|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I will put it that way:
In Poland buying 100l of gasoline will cost You ~585 pln with median income of 5700 pln (2021, does not include taxes) a month, that's upwards of 10% of income.
In Germany buying 100l of gasoline will cost You ~189 euro with median income of 3975 euro (2020) that's less than 5% of income.
In US buying 100l of gasoline will cost You ~129 dolars with median income of 4150 dolars (2022) that's a little more than 3% of income. But Americans drive A LOT more than we Europoors do: Actually, I found data for that: Americans drive 2.06 times of what Germans drive. Which gets us to around 6,5% of monthly income spent on gas. But again, that's median. The poorest Americans are poorer than the respective percentile of Germans, and they have to rely on cars. While I would assume in Germany (as in Poland) the poorest people use public transport and usually don't own a car.
As You can see, the impact of changes in gasoline prices on home budget, can be much different depending on the country.
|
People do drive a lot in the USA due to the distances. Even citys itself are far more spread out then in europe.
Then they also drive vehicles that do use a lot of gas like big trucks and suv,s. 1/10 is maybe not realistic.
Public transport is not really an alternative outside the citys and it will probably never be. Everything is way to spread out.
People complain about gas prices because it is very noticeable for most people. I can see it beeing 200/month difference. And if you spend everything you earn every month (halve of americans live paycheck to paycheck according to a recent news article that i saw) then that 100-200 dollars is a lot of money.
|
People complain about gas prices because it's the one price that is plastered across the country in plain view and it's impossible to miss.
If grocery prices went up, you won't realize it until you're in the grocery store, for example. So you are not being reminded about it every single day like you do when you go past a gas station.
|
On June 29 2022 01:44 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 01:32 LegalLord wrote:
Evidently there's a lot more interest in blamestorming than in solving actual problems.
I know this suggestion may seem quite "out there" but it is possible to do two things simultaneously:
1. Take measures to solve the short-term, acute gas price problem.
2. Take separate measures to solve the long-term public transport infrastructure problem.
Seems the primary opposition to doing (2) is a straw man foe that is invented by people who fail to see the need for (1). Even the Republicans, for all their obstructionism, passed the part of the infrastructure bill that focused on roads, bridges, rail, and the like. I don't think anything will be done to combat it short-term. Oil companies could be severely penalized for price gouging but that's not going to pass the Senate. I am pretty sure Biden can't do anything to rein it in. We're stuck with higher gas prices and it's going to make a lot of people vote GOP in November
I am also skeptical that anything will be done, largely because the administration is showing every sign they don't plan to do anything about it. That's not for lack of means, but only a lack of willingness to do what must be done (I've covered several options in last few pages).
I mean, fluff aside, it's fairly obvious why Biden doesn't really want to do common sense measures like gas & diesel export controls: he believes in capitalism, and export restrictions forsake the wisdom of the markets. None of the other problems with doing this are anything more than excuses.
On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Whether or not you understand why, gas prices in the US are absolutely a political issue of the highest importance. Politicians on both sides of the aisle know it to be true.
As at least a couple points that are relevant to this:
- The more "standard" price for gas in standard times is around $2-3/gal, so more like €0.5/L.
- 50 km/day is less than the average driving distance daily by American drivers. 60-100 km / day is more like it, and a lot of people certainly drive a hell of a lot more than that.
- Produce of all kinds is often shipped long-distance by diesel truck, which passes on costs of a whole lot of other things as well.
- Having a car is generally cheaper than living without one; places with shitty public infrastructure are a lot cheaper to live in. I don't have numbers on this but I'd wager poor people drive a lot more.
|
On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it.
The problem is the price of petrol is connected to the price of just about everything. Grocery stores need food delivering from one place to another. Sometimes things have 5-6 journeys before arriving at the store to be sold. All of that adds to the cost, therefore the price.
An increase in petrol prices means an increase in everything prices.
|
On June 29 2022 02:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 01:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it. Because Americans live paycheck to paycheck and having to spend a small amount more on gas combined with the rising food prices and other inflation isn't possible to budget. It certainly doesn't help that most Americans drive super gas guzzlers like pick up trucks and SUVs to commute long distances, but a small increase in costs is really catastrophic for the average American. They would blame Biden and vote Republican instead of downsizing their vehicle to something with better gas mileage for sure though. Yes, but a cost increase of 50c/l for gas is basically viewed as some horrendous thing, while an increase of the same average monthly cost on other stuff, like electricity or food, is mostly ignored. There seems to be some huge emotional link to the gas price for some reason. Maybe also linked to the fact that people will often go way out of their way to save 5c/l at another gas station. Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 02:00 plasmidghost wrote:On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it. I would love to see stipends from the government to help. I also don't see it happening because of how the administration did away with a ton of Covid relief measures. Also, without stopping oil companies from jacking up prices even more, all the stipends will go to them I don't think so. Because you don't have to spend your stipend on gas. If you ride the train instead, or ride a bike, or have an electric vehicle, or drive something that uses less gas, you can even pocket some money, while doing something that is good for the environment. The whole idea should be to use market forces to make people want to use less gas.
That's a good point. Since the stipend could be used for anything, it would hopefully help those that need it
|
On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it.
Lots of different reasons, some of them mentioned but 50km doesn't even cover the US workers average daily commute. I don't want to do all the conversions and such but you're talking about losing ~entire minimum wage workday or more a month just to pay the increased cost of going to work.
Combine that with inflation/gouging across industries and such and you're talking about millions of people losing the purchasing power of several days of labor a month.
Most of the rising prices are monthly/bi-weekly expenses whereas a lot of people have to get gas weekly and drive past the signs daily so it is a constant reminder in ways that that other rising expenses aren't.
Got a better chance of Congress committing mass seppuku than we do them actually legislating effectual help for those most affected imo.
|
Norway28709 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it.
For many, I don't understand why they care so much either - but it's also a testament to how close to the economic edge a lot of people genuinely find themselves. your calculation gives us an extra cost of $900 per year, in 2021, only 68% of American adults could pay a $400 unexpected expense through savings, and 10% reported having no way of being able to handle such a sum. (link) Presumably the number would be lower/higher respectively if we increase the number to $900.
I mean, I'm the type of guy who thinks we all need to learn to consume less and stuff becoming more costly seems like the most plausible way to make that happen, and no doubt part of the issue is a lot of people being accustomed to habits that are fundamentally unsustainable, but there are also a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck. Tbh these days, making median Norwegian salary, having a wife doing the same and living in a fairly inexpensive apartment with no car, I don't notice these price increases people are talking about - at all. But if I go a few years back in time when I was a part time employed student with a wife in a similar spot, an additional $900 per year would have forced me to cut back on some hobby/activity/eat shittier food in a way that I'd be reasonably unhappy about it.
|
People also complain about increasing cost of other goods. Gas prices are easy to complain about because it’s a single product that everyone buys a lot of. If people bought 100 gallons of milk every month we would hear a lot if milk prices went up a couple bucks per gallon.
|
Going to add more to the gas prices microcosm in a bit, but wanted to share that things are already getting real horrifying for anyone pregnant in states that have banned abortion
|
Republicans got their W
This kind of story will have zero impact on them.
In fact, if she voted against Trump they will be celebrating her libtard tears.
|
On June 29 2022 02:33 BlackJack wrote:
People also complain about increasing cost of other goods. Gas prices are easy to complain about because it’s a single product that everyone buys a lot of. If people bought 100 gallons of milk every month we would hear a lot if milk prices went up a couple bucks per gallon.
In many ways, "price at the pump" is an excellent proxy in the US for general cost of all consumer goods as perceived by the general working class, distilled down into a number that is easy to track and communicate. A gas problem is certainly not just a gas problem.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On June 29 2022 01:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 00:18 WombaT wrote:On June 28 2022 19:40 Slydie wrote:
No politician can do squat about the gas prices, it is a global market, but most oppositions from both left and right will still use it as a populist weapon.
I also find it amuzing that environmentalists tend to shut up about the energy crizis, even though high prices is by far the best way to lower the consumption. Also, the reality is kicking in that wind power is a far from a solution until mass storage of energy is possible. If you rely on wind, you will need near full capacity fossil fuel backup. Who are the environmentalists advocating making wind a backbone of a national energy grid? Aside from the whole environmental protection thing, the other major plus point in less reliance on fossil fuels is more insulation from precisely what we’re currently seeing. It will, of course require a lot of moolah to overhaul existing infrastructure. As Ghostlyplasmid mentioned, it’s not just a case of how US public transport is powered that’s an issue, it’s that it’s non-existent in places: To take one example, the infrastructural and cultural overhaul needed would be huge. This. The problem is that the environmentalist push to transition from reliance on international fossil fuels has been vehemently opposed by the right for reasons that have nothing to do with economic rationality, science, common sense, or national security. It’s become a cultural wedge issue, where there should be cross party consensus based on the political ideologies there is a manufactured opposition funded by big polluters.
‘I know you’ve suggested making hay while the sun shines for years and I said it’s not viable, why are you bringing it up now it’s raining again and it would clearly nice to have some hay?’
I believe you are correct and it’s a cultural wedge issue as much as one predicated on practical objections.
Far as I can tell it’s an issue afflicting all but the loudest voices moaning about gas prices are the loudest voices against untethering from the degree of reliance on it we have.
*Sighs*
|
LL, you've been speaking about the oil export controls for a few pages now? Is there some reason to believe that the price increase is due to a capacity constraint, so that export controls would actually affect the prices?
I'll say that I haven't heard of any changes in the US oil industry over the last year or so in a way that that would have lead to capacity constraints. If the price increases arise from global instability (that little war thing involving a significant global producer/exporter of oil) then US export controls aren't limiting the upward pressure on oil prices. Rather you'd need the global competition to pick up (i.e. Russia/Saudis increasing production and their exports).
|
Export controls make the problem worse since it reduces long term investment and supply. Besides the economics an export ban on oil would screw over European countries who are trying to end their dependence on oil from Russia. It'd be a geopolitical disaster.
|
On June 29 2022 03:53 Oukka wrote:
LL, you've been speaking about the oil export controls for a few pages now? Is there some reason to believe that the price increase is due to a capacity constraint, so that export controls would actually affect the prices?
I'll say that I haven't heard of any changes in the US oil industry over the last year or so in a way that that would have lead to capacity constraints. If the price increases arise from global instability (that little war thing involving a significant global producer/exporter of oil) then US export controls aren't limiting the upward pressure on oil prices. Rather you'd need the global competition to pick up (i.e. Russia/Saudis increasing production and their exports).
The simple version is that the US is a net exporter of oil & refined products (the latter more so than the former), and in a time of shortage we shouldn't be. There's an argument to be made that crude oil itself isn't efficient without a global supply chain, a valid one at that, but the only real argument for net exports of gas & diesel are "markets bro." Or in other words, we prioritize the profits of oil corporations and the demand of foreigners over the cost of living crisis of Americans. A no-brainer for anyone that was whining about corporate greed that wants to follow it up with actions. We (unintentionally) did it with natural gas when the LNG plant caught on fire, cutting a third off the natural gas bill; we can do the same with gasoline & diesel.
If you haven't heard anything about reduced capacity in US industry, it's not for lack of it happening. Shale has taken a pretty brutal beating since the pandemic, as has refinery capacity. The US can still more or less meet its oil needs, but just barely. Not enough capacity to allow for net exports to persist. I recall something like $4/gal back in January, which is already elevated.
|
|
|
On June 29 2022 04:12 RvB wrote:
Export controls make the problem worse since it reduces long term investment and supply. Besides the economics an export ban on oil would screw over European countries who are trying to end their dependence on oil from Russia. It'd be a geopolitical disaster.
First point would be true under normal circumstances, but I'm not sure it is right now. The big oil providers have been very clear about that they will minimize investment and maximize returns to shareholders in a way that differs quite a bit from historical/standard market dynamics. And even reduced prices (say, a 40% price reduction based on this export control) would not leave any viable domestic oil producers in a particularly bad financial position.
On the second point: while true, that's Europe's problem. They got themselves into this mess, they can dig themselves out. Cheaper prices for American consumers matters a lot more for any US government that cares about its own survival.
|
Great juicy Seditious Conspiracy. Tastier than any hamberder or covfefe. The fucker knew. We all knew he knew what was happening when the mob attacked the Capitol. But now it's been dragged out into the daylight.
More than anything thus far, this is gonna test the thickness of the walls on that great big bubble that Republicans still sit in.
|
On June 29 2022 02:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2022 01:53 Simberto wrote:
I am always fascinated by this absurd focus on gas prices. How much do people drive for this to be as relevant as it seems to emotionally be for them?
If i drive 50km/day, at 10l/100km, that means i consume 150l of fuel a month. At prices of 2€/l, this means i spend 300€ on fuel. If the price was 1,5€/l instead, i spend 225€ instead. I save a whopping 75€.
Why is an increase like that a massive crisis to people? And if it is really catastrophic and something people can not handle on their own, i would rather say that the goverment should hand everybody 75€/month instead of trying to lower gas prices by 50c/l. Because that way, everyone profits, not only the people who burn lots of gas. In fact, if you live environmentally friendly, you actually win. Meanwhile, if you drive 3 SUVs, you have to pay more. The incentive structure is much better this way, because it incentivices people to burn less fuel, while also taking the economic burden off of the people who cannot afford it. For many, I don't understand why they care so much either - but it's also a testament to how close to the economic edge a lot of people genuinely find themselves. your calculation gives us an extra cost of $900 per year, in 2021, only 68% of American adults could pay a $400 unexpected expense through savings, and 10% reported having no way of being able to handle such a sum. ( link) Presumably the number would be lower/higher respectively if we increase the number to $900. I mean, I'm the type of guy who thinks we all need to learn to consume less and stuff becoming more costly seems like the most plausible way to make that happen, and no doubt part of the issue is a lot of people being accustomed to habits that are fundamentally unsustainable, but there are also a lot of people living paycheck to paycheck. Tbh these days, making median Norwegian salary, having a wife doing the same and living in a fairly inexpensive apartment with no car, I don't notice these price increases people are talking about - at all. But if I go a few years back in time when I was a part time employed student with a wife in a similar spot, an additional $900 per year would have forced me to cut back on some hobby/activity/eat shittier food in a way that I'd be reasonably unhappy about it.
For me its the totality of things even though gas is a big part of it. Bloomberg has the total number at $5,200 a year or $433 a month as an inflation "tax." Not sure if you're all a lot richer than me, but it all adds up when combined with federal, state, property, local, and social security taxes and I don't just have the extra hundreds of dollars a month to offset the increase.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-29/u-s-households-face-5-200-inflation-tax-this-year-chart
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
