Comments on: FuelWatch = $7.50 per working family a year

By: Possum Comitatus

Possum Comitatus — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Richard - the percentage figure is the difference between the Perth price and the 3 state average as a %

It looks even worse if you compare just the 8 years before fuel watch and the 8 years after. The average price difference per litre between 1992-2000 was just 1.0 cent.

To do this properly you’d have to build a proper econometric model, control for competition effects that have come from WA’s increased population, oil price, transport costs etc etc, a whole raft of things - but the basic point here is that the sums are so small as to be meaningless.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I’m glad I subscribe to Crikey when I get article’s like this - brilliant stuff!

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

What’s wrong with this political picture at the moment? Rudd govt keep their election promises in their first budget with quite a serious argument being put they should break those promises for fear inflation. This would be political suicide. So now the first budget showing integrity to democratic platform has cramped their style on flexibility in petrol pricing issues. What would you prefer? Electoral honesty with the platform or pleaser who can’t say no destroying all confidence in government fiscal discipline? Better to burn off some polling fluff may be the best course?

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If we see this kind of ranting about reducing petrol prices, what’s going to happen when the government does the opposite, and adds a new petrol tax, lets give it a random name, say, like ‘carbon tax’

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hilarious stuff. Our family happily traded our single V6 family vehicle for two small cars about 18 months ago, and we now spend less on petrol than we did when we had the big Commodore despite doing a lot more kilometres collectively. This sometimes means taking both cars if we’ve got the whole family going somewhere (which is pretty rare with 3 teenagers and one slightly younger, as they often do their own thing rather than come on family trips). But if I mention this anecdote to one of my fellow outer-suburbanites when they whinge about petrol costs, they are mortified at any suggestion they should not drive a V6 or V8 car. It seems many families would rather be unable to pay their food bills than trade in their big Aussie car for something sensible.

By: BobC

BobC — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I would like to see some real numbers wieghted by quantity sold over time nad look at the real value of any price modulation process.
I have seen flooor prices on wool and gold and they worked for the biggest of corporations. Not sure I could model their effect against a working famiily though.
Have a good day and hope your not low on diesle as apparently it is short supply (184.9 cpl in ACT)

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hang on just a moment! The above calculation assumes a 0.11% reduction in price due to FuelWatch, but the WA price difference went FROM +2.45% to -0.11%, or a reduction - relative to the three state comparison - of 2.56%. At $1.60/L that amounts to 4.1 c/L difference, or $2.87 per 70 L tank - say $150 per year in the above example if one uses the FULL effect of FuelWatch. Or am I missing something?

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Another question for Possum, seeing as how s/he’s taking matters from the floor. Given that many Australians purchase the bulk of their petrol (particularly for personal use rather than business use) on Tuesdays and it looks like FuelWatch may end the weekly discounting cycle, do you regard it as possible that households who do this will in fact have to pay slightly more? Or is the Opposition barking up the wrong tree on that one?