BOYCOTT SHELL (Gas)
- Thread starter Papi Chulo
- Start date
Well, if the logic in all this makes sense, then I will boycott Roommates until Kristen's they reduce rate.
Oh wait. Nevermind.
Oh wait. Nevermind.
Moraff said:
Sure can, both are commodities whose price can be controlled by the government. Just in the case of milk, they control the price so that dairy farmers can earn a profit to keep their company going. The governement could also control the price of gasoline should they have the desire to. BUT they don't because of the amount of taxes they gain by high priced fuel.
Moraff said:
Because they do not reap such a windfall from any other item such as gasoline. I won't bother to quote or research the outrageous revenues high priced gasoline gives the government but NO OTHER ITEM IS TAXED AS HIGH AS GASOLINE.
Sorry, wrong answer. One way for the government to control the price of gasoline is to put a cap on the amount of taxes collected if the per litre price reaches a certain point. (Hmmm does this sound like a campaign promise that one S.Harper used to get elected?). Since gasoline is such a desired or necessary evil no gasoline producing company would need to go anywhere or have any fear of turning a profit. The major gasoline producers have recorded record profits over the past few years and this is NOT because the price of crude has gone up (because it has NOT doubled in price) but because they artificially increase the price due to "high demand" which is BS.Moraff said:
For eg: when the latest refinery shut down due to fire the price of gas in Ontario went up 20%. Did you know that the gas from that refinery amounted to 1% of the gas sold in Ontario? So how does a refinery producing 1% of our fuel relate to a 20% increase in price? And since that refinery is now back up and running, why didn't the price go back to where it was before the fire? BECAUSE THEY REALISED THEY COULD INCREASE THEIR PROFITS WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL COST.
Moraff said:
As I said: if ANY other market experienced the same price increases as the gas industry the government would step in in a millisecond.
And again, something people don't seem to grasp, if the government LOST money when gas prices went up THEY'D STEP IN IMMEDIATELY.
What tboy is basically saying is true. I watched CNN and they reported that there is more demand then supply which is total B.S. The price of crude is still the same as it always was, and I do predict that some billionaire in the states is going to sue a gas company if it goes to $4-$5 per gallon.
tboy said:
And if the government did cut the amount of gas tax, what would stop the gas companies from keeping the price at the same rate? Canadians are obviously willing to pay the current prices as demand doesn't appear to be dwindling. Sure we get all outraged and say something must be done, but then we just carry along just the same as always. There's already precedent, when the GST was created to replace the hidden manufacturer's tax, retail prices dropped initially, but for the most part were back up to the pre-GST prices in short order.
tboy said:
I agree all the official reasons the industry uses to justify their prices are pretty much pure BS, but the reason that they didn't lower prices after the refinery got running is because they found out that people are willing to buy gas at that price.
tboy said:
Well I agree with your premise, but barring a really weird government getting elected, how would they ever lose money when prices went up? GST (and probably Income tax) revenues alone would increase along with the prices.
I agree it would be nice to have a little bit of stability in the pricing structure, but if the gov't were to step in I would want something more along the lines of the natural gas market where they can change the prices 4x a year (I think) rather than removing the tax and/or capping the price like hydro.
Glad to see you're coming around Moraff, but as for your GST example. Prices DIDN'T drop because most retailers kept their prices at the same level after the FST was dropped and just kept the difference. (I know this for a fact because I worked for a major retailer at the time). So yes, just cutting the taxes wouldn't work, they'd have to instill a bill that would indicate that the price per litre would DROP and if it didn't, hefty fines would be levied.
As for a pricing structure that may cause the government to lose money should the price rise would be something like a negative tax: ie: if the price per litre is below $1.00 per litre, they get 45% combined taxes. Should the price rise above $1.00 per litre the tax rate drops 1% per every 5 cents. I could feasibly see something like this because gas is such a necessary item to fuel (no pun intended) the economy. Of course No government would ever set a limit to the amount of tax they collect, that would be just too good for the population!
What I COULD see would be the automakers putting pressure on the government to do something because vehicle sales will slump further than they are now. I mean the auto industry relates to hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy which relates to taxes paid.
I think it is argentina or brazil who pay 35 cents per litre and import all their fuel????
As for a pricing structure that may cause the government to lose money should the price rise would be something like a negative tax: ie: if the price per litre is below $1.00 per litre, they get 45% combined taxes. Should the price rise above $1.00 per litre the tax rate drops 1% per every 5 cents. I could feasibly see something like this because gas is such a necessary item to fuel (no pun intended) the economy. Of course No government would ever set a limit to the amount of tax they collect, that would be just too good for the population!
What I COULD see would be the automakers putting pressure on the government to do something because vehicle sales will slump further than they are now. I mean the auto industry relates to hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy which relates to taxes paid.
I think it is argentina or brazil who pay 35 cents per litre and import all their fuel????
tboy said:
Okay, I should have clarified my statement. Some retail prices dropped (my dad was in the model railroad business at that point and I helped redo all the prices in the catalog) and then crept back up again once the masses lost interest in the story.
Okay, I agree the gov't would have to instill measures to ensure that the price dropped to match the tax reduction. But, since we accept a 20% increase in price to match a 1% cut in supply, what's to stop the companies from throwing out another lame excuse or two and bump the price back up again?
tboy said:
Ah, okay I see where you were going with that. But I imagine people were finding hard to grasp since it is hugely unlikely we'll ever see such a scenario.
tboy said:
But are sales of larger vehicles slumping? (I don't know) Judging by the number I see on the roads it doesn't feel like it. But you're right, the auto industry would be a huge voice.
But as to coming around, I've never said I LIKED paying more for gas, I just disagree with boycotts and the like and am nervous about the gov't sticking their noses in since past history shows that they are pretty good at fucking things up so that their cure is more expensive than the disease and/or useless.
Take the new idling by-law in Hamilton. It's a good idea, but they have one officer to enforce it. What're your odds of getting caught? And then they went and exempted the HSR buses from the bylaw. So the gov't wasted time and our money to put a by-law in place that will only be respected by those who already don't sit in their cars idling the day away.
Moraff: for the record, I don't want to come off as antagonistic towards you (or your posts), we're just discussing the topic....cool?
As for how to control the price of gasoline and prevent the suppliers from artifically controlling the supply. That's called regulation and should this ever come into effect (ok, stop laughing now) there would be rules in place that would prevent any funny business from going on.
I personally wouldn't mind the increase in price so much IF the bigboys and the Cdn Government were investing most of the profits in exploration and developement of alternative fuel sources ie: hydrogen, ethanol, etc Since nuclear energy is safer and cleaner than ever now, the mass production of electric vehicles and they're implementation is another method they could use the enormous profits.
As for the sales of trucks/suvs, they've been dropping steadily for a while now. Let me rephrase that, PROFITS on trucks and suvs have been dropping but the volume (while going down) isn't as dramatic. They are basically giving away the larger vehicles just to move them off the lot (hence why I am paying about 1/3 less for my F150 than I would for a smaller truck/car). I also know someone who went to a Nissan dealer lately and the rep said they are having major problems selling their trucks.
I agree, the idling by-law (even in Toronto) is a frickin joke. I haven't noticed a iota of a reduction in the amount of vehicles idling since it was brought about. I was working in Banff a few years ago (one of the worst air pollution cities in Canada) and when they brought it in, they emempt the tour buses who sit idling all weekend because of the cold in the winter.
But lately I've been travelling through the core to a jobsite and is it just me or does the road repair department have their head firmly up their ass? It seems like every frickin street has construction on it. For eg: they closed the dundas bridge over the DVP for 6 months. This is 33% of the ways across the DVP south of bloor. Bad enough they divert traffic to smaller more congested routes (Gerrard seems to be taking up most of the overflow) but then they decide to tear up gerrard at parliment AND Danforth at Broadview. Just the other day I counted 9 streetcars lined up on Gerrard with another 2 behind me....oh that was priceless....
As for how to control the price of gasoline and prevent the suppliers from artifically controlling the supply. That's called regulation and should this ever come into effect (ok, stop laughing now) there would be rules in place that would prevent any funny business from going on.
I personally wouldn't mind the increase in price so much IF the bigboys and the Cdn Government were investing most of the profits in exploration and developement of alternative fuel sources ie: hydrogen, ethanol, etc Since nuclear energy is safer and cleaner than ever now, the mass production of electric vehicles and they're implementation is another method they could use the enormous profits.
As for the sales of trucks/suvs, they've been dropping steadily for a while now. Let me rephrase that, PROFITS on trucks and suvs have been dropping but the volume (while going down) isn't as dramatic. They are basically giving away the larger vehicles just to move them off the lot (hence why I am paying about 1/3 less for my F150 than I would for a smaller truck/car). I also know someone who went to a Nissan dealer lately and the rep said they are having major problems selling their trucks.
I agree, the idling by-law (even in Toronto) is a frickin joke. I haven't noticed a iota of a reduction in the amount of vehicles idling since it was brought about. I was working in Banff a few years ago (one of the worst air pollution cities in Canada) and when they brought it in, they emempt the tour buses who sit idling all weekend because of the cold in the winter.
But lately I've been travelling through the core to a jobsite and is it just me or does the road repair department have their head firmly up their ass? It seems like every frickin street has construction on it. For eg: they closed the dundas bridge over the DVP for 6 months. This is 33% of the ways across the DVP south of bloor. Bad enough they divert traffic to smaller more congested routes (Gerrard seems to be taking up most of the overflow) but then they decide to tear up gerrard at parliment AND Danforth at Broadview. Just the other day I counted 9 streetcars lined up on Gerrard with another 2 behind me....oh that was priceless....
tboy said:
No, we're cool. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes not. As long as we continue to debate (reasonably) civilly over our different viewpoints it all remains fun.
tboy said:
True enough. I just can't wrap my head around a government being efficient at doing it.
tboy said:
I agree with you there, but it is a bit hard to expect that the oil companies would willingly invest in ways that would reduce their profits.
tboy said:
Okay I'll accept that. Now if I was an auto manufacturer I'd be seriously thinking about switching my truck/suv production lines over to more fuel efficient vehicles.
tboy said:
I hear ya about construction dude. I remember a few years back where Hamilton (pre-Linc) had major construction on every major east-west road going at the same time.
As for Big Oil investing in alternative fuel production does anyone else remember the commercials that were running last year? They had this "youngish rogue" CEO buying up land in the prairies. The board members were questioning him saying "they don't even know if there's oil in the ground" The CEO says: we're not interested in oil it's what grows ON the land (corn for ethanol).
Like anyone hear of ANY Canadian Company investing in Ethanol production? BTW: Many US vehicles are now Dual Fuel and Fuel stations have begun to offer ethanol. Why aren't we?
I remember when I was in the Trade Show Biz we designed a booth for a company that was developing a hydrogen fuel cell that was basically a generator that ran on hydrogen. I read a lot of their material and this generator could run a normal house for a year on $65.00 +/- worth of hydrogen. Well, we designed a booth for them but they couldn't buy it because they never received their funding from the Government.
BTW: this generator was no bigger than an 1100 watt gasoline unit.
Like anyone hear of ANY Canadian Company investing in Ethanol production? BTW: Many US vehicles are now Dual Fuel and Fuel stations have begun to offer ethanol. Why aren't we?
I remember when I was in the Trade Show Biz we designed a booth for a company that was developing a hydrogen fuel cell that was basically a generator that ran on hydrogen. I read a lot of their material and this generator could run a normal house for a year on $65.00 +/- worth of hydrogen. Well, we designed a booth for them but they couldn't buy it because they never received their funding from the Government.
BTW: this generator was no bigger than an 1100 watt gasoline unit.
zekestone said:
I wasn't knocking your solar panels, when I said plastics I meant all the plastic items we use every day (tupper-ware, bottles, .....)
Of course, those solar panels probably come wrapped in a protective plastic wrap
If I had the up-front money, I'd definately invest in a geo-thermal system but imo solar still needs a little more work to be cost-effective for Canadian latitudes.
tboy said:
Sure the Canadian government has jumped on the wagon of idocy called Ethanol. Enthanol is nothing that the best example of funind a technology whose only product is increased votes from farming communities.
For all the ballyhooing about Ethanol, they fail to mention some pretty important facts like it takes just as much gasoline to manufacture ethanol as it replaces.
If you realy want to hurt the big oil companies................
Organize a boycott list, then go down the list one by one and start to boycot them. Even more powerful is to organize a credit card cutting list.............start with Shell and cut up their cards.
When the other oil companies see what the public is doing they will squeeze their knees together and hold their balls and wince.....then give big gas discounts.
Organize a boycott list, then go down the list one by one and start to boycot them. Even more powerful is to organize a credit card cutting list.............start with Shell and cut up their cards.
When the other oil companies see what the public is doing they will squeeze their knees together and hold their balls and wince.....then give big gas discounts.
