Annoyed by the Current Gas Prices? Time to Ressurect the Windfall Profit Tax

[budullewraagh]

tired of paying so much for gas? i sure am. one may ask why is it so expensive.

is there really a shortage? no. OPEC has just decided to capitalize more, and as a result, US oil refineries are exploiting this situation in their favor by raising their own prices. what happened to good ol' patriotism? isnt it better for the general public to not suffer? turns out that those good ol' texas compassionate conservative republicans have decided to swindle us again.

 

we need to bring back the 1980 windfall profit tax act to curb the excessive greed. i suggest we tax the excess profit that american oil refineries are making at a very great extent, perhaps 70, 80, 90 or even 100%. the money made from this tax would be distributed to each state depending on the amount of gas sold in each state, and state taxes would be decreased accordingly.

 

opinions, anyone?

[Pangloss]

Er, I'm not sure I follow how OPEC has had any influence on the current price of oil. Can you expand on that point? As I understand it, they're all operating at max capacity, and have been since the price of oil was in the mid-20s, except for Saudi Arabia, which immediately maxed out and is now planning for new infrastructure. Since the only tool OPEC has to affect market price is production, it doesn't sound like they can have any impact at all. But maybe I'm just missing something here, so please feel free to explain.

 

Regarding the refineries, they're in even worse shape, some of them operating at 104% capacity, and needing to operating at something like 80% in order to do maintenance (which is why they keep blowing up). What we need are more of them, and fast, but there's only one in the planning stages and the guy's been trying to build it for 15 years. (This was on 60 Minutes two weeks ago.)

 

But aside from that, yeah, I agree it's a little ridiculous the way the oil companies are raking it in right now. But I think the solution is more competition and production -- that's what the market wants. Artificial "curbs on greed" are just penalties for success, and always lead to long-term trouble, not winning solutions.

[Thomas Kirby]

We used to talk about gas-saving vehicles. Some still do, that's why you can get a pretty good price for a Ford Escort that is about 20 years old. Do that, we can reduce the problem.

 

Perfectly good fuel for diesel engines can be extracted from the seeds of the hemp plant, in huge quantities, growing hemp that isn't worth smoking. The crisis that we are in is largely because we are braindead.

[budullewraagh]

"Artificial "curbs on greed" are just penalties for success, and always lead to long-term trouble, not winning solutions."

artificial? you sound like a capitalist. can you elaborate on how a windfall profit tax would lead to long-term trouble? please remember that this is only meant to exist until the market calms down

[CPL.Luke]

being a capatalist is nothing to be ashamed about, so far in the history of the world it has proven to be the most effective system ever created. Also if you analyse the price system it ensures that all resources are used in such a way as to produce more resources, I have no idea how you could possibly imitate the success of the price system in this respect.

[Lance]

"Artificial "curbs on greed" are just penalties for success' date=' and always lead to long-term trouble, not winning solutions."

artificial? you sound like a capitalist. [/quote']

 

What's the point of that last statement?

 

I happen to agree, I personally don't have a problem with them making money off their success. We have absolute control over the situation. The answer is simple: if you think the price is too steep then stop buying it. The problem is that nobody is willing to go without oil; which obviously shows that the price really isn't that steep at all.

[budullewraagh]

yes, i know that there is nothing wrong with being a capitalist. well, at least a moderate capitalist. i dont like rabid, totally unrestricted capitalism.

 

in the statement "you sound like a capitalist," i did not mean to imply anything, actually. it is to be taken at face value. the statement pangloss made concerning "artificial" restrictions of capitalism humored me due to its very typical capitalist nature, and so i responded to it, citing his apparent capitalistic viewpoints.

[Pangloss]

You didn't answer my question about OPEC. Was there some reason you feel that OPEC controls prices? In the first post you said "OPEC has just decided to capitalize more". Can you elaborate on what you mean?

 

can you elaborate on how a windfall profit tax would lead to long-term trouble? please remember that this is only meant to exist until the market calms down

 

I agree with to your suggestion with that stipulation. There wouldn't be any long-term trouble, but what I was referring to was the problem we had that was addressed by the restructuring of the tax code under Reagan, prior to which people would sometimes have to pay as much as 70% or more on inheritance and other "windfalls". I think some careful and creative legislation could avoid problems like that.

 

The other issue that I would object to over a long term would be that I don't personally see any value in *ever* taxing corporations. They simple pass the cost along to consumers, so it's really just another tax on you and me. The only reason they're useful is because they represent a different avenue of control over a key economic factor, which can sometimes be useful. (I'm not a pure-market guy.)

[CPL.Luke]

also if oil were at such a high price that people were desperatly hurting from it, hybrid vehicles would have done far better by now.

[Thomas Kirby]

People aren't horribly turned on by technology that can easily kill your mechanic if he tries to repair it, or that you have to take to specialty shops to have repaired. 240 to 500 volts DC is no joke. I thought the guy got it right when he used a 24 volt system on a late 1970s Suburu pickup and got around 75 mpg. Even 48 volts is fairly safe unless you wear a pacemaker. People needed to take some cars that were basically sound, 500 dollar fixer-uppers, and be able to retrofit them for good hybrid systems.

 

If vehicles got double the gas mileage, which is within the reach of 30 year old technology, we wouldn't have shortages and the high prices wouldn't hurt us so much, getting twice as far on a dollar. Building cars with less flexible, less adaptable technology prevents us from using innovative technology to improve gas mileage. People used to be able to convert aluminum block VW engines to steam engines, for goodness sake.

[CPL.Luke]

technology will invevitably make things more difficult for modifications to be performed by consumers

 

you wouldn't want a 50 year old computer now would you?

[john5746]

we need to bring back the 1980 windfall profit tax act to curb the excessive greed. i suggest we tax the excess profit that american oil refineries are making at a very great extent' date=' perhaps 70, 80, 90 or even 100%. the money made from this tax would be distributed to each state depending on the amount of gas sold in each state, and state taxes would be decreased accordingly.

[/quote']

 

They have laws at the State level where if a resource is deemed an "emergency" item, and it is found that a company tried to take advantage, they will be fined. I don't think we are there yet, but it wouldn't hurt to try and discourage these companies from taking advantage.

[Thomas Kirby]

technology will invevitably make things more difficult for modifications to be performed by consumers

 

you wouldn't want a 50 year old computer now would you?

 

Cpl., you've just contradicted yourself. Technology in computers has made it much easier for the consumer to make modifications to their machines. It's cheap and you can get the subassemblies anywhere. That is why I wouldn't want a 50 year old computer. I couldn't even wire up power for the monster, let alone modify it. I'm just lucky that decent monitors and decent cards are now more than two years old. I have what used to be thought of as a supercomputer that any wage-earner can afford, and can be completely overhauled with minimal use of technical skills.

 

Technology should make things easier to repair (think subassemblies and great diagnostic equipment off the shelf), easier to use, and at least to some extent cheaper. They should also work better. If they don't, someone's screwing off. They should also be safe to work on. 200 to 500 volts DC is not safe to work on. Automobiles have been around for more than 100 years. This is a mature technology. Build it like we want to be able to use it and repair it and don't screw around, that's what I say.

[ku]

Is the original poster suggesting that US oil companies are colluding to raise prices? Aren't there competition laws against that in the US? Cartels in the international oil market can easily get away with it because there is no international authority strong enough to stop them (e.g. OPEC) but within the US oil companies can be controlled by the government.

[LucidDreamer]

But aside from that, yeah, I agree it's a little ridiculous the way the oil companies are raking it in right now. But I think the solution is more competition and production -- that's what the market wants.

I agree with this. I'm not sure how to accomplish it, but that's what we need. I dont know enough about it to be sure, but it seems to me that they are colluding. But to be fair some of the refineries are out of order from the hurricane, right. Ok, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I do know Im pissed about the prices of gas.

[Pangloss]

I was actually a little surprised to see Bill O'Reilly asking oil companies to curb profits by 20% during this time of emergency in the aftermath of Katrina.

[CPL.Luke]

kirby, I was reffering to the fact that in the 50's-70's it was possible to completely design your own circuit board, and build it. Today you can buy all sorts of stuff to slap into your computer (I've done some heavy modifications to mine...overclocking...mmm) you can no longer build a motherboard that could support the most cutting edge chips, the fabrication processes required are far to difficult to pull off yourself.

 

also 500 dc isn't that bad, it all depends on the total number of watts outputed through the circuit, a tesla coil while discharging can run up several thousand volts, but at such a low current as to make it harmless. Consider for instance that a car battery if coupled with a suitable resistor (as it is in a car circuit) outputs 256 amps at 12 volts, this is enough to cause problems.

 

I would highly doubt that a hybrid vehicle raises the risk to a mechanic working is all that much.

 

Technology should make things easier to repair (think subassemblies and great diagnostic equipment off the shelf), easier to use, and at least to some extent cheaper.

 

I wouldn't say technology makes things easier to repair, its alot easier to repair a bow and arrow or a carriage than it is a car. Or for that matter an IC which is impossible to repair. Technology necessitates an increasing difficulty in the ability to repair things not the other way around.

 

And as for the cheaper bit, there are technologies that reduce the cost of already existing technologies, and there are technologies that add functionality. Hybrid cars do a bit of both in many ways, it increases the ability for the car to produce fewer emitions while it increases the unit cost, yet it also reduces the cost of operation.

 

COmputers improved functionality, it wasn't until later that new technologies reduced the cost of computers.

[Commie_Pinko]

The problem is that nobody is willing to go without oil; which obviously shows that the price really isn't that steep at all.

 

One problem is that it's very difficult to curb oil use, especially when you indirectly need it to get to necessary locations, warm your house during the winter monthes, etc. High oil also raises the price of food and other commodities. You can't go without everything, and not everyone can pay for the costs.

 

However, you don't want to do anything to the market. Going over or below market equilibrium price is a bad idea. Usually, you want to go about the situation some other way. Welfare distribution to the people who cannot afford it, but need it to get to work, for example. Or, it would be good if the wealthy donated more to people who really needed it.

 

I didn't like Bill's idea of companies curbing profits, if he ment lower prices. What they ought to do is donate a sum of their profits to a fund that gets distributed to those who need it--at least for a little while to ameliorate the crisis. Of course they would never do this, since that means they wouldn't be able to make enough money to buy those extra 4 sportscars.

 

Then again, even if you use alternative methods of giving fuel to those who need it, you have to monitor how much they are using in relation to the supply. You don't want to defeat the purpouse of the market prices, which keep the product from running out. You don't want to give people access (if they need it) only to have the supply run out anyway!

[CPL.Luke]

if we started giving the oil to people who couldn't afford it, it would severely hamper our efforts to convert off of gas.

[Thomas Kirby]

Cpl. Luke:

 

200 to 500 volts DC is somewhat more dangerous than AC because it is harder to let go of. It is far past enough to kill someone. It is a touch hazard that can result in death from simply touching a part. It only takes a few milliamps of DC to stop a heart, or AC to induce fibrillation. There are tens to hundreds of amps available from a car's battery. Touching one post of such a battery is extremely likely to cause death.

 

12 volts at a million amps is normally hazardous only if that amperage heats something. It is not a shock hazard at all. Wet both hands, grasp large pieces of metal that are charged with 12 volts, and you will eventually be injured by chemical burns by electrolysis, a slow process. Even touching an active ignition coil is usually just a flinch hazard that causes cuts and bruises, usually only worth cussing at.

 

I'm not sure how much you know about electricity. It doesn't sound like you know that much, if you can pardon me for saying so. A 200 volt source is harmless if it only has a small fraction of an amp available, but a human body will draw a huge amount of current from a high voltage source that can supply it. The higher voltage will literally burn conductive paths through the body, extremely quickly. A 12 volt source may have a huge amount of current available, but a living body will conduct very little of that current, on the order of microamps to milliamps, depending on how hard you try. It is considered safe. Anything up to 50 volts is considered not to be a shock hazard.

 

This is why electric cars are dangerous to work on if they have high voltage DC sources, and safe to work on if they do not. There is not enough advantage to using the high voltage. 24 volt systems work just fine. If need be we can feed the voltage from several banks as long as we avoid series circuits, but 48 volts is all we should ever need to use in a car. It just isn't worth the risk to the mechanic or to someone who has to try to get their car started in the middle of nowhere. We may not be able to get around it if our cars have electro-gravitic propulsion systems. Currently this is not an issue.

 

There is a lot that can be done to modify cars that people don't know exist. Of course, auto parts stores sell reprogrammers and diagnostic tools for the computers. As far as I know, cars still follow designs that let you change engines pretty much the same old ways. An inability to modify isn't inevitable. The example of the computer is that you have thousands of options. They just snap in and out. The inability to modify subassemblies is offset by their power and versatility. You get the highest capacities available for the money you are willing to spend, then use those capacities wisely.

 

Mostly I was complaining about the inability to use some fuel saving technologies in any but carburetted systems, which are pretty much banned in the U.S. I believe the rumors about some carburettors that doubled gas mileage. Banning the device made those modifications impossible and we didn't benefit from that. As I understood it fuel injection has its difficulties and it gives only marginal and probably illusory improvements in categories like pollution and fuel economy. Fuel injection was once regarded as a way to dump gas into the engine quickly to improve acceleration but it was hell on fuel economy. It is also a way to make a four cylinder engine peppier, so you can get away from a stoplight before people start honking their horns at you. This also forces your engine to produce more pollution when you take off. Pollution tests are done with the engine idling. Overall fuel economy does improve, but not that much and at a price.

 

A carburettor has inherently better fuel economy if you ask me. It improves fuel-air mixing and allows for leaner mixtures. It makes it more possible to match the load to the fuel expenditure. Unfortunately, unless it is forced, it simply won't allow enough air and fuel through for rapid acceleration with a small engine. That's why the four-barrel carburettors for small cars with racing engines. And if four cylinder engines were not fuel injected, they wouldn't be viable at all on the market. There simply would be no such thing as a van or pickup with a four cylinder engine because you couldn't get one of those up a hill or away from the stoplight.

 

The hybrid improves fuel economy because it wastes a lot less of its energy and the gasoline engine can run at optimum fuel economy all the time. One thing they used to say about the Pogue type of carburettor was that you might get the fuel economy but you would have extremely slow acceleration. The hybrid gets the fast acceleration from stored energy and the fuel-based engine recharges the battery at its leisure. Hey, trains use a hybrid system for that reason.

[YT2095]

Cpl. Luke:

 

There are tens to hundreds of amps available from a car's battery. Touching one post of such a battery is extremely likely to cause death.

 

are you Sure you don`t want to edit that bit?

[Thomas Kirby]

That was the tail end of a paragraph that discussed a car battery whose voltage was 200 to 500 volts. In context the statement is absolutely correct. Touch one post of that battery, it is likely to cause death, quickly. This isn't just hyperbole, either. The person touching it is likely to also be touching the frame of the car and has half a chance of completing a circuit that way. This kind of battery will indeed push tens or hundreds of amperes. I didn't familiarize myself with the exact currents, but it takes thousands of watts to move a car at 100 kph.

 

The hybrids that are out now do have DC batteries that supply those voltages. Even if mechanics were noted for extremely high brain function, they would still get killed once in a while. In fact it's the smart ones who think they can get away with touching potentially lethal things.

[Lance]

I really don't know much about hybrid cars but I find it very hard to believe that they use a battery capable of supplying 500V at 100+ amps. This battery would need hundreds of cells and would be absolutely massive, weighing hundreds of pounds. Can you show me a similar battery?

[Thomas Kirby]

The fact that they use something like that is hard to believe, yes. The facts are easy to find on the net:

 

Firefighters Wary

 

Dodge Intrepid EX used 180 lb 300 volt battery

 

Toyota Prius uses 500 volt system

 

When you get into those voltages, they don't behave the same. 20 volts might kill a person but it has to be coupled very efficiently. 300 to 500 volts makes its own pathways.

[john5746]

The fact that they use something like that is hard to believe' date=' yes. The facts are easy to find on the net:

 

Firefighters Wary

 

Dodge Intrepid EX used 180 lb 300 volt battery

 

Toyota Prius uses 500 volt system

 

When you get into those voltages, they don't behave the same. 20 volts might kill a person but it has to be coupled very efficiently. 300 to 500 volts makes its own pathways.

 

Not sure how unsafe they are since I haven't seen under the hood of one, but, I think it is a matter of education. Gas is dangerous also. Hydrogen even more so.

 

My next car will be a hybrid. I avoided the first wave due to mechanics not being able to fix/obtain parts and to see how the technology works in real world conditions. One thing I don't like about hybrids is it brings complexity to the automobile. If it could replace the gas engine, then it would be more a matter of getting familiar with the new technology. Now, you have both to deal with. But, I think it is an option to live with until Hydrogen comes into play next decade.