http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/14/gas.price.whining/

When President Clinton left office, gas prices were (adjusted for inflation) some of the lowest in history. The price at the start of Bush's term in office was $1.54, still well below average (adjusted for inflation). The average in 1981 was $1.38
Today the average is $3.87 and I paid over $4.00 to fill up this morning.

Was this just the war? Or did our President screw us in other ways we haven't seen. I'd also love to see Furtivus explain why this is a good thing and how great a job Bush did with our domestic economy.

Well, it's good if you have stocks in with the oil companies.....

But for the rest of us shmoes, it's not great. Regardless, how does the American President influence OPEC? Just curious.....

Regardless, how does the American President influence OPEC? Just curious.....

Gas costs the Peso equivalent of $2.00 / gallon in Mexico right now in stations just across the Mexico / Texas border. Sure, gas prices around the globe may be up in some areas (and down in others) but the economy very much is driven by our President and not OPEC.

I think many pundits would scoff at the idea that the President drives the economy.

Personally I find it unlikely he has anything to do with it. Changes in the economy take aprox 18 months from the day the Fed changes the rate (old friend of mine that was an econ major explained that to me, not sure how true it is).

Many would argue the great economic years of Clinton were actually the work of Reagen's era ( era, not his doing mind you). Just as the same folks would state that the horrible economic woes of the late 70's weren't Carters fault.

Gas prices btw are not Bush's fault, c'mon what's next to blame him for ?, the rise of demand in China and India alone are much more to blame than anything we've done outright.

Kelraz, check into gas prices in Europe since the mid 80's. I think you'll find we've been getting cut a really good deal in comparision to what they've been paying. We're aprox equal to what they have been paying for awhile now.

I think many pundits would scoff at the idea that the President drives the economy.

Personally I find it unlikely he has anything to do with it. Changes in the economy take aprox 18 months from the day the Fed changes the rate (old friend of mine that was an econ major explained that to me, not sure how true it is).

Many would argue the great economic years of Clinton were actually the work of Reagen's era ( era, not his doing mind you). Just as the same folks would state that the horrible economic woes of the late 70's weren't Carters fault.

Gas prices btw are not Bush's fault, c'mon what's next to blame him for ?, the rise of demand in China and India alone are much more to blame than anything we've done outright.

Kelraz, check into gas prices in Europe since the mid 80's. I think you'll find we've been getting cut a really good deal in comparision to what they've been paying. We're aprox equal to what they have been paying for awhile now.

The threat of war raises the cost of oil significantly... war in the region does as well.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the largest economic issues we have right now are very loosely connected to the President.

In fact, I think it's tragic that people will be given Bush as an easy scapegoat for all their problems. This will allow most to continue avoiding critical thought about the broad issues that work against them.

Easier to just blame Bush and neglect to look at the subprime mess or accepting any sort of blame for our lack of long term energy planning.

At some point it'll have to stop being...but but but Bush and start having to be duuuhhhh bad spending!!

Btw Jedd, there's been a threat of war in the region since errrrr forever. Add to that the threat of war since I was over there in 91 and you have to look past it being Bush's fault no?

I think it's important to keep in mind that the largest economic issues we have right now are very loosely connected to the President.

In fact, I think it's tragic that people will be given Bush as an easy scapegoat for all their problems. This will allow most to continue avoiding critical thought about the broad issues that work against them.

The guy was the worst president in history without people crediting him with failures he wasn't particularly involved in, but then again, people loved Bill Clinton because the economy was fortuitously on an upswing. United States of Amnesia indeed.

/nods Malse exactly my point.

The economy will be as it is , especially if folks continue to think the president controls it and fails to learn anything about it.

The guy was the worst president in history without people crediting him with failures he wasn't particularly involved in, but then again, people loved Bill Clinton because the economy was fortuitously on an upswing. United States of Amnesia indeed.
I'm not defending Bush's other transgressions. I hold out hope he might be held responsible for the various ways that he has trampled all over the Constitution.

We need to balance the budget. We need to cut discretionary spending. Let's stop dumping money into failed programs like NCLB.


Instead, I'm sure we'll just suck up entitlements spending. The great irony is that everyone will be elderly sooner or later.

On the other hand, I do think the President could be a force for positive economic change, if it were their focus. If not handcuffed by the status quo, I guarantee you that Ron Paul could bring the middle class into a new age of relative prosperity.

It's not rocket science. Someone just needs the guts to make some big changes that will anger the most powerful people on the planet.

Let me see if I can name the changes (mind you it's obvious I'm no rocket scientist).

1) Sales tax, dump the IRS and make transparent where the monies flow
2) No riders, vote on each bill ....absolutely no earmarks
3) After your term in congress etc etc no automatic monies/perks the rest of your life (bullshit to have to spend 20 years in the military while a congressman spends 4 for greater returns)
4) Free trade, aslong as the country trading with us treats us the same.

That a few of them?

I think many pundits would scoff at the idea that the President drives the economy.

Personally I find it unlikely he has anything to do with it. Changes in the economy take aprox 18 months from the day the Fed changes the rate (old friend of mine that was an econ major explained that to me, not sure how true it is).

Many would argue the great economic years of Clinton were actually the work of Reagen's era ( era, not his doing mind you). Just as the same folks would state that the horrible economic woes of the late 70's weren't Carters fault.

Gas prices btw are not Bush's fault, c'mon what's next to blame him for ?, the rise of demand in China and India alone are much more to blame than anything we've done outright.

Kelraz, check into gas prices in Europe since the mid 80's. I think you'll find we've been getting cut a really good deal in comparision to what they've been paying. We're aprox equal to what they have been paying for awhile now.


im not sure what the green taxation shift in europe (lowering tax on income, and shifting it to gas, electricity etc.) has to do with your gas prices, but yea, ours is still much higher than yours i think. :D

Back in the mid 80's I was paying aprox 4$ a gallon (they charge by the liter, but it worked out that way).

Coming up on paying that here now....

I will say this, the German roads >>>> than ours....smooth and very well taken care of! Guess that's where part of the monies/taxes from the gas went.

Back in the mid 80's I was paying aprox 4$ a gallon (they charge by the liter, but it worked out that way).

Coming up on paying that here now....

I will say this, the German roads >>>> than ours....smooth and very well taken care of! Guess that's where part of the monies/taxes from the gas went.

that and a functioning educational system, and healthcare, but i digress.

Uh huh, my wife at the time was German....had to wait 6 weeks to get seen for an illness. She ended up miscarrying our baby.

Don't sell that shit to me...functional my ass.

Educational system you might have some merit on. They certainly educate more folks who brew better beer!!

Let me see if I can name the changes (mind you it's obvious I'm no rocket scientist).

1) Sales tax, dump the IRS and make transparent where the monies flow
2) No riders, vote on each bill ....absolutely no earmarks
3) After your term in congress etc etc no automatic monies/perks the rest of your life (bullshit to have to spend 20 years in the military while a congressman spends 4 for greater returns)
4) Free trade, aslong as the country trading with us treats us the same.

That a few of them?
I think those are all good things.

Though, Ron Paul doesn't want to dump the IRS in favor of sales taxes. He wants to dump the IRS, period. With even moderately reformed spending, we do not need it.

For me, the unholy trinity is:

1) IRS/Spending
2) Monetary policy (fix our money)
3) Lobby/special interest money paying our elected officials to work against our best interests.

I think other things are very important too, like education and cleaning up the health care system. However, you can't feasibly fix these things with superficial bandaids until you clean up the underlying rot.

If we don't get our fundamentals fixed, throwing bundles of inflated money at the symptoms is just spinning our wheels.

Easier to just blame Bush and neglect to look at the subprime mess or accepting any sort of blame for our lack of long term energy planning.Such as might have been addressed between the VP and his energy committee?

Gas prices jumped after Katrina and never settled down again. It's long struck me that the hurricane served as casus belli for maintaining increased rates and, therefore, the increased profits we've seen in the oil companies (Exxon still (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/387.html) doing quite well. Rampant speculation followed, peak has probably been hit, and here we are.

Bush & Co. don't drive gas prices, but their policies and the environment they establish are certainly conducive to high gas rates. They'd do nothing to bite the hand that feeds them.

I think many pundits would scoff at the idea that the President drives the economy.

Personally I find it unlikely he has anything to do with it. Changes in the economy take aprox 18 months from the day the Fed changes the rate (old friend of mine that was an econ major explained that to me, not sure how true it is).

Many would argue the great economic years of Clinton were actually the work of Reagen's era ( era, not his doing mind you). Just as the same folks would state that the horrible economic woes of the late 70's weren't Carters fault.

Gas prices btw are not Bush's fault, c'mon what's next to blame him for ?, the rise of demand in China and India alone are much more to blame than anything we've done outright.

Kelraz, check into gas prices in Europe since the mid 80's. I think you'll find we've been getting cut a really good deal in comparision to what they've been paying. We're aprox equal to what they have been paying for awhile now.

As for the Bush impact on gas prices and economy, the fact is he did indeed have a large impact via his tax cuts for the higher income brackets. Those are the folks who drove up the per barrel costs with speculative buying/selling, and those are the folks who have invested so well in the financial groups behind many of the sub-prime lending angencies.

Agreed, the demand by China and India is a huge factor in fuel costs, but I have seen it stated over and over in the business pages that the wild speculation of investors is what drove the per barrel costs up. What exactly do you think those wealthy folks do with the tax money they no longer have to send to Uncle Sam? Seems to me they would be using it to try to make more money.

The oil price here isn't due to speculation on oil futures, nor the war, nor anything to do with OPEC.

Put it this way, a given weight of gold or silver buys roughly the same amount of gas today as it did in the 70s.

Hmm. 1970 an ounce of gold cost about $38. A gallon of gas was $0.385 in 1973. About a 100:1 ratio.

In 2008 gold is going for $1,002 per ounce (not current to date). Gas in my neighborhood is $3.45. About a 300:1 ratio.

Maybe another metric is in order.

I meant to say on average. You can easily find mis-representative peaks and troughs for both metals and oil, from time to time. The early 70s were obviously a very volatile period. Comparing 1970 gold with 1973 gas isn't a meaningful comparison (see attachment).

The gold/oil ratio has averaged out pretty steady for the last three decades though.

Certainly not something you can say about the dollar.

Well, to date myself somewhat, I recall the gas wars between Phillips 66 (used to have a ton of their decals) and the Clark gas stations, and paying less than a quarter per gallon. We could rummage through the alley and get enough empty pop bottles to turn into the corner grocery for refunds to have enough gas to cruise for a couple of hours. :cool:

And I am talking V-8 engines.

'Regardless, how does the American President influence OPEC? Just curious.....'

- You're kidding, right?

OPEC President:

He added: "The prices are high due to the fact of the recession in the United States and the economic crisis which has touched several countries, a situation which has an effect on the devaluation of the dollar, and therefore each time the dollar falls one percent, the price of the barrel rises by $4, and of course vice versa," he was quoted as saying in brief remarks to journalists on Sunday.

He added that: "If this (the dollar) strengthens by 10 percent, it is probable that (oil) prices will fall by 40 percent."

If the U.S. economic situation improved from now to the end of the year "that would help the market to stabilize."

An interesting thing I heard on the radio about your inflation stuff is that the price of stamps is generally a great tracker of inflation.
http://www.akdart.com/postrate.html

My hated of Bush is not the economy, though i think the whole trickle down effect (pun) that Reagan was responsible for Clintons good economy, and thusly Clinton blamed for Bushes is crap.

I hate his use of the "Patriot" Act and it's utter violations of the Constitution. Also, for waging a war of his own without Congress actually declaring war. That is utter crap.

An interesting thing I heard on the radio about your inflation stuff is that the price of stamps is generally a great tracker of inflation.
http://www.akdart.com/postrate.html

I don't have the quote handy, but we have been told that each 1 cent increase in gas prices costs the Postal Service $1 million either per day or per week, I forget (pretty sure it was per day).

Another great barometer of the economy is how much advertising mail you are receiving. Using the mail is the cheapest form of advertising, and guarantees the advertising piece goes into the hands of the customer; it is looked at even if only while being thrown away. Small local businesses will advertise more via the mail when they are losing revenue; small printing shops will give more specials to businesses for advertising when the printers revenue is down; and, when the costs are up versus revenues for the Postal Service, they will be out there trying to sell more businesses on advertising with us.

And, the Postal Service does try to stress the use of recycled materials in advertising as well.

Print is down 30% in the US this year, I work for the 3rd largest printer in the world. However print is down 30% in Europe as well so its not only in the US. Postal rates, Paper, and Oil (by products of oil (print ink ect..)and transportation) are a huge factor into that. As well if people can't pay for food and gas, magazines are the last thing they want to buy.

Its a shame Bush was never able to build the pipline from Alaska to the US. Guess it got put on the back burner among eenviromental issues. I thought it was a great infrastctral build with an impact of job creation and cheaper energy for generations.

I think we're better off having the issue forced while we still have a decent reserve of oil. Our oil consumption is simply not sustainable, and I'd much rather make the transition away from oil on our terms, while there is still oil to fall back on in case of short term setbacks.

I don't have the quote handy, but we have been told that each 1 cent increase in gas prices costs the Postal Service $1 million either per day or per week, I forget (pretty sure it was per day).



Okay, I checked with the boss today, and this is another topic I was off on.
Has been a tough week for making errors.

The actual figure is for every penny increase in gas prices, it costs the Postal Service $8 million per year (that is on a fiscal year, if it makes a difference).
So, look at how much the gas prices have increased the past year, and figure how much the Postal Service paid over projected costs, and maybe that extra penny per stamp won't look as harsh. :)

Ah, but I used to do a lot of promotional videos for USPS and you're the only federal entity that runs a profit ;) Imagine those costs for labor and education which are already underfunded ... or hell our military. Ouch.

Ah, but I used to do a lot of promotional videos for USPS and you're the only federal entity that runs a profit ;) Imagine those costs for labor and education which are already underfunded ... or hell our military. Ouch.

And did your promotional videos cover the manner in which our funds have been raided ever since Reagan was in office? Or the fact that the Congress has failed to appropriate payments for the non-profit mailings that they have permitted, or properly paid for their franking privileges?

When Reagan put Marvin Runyon in as Post Master General, one of his primary acts in the position was to arrange a no interest loan to the government which essentially allowed them to repay what they owed to Postal Service over an extremely long-term arrangement.

I wish you could have done a video detailing what pockets any profits made go into, as a public service message.