Democrats & Liberals Archives

Gas prices and elections: This time it didn't work

In the two months since the November 2006 elections I’ve watched the price of a gallon of gas steadily increase. In fact, the national average increased almost 16 cents in two months. What’s the explanation for this sudden increase?

According to AAA, the national average for a gallon of regular gas is $2.32, up from $2.12 just before the November election and 10 cents higher than the same time a year ago. In fact, gas prices have increased by 10 cents in just the past month. (link )

Additionally, about three months prior to the election, gas prices dropped from a national average price of $3.01 per gallon August 1st to a low of $2.12 per gallon a couple of weeks before the November election. The fact is that for most of 2006, gas prices stayed above $2.80 but dramatically decreased just before the election. (link )

There were many that noticed this sudden decrease of prices so close to the election. Those individuals, including myself, voiced their theory for the drop in prices. The theory was that the price drop was purely political and was meant to alter the upcoming election.

However, many on the other side of the discussion, argued that the reason for the sudden drop wasn't political but cyclical in nature; noting that it's common for gas prices to bubble up before the summer driving season and decrease after labor day. But according to the Energy Information Association (EIA), gas prices are controlled by crude prices, seasonality and supply/demand. (link )

If the drop was caused by a seasonal change, then why did the drop in gas prices actually begin prior to Labor Day? In fact, by Labor Day the price of a gallon of gas dropped about 15 cents from August 1st. By Election Day, prices dropped around 90 cents in about 60 days; that's a heck of a drop, more than 28%. Besides, according to EIA, the seasonal factor only applies when there's a stable crude market. (link)

So if the price drop was the result of the crude price factor, then prices of crude oil would have seen a similar drop during the same time period. However crude prices dropped from about $1.70 a gallon to $1.53 a gallon; a 10% decrease.

Since it appears the decrease wasn't the result of a seasonal or crude price change, then, by process of elimination, the change must be from supply and demand.

If the price increase before the summer of 2006 (which actually began in April/May) was caused by a perceived increase in demand then what was the result of this special demand? Normally, supply/demand issues relate to shortages somewhere along the supply chain. Natural disasters account for most of the shortages but 2006 was a mild year for natural disasters affecting oil prices. Instability within the oil rich regions can also be a factor for supply. Then what event in the region made it safer to ship and produce oil just before the election?

Someone should explain clearly why the prices dropped substantially just prior to the election and then continually rose directly after the election. Which of the three factors (crude prices, supply and demand, or seasonal) lead to the gas price increase from beginning on 11.8.2006?

Otherwise it appears to be a matter of market manipulation for political purposes.

Posted by john trevisani at January 3, 2007 2:21 PM
Comments
Comment #201307

If you were trying to manipulate the election, you would begin to drop prices several months before, not just before. In fact, you would want to begin to drop prices in May in order to get the peception of lower prices firmly in the minds of voters. Since prices were going up over this crucial time, maybe the Dems manipulated the prices. It makes just as much sense.

There is something you just need to understand. Prices reflect the perception of the future, not the rememberance of the past. Leftists always get this wrong. They look at what something cost to produce and think there is a direct relation. If you obtain something for $1, but you believe it will cost $5 to replace your stock, what price do you charge? Hint: not $1.

We expected a bad hurricane season. It turned out the NO hurricanes hit the U.S. We feared the Iranians would interfere with supply. They did not. Prices in summer 2006 reflected supply, demand AND risk. None of the risks came to pass and by Sept it was becomming clear.

Since prices are forward looking, they declined.

Posted by: Jack at January 3, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #201313

John,

I don’t know if gas prices are manipulated for political reasons. I think we need some good evidence before we make charges.

Even if some oil CEOs did want to influence elections, I think it would be difficult to keep that under wraps. And even if a CEO was caught, somehow, proving coordination with the White House or Congressional Republicans could be difficult. Further, this coordination may not even exist.

I’d prefer we have some decent evidence before assuming the worse.

Posted by: Trent at January 3, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #201314

Jack:

There is something you just need to understand. Prices reflect the perception of the future, not the rememberance of the past.

If that were true then the Katrina effect wouldn’t have been felt. But shortly following Katrina, gas prices shot through the roof. The reason, of course, was supply and demand. Demand, during that time was known; it was the supply that was an unknown. So prices went up.

And so did the profits of the oil companies.

In fact, those spikes following Katrina, created a firestorm so much that Congress had to hold hearings about price gouging (not under oath though).

Prices are not forward; they are opportunistic.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 3, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #201318

Trent:

I don’t know if gas prices are manipulated for political reasons. I think we need some good evidence before we make charges.

You’re right. Good evidence is what we need. Which is why i ask the question.

The data suggests something nefarious. i would like to understand which of EIA’s three factors were the cause of the prices going down three months before the election and which of the factors were the cause of the prices going up after the election.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 3, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #201341

Speculation is the cause of gas price fluctuation that is not attributable to the aforementioned, supply, demand and risk. Of course Katrina caused a spike in prices, the oil companies forsaw that it would cost them more to do business post katrina.

The problem we have is that crude prices can remain stable or even decline and due to speculation on the market, prices at the pump can go up.

Im really not convinced that some group was able to move the price without it being discovered.

JT

Posted by: JayTea at January 3, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #201343

John

Your data disproves your theory. Fluctuations are easy to explain if you understand the forward looking nature of prices and the expected hurricane season and political (international) risk.

I say again, it is partiular failing of leftists in that they do not understand that prices are future, not past oriented. Lefties are still stuck in that silly backward-looking labor theory of value. It just does not work that way.

If you were planning to sell a bar of gold that you bought for $400 an oz and you learn that Goldfinger has just destroyed all the gold in the U.S. treasury, do you ask the same price? Now consider you have this gold, but we learn that a new process has been developed that turns solid waste into gold at almost no cost. How much is your gold worth? In these cases, the labor that went into the gold is unchanged. What HAS changed is its future availablilty. That is what is reflected in the price. The past or even the current conditions are imporant only in that they help predict the future.

BTW - if you would not change your price based on the new information, tell me, are you a home owner? If so please let me know when you plan to sell. Since you will have to sell your home only for what you paid for it minus depreciation, the buyer may get a really good deal.

Forward looking pricing is exactly how the Katrina effect worked. Everybody understood that the NEXT gallon of fuel would be less easy to get than the previous one, hence the higher price.

(We held hearings on price gouging and found none, BTW.)

The concept is really very simple. The price you charge and the price you are willing to pay depends on what you percieve the NEXT one you want will cost. That is why it is hard to raise prices on computers. People believe that technological improvements will make computers cheaper in the future. It doesn’t matter how much work went into making them. It depends on how much the next one will be.

BTW - I really do not believe that price gouging is possible absent coercion. The price will limit demand and protect supply. If I have 100 gallons of gas and half of my supply is destroyed. How much should I charge for that gas? You know that price depends on how easy it will be to get more. If more gas is on the way, I cannot raise prices by very much. If none is expected for a long time, I should raise the price so that it reflects the scarcity. The alternative is for me to impose unilateral rationing and/or decide which customers are most worthy. If I do not raise the price or ration, the gas will be gone after the first few customers hog it all. Is that better?

Posted by: Jack at January 3, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #201345

Any conspiracy that would require the cooperation of not only Arab princes but Norway, Russia, George Bush and Hugo Chavez sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at January 3, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #201347

saying,

I am glad that we have finally converted you to our democratic, liberal, tree hugging, commie, pinko, fag, Muslim, Al Qiada loving brotherhood.

John,

It would be difficult to prove what we all suspect, however the Dems should have some hearings under oath. You will note that when the Repubs had their hearings, even without oaths, the gas prices mysteriously fell dramatically as well.

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 3, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #201348

John,

I would add that I thing gas prices need to go up in order to spur development of alternative fuels.

I also think corn based ethanol is a bill of goods that is being sold to us by Archer Daniels Midland. I won’t take the time to go into details here, but there is a good article on the subject in this month’s Scientific American.

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 3, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #201350

thing = think… My writing sounds drunk and it must be in order for me to get one of my fat fingers from k all the over to g…

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 3, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #201351

Would this be the same group who control all the e-voting machines and were going to ensure that the Republicans would win?

Posted by: kctim at January 3, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #201352

jack,

I agree… sort of… I agree that your explanation is completely incomplete. Supply and demand… free market… risk… market expectation… blah… blah… None of it explains the striking coincidences. None, addresses the fact that corporations, their CEOs in particular, have a vested interest in maximizing profits. That is the sole thing that drives them - period. Republicans are seen as more business friendly - these repubs are especially oil friendly. They would not suppress prices for very long because they would lose too much money, but just before the election to protect future profit potential - absolutely. It is called price fixing. If it happened it is illegal.

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 3, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #201353

If it happened it would be illegal under many different laws. But it didn’t happen.

There really are no coincidences except those created in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. As I wrote IF you wanted to get Republicans elected, you would have driven the price down in spring. By fall it was too late.

Beyond that, as others have written, you would have to get lots of international cooperation, including Iranians, Chavez etc. AND we would have to keep it all a secret. This is better than the UFO, voting in Florida or Burmuda Triangle.

It is just not possible to do and even harder to keep a secret.

Posted by: Jack at January 3, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #201356

I cannot believe that you actually think the the neocons can be so dumb and so smart at the same time.

Do you have a clue as to what the odds are of the Republicans (or anyone else for that matter) fixing gas prices are?

I’m sure the dems will have their hearings. They will make dozens of accusations and prove absolutely nothing.

It’s their mantra. (They are all paranoid)

Posted by: cliff at January 3, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #201357

Proof of paranoid behavior…

There are already 22 “if’s” on this page…
If you want to live this way,
If you want think this way,
If you want to let “if’s” control you,
If you want to be paranoid,
If’s up to you ;-)

Posted by: Cliff at January 3, 2007 6:07 PM
Comment #201358

Philip of Macedonia, having conquered most of Greece turned to Sparta. He sent them a message, “You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.”

The Spartans made a one word reply - “If.”

Philip and Alexander (the Great) both decided it was better to leave the Spartans alone.

Posted by: Jack at January 3, 2007 6:18 PM
Comment #201368

Look at how many different Oil Companies exist in this country, 100’s or thousands of people are not needed to put the fix in on gas prices at the pump its 5 or less, if a majority decide to lower prices then the other 2 will have to or loose buisness to the other 3 companies.
I am not saying the fix is in but it sure seems a lot more plosible when you look at the numbers that way. Oh, and the D’s didn’t look that strong in May/June but by Aug/Sept they were looking really good and the R’s needed a little help in the pools. So why did the price of gas go up very shortly after the elections? I think the question raised is a good one and lack of real investigation leaves many questions by the public. 5 people (yes I may be off by a couple) can get the fix in on the price of gas, and untill recently was mostly a waist byproduct of oil distilation their are other oil based products that the oil companies get $5-15 a quart for.

Posted by: timesend at January 3, 2007 7:36 PM
Comment #201370

Jack
You are probably correct. However price fixing and market manipulation do happen in all sectors of the economy, illegal and complicated as they are. Market manipulation etc. go back to the very beginning of the oil industry. Still just allegations.
Sort of related to the thread. Whats your thoughts about creating a system similar to the Fed Reserve only dealing with oil. The ground work(literally) is already done with the strategic oil program. The idea being to keep the price of crude high enough to provide the stability for alternate developement but at the same time keep it from getting so high it cripples the economy and subjects us to forign pressures. Thoughts?

Posted by: BillS at January 3, 2007 7:44 PM
Comment #201383

John,

You’re right, er, uh, correct!

My daughter manages several convenience stores in the area and she told me that she was surprised how pump prices didn’t fluctuate like usual with oil price fluctuation just before election time.

Gas prices here are up about twenty-five cents since the elections. Fuel prices hurt my son a lot because he farms. This time of year it especially hurts his livestock operation.

We watch gas prices. To think there is no manipulation is just lame. We were told a few years ago that we had enough natural gas in Kansas to last for 200 years or more but Katrina nearly doubled my home heating bill. Since nearly doubling it has gone down about 2%.

It’s past time to look at consumer prices and how politics influences how much we pay and how much we earn. IMO, we’ve let a new communism creep in under the guise of conservatism. If it wasn’t so serious it’d be funny.

I think it could best be called the “back-door” approach.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 3, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #201386

Jack,

You wrote:

Beyond that, as others have written, you would have to get lots of international cooperation, including Iranians, Chavez etc. AND we would have to keep it all a secret. This is better than the UFO, voting in Florida or Burmuda Triangle.
Price fixing to affect politics may not have happened, but your explanations also fall far short of proving that it did not. Prices seem to come down at the most convenient times. It would not require that broad of a comspiracy to suppress prices. The major companies pump a little more of their surplus gas stores out onto the market and cut their profit margins for a few weeks. They don’t have to affect the whole globe, just the price at the local pump. Finally, they would not do it early in the election cycle. That is baloney. It would cost them too much money. They are not going to spend that much to affect the election - just a little shot in the arm at the last minute - that is all they would ever do. This would not require a huge conspiracy nor any coordination with Repub operatives. It would require a few CEO type good old boys to say hey it might be worth our while in the long run to give our friends a little last minute shot in the arm… Someone correct my memory, but it seems like the gas prices trended down prior to the 2004 election as well…

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 3, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #201390

Ray

I do not have to prove it did not. You are postulating a something without any proof. It is like accusing someone of murder & demanding that come up with an alibi for every day when a murder occurred.

In order for this to have happened you would have to manipulate and fine tune the largest market in the world AND do it in secret.

Besides, as I pointed out, the time to manipulate would have been months earlier.

So you postulate that these guys are so smart that they can manipulate billions of dollars and millions of transactions w/o anybody catching on BUT they are so dumb that they get the timing terribly wrong and in fact end up hurting Republican chances.

You cannot really believe all this.

YOu have a fine story with absolutely no reason to believe it is true. Your argument is that we cannot prove to your satisfaction that you are wrong. This is impossible. I have talked to people who believe in astrology, the Lock Ness monster, UFOs etc. I have never been able to prove them wrong to their satisfaction.

Posted by: Jack at January 3, 2007 9:47 PM
Comment #201391

John

I think one would have to be particularly gullible or a fool to believe the oil industry is on the up and up where priceing is concerned. I doubt it can be proved so long as thier money continues to flow into the pockets of our legislators. If I remember correctly when the congressional investigations occured the big guys were not allowed to swear under oath by demand of the republican in charge of the investigative committee.

In light of the recent track record of the past legislature with regards to illegal lobbyist dealings nothing would surprise me. This particular administration with the likes of Bush and Cheney probably has closer personal ties to the energy industry than any other past administration I can think of.

It is my personal opinion and the opinion of most people I know that the price fluctuations were politically tied. During the spring months the dems were not considered to be a threat at election time. However we all know how quickly the integrity of the repubs crashed. Most see it as a sort of last ditch effort to swing votes back in thier direction. I do hope that the new congress at some point pursues a serious investigation into these types of matters. It would be blatantly foolish for anyone to put thier complete faith in the honesty and integrity of the corporate powers of this world. They are profit motivated, plain and simple. And tens of billions of dollars per quarter has a lot of say with the governments of this world.

If it looks like crap and smells like crap it probably is.

Posted by: Ildem at January 3, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #201397

Jack,

I try to be truly helpful so I will give you freebie. There is a much more persuasive argument to be made for why the oil companies would not suppress the price of gas to manipulate the election. Gas prices were not the only issue driving the electorate - not even the major issue. Accordingly a last minute shot in the arm was never going to save that many Repubs. The maximum number that they could hope to save would probably be less than 10 - lets say ten - nice round number… Suppressing the price of gas even $0.20 per gallon for even a few weeks is a lot of money. Under no circumstances will the value of saving 10 Repubs ever be greater than the cost of buying 10 Dems. How much is a Dem worth? Everbody should own one. The Repubs are all bought and paid for, but the Dems are still for sale. So, they can probably buy Dems cheaper than they can suppress the price of gas. They can buy me. Our government will be for sale, at least until we have public financing of elections. After that, the cost would go way up…

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 3, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #201398

You know this reminds me of when I tried to join paranoids anonymous, but they wouldn’t tell me where the meetings were.

Posted by: Keith at January 3, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #201401

“this reminds me of when I tried to join paranoids anonymous, but they wouldn’t tell me where the meetings were.”

They’re held daily in the oval office.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 3, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #201407

I think what we’re looking at here is not politically motivated, but rather an aspect of how we regulate energy nowadays. To put it plainly, the energy traders are being allowed to speculate out the wazoo, bidding price up and down arbitrary to supply and demand. The only thing politically motivated about it was the regulation campaigns that contributed to this mess.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 4, 2007 12:38 AM
Comment #201419

KansasDem,

Zing! Good one, I didn’t even like it, but it was funny. Now to business. You’re own argument about price-fixing is probably the best one out there. Sorry Jack, your’s were good too, but trying to debate Marxists about the free market, which they view as a giant conspiracy anyways, is problematic at best. Couching the argument in terms of greed and corruption as Ray did will always work better. One thing, though. If you look, you’ll find that gas prices always go down before an election for the simple fact that elections are held in the fall after the peak demand summer driving season.

Ildem,

Since we’re so paranoid about the cost of gasoline, why don’t we investigate the prices of some other commodities as well. I’ll guarantee that coffee, bottled water, fruit juices, and alcohol all cost more per gallon than gas. Oil right now is cheaper, when adjusted for inflation, than in the 1980s, this despite massive increases in demand. You should try living in Europe sometime where “petrol/benzin” is almost 2 Euro per liter.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 4, 2007 3:49 AM
Comment #201426

1LT:

If you look, you’ll find that gas prices always go down before an election for the simple fact that elections are held in the fall after the peak demand summer driving season

But that’s not what the data indicates.
As i’ve pointed out, according to the EIA there are three factors affect gas prices (seasonality, supply and demand, crude prices).
If, as you suggest, prices always decrease before an election because of the summer driving season, then why did the prices begin to go back up immediately following the election? Was there a new driving season that magically appeared? And also, why did, in the traditionally warmer states (Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, etc..) also see the same decrease, when normally the seasonal decrease isn’t normally felt?

If it’s that’s simple, then you can supply me with and answer to my question:
What happened after the election to make the prices go back up?

Posted by: john trevisani at January 4, 2007 8:02 AM
Comment #201429

1LT

I do believe the last few decades have made all consumers well aware of corporate greed and its reaches into all areas of the market. The last legislature also made us all well aware of the depth of corporate influence within thier ranks. I am not holding my breath expecting there to be much change in the future. However I do have hope that ethics reform will help to alleviate some of that corruptive influence. I do also hold hope that the voters will continue in future elections to remove those who so easily bow down to the influences of corporate money, regardless of party affiliation.

I am not being paranoid. I am merely trying to retain an open mind. In view of the lack of concience where the recent republican legislature and current executive branch is concerned nothing would surprise me. Thier past actions have indicated to the nation and the world that they are not to be trusted to serve the best interests of the people. It seems thier primary agenda has been to retain the supremacy of the party. And lets face it big money has done most of the talking where that agenda is concerned.

Posted by: ILdem at January 4, 2007 8:35 AM
Comment #201432

John Trevisani,

The 3 factors you list do indeed affect gas prices, but other factors are at work as well. Jack already mentioned percieved risk as one. I’m not arguing that the Republicans are lily-white or anything, just that manipulating gas prices would be nearly impossible to do in a clandestine manner. I think it would be fair to say that any reporter would shoot his own mother to be the one to break the story that this is the case and have the proof to back it up, yet this hasn’t happened because the gas prices are not manipulated, just subject to normal market variations. Gas prices rose again because shortly after the elections is when the demand for heating oil picks up. I’m not from the Southwest, so I can’t speak to that.

In line with Ray Guest’s argument about price fixing that I originally posted about, I have one other argument to make. As he pointed out, the costs of lowering gas prices to the oil companies are far less than what it would cost to just bribe some freshman lawmakers. Even if such a conspiracy could be hatched, what’s to keep one company from lowering the prices a few cents more than everybody? They might lose a little bit per gallon, but could expect to clean up on increased sales.

ILdem,

Like I was saying to John, I’m not arguing that the Republicans were virtuous in any sense, merely saying that there’s more to gas prices than alot of people here are willing to admit. The idea of a group of corporations being able to fix gasoline prices, which are already regulated by some of the most complex market factors out there, is nearly impossible. Even if it were, someone would talk, I think we all know that as well. To me, this type of talk is nothing more than classic rich-baiting, pitting the poor against the rich in the mistaken belief that it does some good. Oh wait, the Dems usually do get some mileage out of that one, so I guess it does some good if you’re a Democrat who’s willing to overlook the common good.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 4, 2007 9:11 AM
Comment #201434

John,

You failed to explain how manipulating oil prices could affect an election in the first place. It couldn’t, of course. Lower fuel prices didn’t help the Republicans one bit.
But what really kills your argument is the fact that the oil companies love money. I don’t believe they would throw profits away to help the Republicans, especially when having the Dems in power really won’t hurt them.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 4, 2007 9:43 AM
Comment #201436

TheTraveler:
The title is “This time it didn’t work”.

i can’t explain why the prices dropped just before the election and rose after the election; i just noted that it did.

1LT:

The 3 factors you list do indeed affect gas prices, but other factors are at work as well. Jack already mentioned percieved risk as one.

You see, Jack isn’t a reference though. The EIA is. What Jack is referring to is unsubstantiated. i’ve documented where i received my information; Jack has not.

Why did the prices go up after the election? Was it Jack’s Theory of Perceived Risk? If it was, then post the reference.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 4, 2007 9:58 AM
Comment #201438

ildem

“In view of the lack of concience where the recent republican legislature and current executive branch is concerned nothing would surprise me.”

I just love the way you guys throw this stuff out there. What you really mean is they don’t belive or do things the way I would like them to, so they must no have a conscience.

Posted by: Keith at January 4, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #201443

The title is “This time it didn’t work”.

When were the other times? You mean you think oil prices were used to manipulate elections in the past? Funny, I never heard about it.

i can’t explain why the prices dropped just before the election and rose after the election

Obviously.

i just noted that it did.

So did the rest of us who drive. But why should we leap to the conclusion you did? After all, the prices didn’t affect our votes. You didn’t change your vote to Republican because you thought they could get you cheap gas, did you John? If you did, all you have proved is that the rest of the drivers in the country are smarter than you are.

Posted by: TheTraveler at January 4, 2007 10:53 AM
Comment #201548

TheTraveler/Jack:
Funny thing about those gas prices… according to the this recent news item (link) it appears that crude prices are at their lowest level since June of 2005.

And yet… the price keeps going up.

Posted by: john trevisani at January 4, 2007 9:12 PM
Comment #201606

What election is coming up?
Gas is $1.99 here.

Posted by: kctim at January 5, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #201725

Kieth

“Lack of concience”

I am throwing nothing out there Kieth. It is an opinion obviously maintained by the larger percentage of this nation. I live in a predominately republican agricultural county and have very few democrat friends. When listening to discussions over the last few years about Bush and the last legislature the most common euphamisms are generally: “how can they do that” “what were they thinking” “what is this country coming too” “who do they think they are?” “they must believe they are above the law” “what are they trying to hide” “anyone else would have been locked up by now” ” wish we all could investigate ourselves” “are rights are dissapearing” “have they no concience” “how could anyone with a concience behave that way”

This list could go on and on. And of course there is Katrina and the three thousand military dead to what end.

Posted by: ILdem at January 6, 2007 10:41 AM
Comment #202036

Face it. None of us really know what goes on behind the “Closed doors in Washington”. And I don’t pretend to be an athority on the oil industry. But I can certianly do the math.
I run my own business. When I price jobs to customers, I base it on my costs. An increase in fuel costs, both directly (at the pump) and indirectly (increase in material costs because of manufacturing and transportation costs) hurts me and my customers.
Yet the oil company profits have set new records for many years now. And givin our current administrations ties to oil, it has to make you wonder.
I would like to believe that “W” has no influence on oil prices. And I would like to believe in santa. But…….

So to say that “W” did nothing to effect a drop in gas prices before the election….Well lets just say that oil truck might have a few leaks in it.

Posted by: Mike S. at January 8, 2007 1:35 PM
Post a comment