Uner $3,00 a gallon in Texas just in time for the midterms.

Tax increases get passed on to the customer. Taxes are overhead. Businesses don’t succeed by losing money.
Somebody dropped you on your head.
Did you really just claim that overhead does not have an impact on price? Really? That might be the dumbest thing posted on this board in a long time!
That idiot has no clue.
 
Did you really just claim that overhead does not have an impact on price? Really? That might be the dumbest thing posted on this board in a long time!
Nope, here--

The appropriate price of a product or service is based on supply and demand.


Tell me, where is cost on the supply and demand curve? Here, maybe the definition of comparative advantage will help.

A firm's ability to produce a good or service more efficiently than its competitors, which leads to greater profit margins, creates a comparative advantage.


Notice, is says, "greater profit margins", it don't say, "lower price". But maybe the best way to explain it to you is with a true life story. Hunter's Livermush, now you probably don't know what livermush even is, but I am here to tell you that in this part of the country, it is a stable, and Hunter's is easily the best.

Now it is a perishable product, and Old Man Hunter produces 16,000 pounds a week. He is incorporated. Did he lower the price when his taxes were cut? Does he increase the price when the cost of cornmeal or pork livers go up? No, the price is set, BY HIM NOW, and it is pegged to clear his inventory before the product goes out of date. You can buy from him, but you have to charge your customers the price he puts on it. He don't give two shits about your "margin" requirements. If you try to make him price it higher, he just packs it all up and sales it to your competitor down the street.
 
Nope, here--

The appropriate price of a product or service is based on supply and demand.


Tell me, where is cost on the supply and demand curve? Here, maybe the definition of comparative advantage will help.

A firm's ability to produce a good or service more efficiently than its competitors, which leads to greater profit margins, creates a comparative advantage.


Notice, is says, "greater profit margins", it don't say, "lower price". But maybe the best way to explain it to you is with a true life story. Hunter's Livermush, now you probably don't know what livermush even is, but I am here to tell you that in this part of the country, it is a stable, and Hunter's is easily the best.

Now it is a perishable product, and Old Man Hunter produces 16,000 pounds a week. He is incorporated. Did he lower the price when his taxes were cut? Does he increase the price when the cost of cornmeal or pork livers go up? No, the price is set, BY HIM NOW, and it is pegged to clear his inventory before the product goes out of date. You can buy from him, but you have to charge your customers the price he puts on it. He don't give two shits about your "margin" requirements. If you try to make him price it higher, he just packs it all up and sales it to your competitor down the street.
Dipshit supply demand is lower than it was for democrat Covid
 
Nope, here--

The appropriate price of a product or service is based on supply and demand.


Tell me, where is cost on the supply and demand curve? Here, maybe the definition of comparative advantage will help.

A firm's ability to produce a good or service more efficiently than its competitors, which leads to greater profit margins, creates a comparative advantage.


Notice, is says, "greater profit margins", it don't say, "lower price". But maybe the best way to explain it to you is with a true life story. Hunter's Livermush, now you probably don't know what livermush even is, but I am here to tell you that in this part of the country, it is a stable, and Hunter's is easily the best.

Now it is a perishable product, and Old Man Hunter produces 16,000 pounds a week. He is incorporated. Did he lower the price when his taxes were cut? Does he increase the price when the cost of cornmeal or pork livers go up? No, the price is set, BY HIM NOW, and it is pegged to clear his inventory before the product goes out of date. You can buy from him, but you have to charge your customers the price he puts on it. He don't give two shits about your "margin" requirements. If you try to make him price it higher, he just packs it all up and sales it to your competitor down the street.
I expect Old Man Hunter to be out of business and living on welfare by now.
 
That idiot has no clue.
No, you guys have no clue. I have graduate level work in pricing and pricing theory, studying under a visiting professor from Stanford. Hell, Warren Buffet once said he doesn't know a single businessman that makes pricing decisions based on "cost", let alone taxes.

I mean you guys are nothing more than armchair quarterbacks. You haven't ever taken a single snap, you couldn't read a defense if your life depended on it. The playbook? You know nothing about it. But oh how you can come to conclusions. Should of, could of, would of.

I mean here is what you guys are saying. Some yahoo comes up with a product, and he can sell it, at a profit, and make money. But then he sees the tax rate and goes, the hell with it, I don't need that extra money. Looked at from another perspective, as anyone ever refused to turn in their winning lottery ticket because the taxes were too high?
 
Supply demand is lower? Which is it dumbshit, is it supply is lower or demand is lower? I mean that is a stark contradiction. Hell, fawk it, supply is higher, but demand is even more "higher". Plus, we are exporting more diesel than ever before. Which is beyond stupid.
You're one stupid piece of shit supply demand is lower as the link stated there is no fucking contradiction dumbass supply demand can be up or or down
 
You're one stupid piece of shit supply demand is lower as the link stated there is no fucking contradiction dumbass supply demand can be up or or down
No where in that link is the phrase "supply demand". But let me educate you.

The most striking feature of the oil market is the low price elasticity of demand. That means demand for oil is not very responsive to changes in prices.


So, the "demand" for gasoline is not very price elastic. Demand doesn't change very much due to price, and we see that here. Everyone lamenting about the high cost off gasoline, but they pay it anyway, and probably don't decrease their driving, hell, they don't even bother to look in to carpooling to work.

But then there is this, which compounds matters.

As a general rule, supply is less responsive to price changes than demand. However, the supply of oil is fairly inelastic, even by the standards of supply curves

Now, if there really was a phrase, "supply demand", it would actually refer to the "demand" for "supply", and that is supply elasticity to price. Hell, it is even lower than demand elasticity. That means that the unwillingness of oil companies to build refineries, and drill additional wells, doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, his statements, are any executive orders he has issued.

From your link,

Moreover, according to EIA, total domestic gasoline stocks increased slightly by 200,000 bbl to 225.3 million bbl. If gas demand remains low and stocks continue to rise alongside falling crude prices, drivers will likely continue to see pump prices decrease.

Prices are falling because of a decrease in demand, and stocks are rising. Part of it is the lag effect of higher prices in the near past, but it is a slow increase. And that lack of supply price elasticity is very prevalent in the demand for oil leases. I mean you Republicans caterwall about the lack of leases sold on public land, but wake up and smell the coffee. Trump had a huge auction of those leases before he left office. Few oil companies participated, and the proceeds were less than ten cents on the dollar of expected revenue. A terrible outcome for any business, but par for the course for a Trump business.
 
No where in that link is the phrase "supply demand". But let me educate you.

The most striking feature of the oil market is the low price elasticity of demand. That means demand for oil is not very responsive to changes in prices.


So, the "demand" for gasoline is not very price elastic. Demand doesn't change very much due to price, and we see that here. Everyone lamenting about the high cost off gasoline, but they pay it anyway, and probably don't decrease their driving, hell, they don't even bother to look in to carpooling to work.

But then there is this, which compounds matters.

As a general rule, supply is less responsive to price changes than demand. However, the supply of oil is fairly inelastic, even by the standards of supply curves

Now, if there really was a phrase, "supply demand", it would actually refer to the "demand" for "supply", and that is supply elasticity to price. Hell, it is even lower than demand elasticity. That means that the unwillingness of oil companies to build refineries, and drill additional wells, doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, his statements, are any executive orders he has issued.

From your link,

Moreover, according to EIA, total domestic gasoline stocks increased slightly by 200,000 bbl to 225.3 million bbl. If gas demand remains low and stocks continue to rise alongside falling crude prices, drivers will likely continue to see pump prices decrease.

Prices are falling because of a decrease in demand, and stocks are rising. Part of it is the lag effect of higher prices in the near past, but it is a slow increase. And that lack of supply price elasticity is very prevalent in the demand for oil leases. I mean you Republicans caterwall about the lack of leases sold on public land, but wake up and smell the coffee. Trump had a huge auction of those leases before he left office. Few oil companies participated, and the proceeds were less than ten cents on the dollar of expected revenue. A terrible outcome for any business, but par for the course for a Trump business.
Commodities react to news.
Two consecutive dem admins immediately put the clamps on future domestic supply in the name of AGW fascism and the economy wilts as a result.
You come along with a convoluted lie because you’re a dishonest partisan.
You’re a liar.
You just made ignore. No use in discussing anything with a blatant liar.
 
No where in that link is the phrase "supply demand". But let me educate you.

The most striking feature of the oil market is the low price elasticity of demand. That means demand for oil is not very responsive to changes in prices.


So, the "demand" for gasoline is not very price elastic. Demand doesn't change very much due to price, and we see that here. Everyone lamenting about the high cost off gasoline, but they pay it anyway, and probably don't decrease their driving, hell, they don't even bother to look in to carpooling to work.

But then there is this, which compounds matters.

As a general rule, supply is less responsive to price changes than demand. However, the supply of oil is fairly inelastic, even by the standards of supply curves

Now, if there really was a phrase, "supply demand", it would actually refer to the "demand" for "supply", and that is supply elasticity to price. Hell, it is even lower than demand elasticity. That means that the unwillingness of oil companies to build refineries, and drill additional wells, doesn't have a damn thing to do with Biden, his statements, are any executive orders he has issued.

From your link,

Moreover, according to EIA, total domestic gasoline stocks increased slightly by 200,000 bbl to 225.3 million bbl. If gas demand remains low and stocks continue to rise alongside falling crude prices, drivers will likely continue to see pump prices decrease.

Prices are falling because of a decrease in demand, and stocks are rising. Part of it is the lag effect of higher prices in the near past, but it is a slow increase. And that lack of supply price elasticity is very prevalent in the demand for oil leases. I mean you Republicans caterwall about the lack of leases sold on public land, but wake up and smell the coffee. Trump had a huge auction of those leases before he left office. Few oil companies participated, and the proceeds were less than ten cents on the dollar of expected revenue. A terrible outcome for any business, but par for the course for a Trump business.
Are you smoking crack or just out of your league? You have supply demand. It will either be up or down and right now supply demand is lower than it was with Covid
 
No you stupid bitch go fetch
Wow, you really are nothing more than a Kannapolis redneck piece of shit. You think I didn't already search that? I mean seriously. There is no such thing as "supply demand", unless you are talking about elasticity of supply, to various components, price, future expectations, even government regulations. I mean I seriously doubt you have ever even had a course in Economics. Dumpshit, I went to Economic summer camp when I was in High School. Pretty cool two weeks, visiting various businesses, speaking with business owners and CEO's. I won the Economics award in my both my senior and junior year. But hell, that was just the beginning.

I graduated with a degree in Economics. Honestly, not worth that much. But mine was more Econometrics than Economics. Kind of a merging of Economics and Statistics. So as an MBA student, which is actually worth something, I was the TA for Andrew Benavie, the head of the OMB in the Reagan administration. I mean that shit ain't cheap, got to earn some money somewhere.

So, besides grading papers, teaching breakout sessions, and holding class when Benavie was in DC, well I was tasked with "running the numbers". And the Reagan tax cuts, they didn't add up. I mean Benavie, and Reagan, were utilizing the Wharton School of Business Macoeconomic model. You know, that is where Trump attended.

Every Thursday the entire Economics department got together at a bar called "He's not Here", pretty comical when you think about it. And there Benavie and I would argue. I told him the Reagan tax cuts wouldn't work. It was one key number in the model that they were grossly underestimating. The MPS, the marginal propensity to save. I argued that the real number was much higher, and I had the data to back it up. But it really goes back to old school Keynesian economics, it is called the Paradox of Thrift.

To make a long story short, I was right. Reagan backtracked and instigated the greatest tax increase in history, at the time, within a couple of years. And Benavie, he left the intellectual community and played the Cello for the New York Philharmonic. Of course, he was fired as OMB director.

And me, well I run a financial consulting business, pretty niche, but that is by design. And currently it is a side business, because there is something I enjoy more. But I have tens of millions of dollars under management and it is pretty easy to calculate my market losses, zero. Not a single one of my clients has lost two cents since I started managing their account, and that spans more than twenty years. It is why my business is on auto-pilot, referral only, and usually the children of current clients. You hire me, you might not make a fortune, but you will lose nothing. Show me another financial consultant that can make that claim,
 
Wow, you really are nothing more than a Kannapolis redneck piece of shit. You think I didn't already search that? I mean seriously. There is no such thing as "supply demand", unless you are talking about elasticity of supply, to various components, price, future expectations, even government regulations. I mean I seriously doubt you have ever even had a course in Economics. Dumpshit, I went to Economic summer camp when I was in High School. Pretty cool two weeks, visiting various businesses, speaking with business owners and CEO's. I won the Economics award in my both my senior and junior year. But hell, that was just the beginning.

I graduated with a degree in Economics. Honestly, not worth that much. But mine was more Econometrics than Economics. Kind of a merging of Economics and Statistics. So as an MBA student, which is actually worth something, I was the TA for Andrew Benavie, the head of the OMB in the Reagan administration. I mean that shit ain't cheap, got to earn some money somewhere.

So, besides grading papers, teaching breakout sessions, and holding class when Benavie was in DC, well I was tasked with "running the numbers". And the Reagan tax cuts, they didn't add up. I mean Benavie, and Reagan, were utilizing the Wharton School of Business Macoeconomic model. You know, that is where Trump attended.

Every Thursday the entire Economics department got together at a bar called "He's not Here", pretty comical when you think about it. And there Benavie and I would argue. I told him the Reagan tax cuts wouldn't work. It was one key number in the model that they were grossly underestimating. The MPS, the marginal propensity to save. I argued that the real number was much higher, and I had the data to back it up. But it really goes back to old school Keynesian economics, it is called the Paradox of Thrift.

To make a long story short, I was right. Reagan backtracked and instigated the greatest tax increase in history, at the time, within a couple of years. And Benavie, he left the intellectual community and played the Cello for the New York Philharmonic. Of course, he was fired as OMB director.

And me, well I run a financial consulting business, pretty niche, but that is by design. And currently it is a side business, because there is something I enjoy more. But I have tens of millions of dollars under management and it is pretty easy to calculate my market losses, zero. Not a single one of my clients has lost two cents since I started managing their account, and that spans more than twenty years. It is why my business is on auto-pilot, referral only, and usually the children of current clients. You hire me, you might not make a fortune, but you will lose nothing. Show me another financial consultant that can make that claim,
And yet you spend time here? LOL
 
Wow, you really are nothing more than a Kannapolis redneck piece of shit. You think I didn't already search that? I mean seriously. There is no such thing as "supply demand", unless you are talking about elasticity of supply, to various components, price, future expectations, even government regulations. I mean I seriously doubt you have ever even had a course in Economics. Dumpshit, I went to Economic summer camp when I was in High School. Pretty cool two weeks, visiting various businesses, speaking with business owners and CEO's. I won the Economics award in my both my senior and junior year. But hell, that was just the beginning.

I graduated with a degree in Economics. Honestly, not worth that much. But mine was more Econometrics than Economics. Kind of a merging of Economics and Statistics. So as an MBA student, which is actually worth something, I was the TA for Andrew Benavie, the head of the OMB in the Reagan administration. I mean that shit ain't cheap, got to earn some money somewhere.

So, besides grading papers, teaching breakout sessions, and holding class when Benavie was in DC, well I was tasked with "running the numbers". And the Reagan tax cuts, they didn't add up. I mean Benavie, and Reagan, were utilizing the Wharton School of Business Macoeconomic model. You know, that is where Trump attended.

Every Thursday the entire Economics department got together at a bar called "He's not Here", pretty comical when you think about it. And there Benavie and I would argue. I told him the Reagan tax cuts wouldn't work. It was one key number in the model that they were grossly underestimating. The MPS, the marginal propensity to save. I argued that the real number was much higher, and I had the data to back it up. But it really goes back to old school Keynesian economics, it is called the Paradox of Thrift.

To make a long story short, I was right. Reagan backtracked and instigated the greatest tax increase in history, at the time, within a couple of years. And Benavie, he left the intellectual community and played the Cello for the New York Philharmonic. Of course, he was fired as OMB director.

And me, well I run a financial consulting business, pretty niche, but that is by design. And currently it is a side business, because there is something I enjoy more. But I have tens of millions of dollars under management and it is pretty easy to calculate my market losses, zero. Not a single one of my clients has lost two cents since I started managing their account, and that spans more than twenty years. It is why my business is on auto-pilot, referral only, and usually the children of current clients. You hire me, you might not make a fortune, but you will lose nothing. Show me another financial consultant that can make that claim,
You're retarded
 

Forum List

Back
Top