This Week's Sunnyvale Valero Gas Prices
 

[code]Fri, 06 Jun: 4.29[sup]9[/sup]
Mon, 09 Jun: 4.33[sup]9[/sup]
Tue, 10 Jun: 4.37[sup]9[/sup]
Wed, 11 Jun: 4.37[sup]9[/sup]
Thu, 12 Jun: 4.41[sup]9[/sup]
Fri, 13 Jun: 4.45[sup]9[/sup]
[/code]
A 4-cent price hike 4 days this week, for a weekly rise of 3.7% - up a total of 46 cents per gallon, or 11.5%, in the past 3 weeks.

There's an article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal which talks about many U.S. businesses now "onshoring" production due to the skyrocketing cost of shipping goods from e.g. China - the increased cost of conatiner shipments from China over the past 5 years is on the order of 50 cents per pound of freight. That might not amount to terribly much for, say, small electronics, but for nearly everything else it's a huge rise. WSJ say on the whole it's equivalent to a 9% tariff on goods from SE Asia.


On a lighter note - after all, it is Friday [the 13th, no less]:

[url=http://wallstreetexaminer.com/blogs/mantle/?p=42]eCONomic Scuttle Butt | Americans Building Equity in Gasoline[/url]: [i]Americans who own their own gasoline get richer every year, while those who wait on the sidelines risk getting priced out of the market.[/i]

LOL, "Fannie Gae" and "Freddie Crac".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;135721]Indeed - and Europeans appear to be justifiably displeased with the trend; just look at what's happening in Spain, for instance. Here in the U.S. there is talk of imposing windfall profits taxes on the oil companies - although as one [i]San Jose Mercury News[/i] letter writer pointed out today, typical profit margins as a percentage of earnings are 3x higher for a typical Big Tech company like Microsoft than they are for a Big Oil company like Exxon/Mobil. In Europe folks may soon be talking about windfall profits taxes [more specifically tax rebates] on ... the windfall tax revenues many governments are reaping as a result of skyrocketing oil prices.[/quote]No "soon" about it. Brits at least have been saying so for some time. It looks as if we may get such a windfall tax or, at least, a windfall shelving of a planned tax rise this autumn.
[QUOTE=ewmayer;135721]
I expect Paul is probably seeing more motorcycle company on the roads these days.[/QUOTE]To be honest, I've not seen it yet. There's likely to be a substantial lag, if it were to occur at all, because very few people have both a motorbike and a car and can make an easy choice between them.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;135845]No "soon" about it. Brits at least have been saying so for some time. It looks as if we may get such a windfall tax or, at least, a windfall shelving of a planned tax rise this autumn.[/QUOTE]
Ooh, no added rise in the already sky-high fuel taxes - how lucky you all must feel. Especially with the UK government's laudable fiscal prudence in other areas ... like the whole Northern Rock debacle, or having sold off most of their gold reserves [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1655001.ece]a few years back[/url] at what proved to be a rock-bottom price. If I were a Brit, I would be not too pleased right about now. [Of course, the cost of those missteps still pales compared to our own govt's "Iraqi Adventure"].


[quote]To be honest, I've not seen it yet. There's likely to be a substantial lag, if it were to occur at all, because very few people have both a motorbike and a car and can make an easy choice between them.[/QUOTE]

I asked, because here in the U.S. [especially in warm-weather states like California] motorcycle and scooter sales are soaring.

More 'breaking good gas-price news" here in the U.S.:

[url=http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/13/news/economy/corn_ethanol/index.htm]Midwest floods may send gas up 15%[/url]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;135848]Ooh, no added rise in the already sky-high fuel taxes - how lucky you all must feel. [/quote]An admirable summary of my feelings.
[QUOTE=ewmayer;135848]
Especially with the UK government's laudable fiscal prudence in other areas ... like the whole Northern Rock debacle, or having sold off most of their gold reserves [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1655001.ece]a few years back[/url] at what proved to be a rock-bottom price. If I were a Brit, I would be not too pleased right about now. [Of course, the cost of those missteps still pales compared to our own govt's "Iraqi Adventure"].
[/quote] The Northern Wreck debacle is only one of several UK government cock-ups in recent years. Consider the (US-supplied) helicopters that have been sitting in their hangars for several years because of a squabble over access to their avionics.


[QUOTE=ewmayer;135848]
I asked, because here in the U.S. [especially in warm-weather states like California] motorcycle and scooter sales are soaring.[/QUOTE]Sure, I don't doubt there will be an effect, just not an instant one. Give it a year and the effect may be noticeable in the U{K,S} --- assuming that (a) fuel costs remain high and (b) the newbies don't kill themselves on their first few outings.


Paul

The real reason for recent rise in U.S. crime rate
 

Might be this growing phenomenon:

Scooter Sales Skyrocket in SF Bay Area
 

[url=http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9609771?source=rss]San Jose Mercury News | Scooter sales revving up[/url]
More surprising to me than the fact that sales are shooting through the roof this year was the steady more-than-tenfold-increase over the past decade. One still sees very few of these on the road in the South Bay [i.e. Silicon Valley], so I suspect the bulk of the sales during the cheap-gas years may have been in San Francisco, where until recently, finding a parking spot has been much more of a nuisance for the automobilist than paying for gas.

[quote=xilman;135860]Sure, I don't doubt there will be an effect, just not an instant one. Give it a year and the effect may be noticeable in the U{K,S} --- assuming that (a) fuel costs remain high and (b) the newbies don't kill themselves on their first few outings.[/quote]Actually, wouldn't NOT-b (i.e., newbies [I]do[/I] kill themselves on their first few outings) also be a factor that tends to reduce gasoline consumption?

GM: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Oil Embargo
 

BTW, [url=http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/g/gm]GM[/url] stock just matched a 50-year low - the last time it was < $15 was at the height of the 70s Arab oil embargo.

And note that is in *absolute* dollar terms - if we factor in [url=http://www.westegg.com/inflation/index.html]inflation[/url], the current stock price is in fact roughly equivalent to just one-fourth the 1975 low. I'll see if I can dig up a historical price chart for GM, to see how the current share price compares to the 1932 Great-Depression low when adjusted for inflation [I see on one site that GM hit a low of 7 5/8 in 1932, but that doesn't say if/when the stock split between then and the earliest date on the Yahoo charts, 1954]. I have a feeling the result will be rather sobering.

[I]The next 6 posts were moved from the U.S. President thread. Ernst's "the man" reference below is to John McCain.[/I]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;136233]With this latest "why drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle when you can drill the crap out of our coasts and the ANWR and boost the profits of Big Oil while doing zilch to lower oil prices" flip-flop, I've lost the last shred of respect for the man. It would be so incredibly easy for Americans to cut their fuel consumption by 25% or more.[/QUOTE]

Am I the only one who thinks that we should do both??? Republicans espouse drill more but no new regulations, Democrats espouse alternative energy and conservation but no new drilling or refineries.

It's basic math - prices are a function of supply and demand. Any increase in supply is helpful. Any decrease in demand is helpful. Do both and you get double the benefit. Is there no common sense in Washington?

[quote=Prime95;136254]Democrats espouse alternative energy and conservation but no new drilling or refineries.[/quote]Oh, wait --- I get it --- are you equating "no new refineries" to "no expansion of existing refineries' capacities"? The latter is simply not true. It's not necessary to build a new refinery where none exists now in order to dramatically expand U.S. refinery capacity.

Can you cite examples of Dem opposition to any new refinery [I]capacity[/I]?

- -

[URL]http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=070910_7_A13_hSinc83455[/URL]

Sinclair announced last year a plan to expand its Tulsa refinery's capacity by 57% while lowering total pollution (notably, the smell that always let us know when the wind was blowing from the west).

However, it's not [U]all[/U] inspired by the goodness of Sinclair's heart:

[URL]http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/06/business/NA-FIN-US-Refinery-Expansion.php[/URL]

[quote]The refinery has a history of violating state and federal environmental laws and rules, according to records. In one instance, a federal judge in April ordered Sinclair Oil and two former managers to pay $5.5 million (€4 million) for environmental crimes relating to the operation of the Tulsa refinery.[/quote]

- -

[URL]http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/06/no_new_refineries.php[/URL]

[quote]CEOs for BP, Shell and Conoco all testified to Congress last year that environmental requirements have not blocked a single planned refinery expansion.

...

then-EPA administrator Carol Browner testified to Congress in 2000 that about half the permit modifications for refineries were issued within five months and that most of the others were issued within a year.[/quote]Note that 2000 was still during the [I]Clinton[/I] administration.

[quote]Despite all evidence to the contrary, Republicans such as Barton and chief bill sponsor Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., continue to assert that environmental permits are limiting refineries—and causing higher gas prices.

It’s one thing for a noted industry shill like Barton—christened “Smokey Joe” by the [I]Dallas Morning News[/I] for his consistent pro-polluter positions—to mindlessly bash environmental requirements. It is more disturbing to see that this legislation is supported by more moderate Republicans like Bass or retiring Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

Unfortunately, as long as these lawmakers continue to repeat the Big Lie about refineries, we are not likely to see real reforms that could better address the root problem—our reliance on foreign oil.[/quote]

Way to go cheesehead. Completely ignore the main point of my post and quickly get lost in the weeds.