Gas up 8 cents in 1 day; 34 cents in 9 days
Caught this while passing the Shell Station at the Corner of Fairfax and Beverly.
Yesterday, a gallon of regular was $4.19 a gallon.
“Every U.S. recession since 1971“, warns blogger Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge
. . . has been preceded by an increase in the price of oil, currently up more than 7 percent year-to-date. With the economy barely advancing – growth in output is moderating by most measures – the economy may not be able to withstand the blow of a spike in oil and an ensuing increase in prices at the pump. While oil at $106 per barrel and gasoline prices averaging $3.59 a gallon are not yet at crippling levels, they seem headed in that direction.
(Via Instapundit.) Meanwhile, our friends in the legacy media are pushing the meme that the president just can’t do anything about this, you know those forces beyond his control.
Funny when a Republican was in the White House, some of the same folks now excusing the incumbent Democrat seem to think the president can control these things. Guess that means they credit Republican for being far more effective executives than Democrats.
26 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Nothing negative is President Obama’s fault, although his EPA regulations have closed 3 coal plants in West Virgina & shut down a few new oil fields in Texas. Other closings throughout the United States are also affecting the gas prices. Obama could stop these regulations with a stroke of a pen, but he does not.
Iran could be taken more seriously; the entire Middle East is a tinderbox.
Blaming Bush & fellow Republicans will not wash this time. Obama will have to change his own diapers this time.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — February 23, 2012 @ 8:48 pm - February 23, 2012
Yes, I seem to recall Nasty Pelosi saying something like “George Bush is a Texas oil man, is it any surprise that prices are up?” And Ian (of GP) echoing it.
The truth was, of course, nearly the opposite: to the extent that Bush favored oil production, that *helped* the situation. And Obama and the Left today have worsened the situation, by making war on oil production.
But we’re living in George Orwell’s _1884_. We’re not supposed to notice. We’re not supposed to tell the truth, including the truth that the so-called “mainstream” media is wholly in the tank for The Party.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 23, 2012 @ 9:43 pm - February 23, 2012
Sorry, _1984_, haha.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 23, 2012 @ 9:46 pm - February 23, 2012
Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center said that 97 stories about high gas prices transpired in early 2008. During the same period in 2012, only 21 stories occurred about the spike in oil prices. Why the difference? I think we all know the reason.
Frankly, I hope gas prices go well over 4 bucks a gallon for a nationwide average. It will sink Obama’s reelection chances. A little or even a lot of pain is necessary to vote out this incompetent President, who prays at the Holy Grail of environmental radicalism. He will reap what he sows.
Comment by davinci — February 23, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - February 23, 2012
A good read:
‘Stupid’ and Oil Prices
Obama’s Forrest Gump analysis of rising gas prices.
http://tinyurl.com/7n2aoag
Comment by TGC — February 23, 2012 @ 10:07 pm - February 23, 2012
Now, the Whiny-Bitch-in-Chief is going around complaining about Republicans “politicizing ” the rise in gas prices; as though there was nothing political at all when he canceled the Keystone XL pipeline.
Comment by V the K — February 23, 2012 @ 10:50 pm - February 23, 2012
And yet people still scoff and go into rants about “crazy Glenn Beck conspiracy theories” when you try to point this stuff out to them.
Comment by Cy — February 23, 2012 @ 11:29 pm - February 23, 2012
Got gas last night for $ 3.49. Drove by the same station this morning and it is now $3.69. Overnight. But none of this can be blamed on Obama. Not his crappy foreign policy, not his crappy energy policy, not his stated desire to have gas cost $5 a gallon.
Really, how can anyone still support this whiner?
Comment by JustShootMeNow — February 23, 2012 @ 11:44 pm - February 23, 2012
Politicizing the issue? Does he expect his political opponents not to criticize him on an issue his own political allies once used against one of his political opponents (i.e., Democrats who criticized W on high gas prices)?
That said, when he does this he sounds defensive and likely only rallies his piece while putting off those truly burdened by higher gas prices.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 24, 2012 @ 12:20 am - February 24, 2012
V the K,
He has already sent his spokes moron out there and claimed it was Republicans that somehow killed the Keystone…
Comment by JP — February 24, 2012 @ 2:31 am - February 24, 2012
Hi Dan,
The GOP can politicize the increasing price of oil, and good luck to them, but the WSJ story is unpersuasive. First, it confuses long term changes in the output with oil, with short term changes in prices of oil. This of course, is consistent with the fact that oil production in this country is the highest it has been in a decade, 12.4% higher than 2001, and 25% higher since 2005. So, I agree that less oil permits will have an impact in the future, given lead times for projects, but not currently. Second, the argument undervalues the importance of the current speculation about a possible war with Iran and other geopolitical instability (and possible impacts of the Euro zone ban on Iranian oil imports), which would send the cost of oil soaring. The drum beat for war looks uncannily like the lead up to the Iraq War, so the possibility of a repeat is factored in as more than a remote possibility. Third, for those who blame lax monetary policy, there is a need to explain why it is that a) prices for oil fell last year, after the Libyan impact had been factored in, and b) why the US exchange rate today (against Euro for example is pretty much unchanged, compared with December 2011). Looking at a TWI for the US exchange rate also doesn’t give us the 10% change in exchange rates (real or nominal) that one would expect, if “lax monetary policy” was the cause of oil price rise (something that the WSJ aeditorial conspicuously fails to consider). Further, c), following QE2, predictions were made of inflationary and hyperinflationary pressures that failed to materialize; critics need to explain why this inflationary pressure receded after QE2, rather than rise, as their models would have suggested; the presence of a liquidity trap is an obvious counter-argument that appears to support the facts. Could this be the BIG ONE anyway? Sure, but the WSJ editorial will have to do a lot better than it currently has done, to convince me that this is the case.
Comment by Cas — February 24, 2012 @ 3:13 am - February 24, 2012
The Keystone Pipeline cancellation will continue to haunt Obama much like ObamaCare does…
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — February 24, 2012 @ 9:41 am - February 24, 2012
JP, yeah, Obama really expects people to believe that it was Republicans… who WANT the Keystone XL pipeline… who killed the Keystone XL pipeline.
That logic is so stupid and twisted only a liberal would believe it. So, Hi Cas, Levi, and Serenity… how’s it workin’ for you?
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2012 @ 10:09 am - February 24, 2012
Well, of course, Cas. You’re a true believer, and incapable of honestly reviewing the facts.
Case in point:
That is because exchange rates represent the change in value against another currency, not against a commodity.
So what we see is that, in Cas’s world, inflation cannot exist, no matter what the price of commodities, goods, or services does, unless the exchange rate against whatever arbitrary currency Cas sets moves.
And the corollary: even if prices do not change at all, a change in the exchange rates equals inflation.
Here’s the reality, Cas; the value of a currency is set by how much of a commodity it can buy. The delusional money-printing and debasement of the currency that desperate welfare pigs like yourself and your Obama have demanded to pay your bills at other peoples’ expenses is now manifesting itself in the fact that it costs more dollars to buy the same amount of commodity — or, put correctly, each dollar is now worth less of commodity.
This has been explained to you repeatedly. You have already humiliated yourself numerous times on this blog over inflation and currency debasement because you are mentally and intellectually incapable of acknowledging that your money-printing schemes are destructive to the economy.
And your “liquidity trap” stupidity is just outright denial. ILC humiliated you on that one too, showing it as nothing more than your usual true-believer babble to justify your parasitic existence.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 24, 2012 @ 11:30 am - February 24, 2012
I’m guessing it’s working out JUST FINE, V the K. Even a nodding acquaintance with reality is a liability for progressives.
Comment by Bastiat Fan — February 24, 2012 @ 12:24 pm - February 24, 2012
NDT, great point. Exchange rates are irrelevant, because all of the major central banks – US, Europe, Japan, China – are engaged in race-to-the-bottom destruction of their currencies. So that all the major currencies are losing value together, against real stuff.
Not to accuse Cas of anything, but it is remarkable sometimes, how difficult it is to distinguish her deceptive, tortured comments from exactly what a paid Big Government/Big Banking/Fed/Obama shill would say. “The dollar isn’t declining against the other currencies”, “The Fed isn’t printing money”, “The government’s statistics don’t report much inflation”, and “How can we have inflation when unemployment is still high?” are all cliches of the shills.
In real life:
- “The dollar isn’t declining against the other major currencies” – again because they are ALL declining together against the real stuff that people need to live, i.e. commodities. Oil is now ten times what it was ten years ago, gold five times, food and cotton 3 times, etc.
- “The Fed isn’t printing money” – Bernanke rolled out this laugh line in a prominent TV interview a year or two ago. “The Fed is printing money” is a colorful metaphor for the Fed’s enormous electronic creation of new money. Which is a fact. But Bernanke implied that people somehow think the Fed is literally printing more currency, then said: no, of course we aren’t, printing currency is the Treasury’s job and they’re printing no more new currency than usual. In other words, Bernanke deliberately missed the point of the metaphor and set a Straw Man in its place. Sleazy! Obama also does it a lot.
- “The government’s statistics don’t report much inflation” – because they have been carefully engineered to not report it. The calculation methods have been changed several times since the 1970s, always in a direction to benefit the government by (further) understating inflation. See: http://www.shadowstats.com
- “How can we have inflation when unemployment is still high?” Because inflation has nothing to do with unemployment. It is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. The right name for it is *depreciation* of the currency, by over-printing or over-creation of it. Another right name for it is *debasing* the currency, which modern central banks do by putting junk assets on their balance sheets (e.g., the Fed acquiring masses of mortgage-junk bonds, and long-term Treasury bonds which are junk in the sense that they earn negative real interest).
As for oil production: as the WSJ pointed out, oil production is up because of things Bush did. Cas mentioned lags with production taking a few years to come online. Yeah. There you go. Right there. Prices would be even higher, if not for Bush. But Obama has been making war on new oil production. So this is just nonsense:
You see, there are these special people in the world who think about the future. They look at future supply and demand trends in the crucial commodities. If, say, oil seems like it will be more scarce in the future (because of Obama’s war on it, or Obama’s war on Libya, Obama’s possible war on Iran, etc.), they reserve some of the supply now, so that it can be available in the future when it is needed more.
They need not literally store the oil; the point is that their extra spending on oil helps drive the price up. That seems painful, but it’s actually helpful in the long run, because the higher price sends a constructive signal to the rest of society… in this case, “Hey, we need to think about future oil production, lest it drop. We need to spend more money on it. Or heck, maybe we even need to stop Obama’s war on oil (or on Libya or whatever).”
These people are called “speculators”. The name denies their actual function/importance in the economy. But it’s absurd to suggest that they aren’t looking at future trends (Obama’s war on oil production) and bringing the effects of those trends into the market today. That’s what they do. It’s their function in the economy, and how they make their money.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - February 24, 2012
(continued) Conversely, if Obama’s war on oil production (and/or his wars on oil-producing nations) were to stop, then these “speculators” would go “Oh – the future looks better for oil now, so we should stop reserving supply for future use, and release what we reserved.” As they sold their oil futures contracts, both future and current (i.e., spot) oil prices would drop some. Based on inflation i.e. depreciation of the U.S. dollar, oil would probably still be high at $80 or $90 a barrel – and higher later, when Bernanke and Obama give us the next wave of depreciation. But some of the extra immediate pressure, that may be sending oil up to $105 today, would be absent.
I’m sure Obama knows all this, and that we will be treated to speeches about evil speculators. And then Cas will echo his points, proving that she also knew, all along. The Party insists that no one understand the true causes of high dollar prices for oil, namely (1) Obama’s war on production and (2) Obama’s war on the dollar.
P.S. Gasoline refining is a separate step from oil production, and the current spike in gas prices may be due more to gas-specific factors. The principles of what I’m saying remain the same and can simply be shifted over to gas. For example, the U.S. has long had a war on gas refining, with no new refineries built in decades. The U.S. has also had a war on possible substitutes for oil, like nuclear (which could replace some of the demand for oil in terms of generating electricity and heat).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 24, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - February 24, 2012
GasBuddy.com has useful tool to graph gas prices by city, county, state, country and crude as well as maps. Doesn’t lessen the pain though.
(Pump Price Graphs &/or Gas Price Maps)
Comment by CAChutzpah — February 24, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - February 24, 2012
Liberal friend on Facebook was just complaining about gas hitting $4.50 in his area. Do I dare suggest that the drilling moratorium, the ban on drilling in ANWR, and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline might be factors in the gas price?
Comment by V the K — February 24, 2012 @ 10:23 pm - February 24, 2012
V the K, yes, yes, you should dare.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 25, 2012 @ 2:47 am - February 25, 2012
Yes, most of the gas increases can be directly traced to Obama’s anti-oil, anti-coal policies & his out of control Obama EPA. Obama can stop this with a stroke of a pen, but he’s choosing policies over America. He’s gambling people will buy his spin. They won’t.
Comment by Sebastian Shaw — February 25, 2012 @ 9:34 am - February 25, 2012
And the better thing to do — when people start complaining about high gas prices, tell them that Obama said people who do that want dirty air and water and don’t care about children.
Then, when they react to that, remind them that the only reason they would disagree with Obama, according to him, is that they’re racists.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 25, 2012 @ 11:44 am - February 25, 2012
Presidunce Corky McShortbus and his fellow Dems railing against “big oil” for high gas prices would be laughable, except for the fact that so many of our fellow citizens are woefully ill-informed and are taken in by it.
Comment by Bastiat Fan — February 26, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - February 26, 2012
In 1962, gas was at $0.28 a gallon, and gold was at $35 per ounce, which translates to 0.008 ounces of gold per gallon of gas.
Today, gold prices are at $1,759.30 per ounce. If the price of a gallon of gas were 0.008 Au oz. today , it would currently be $14.07 a gallon.
Source here .
Comment by Michael Ejercito — February 27, 2012 @ 1:27 pm - February 27, 2012
It’s true, the oil:gold ratio is out of whack. I think that means oil/gas will be going up a lot more, in time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2012 @ 5:42 pm - February 27, 2012
Some commentators here ignore the central push on why oil prices are rising now, namely, the drumbeat for war with Iran. The markets can see the same bellicose rhetoric drummed up in the the press (reminiscent of 2002-3), and they can see a build-up to a military confrontation with Iran. ILC makes the good point–with which I agree–that Obama’s (and the neo-con/GOP’s) push for war with Iran plays a role. We just disagree as to the extent of this role. ILC see it as one cause; I see it as the MAJOR cause. Speculators are buying, looking for the time when oil goes through the roof when a tanker or two blows up in the mined Straits of Hormuz.
I don’t buy the “war on production” argument, mainly because it is a LONG RUN argument, and doesn’t help explain what is going on now. I just don’t see the evidence that the amount of oil that the US would otherwise have been making (had we stayed the Bush course) would not have been putting that big of a dent in oil prices (do we really believe that a Repub administration would have continued drilling willy nilly in the gulf, after the oil spill there; or would they also have brought it to a halt?). If you have stats to back the claim, I would be open to considering them.
This leaves the argument about exchange rates. NDT makes the point that: “exchange rates represent the change in value against another currency, not against a commodity” No argument from me there. However, it is important to remember that oil is denominated in US dollars. As the US dollar loses value, we would expect oil to rise in price to counteract that movement, somewhat. But nothing like that level of movement has happened with such rapidity. That leaves ILC’s argument about the inflationary impact of increased monetary injections into the world economy creating commodity inflation. OK. the mechanism is a reasonable one to argue for, but as I pointed out in an earlier thread, this relies on an unchanged velocity of money, and empirically, velocity fell after 2008, so the inflationary impact is ambiguous. Comparing the price of gold, the story is also the same–no net increase in gold price in the last six months. SO, this is also not pointing towards a sudden burst of accelerating inflation. Do commodities show some upward pressure–yes some do. But then again, remember that this confirmation bias can be measured against a commodity price index. Well, if you check it out, such indexes are DOWN from peaks in early to mid 2011 (especially agricultural commodities, which I remember at the time you suggested was a sign of increasing commodity inflation). This is inconsistent with your viewpoint, and should not be happening, if your view was correct. I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
Comment by Cas — February 28, 2012 @ 12:31 am - February 28, 2012