Sound logic on gas prices

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by limoncello

Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.
(Near term reaction).

limoncello - Good point but sorry to say that you can not use your data. Anything $$$ wise pre June 5, 1933 is irrelevant.

longislander1 's data starting @1950 is good.

[limoncello]

Sorry for the stale data.
SC gas supply - had lines yesterday, seems better this morning. Saw one station raising the price from $2.45 to $2.99 for regular.
Aside from gas, if you'd like a good example of a supply and demand market, watch the prices on plywood, lumber and shingles in the next 6 months. It could also affect the money market, if enough people borrow money to repair/replace their homes. Harder to guess that one, though.
Gas mileage: noted the Boxster 20-21 mpg figures in another thread. It's about what I get, except for the track. I burned almost a tank in 3 runs, but as Tom cruise once said, sometimes you just gotta say "WTF".

[Brucelee]

I think the amusing point is that the government is supposed to "do something" about the current level of gas prices.

For those of you in that crowd, what specifically do you feel the government "should do." And, in the same vein, how much SHOULD gas cost anyway? What is the magic number?

Those of us who remember the last time the government stepped in to handle prices, well, that didn't work out very well. I remember the gas lines and it was NOT fun.

I think that Williams credentials as an economist are substantial. He is not apologizing for anyone, simply saying that there are some very fundamental factors that COULD be worked to improve the supply of oil and refined gasoline.

I will post other respected economists who agree 100% on this. Frankly, when is the last time anyone here actually took on the "greens" when they were blocking ANYTHING that remotely looked like it could generate energy within the US.

On the point above on nuclear eneregy, yes, yes yes. However, the same Greens who fight oil drilling would have a fit if you propose to build a nuclear plant in the US.

From the GREENS point of view, we would all park our Porsches and buy a Prius. It is the "virtuous" thing to do, right?