Can't understand you, sweetie.
|
|
I think he does mean petrol.
|
Oh well, perhaps I was being rather oblique..
So far in this thread, 2 zooming E-types, and 5 wheezing Trabants.
Still not sure why the flippin' stuff's so expensive, though.
|
Perhaps he means 8.7p
£0 1s 8.9d
|
|
|
Because successive Governments have got away with punitive taxation on fuel.
Marvellous, innit. From Beeching onward the public transport infrastructure in the country has been systematically destroyed, leaving people little option than to do most journeys by car.
Then Governments (both Labour & Conservative: they're equally culpable) can simply tap the motorist for revenue whenever they feel like it.
|
Ah yes, but it's for our own good, isn't it?
When there were lots of smokers, smoking had to be taxed for our own good. Now, with fewer smokers, we're damaging the environment with our cars all of a sudden and the tax, whether on petrol or through VED, has to rise for our own good.
And if you think a glass of wine will make you feel better, it won't. It will do you harm and so has to be taxed for our own good.
I'm really grateful to Mr Brown and Mr Darling for looking after us.
|
I think there should be an escalator and lift tax.
If people used stairs more, then they would be healthier. Tax alternative forms of elevation out of existence.
|
|
For many people car use is a necessity not a luxury. To apply punitive taxes (for that is what they are, plain and simple) to necessities is outrageous.
|
For most people the "necessity" is actually a "lifestyle" choice - most people could live near their place of work and do without their car... or travel by public transport (taking longer to get there!)... but they don't want to, they'd rather live out in the sticks 'cause its "nicer" for them and their family.... but then they "need" the car...
So I'd counter argue that most car ownership is a luxury, its just one we all want to justify it by pleading that its really a necessity...
Me included! ;)
Edited by b308 on 09/04/2008 at 14:58
|
"most people could live near their place of work..."
How do you make that out? For that to even be vaguely possible, all blokes would have to work close to where their wives worked or else have separate homes.
|
"..all blokes would have to work close to where their wives worked or else have separate homes."
Is this necessarily a bad thing???
Petrol is now one Guinea per litre at my local pumping station.
Edited by Orson {P} on 09/04/2008 at 15:49
|
Petrol is now one Guinea per litre at my local pumping station.
is that the old or the new guinea?
|
I bet if I tried to pay in guineas I'd get it cheaper.
|
|
Hasn't the price of oil fallen?
|
The price of oil had fallen but today's US figures showed unexpectedly low stocks of crude, petrol and distillates so US light is now $111 per barrel.
I expect a war with Iran MAY come soon: $150 here we come if we have it.
The chart trend is up and unbroken so far.. this may be a short term top: but don't hold your breath.
Edited by madf on 09/04/2008 at 17:40
|
|
Judging by the way the USAF was doing low-level exercises in its F-22 Raptors over North Yorkshire a couple of weeks back, I wouldn't bet against a new front opening up in the War Against Bottles Larger Than 100ml .....
|
Petrol is now one Guinea per litre at my local pumping station.
You're lucky - rounding to the nearest d it is £1-1-9 at mine.
|
|
In response to b308's assertion that most people could manage to get to work without a car I can tell him that I for one plain couldn't. I remember a time when most didn't have cars and there were buses taking people from outlying areas into work every day but those times have gone. Wether it's palatable or not I reckon the majority need a car.
|
In response to b308's assertion that most people could manage to get to work without a car I can tell him that I for one plain couldn't.
You really need to re-read my post - I said that most (note: not all) people could do without their cars if they chose to live closer to work or take more time to travel with methods that are less convenient than a car provides - having unlimited use of a car (which most of us have) has lead to people living in places our parents would never have considered and commuting distances they would not have either.
What I said is that in most cases it is a lifestyle choice that "necessitates" the use of a car... there are always alternatives but they are more inconvenient or expensive so not even considered...
Lets look at where most people work - offices, shops and such like - most of those can be reached by other means, or people would have to live closer to their place of work...
There are exceptions, I agree, but for the majority its their choice they live so far from work that they have to use a car - a lifestyle choice...
Look at any rush hour in the morning in all towns and cities and ask yourself (honestly!) just how many of them actally need to use the car, or is just for convenience?
However the way things are going, these so-called impossible journeys by public transport may indeed become a reality if motoring costs continue to rise - or there will be much more home work...
|
ask yourself (honestly!) just how many of them actally need to use the car or is just for convenience?
'Just' for convenience...
Of course people could get up before dawn to walk five miles to work through the snow and then back in the evening after a ten-hour day, the way they used to. I'm sure this would go down well with employers everywhere, especially if the wages were reduced to an appropriate level too... after all, if they don't have expensive jalopies to maintain or bus fares to pay, they don't need as much money do they?
'Just' for convenience indeed...
|
'Just' for convenience indeed...
I see that there's several of you in this little dream world, then - no point in discussing it with you as you're obviously right and I'm wrong - and those thousands of people who gum up our roads every rush hour do of course need to drive all the way from their home and right up their office doors, don't they, just like the ones who park outside the school and then drive 1/2 mile back home again!
Tell you what, Lud, I'll believe the evidence of my own eyes and ears, eh...
You believe what you want!
|
>> I see that there's several of you in this little dream world
Hey, no need to get shirty b308 (even if I was a bit rude, sorry).
Naturally there are lots of people who use cars pointlessly, and also who use cars bigger than those they need. I don't deny it for a moment.
All the same, 'convenience' can really be important if it saves both time and money. People have been levered into it by, er, heavyweight economic interests with more clout than the voter let's say.
But when run-of-the-mill west European car owners are working in the current economic climate, for perhaps not all that much, it seems unkind of you to blame them rather than the people who made cars invitingly cheap, petrol cheap and plentiful, and public transport, if available at all, increasingly carp and expensive.
|
it seems unkind of you to blame them rather thanthe people who made cars invitingly cheap petrol cheap and plentiful and public transport if available at all increasingly carp and expensive.
I'm not blaming them, in fact if you look back to my original post I hinted that I'm one of them - I'm just as bad as the next man or woman for using the car when there is an alternative - if I drive into work it takes 35mins, drive/train 50mins, train and walk 90mins - with costs going up I currently do the second, and all I was saying is that the majority of those rush-hour cloggers DO have an alternative, its just that, as you say, it will cost - probably more in time than anything else, and at the moment people won't accept that, even though in the "old days" they would have....
Either motoring will get frightningly expensive and force people off the road, or we'll get some wonderful new technology, only time will tell... hopefully the latter as I enjoy driving!
|
"For many people car use is a necessity not a luxury."
I've just dropped mine off at a dealer as it's started to run a bit hot lately. It's not been 90 minutes and I'm already finding it a huge ache in the groin. Had two young kids with me that I had to drag on two buses and I've got to get them to school in the morning which is another two buses and a long walk (I already have to wake at 7 to do it in the car), have to see a client at 4 in the centre so haven't a clue how I'm going to get the kids home in time to get myself on another bus to make the meeting, not to mention I've actually got to find time to do some work blah blah... the thought of living like that on a daily basis - well I couldn't.
|
|
madf says a few posts back that there's an unexpected shortage of oil. OK. But there is oil in the ground, I think, and it is the decision of the OPEC not to get/let the stuff out which holds/drives the price up. Further, if the people who said the Iraq war was all about oil are right, where is the oil it was all about?
|
Big Bad dave
I cannot see what your kids have to do with this argument - if you are finding it a problem why did you have them?????????????????????????
|
"I cannot see what your kids have to do with this argument - if you are finding it a problem why did you have them?"
Both accidents dxp! Still it's a bit harsh to say I shouldn't have had kids just because for two days in 2008 it was going to be a problem getting them to school.
|
Becoming a father cost me my Westfield due to insufficient seats / money / time. The experience has actually been remarkably similar......
Both are / were noisy, expensive, unreliable and occasionally irritating but can be great fun given a good day !
|
All the oil is still in Iraq: second largest unexploited reserves in world.
And likely to remain so as the story goes:
Insurgents blow up oil pipeline, output drops. (Most oil is exported via pipelines)
Pipeline is mended . output rises.
Another pipeline is bombed .
etc
There are HUGE quantities of oil and GAS to be exploited. They all require $billions of investment... and NO_ONE with any brains will do it whilst there is a war on..
And it will have to be external investment cos the Iraqi Gov't has nowt...
Come back in 6 years time and ask the same question.
|
|
Did Iraq export oil before the war?
|
|
In low quantities both Officially and Unofficially.
|
|
So if it was low quantities before and low quantities now I can't see there's any effect on world prices unless there's greater competition for what there is.
|
|
Chinese thirst for oil has put fuel prices through the roof. Extensive infrastructure damage in Iraq has to be funded from somewhere (usually the customer). If the US goes into recession it should moderate prices somewhat.
|
Chinese thirst for oil has put fuel prices through the roof
Which is why virtuous automobile engineers ought to be begging for jobs in the Chinese industry, to do their bit for western capitalism in its declining years...
The Ford model T which instituted the mass-produced car was a bit thirsty, but it also had a radical transmission, was as tough as nails, adapted easily to souping-up and motor sport and was loved and hated in equal measure...
What's needed is something equivalent, and oriental, for the century now uncomfortably under way. Don't forget we will be buying it too. So let's hope it's terrifically charming and goes like a discreet rocket.
|
BBD
Do apologise - terminal family illness and too much red medicine
|
Sorry to shatter the sub O-level economics level of debate here, but oil is not expensive, (not by historical standards) & the Chinese usage doesn't really have a big impact on prices - extra demand stimulates extra exploitation.
If the oil price (rises) were having a signifigant effect over any medium/long term period, our living standards would reflect that, i.e. they would decrease. All the measures, of course, indicate rising living standards & growth in median incomes. We're also not that dependent on oil as we once were - yes of course it powers our cars/homes & provides plenty of plastic bags to throw away, but our living (or income - which really determines wealth) isn't that dependent on 'cheap' energy - one of the benefits of an information/services based economy.
So, once we stop bleating about the (relatively) minor increases in (optional) motoring costs, we should start to appreciate (and perhaps more importantly - understand) our affluence.
Edited by woodbines on 10/04/2008 at 00:24
|
Re woodbines.
The chinese usage has a massive effect on prices. Sub O level economics? Where did you learn yours? Pre-school? Extra demand would simulate extra exploitation if OPEC were not a cartel who fix supply thus driving up its members profits, BP profits anyone?
And when you say its not expensive by historical standards I have a feeling you are basing your calculations on GDP which takes house prices into your calculations which I think we will all agree are expensive.
Not only that but measurements of standard of living are based on past data therefore you are probably looking at information collected from 1 year old data. when fuel was significantly cheaper then today. Look at the average haulers increase in the fuel bill and tell my their standard of living is not being affected.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/04/2008 at 11:14
|
Didn't people used to say economics wasn't a proper academic subject and its theories essentially a waste of time? I agree about OPEC, though.
Back to cars. We all know most of the pump price is duty and VAT. But, as whsky says, BP still manage to do nicely thanks out of it or out of other ways of exploting the refining of crude.
In this morning's paper there's an ad for a RAV 4 and for some Mitsubishis. They all can drink fuel. If you run one, pay your tax on petrol and VED it's sort of pay up and look big, isn't it? The law of unintended consequences operates: I pay, so I can pollute.
Having said that, I think the pollution argument is no more than a justification for tax raising. Brown and Darling would tax baked beans if they could come up with a dodgy argument to support it.
I used to smoke and each budget I could imagine someone sitting in the Treasury working out how much to increase the tax without putting too many people off altogether. Same with fuel and VED. I can't see driving becoming socially unacceptable as smoking has. Not for a while, anyway.
|
Brown and Darling would tax baked beans if they could come up with a dodgy argument to support it.
Byproduct of eating baked beans is methane gas, allegedly the worst "greenhouse gas" emitted by man and beast. So the argument for taxing baked beans is there, it is just waiting its turn to come to the notice of the Treasury.
re. China, India, oil demand and supply.
I am not a fan of economists or their theories. However, I have read/heard reports that currently the problem is on the refining side and that OPEC and other non-cartel produces are already supplying the maximum crude that the refineries can handle.
Apart from China , India and other emerging economies, this year the demand has been pushed higher due to the La Nina cycle following the El Nino phase.
El Niño/La Niña Nature?s Vicious Cycle
www.nationalgeographic.com/elnino/mainpage.html
La Nina Fading; El Nino Birthing
www.prlog.org/10053291-la-nina-fading-el-nino-birt...l
Edited by jbif on 10/04/2008 at 14:50
|
Where did you learn yours? Pre-school?
Well...yes, it started there of course - probably bribing a fellow toddler with a Smiths ready-salted for their nicer looking crayon!
Extra demand would simulate extra exploitation if OPEC were not a cartel who fix supply thus driving up its members profits, BP profits anyone?
Of course they're a cartel - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Cartels also smooth out supply blips & ensure stability. If the fuel price had been too high, China & India (to use the beacon examples..) could not have expanded so rapidly & become the major economic forces they are - and they're in the 'smoke-stack' phase of industrialisation, where (relatively) cheap commodity prices are a sine qua non. High BP profits are also good - it funds more exploration & provides healthy dividends!
And when you say its not expensive by historical standards I have a feeling you are basing your calculations on GDP which takes house prices into your calculations which I think we will all agree are expensive.
House prices represent high asset prices - they're not part of gross domestic product, although they can indirectly affect it by energising industries that rely on or profit from it. As you say, house prices are high & it's high(!) time that asset class fell back into a more historical trend - which it might well soon do.
Not only that but measurements of standard of living are based on past data therefore you are probably looking at information collected from 1 year old data. when fuel was significantly cheaper then today. Look at the average haulers increase in the fuel bill and tell my their standard of living is not being affected.
Well people in the various professions, jobs & service sectors will constantly jostle each other in the payment hierarchy & differentials will be increased or eroded depending on what snapshot you take of the economy & at what time. But the overall measure is median incomes & GDP which rise consistently & aren't forecast to fall signifigantly, even with the predicted lower growth rate.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/04/2008 at 14:50
|
Two things:
My geology is even more sub O level than my economics but in a country as vast as China shouldn't there be at least some oil to be exploited as in some nations of the FSU?
If median incomes rise only with inflation and are held down by tough wage settlements, aren't people worse off in real terms because, for example, Darling's petrol tax is to rise at 2% above inflation and the official inflation figures mean, as far as I can tell, whatever Brown fancies depending on who he's talking to at that moment.
On jbif's beans: I heard a story on the radio that just one sausage a day is harmful to your health and was tempted to go and lay in a supply before the announcement from No 11.
|
Ok GDP is, in laymans terms, a measurement of yearly spending.
Worked out by GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)
Without explaining it fully I = Investments. Investments include things like business buying a new warehouse or consumers buying a new house. Therefore the GDP is directly affected by House Prices. :)
Ironically the rise in fuel also sees a rise in GDP, C derives private consumption and so the more we spend on Fuel the higher C will be. To be honest GDP is a pretty carp indicator of todays fuel prices in relation to 10 years ago.
Totally disagree about Cartels, In some instances they can be useful but OPEC are purposly holding back supplies, as far as exploration goes maybe the oil companies should all club together and buy Iraq.
As far as Median wages go most of us are lucky to get 3% a year, but I think fuel has gone up a bit more then 3% in the last 12 months.
All in all fuel is using up more of peoples disposable(sometimes not disposable) income then it was 1/2/3/4 years ago. Mainly due to the fact I am still not Supreme Overlord of Earth. ;-)
|
Without explaining it fully I = Investments. Investments include things like business buying a new warehouse or consumers buying a new house. Therefore the GDP is directly affected by House Prices. :)
But I actually said:
House prices represent high asset prices - they're not part of gross domestic product, although they can indirectly affect it by energising industries that rely on or profit from it.
This includes rent & mortgage payments from people buying or renting - but the whole cost or value of the property is not part of GDP. And for people who own a property paying no mortgage or rent, houses are completely invisible to GDP (apart from upkeep costs etc).
As far as Median wages go most of us are lucky to get 3% a year, but I think fuel has gone up a bit more then 3% in the last 12 months.
Yes, probably. But wealth is affected by a whole range of goods & services - cheap Chinese goods for example. All things must be factored in & we'll see next year how the mix comes out. Oh, BTW- I'll be stepping down from the Supreme Overlordship next year, so there may well be a vacancy.
|
Even in very simple terms, it's easy to see how one impacts the other. With the price of petrol (and diesel) being at the point where it seriously hurts the wallet to fill up, it's obvious that people are going to look to save money elsewhere.
People aren't naturally thrifty. Instead of managing their finances better, they're likely to just stop buying unnecessary things. This hits the economy.
On top of this, petrol for the car is likely to be seen as more important than a lot of other consumables. So increasing the tax on "green" grounds doesn't really serve to drive people off the roads. It just means they'll spend less on other items.
A year ago, I was wondering how long the economy would be able to stand fuel prices so high (and knock on effects in power / heating / oil bills etc, as well as the airline industry), and the answer is: not long. Add to that the appalling mismanagement of the UK economy, and the only countries that are going to pull through this recession are oil-rich ones.
|
It just means they'll spend less on other items.
Such as servicing their cars properly or buying cheapo tyres, etc....
There are some things I don't mind people economising on, but when it affects their and others' safety.....
|
It just means they'll spend less on other items.
Petrol's what's called a distress purchase. You buy it because you have to, not for enjoyment as you might some wine, say.
So if buying fuel costs more, soemthing else will have to give. High Street sales are already slowing and people can't afford houses even if they could get a mortgage. The bank rate's just been cut to encourage the economy, but it does look as though recession is on the cards.
Surely it couldn't be that Mr Darling's first budget would assist in driving the economny into recession?
|
ive spent the last 20 odd years just driving because i feel like it. I'll drive to a village i haven't been to before because i want to and can do.
i dont really care how much petrol costs. i have a fairly reasonable income and the more petrol costs the less likely i am to buy another takeaway or a needless magazine.
i will never stop just using the car because petrol is expensive.
|
|
|
|
