Log in

View Full Version : The real price of gasoline: $1400 per gallon



Comrade-Z
18th October 2007, 19:20
http://valuesystem.livejournal.com/9846.html


Real Gas Price -- $1,400.00 per gallon, or two weeks hard labor
The price of gasoline, or rather, the value of gasoline is much higher than most people can image. Over the years, people have become accustomed to paying $1, $2, $3 or perhaps $4 per gallon. In reality, the value gasoline is three orders of magnitude higher, somewhere north of $1,400.00 per gallon.

How did I arrive at such a figure?

The value of gasoline is in the amount of energy that can be released by burning it. Depending on the time of year, a gallon of regular gasoline contains between 112,500 and 114,500 BTU's of energy. Let's pick a number in the middle, 113,500 BTU's per gallon of gas.

How much energy is that? Well, let's convert to something a bit more familiar, the chemical energy that keeps us alive, the Calories in our food.

To convert BTU's into Calories, the multiple is 0.251996. So 113,500 BTU's of energy is the same as 28,600 Calories.

If an average person eats and burns 2,000 Calories per day, then a gallon of gasoline has about 14 days worth of energy, or 28,000 Calories. (Of course, we can't eat gasoline, but you'll see the connection in a minute.)

Image time before civilization. Our human ancestors had to work all day long just to find enough food, water, shelter, and warmth to stay alive. Like most other animals, this was a constant, everyday task. As human populations grew, everyone had to work at these tasks all the time, to simply stay alive.

Now image someone would pay you to live like this. How much is your labor worth? Let's pay you the minimum wage, about $7 per hour. Our ancestors probably were at it from 12 to 16 hours per day. Let's go with 14 hours per day. So, to do the same thing, you could be paid about 14 x $7 = $98 per day, or about $100.

After paying you $100 for 14 days straight, you would have consumed and burned about 28,000 Calories. That's the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline.

In other words, the energy in one gallon of gasoline is the same amount as our ancestors consumed as they struggled for two weeks, struggling to survive.

Image what a gallon of gas does for us. By burning one gallon of gas in our car, we can move the vehicle between 15 and 50 miles... in less than an hour. How long would it take us to push, pulley, and lever a car that far by hand?

The two week estimate may be close.

If there was a job doing this for a living, pushing cars various places by hand, how much would you need to be paid? More than $7 per hour? How much higher than $1,400.00 is two weeks hard labor worth to you? How much is a gallon of gas worth... that will get the same job done... but in less than an hour?

In this world where the price of getting gas to the pump is heavily subsidized by our government, and the cost to "produce it" is only as much is the amount of minimal energy needed to get the gasoline out of the earth, separated from the rest of the oil, and to the pump... it is easy to forget that gasoline is incredibly valuable, much more so than most people realize.

A single gallon of gasoline is worth at least $1,400.00. Think about that the next time you see that $3 or $4 price at the pump.

-----------------------------------

Hmmmm...if two weeks of hard labor and a gallon of gas have the same utility (they do the same things, so they have equivalent usefulness to a potential buyer), then they should be roughly equal in price. But instead two weeks of hard labor is 500 TIMES more expensive than a gallon of gasoline currently. This would seem to be circumstantial evidence in favor of the labor theory of value ---- how our economic system values things actually depends on how much labor-time was expended in its production ---- and it takes a lot more labor to keep a human being alive for 2 weeks than to pump some oil out of the ground. It is worth noting that oil and labor approximate rather well the free-market assumptions of neoclassical economics: both are in competition with each other, neither is affected very much by price fixing, and buyers and sellers don't have any huge information asymmetries on these items. And yet the neoclassical predictions fall flat on their face in this example....

LuĂ­s Henrique
18th October 2007, 20:03
No. The article doesn't equate the utility of oil and labour - it equates the energy consumed by labour, and the energy produced by oil... which is clearly a miscomprehension of everything.

Diamonds do not generate energy, yet they have a price, and a value.

Machines aren't worth the energy they consume.

And bourgeois "economics" doesn't make the same mistakes as the author of the article.

Luís Henrique

ComradeRed
19th October 2007, 07:40
Uh this is patently absurd. This guy has absolutely no grasp of the labor theory of value whatsoever.



The value of gasoline is in the amount of energy that can be released by burning it.

No, the value of gasoline is determined by the value of the means of production to extract it and the labor needed to do it, added to the value of the means to refine oil into gasoline, the value of the energy to run these means of production, and the labor to manage it.

Thank goodness this philistine completely missed the mark <_<

Comrade-Z
19th October 2007, 19:10
Whoops, I guess I was wrong. Interesting article, though. It&#39;s a pity that I still don&#39;t understand the labor theory of value--in particular, how to verify that it is correct.

piet11111
19th October 2007, 19:33
Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 19, 2007 06:10 pm
Whoops, I guess I was wrong. Interesting article, though. It&#39;s a pity that I still don&#39;t understand the labor theory of value--in particular, how to verify that it is correct.
i havent read das kapital yet but the way i understand it value comes from the amount of work that is required to produce a product.

if diamonds where as easy to get as sand on a beach then they would not cost anything.
but because they require so much work to mine they are one of the most expensive products to get.

wood is relatively cheap but because someone spends so much time using wood to produce a table, that table becomes more valuable then the wood that was used to make that table.

the value of the product is more then the value of its component parts because of the labour that went into it.

LuĂ­s Henrique
19th October 2007, 22:31
Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 19, 2007 06:10 pm
Whoops, I guess I was wrong. Interesting article, though. It&#39;s a pity that I still don&#39;t understand the labor theory of value--in particular, how to verify that it is correct.
Suppose the house you live in is worth &#036; 100,000.00.

Suppose your tennis shoes are worth &#036; 100.00.

What is this misterious something that makes your shoes comparable to your house?

What do your tennis have in common with your house?

Only one thing: both are the product of labour. And if your house was the product of thirty men working during 150 hours each, while your tennis are the product of three men working during one hour and a half each - then it would be logic that your house is worth 1,000 pairs of tennis...

Luís Henrique

LuĂ­s Henrique
19th October 2007, 22:32
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:40 am
Uh this is patently absurd. This guy has absolutely no grasp of the labor theory of value whatsoever.
Nor of neoclassic utility theory of value, as a matter of fact.

Luís Henrique

Comrade-Z
25th October 2007, 06:14
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 19, 2007 09:31 pm--> (Luís Henrique &#064; October 19, 2007 09:31 pm)
Comrade&#045;[email protected] 19, 2007 06:10 pm
Whoops, I guess I was wrong. Interesting article, though. It&#39;s a pity that I still don&#39;t understand the labor theory of value--in particular, how to verify that it is correct.
Suppose the house you live in is worth &#036; 100,000.00.

Suppose your tennis shoes are worth &#036; 100.00.

What is this misterious something that makes your shoes comparable to your house?

What do your tennis have in common with your house?

Only one thing: both are the product of labour. And if your house was the product of thirty men working during 150 hours each, while your tennis are the product of three men working during one hour and a half each - then it would be logic that your house is worth 1,000 pairs of tennis...

Luís Henrique [/b]
I have no problem with seeing how the labor theory of value is plausible. That&#39;s what your example demonstrates. But how do I PROVE that it works to people who are convinced by neoclassical theory. How do I PROVE (both empirically and in general terms) that neoclassical theories about the marginal utility (judged by whom? The buyer, the seller, both?) creating value are incorrect, and that the LTV is correct?

Also, I&#39;m curious, how is one supposed to use neoclassical theory to predict the proportions of exchange of two commodities? What information does one need? Let&#39;s say I have 4 t-shirts and someone else has 10 gallons of apple juice. According to neoclassical theory, in what proportions will we exchange these items? What else would we ostensibly need to know to determine that?

ComradeRed
26th October 2007, 04:43
Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 24, 2007 09:14 pm
How do I PROVE (both empirically and in general terms) that neoclassical theories about the marginal utility (judged by whom? The buyer, the seller, both?) creating value are incorrect, and that the LTV is correct?
Beats me, Neoclassical economists don&#39;t really care about logic...just preserving their paradigm.


Also, I&#39;m curious, how is one supposed to use neoclassical theory to predict the proportions of exchange of two commodities? What information does one need? Let&#39;s say I have 4 t-shirts and someone else has 10 gallons of apple juice. According to neoclassical theory, in what proportions will we exchange these items? What else would we ostensibly need to know to determine that? The seller sets the price when the marginal cost is equal to the marginal revenue; marginal cost is "the cost to produce the next unit" of whatever good is being sold, and marginal revenue is the additional revenue gained by producing that next unit of whatever good it is.

MC = MR determines price basically.

Neoclassical theory cannot answer your question, because the value of each item according to the buyer is "subjective".

Microeconomics is what you should be looking at; it is Neoclassical economics&#39; field that studies their theory of value.