Diesel is Still Going Up in Price

TornadoRed

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Location
West Des Moines (formerly St Paul)
TDI
2003 Golf GLS 5-spd, indigo blue; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, silver; 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, indigo blue; 2003 Golf GL 5-spd, red (retired); 2003 Jetta TDI wagon, Candy White (sold)
A supply-side only solution is doomed from the outset. We cannot drill our way out of this problem, either figuratively or literally.

Unless we address demand, we're just spinning our wheels.
The only reason for the government to have an energy policy, is if it is going to promote an increase in the supply of energy. Otherwise we are better off without a government policy.
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Okay, I can buy that poll result of yours, but what's it got to do with truckers?
 

Mike_M

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Location
Phoenix, AZ
TDI
Black 2002 Jetta GLS
The only reason for the government to have an energy policy, is if it is going to promote an increase in the supply of energy. Otherwise we are better off without a government policy.
Very true. But when the policy seems to consist mostly of huge handouts to oil companies, and the money isn't getting passed on to us in the form of lower pump prices, doesn't that qualify as "worse than no policy at all"?

Mike
 

supton

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 25, 2004
Location
Central NH (USA)
TDI
'04 Jetta Wagon GLS
What's the going amount of money to the oil companies? What's that dollar amount divided by the barrels of oil we import, and then divided down per gallon of fuel we burn (gas and diesel)?

I'm wondering if the reason why our fuel is so cheap is because we pay for it through other means (ie, taxes).
 

Mike_M

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Location
Phoenix, AZ
TDI
Black 2002 Jetta GLS
What's the going amount of money to the oil companies? What's that dollar amount divided by the barrels of oil we import, and then divided down per gallon of fuel we burn (gas and diesel)?
Find a synposis of the latest energy bill, and the one passed last year. Matter of fact, you can look at virtually any energy-related legislation passed in the last 25 years.

I'm wondering if the reason why our fuel is so cheap is because we pay for it through other means (ie, taxes).
Yes, that is one reason. It was calculated a few years ago (when fuel was still $1.30ish) that if all subsidies to oil companies were taken into account, as well as the money used for the Middle East portion of our military, plus a few other things I can't remember right now, the TRUE cost of a gallon of gas came up to $5-6.

It's smoke and mirrors...higher taxes, lower pump price. We're still paying for it. People are just too blind to see it.

Mike
 

DrStink

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Location
Providence RI
TDI
2003 Jetta GL - Platinum Grey
The only reason for the government to have an energy policy, is if it is going to promote an increase in the supply of energy. Otherwise we are better off without a government policy.
Very true. But when the policy seems to consist mostly of huge handouts to oil companies, and the money isn't getting passed on to us in the form of lower pump prices, doesn't that qualify as "worse than no policy at all"?

Mike
No Mike, it's not "very true". It's a festering pile of ignorant or meretricious rhetoric; I can't tell which.

Energy policy is linked directly to national security and to environmental policy. Government certainly has a interest, strike that, a duty to set an energy policy that is consistant with other national interests.

And at the present time, reducing energy consumption is beneficial for security, economic and environmental reasons.

But while we may disagree ideologically on the role of government in the market, we can certainly agree that corporate welfare to the tune of 7.5 billion dollars is certainly not a step in the right direction.
 

Ramsey

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Location
Madison WI
TDI
2004 Jetta in Graphite Blue
Even when I was in high school I rode my bike (10 miles, uphill both ways) but that was just for fun and to stay in shape for football. Now I ride my bike to keep from driving the extra 19 miles per day (I ride to two jobs).

The externalities of fuel use, be it pollution or sprawl or military investment to ensure ready supplies have been artificially hidden for quite some time to prevent a slowdown of the economic growth. If market prices reflected actual cost usage would plummet and alternative innovation would soar.

The ready availability of petrol has prevented meaningful innovation in a number of Fields for a period of decades. I consider myself libertarian, and I strongly dislike intrusive big government, but it seems the only real advances in automotive technology have come in response to policy shifts.

And yes, Madison has changed me. I now agree more closely with the libertarians than any other party, and regularly go out of my way to make fun of the socialists. I am also receiving a very nice education in chemical engineering, paid for by your tax dollars courtesy of the US Army.

So in closing, I would like to state that military expenditures to secure petroleum should be reflected in the pump price, innovate or die, and I really hope that Chrysler makes the boxfish car, or Audi imports the A2 TDI.
 

anahata

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Location
Tucson, AZ
TDI
2001 GOLF GLS, 4dr, silver, 5sp,
consider the Honda / Toyota economic models. no one forced them to make cars more reliable, safer for passengers and pedestrains, more fuel efficient and cleaner. they are proactive in every area of automotive development. the US economic model is reactive - with reactions that are too slow and insufficient.
I generally agree with your major point. But here you are comparing apples and oranges. Honda and Toyota do not have economic models, they have business models which take the macroeconomy as a given. Compare them with GM, if you will, or Ford. But not with the US govt/economy.

You could say that Honda and Toyota have guessed right about the direction of fuel costs, and the resulting change in consumer preferences. Or that GM and Ford have ignored a tremendous amount of evidence that the consumers' enthusiasm for gas-guzzlers was waning. Perhaps they figured that, if they were making $6k-$10k in profit on each SUV, if demand softened they could get it back with $1k-$2k in rebates. But every company cannot do this at the same time. So the discounts get bigger. And the bigger the discounts, the bigger the hit on resale value, making used vehicles more attractive.

Regarding US govt policy, it seems to be going in the right direction: increase production of all kinds of energy, wherever possible. Oil, gas, coal, nuclear, ethanol, biodiesel. The laws that actually implement this policy are going to be ugly, no question about that, but that's how laws are made. There are contradictions, too, like the bans on off-shore drilling in some of the richest oilfields, because we don't want to watch the sun setting behind the offshore rigs and terminals. And I don't see a sufficient sense of urgency regarding the shortage of refining capacity. NIMBY?
Gentlemen,
I think they are doing more than guessing. They are positioning themselves for the long run. Our post war protectorates have recent experience with hardship and scarcity which we do not share and they may be better prepared to accept it as a fact of life. Our economic model ironically cannot foreacknowledge impending scarcity of natural resources. Conventional futures trading is not nearly far enough out to be an effective rudder for the types of durable goods and infrastructure we WILL need. The natural capitalism folks are a voice in that economic wilderness right now.
You of course remember the FIRST time around in '73 when Detroit was caught flatfooted and VW, Honda etc. began to build their market share. THEY have not forgotten what got them over here in the first place (economy and efficiency). And it appears that Detroit is poised to make the same error twice. Remember how ridiculous people thought those first Honda CVCC's were? I bet the big wigs in 'Motor City' were amongst those laughing the loudest. I suspect we in the US 'the big We' are going to have to go through a whole lot more hardship than this before we begin see regular truly significant wise choices on a collective level.
 

DrStink

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Location
Providence RI
TDI
2003 Jetta GL - Platinum Grey
I consider myself libertarian, and I strongly dislike intrusive big government, but it seems the only real advances in automotive technology have come in response to policy shifts.
I can certainly see where you are coming from as I came from almost exactly the same place. Whether you are talking safety, emissions, or economy, Detroit has repeatedly shown it's unwillingness to innovate unless forced to by regulation. In short, American engineers have the talent to innovate, but only seem to pull it off when regulators force the engineer's marketing overlords to let them.

In a related vein, exposure to public health and epidemiology has moved me away from the hard libertarian position on health care for simple economic reasons. $500/yr for Monopril and Lipitor and a few trips to the dietitian is a lot cheaper than $100k for a quadruple bypass on Medicaid.
However, spending the money upfront to save money on healthcare in the long run only makes sense under a single payer healthplan. But I digress...
 
Top