"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
74 cents a gallon? Wow!
When considering inflation, the 1976 USD was worth $.27 to a 2006 USD.

A $.39 increase/gallon in 1976 in today's USD's converts to a $1.44
increase.

And you were saying?


Let's focus on what you're saying, or at least making an attempt to say.
You either don't understand the concept of reduced purchasing power due
to inflation, or have difficulty explaining it. A 1976 dollar was worth
more in terms of purchasing power than a 2006 dollar. The exact opposite
of the way you stated it.

The Consumer Price Index was established in 1967, which shall be referred
to as the base year. The CPI index for the base year is 100. The value
of the index as of March 31, 2006 is 578.86, the latest statistic
available. The index value for 1976, the year of comparison in this
thread, is 170.5.

This means that a 2006 dollar is worth only $.1728, when compared to a
1967 dollar (100/578.86). This also means that a 2006 dollar is worth
only $.2945 when compared to a 1976 dollar (170.5/578.86). Therefore, it
can also be said that a 1976 dollar was worth 3.4 times what a 2006
dollar is worth (578.86/170.5) in terms of purchasing power.

Therefore, your calculation of a $.39 increase/gallon equating to a $1.44
increase in today's dollars is a bit overstated. The true math equates
$.39 to $1.33 ($.39*3.4). However, this seems like an odd way to examine
the situation. Why not just compare the cost of a gallon of gas then
versus now, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars? A 1976 price of $.74
per gallon, after the mentioned increase that year, was offered in an
earlier post. I'm not sure if that number is 100% accurate, but I have
no quarrel with it. Using that 1976 value, and the CPI data offered
above, that means that a gallon of gas today should cost $2.52 per gallon
($.74*3.4), if gas was to have increased in price commensurate with the
CPI. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the cost of
gas appears to have risen slightly higher than the aggregate cost of
living when using 1976 and 2006 as your goalposts in time, a conclusion I
don't find particularly profound or shocking. Actually a bit of a bore,
not really amounting to much. Not entirely unlike yourself, Jim. Using
any different slices of time for comparison would likely yield different
conclusions, or at least those drawn about the cost of gas.





I just love these rationalizations you guys use in an attempt to make
everyone feel better about being butt-fu*ked by the Friends of Bush.

The friends of Bush?

Regardless, I do not agree with or want folks to feel better about the way
the oil companies are raping us. I have posted facts supporting that
position, including posting of the billion dollar profits of Exxon and the
million dollar payoff given to the retiring CEO of the same company.

And contrary to what RG has to say I do understand inflation and I do not
need his high school entry level economics class lecture to me/this NG on
the matter. ;-)

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

Regardless, I do not agree with or want folks to feel better about the way
the oil companies are raping us. I have posted facts supporting that
position, including posting of the billion dollar profits of Exxon and the
million dollar payoff given to the retiring CEO of the same company.


As much as I'd like to blame bush, aren't these oil prices less related to
bush tactics and more related to increasing world demand and static or
decreasing world supplies.

My gripe is with our consecutive administrations and the consecutive
generations of voters which have failed to prepare for this very energy
challenge that we all know existed. With open global markets and an absence
of product to sell to the world (our major export is our consumerism), we
find ourselves crying about the price of gas because our personal economies
are overwhelmed by our dependence on gas. In my lifetime, the oil crisis of
the '70's should have been our wakeup call. And, finally, my personal fear
that we are at the mercy of other countries for our energy needs is what
will be a major factor in the fall of the US Empire.

Then, there's my personal conspiracy theory to add to the mix: the oil
industry is manipulating supplies and prices to force us to allow the
devastation of the continental shelf and arctic tundra for US oil profits.
Again, a failure to make a break from our dependence on non-sustainable oil
supplies for our countries energy needs.

"Bryan" wrote in message
m...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

Regardless, I do not agree with or want folks to feel better about the
way the oil companies are raping us. I have posted facts supporting that
position, including posting of the billion dollar profits of Exxon and
the million dollar payoff given to the retiring CEO of the same company.


As much as I'd like to blame bush, aren't these oil prices less related to
bush tactics and more related to increasing world demand and static or
decreasing world supplies.

You'd think, except for one thing: The price swings are too fast to reflect
world demand. How quickly did we just go from $2.50 to $3.00? Three weeks?
Demand most certainly did NOT increase by the same proportion. This is
nothing but a game. Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get
futures traders the phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful
purpose. "Oil prices rose due to fears of this that or the other thing....".
Bull****.

Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced by
the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

"RG" wrote in message
. ..
Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced by
the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

The product is too important to be left up to the whims of a bunch of suits.
And, whims is exactly what they are. Did you notice that when that Saudi
refinery was attacked a month or two ago, the price hiccup was nothing
compared to the current one, which is based on absolutely nothing?

Found this link in another NG.

Still digesting it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

RCE

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RG" wrote in message
. ..
Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced
by the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

The product is too important to be left up to the whims of a bunch of
suits. And, whims is exactly what they are. Did you notice that when that
Saudi refinery was attacked a month or two ago, the price hiccup was
nothing compared to the current one, which is based on absolutely nothing?

Yes, I noticed. It may seem like the current market move is based on
absolutely nothing, but I think that is a mischaracterization. The basis
for a market movement may not be obvious, tangible, or even logical but it's
there. The market wouldn't move without it. However, you are on the right
track about whims. Markets tend to be very psychological and emotional, and
often not immediately rational. How is the recent movement in oil prices
any different than a 200 point swing up or down of the Dow on any given day?
Was there really a commensurate shift in the fundamental value of those
thirty companies during that six and a half hours of trading? Not likely.
The reason for all short-term market movements can usually be traced to the
basic motivators of fear and greed. And there is no shortage of suits that
wish they had the power to move oil prices up or down by merely wishing it
so. But it just doesn't work that way. Collective fear and greed for the
future make those short-term movements happen.

As to the event of the Saudi refinery attack, if the attack had been
successful, you would have seen a much different market reaction. As it
was, what you witnessed was a sigh of relief after a major bullet was
dodged.

Doug,
Read up on the Futures Market before you make yourself look foolish.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RG" wrote in message
. ..
Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced
by the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

The product is too important to be left up to the whims of a bunch of
suits. And, whims is exactly what they are. Did you notice that when that
Saudi refinery was attacked a month or two ago, the price hiccup was
nothing compared to the current one, which is based on absolutely nothing?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
m...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
m...

Regardless, I do not agree with or want folks to feel better about the
way the oil companies are raping us. I have posted facts supporting that
position, including posting of the billion dollar profits of Exxon and
the million dollar payoff given to the retiring CEO of the same company.


As much as I'd like to blame bush, aren't these oil prices less related to
bush tactics and more related to increasing world demand and static or
decreasing world supplies.


You'd think, except for one thing: The price swings are too fast to reflect
world demand. How quickly did we just go from $2.50 to $3.00? Three weeks?
Demand most certainly did NOT increase by the same proportion. This is
nothing but a game. Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get
futures traders the phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful
purpose. "Oil prices rose due to fears of this that or the other thing....".
Bull****.


Exactly...
astronomical profits for a few... misery for the masses.