the station before you hit E?

• 	chanman October 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
  Gas around Vancouver, BC translates to roughtly $3.97 CDN/US gallon, and the exchange rate won’t change that number much. I haven’t seen it cheaper than the equivilent of around $3.75 CDN/US gallon in years

• 	Stephan Wilkinson October 24th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
  “(I recently read that today’s $ buys $0.03 worth of stuff in 1915. This means the $1.39 is $46.33 in 2009 dollars!!!)” The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which has an excellent what’s-a-dollar-worth calculator, says that three cents in 1915 would be worth 63 cents today, not a dollar. But why spoil a good factoid, right?

• 	ivyinvestor October 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
  Agreed, MMH, regarding flaming and questionable conduct. @ Autosavant: would you mind securing the name calling? What is this: fifth grade? And, to edify the rest of us who’ve seen numbers quite dissimilar to yours, would you do us the pleasure of referencing your “consensus” claims of a 1-foot increase in global sea levels? Also, you ask: “Why should I pay for the damage You do to OUR COMMON environment?” Perhaps because the person damaging *our* environment is a prick and it takes the rest of us to clean up her/his mess: conservative doesn’t necessarily mean hoarding one’s money solely for one’s interests. It used to mean saving and spending when the betterment of America was the goal. Perhaps you’re a new kind of conservative? Also, in the spirit of the conversation, I see nothing wrong with the display other than the aforementioned bulb issue. Furthermore, we paid $2.34 (cash payment=$0.03 less than other payment methods) last Monday for regular in zip 02453. That station is now in the high $2.40s, I believe.

• 	George B October 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
  Autosavant, not every problem demands a government solution and taxes to pay for it. I agree that the US spends a lot of money on the military, but why assume any additional security costs associated with getting oil transported out of the bad neighborhoods of the world require US government security. Just allow private navies and heavily armed merchant ships instead and let the market sort out what it costs. Regarding the actual security related externalities associated with oil extraction and transportation, there are good reasons to believe that those costs would be much lower than the equivalent of several dollars per gallon of gasoline. Most of the problem oil producing countries are more dependent on selling oil than we are on buying oil. They have a very strong financial incentive to make sure their oil gets to market. Suppliers in problem areas would have to offer deep discounts to offset security costs just to stay competitive if they let their neighborhood fall apart. http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf

• 	john.fritz October 24th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
  This observation has been made already but it bears repeating. It’s almost $0.50 more than it was at the beginning of Rocktober. And I don’t think that the three bucks (almost) a gallon pictured or gas in general is cheap at all. It gets pretty damn expensive pretty damn quick when you start filling the old Crown Vic’s twenty gallon gas tank a few times a week. One last wish is that all the people who whine continually (albeit for different reasons) about the “cheap” cost of gas would just shut the fuck up. If the low cost of petroleum products bothers you so much that you need to constantly remind people how little they’re paying for fuel, I have a suggestion. Cut Barry a personal check every time you fuel up your utli-box for whatever the difference is between market price and your own personally assigned cost.

• 	dougjp October 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
  Perspective, what business would you rather be in: Pint of milk: 16oz for $1.59 = $12.72 per gallon Evian water: 9oz for $1.49 = $21.19 per gallon Liquid Paper: $198.40 per gallon Black ink from an ink cartridge: $2,701.52 per gallon Chanel No.5 perfume: $25,600.00 per gallon

• 	Robert.Walter October 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
  If the price of gas were unavoiadably much higher (not necessarily via taxes) it would force the US to reorganize its priorities for the future around sustainability, security and leadership. @dougjp: Interesting figures … guess the answer would depend on the fully-accounted cost of development, manfacture and distribution… but Chanel is looking pretty good.

• 	GS650G October 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
  The run up in fuel price can be tied to the destruction of the dollar.

• 	Tagbert October 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
  … or tied to increased demand and the economies of the world stabilize. Once they start growing, you can expect that price to rise, too.

• 	Telegraph Road October 24th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
  $2.91/gal? Did you move to Bloomfield Hills? Nice severance package, I guess. Say hello to Rick Waggoner from all of us.

• 	PeteMoran October 24th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
  Soon to hit $3/gallon and on the way to the much needed “gas holiday” at $3.50 nearer 2012. That’ll be alright then. Phew.

• 	davejay October 24th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
  I know what’s wrong with that picture: it led to a surprisingly aggressive and pointless handful of comments. including this one

• 	criminalenterprise October 24th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
  Energy analysts keep talking about how the storage is running out for crude and nat. gas. The normal supply + demand model is broken because futures contract contango is out of control again. Also: bIbS SEELI gSOS Just think 5138008

• 	mtypex October 24th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
  ding, ding! We have a winner w/ davejay! Rising gas prices again?! We’re in a depression. YMMV if you are China or Brazil or … dang world markets!

• 	golden2husky October 24th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
  “and people abducted by aliens.” what the hell does this nonsense have to do with the above?… The poster seems to believe that all the external costs associated with the production of gasoline to be nonsense. This, despite study after study indicating the numerous costs that are not borne by the price at the pump. Hence the “aliens” comment. Whether one wishes to recognize the costs or not we all pay for them. Military costs are simply part of our taxes. Pollution and related health costs drive up insurance premiums. There is no free lunch, period. The amount of emissions from the burning of fossil fuel is staggering simply because of the volume of fuel consumed. How one can choose to pretend that there is no ill effect from all that combustion is beyond me. I don’t believe the “20 foot” sea level rise either, but to say there will be no effect is ignorant. Maybe aliens will come and save the day at no cost to us. Cost is no doubt the reason for the doubters…nobody want to pay to play.

• 	Lorenzo October 24th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
  I recently read that today’s $ buys $0.03 worth of stuff in 1915. According to the inflation calculator of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) today’s dollar will buy the same stuff as a nickel would in 1915. Don’t exaggerate!

• 	StatisticalDolphin October 25th, 2009 at 6:38 am
  afabbro : The problem is that we allowed China to industrialize. Exactly. Blame Nixon and Kissinger. For a variety of reasons, they thought “opening up China” was a good idea. It may have worked out great for some, but for the average American, it only translates into greatly increased competition for jobs and resources. In return we get cheap, crappy, hazardous products. Who puts poison into pet food and baby formula?

• 	MMH October 25th, 2009 at 9:39 am
  @ afabbro Definitely the answer. In fact, I’ve read that when adjusted for inflation, a Chinese life is worth somewhere between 0.03 and 0.05 American lives. You absolute idiot. I hope a couple people read this before it gets deleted.

• 	Stephan Wilkinson October 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
  Wait. Weren’t you the guy who bitched about flaming earlier?

• 	chuckR October 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am
  Yeah, I’m so old I remember paying $10 in 1913 for a decent entry level computer. And $3 for a decent monitor…. In 1913 half the population worked to grow food for themselves and the other half. Today, that number is more like 3% – possibly lower. Family friends farm 8000 acres with a few hired hands and hold down regular jobs as well. That’s not even remarkable. Things would change without synthetic fertilizers though, which come from where? Point – the past is not a foreign land, it’s a whole ‘nother planet. Comparisons of purchasing parity are interesting, but pretty worthless.

• 	Monty October 25th, 2009 at 11:23 am
  Ummm, is there a moderator in the house? The anti-flaming policy is obviously not going to be enforced today?

• 	Autosavant October 25th, 2009 at 11:27 am
  “chuckR : October 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am Yeah, I’m so old I remember paying $10 in 1913 for a decent entry level computer. And $3 for a decent monitor….” I am not that old, Dr. Weisenheimer, but when I started to drive, decades AFTER Computers for Scientists and Engineers (but before the personal computer made every retard a high tech type), gas was $1.39, BUT a stupid Buick Skylark cost $5,000 in 1980, not the $30,000 and $40,000 its stupic descendants easily cost today. I hope you can do the math??? Buicks rose 7 times in price, but sure $2.90 is much less than even three times that $1.39. And in the meantime, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people around the world got cars. OPEC is a cartel and keeps the supply tight. It is their oil, and their right to do so. Unless there is big-ass CONSERVATION, plug-ins etc, you can expect gas to go to $10 and ALL of it will go to the Osama funders in OPEC, NONE of it to pay our debt or as a tax cut for the long suffering taxpayer.

• 	Stephan Wilkinson October 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
  Since Farago is no longer in charge, this site has simply become just another fanboy craphole in which anonymous people call each other names they would never dream of using face to face, since they’d be terrified they’d get their noses bloodied. I’m done here. And yes, “Don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out,” I know, I’ve heard it before.

• 	spyspeed October 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
  And I bet this cost will cause me a reprimand from MR. Niedermeyer. I vote for the death penalty.