![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meganursulaMy cold has been giving me breathing issues, so i took the bus yesterday and today.
Yesterday was annoying because i'm not on a schedule for taking the 'nice' bus, and the stupid bus, is, well, stupid. If i get up in time to take the commuter line it comes on time, and gets to work quickly. If i leave late enough to take the same i also get predictable schedules and a short ride. But, yesterday i left a couple of minutes late and couldn't stay late enough at work, so i had to take the dumb bus, which gives me a 45 minute or more commute, vs. the 20 on my bike. Today i left work early enough and am staying late enough that the time is less onerous. I even finished reading a paper while i was on the bus!
Also, i seem to have lost my id card, with my bus pass stuck to it, so i had to pay with money. That sucked. I'll need to replace the card, i guess - i can't even remember when i last used it, except that is was probably to get into work right before my thesis was due.
At any rate, thank heavens the cold is abating, and by Thursday (the next day i come to the office) i should back on my bike!
I wanted to mention, though, that capitalism is working on our oil issues. This summer gas prices finally got high enough that people started responding. Bike stores are sold out of bikes (used bikes are particularly hard to come by), and the buses are packed. People are really starting to figure out alternatives to driving their single occupancy cars. The most wondrous thing is that economics are also working on the supply, and oil prices have started to drop.
I've been saying for a while that what we need is to increase gas prices, not decrease them. People need to start thinking about alternatives, and clearly they need the financial incentive to do that. I'm rather thrilled with these developments.
(And, yes, i know, its a regressive demand issue. There are people out there who really are being hurt by the higher oil prices, and who don't have the option to modify their cars or commuting options. People are being hit by higher costs for food and other consumables related to gas prices, and some of those people can ill afford those increases. I get that. Still, i'd rather see those people be helped out by a capitalist driven decrease in oil prices, or other means entirely, than an artificial influx or more oil.)
Especially given all of that, I am vehemently against increasing our oil supply by opening up new oil reserves. I think that would be a temporary solution to a huge problem. I think it would harm our environment directly, while only delaying the need for different solutions to our energy issues. I think forcing people to become creative to find those solutions by allowing the oil prices to stay high has very little downside (exception noted in parenthesis above). The higher gas prices mean that people are walking or biking, which is a healthy habit for most people to adopt. It means they are using transportation options that are less harmful to the environment, and that they are more likely to support or adopt newly developed technologies. This is all good.
Honestly, even if oil prices come down, i'd like to see auto-fuel prices remain elevated. Although i know that is a pipe dream only likely to be supported by a city-dwelling bike enthusiast like myself!
In short, though, this issue of oil is important to me. It is a big reason that i favor Obama over McCain.
Yesterday was annoying because i'm not on a schedule for taking the 'nice' bus, and the stupid bus, is, well, stupid. If i get up in time to take the commuter line it comes on time, and gets to work quickly. If i leave late enough to take the same i also get predictable schedules and a short ride. But, yesterday i left a couple of minutes late and couldn't stay late enough at work, so i had to take the dumb bus, which gives me a 45 minute or more commute, vs. the 20 on my bike. Today i left work early enough and am staying late enough that the time is less onerous. I even finished reading a paper while i was on the bus!
Also, i seem to have lost my id card, with my bus pass stuck to it, so i had to pay with money. That sucked. I'll need to replace the card, i guess - i can't even remember when i last used it, except that is was probably to get into work right before my thesis was due.
At any rate, thank heavens the cold is abating, and by Thursday (the next day i come to the office) i should back on my bike!
I wanted to mention, though, that capitalism is working on our oil issues. This summer gas prices finally got high enough that people started responding. Bike stores are sold out of bikes (used bikes are particularly hard to come by), and the buses are packed. People are really starting to figure out alternatives to driving their single occupancy cars. The most wondrous thing is that economics are also working on the supply, and oil prices have started to drop.
I've been saying for a while that what we need is to increase gas prices, not decrease them. People need to start thinking about alternatives, and clearly they need the financial incentive to do that. I'm rather thrilled with these developments.
(And, yes, i know, its a regressive demand issue. There are people out there who really are being hurt by the higher oil prices, and who don't have the option to modify their cars or commuting options. People are being hit by higher costs for food and other consumables related to gas prices, and some of those people can ill afford those increases. I get that. Still, i'd rather see those people be helped out by a capitalist driven decrease in oil prices, or other means entirely, than an artificial influx or more oil.)
Especially given all of that, I am vehemently against increasing our oil supply by opening up new oil reserves. I think that would be a temporary solution to a huge problem. I think it would harm our environment directly, while only delaying the need for different solutions to our energy issues. I think forcing people to become creative to find those solutions by allowing the oil prices to stay high has very little downside (exception noted in parenthesis above). The higher gas prices mean that people are walking or biking, which is a healthy habit for most people to adopt. It means they are using transportation options that are less harmful to the environment, and that they are more likely to support or adopt newly developed technologies. This is all good.
Honestly, even if oil prices come down, i'd like to see auto-fuel prices remain elevated. Although i know that is a pipe dream only likely to be supported by a city-dwelling bike enthusiast like myself!
In short, though, this issue of oil is important to me. It is a big reason that i favor Obama over McCain.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 06:43 pm (UTC)I think it would be hard to argue that demand for diesel has increased over and above the demand for gasoline. Rather, alternatives to diesel fuel are now available (as Megan mentions above) and they are very expensive, which has given diesel sellers some room to profiteer by increasing the price of diesel fuel while still keeping it below the price of biodiesel. Quite frankly, the biggest problem is that the major consumers of diesel will pay the going price for it. Those major consumers are shipping companies; a comparatively small proportion of the population by contrast uses it to power their personal vehicles (or in my parents' case, their RV).
So long as the major consumers of diesel continue to pay the rate charged for it, its price will continue to increase and drive inflation in consumer prices. Of course, these days if truckers shut down the Capitol like they did in the 70s they could all be held without charges as domestic terrorists. :/
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 07:50 pm (UTC)One problem I have with discussions about energy pricing is what we're engaged in right now: very little mention of data, but plenty of theories (I'm censoring myself from coming up with explanations, but I'm finding it very tough). Another problem is that one's complaint of profiteering is another's perfectly justified decision to charge whatever the market will bear.
The closest thing to data that I have is a vague notion that the amount of trucking increased faster than the amount of passenger transport, which I feel like I've seen numbers for; that would, as you point out, increase demand for diesel relative to gasoline. But my numbers are far too vague to determine whether it would explain the difference in prices.
In a competitive market, I have difficulty believing that offering a higher-price alternative could increase the price of the lower-price alternative. If it has, then either the market is not competitive, or I don't know economics.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 08:31 pm (UTC)It is almost always a problem in discussions with me. I have time to think about these issues, but not as much time to dig up data. I recognize it as a huge flaw, but, so far, don't often work to fix it. Perhaps i should try to get funding as an economist so i can play with the problems for real?
the amount of trucking increased faster than the amount of passenger transport, which I feel like I've seen numbers for; that would, as you point out, increase demand for diesel relative to gasoline.
Well, individual drivers can reduce car trips, and long distance travel is way down. But truckers aren't really able to make either of those reductions. Add to that the increase in the number of diesel cars on the road...
In a competitive market, I have difficulty believing that offering a higher-price alternative could increase the price of the lower-price alternative.
I believe that this could happen for two reasons:
1) you can not choose between these two alternatives immediately. Buying a new vehicle or a new truck is an action that has a long lag time. So you'd expect to see the free market work on the choices over a number of years, but not over the number of months that we've seen something like increased bus ridership. Additionally, there are not big rigs readily available in alternative fuel prices, even if some truckers were willing to switch to lower their costs.
2) i think with the private consumer (not so much the industries in question) you can rely on some ignorance. Fuel prices go up, so you can raise all fuel prices. Even if the reality says that only one type of fuel has gotten more expensive. The diesel market may be able to bear more cost increase because diesels get more miles to the gallon, so the price per mile goes up relatively slowly compared to that of gasoline cars.
Although, i just thought of, for some reason, with this particular problem - if a larger percentage of gasoline's price is due to processing, than a smaller percentage is actually dependent on the basic oil price. It might be that gasoline prices went up more slowly than diesel prices for that reason.
Another problem is that one's complaint of profiteering is another's perfectly justified decision to charge whatever the market will bear.
Yeah, i'm not sure, either. My sense is that, because there is a difference between ideal capitalist market response and real capitalist market response, profiteering occurs when an industry can increase their prices more quickly than consumers can or will react to those increases. In the automobile industry there is definitely some lag between when someone notices rising fuel costs and when they can remedy the problem - particularly people who need to pay for food that has been shipped by a third party, or people whose vehicle represents a significant investment for them. I believe that this causes people to call out 'profiteering' because they believe the oil companies could be charging less for their products, while they can not be reducing their requirements for those products.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 08:40 pm (UTC)missedfixed a close-italics there.Agree with the data problem. I'm as guilty as anyone, but I found myself coming up with a million theories and no way to determine which was useful without doing actual work.
Truckers are in fact reducing gas usage by driving slower, at least around here. Instead of barreling along as fast as possible, they now go about the speed limit, even when there's no cops around. Not even at 5mph over. I wouldn't have noticed -- it's my grandfather who pointed it out, either from having read about it or from remembering it from prior rationed times.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-12 04:32 am (UTC)I had read this. However, in my recent trip down to the Bay Area mostly straight down I-5, I didn't see it at all. Even where the speed limit for trucks was 5-10 mph slower than the speed limit for cars, the cars were going 5 mph or so over the car speed limit, and the trucks were going nearly as fast as the cars.