Post by: wmenorr67 on July 23, 2008, 09:10:08 PM
Quote
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Finally, there's some good news about gas prices. They've dropped nationwide by about a nickel, and as CBS 2's Susan Carlson reports, analysts are predicting even bigger drops through the rest of the summer.
For the first time in awhile, drivers can fill up at the pump without a pained expression.
"We saw a substantial drop in the price of crude oil, which it appears gas station owners were in a hurry to pass on to consumers," said Phill Flynn, Vice President an Senior Market Analyst at Alaron Trading.
AAA reports gas prices in the Chicago area are averaging $4.25 a gallon Wednesday. That's down from $4.27 Tuesday, and $4.33 last Friday.
"So often we hear gas prices rise like a rocket and drop like a feather, this time, they're starting to drop like a rock and that's a good thing," Flynn said.
That's partly because demand is down about 4 percent from where it usually is. Many people have put the brakes on driving this summer because it costs too much.
The promise of a bargain has many people flocking over the border. At a gas station on Indianapolis Boulevard in Hammond, Ind., CBS 2 found gas for just $3.75 a gallon.
"I rehab houses in the area, Gary and so forth, so it's worth the while to drive over from Crete," said Troy Brown.
Customers are pouring into Luke's Gas Station from the south suburbs and other parts of Indiana.
"I'm just over in Highland, a few miles away, and as soon as you cross over into Hammond, the gas is at least 10 cents cheaper," Suzanne Stinnett said.
But soon, you may not have to go as far as Hammond to get a good deal. Analysts say right now, gas prices are on track to keep plummeting through the end of the summer.
"We could see $3.70 in the city and if we get really lucky, maybe $3.50 by Labor Day," Flynn said.
For the first time in awhile, drivers can fill up at the pump without a pained expression.
"We saw a substantial drop in the price of crude oil, which it appears gas station owners were in a hurry to pass on to consumers," said Phill Flynn, Vice President an Senior Market Analyst at Alaron Trading.
AAA reports gas prices in the Chicago area are averaging $4.25 a gallon Wednesday. That's down from $4.27 Tuesday, and $4.33 last Friday.
"So often we hear gas prices rise like a rocket and drop like a feather, this time, they're starting to drop like a rock and that's a good thing," Flynn said.
That's partly because demand is down about 4 percent from where it usually is. Many people have put the brakes on driving this summer because it costs too much.
The promise of a bargain has many people flocking over the border. At a gas station on Indianapolis Boulevard in Hammond, Ind., CBS 2 found gas for just $3.75 a gallon.
"I rehab houses in the area, Gary and so forth, so it's worth the while to drive over from Crete," said Troy Brown.
Customers are pouring into Luke's Gas Station from the south suburbs and other parts of Indiana.
"I'm just over in Highland, a few miles away, and as soon as you cross over into Hammond, the gas is at least 10 cents cheaper," Suzanne Stinnett said.
But soon, you may not have to go as far as Hammond to get a good deal. Analysts say right now, gas prices are on track to keep plummeting through the end of the summer.
"We could see $3.70 in the city and if we get really lucky, maybe $3.50 by Labor Day," Flynn said.
Too bad Paddy wasn't still around. Not too long ago people were talking of $5 a gallon by Labor Day.
Post by: taurusowner on July 23, 2008, 09:35:12 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 23, 2008, 09:38:57 PM
Post by: PTK on July 23, 2008, 09:45:43 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 23, 2008, 09:46:57 PM
Post by: Ben on July 24, 2008, 05:18:21 AM
Post by: Grandpa Shooter on July 24, 2008, 05:34:31 AM
The plan is working exactly as layed out by the oil companies. Jack the prices up for no really good reason, wait until people get used to it, then trickle out a few carefully planned insignificant cuts, and WOW, the price stays higher artificially and people thank the government.
All a bunch of BS
Post by: Manedwolf on July 24, 2008, 05:35:40 AM
Do you folks remember when gas was going up ten cents at a time? Everyone groaned as they passed a gas station. Now the price is coming down one cent at a time and people are celebrating!
The plan is working exactly as layed out by the oil companies. Jack the prices up for no really good reason, wait until people get used to it, then trickle out a few carefully planned insignificant cuts, and WOW, the price stays higher artificially and people thank the government.
All a bunch of BS
The plan is working exactly as layed out by the oil companies. Jack the prices up for no really good reason, wait until people get used to it, then trickle out a few carefully planned insignificant cuts, and WOW, the price stays higher artificially and people thank the government.
All a bunch of BS
Um...no, actually.
The speculation market trades in futures. If there's a future assurance of increased supply, guess what happens to the price?
Post by: Tallpine on July 24, 2008, 06:05:13 AM
Ugh - I remember when it jumped from about 35 cents up to 48.9 cents per gallon
I thought the world was ending. I had just bought a brand new 4-wheel drive pickup.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 24, 2008, 06:09:25 AM
$3.50 gallon, whoopee
Ugh - I remember when it jumped from about 35 cents up to 48.9 cents per gallon
I thought the world was ending. I had just bought a brand new 4-wheel drive pickup.
Ugh - I remember when it jumped from about 35 cents up to 48.9 cents per gallon
I thought the world was ending. I had just bought a brand new 4-wheel drive pickup.
I remember not buying a really nice looking Dodge Dart Swinger in the early 90s because I was concerned about the gas mileage when gas was a whopping $.99/gal.
It was the mythical "grandmother's car", but had fresh paint and a really clean interior. Would've been fun to drop a big engine in it, upgrade the drivetrain, etc.
Chris
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 24, 2008, 06:13:42 AM
Gas prices are down about 35 cents from their peaks. They show no sign of halting their slide, either. I guess the world isn't going to end after all.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 24, 2008, 06:14:38 AM
Crude is down $20 a barrel over the last week or two. I wonder how many of the pajama speculators are getting margin calls? Leverage can be a scary thing when it's working against you.
I want them to be forced to take delivery.
"Mr. Smith, the contract has expired for your 80 barrels of North Sea Brent. Please provide the location of your tankage, and we'll determine the delivery and pumping fee."
Post by: macadore on July 24, 2008, 06:17:49 AM
Pretty elementary really. That's how free markets work. You can only sell something for the price people are willing to pay for it.
The free market is a myth. In the late seventies and early eighties OPEC (i.e., Exxon, et al) cut of oil supplies to the U.S. and drove independent refineries into bankruptcy. Then they reversed course and dropped oil prices below the break even prices in the U.S and drove out thousands of independent domestic oil producers. They could do this because they have deep pockets and no one to stop them. Now we are at their mercy and they have no mercy. After the U.S. spends billions on alternative domestic energy OPEC will drop the price again and drive domestic energy producers into bankruptcy again so they can keep us at their mercy.
Post by: Grandpa Shooter on July 24, 2008, 06:19:51 AM
Do you folks remember when gas was going up ten cents at a time? Everyone groaned as they passed a gas station. Now the price is coming down one cent at a time and people are celebrating!
The plan is working exactly as layed out by the oil companies. Jack the prices up for no really good reason, wait until people get used to it, then trickle out a few carefully planned insignificant cuts, and WOW, the price stays higher artificially and people thank the government.
All a bunch of BS
The plan is working exactly as layed out by the oil companies. Jack the prices up for no really good reason, wait until people get used to it, then trickle out a few carefully planned insignificant cuts, and WOW, the price stays higher artificially and people thank the government.
All a bunch of BS
Um...no, actually.
The speculation market trades in futures. If there's a future assurance of increased supply, guess what happens to the price?
I guess if you buy into real supply and demand economics ruling the marketplace, you would choose to believe that. However, I don't believe that our gas driven economy really works that way. My memory tells me it has been controlled since 1974. The only relief was the brief respite of the Reagan economy followed by the screwed up mess we have now. Unfortunately I don't see any real relief in sight. The government just passed another mega billion package to prop up the housing market instead of letting the free market place run its course.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 24, 2008, 06:27:56 AM
Or are the current falling prices also part of the illusion?
Post by: K Frame on July 24, 2008, 06:29:36 AM
OK, you have a belief.
What's your PROOF that your belief is actually true, rather than a slightly paranoid conspiracy theory?
Post by: K Frame on July 24, 2008, 06:37:28 AM
Nice theory.
Doesn't match with reality.
Prior to 1979 Iran was the largest middle Eastern supplier of oil to the United States. The Shah was a very close ally of the US, even closer than the Saudis.
When the Iranian Revolution occurred, that not only broke the close US-Iranian alliance, it also resulted in Iran's oil production dropping by nearly 70% for a year or more until the situation stabilized.
Even after it stabilized, Iran's oil production was about 40% less than what it had been in the Shah's days, largely because the Revolutionary government EJECTED most of the foreign oil companies, including Exxon.
Post by: Waitone on July 24, 2008, 06:56:25 AM
Quote
I remember not buying a really nice looking Dodge Dart Swinger in the early 90s because I was concerned about the gas mileage when gas was a whopping $.99/gal.
Whoa! It that ever a blast outta the past! My dad bought one. Ran like a sewing machine. 225 cu in slant 6 engine. Easy to work on. Durable. A true babe magnet.
Post by: Waitone on July 24, 2008, 07:06:20 AM
I think democrats will cave on domestic drilling. The pressure is highly focused and very intense. The only question is what will republicans will give away to finally seal the deal. At this point I predict democrats will agree to drilling in ANWR as long as it is government owned drilling (aka "nationalized drilling"). Republicans will agree just to chalk up a win in the run up to the election. Democrats will want drilling to go away by that time.
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 24, 2008, 07:09:41 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 24, 2008, 07:11:22 AM
June usage was down 2.4%.
May not seem like much, but that's a huge amount for a nation that lives and dies by our cars.
Post by: Nick1911 on July 24, 2008, 07:12:49 AM
What really sucks is I need gas prices to stay high. That way the prices on all of the gas guzzling SUV's, trucks and or classic cars will stay down. At least until I get home and can buy what I want. Got a great deal on my Suburban because it was bought right after Katrina went through and people dumped a lot of SUV's at that time.
Amen to that. I'm looking to buy an F250 in the next month or so. Prices have never been better!
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 24, 2008, 07:18:27 AM
Plus I am looking at a motorcycle but the prices on new ones really aren't much of an issue even with gas prices where they are. The biggest issue is getting one that I would want.
Post by: macadore on July 24, 2008, 01:19:33 PM
"The free market is a myth. In the late seventies and early eighties OPEC (i.e., Exxon, et al) cut of oil supplies to the U.S. and drove independent refineries into bankruptcy."
Nice theory.
Doesn't match with reality.
Prior to 1979 Iran was the largest middle Eastern supplier of oil to the United States. The Shah was a very close ally of the US, even closer than the Saudis.
When the Iranian Revolution occurred, that not only broke the close US-Iranian alliance, it also resulted in Iran's oil production dropping by nearly 70% for a year or more until the situation stabilized.
Even after it stabilized, Iran's oil production was about 40% less than what it had been in the Shah's days, largely because the Revolutionary government EJECTED most of the foreign oil companies, including Exxon.
Nice theory.
Doesn't match with reality.
Prior to 1979 Iran was the largest middle Eastern supplier of oil to the United States. The Shah was a very close ally of the US, even closer than the Saudis.
When the Iranian Revolution occurred, that not only broke the close US-Iranian alliance, it also resulted in Iran's oil production dropping by nearly 70% for a year or more until the situation stabilized.
Even after it stabilized, Iran's oil production was about 40% less than what it had been in the Shah's days, largely because the Revolutionary government EJECTED most of the foreign oil companies, including Exxon.
Reality;
1. The government of Saudi Arabia owns 51% of ARAMCO. Exxon and some other international oil companies own the other 49%.
2. These international oil companies have similar deals with numerous other countries.
3. In the late seventies, these countries curtailed oil shipments to the U.S. and raised prices.
4. U.S. oil prices had been regulated since WWII. In the early eighties U.S. oil was bringing $16.00 per barrel while oil was bringing $40.00 per barrel on the world market. The oil companies said that if the U.S. deregulated oil prices and let them float on the world marker, domestic production would increase and our dependence on imported oil would decrease. Congress and the President deregulated oil prices in the early eighties.
5. Upon deregulation, independent domestic oil producers invested millions of dollars increasing production.
6. International oil companies had, and still have, leases to drill on thousands of acres in the U.S. They did not drill and are still not drilling. Does anyone wonder why?
7. After domestic producers had gone millions of dollars into debt, these countries and the international oil companies flooded the market and dropped prices to $10.50 per barrel. At the time the average break even price in the U.S. was $12.50 per barrel. Under Clinton, oil dropped to $8.50 per barrel. This gutted domestic production and put around 250,000 people out of work. It also caused the savings and loan companies to crash. George Bush I bailed out the savings and loan companies but let the home owners sink. Is this a free market or mercantilism?
8. After gutting domestic oil, the international oil companies and the countries they own started raising prices again.
9. This time, we are investing billions in domestic energy production. Expect oil prices to drop again and another round of U.S. bankruptcies when it looks like we might become able to wean ourselves off of imported oil.
Like most Baby Boomers, I used to believe in the free market. I was duped. We are at the mercy of international robber barons as long as worship at the shrine of the free market.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 24, 2008, 01:24:37 PM
Post by: charby on July 24, 2008, 01:25:14 PM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
Post by: Leatherneck on July 24, 2008, 02:02:49 PM
Step 2. Nuke Riyadh.
Step 3. Stay home and watch TV. Expect calls from Islamabad and Caracas making nice.
TC
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 24, 2008, 03:13:44 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 24, 2008, 03:14:37 PM
Gas just dropped a whopping nickel per gallon? Say it ain't so! We should all go out and buy a big-assed SUV, posthaste. (Seeing that Ford posted record losses on the news today...)
I was thinking of that comic you posted as soon as I read about how all the great deals on SUV's were popping up...
Post by: seeker_two on July 24, 2008, 03:41:15 PM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
...and he's right....never had that from Riley.....
Post by: Grandpa Shooter on July 24, 2008, 03:59:47 PM
Definition: A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.
A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party.[1] In the aggregate, the effect of these decisions en masse is described by the law of supply and demand. Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets or regulated markets, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies, distorting market signals.[2] In the marketplace the price of a good or service helps to quantify its value to consumers and thus balance it against other goods and services. In a free market, this relationship between price and value is a result of a plethora of voluntary transactions, rather than political decree as in a controlled market. Through competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase. A free market is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition.
Free market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants. Hence, with government force limited to a defensive role, government itself does not initiate force in the marketplace beyond levying taxes in order to fund the maintenance of the free marketplace. Some free market advocates oppose taxation as well, claiming that the market is better at providing all valuable services of which defense and law are no exception, and that such services can be provided without direct taxation.
I am certain that someone with more patience than I have, or a better memory could give you many examples of governmental interference in the market place. I lived in NYS during the 1974 supposed gas shortage. The state government decided that it needed to interfere in the free market by dictating that gas stations could only sell to cars with even numbers ending their license plate and odd numbers ending their license plate on alternate days, and that you could only buy 10 gallons at a time. If a free market economy were truly in place, you could have driven into any gas station with any license plate, on any given day and have purchased all the STATION OWNER would sell you at whatever price you and he negotiated.
I remember a story recently where a gas station owner decided he would give a 3% discount to athletic team boosters and Senior citizens. I believe it was in Minnesota or Michigan. THE STATE threatened to put him out of business because he was violating their rules on how to price his product. Since they TAXED gasoline, they had to control the price to be certain the STATE got all the tax money it demanded from him.
If we lived in a truly free market economy, anyone with a product to sell, and the ambition to make it available, could stand on a street corner and sell it. The market (consumers) would decide how much, if any of it they cared to purchase, and would agree on a price. No governmental agency would interfere by requiring a business license, inspections, taxes on the sales, reporting of sales to the State or Federal taxing agency, or any of the plethora of other governmental intrusions into the free market economy.
The idea of environmentalists shutting down entire sections of our economy (such as the national logging industry) would be unthinkable. If someone wanted to buy from a supposedly polluting industry they would be free to. The market, not a special interest group, or the government, would decide to reward that company or industry by buying their wares for a mutually agreeable price.
If you think that a free market economy really exists in this country, you must have had different professors in your economics classes than I did.
Post by: K Frame on July 24, 2008, 07:02:42 PM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
And even worse than that, it appears to be about as accurate as most of Rilley's crap...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 24, 2008, 08:08:33 PM
The current market obviously isn't perfectly free. Oil companies are restricted from adding new capacity. Huge taxes are added to the price of gasoline. There are many restrictions on what kinds of gasoline may be sold, and where they may be sold from. All of these restrictions on the free market drive prices up.
That said, free market influences still hold sway. Restrictions that limit supply will still increase demand and price. It doesn't matter whether those restrictions are government-mandated instead of "naturally occurring". Reduced supply is reduced supply. Supply and demand are still the final arbiter of price.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 24, 2008, 08:13:07 PM
Gas just dropped a whopping nickel per gallon? Say it ain't so! We should all go out and buy a big-assed SUV, posthaste. (Seeing that Ford posted record losses on the news today...)
I don't understand your point, either. Markets are cyclical, and people react to them cyclically. We all know that. People buy gas-guzzlers when gas is cheap, and people buy econoboxes when the price of gas is high. What's wrong with that? Should people buy cars that don't fit the times?And yes, Ford posted record losses. Gas prices aren't their problem, the fact that they make crappy cars is the problem. Ford, like GM and Chrysler, will lose gobs of money and maybe go out of business. They aren't building and selling good cars, the kind that people actually want to buy. Why should people buy cars that don't fit their needs and wants?
Post by: De Selby on July 24, 2008, 10:09:48 PM
And yes, Ford posted record losses. Gas prices aren't their problem, the fact that they make crappy cars is the problem. Ford, like GM and Chrysler, will lose gobs of money and maybe go out of business. They aren't building and selling good cars, the kind that people actually want to buy. Why should people buy cars that don't fit their needs and wants?
I guess it's just coincidence that sales of the main profit engines (suv's, large vehicles) free-fell with the rise in gas prices.
Supply is cyclical-which is why it makes sense to conserve the product, and not to become ridiculously dependent on its availability.
If you know that oil may not always be available, how smart is it to buy and act as if it will always be as available as it is right now?
The proper response to variations in supply is to plan so that times of inadequate supply don't disable the entire economcy, not to run around in panic mode coming up with half-baked solutions when it's not possible to fuel all the machines we bought last year on this year's oil supply.
Post by: seeker_two on July 25, 2008, 01:44:18 AM
Post by: macadore on July 25, 2008, 03:31:05 AM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
You cant refute my facts or logic so you libel me and dismiss my argument based on your libel. Thats weak.
Post by: Ben on July 25, 2008, 04:48:37 AM
Quote
when it's not possible to fuel all the machines we bought last year on this year's oil supply.
You're kidding right? Whether someone can afford an SUV or not is something else entirely, and the responsibility of the auto buyer. If you're buying a $50K SUV or $50K BMW instead of a $12K Ford Focus, money to put fuel in the vehicle shouldn't be an issue, or you shouldn't be buying that expensive of a vehicle.
We don't have an issue of not having enough oil nationally to "fuel all machines". I haven't seen any "out of gas" signs at any gas stations anywhere.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 25, 2008, 04:52:01 AM
You're kidding right? Whether someone can afford an SUV or not is something else entirely, and the responsibility of the auto buyer. If you're buying a $50K SUV or $50K BMW instead of a $12K Ford Focus, money to put fuel in the vehicle shouldn't be an issue, or you shouldn't be buying that expensive of a vehicle.
Wait'll they ask for a vehicle financing assistance bill to "keep people in their cars" so they can "get to work" with "alternatives to repossession". Bail out the people who bought vehicles beyond their means to make the payments on or afford to keep fueled.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 25, 2008, 04:55:47 AM
Quote
eople buy gas-guzzlers when gas is cheap, and people buy econoboxes when the price of gas is high
And of course, with modern technology, a modern 'gas-guzzler' consumes less fuel than a 1970's 'econobox', but you don't see the greens telling you that.
Post by: Jamisjockey on July 25, 2008, 05:35:00 AM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
Put your tinfoil hat back on......
Post by: Nick1911 on July 25, 2008, 05:43:09 AM
Quote
eople buy gas-guzzlers when gas is cheap, and people buy econoboxes when the price of gas is high
And of course, with modern technology, a modern 'gas-guzzler' consumes less fuel than a 1970's 'econobox', but you don't see the greens telling you that.
My reading on the topic suggest otherwise. Do you have a source?
Post by: Tallpine on July 25, 2008, 06:54:27 AM
It seemed like a lot compared to 8-10mpg for a 4wd p/u or the C-60 truck
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 07:00:04 AM
And yes, Ford posted record losses. Gas prices aren't their problem, the fact that they make crappy cars is the problem. Ford, like GM and Chrysler, will lose gobs of money and maybe go out of business. They aren't building and selling good cars, the kind that people actually want to buy. Why should people buy cars that don't fit their needs and wants?
I guess it's just coincidence that sales of the main profit engines (suv's, large vehicles) free-fell with the rise in gas prices.
I'd still like to know what's wrong with people buying the cars they want, as opposed to crappy Ford or GM cars.
Supply is cyclical-which is why it makes sense to conserve the product, and not to become ridiculously dependent on its availability.
If you know that oil may not always be available, how smart is it to buy and act as if it will always be as available as it is right now?
The proper response to variations in supply is to plan so that times of inadequate supply don't disable the entire economcy, not to run around in panic mode coming up with half-baked solutions when it's not possible to fuel all the machines we bought last year on this year's oil supply.
I agree completely. The response to volatile supply and volatile demand is to ensure that there is enough excess supply in the system to cover demand when it's at it peaks. Excess supply is necessary to buffer out the variations in both supply and demand. If you know that oil may not always be available, how smart is it to buy and act as if it will always be as available as it is right now?
The proper response to variations in supply is to plan so that times of inadequate supply don't disable the entire economcy, not to run around in panic mode coming up with half-baked solutions when it's not possible to fuel all the machines we bought last year on this year's oil supply.
We wanted to to this back in 2000. We foresaw the problems that were coming and we tried to plan ahead to address them. We tried to begin developing increased supply in Alaska and the coastal areas, but the greenies and their "Just say no" attitude prevented any action. Inevitably, we find ourselves in a situation we're in today. We don't have that excess supply we need, and the volatility is driving demand above supply, just like we knew would happen.
All we hear about today are half half-baked solutions to run our cars on food and natural gas. If y'all want to develop your alternative energy solutions, I won't stop you. I only ask that you do it with your own dime, and that you quit obstructing the rest of us who want to use more effective solutions.
Isn't that the way things ought to be? We let you develop your alternatives, you let us develop our mainstream solutions, and the marketplace is the final judge...?
Post by: mtnbkr on July 25, 2008, 07:01:19 AM
I don't remember precisely, but it seems like we only got about 22mpg on our old ~1965 VW Bug
That pretty much jives with my experiences having owned a 72 Bug for 6 years. I got mph in the high teens to low 20s around town and low to mid 30s on the highway. I don't consider the Beetle to be a good example of that generation's econobox though. I'd like to see data from early Hondas, Toyotas, Fords, Chevys, etc.
I think the biggest difference now is today's econobox gets good mileage while having all the bells and whistles. My Bug didn't get 30mph with AC, electric locks/windows, etc, but my Camry does.
Chris
Post by: charby on July 25, 2008, 07:02:46 AM
I don't remember precisely, but it seems like we only got about 22mpg on our old ~1965 VW Bug
It seemed like a lot compared to 8-10mpg for a 4wd p/u or the C-60 truck
It seemed like a lot compared to 8-10mpg for a 4wd p/u or the C-60 truck
I had an 1987 Suzuki Samauri, 1.3 litre engine if I recall correctly. It got 20 mpg on the highway.
I have a 1998 GMC Jimmy 4.3 litre engins and it gets 21 mpg on the highway.
on a side note
Post by: Tallpine on July 25, 2008, 07:09:32 AM
Quote
My Bug didn't get 30mph with AC, electric locks/windows, etc, but my Camry does.
Our Bug was air-conditioned in the winter and heated in the summer
Post by: charby on July 25, 2008, 08:09:07 AM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
You cant refute my facts or logic so you libel me and dismiss my argument based on your libel. Thats weak.
Did you think the middle east gave us cheap oil because they wanted to make quick money? Labor has to be cheaper in the middle east then the U.S. so they could afford to sell oil for less money. Isn't oil easier to get at in the Middle East than the American oil fields?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 08:13:19 AM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
You cant refute my facts or logic so you libel me and dismiss my argument based on your libel. Thats weak.
Markets are cyclical, and all companies will act in their best interests. There's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it. Next time, deploy Occam's Razor before you deploy the tinfoil.
Post by: De Selby on July 25, 2008, 08:48:39 AM
Quote
when it's not possible to fuel all the machines we bought last year on this year's oil supply.
You're kidding right? Whether someone can afford an SUV or not is something else entirely, and the responsibility of the auto buyer. If you're buying a $50K SUV or $50K BMW instead of a $12K Ford Focus, money to put fuel in the vehicle shouldn't be an issue, or you shouldn't be buying that expensive of a vehicle.
We don't have an issue of not having enough oil nationally to "fuel all machines". I haven't seen any "out of gas" signs at any gas stations anywhere.
Money to put fuel in the vehicle is always an issue-more money to put fuel in today, less money to do something else, and less fuel period.
We do clearly have an issue of money being a problem when fuel skyrockets in price. And it's entirely foreseeable that it won't be available in the quantity that it is now.
Just because you haven't seen an out of gas sign lately doesn't mean the supply is uninterruptible, or that the price cannot reach a point where it's impossible to fill your SUV.
It looks like you're on the same page as me here, actually, since you advocate buying a cheaper vehicle to account for increased fuel prices. My idea is the same, except instead of just allocating more money for gas, I think it's a good idea to develop alternatives so that varying fuel prices don't cripple your budget.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 09:01:36 AM
Post by: De Selby on July 25, 2008, 12:58:13 PM
There's an open, worldwide market for oil these days. There will always be gas available for purchase, unless there something like a major world war or stupid government policy like price controls. You'll always be able to buy gas. You may not like the price, though.
Again, this is plainly contradictory-if you can't control the price, you certainly can't ensure you'll always be able to buy gas, and more importantly, that you'll be able to buy it without crippling effects.
That's the point of coming up with alternatives-so that you aren't paralyzed when the price goes to a point that, absent alternatives, efforts to obtain fuel consume all the available financial resources.
Post by: macadore on July 25, 2008, 01:19:18 PM
Egads, man. It's a Riley Redux.
worse, looks like a lot of cut and pasting posting.
You cant refute my facts or logic so you libel me and dismiss my argument based on your libel. Thats weak.
Markets are cyclical, and all companies will act in their best interests. here's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it. Next time, deploy Occam's Razor before you deploy the tinfoil. T
1. Why do markets cycle?
2. Who sets the price?
3. Occam's razor (i.e. parsimony) fits my explanation quite well. Those who control essential resources set the prices. Some economist calls this idea a hydraulic economy because it was originally based on the control of water. If you live in a dessert and control the water, you control everything. Wars have been fought over this.
4.
Quote
Markets are cyclical, and all companies will act in their best interests. here's [sic] nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it.
I agree. Its just business, but it is not a free market. 5. A tinfoil hat accusation from a Ron Paul supporter?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 01:23:25 PM
There's an open, worldwide market for oil these days. There will always be gas available for purchase, unless there something like a major world war or stupid government policy like price controls. You'll always be able to buy gas. You may not like the price, though.
Again, this is plainly contradictory-if you can't control the price, you certainly can't ensure you'll always be able to buy gas, and more importantly, that you'll be able to buy it without crippling effects.
That's the point of coming up with alternatives-so that you aren't paralyzed when the price goes to a point that, absent alternatives, efforts to obtain fuel consume all the available financial resources.
I was talking about cyclical markets earlier, but apparently the point was lost. People buy more gas when it's cheap, demand rises, prices rise, people buy less of it when it's expensive, demand falls, prices fall, people buy more because its cheap. Cyclical, repetitive. High prices beget low prices beget high prices beget low prices...
This is basic economics, something you never seem to consider.
As for alternatives, why not take up the deal I proposed earlier? You allow me to develop whatever new sources I want (ANWR, coastal drilling, etc), and I let you develop whatever new sources you want (wind, solar, you name it). Just a little bit of good ol' fashioned liberty. Whadya say?
There would be only two requirements. One, you can't obstruct me from doing what I want and I can't obstruct you from doing what you want. Two, you and I both pay for our new developments with our own money, neither of us can extorting money from the other via government.
Do we have a deal?
Post by: De Selby on July 25, 2008, 01:30:33 PM
Quote
Gas prices cannot rise to the point where it consumes all financial resources. Should gas prices rise to the point where nobody can afford to buy it, then obviously nobody will buy it. Demand plummets, supply rockets, and prices come back down. The system rebalances itself, reaches its proper equilibrium
Yeah, except you're presuming that an entire infrastructure of fuel-guzzling products is not built up in the period before the skyrocketing gas price.
If so, what happens to the economy when the price gets to high? Then you have lower demand because...the economy is wrecked, so no one can buy anything. Then there's also the fact that the people who sell the oil might receive enough benefit from less oil sold at a higher price to make it worth their while....again, no magic rule of the market prevents this, which is why you plan for it.
These are things you try to avoid because they are catastrophic, not beautiful functions of the free market.
Quote
As for alternatives, why not take up the deal I proposed below? You allow me to develop whatever new sources I want (ANWR, coastal drilling, etc), and I let you develop whatever nerw sources you want (wind, solar, you name it). There would be only two requirements.
For one thing, those resources don't belong to you or to the oil companies-they belong to the US, and the US (at least in theory) belongs to the voters.
But anyway, it's irrelevant-it's silly to try and shut down every effort to conserve fuel and develop alternatives on the notion that oil will always be available (it won't-that is a fact) and that the purveyors of oil will always be forced to react to the market before their pricing destroys the economy (no magic law of economics involved there either.)
Your viewpoint is not predictated on economics, it's predicated on fantasy economics where sellers must obey some magic law of pricing, and where sellers have complete control over the supply of a product that comes from the ground, mostly in places outside the USA, and that is finite in quantity.
Post by: El Tejon on July 25, 2008, 01:36:31 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 01:39:14 PM
Let me drill new wells, build new refineries, put up a bunch of nuke plants. I'll let you do whatever you want with wind or solar or hot air or whatever. I'll pay for mine, you pay for yours. We'll let the American people vote with their dollars for whichever solution they prefer.
Whadya say?
Post by: De Selby on July 25, 2008, 01:58:40 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 02:22:15 PM
Is this the root of our misunderstanding? Is the problem that you cannot conceive of an alternative energy plan that isn't government funded and mandated?
Post by: Ben on July 25, 2008, 03:50:09 PM
Quote
I think it's a good idea to develop alternatives so that varying fuel prices don't cripple your budget.
I agree with this. I think Joe Everyday should prepare, and so should the US. I just don't believe we should promote alternatives to the detriment of the de facto main fuel source we currently use. I've cited China before as an example of a country that is investing in alternative energy, but not giving up current fuel sources while they do that. They're still importing and drilling for oil while they develop bio-products and build nuke plants.
The problem with most of the Gore-ist plans is they want us to severely curtail petroleum use now and throw everything we've got into alternative fuels. There's no reason we shouldn't promote alternative fuel innovation, but we shouldn't curtail oil exploration and production either.
Post by: De Selby on July 25, 2008, 04:04:17 PM
Quote
Markets are cyclical, and people react to them cyclically. We all know that. People buy gas-guzzlers when gas is cheap, and people buy econoboxes when the price of gas is high. What's wrong with that? Should people buy cars that don't fit the times?
Again, if we're not supposed to react to the possible interruptions in supply...how do we plan for a future with oil problems?
Oh that's right-the only sensible solution is to just drill for more oil, when we know: 1) that drilling here doesn't control the prices all that well and 2) Even drilling here, there's only so much oil...it is finite.
Then:
Quote
You're kidding right? Whether someone can afford an SUV or not is something else entirely, and the responsibility of the auto buyer. If you're buying a $50K SUV or $50K BMW instead of a $12K Ford Focus, money to put fuel in the vehicle shouldn't be an issue, or you shouldn't be buying that expensive of a vehicle.
We don't have an issue of not having enough oil nationally to "fuel all machines". I haven't seen any "out of gas" signs at any gas stations anywhere.
We don't have an issue of not having enough oil nationally to "fuel all machines". I haven't seen any "out of gas" signs at any gas stations anywhere.
The issue is not enough oil-here today, gone tomorrow, interruption for any of a multitude of reasons in between.
Maybe instead of ragging on anyone who comes up with any solution other than "burn more oil, get more oil out of the ground", we should all start cooperating to come up with a way so that we are not paralyzed by supply issues.
On this thread, I have seen exactly the opposite attitude:
"Hey, oil prices are great....now I can afford that SUV I always wanted!"
"What's wrong with buying the 6000 SUX? It's perfectly suited to our 99cent a gallon gas economy....we'll just trash them all when gas is 10 dollars and that won't be wasteful nor will it damage the economy!"
"Supply? There's gas everywhere...it's not like Saudi Arabia/Iran could strangle our economy by shutting down supply, or that we'll ever run out of oil. There's more oil than we ever dreamed of in the north pole...the oil companies told me so, and they even helped me plan for the future by opposing any shift in energy production away from oil products! Yay oil companies, they're so selfless!"
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 25, 2008, 04:32:36 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 04:46:27 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 25, 2008, 04:47:46 PM
Maybe instead of ragging on anyone who comes up with any solution other than "burn more oil, get more oil out of the ground", we should all start cooperating to come up with a way so that we are not paralyzed by supply issues.
On this thread, I have seen exactly the opposite attitude:
"Hey, oil prices are great....now I can afford that SUV I always wanted!"
"What's wrong with buying the 6000 SUX? It's perfectly suited to our 99cent a gallon gas economy....we'll just trash them all when gas is 10 dollars and that won't be wasteful nor will it damage the economy!"
I've tried several times to get you to agree to a fair, liberty-minded solution. Let us pursue our ideas for new fuels, and we'll let you pursue yours. Keep your hands out of our pockets, we'll keep ours out of yours. It's perfectly fair and perfectly reasonable.
But you won't agree. Why not?
Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives. But that's never been good enough for you. What you want is for the government, your fellow citizens, to pay for the development of your preferred fuel source.
What's more, your side won't let anyone else drill for more oil. You don't have to drill the oil yourself, or to pay for it yourself. We're not asking you to lift a finger. All we want is for you to get the hell out of the way and let someone else do it.
But no, your side won't even tolerate that.
At some point it becomes clear that this isn't about fuel. What you want is control. You want the power to force people to do things your way, and prohibit people from doing things their way. "Live and let live" is NOT an option for your side.
Post by: macadore on July 26, 2008, 03:08:19 AM
Quote
Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.
I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see . The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?
Post by: Regolith on July 26, 2008, 04:06:12 AM
Quote
Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.
I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see . The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?
Methinks you should remove the tinfoil hat.
The ONLY resistance I've ever seen to nuclear power comes from two groups: Environmentalist, and NIMBY's. Unfortunately, those two groups are very, very good at suing the crap out of anyone who ever thinks about putting up a nuclear power plant, and this resistance is usually enough to keep nuclear plants out of most areas.
I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.
Post by: macadore on July 26, 2008, 05:24:04 AM
Quote
Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.
I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see . The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?
Methinks you should remove the tinfoil hat.
The ONLY resistance I've ever seen to nuclear power comes from two groups: Environmentalist, and NIMBY's. Unfortunately, those two groups are very, very good at suing the crap out of anyone who ever thinks about putting up a nuclear power plant, and this resistance is usually enough to keep nuclear plants out of most areas.
I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.
Youre a poo poo head.
Well youre a popie head.
Am not.
Are too.
Am not.
Are too.
Oh please.
Quote
I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.
I repeat, none are so blind as those who will not see. Does the fact that you have not seen or heard of something mean it does not exist or does it mean you are making decision based on incomplete and faulty information?
Do you honestly believe that organizations that are making billions of dollars off of the current situation will not try to preserve the situation? Thats naive. I spent most of my life working in the energy industry. I have seen how they operate. They are as predatory as the robber barons. I realize most schools do not spend much time on the robber barons. Could it be that the robber barons want to control our thinking? Is it possible they have succeeded?
Rather than another ad hominum argument, answer my questions.
1. Who curtailed oil shipments to the U.S in the late seventies which put hundreds of independent refineries out of business and quadrupled the price of gasoline?
2. Who flooded the oil market in the nineties and forced thousands of wells to be plugged and forced hundreds of independent oil producers out of business?
3. Who benefits from the current energy situation?
4. Will those who benefit from the current situation try to create conditions that will allow them to continue benefiting?
Post by: roo_ster on July 26, 2008, 04:09:35 PM
5. A tinfoil hat accusation from a Ron Paul supporter?
Really, that ought to be a big ol' sign that you may WAY off Reality Road.
Post by: roo_ster on July 26, 2008, 04:18:48 PM
At some point it becomes clear that this isn't about fuel. What you want is control. You want the power to force people to do things your way, and prohibit people from doing things their way. "Live and let live" is NOT an option for your side.
I do believe you have come to the meat of the issue.
Post by: Regolith on July 26, 2008, 04:29:17 PM
Quote
Nobody is stopping your side from developing your alternatives.
I believe it was Davy Crockett who said, None are so blind as those who will not see . The people who control most of the worlds oil supplies do their best to prevent everyone from developing alternatives. They convinced Jimmy Peanut Head Carter to ban the production of new nuclear power facilities. At the time the pseudo intellectuals were sure that nuclear energy was going to destroy the world. Towards the end of the Carter administration we had our first energy shortages and gasoline prices quadrupled. Today, France gets over 80% of its power from nuclear energy while we get almost none. Look at the way France is demonized in some sections of our media. Who is behind that? Who benefits the most from the U.S. not producing enough nuclear energy to meet 80% of our needs?
Methinks you should remove the tinfoil hat.
The ONLY resistance I've ever seen to nuclear power comes from two groups: Environmentalist, and NIMBY's. Unfortunately, those two groups are very, very good at suing the crap out of anyone who ever thinks about putting up a nuclear power plant, and this resistance is usually enough to keep nuclear plants out of most areas.
I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.
Youre a poo poo head.
Well youre a popie head.
Am not.
Are too.
Am not.
Are too.
Oh please.
Quote
I've never heard of nor seen any evidence that the oil companies are backing these groups, or putting up any effective resistance themselves.
I repeat, none are so blind as those who will not see. Does the fact that you have not seen or heard of something mean it does not exist or does it mean you are making decision based on incomplete and faulty information?
Do you honestly believe that organizations that are making billions of dollars off of the current situation will not try to preserve the situation? Thats naive. I spent most of my life working in the energy industry. I have seen how they operate. They are as predatory as the robber barons. I realize most schools do not spend much time on the robber barons. Could it be that the robber barons want to control our thinking? Is it possible they have succeeded?
Rather than another ad hominum argument, answer my questions.
1. Who curtailed oil shipments to the U.S in the late seventies which put hundreds of independent refineries out of business and quadrupled the price of gasoline?
2. Who flooded the oil market in the nineties and forced thousands of wells to be plugged and forced hundreds of independent oil producers out of business?
3. Who benefits from the current energy situation?
4. Will those who benefit from the current situation try to create conditions that will allow them to continue benefiting?
Tell you what. Run and go get some sources that show that oil companies have been blocking nuclear production in the United States. Then, maybe I will believe you. Right now, all you have is empty rhetoric and conspiracy theories spun out of moonbeams.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 26, 2008, 04:30:36 PM
In the meantime, I just filled up again with E-85 for $3.00/gallon.
Running on a cloud of alternative-fuel smug, I'd wager.