Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on April 22, 2006, 09:14:59 PM
-
Seems there's a precedent for the president to cap gas prices... and limit big oil's profits.
"In 1941, President Roosevelt created the Office of Price Administration (OPA). Congress gave credence to this new governmental agency by passing the Emergency Price Control Act in 1942. The director of the OPA was given the authority to determine the price of a product that he determined to be “generally fair and equitable.” He also had the authority to sue corporations and retailers for damages if they violated the price limits. During the last year of World War II over 71,000 retailers were forced to pay $5.1 million for violating price limits.
Recent polls have shown that rising gasoline prices are one of the most pressing issues that the public wants President Bush to address. Similarly, in 1941 and 1942 polls showed that the public wanted the government to limit corporate profits and the prices of many commodities. Consequently, the OPA simply froze most prices in March 1942. When corporations and retailers attempted to skirt the OPA, President Roosevelt issued an executive order in October 1942 creating an Economic Stabilization Director for the nation.
The director was given the authority to set national prices for most items. And President Roosevelt made him responsible for preventing increases that were unnecessary and unfair. The executive order mandated that the Economic Stabilization Director’s office “…in fixing, reducing, or increasing prices, shall determine price ceilings in such a manner that profits are prevented which in his judgment are unreasonable or exorbitant.”
Today, oil companies would almost certainly complain that these governmental limitations on profits and prices violate their rights. Businessmen made the same objections in World War II. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. In the case of Yakus v. United States, the Court found in 1944 that the price limits were constitutional. The court ruled, “There is no principle of law or provision of the Constitution which precludes Congress from making criminal the violation of an administration regulation.”
When the war ended, the OPA and the Economic Stabilization Director were abolished. Not surprisingly, corporate profits soared. In the year following the end of World War II, consumer prices rose 67.4%. Clearly, one of the significant economic achievements by the Roosevelt administration in World War II was holding down prices, mainly by governmental controls."
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/gerard04182006/
Question is... will he do it?
-
Hang, ya know this thread's gonna get 'jacked, right?
As for me, no, he doesn't have the cajones to do it.
And not just for us "joe public" types either but for the people that have to drive or operate an internal combustion engined-machine for a living, i.e. big rigs, farmers, etc...
-
Nixon tried accross the board price controls. didn't work.
-
FDR also rationed gas in WW2
price controls, gas rationing, you would think we were at war.
-
I think this falls under that idiotic Bush doctrine - We are at war so I need to do whatever it takes.... but you folks keep on acting like we're not.
-
Let the prices go up, then demand for alternative fuel sources will be higher than it is now. Alternative energy sources have made leaps and bounds the last ten years. Let the demand rise for alternative energy so entrepreneurs will work even harder to supply that demand. Let capitalism take it's course.
People complain about socialism, then complain that they are being gouged at the pump or at an event ticket office. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. As long as people are buying the big SUV and filling it, the price won't go down.
-
Ya can't mess with supply and demand. When Ford and then Carter were president, gas was relatively cheap....and quite unavailable. If ya make it unprofitable to SELL gas, they won't SELL any. Only when Carter released price controls and let it float on the market did gas become available.
What I don't understand is that Liberals WANT us to use less gas... best way to accomplish that is high prices-- that has been their logic with cigarettes
-
If Bush followed FDR's policies to the letter, he'd be called "Hitler" by the left. :lol
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think this falls under that idiotic Bush doctrine - We are at war so I need to do whatever it takes.... but you folks keep on acting like we're not.
We are at war MT. And yes, whatever it takes to win.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
We are at war MT. And yes, whatever it takes to win.
As long as we do not lose ourselves in the process, I would have to agree.
-
Loose ourselves??? What the hell does that mean?
:D
Les
-
Hoping Bush will do something about the oil price gouging seems sort of like hoping the wolves will stop eating the hens. Remember what the guy used to do for a living. That's probably half the reason the oil companies are so emboldened these days--they know it's one of their own in the oval office.
Tragically, I still think he's better than Kerry would have been (not much though). ~300 million people in this country, and the Democrats had to nominate one of perhaps ten of them who was actually worse than GWB. Hopefully they'll be less retarded next time around. At this rate, we'd be better off with one of the "crash test dummies" as POTUS.
J_A_B
-
the US has been a gas pig for 40 years. Guess what, other countries are expanding economically and are needing that gas that we consume for pleasure. So the gas companies are going to jack us up to ween us off our pleasure gas.
Im expecting gas to stabilize at around 3.75-4.00 regular unleaded for the rest of this decade. Unless there is a global war.
-
Not but one thing wrong with that. When gas/fuel prices rise, every consumer item price rises also.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Not but one thing wrong with that. When gas/fuel prices rise, every consumer item price rises also.
So...if we boycot big oil....we boycot Wal*mart??
HELL YEAH I'M IN!!!!
:aok
-
Must haaaave Waaaaaaaaa lllllll yyyyyyyyyy Wooooorrrrrrrllllllllllllllld dddddddd!
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Seems there's a precedent for the president to cap gas prices... and limit big oil's profits.
What, and interfere with the natural processes of c-c-capitalism? :lol
And yes folks, here it is - another gas price whine thread originating in - yes, you guessed it - the good ole USA! What would Bill Gates say? Probably "Where do YOU want to go today, in your societally correct vehicle?"
:rofl
Sixpence gets it perfectly - Let the prices go up, then demand for alternative fuel sources will be higher than it is now. Alternative energy sources have made leaps and bounds the last ten years. Let the demand rise for alternative energy so entrepreneurs will work even harder to supply that demand. Let capitalism take it's course.
People complain about socialism, then complain that they are being gouged at the pump or at an event ticket office. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. As long as people are buying the big SUV and filling it, the price won't go down."
Spot on, sir. I hope Lazs reads that second para.
Yeager too - the US has been a gas pig for 40 years. Guess what, other countries are expanding economically and are needing that gas that we consume for pleasure. So the gas companies are going to jack us up to ween us off our pleasure gas.
Quite correct Are you the same person as Yeager2?
Gentlemen, oil has had its day. Deal with it.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
If Bush followed FDR's policies to the letter, he'd be called "Hitler" by the left. :lol
imagine what would happen if he placed all arabs in concentration camps.
-
If prices are capped in America at less than the international market price, where will America get enough oil from?
Current imports are over 13 million barrels a day. If you cap prices so that the American consumer is paying about $60 a barrel, and actual world prices are $75 a barrel, then someone has to pay the difference. The foreigners won't sell you their oil for $60 a barrel when they can get $75 elsewhere.
That leaves the oil companies. Subsidising oil imports at $15 a barrel will cost over $70 billion a year. Think they'll do that? Think they'll continue to import oil for you when they are losing money on it, and bankrupt themselves in the process?
The effect of price controls would be oil shortages, because the US would no longer be able to import oil. That would drive the international price down, of course, because it would mean a huge cut in demand. But it would also mean Americans being able to buy about half as much gasoline as they can now.
-
Yup I agree with six here. The higher the prices get the more demand there is for alternative fuels and public transit. Previously alternative fuels be it bio-diesel or E85 Wasn't at all profitable because oil was so much cheaper.
Now I remember reading in a previous thread that there isn't enough space in the world to grow enough corn to make a dent in our oil dependence.....is this correct? Even so, I know and have seen first hand where we dump barges full of corn into rivers and the oceans just because there's nothing else to do with it. At least the initial research is a start.
I do not think gas caps are a good Idea. All that would do is decrease supplys of gasoline.
-
I have no problem with gas prices rising. I think that it is the only way that we will make progress.
If you voted democrat then you voted to not explore and develop oil sources in Alaska. If you voted for democrats you voted to not develop coal or to drill offshore.
Prices will stabalize because less easily recovered oil will become economicaly viable. Alternative fuels and power sources will drop the demand.
I am not for price fixing except in the case of a monopoly and... I am not for monopolies. I am not for government programs of any kind.
lazs
-
hmmm....
How many quarters in a row have the oil companies posted record profits?
And my concern isn't about "pleasure gas". I drive for a living.
-
There are many reasons why a barrel of oil is high, from stock speculation to saber rattling in the ME, to Venezua threat to seasonal spring refinery shut down for maintenance to lack of ENOUGH refineries, to increase in demand from China (and the U.S.). But you know, the unintelligent americans whom are living in one of the best economies we've known in history, will somehow blame Bush for high oil prices because of his past business dealings in oil before he was president.
-
The number of people here who know nothing of basic economics is staggering.
I am not for price fixing except in the case of a monopoly and... I am not for monopolies.
Even monopolies are subject the laws of economics. They CAN NOT charge whatever they want without consequence to their own profits.
-
Yes, but Laser - we were talking the language of Lazsmatics™ and Lazsonomics™, in which anything is possible if the result is cheap gas!
:aok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The number of people here who know nothing of basic economics is staggering.
Even monopolies are subject the laws of economics. They CAN NOT charge whatever they want without consequence to their own profits.
Yea, it really is pretty amazing how little people know about economics.
The premises of microeconomics are ludicrous to begin with, but some parts of it make a certain amount of sense.
You ever hear of a little thing called elasticity of demand, professor? Gasoline is one of those goods that would have a low elasticity. So basically (and I'm keeping it simple for everyone else, not for you, Doc), the price of gas could go up to $15 a gallon and people would still buy it. Why? Because they have to.
-
Being completely indifferent to political sides when faced with an issue that affects my wallet and stomach makes it easy to choose a solution without angst over 'which party will suffer'.
Here's how I see it...
1. We're in competition with a world market for oil.. yet we have undeveloped oil sources that can be tapped, more than enough to supply north american (and only north american) demands right here. We can't 'go get it' because the 'greenies' got exploration banned. The bans must be lifted. There's enough American crude for the American, Canadian and Mexican market if we go get it and outlaw exporting North American crude or North American refined product.
2. Refining capacity is down. While we can still refine enough for domestic needs.. a fair portion of the oil we refine is exported. Stop refined oil exports. Not a drop of US refined oil should be exported till we are NOT dependant on OPEC oil. Next, start a development program for new refineries and methods.. BUILD again.
3. Short Term.. Toss in the towel on the middle east's oil. If we have to 'go abroad' to secure oil, lets make it Canada and Mexico. Both countries are linked to us economicaly and physically. Who in America, Mexico or Canada would give a rats bellybutton about OPEC 'demands' when they cannot 'turn off our tap'?
4. Alternative Energy... sure. Time to stop dragging feet. More efficient use of fuels.. we can build a better SUV and truck engines. We're not incompetent or helpless.. time to do some 'american ingenuity' stuff again.
As I see it, without a wall of text; our gas prices were lower than most other places in the world because we were the worlds largest crude oil customer and refined products exporter. Now we've got another oil hungry oil consuming economy competeing for the refined product and the crude... China. We need to change how we do business with regards to crude and refined products... and we need to STOP doing business with the OPEC theives... Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
Lastly.. the oil companies themselves. Time to whack 'em with an export tax. If oil products leave this country they do so with a huge tarrif attached. High enough that they will make more money putting the product in front of american consumers than they would if it goes to china.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
4. Alternative Energy... sure. Time to stop dragging feet. More efficient use of fuels.. we can build a better SUV and truck engines. We're not incompetent or helpless.. time to do some 'american ingenuity' stuff again.
Now with oil being consistantly above $60/bbl, probably now over $70, the Alberta Oil sands, (something like 2 Saudi Arabias) Western US oil shale, (something like 4 Saudi Arabias) Coal F-T conversion to oil (US has several Saudi Arabias in that resource too), all become profitable.
A few years to ramp up production and the energy market could stabilize.
-
I'd be for that... but it seems like an awfully socialist plan.
I'd expect most red blooded americans to be in this thread with pitchforks and torches.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Now with oil being consistantly above $60/bbl, probably now over $70, the Alberta Oil sands, (something like 2 Saudi Arabias) Western US oil shale, (something like 4 Saudi Arabias) Coal F-T conversion to oil (US has several Saudi Arabias in that resource too), all become profitable.
A few years to ramp up production and the energy market could stabilize.
^^^
Finally.. it's becoming 'economicialy viable' to stop the utter insanity of paying our adversaries for the pleasure of raping us.
-
Hang... the oil companies aren't "American" in the sense that you or I are.
They exist to make money. If an oil CEO could buy oil from Satan at $5 a barrel, and the only cost would be that their mother burnt in hell for eternity, they'd be all over that deal like stink on ****.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
If an oil CEO could buy oil from Satan at $5 a barrel, and the only cost would be that their mother burnt in hell for eternity
If the only cost was that their mother burnt in hell for eternity, it wouldn't cost $5/bbl
And you lecture us on economics and "elasticity of demand".
-
The cost to you sure wouldn't be.
-
no urchin and beet... gas would not go up to $15 a gallon and have the same demand.... beet is very much in favor of reducing demand by price but...
He wants to do it artificaly.... by taxation or fee.... I say let it go based on cost and what the market will bear.. I have not heard of this "elasticity' but think I understand the concept.... It would apply to say food or water..
For fuel... the worst thing to do is artifically raise the price by say taxation.
I say that as fuel price goes up.... things will even out.... new sources will be found and some will use less (less demand)...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Urchin
the price of gas could go up to $15 a gallon and people would still buy it. Why? Because they have to.
True, but they would not buy as much. Demand for 12mpg SUVs would totally evaporate. Indeed, during the Katrina aftermath, Storch found his Ford Excursion discounted by $15000 and the dealer had about 60 of them unsold on his lot. What you'd see is what we have here in Europe. People would buy cars which were tailored to their needs rather than to their bragging rights. You would not have people buying house sized trucks and bragging about how much gas they consumed, which is what I've seen in the truck thread. In some European countries such as Italy and Austria, 60% of passenger cars are diesel powered and would get about 50 miles per gallon, some much more than that.
HangTime! Not a drop of US refined oil should be exported till we are NOT dependant on OPEC oil.
I agree with you that America needs to wean itself off OPEC oil. However, driving 12mpg "societally correct" vehicles is not the way to do it. Short Term.. Toss in the towel on the middle east's oil. If we have to 'go abroad' to secure oil, lets make it Canada and Mexico.
I don't think Canada and Mexico combined could even come close to producing enough oil to meet American demand, which is currently 20 million barrels a day - about 25% of the world supply. Alternative Energy... sure. Time to stop dragging feet. More efficient use of fuels.. we can build a better SUV and truck engines. We're not incompetent or helpless.. time to do some 'american ingenuity' stuff again.
Yes, I agree! Alternative energy sources = good. And I do believe America does have the ability to make it happen, now that America is about to follow Britain's lead in getting involved with processing nuclear "waste". our gas prices were lower than most other places in the world because we were the worlds largest crude oil customer
Actually it's the other way round - you were the largest crude oil customer because your gas prices were lower than most other places in the world. Your whole economy has been based on cheap oil - for at least 40-50 years. You mention China - don't forget that many of the goods produced in China are destined for US markets. China is America's third biggest trading partner. Lastly.. the oil companies themselves. Time to whack 'em with an export tax. If oil products leave this country they do so with a huge tarrif attached. High enough that they will make more money putting the product in front of american consumers than they would if it goes to china.
LOL!!! HangTime is a socialist! New and heavy taxes!!! Hell has finally frozen over! Oh wait, on second thoughts we have to wait for Lazs to agree with this. That surely will signal the dawn of a new ice age in Hell!
:rofl
-
1. We're in competition with a world market for oil.. yet we have undeveloped oil sources that can be tapped, more than enough to supply north american (and only north american) demands right here. We can't 'go get it' because the 'greenies' got exploration banned. The bans must be lifted. There's enough American crude for the American, Canadian and Mexican market if we go get it and outlaw exporting North American crude or North American refined product.
Estimates for the amount of oil in reserves in America are far lower than that. If they were exploited, it could account for about 10% of US oil consumption. As more than 60% is currently imported, imports would still make up more than 50% of US consumption.
2. Refining capacity is down. While we can still refine enough for domestic needs.. a fair portion of the oil we refine is exported. Stop refined oil exports. Not a drop of US refined oil should be exported till we are NOT dependant on OPEC oil. Next, start a development program for new refineries and methods.. BUILD again.
The US imports a lot of refined products, and exports very little.
According to the BP annual survey of the world oil industry, as of 2004 the US imported 10,038,000 barrels of crude a day, and exported 38,000 barrels of crude a day. In terms of refined products, the US imported 2,860,000 barrels a day, and exported 953,000 barrels a day.
So refined exports are about a third of refined imports, and the US has net imports of over 1.9 million barrels of refined products a day.
3. Short Term.. Toss in the towel on the middle east's oil. If we have to 'go abroad' to secure oil, lets make it Canada and Mexico. Both countries are linked to us economicaly and physically. Who in America, Mexico or Canada would give a rats bellybutton about OPEC 'demands' when they cannot 'turn off our tap'?
The US, Canada and Mexico between them produced 14.15 million barrels a day in 2004. US consumption was over 20.5 million barrels a day, including Mexico and Canada consumption was over 24.6 million barrels a day. So North America needs imports of over 10.5 million barrels a day. To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia produces 10.5 million barrels a day.
Very little oil actually leaves North America to go elsewhere. Of Canada's 2.15 million barrels a day, 4,000 barrels go to S&C America, 15,000 barrels to Europe, 10,000 to Japan. Mexico and the US both export more, but it's still a tiny fraction of North American production. Out of total NA production of 14.15 million barrels a day, only 1.45 million barrels a day are exported, and over 10 million barrels imported.
As I see it, without a wall of text; our gas prices were lower than most other places in the world because we were the worlds largest crude oil customer and refined products exporter.
Prices to the US consumers were lower because most of the developed world taxes gasoline heavily. In terms of actual untaxed/subsidised price, the US was no better or worse than many countries.
We need to change how we do business with regards to crude and refined products... and we need to STOP doing business with the OPEC theives... Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.
If you stop doing business with Opec, North America has to find 10 million barrels a day of imports from somewhere. Saying you won't buy off the major suppliers is going to push your prices up, not down.
Lastly.. the oil companies themselves. Time to whack 'em with an export tax. If oil products leave this country they do so with a huge tarrif attached. High enough that they will make more money putting the product in front of american consumers than they would if it goes to china.
US exports are mostly of speciality products. Trying to restrict movements will increase refining costs, not decrease them. As it is, the US exports tiny amounts of oil to China (15,000 barrels a day in 2004, compared to Chinese exports of 20,000 barrels a day to the US)
Looking at the Bp chart showing world oil movements, there are only 2 places in the world the US exports more oil to than it recieves oil from, Australasia and Japan. The US exports 98,000 barrels a day to them, and imports 36,000 barrels a day from them.
Stopping exports isn't going to help when you are a huge net importer. In fact, if other countries retaliate with their own export taxes on oil going to the US, you will find yourselves paying a lot more for oil, not less.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
We are at war MT. And yes, whatever it takes to win.
Les
Not arguing that we are not. But Bush should either act like we are at war or he should act like we are at peace. He seems to want it both ways depending on the issue.
-
The weight of the world is more than acting. However, I was talking about our responsibilities, not President Bush's.
Les
-
Originally posted by beet1e
True, but they would not buy as much. Demand for 12mpg SUVs would totally evaporate.
Did you know that GM, Ford, and Chrysler make only one gasoline powered SUV that is EPA rated at 12 mpg or less? (Jeep Grand Cherokee w/ a 6.1 L/V8 )
They do have some E 85 vehicles, but at 85% ethanol, that is part of the technology.
Looks like the demand is non-existant now.
-
The price of oil/gas has nada to do with the war. Wy can't liberals grasp basic economic concepts, like supply vs demand:furious
-
The price of oil/gas has nada to do with the war.
It certainly has something to do with the war. The uncertainty over future supply is pushing the cost up. Oil production in Iraq is down by about 500,000 barrels a day from it's level in 2003, and down by about 2 million barrels a day on what it would have been given an Iraq not under sanctions.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
It certainly has something to do with the war. The uncertainty over future supply is pushing the cost up. Oil production in Iraq is down by about 500,000 barrels a day from it's level in 2003, and down by about 2 million barrels a day on what it would have been given an Iraq not under sanctions.
I don't doubt that, and the question marks about Iran have an even greater effect than that-- but the premise layed out earlier said that Bush ought freeze prices/grab control of the oil companies BECAUSE of the war--that is total loser idea
-
"But you know, the unintelligent americans whom are living in one of the best economies we've known in history, will somehow blame Bush for high oil prices because of his past business dealings in oil before he was president."
lol
make it stop...
make it stop!
My back hurts and the laughing is killing me.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Estimates for the amount of oil in reserves in America are far lower than that. If they were exploited, it could account for about 10% of US oil consumption. As more than 60% is currently imported, imports would still make up more than 50% of US consumption.
Nope.. don't like yer numbers. North American in-the-dirt resource statistics from my sources say 'in the billions of barrels'...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june05/anwr_3-23.html
The US imports a lot of refined products, and exports very little.
According to the BP annual survey of the world oil industry, as of 2004 the US imported 10,038,000 barrels of crude a day, and exported 38,000 barrels of crude a day. In terms of refined products, the US imported 2,860,000 barrels a day, and exported 953,000 barrels a day.
So refined exports are about a third of refined imports, and the US has net imports of over 1.9 million barrels of refined products a day.
Shortfalls? Sure. but not when we go after the oil that's already HERE.
The US, Canada and Mexico between them produced 14.15 million barrels a day in 2004. US consumption was over 20.5 million barrels a day, including Mexico and Canada consumption was over 24.6 million barrels a day. So North America needs imports of over 10.5 million barrels a day. To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia produces 10.5 million barrels a day.
I think yer numbers are off again. Lets try 2006.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3atab.html
While we have yet to really START pursuing new oil production here in the US, Saudi Arabia is pretty close to 'tapped'... they SAY they can produce more.. but haven't managed it yet. We KNOW we can produce more.. and we ain't started yet.
Very little oil actually leaves North America to go elsewhere. Of Canada's 2.15 million barrels a day, 4,000 barrels go to S&C America, 15,000 barrels to Europe, 10,000 to Japan. Mexico and the US both export more, but it's still a tiny fraction of North American production. Out of total NA production of 14.15 million barrels a day, only 1.45 million barrels a day are exported, and over 10 million barrels imported.
I could sure find a place for the exports... here. And, I'd not be a bit disturbed to have OPEC deal with the Chinese. They deserve each other. if we're gonna get 'energy independent', then some policys and trade deals are gonna get **** canned.
Prices to the US consumers were lower because most of the developed world taxes gasoline heavily. In terms of actual untaxed/subsidised price, the US was no better or worse than many countries.
Enh? If our pricing is based on supply side economics then we can't have it both ways, can we? What yer saying here is our government taxes our gas less.. so for 40 years our gas was cheaper. Unca sam just bumped his taxes 100% this week so our gas prices are now in line with the worlds?? Yer not making much sense here...
If you stop doing business with Opec, North America has to find 10 million barrels a day of imports from somewhere. Saying you won't buy off the major suppliers is going to push your prices up, not down.
10 million a day? Piece of cake. "Hello Canada! Hello Mexico! Guess What??!! You gotta new Oil partner.. from now on, all yer oil exports come here.. wuzzat? ..you already have a deal with China?? check yer radar lately? we just cancled yer china deals. We're buying what you send them.. same price. ..that is unless you wanna play 'conquistadores and indians' again.."
US exports are mostly of speciality products. Trying to restrict movements will increase refining costs, not decrease them. As it is, the US exports tiny amounts of oil to China (15,000 barrels a day in 2004, compared to Chinese exports of 20,000 barrels a day to the US)
Tarriffs. beat the hell outt 'em with tarrifs.. and they'll turn that export production back here.. or revamp production capacity given to the 'specialty goo' to what we need here.
Looking at the Bp chart showing world oil movements, there are only 2 places in the world the US exports more oil to than it recieves oil from, Australasia and Japan. The US exports 98,000 barrels a day to them, and imports 36,000 barrels a day from them.
Looks like Australia and Japan can get in line with china at the saudi terminals. I doubt they'll be paying any more.. just getting it from there insteada here.
Stopping exports isn't going to help when you are a huge net importer. In fact, if other countries retaliate with their own export taxes on oil going to the US, you will find yourselves paying a lot more for oil, not less.
Ahhh.. but therin lies loads (and barrells) of opportunity.. opporunities to exploit reserves here, make new trading alliances and get the hell off of opec's tit. Of course most folks that send their days telling us we 'can't' really mean 'we'll lose our fat assed profits!'.. too freakin bad. If we DON'T do anything, then nothing will change. Cutting OPEC out will certainly be painful.. and expensive. We may yet wind up at the same $ per gallon in the SUV tanks that the 'rest' of the world pays.. but guess what.. we won't be fattening any Arab's coffers, will we?
henh.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not arguing that we are not. But Bush should either act like we are at war or he should act like we are at peace. He seems to want it both ways depending on the issue.
And when he acts like we are at war you liberals start screaming about "living in fear" Alot of preparedness is born out of fear but of course we can't make people affraid for political reasons or god forbid national security reasons even if they are the right thing to do. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Bush%2C+fear
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
And when he acts like we are at war you liberals start screaming about "living in fear" Alot of preparedness is born out of fear but of course we can't make people affraid for political reasons or god forbid national security reasons even if they are the right thing to do. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Bush%2C+fear
Guns.. we're all grown up now. Boogie men with towels on their heads don't scare us any more. Scaring Soccer moms is kinda tacky, dontcha think?
I'm far more 'scared' of a governemnet that's happily trampling our rights in pursuit of boogie men... and a lame duck president that grows increasingly more stubborn on the subject.
-
Nope.. don't like yer numbers. North American in-the-dirt resource statistics from my sources say 'in the billions of barrels'
10 billion barrels of recoverable reserves, yes, but that doesn't mean yearly production of billions of barrels. In fact, that link says about 1 million barrels a day. The US currently has a shortfall of over 13 million barrels a day.
Even if you did extract a billion extra barrels a year from ANWR, and went through the reserves in ten years flat (probably impoosible, certainly not economic), that's less than 3 million barrels a day, the shortfall is over 13 million.
Shortfalls? Sure. but not when we go after the oil that's already HERE.
Not in conventional oil. Note what that link say, quoting pres Bush:
"Developing a small section of ANWR would not only create thousands of new jobs, but it would eventually reduce our dependence on foreign oil by up to a million barrels of oil a day,"
and:
"ANWR, with the potential for 1 million barrels of oil a day, will be the most significant onshore production capacity of any onshore area in the United States," said New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici."
Using coal - to - oil or oil sands, shales etc might be able to make up the shortfall, but if it was easy it would already be happening, and it will take many years to build that sort of capacity.
While we have yet to really START pursuing new oil production here in the US, Saudi Arabia is pretty close to 'tapped'... they SAY they can produce more.. but haven't managed it yet. We KNOW we can produce more.. and we ain't started yet.
Actually the US is pretty tapped out, because production started in the US so long ago. That's why US production has been declining for years. It peaked at over 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970, it's now down to barely over 5 million a day, and has fallen every single year since 1991. Proved reserves peaked at 39 billion barrels in 1971, they are now down to 21 billion.
I could sure find a place for the exports... here.
But if the US isn't exporting, then the countries that are buying oil off the US will just buy it off someone else, which means the US will be able to import less.
All that does is tinker with the market and prevent it working efficintly. It doesn't change demand, doesn't provide any more oil for the US, and doesn't change the fact the US has to import millions of barrels a day.
Enh? If our pricing is based on supply side economics then we can't have it both ways, can we? What yer saying here is our government taxes our gas less.. so for 40 years our gas was cheaper.
No, your gas was the same price as other people's, it just wasn't (and isn't) taxed as highly.
Unca sam just bumped his taxes 100% this week so our gas prices are now in line with the worlds?? Yer not making much sense here...
No, Uncle Sam didn't increase taxes, the price of oil just went up, for everybody.
Your gas is still the same cost as everyone else's, it still isn't taxed as highly, but it's more expensive than it was before.
Note the oil is more expensive, not the taxes. Europeans are still paying a lot more at the pump because they are paying higher taxes. The price they are paying to the oil companies is similar to the price you are.
10 million a day? Piece of cake. "Hello Canada! Hello Mexico! Guess What??!! You gotta new Oil partner.. from now on, all yer oil exports come here.. wuzzat? ..you already have a deal with China?? check yer radar lately? we just cancled yer china deals. We're buying what you send them.. same price. ..that is unless you wanna play 'conquistadores and indians' again.."
You don't seem to have read the figures.
The US consumes 20.5 million barrels a day. Canada and Mexico and the US consume 24.6 million barrels a day.
Canada, the US and Mexico produce 14.15 million barrels a day. Take all the oil they produce (and North America does take 90% of it now) and you still have to import more than 10 million barrels a day.
Looks like Australia and Japan can get in line with china at the saudi terminals. I doubt they'll be paying any more.. just getting it from there insteada here.
Which means less for you to get from there.
Of course, Japan and Australia already do get most of their oil from elsewhere, the amounts they receive from the US are truely tiny.
Ahhh.. but therin lies loads (and barrells) of opportunity.. opporunities to exploit reserves here, make new trading alliances and get the hell off of opec's tit.
If you get off opec's tit, who's tt do you get on? You already suck Canada and Mexico dry, where do you think the extra 10 million barrels a day are going to come from? ANWR might make up 1 million, that's still 9 million a day missing (and by the time ANWR oil comes on stream, the already decling US oil production will have declined further, meaning you'll probably still need 10 million barrels a day)
Cutting OPEC out will certainly be painful.. and expensive. We may yet wind up at the same $ per gallon in the SUV tanks that the 'rest' of the world pays
You already are. A gallon of gasoline or a barrel of crude costs about the same in the US as in Europe.
No matter what the price goes up to, though, the Europeans will still have to pay more to fill their tanks because of taxes.
but guess what.. we won't be fattening any Arab's coffers, will we?
Arabs have got lots of oil. Whilst deman is high, they will be able to sell lot's of it.
Suppose the US bought al Britain's and Norway's oil output, and all Nigeria's, and a few other countries. The US wouldn't need any Arab oil.
But Europe, which used to take Britain's and Norway's oil, and much of Nigeria's, will have to buy the same amount of oil from the Arabs instead.
The Arabs don't care, they sell their oil. The shipping companies benefit, because rather than oil being shipped to where it's cheapest (usually nearest), it's being shipped long distances. The consumers lose out, because they have to pay extra shipping costs.
The only way to make sure the Arabs don't get so much money is to reduce demand (meaning they sell less oil) or increase supply (meaning the Arabs sell less oil, and somebody else sells more). Merely changing who buys from who makes no real difference at all.
-
the sad thing to this whole thing is that when the dems promise cheaper gas if they are elected, too many american idiots will believe them ...
-
guy elected will then say "$1.50, pull my finger....PNWD!!!!!"
-
As a general question, what % of oil drilled and shipped from the Alaska fields actually makes it to the refineries on the west coast U.S. and not the far east? (i.e. Japan, etc)
Wolf
-
I can tell you precisely, Wolf. No oil is exported from Alaska by federal mandate. It was only exported for a short time, 1996-2000.
-
So 100% of what is drilled in alaska is for domestic U.S. use?
-
Yes. By law, it can only be used for domestic consumption. It ships to refineries in California and through the Panama Canal to Gulf Coast refineries.
-
Yes, by all means, let's have price controls on gasoline. That way we can all enjoy cheap gasoline. While we sit in lines 3 miles long to get less gas than we burned sitting in line wasting precious hours of our lives. It worked so damned good under Carter I cannot freaking wait to do it again. I WANT to leave for work at 3AM so I can sit in line to get gas. I'd LOVE for my dinner to be as cold as my beer when I get home after waiting 3 hours to get enough gas to get back to work in the morning. Can we start today? That way we can be like Hawaii, when they tried price controls on gasoline a few months ago. How did that work out? Not too good?
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-
NFW......
-
When it get's expensive enough we will find ways to go alternative and we will find or use reserves we have here.
nashwan talks about shortfalls that need not exist. We could develop all sorts of alternative power sources and cheap electricity... cheap electric cars could drop dependence by 10% easily with no inconvienence. Cheap electricity would decrease refining costs for difficult to refine fuel sources.
The best thing would be to limit the tax on fuel and let the actual cost of the product reflect what it was a barrel.
We are about to get into the dollar a gallon tax range here... we can just drop all that save a few cents a gallon going to an enterprise fund for road construction and repair.
interesting times.... we will get through it and as usual.... better than the socialists get through it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In some European countries such as Italy and Austria, 60% of passenger cars are diesel powered and would get about 50 miles per gallon, some much more than that.
Call it a reach, but I really doubt you'll see a market in the US for those sardine can sized cars or tricycle automobiles you see in those British sit-coms.
Americans in general are too vain/materialistic/insecure to put themselves in something that doesn't suggest that they're successful, sexy, rich, etc.
-
deleted
-
Lazs - those alternative energy sources you speak of are not simply going to appear as if by magic. They are going to cost money. Not only that, but the technlogy to harness any new alternative energy source is going to have to be developed. Cars running on a shovel load of oil shale are not going to appear out of thin air.
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Call it a reach, but I really doubt you'll see a market in the US for those sardine can sized cars or tricycle automobiles you see in those British sit-coms.
Let's see what happens when gas hits $10/gallon. I think that's exactly what you might see. Sardine can sized cars are exactly what I saw appearing on American roads when I was over there at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution. Besides, just because a car has a diesel engine does not make it a sardine can. And... as for whether the same cars would sell, we need only look to the sales figures of European imports to the US. I'll do it later.
-
Americans are fatter than ever, we can't FIT into those cars, let alone look sexy in them.
-
beet.... no matter what... we will be better off than you are because half the cost of our fuel won't be a socialism tax.
I am not worried about it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet.... no matter what... we will be better off than you are because half the cost of our fuel won't be a socialism tax.
No, but the other half might be! :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs - those alternative energy sources you speak of are not simply going to appear as if by magic. They are going to cost money. Not only that, but the technlogy to harness any new alternative energy source is going to have to be developed. Cars running on a shovel load of oil shale are not going to appear out of thin air. Let's see what happens when gas hits $10/gallon. I think that's exactly what you might see. Sardine can sized cars are exactly what I saw appearing on American roads when I was over there at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution. Besides, just because a car has a diesel engine does not make it a sardine can. And... as for whether the same cars would sell, we need only look to the sales figures of European imports to the US. I'll do it later.
Do you live in a closet??? Many alternative fuels ALREADY exist in this country and can be made available on a large scale in less than a year.
Already many folks are driving hybred cars here, yes still using fossil fuels but MUCH less of it. We even have some folks, in Colorado I think, running their cars on waste cooking fat.
Hydrogen fuel cells are already on the drawing boards and could be ramped up in a realative short period of time.
As for money it would take you must be joking, we could just cut out some of our "over seas" aid for a month or so and pay for it all
-
As for money it would take you must be joking, we could just cut out some of our "over seas" aid for a month or so and pay for it all
How much money do you think the US gives in overseas aid?
-
More than he has in his checking account.
-
yup.
-
"Let's see what happens when gas hits $10/gallon. I think that's exactly what you might see. Sardine can sized cars are exactly what I saw appearing on American roads when I was over there at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution."
That represents a decline in the standard of living. It's one of many. While our parents owned large plush Buicks and Oldsmobiles, now we're expected to make do with cramped little Hondas and Totoyas and our kids will be stuck in glorified go-karts.
This isn't "progress".
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
Do you live in a closet??? Many alternative fuels ALREADY exist in this country and can be made available on a large scale in less than a year.
No, I don't live in a closet - but I'm wondering if some people do. I have just come from a thread in which RedTop suggests that many people were caught with their pants down in the recent wave of gas price shocks, which would suggest that take up of vehicles powered by alternative fuels is somewhat limited. You are right though, and LNG (liquid natural gas) is sold alongside petrol and diesel at many filling stations around here. A lot of buses use it - you can smell the difference... But I think it's going to be a while before we see large scale deployment, especially while they're still selling Dodge Ram trucks that get 9mpg. Oh yes! I just checked on http://www.fueleconomy.gov - there's a version with an 8.3 litre, 10 cylinder engine. FFS! It gets a whopping 12mpg on the highway. It's a 2WD automatic, and its CO2 emissions are off the scale. And yet, in the "gas guzzler" attribute in the listing, it says NO! :lol
That represents a decline in the standard of living. It's one of many. While our parents owned large plush Buicks and Oldsmobiles, now we're expected to make do with cramped little Hondas and Totoyas and our kids will be stuck in glorified go-karts. This isn't "progress".
I know, J_A_B. But you have to accept that America has been a gas pig (as Yeager1 put it) for 40-50 years. Your whole economy has been based on cheap energy - cheap oil. Back in your parents' day, it was quite acceptable for cars to get single digit mpg figures, because when gas gost 10 cents a gallon, it simply "didn't matter". But - the rest of the world looked on in astonishment, that much I can tell you! My dad used to call those cars "hotels on wheels"!
But now things are changing, and America is going to have to catch up to the rest of the world and do what the rest of the world has always done and drive... "sensible" cars. This 9mpg nonsense (8.3L V10 Dodge Ram) simply cannot continue. Hey, I'm a big guy (6ft 1in and 100Kg.) and I don't feel cramped in my aluminium can, so I don't think there's any real hardship.
-
A better solution would be to identify and exploit a different energy source that has growth potential to maintain or improve the standard of living. I'm sure even you agree that a reduction of the rate at which we consume petroleum is at best a temporary solution, and as such not really a solution at all. Reducing consumption only takes the real problem and shifts the burden of finding a solution to the next generation to follow.
I don't believe the price per barrel is the sole reason for the pump-price increases we've seen. It's a contributor, sure, but it can't be the sole reason. If it was, the oil companies would simply be passing on the costs and wouldn't be enjoying their record profits. they wouldn't be closing down refineries in a period of rising demand. Where did regulation of this kind of corporate gluttony go? Oh yeah, Reagan killed it twenty years ago.
What has happened to the world? We're constantly being told "your standard of living is going downhill and you HAVE TO ACCEPT IT". That's utter rubbish. I'm watching as all the social advances made over the last century are gradually being whittled away. Wages aren't keeping pace with inflation, workweeks are gradually creeping upward, savings are near all-time lows, and affordable luxury household items are giving way to poorly-made "efficiency" junk. To heck with that. To heck with taking it.
I have two sets of silverware. One set is a few years old, and the "stainless steel" pieces are flimsy (for god's sake, the spoons bend when I scoop ice cream) and in some cases rusty. The other set was made in the 1920's, and the pieces don't bend and look brand new. Is this "progress"? The fan in my bedroom is from the 1950's and works great. The fans I can buy at Wal-Mart are lucky to last a year. Is that progress? In the course of a decade, my phone bill for the same basic service has more than tripled--is that progress? What has happened to our social structure? Families are giving way to latchkey lives. Heck, my own worthless parents (baby boomers, unsurprisingly) dumped me onto my grandparents to raise. Is that progress? For every step our society takes forward, these days we take two steps back.
I'll buy a horse-drawn buggy before buying one of those "smart" go-kart things pictured in that other thread. I might have little choice but to eventually bend to the times we live in, but I'll be damned if I willingly surrender to it.
J_A_B
-
J_A_B
I think one of the best reasons for cutting consumption right now is cost. We have two gas price threads going, and in both of them we can see quite a few people who are suffering some degree of financial hardship because of the rising prices. It may only be a temporary solution with regard to the world's oil resources becoming depleted, which they eventually will in ~30 years, but it would provide immediate financial relief to those feeling the pinch. I know it will be hard to swallow for some, if their neighbour has a brand new 9mpg (8.3L V10 version) Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck parked on his drive.
You mentioned silverware - I think the quality of furniture is another example. I bought some temporary bedside cabinets about a year ago. They looked OK (pine effect) but they were just chipboard with a pine veneer, and the back was just a piece of hardboard nailed on. They're going! I now have some solid pine unit that my uncle has given me because he no longer needs them. Much better quality, but much older of course.
As for cars, I think the cars we have now are far better than cars like my dad's P4 Rovers of the 1950s, which were quite up market in their day. Now we have much safer cars (crumple zones and all that) collapsible steering column, seat belts, and air bags. Power steering, servo assisted brakes and radial tyres are all pretty much standard these days, as are multi speed wipers with variable intermittent, electronic climate control with air conditioning and a multi speed fan, electric windows, heated rear window, central locking with doors that lock automatically as you pull away, a beefy electrical system with 120 amp alternator , adjustable seats, tinted windows - the list goes on and on. My 2005 car has all of these things. Dad's P4 Rovers had none of these things.
-
I don't believe the price per barrel is the sole reason for the pump-price increases we've seen. It's a contributor, sure, but it can't be the sole reason. If it was, the oil companies would simply be passing on the costs and wouldn't be enjoying their record profits.
It is down to the increase in crude oil prices.
The reason oil companies are making large profits is because they produce the crude. In many cases, they don't get the full price of the oil they pump, they have to pay taxes and royalties to landowners and governments, but they are still getting a lot more for the oil they pump than they used to.
-
"I know it will be hard to swallow for some, if their neighbour has a brand new 9mpg (8.3L V10 version) Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck parked on his drive. "
The tragic part of that is how some 5-axle trucks often make 7 MPG or more.
Nashwan--call me a commie, but I don't believe laissez-faire "what the market will bear" pricing is an ideal situation for vital commodities. If we had done things right back when we were developing the oilfields, the fuel companies would be nationalized and the global oil market wouldn't be an issue because Shell/Exxon/BP/etc wouldn't be permitted to sell to anyone except their own countries. Downside: Some of the newer developing countries like China would've been out of luck in that scenario. Other downside: The corporations wouldn't make as much profit. Boo hoo.
Obviously today is too late for that to happen. We let the corporations have free reign over a globalizing economy without securing our own production source, and now we're stuck with the consequences. We can either pay whatever they ask, or go without. In another couple decades, due to the loss of our manufacturing base, I can see this exact same issue happening with commodities such as steel and possibly textiles.
J_A_B
-
beet... you missed my point... let the oil prices go where they must.. I bet we can turn on a dime so far as distribution of other fuel sources tho.... no problem... my point is that if we are stuck in sardine cans because of high fuel prices then you will be in matchbox cars..
my point is that socialism and taxes that make your fuel twice as expensive as ours will allways mean that you will be twice as bad off.... if we decline in standard of living it means you end up in the slums.
lazs
-
and the global oil market wouldn't be an issue because Shell/Exxon/BP/etc wouldn't be permitted to sell to anyone except their own countries
If governments set the price of oil, what do you think you'd be paying? After all, it's the governments of Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc that you'd be paying it to. Think they'd charge you $60 a barrel?
Truth is, oil is a sellers market at the moment, and whilst the American government would be able to control the price for American oil, that makes up a lot less than half of what you use. The other countries you're buying from would want what they could get, and would be happy to sell to the Chinese or Europeans or Japanese rather than the US, if they offered more.
-
"After all, it's the governments of Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc that you'd be paying it to."
We should have replaced some of those weaker countries with puppet governments back in the days when we could get away with such things. In other words, we should have placed ourselves in a position to control the production. When we wanted to build a canal through central america and Colombia wouldn't cooperate, what did we do? We encouraged a little revolution and the foundation of a more US-friendly country.
However, that's nothing more than useless "would have, should have" discussion. Iraq presented a golden opportunity to do that sort of thing (and likely the last such opportunity we'll ever have), but of course our idiot government failed to capitalize on it. I agree that due to the past mistakes, for the time being we're stuck with the situation we have.
We should be investing in alternative energy sources (either additional sources of petroleum or different types of energy entirely), but the government seems disinterested and the oil companies are obviously in no hurry to do anything which might reduce their record profits.
J_A_B
-
Bush Orders Probe Into Gas Price Cheating
Affiliated Press Writer 32 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
President Bush, under pressure to do something about gasoline prices that are expected to stay high through the summer, has ordered an investigation into possible cheating in the markets.
During the last few days, Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Bush planned to announce the action Tuesday during a speech in Washington.
It's unclear what impact, if any, Bush's investigation would have on prices that are near $3 a gallon. Asked if Bush had any reason to suspect market manipulation, McClellan responded, "Well, gas prices are high right now, and that's why you want to make sure there's not."
Republicans who control Congress have become concerned that the high cost of filling up could become a problem for them in the November elections. Polls suggest that voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the issue, and Bush gets low marks for handling gasoline prices.
House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged Bush in a letter Monday to order a federal investigation into any gasoline price gouging or market speculation.
"There is no silver bullet," Frist said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," but "we need to make sure that any efforts at price-gouging be addressed and addressed aggressively." Meanwhile, Frist said, consumers should take steps to conserve gasoline — drive at slower speeds, tune up car engines for maximum efficiency and carpool.
McClellan said Bush had already ordered investigations into market pricing.
"We share a commitment with congressional leaders to make sure that we're acting to ensure that there is no price gouging," McClellan said.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada dispatched his own letter, calling for a multi-pronged approach to restrain gas prices. Among the steps were swift enactment of anti-price gouging legislation, an appeal to oil companies to refrain from further price increases, use of more alternative fuels and increased attention to existing fuel-saving laws and regulations.
Bush also planned to announce that his attorney general and Federal Trade Commission will send a letter to all 50 state attorneys general, who have primary authority over price gouging, to remind them to stay on top of the issue and offer federal help to do so. And he planned to call on energy companies to reinvest their profits into expanding refining capacity, developing new technologies and researching alternative energy sources, McClellan said.
"I think you'll hear the president say very clearly that he will not tolerate price gouging," McClellan said.
Bush has said consistently that gas prices are high because global demand is rising faster than global supply and that the problem cannot be solved overnight. McClellan said Bush planned to talk about how experts predict the price will increase this summer and how the switch to a summer fuel mix is contributing to the problem.
Bush's actions are part of a four-part plan to address gas prices in the short- and long-term, McClellan said. The steps are:
_Making sure consumers and taxpayers are treated fairly.
_Promoting greater fuel efficiency.
_Boosting gasoline supply at home.
_Aggressive long-term investment in alternative fuels.
:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet.... no matter what... we will be better off than you
But Lazs, aren't you forgetting something? I may indeed be paying $6 per gallon - twice as much as the owners of those 9mpg pickup trucks, but I'm getting ~4 times the mileage. And notice something else - I'm not the one who initiates these gas price whine threads. You don't see me wallowing in self-pity about the price of fuel. Until very recently, Britain was self sufficient in oil. America isn't, and never can be. And even if America sucked up the entire production of Canada and Mexico, they'd still be around 10 million bbl/day light. Reading through these threads, it's the people on the other side of the pond who seem to be suffering most with high gas prices which, as Nashwan has pointed out, are directly linked to the price of crude oil. And at 9mpg city, (11 hwy) is it any wonder? Truth is, oil is a sellers market at the moment, and whilst the American government would be able to control the price for American oil, that makes up a lot less than half of what you use. The other countries you're buying from would want what they could get, and would be happy to sell to the Chinese or Europeans or Japanese rather than the US, if they offered more.-Nashwan
Absolutely spot on - you beat me to it! Why would OPEC sell to America at $60/bbl when they can sell to China at $75/bbl? The other thing to note here is that many OPEC countries, particularly the ones in the Gulf (no, not the Gulf of Mexico :lol), are not terribly sympathetic to American interests. Indeed, the reverse is true in a number of cases.
-
my point is that socialism and taxes that make your fuel twice as expensive as ours will allways mean that you will be twice as bad off.
That's not really true. Most of the tax on petrol in Britain is a fixed price, called fuel duty. It doesn't rise with the cost of fuel.
For example, our petrol price has risen from 73p a litre in March 2002 to 96p a litre now. US prices have gone from 34c a litre in March 2002 to 77c a litre now.
Whilst your price has just about doubled over the period, ours has risen by just over 30%.
Because Americans use so much more fuel, there will come a point when Americans are actually spending more per capita on motor fuel than Britons are (if it hasn't come already)
-
beet and nashwan.... you are driving a car we don't want.... when we are forced to drive such cars (if we ever are) you will be forced to drive something even worse.... you will be driving a real toy that get's 80mpg... or.... some solution will be found..
nashwan is correct that "most" of the tax is fixed... fixed for today that is... and.... some is not. I will grant that as price goes up that there will probly be some adjustment..... our tax may even go down as is being suggested.
Thing is.... both of you need to ride in my Chevy powered Healey... you wouldn't care how much the gas cost.... I guarentee it. I have a car that gets 24 mpg... it sits most of the time.... I have a bike that gets allmost 60 so what? I drive the 12 mpg el camino because it is a blast to drive.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet and nashwan.... you are driving a car we don't want.... when we are forced to drive such cars (if we ever are) you will be forced to drive something even worse.... you will be driving a real toy that get's 80mpg... or.... some solution will be found..
Not sure what your point is here, Lazs. Who is "we"? Like I said in the other gas price whine thread, America's best selling passenger cars are the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and Honda Civic. Those cars are all available here, so it would seem that the gap between what Americans drive and what the rest of the world drives is closing.
-
Lotsa folks buy a car based on their commute. Hence, the blossoming '**** can car market'. Big whup.
What the English fail to grasp is a lot of us have more than one car in our households... and it ain't a commute ****box. We're a big assed country, with a lotta distance between here and there. Disposable income often went into 'going places'. They also fail to grasp that the 'middle class', long our biggest yet most 'quiet' group of citizens is becoming restive.. under pressure with rising medical costs, property taxes, outsourcing....
Now, a gas price rape in progress....
There will be a price for that come election day.
The 'going places' bit is being hit right now with the gas pricing. A boom economy and stock market for the rich ****s has turned into a burden on the average guy and his family. Everything is costing more.. wages are stagnant or going down. Guess what? A lotta 4x4's and RV's will get parked this summer. Tourism will drop. The lines will be shorter at the amusement parks.
Folks will stay home this summer, BBQ's will be all the rage. Sooner or later, alternative fuel sources will be found, gas prices will stabilize. The RV's and 4x4's will roll again.
And England will still have a Queen, and the english will still be driving nothing but the refined **** boxes developed by the american demand for a cheap commute car... I note the english, despite their insane taxes and exorbiant fuel costs have yet to come up with a better alternative than **** boxes of thier own after all these years... so much for the socialist development program.
God Save The Queen!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Lotsa folks buy a car based on their commute. Hence, the blossoming '**** can car market'. Big whup.
What the English fail to grasp is a lot of us have more than one car in our households... and it ain't a commute ****box. We're a big assed country, with a lotta distance between here and there. Disposable income often went into 'going places'. They also fail to grasp that the 'middle class', long our biggest yet most 'quiet' group of citizens is becoming restive.. under pressure with rising medical costs, property taxes, outsourcing....
Now, a gas price rape in progress....
There will be a price for that come election day.
The 'going places' bit is being hit right now with the gas pricing. A boom economy and stock market for the rich ****s has turned into a burden on the average guy and his family. Everything is costing more.. wages are stagnant or going down. Guess what? A lotta 4x4's and RV's will get parked this summer. Tourism will drop. The lines will be shorter at the amusement parks.
Folks will stay home this summer, BBQ's will be all the rage. Sooner or later, alternative fuel sources will be found, gas prices will stabilize. The RV's and 4x4's will roll again.
And England will still have a Queen, and the english will still be driving nothing but the refined **** boxes developed by the american demand for a cheap commute car... I note the english, despite their insane taxes and exorbiant fuel costs have yet to come up with a better alternative than **** boxes of thier own after all these years... so much for the socialist development program.
God Save The Queen!
Fortunately Hang, your vaunted middle class will be gone in the next 20 years. We'll be back to serfs & nobility, the way God intended.
-
Item: It's not 'my vaunted' middle class... I didn't invent it. It's America's middle class... and I'm an American and based on income; I'm in the middle class. 'Vaunted', as you use it Urchin sounds like a slam.. you a commie or something?
And, in 20 years I'll be dead.. and then I won't be in the middle class any more.
-
Who cares about motorgas.. there's plenty of potential alternative fuels and energy sources. Like it was already said, when enough people get behind it, it'll happen, it's just a matter of time.
The only thing I think most people will miss is, maybe, the noise and vibration of internal combustion like today's powerplants; but definitely any shortages of downstream stuff like lubricants, rubber, plastics, etc.
-
Oil Sands... Cost to produce 1 bbl of crude: $10 to 20
Coal to liquid... CTP 1 bbl of crude: $40 - 45
Oil Shale...CTP 1 bbl of crude: $55 - 70
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
What the English fail to grasp is a lot of us have more than one car in our households...
Talking about me? There were four of us in my family when I started driving - my parents and older brother were the other three. When I got my first car (a pisspot Triumph Herald - lol) we became a four car family. Where do you get this idea that there's typically only one car per family in Britain? In most families, both the husband and the wife work, and they each have a car. It's been that way for many years. Not sure what this has to do with the price of gas, but let's move on... We're a big assed country
No kidding! I see lots of big tulips every time I visit. with a lotta distance between here and there.
Contrary to what you might think, that has little bearing on the average vehicle mileage which, in the US is about 12,000. Britain's average is now considered to be 10,000 down from 12,000 when there was only one car per household, 40-50 years ago. Now, a gas price rape in progress.... There will be a price for that come election day.
I would be very wary of any rash promises to cut the price of gas. The only way that's going to happen is if all tax on gasoline is removed (unlikely) or if George Bush can win public opinion to wage another war with an oil producing country to steal their oil (even more unlikely). I note the english, despite their insane taxes and exorbiant fuel costs have yet to come up with a better alternative than **** boxes of thier own after all these years...
I drive German cars. Germany is the car capital of the world, which is why their auto workers are the highest paid in the world.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Oil Sands... Cost to produce 1 bbl of crude: $10 to 20
Coal to liquid... CTP 1 bbl of crude: $40 - 45
Oil Shale...CTP 1 bbl of crude: $55 - 70
And your point is what???
We are well aware that fossile fuel is becoming a thing of the past much as "whale Oil" for lighting lamps.
America as Yamamoto put it over 60 years ago "is a sleeping giant" this latest attack on us by "big oil" is nothing more than another "Pearl Harbor" and we will reel for abit and THEN respond with solutions to the problem.
America's middle class will NOT go away quietly and Hang's post only echo's the feelings of many in this country.
As for what we spend on over seas aid I would bet it is in the 10's of billions without doing some research, but cut it off and all you that so eagarly jump on to the "bash america" band wagon might go home crying.
I like Hangtime am too old to worry too much about it all now since my life is nearly over I too suspect that in 20 years I will not be here, but America will be.
-
Originally posted by Boxboy
And your point is what???
That the cost to produce oil from these three sources is now beginning to be profitable.
The sands of Alberta have the equivalent of Saudi Arabia (maybe 2 or 3), there is more oil in the shale of the US Rockies than all the oil that has been produced worldwide since the oil age began, and the coal reserves of the US can yield several more SA's.
I seriously doubt that a quart of Pennzoil will go the way to whale oil anytime soon.
-
All that commotion for a non issue, then?
-
yep... moot and holden and a few others get it.... the doom and gloom is silly. We will get with it and some alternative will be found and/or the henceforth too expensive petroleum sources will become viable and prices will stabalize..
beet... even the cars that you are talking about are now at 2 tons... a honda weighs as much as a 55 chevy did... America isn't settling for less..... you are just still playing catch up... America is full of SUV's and pickups... our best selling vehicles are really trucks. Those "best selling" cars couldn't sell at all unless they had 200 hp or more and weighed upwards to 2 tons.... not exactly little minis or smart cars... they are luxo mobiles.
What does this all mean? it simply means that this will all blow over and the America envy groups will go back to being quiet for few more decades till the next "looming crisis" gives them hope for Americas possible downfall.
lazs
-
Lazs,
I don't think the current wave of gas prices rises is a blip. The price of crude oil will continue to rise, driven by demand from China. As the price goes up, it will become viable to develop alternative fuels which have hitherto been too expensive. No doom and gloom. It's just that we'll be working with other sources of energy in the years to come, besides oil. I hope Nuclear power will succeed this time round. Finland has announced that they are to increase the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power from 26% to 36%. Let's hope the rest of the world will follow. That would ease the demand for oil, and help lower its price.
:aok
-
think what you want beet but you and rolex are doom and gloom short sighted on this..
you can't base what will happen in 20 years on what is happening now. demand here will drop and alternatives will be found and the price per barrel will trigger exploration and use of oil that was too expensive before..
The only way we can screw it up is byu letting the panic monger doom and gloomer "DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!! ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING!!!" crowd have their way and plunge us into a carteresque debacle.
I am pretty sure that we are due for some kind of adjustment but it will all work out. If we had listened to your ilk in the 70's we would have believed that we would all have lost the knack for even making fire much less be able to drive cars by now.
in the 70's the panic mongers had us all driving golf carts with no way to ever drive a normal sized car ever again....
They were wrong... you are wrong now.
lazs
-
So WHEN are we to see this miraculous drop in the price of crude oil? And WHEN are we going to see a drop in American demand for imported oil?
-
Probly won't be a significant drop in the price of oil.. what will happen is that as the price reaches a certain point...... oil that was previously too expensive to get and refine will become viable.
lazs
-
Oh yeah? And where is this oil, and how much is there? Is this new source going to yield 13m barrels a year? (America's current level of imported oil) And... when is it going to come online? It is reported that even if the ANWR oil was plundered, it would be 12 years before the first drop of oil was delivered, which won't deal with the crisis of today. Maybe you will be forced to ... cut consumption???
-
who says it needs to? how do you know how much we will need? You are going by what we need today. All sorts of alternatives are available like solar and nukes and ethenol and... well..... who knows...
you can eaither be doom and gloom about it or you can realize that we are living in excieting times..
Look at the guys who paid mucho bucko's for glorified golf carts in the 70's and ended up junking them when things got better..... look at alternative fuel and hybrid cars... they are not economicaly viable for most right now...
guy I know paid 40k for a prius and then fried some kind of switching computer thingy after the warranty was out and it cost him 5K.... how much gas can I buy for that kind of money? When the battery pack went out on the electric vehicle at work they junked the car.... all that battery crap hazardous waste to get rid of and all that wasted money..
you and rolex have one thing in common.....you hope for the worst for America but have no solution...
I keep waiting to hear the solutions... I keep waiting to hear what day we will all fry from global warming or what day we will run out of oil... or out of anything for that matter... and.... how much the solutions that you don't even have are gonna help..
In the meantime.... I think I will just enjoy longer summers and driving big block el caminos and shooting guns.
you can do the worrying for me (so long as you don't get to vote)
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
who says it needs to? how do you know how much we will need? You are going by what we need today. All sorts of alternatives are available like solar and nukes and ethenol and... well..... who knows...
It would take years to recover the oil in the ANWR - even if the go ahead was given to plunder it. As to the other energy alternatives, I'm sure their development will be spurred on by rising oil costs, but it's still going to be years before these enter the mainstream at a level which can replace 13 million barrels of imported oil every year. What I want to know is not what's going to happen in 20 years, but in the more immediate future - say the next 2-5 years to begin with. Are you still going to bury your head in the sand when crude hits $150/bbl, and pretend that there will be a bottomless oil well at the end of the rainbow, somewhere? Look at the guys who paid mucho bucko's for glorified golf carts in the 70's and ended up junking them when things got better.....
When things got better? What, you mean like 1985 when Reagan dropped the CAFE requirements for vehicles in order to boost the US oil industry? IIRC, Reagan's energy policy was based on what would be "popular".
The oil party is almost over. The hangover is about to kick in...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What I want to know is not what's going to happen in 20 years, but in the more immediate future - say the next 2-5 years to begin with.
On a fast track it would take 2 or 3 years or more to build a new refinery. Two or three years or more to build a new nuke plant. Two or three years or more to build a new coal or shale to liquid plant.
Meanwhile the cost of crude will continue to rise. The cost rise however will drive the move to other energy resources. The higher the cost of crude, the more pressure there is on new source development.
The only reason oil was the foundational fuel for modern society is because it was the cheapest fuel available. Now that other energies are becoming cost effective, other energies will come on line.
-
With the price of crude so high now, maybe the company that is building plants to turn waste into oil will finally take off.
-
HMcG
I agree with everything you said ^ but there remains the immediate problem of the rising cost of crude. It could go to $100/bbl this summer, driving up gas prices further still. It's all very well for people like Lazs to say that new sources of energy are on some distant horizon, but that won't solve the immediate problem. Excel's article from this morning suggested that 69% of people questioned in the US said that the gas price hikes were hurting their family budget. So while we wait for new energy sources to become available, I don't see what these people can do to contain their costs...
...except by cutting consumption.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
... I don't see what these people can do to contain their costs...
...except by cutting consumption.
That's why I commute on a bicycle... instead of a fuel hungry Audi...;)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
So WHEN are we to see this miraculous drop in the price of crude oil? And WHEN are we going to see a drop in American demand for imported oil?
1. When we don't want it any more.
2. When we chuck out the pinhead oilmen in washington that are 'good friends' with the Saudi Princes.
So, whats the current price per US gallon for gas in England today?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It would take years to recover the oil in the ANWR - even if the go ahead was given to plunder it. As to the other energy alternatives, I'm sure their development will be spurred on by rising oil costs, but it's still going to be years before these enter the mainstream at a level which can replace 13 million barrels of imported oil every year. What I want to know is not what's going to happen in 20 years, but in the more immediate future - say the next 2-5 years to begin with. Are you still going to bury your head in the sand when crude hits $150/bbl, and pretend that there will be a bottomless oil well at the end of the rainbow, somewhere? When things got better? What, you mean like 1985 when Reagan dropped the CAFE requirements for vehicles in order to boost the US oil industry? IIRC, Reagan's energy policy was based on what would be "popular".
The oil party is almost over. The hangover is about to kick in...
This is 2006...Democrats have been blocking even EXPLORATORY stuff on the frozen tundra which is Anwar since 1996. Current world oil production only has 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity.... U.S. refinery capacity is maxed (and STILL hasn't reached pre-Katrina levels) As long as these conditions apply, gas will be where it is-- world won't come to an end.
-
Senate Panel Demands Oil Co. Tax Records
AP - 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - WASHINGTON - A Senate committee Wednesday announced an investigation into taxes paid by major oil companies and asked the Internal Revenue Service for the companies' tax returns. The Senate Finance Committee promised "a comprehensive review of the federal taxes paid" by the oil companies on their record profits last year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It`s gonna get good Louise. Grab the popcorn. :aok(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1146095427_profit.jpg)
-
What makes this thread intertaining is Beetle's hunger to see the US fall or just be miserable. He makes all kinds of statements out of context in order to continue his agenda LOL.
He has no idea what the word PROFIT means, and the oil companies are hopeing that no one in this country does either. Facts are that the oil companies could just drop their profits to pre gouge levels (which with all the heat being turn up they will do soon) and the price of gas here in the US will return to 2 to 2.30 levels.
Sorry to burst your bubble beetle but the world of US domination still has a "few" more years to run LOL
-
Reporting simple dollar amounts for huge corporations means nothing:
(The taxes you pay on a gallon of gas in the U.S. exceed the amount of profit the evil oil companies make on that same gallon of gas)
Why investigate the issue and find out the many major reasons gas prices are so high when I can blame the oil companies just like TV news does? That's the attitude the media have been driving home for more than a year now. They bemoan the "record profits" of oil companies and don't bother to tell you they have no idea what that really means.
In the real world, that means merely the oil companies are big, and big companies, if well-run, inherently make big profits. The actual percentage profit, a number used by investors, not blowhards, illustrates this. ExxonMobil had more profit than any other company, but it also is "gi-normous" as a friend of mine used to say. Still, its profit margin was 10.6 percent, placing it at No. 116 on Fortune's list of top 500 companies.
By contrast, Microsoft made almost 3 times as much -- 30.8 percent.
It wasn't long ago the Redmond giant was one of the most hated companies. Now Bill and Mrs. Gates are Time magazine Persons of the Year for their charity efforts in a story titled "The good Samaritans." And Microsoft rakes in profits as a successful company should.
Even Microsoft did poorly compared to some other tech firms. The Internet giant Yahoo made a 36.1 percent profit. The wireless Internet company Qualcomm made a 37.8 percent profit.
Yet the media criticize oil companies. We got sarcastic comments by Charles Gibson of "Good Morning America" April 11 when he made it clear he blames the oil industry for our problems. Mr. Gibson says current events led "everybody to be very cynical about what the oil companies are doing." I'm cynical about what he's doing by asking such loaded questions as: "Is it really, truly a supply-and-demand issue, as so many people wonder, or is it that the oil companies gouge us?"
Or maybe the story is just too darn complicated for TV. Though a few oil stories did touch on some of the real causes of our gas prices, too many didn't. They left out the fear factor from Mideast instability -- BusinessWeek says that adds $15 a barrel, though other estimates are up to $30. Then there's Hugo Chavez in Venezuela threatening to turn off our oil, and terrorism in oil-producing Nigeria. Journalists ignored the taxes that can add more than 60 cents per gallon in New York, nearly 50 cents in five other states and 40 cents in about 17 more. Of course, we still have some refineries offline after Katrina and a shortage of ethanol the government mandates as a gasoline additive.
That doesn't begin to address increased U.S. demand because of warm weather driving, not to mention increased demand worldwide.
Yeah, I think I'll just blame the oil companies. It's simpler.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060425-085316-1984r.htm
-
Now find in the report where we gave Microsoft 30 billion in tax dollars to "help" them along. You can't can you. I say we should do as any other country in crisis would do "nationalize" the oil business in this country LOL then the price would go to 10 dollars a gallon.
-
The best thing that could happen to our balance of trade would be for oil to go to $100 / bbl.
That would make alternate domestic synfuel sources extremely profitable and that business would grow to replace imports more quickly.
-
suck kirkuk dry like we was linda lovlace, then get outta town & pay our debt to society like we was roman polanski
-
speaking of hollywood, oil & world afairs, has engrish finally gone mainstream? the fit is go?
-
LOL HMcG! I can tell you're a thinking man. :aok
HangTime - I think it's going to be a while before "you don't want it any more". America coming off oil is going to be like a heroin junkie going cold turkey - a smooth and seamless transition - NOT!
You make great play about price gouging, Saudi princes - blaming these factors for current gas prices. But as recently as 2001 the price of crude oil was less than $25/bbl, now it's over $70/bbl. Don't you think that this new higher price might, just might (I know it's a long shot!) have something to do with the current price of gasoline?
To answer your question about the gas price here - it has gone up by about 32% in 2½ years. It hasn't doubled because a greater proportion of the pump price is flat rate tax. At the current rate of exchange (£1 = $1.78) a US gallon here is equating to about $6.50. But, now that my Audi has nearly 10,000 miles on it, it's nicely run in and doing well. I made a trip to Chiswick, west London yesterday, and even driving at 90mph for a good 10 miles of that, overall consumption for the trip worked out at 49.3mpg. At 20,000 miles a year, I expect my annual fuel bill at the current price will be a little over £2000 = $3568. At current US prices I could expect that figure to be $2000, so I'm ~$1500 worse off. Bite me.
BoxBoy, I think you're talking out of your arse. Facts are that the oil companies could just drop their profits to pre gouge levels (which with all the heat being turn up they will do soon) and the price of gas here in the US will return to 2 to 2.30 levels.
Again, the price of crude oil has tripled from what it was as recently as 2001. The US has no control over this price.
bj229r - This is 2006...Democrats have been blocking even EXPLORATORY stuff on the frozen tundra which is Anwar since 1996. Current world oil production only has 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity.... U.S. refinery capacity is maxed (and STILL hasn't reached pre-Katrina levels) As long as these conditions apply, gas will be where it is-- world won't come to an end.
According to the US Department of the Interior (http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm), crude oil reserves in the ANWAR stand at 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. At the current rate of US consumption, 10.4bn barrels wouldn't even last 18 months. The article estimates that delivery from that region could be 1.4 million bbl/day - nowhere near enough to offset the 13 million bbl/day that the US imports from OPEC.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The best thing that could happen to our balance of trade would be for oil to go to $100 / bbl.
That would make alternate domestic synfuel sources extremely profitable and that business would grow to replace imports more quickly.
I love this idea!
Why stop at $100/bbl? Why not go for $200/bbl? Hell, make it $300/bbl!
Since your goal is to cut your friggin' head off, you should use the sharpest damn sword you can find and get it over quickly. You don't want to be hacking away at your neck over and over with a dull, jagged ax.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
1. When we don't want it any more.
2. When we chuck out the pinhead oilmen in washington that are 'good friends' with the Saudi Princes.
So, whats the current price per US gallon for gas in England today?
You truly think an admin change will lower gas prices???
LOL LOL LOL
-
rolex...at some point price per barrel will be enough to use alternatives. Why can't you see that?
There is coal and oil shale and off shore oil and anwar oil and nuke power all waiting...
I think beet is right that there will be some pain and adjustment but... As I have said in other threads...
What is your solution rolex? give us some specifics.... All I have seen you say is that we "have to do something in the next ten years"...
What the hell does that mean? Build nuke plants? explore for oil? kick the EPA in the jewels and get some refineries built?
What exactly? We know the government is not the answer right? the government only has our money and they spend it foolishly right? We sure as hell wouldn't want to live like the japs right? The government has never invented anything with the possible exception of the A bomb with our money.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
You truly think an admin change will lower gas prices???
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/lmao.gif)
-
http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/
http://www.changingworldtech.com/where/index.asp
This is still the answer to weaning the US off OPEC imo. The potential here is astounding. With crude oil prices going up, this technology is more viable than ever. Just converting all the agricultural waste to oil will leave us importing very little oil. Add in *recycling* of human waste from sewage plants and the US has extra oil to export.
This is a very exciting technology. Hopefully this gets a major kick-start with crude prices as high as they are.
-
Beet's paying $6.50 a gal for gas...
somehow, that makes the $3.16 I'm paying seem a lot less painful.
even funnier is the fact he's unpreturbed by the rape job he's getting.
So, Muadib; tell me again how much Beets paying?
$6.50?? !!! BWAHAHAHAHHA HAHHAH HAAAAA!
Fill it up, towlie. And, keep the change. ;)
-
Thats pretty funny Hang. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I love this idea!
Profit is a hell of a motivator. It has shown to be much better than any government caveat. The computer you use to read this was developed with profit as a motivator.
Cutting my head off? How in the hell do you get that? The change from crude oil to another energy system is going to take some time and a little pain. The quickest way to get it done is to allow alternate energy to become hugely profitable. That is done easily by making it less expensive than oil. The quickest way to do that is to allow the price of oil to continue to rise. I think we should do that, because we cannot stop it anyhow.
-
(£1 = $1.78) = Crap now I am pissed :o :mad: :confused:
Cthen
Pi-lot in training :aok
-
Beetle you can quote crude oil prices till the cows come home, they have NO bearing on what I said, the word profit takes into account the cost of oil and indeed ALL the costs associated with it.
Less profit taking by the oil companies would equate to lower prices.
-
HangTime
So let me see if I understand this...
You pay half what I pay for a gallon of gasoline - glad that makes you happy. :) But... your cars are designed to consume four times as much - LOL! glad you think the deal you're getting is as good as you think it is!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif) :lol (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
But the American motoring public at large seem to have wised up - that's why the three best selling cars in America are Japanese imports. :cool: OK, they might not fit the definition of "societally correct" vehicles (SCV) but they might consume less fuel. And... if you're worried about being shoe-horned into these vehicles, I can offer a crumb of comfort. It's called the Atkins diet. It really does work!
:rofl
BoxBoy - you are correct - the price of crude oil has NOTHING to do with the price of gasoline! :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
HangTime
So let me see if I understand this...
You pay half what I pay for a gallon of gasoline - glad that makes you happy. :) But... your cars are designed to consume four times as much - LOL! glad you think the deal you're getting is as good as you think it is!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif) :lol (http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/jester.gif)
But the American motoring public at large seem to have wised up - that's why the three best selling cars in America are Japanese imports. :cool: OK, they might not fit the definition of "societally correct" vehicles (SCV) but they might consume less fuel. And... if you're worried about being shoe-horned into these vehicles, I can offer a crumb of comfort. It's called the Atkins diet. It really does work!
:rofl
BoxBoy - you are correct - the price of crude oil has NOTHING to do with the price of gasoline! :rofl
Once again Beetle takes things OUT of context to make a point which is worthless since the reference is incorrect. I SAID that profit takes into account the price of oil and therefore LESS profit taking results in lower gas prices.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
...The computer you use to read this was developed with profit as a motivator....
i thought it was stolen from xerox with profit motive.
i'd bet it was developed impressing coworkers/nerds as a motive.
-
so said nerd could profit from enhanced alpha nerd status?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Hangtime
You pay half what I pay for a gallon of gasoline...
Wait... wait... say that again, Kyle... errr Beet.
Originally posted by beet1e
Hangtime
You pay half what I pay for a gallon of gasoline...
no; wait.... again Kyle... let me hear you say it again...
Originally posted by beet1e
Hangtime
You pay half what I pay for a gallon of gasoline...
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhh.. yesssssssssssssssss.
Thank you, Kyle.
Thank you. :D
-
So HT - where do you gain if your vehicles are so inefficient that your rate of consumption is 2, 3 or even 4 times as much per mile as mine, in your SCV?
My fuel cost per mile is around 17 cents. What is yours? Hmmm??
-
beet... we could drive cars that get good as good a milage as yours but they are boring so we don't. Your car doesn't interest me as a car person.
We can buy any number of vehicles here that get more milage than your car. We just don't
in my Lincoln... with 4 people in the car I can only touch one of em and barely see two of em. It gets 24 mpg. It is extremely comfortable and will seat two+ in the trunk. I easily followed a BMW through some twisty roads after I installed the bilsteins and michelins. I use it as a people mover.
My el camino will do 0-60 in about 5 seconds and do the quarter mile in 12-13... It will burn the tires into smoking hulks at will... it gets 12-14 mpg. it is fun.
my Healey is just wicked... you wouldn't understand.
I also have an old 70's BMW 750 motorcycle with hard bags that will get up to 60 mpg.. I can put a weeks grocries in the hard bags if things get that bad.
It's all about options... them who pay twice as much for fuel have half as many options.... options are a good thing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We can buy any number of vehicles here that get more milage than your car. We just don't
Who is this "we" you keep talking about? If you mean the American motoring public at large, I think you're mistaken. I say this because the Honda Civic is one of the three best selling passenger cars in America (the other two are also Japanese imports) and Motor Trend has declared it Car of the Year for 2006.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/112_news051112_car_of_the_year/