Oil Issue

[NorthSideSox72]

BTW not sure if this fits exactly in the thread but I'm seriously considering putting some solar shingles on my roof or something. It costs a lot of money though.

When we buy our new house this year, I'll be researching that as well. The good news is, there are some companies who are now developing PV cells that are far more efficient than the stuff that's been out there until now. That makes it worth it for a lot more people. But there are multiple pieces of bad news - the initial cost is large, the new cells are not yet on the market, and many utilities don't yet to the net use thing (which makes having solar cells much more beneficial).

 

Still, even with the bad news, we are rapidly approaching the point where it will be worth it for many mainstream folks. Its worth sitting down some evening, doing the research, and then doing the math. Figure out your payback period, and make sure to include a safe-return number in there.

 

[southsider2k5]

I admit don't know that much about economics. I can understand simple things, like "the gas tax holiday won't work" or "India and China are getting industrialized and they are pushing worldwide demand up" or "printing more currency weakens the dollar." After that I'm kind of a n00b.

 

Futures aren't like stock. Unless you take delivery you don't have a perpetual ownership of said commodity. If I buy a crude oil contract, I buy it for future delivery. Currently July delivery is the front month and the price you see reported on the news. If you go buy July Crude Oil today, you have until June 20th to sell that contract, otherwise you will take delivery of 1000 barrels of light sweet crude in July. So if you buy one, you have to eventually sell one. Net economic effect is zero by speculators. You might get a temporary rise, but then you should get the same drop later on. The only way to get the prices to go up is real demand that requires supply.

[lostfan]

I'm not overly concerned with the actual cost vs. ROI in and of itself. I know that it's not really that cost-effective of a thing to do, and honestly I think I'd do better to replace my furnace with a more energy-efficient model first to lower my energy bills. I figure my house will probably cost $15k to do with an inverter to do with solar shingles and net metering (39 states do that and Maryland is one of them) and this is what I see with the limited research I've been doing:

-$3000 estimate of the roof replacement I'm going to have to do anyway in a couple years

-$2000 grant from the MD state government (I'd have to apply, and wait a couple months)

-$2000 local county property tax credit for the year I install (estimation)

-$2000 federal income tax credit

 

...So, figuring the cost of my roof itself in there, that is $7000 right off the bat that I'd get worth of credits from the state and federal gov't. A lot of people are just simply not aware of the tax grants and credits.

 

For those interested here is a link: http://www.dsireusa.org/

 

edit: Also the overall effect on your house's equity is outstanding, it's probably better than a kitchen remodel.

Edited May 20, 2008 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not overly concerned with the actual cost vs. ROI in and of itself. I know that it's not really that cost-effective of a thing to do, and honestly I think I'd do better to replace my furnace with a more energy-efficient model first to lower my energy bills. I figure my house will probably cost $15k to do with an inverter to do with solar shingles and net metering (39 states do that and Maryland is one of them) and this is what I see with the limited research I've been doing:

-$3000 estimate of the roof replacement I'm going to have to do anyway in a couple years

-$2000 grant from the MD state government (I'd have to apply, and wait a couple months)

-$2000 local county property tax credit for the year I install (estimation)

-$2000 federal income tax credit

 

...So, figuring the cost of my roof itself in there, that is $7000 right off the bat that I'd get worth of credits from the state and federal gov't. A lot of people are just simply not aware of the tax grants and credits.

 

For those interested here is a link: http://www.dsireusa.org/

The math can be pretty complicated if you want it to be, but with some relatively simple math, you can get very close to a real Payback Period value. And that's the key measure, to me.

 

The data you really need to get the math right:

 

--Tax credits and timelines, as you noted above

--Cost of equipment (FYI - panels are lighter than you'd think, you don't need structural roof work for them, unless your roof has problems already)

--Your current periodic energy costs, annual would be best

--Costs of keeping your electric service on with zero use - there is a cost to this

--Whether or not your utility does, or will do, net use billing

--How much solar availability there is for your exact location and angle of panels (dictated by climate at location, but also sun/shade exposure through solar arc)

--How much energy each cell puts out per solar unit of exposure

--How many cells you'd buy, or could effectively fit on your home

--Risk free return for the period based on capital investment

--Period of ownership for your home, and with that, value of solar system as an addition to the home at sale

 

With all that, you could come to a solid payback period number, in years/months.

 

[lostfan]

If I had not just put in new counters and cabinets, I'd be trying to start this process right now.

[Chisoxfn]

Unless they are all taking delivery of those futures contracts. No. Every speculator has to eventually sell, or they have to figure out what to do with 1000 barrels of oil. Net effect is zero. That "speculators drive the market up" isn't true, no matter how many pundits repeat it.

The additional speculators involved in the market has been one of the factors, but there are numerous other factors which have driven the price of oil up. I'd say speculators could be tied to about $10-20 of the increase over the past few years. In addition, Americans purchasing many more suv's (ie, low fuel efficiency) had an impact. However the largest impact, imo, can be tied to the increased useage of fuel by other countries (more specifically, China/Russia/India, who have all been going through some sort of industrial revolution).

[lostfan]

Russia is mostly self-sufficient on energy if I'm not mistaken. It's more China and India.

[Y2HH]

With all due respect. No. Not even close. I don't know who is your economics professor, but he is wrong.

 

I can do that too...check it out: No, you are wrong. Sorry to say, but without giving a reason, it doesnt automatically make you right. We can agree to disagree here...but i maintain that commities prices *can* be artifically inflated by speculators, and in the case of oil, they are being.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Unless they are all taking delivery of those futures contracts. No. Every speculator has to eventually sell, or they have to figure out what to do with 1000 barrels of oil. Net effect is zero. That "speculators drive the market up" isn't true, no matter how many pundits repeat it.

 

Yes, it does drive up the cost. If these speculators weren't turning profits, ie buying something like an oil contract for less then they sell it for, then they wouldn't be doing it. You don't have to take actual delivery on said contract to inflate its value, eventually whoever does take delivery paid the asking price on that contrat.

 

Im not sure where you got that idea from, but it simply doesn't make sense to say speculators don't drive up prices. If thry aren't driving up prices, please tell me what they're doing? One way or another they affect to final outcome.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Russia is mostly self-sufficient on energy if I'm not mistaken. It's more China and India.

But that doesn't really mean anything. If they're self-sufficient on energy, it means that they're not exporting energy like they were a few years ago as their demand has gone up.

[lostfan]

But that doesn't really mean anything. If they're self-sufficient on energy, it means that they're not exporting energy like they were a few years ago as their demand has gone up.

If you're saying net demand has gone up for the whole world the last few years, and Russia's been a part of that I agree.

 

At the same time though Russia's always been a major industrialized nation so I'd say they've been less of a factor than India and China.

[Chisoxfn]

If you're saying net demand has gone up for the whole world the last few years, and Russia's been a part of that I agree.

 

At the same time though Russia's always been a major industrialized nation so I'd say they've been less of a factor than India and China.

Russia really took a long time to get things figured out after the fall of the communist party. They obviously aren't as large of a factor as China/India but they have had an impact on the net demand.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, it does drive up the cost. If these speculators weren't turning profits, ie buying something like an oil contract for less then they sell it for, then they wouldn't be doing it. You don't have to take actual delivery on said contract to inflate its value, eventually whoever does take delivery paid the asking price on that contrat.

 

Im not sure where you got that idea from, but it simply doesn't make sense to say speculators don't drive up prices. If thry aren't driving up prices, please tell me what they're doing? One way or another they affect to final outcome.

One could argue that the speculators and the hedgers are, TOGETHER, driving up prices by way of market manipulation. And I'd agree, to a limited extent, that is part of the high prices. But only a small part. It is not, nor can it be, just one or the other. Otherwise, there would be no trades, and no market. They have to meet on a price. That's the nature of the beast.

 

[Y2HH]

One could argue that the speculators and the hedgers are, TOGETHER, driving up prices by way of market manipulation. And I'd agree, to a limited extent, that is part of the high prices. But only a small part. It is not, nor can it be, just one or the other. Otherwise, there would be no trades, and no market. They have to meet on a price. That's the nature of the beast.

 

I in no way meant to insinuate that the speculators were the only factor, and I agree about the hedgers doing their part, too. The speculators are betting on the falling dollar, hence the existence of these newfound hedgers, in which the spex can sell these contracts too, which they are willing to buy because they believe it will save them from inflation/the falling dollar. And while I admit this will work well in the short term for both, this bubble will eventually pop, and in the end some poor saps that were convinced by their local finance expert that they "can't lose", will do just that.

 

But yes, I do believe there are many factors leading to this.

[RockRaines]

Here's one:

 

The largest supermarket chains give up plastic bags.

Nothing pissed me off more than when whole foods gave up their plastic bags, people like me depend on those bags to pick up our dog s***. If we dont have those, dog s*** will pile up on your lawns and sidewalks.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, it does drive up the cost. If these speculators weren't turning profits, ie buying something like an oil contract for less then they sell it for, then they wouldn't be doing it. You don't have to take actual delivery on said contract to inflate its value, eventually whoever does take delivery paid the asking price on that contrat.

 

Im not sure where you got that idea from, but it simply doesn't make sense to say speculators don't drive up prices. If thry aren't driving up prices, please tell me what they're doing? One way or another they affect to final outcome.

 

I got that idea from microeconomics 101.

 

You might be able to get a temporary pump from speculative buying, but then you get the same dump from speculative selling. It takes real demand to provide real price increases. That demand is coming from the US, China, and India. It doesn't take much demand to cause a price shock. The 1973 oil shock was caused by a 15% reduction in supply coming from the middle east which back then was about 35% of our total supply. The elasticity of energy is near zero. It takes barely any change in supply or demand to affect prices. Speculation has nothing to do with supply or demand. And finally just because speculators make a profit, doesn't mean that they create supply or demand. I don't think you understand the fundementally your theory doesn't work. For each crude oil contract that some buys, someone else has to sell them. If someone makes money, someone else loses money. In other words the total profits of the trading sector are a big fat zero, in fact they are a loss once things like exchange costs and the like are factored in.

 

Now do you have any actual economic basis for any of your theories?

[Y2HH]

I got that idea from microeconomics 101.

 

You might be able to get a temporary pump from speculative buying, but then you get the same dump from speculative selling. It takes real demand to provide real price increases. That demand is coming from the US, China, and India. It doesn't take much demand to cause a price shock. The 1973 oil shock was caused by a 15% reduction in supply coming from the middle east which back then was about 35% of our total supply. The elasticity of energy is near zero. It takes barely any change in supply or demand to affect prices. Speculation has nothing to do with supply or demand. And finally just because speculators make a profit, doesn't mean that they create supply or demand. I don't think you understand the fundementally your theory doesn't work. For each crude oil contract that some buys, someone else has to sell them. If someone makes money, someone else loses money. In other words the total profits of the trading sector are a big fat zero, in fact they are a loss once things like exchange costs and the like are factored in.

 

Now do you have any actual economic basis for any of your theories?

 

Well, since this thread is about the current price of oil, the very thing I'm talking about is temporary pump in it's value. It's not like oil has been trading at 129$ for 100 years straight, this is new development, which is why I maintain it's temporary, and I believe speculators/hedgers have something to do with it. It's simply my opinion that they have more to do with it than others believe.

 

That said, comparing the 1970's to now is like comparing apples to oranges. In the 70's, the gas shortage had thousands of stations without gasoline to sell, I have yet to see a single gas station with a sign outside that reads "out of gas/buy a bike", yet somehow the price is even higher (inflation adjusted) than in the 70's when they were completely dry! So we can't chalk this up to supply vs demand, since the supply still outstrips the demand, where it didn't in the 70's. That aside, the number of people involved in the market today is 500 fold over was what involved in the market in the 1970's, not to mention the market pump caused by modern day 401k's which also didn't exist back then. 401k's are almost like "forced" market investment, money that otherwise would have never touched the exchange(s), which is something people often don't consider when they talk about the modern market. Foreign investors are also more involved in the US exchange(s) due to the advent of the Internet and quick/cheap trading for people who wouldn't have even looked at the stock/commodities markets 20-30 years ago. All of these factors combine to magnify the trends/swings of the modern market.

 

Look at the overall markets, commodities or otherwise, the numbers are there, so it's not like I'm just making this up. To counter your claim of someone buying thus someone selling equating to someone having to make money and someone having to lose money only happens AFTER the bubble pops. Until the bubble pops the money being made continues to rise, only the person who sold first makes less than the person who sells second, etc...but when the bubble finally pops, THEN the serious money losing begins...which is why it's called a modern day DOT-bomb. Of course this inflation isn't permanent, just like it wasn't permanent in the early 2000's when the .com boom hit the markets, which was also speculation driven. The fact remains, this commodities market IS being propped not only by the state of the world (foreign demand, wars, etc), but also by the speculative buyers/sellers and the hedgers gambling on the future price of the commodity. And it's not like the oil companies really want to stop them...I mean, why would they?

 

So like I said earlier, we can agree to disagree. I've taken economics 101, and 202, and 505...and although you may disagree with my theory, I still think it has some weight. There may be something to what we are both saying, but I honestly believe with the current state of the market, and the fact that joe-blow is investing/ day-trading/speculating in it makes a huge difference whereas 30 years ago most joe-blow's didn't even know a broker would give him the time of the day.

 

Believe me when I say I have experience in the speculator driven marketplace. I know how they think, and more than half of them think the market (stock/bonds/commodities/otherwise) = Las Vegas. And just like in Vegas, the house eventually wins.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Y2HH

[The Beast]

1.) People commuting should walk or ride their bikes to the train station since driving isn't all that necessary if the weather is decent.

2.) Public transportation

3.) Tell idiot parents to stop their teens from driving around. It's such a waste of gasoline, ask your kids what their plans are before they go out, and then check the mileage on your car later on, seeing if where they went was realistic. (Okay, maybe this is sarcastic and unreal, but its a nice thought.)

4.) Buy oil during the week, instead of on the weekend, it is cheaper in the middle of the week.

5.) Buy oil from places where it is discounted, like Sam's Club or Thorntons. (At least in Downers Grove, I believe Thornton's is ten cents cheaper than Shell or BP.)

6.) Do not drill in ANWR, it will hurt the region more than it will actually help it.

7.) Buy green products to work on your lawn with, I'm not sure there's many but at least if you shopped you made an effort

[kapkomet]

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/651928.html

 

I think this article is very nicely written and explains some things. I look forward to next week's installment.

 

In My Opinion: One law is causing prices to go through the roof

By Ed WallaceSpecial to the Star-Telegram

"There’s a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak [oil] theories and hot buttons of supply and demand and by making bold predictions of shocking price advancements to come, they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self fulfilling prophecy." — National Gas Week, Sept. 5, 2005 as reprinted in the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ report, "The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices," June 27, 2006

 

Fiddling While We Burn

 

There it is in plain sight for everyone to see, exactly what I’ve been reporting for the past few years: Many individuals who are investing in oil and natural gas futures are going out in the media and trying to convince the American public that either we are out of oil or there is a serious supply shortage of crude against worldwide demand. The question is: Does it surprise you to discover that the US Senate investigated the rigging of the oil market by speculators in the summer of 2006 – and concluded that there was no supply and demand problem with oil? Did you know that their conclusion was that speculators were responsible for a 70 percent overcharge in the price of oil in the months leading up to the summer of 2006?

 

This from page 1 of the Executive Summary of that Senate investigation, there is this one troubling line: "Today, U.S. oil inventories are at an eight-year high, and OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) oil inventories are at a 20-year high."

 

That’s odd because, in 2006, just like today, the media reporting covered the serious international shortage of oil and justified oil’s high price. Even more troubling is that the House of Representatives held a hearing this past December, ominously titled "Energy Speculation and Price Manipulation." How did it pass under the radar that both the Senate and the House studied the issue of price manipulation in our energy markets and both concluded that it was unregulated, massive trading in one futures market that was really driving up the price of oil and natural gas? And given that conclusion, why has Congress done nothing about it?

 

Investors Make the News, Literally

 

A week ago Goldman Sachs issued a new investor note, suggesting that somewhere between six months to two years, the price of oil could go into a "super spike" and prices jump as high as $200 per barrel. It became the major story of the night. Ignored in the reporting frenzy was that many legitimate and well-respected oil analysts dismissed Goldman Sachs’ prediction as groundless.

 

Get ready for the next shock to your system. In the past month we have added 11.9 million barrels of oil into our stock reserves, giving us 32.3 million more barrels of oil than we had on hand January 1. On May 5, we found out that for the second time in as many years, Iran was storing its excess crude oil on tankers in the Persian Gulf, because it had run out of storage space in the desert and was awaiting buyers for its heavy crude. That same day Saudi Arabia cut the discount price for its Arabian Heavy crude to $7.45, hoping to entice more buyers for immediate delivery. We didn’t hear that news, either.

 

While researching my third article for BusinessWeek online about the world’s oil situation in 2008, I asked for the most current report from Oil Movements. Because the oil industry is not transparent, Oil Movements tracks every tanker at sea, from both OPEC and non-OPEC oil countries, along with their cargoes’ final destinations. Anne O’Shea responded immediately to my request with their report dated May 8, 2008. Just so you will know, oil shipments are up from a year ago in almost every class, including Middle East oil in transit and Non-OPEC in Transit. The only class of oil shipment that has declined is covered on page 3 of that report. That chart is labeled, "4-Week Changes in Westbound Oil at Sea."

 

That’s right, shipments of oil headed west have shown serious declines during the month of April, down 800,000 barrels per day in the week before the publication of the report. Now, let me give you the first line from under the Westbound Oil shipments chart: "In the west, a big share of any [oil] stock building done this year has happened offshore, out of sight."

 

Could this be true? Oil Movements, the unimpeachable source for finding the real world situation on oil transits, is saying that oil is being hidden offshore, not declared in inventories? Yes, that is exactly what they are saying.

 

That same week our refineries cut their production runs back to 85 percent, down from 89 percent a year ago, to trim more gasoline out of our stock reserves, to increase their profits per gallon.

 

National Short-Term Memory Loss

 

It’s amazing how quickly we forget our recent history. Congressional hearings in 2001, blasting certain Wall Street executives for using the media to sell the public on stocks in order to bid up the price – so their firm could divest of its shares without taking a beating. Meanwhile, other trusted advisors pushed stocks that were fundamentally worthless, because their affiliated banks had large loan agreements with those companies.

 

The year before Enron had been caught manipulating the California energy market, even forcing rolling blackouts across the northern part of their state apparently just for effect – to support their claim that there just wasn’t enough electricity to go around. Again, we now know that claim was untrue. It was Enron shutting down certain power generation plants, while placing bets on their unregulated energy futures market. The net cost to California consumers was almost $8 billion.

 

It didn’t end there. Amaranth Advisors, a hedge fund, literally was cornering the market on natural gas futures, to make it appear that there was a shortage of natural gas, when the Commodities Futures Trading Commission told Amaranth to liquidate its position on the NYMEX because its bidding had already moved natural gas prices far beyond the reasonable limits of supply and demand. Now, remember this name: ICE, short for Intercontinental Exchange – the "dark futures lookalike market."

 

Once the CFTC told it to back off its natural gas futures contracts, Amaranth simply shifted gears, got out of the NYMEX, placed its massive bets outside of government regulation in ICE and managed to drive natural gas futures to $8.50 per MBtu.

 

As the Senate investigation into the manipulation of the energy markets showed, "Amaranth – the day before they failed, natural gas was about $8.50; the day after it failed, it went to $4.46 MBtu." That’s right, one major hedge fund managed to double the price of natural gas simply by loading up on futures contracts; when the government told them their bets were unwarranted, they simply moved their monies to a futures exchange that was unregulated. Only when Amaranth failed did natural gas prices fall back to what was considered normal for supply and demand.

 

Sadly, like oil today, when this was happening we were being told that natural gas supplies were tight worldwide. That statement simply wasn’t true.

 

Dark Future

 

Likewise, British Petroleum was busted for manipulating the propane market in the winter of 2004 and fined $373 million. Of course, in Texas, under deregulation of our public utilities, our electric rates can be set using the futures market for natural gas, so the manipulation of the natural gas market spelled trouble for us. Consider this, by 2006, according to www.powertochoose.org, electricity rates for us had climbed to 15 cents a kilowatt-hour due to the high cost of natural gas. But, that was the exact same time period that Amaranth was proven to be manipulating the market and sending natural gas futures through the roof. Two months later the hedge fund collapsed and natural gas prices fell. Therefore, most Texans paid higher electric bills for Amaranth’s manipulation of the natural gas market.

 

Professor Michael Greenberger of the University of Maryland, a former board member of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, testified in front of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on December 14 of last year. Under discussion that day was the manipulation of the energy markets and prices, but Professor Greenberger added these comments: "Three, four months from now, you’re going to have a hearing on the subprime meltdown, and you’re going to find that the very same legislation [deregulating energy] deregulated something called collateralized debt obligations, CDOs." That legislation, friends, directly ties the mortgage meltdown to the high price of energy today.

 

It was called H.R. 5660, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. At first this bill went nowhere in the House, not even up for debate. Then, a few months later, late one night a 242-page bill written by Wall Street lawyers, with the exact same name as the former House bill, was quietly added to an 11,000-page appropriations bill, and the Enron loophole was created. The power behind that bill was one Texas Senator, one Texas Congressman and their wives.

 

Next week: How the unregulated futures market pushes the price of oil, natural gas and gasoline far beyond those commodities’ market value, thanks to the creation of the Intercontinental Exchange. Worse, Congress knows this, but does nothing.

 

© 2008 Ed Wallace

 

Ed Wallace is a recipient of the Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, given by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA, and is a member of the American Historical Society. He reviews new cars every Friday morning at 7:15 on Fox Four’s Good Day, contributes articles to BusinessWeek Online and hosts the talk show, Wheels, 8:00 to 1:00 Saturdays on 570 KLIF. E-mail: [email protected]

 

 

[Y2HH]

To add to my long post from before, which may be confusing to read at times (and went off course a bit), I have an example of what I mean by widespread speculation -- the guy in the cubicle next to me has been actively trading oil contracts all month long -- and he's just a regular guy dabbling in the market with less than two total years of market experience.

 

All I'm saying is there are more people like that today than ever before because of how easy the Internet has made trading, and they are adding to the problem. Oil is out of hand as it is, and not because of shortages (as shown in the article above), but because of greed, wars, over usage and the price people are willing to pay to attain it, regardless of being able to afford it or not.

 

I think I'm just annoyed by the entire issue since I hear people complain about the price *ALL* *THE* *TIME*, yet none of them have stopped driving their 13MPG SUV's.

 

I bike to work 3-4 days a week now. So at least I walk the walk.

[southsider2k5]

To add to my long post from before, which may be confusing to read at times (and went off course a bit), I have an example of what I mean by widespread speculation -- the guy in the cubicle next to me has been actively trading oil contracts all month long -- and he's just a regular guy dabbling in the market with less than two total years of market experience.

 

All I'm saying is there are more people like that today than ever before because of how easy the Internet has made trading, and they are adding to the problem. Oil is out of hand as it is, and not because of shortages (as shown in the article above), but because of greed, wars, over usage and the price people are willing to pay to attain it, regardless of being able to afford it or not.

 

I think I'm just annoyed by the entire issue since I hear people complain about the price *ALL* *THE* *TIME*, yet none of them have stopped driving their 13MPG SUV's.

 

I bike to work 3-4 days a week now. So at least I walk the walk.

 

All are demand based push and the exact reasons why crude oil is as high as it is. That is the arguement I have been making all along! Trading has nothing to do with it. This is all demand based. The only way crude falls is if we succeed in pushing the Chinese economy into a large recession, like Japan did in the late 80's early 90's.

[Y2HH]

All are demand based push and the exact reasons why crude oil is as high as it is. That is the arguement I have been making all along! Trading has nothing to do with it. This is all demand based. The only way crude falls is if we succeed in pushing the Chinese economy into a large recession, like Japan did in the late 80's early 90's.

 

Well, I never meant to insinuate that the day traders were the ONLY thing inflating the cost of oil, but they aren't helping none, either. I don't mind when demand increases cost -- that's the name of the game -- but I do mind when I see profit reaping greedy tards helping to mess it up even more all the while these same people have the audacity to complain about the prices of gas.

[lostfan]

I think I'm just annoyed by the entire issue since I hear people complain about the price *ALL* *THE* *TIME*, yet none of them have stopped driving their 13MPG SUV's.

That is really my pet peeve. I can't stand it, yet so many people do it. I always ask 2 things to people when they complain, either out loud or silently to myself.

 

1. Do you have a SUV or a big pickup with poor gas mileage? What the f*** are you complaining for then? If you have the ability to buy a vehicle with better than 20 mpg and aren't doing it, then don't say s***. You're a part of the problem and you have no right to complain that it just cost you 75 dollars to fill your tank. Suck it up and be quiet unless you're going to do something about it.

 

2. Do you live in the city? If yes, is public transportation accessible to you? If yes, do you use it at least on occasion? If the answer to all 3 questions is no, again, I have to wonder about your mentality and whether or not you think people owe you something.

 

Me personally, I get 25 mpg, whatever car I buy next is going to be over 30 if I can help it. No public transportation goes to where I work, and I live a little too far for it to be practical for me to walk or bike to work. But if I lived within 5 miles like I used to, I'd do it. So I just have to brace myself for the body blows and live with it until I can figure out a better way.

Edited May 21, 2008 by lostfan

[EvilMonkey]

We could fix roads faster, more exit/entrance ramps, less stop lights. My 36 mile commute takes me over an hour each way. And if I leave 5 minutes late in the morning, I can add 25 minutes to that time. And the construction on I-355 has added 10-15 minutes in the morning, and as of today, both the north/south routes that border the expressway are also under construction. On I-55, how about an exit between Rt. 53 and Weber road? That would cut down the backup at Weber road by at least 20%. I try to be flexible with my hours, but I have to be in at 8am to open. I usually stay until 6-6:30, but even leaving then, traffic sucks.

[NorthSideSox72]

We could fix roads faster, more exit/entrance ramps, less stop lights. My 36 mile commute takes me over an hour each way. And if I leave 5 minutes late in the morning, I can add 25 minutes to that time. And the construction on I-355 has added 10-15 minutes in the morning, and as of today, both the north/south routes that border the expressway are also under construction. On I-55, how about an exit between Rt. 53 and Weber road? That would cut down the backup at Weber road by at least 20%. I try to be flexible with my hours, but I have to be in at 8am to open. I usually stay until 6-6:30, but even leaving then, traffic sucks.

I'd rather see the money invested in non-spoke public transit. Get the Star Line, the Silver Line, the Belt Line trains all going, and get more express buses in the suburbs, point-to-point. Link them all up with existing trains. This will directly help all the people who then have a suburban transit option, but also indirectly help everyone else by reducing traffic. Plus use less gas, and encourage new businesses to avoid sprawl and build near transit options.