Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Commodore · 2008-05-08 18:07:32

People in the UK actually live near their work and not some 30 miles out.

Yeah, because they can only go 25 miles without drowning.

By the way the government didn't force us to live where they wanted us. They just made it economically unfeasible to live very far out. Which is a good thing because suburbanization is a terrible thing. It destroys good land just so that people can get away from "the hustle and bustle of cities".

Punitive taxation for the purpose of social engineering in the very definition of tyranny. Have fun with that, but keep it to yourself.

SpaceNut · 2008-05-08 19:59:36

Stormrage, I do understand how it seems like the people of the US are whining about the cost of the fuel but keep in mind as you noted that the greater distances to city or of towns with the lack of a full fledged transportation system where I can expect to catch a ride on a time table does not exist.

I was without a car from early Feburaury until mid April through what is mostly winter here. The nearest grocery store is 2 miles from home which is on top of a hill that has about a mile of up hill grade to walk lugging the needed fresh consumables each day to feed 7.

Walking to the kids sports event to cheer them on was another only way travel of 5 miles and if I wanted to go to the bank of post office it was 7 plus for those.

It costs 20 dollars to get a ride from the grocery store home so that was not happening as I was unemployed and needed every dollar for food, heating oil as wellas many other things that we take for granted.

Something as simple as propane hot water heating which at the time when it was installed was cheaper than electric is no longer so with the rising costs all around.

The closest thing to transportation is the Coast bus service and I would need to walk 5 miles to the nearest stop though it only goes on a very select route for a one way 2 dollar ride regardless of where you start of get off.

So instead of whining I have been researching the alternative energy scene of which once I have enough cash will begin building such systems to lower my energy costs.

cIclops · 2008-05-09 01:43:26

Your statement is funny. Because It's the people of USA who are suffering more then the people of UK (expect for small haulers).

Yeah it's hilarious, the Brits have been paying three times the real price for petrol for decades and it's the American people who are suffering. Ha ha.

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 01:49:13

Do you know why you have that problem Spacenut? Because of low fuel taxes.

Look at me. I'm came back to the UK after helping my mother set up two businesses in Kenya. Now I'm unemployed but my situation is better then yours. My local shop is 5 minutes away. The local park is 1 minute away.

Yeah, because they can only go 25 miles without drowning.

hahahha funny. Not. Go and study up the geography of the UK.

Do you know why my situation is different from yours? Because people in the UK never moved out of the cities. We live either in the cities or just outside it.
I see the smugness of that Commodore and cIclops have over that. They aren't the only ones. Almost every American I meet make those excuses. Except for my cousins who actually grew up in a country with high fuel taxes so they learnt to live with it.

You people still have the mentality that it's your right to use petrol wastefully driving 60 miles a day. What happens when the high fuel prices make that damn unprofitable? You are stuck. Because you don't have a mass transit system. There were fuel taxes to fund them and your to spread out to make it unfeasible for every single suburb to be connected.

Do high fuel prices suck? Oh yeah. Are they good for the economy,the people and the environment in the long term? You bet. Except for the small haulers in the UK who can't adapt most businesses in the UK are well tuned to the high prices. Our government protects precious from being built upon.

By the way I was wronged when I said that people in the UK don't live 30+ miles from their work. There are actually people who travel more then that. They are mostly people who work in the financial centre in Central London and earn a lot of money. But instead of using their cars they use trains.

Commodore · 2008-05-09 07:41:19

No, you know what your problem is? You still seem convinced that the government can make better use of an individuals money than the individual can.

And decades of abusive taxation haven't gotten you the transportation infrastructure you need, cause London had in institute yet another tax, the congestion tax, just to keep cars, even the fuel efficient golf carts, off the streets. If your country has such a great infrastructure, thanks to stupidly high gas taxes, why the congestion?

Maybe they spent all that money on video cameras.

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 12:32:51

No, you know what your problem is? You still seem convinced that the government can make better use of an individuals money than the individual can.

Actually thats the problem with America. Their belief in that the Government can't run things smoothly. Tell me. Who will invest in Mass Public Transit? The Government who collects money from high fuel taxes or the people who save money. I'm guessing the former because the latter will spend the saved money on clothes and coffees.

And decades of abusive taxation haven't gotten you the transportation infrastructure you need, cause London had in institute yet another tax, the congestion tax, just to keep cars, even the fuel efficient golf carts, off the streets. If your country has such a great infrastructure, thanks to stupidly high gas taxes, why the congestion?

The congestion has nothing to do with the public transport. It has everything to do with the fact that London is the one of the biggest financial centre in the world. Unlike America London is very old and the people who originally built the cities didn't actually think about traffic congestion so what you can do with the city is very limited.

I've seen pictures my cousins sent me of Oregon and Minnesota. The streets there are huge compared to the streets in the UK. They were smaller way before the fuel taxes came in to play. In fact when Americans went to Paris in WW2 they found out the hard way that European cities have smaller roads because they tend to be hundreds of years old and in the case of London just under 2 millenniums.

Now Imagine thousands of people travelling to the Inner London on streets that doesn't have the capacity to take them all? The only way to make them wider would be to knock out some houses.

The other reason why congestion exists is because fuel efficiency laws here is stricter in the UK while cars that are efficient enough for American roads are illegal in China. People can afford to drive to inner London and relax in the congestion. The CC will add extra penalty to the driving.

By the way. Do you know what the government is doing to encourage people to get off cars? They are building more Public transport. They took some of the money they get from fuel taxes and spent it on a £16 billion ($31 billion dollar) railway that will connect small towns outside London and Outer London to Inner London. When it comes the amount of people using cars to get to central London will drop.

Commodore · 2008-05-09 13:40:21

No, you know what your problem is? You still seem convinced that the government can make better use of an individuals money than the individual can.
Actually thats the problem with America. Their belief in that the Government can't run things smoothly. Tell me. Who will invest in Mass Public Transit? The Government who collects money from high fuel taxes or the people who save money. I'm guessing the former because the latter will spend the saved money on clothes and coffees.

Its not just a belief, it's been proven time after time. The politicos use the money to buy votes from minority's. People use the money to buy goods and make jobs for themselves and others.

If we had a government that took care of infrastructure, it would be one thing.

And decades of abusive taxation haven't gotten you the transportation infrastructure you need, cause London had in institute yet another tax, the congestion tax, just to keep cars, even the fuel efficient golf carts, off the streets. If your country has such a great infrastructure, thanks to stupidly high gas taxes, why the congestion?
The congestion has nothing to do with the public transport. It has everything to do with the fact that London is the one of the biggest financial centre in the world. Unlike America London is very old and the people who originally built the cities didn't actually think about traffic congestion so what you can do with the city is very limited.
I've seen pictures my cousins sent me of Oregon and Minnesota. The streets there are huge compared to the streets in the UK. They were smaller way before the fuel taxes came in to play. In fact when Americans went to Paris in WW2 they found out the hard way that European cities have smaller roads because they tend to be hundreds of years old and in the case of London just under 2 millenniums.
Now Imagine thousands of people travelling to the Inner London on streets that doesn't have the capacity to take them all? The only way to make them wider would be to knock out some houses.
The other reason why congestion exists is because fuel efficiency laws here is stricter in the UK while cars that are efficient enough for American roads are illegal in China. People can afford to drive to inner London and relax in the congestion. The CC will add extra penalty to the driving.

By the way. Do you know what the government is doing to encourage people to get off cars? They are building more Public transport. They took some of the money they get from fuel taxes and spent it on a £16 billion ($31 billion dollar) railway that will connect small towns outside London and Outer London to Inner London. When it comes the amount of people using cars to get to central London will drop.

If only there were some way of having people living and working in a densely populated area live and work in less densely populated area to put less of a demand on those cramped areas.

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 13:59:05

Its not just a belief, it's been proven time after time. The politicos use the money to buy votes from minority's. People use the money to buy goods and make jobs for themselves and others.
If we had a government that took care of infrastructure, it would be one thing.

Give me one example when a citizens of an industrial country invested their own personal money into something complex that costs billions.

If only there were some way of having people living and working in a densely populated area live and work in less densely populated area to put less of a demand on those cramped areas.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm going to assume that you mean live in a densely populated place and work in a less densely populated areas. Thats impracticable without using cars. It would be extremely expensive to build trains and buses to connect every single suburb in the same way areas in London are connected at the moment. It would also require massive use of Petrol by cars. Which would destroy the environment and cause hardship when Oil prices increase. Kinda like what your seeing now.
What are you going to do when you have to go to work but it's so far out that you lose money travelling there by car? Carpool? Yeah like everyone has access to that.

The perfect solution is to have a heavily dense city with buses and trains everywhere. Congestion charges at the city centre to stop people from travelling unnecessarily. People can get to work in time and the streets are clear for those who actually need it.

Commodore · 2008-05-09 14:55:31

Its not just a belief, it's been proven time after time. The politicos use the money to buy votes from minority's. People use the money to buy goods and make jobs for themselves and others.
If we had a government that took care of infrastructure, it would be one thing.
Give me one example when a citizens of an industrial country invested their own personal money into something complex that costs billions.

Stockholders. Everyday. Following the strictest definition of your demand.

If you want a specific example of private investment and personal purchases that support what has become vital to modern life, take a look at the cell phone networks.

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 15:08:00

Stockholders. Everyday. Following the strictest definition of your demand.
If you want a specific example of private investment and personal purchases that support what has become vital to modern life, take a look at the cell phone networks.

I've never heard of a private company deciding to build a route from Point A of to Point Z. Never. It's always the government who plans it and they hire private companies.

You can have a densely populated area with public transit, but your never going to eliminate the need for private transportation. That leaves you with a choice, either go the dictatorial route and ban private means of travel, or build suitable roads for private transport. Having a congestion tax and absurdly high gas taxes to punish so called "unnecessary" travel teeters dangerously close to the former.

No it isn't. If the people of London objected to the congestion charge they would have protested about it. The only ones who've done it were a bunch of Londoners who didn't want the CC zone increased to their affluent neighbourhood. In fact talk to most Londoners they like the CC. Why? Because it sucks to be stuck in traffic for hours.

Theres a lot to be said for spreading public commuter transport to a lot more central areas, and then using pedestrian, bike, or even local subways for the last few miles. And thats fine if you don't need to carry anything bigger than a laptop. But every business, at one time or another, needs a whole heck of a lot more material than that hauled around in order to function.
And every once in a while I'm going to want to haul home a couple 4'x8' sheets of plywood and a few 2"x4"s home on the weekend. And thats a right your going to have to pry out of my cold dead hands.

Using a car when you need it is ok. Using it so that you can live 30 miles away from your work is ridiculous. No government should make it illegal. They should just make it financially unfeasible.

Btw let me ask you. Where does Global warming and the environment come into this? Or are you one of those who don't believe in Global warming and think that God put us on Earth to do what ever we want to nature?

Vincent · 2008-05-09 15:23:34

You think you are going to make a difference on a Mars forum. Shut up dude.

Vincent

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 15:41:06

You think you are going to make a difference on a Mars forum. Shut up dude.
Vincent

Well this a forum for discussion. If you don't like people discussing take an air plane to China. I'm sure their authoritarian laws would suit your views.

Vincent · 2008-05-09 17:06:25

Stormrage

Now if spinning your tires does not mean anything to you then proceed. I do admire your comeback.

Vincent

Commodore · 2008-05-09 18:44:55

Stockholders. Everyday. Following the strictest definition of your demand.
If you want a specific example of private investment and personal purchases that support what has become vital to modern life, take a look at the cell phone networks.
I've never heard of a private company deciding to build a route from Point A of to Point Z. Never. It's always the government who plans it and they hire private companies.

Private companies are in business to make money, they make roads to places they they want you to go on their property. They are not charities, and are not going to make roads everywhere.

The point remains that private companies, supported by private investment and sales revenue, are the engine that drives the economy, and your only shotting yourself in the foot if you take them for granted with the kind of abusive taxes and wasteful spending on social engineering.

You can have a densely populated area with public transit, but your never going to eliminate the need for private transportation. That leaves you with a choice, either go the dictatorial route and ban private means of travel, or build suitable roads for private transport. Having a congestion tax and absurdly high gas taxes to punish so called "unnecessary" travel teeters dangerously close to the former.
No it isn't. If the people of London objected to the congestion charge they would have protested about it. The only ones who've done it were a bunch of Londoners who didn't want the CC zone increased to their affluent neighbourhood. In fact talk to most Londoners they like the CC. Why? Because it sucks to be stuck in traffic for hours.

Just because your population bends over and lubes up doesn't make it right. If it were unprofitable for people to try to drive in downtown London, they wouldn't do it without the help of the tax collector.

Theres a lot to be said for spreading public commuter transport to a lot more central areas, and then using pedestrian, bike, or even local subways for the last few miles. And thats fine if you don't need to carry anything bigger than a laptop. But every business, at one time or another, needs a whole heck of a lot more material than that hauled around in order to function.
And every once in a while I'm going to want to haul home a couple 4'x8' sheets of plywood and a few 2"x4"s home on the weekend. And thats a right your going to have to pry out of my cold dead hands.
Using a car when you need it is ok. Using it so that you can live 30 miles away from your work is ridiculous. No government should make it illegal. They should just make it financially unfeasible.

So they shouldn't make it illegal, just impossible. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

We have the freedom of movement in this country, due in no small part to the actions of yours. I suggest you look into it.

Btw let me ask you. Where does Global warming and the environment come into this? Or are you one of those who don't believe in Global warming and think that God put us on Earth to do what ever we want to nature?

Let me ask you something. What on Earth makes you think that any other species is going to take steps detrimental to their survival for our sake? Do you believe in evolution? The survival of the fittest? I find this is the case up until the point that the less fit can vote. Furthermore, since humanity has found ways to thrive in nearly every climate on Earth, what makes you think we wouldn't continue to do so? Yes, those barely able to survive currently will have trouble with shifting climates, just as they do with adverse weather today. That really doesn't represent much of a change, now does it?

To answer your question, I believe in global climate change. It has happened before, and will happen again with or without our help. Carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases play an important role in this, and humans are far from the only source of them. This paranoia and power grab is resorting to punishing humans for the natural functions of animals, and it has to stop.

The answer to this is not to infringe on the freedoms of people and tinkering with the markets to enslave people to dependance on more government. The answer is technology and market forces that are naturally going to lead people to the cleanest and cheapest source of fuel possible, and ultimately independence. Denying the free market the ability to explore and exploit, supporting the use of food as fuel, and blocking the construction of the cleanest and most efficient power source known to man as my country has done is part of the problem. Artificially inflating the purchase price of fuel and taxing its use on top of that in effort to control the population as your country has done is part of the problem.

The solution is the maturity of key technologies that insulates at least, frees at best, the private individual from the natural variables in markets that thrive on the uneven distribution of energy that the current generation of technology requires. On the structural energy front, solar and wind power can power most homes, using surplus to create hydrogen for later use in fuel cells during shortage conditions. Fission, and then fusion can then power the grid. On the mobile front, home grown algae based biofuels can power all current classes of automobiles electrically, collecting the CO2 released for reuse in the algae bioreactors, plus the growth of home grown produce. These same generators can produce hydrogen as well.

In short, I believe in a carbon neutral economy. And I believe it can here soon. And I believe that it will be here sooner if the politicos stay out of it.

Stormrage · 2008-05-10 08:20:13

Private companies are in business to make money, they make roads to places they they want you to go on their property. They are not charities, and are not going to make roads everywhere.
The point remains that private companies, supported by private investment and sales revenue, are the engine that drives the economy, and your only shotting yourself in the foot if you take them for granted with the kind of abusive taxes and wasteful spending on social engineering.

Wait. What has this got to do with mass public transit? You know what private companies do? They always take the easy way out. When petrol was cheap the American can industry decided to focus on big cars that waste petrol while the Japanese and the Europeans who were facing stricter fuel economy law made cars that complied with the law. What's happening now? The Japanese and European cars can be sold around the world while the Americans car companies are dying because the only big market for their cars is suddenly drying up.

Now to my original point. No private company will decide to make a public transit system unless the government is involved. For the Government it isn't about short term benefits. It's always the long term for them. Expect for American politicians like McCain and Clinton.

Just because your population bends over and lubes up doesn't make it right. If it were unprofitable for people to try to drive in downtown London, they wouldn't do it without the help of the tax collector.

Without taxes it would be just another example of Tragedy of the Commons. Which is exactly what is happening in USA. When the Canadians didn't stop their fishermen from overfishing. The Fish stocks collapsed and the overfishing fishermen lost their jobs and had to move out and leave their family behind to get jobs. The economic damage to the states they kept a blind eye to the overfishing was enormous. This is the same thing that is happening in the US. The government didn't increase taxes on fuels. The people didn't think ahead and foolishly moved out of the cities and bought big cars. Now that the oil prices are high they are upset. They have to change their lifestyle. SUV sales have dropped and the sales of small fuel efficient cars are increasing. Prius has become famous. This would have never happened if the petrol prices were low.

Oh and my population my take it up the ass. But at least we aren't suffering.

So they shouldn't make it illegal, just impossible. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

Wait. Are you acually defending the right of people to live very far away from work? That makes no sense. It's stupid and it's not even practicable.. If this was Saudi Arabia where Petrol costs less then a dollar maybe but no in a country that imports the vast majority of it it's oil.

We have the freedom of movement in this country, due in no small part to the actions of yours. I suggest you look into it.

I think it's great that UK contributed a lot to America but it's a bit unfair on the Germans who are the biggest group in your country.

The answer to this is not to infringe on the freedoms of people and tinkering with the markets to enslave people to dependance on more government. The answer is technology and market forces that are naturally going to lead people to the cleanest and cheapest source of fuel possible, and ultimately independence. Denying the free market the ability to explore and exploit, supporting the use of food as fuel, and blocking the construction of the cleanest and most efficient power source known to man as my country has done is part of the problem. Artificially inflating the purchase price of fuel and taxing its use on top of that in effort to control the population as your country has done is part of the problem.

This is only half true. Has I said earlier businesses will always take the easy option. If fuel taxes are barely non existent. What will happen is that they won't focus on fuel efficient cars but on cars like SUVs. After prices increased and people can't afford to drive a 15 mile per gallon car. Hybrid cars like Pruis are popular. This would have NEVER happened. People have bad memories. In the UK there was a housing crash in the early 90s. During the early 00s people forgot about it and borrowed like mad thinking that the good times will last.

It's very easy to say market force but there has to be a driver. Affordability is a big driver.

The problem with global warming isn't the damage to the Planet or the animals and plants that will be killed off by it. It's the damage done to Humans. When I went on a trip to Iceland I met an old man there who used to ice fish every single year since his father took him at the age of 7. But now days he has to stop. Because the ice is to thin thought the winter. Thats only one slice of the effect Global Warming is having. It's very easy to say we will adapt. But think about it for a moment. How do you expect poor countries to adapt when they don't have the money? What is Bangladesh supposed to against cyclones? Tell it's poor people who need the sea to stay away from the coast?

If more Katrinas happened I don't think you would have that kinda attitude.

Edit: It looks like relative high petrol prices are doing to Americans what fuel taxes did to the Europeans.

The increase in transit use coincides with other signs that American motorists are beginning to change their driving habits, including buying smaller vehicles. The Energy Department recently predicted that Americans would consume slightly less gasoline this year than last — for the first yearly decline since 1991.
But meeting the greater demand for mass transit is proving difficult. The cost of fuel and power for public transportation is about three times that of four years ago, and the slowing economy means local sales tax receipts are down, so there is less money available for transit services. Higher steel prices are making planned expansions more expensive.

Looks like high fuel taxes do serve their purpose after all. London getting a $32 billion railway and American cities are struggling keep up with public demand with what they already have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/busin … ei=5087%0A

Commodore · 2008-05-12 21:16:41

Private companies are in business to make money, they make roads to places they they want you to go on their property. They are not charities, and are not going to make roads everywhere.
The point remains that private companies, supported by private investment and sales revenue, are the engine that drives the economy, and your only shotting yourself in the foot if you take them for granted with the kind of abusive taxes and wasteful spending on social engineering.
Wait. What has this got to do with mass public transit? You know what private companies do? They always take the easy way out. When petrol was cheap the American can industry decided to focus on big cars that waste petrol while the Japanese and the Europeans who were facing stricter fuel economy law made cars that complied with the law. What's happening now? The Japanese and European cars can be sold around the world while the Americans car companies are dying because the only big market for their cars is suddenly drying up.
Now to my original point. No private company will decide to make a public transit system unless the government is involved. For the Government it isn't about short term benefits. It's always the long term for them. Expect for American politicians like McCain and Clinton.

No, private companies are not going to build roads directly, that would violate the purpose of their existence. It would tolerated just as well, if not worse than wasteful spending by the government.

Never the less, companies do contribute, just like private citizens, to public coffers by paying taxes. There is two ways go about it, either heavy on the outset, like a 50% tax on gas, which stifles growth and limits the capital available to companies to grow their business. The other is lower at the beginning, but by leaving people more of their own money, they invest it and do more business overall, actually contributing more in taxes, while also making more money. Thus, more money in the public coffers for infrastructure.

As for individual countries use of car, the US does have a different relationship. The small, crowded streets of Europe and Asia are more conducive to the "golf carts" that are inevitably more fuel efficient. These however, would not work well on American roads, were the space and speeds would make them death traps. We like to do things and go places that simply do not exist any other place on Earth. You can cross the largest country in Europe in a train in a day. The same trip would take a week in the US.

The overall expense of useful automobiles actually contributes greatly to what we buy. We buy one car that can do anything we can see ourselves doing, then we drive it everyday cause we can't afford another. So if we ever want to tow anything, or carry more than 4 people comfortably, they buy an SUV. This wears the thing out within 5-7 years, then we start over. 30 years ago, we could service our own cars, thats much more difficult now, the manufacturers do this on purpose and thats how they make their money. A much better formula is several older automobiles, a sleek 30+mph sedan for long distance highway driving, a sturdy light SUV for local hauling and recreational off roading, a full size truck for heavy hauling, and finally, a motorcycle for everyday, 3 season commuting.

Just because your population bends over and lubes up doesn't make it right. If it were unprofitable for people to try to drive in downtown London, they wouldn't do it without the help of the tax collector.
Without taxes it would be just another example of Tragedy of the Commons. Which is exactly what is happening in USA. When the Canadians didn't stop their fishermen from overfishing. The Fish stocks collapsed and the overfishing fishermen lost their jobs and had to move out and leave their family behind to get jobs. The economic damage to the states they kept a blind eye to the overfishing was enormous. This is the same thing that is happening in the US. The government didn't increase taxes on fuels. The people didn't think ahead and foolishly moved out of the cities and bought big cars. Now that the oil prices are high they are upset. They have to change their lifestyle. SUV sales have dropped and the sales of small fuel efficient cars are increasing. Prius has become famous. This would have never happened if the petrol prices were low.

The trouble with that analogy is were not running out of oil anytime soon. Were not even allowed to explore thanks to the democrats. The Brazilians just found one of the largest reserves ever off their Atlantic coasts. We have Alaska, California, both Florida coasts, Colorado oil shale, Alberta oil sands, god knows were else. It's not an unending supply, and the effort required to get it will increase. That is reason enough to shift to renewable home grown sources.

Whats worst is various states set up their own emissions standards, requiring different formulas, and creating artificial shortages.

Now theres going to be natural variations, natural disasters that destroy infrastructure, wars that disrupt supply, growing demand, all that will make the price go up. The speculators make money that way. But the government doesn't need to contribute by both limiting supply and then making windfall tax profits by their own shortages.

Oh and my population my take it up the ass. But at least we aren't suffering.

Well, I suppose those "suffering" from Stockholm really don't "suffer" in the conventional sense.

So they shouldn't make it illegal, just impossible. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Wait. Are you acually defending the right of people to live very far away from work? That makes no sense. It's stupid and it's not even practicable.. If this was Saudi Arabia where Petrol costs less then a dollar maybe but no in a country that imports the vast majority of it it's oil.

In a free country people have the uninfringed right to live and work were ever they want. Believe it or not there isn't employment for every conceivable field on every street corner.

We have the freedom of movement in this country, due in no small part to the actions of yours. I suggest you look into it.
I think it's great that UK contributed a lot to America but it's a bit unfair on the Germans who are the biggest group in your country.

What do the Germans have to do with it?

The majority of expressed freedoms to come out of the Revolutionary period were direct responses to injustices, real and imagined, committed by the British crown.

I see some are still justified.

The answer to this is not to infringe on the freedoms of people and tinkering with the markets to enslave people to dependance on more government. The answer is technology and market forces that are naturally going to lead people to the cleanest and cheapest source of fuel possible, and ultimately independence. Denying the free market the ability to explore and exploit, supporting the use of food as fuel, and blocking the construction of the cleanest and most efficient power source known to man as my country has done is part of the problem. Artificially inflating the purchase price of fuel and taxing its use on top of that in effort to control the population as your country has done is part of the problem.
This is only half true. Has I said earlier businesses will always take the easy option. If fuel taxes are barely non existent. What will happen is that they won't focus on fuel efficient cars but on cars like SUVs. After prices increased and people can't afford to drive a 15 mile per gallon car. Hybrid cars like Pruis are popular. This would have NEVER happened. People have bad memories. In the UK there was a housing crash in the early 90s. During the early 00s people forgot about it and borrowed like mad thinking that the good times will last.
It's very easy to say market force but there has to be a driver. Affordability is a big driver.

As I mentioned, culture and other forces tend to push people towards a car that is a jack of all trades, master of none. Theres nothing wrong with a do it all auto, but we don't need it all the time. Absurd insurance (a tax in and of itself) costs, registration, inspection, and new and complicated maintenance make the alternetive difficult. People will eventually find a way.

The problem with global warming isn't the damage to the Planet or the animals and plants that will be killed off by it. It's the damage done to Humans. When I went on a trip to Iceland I met an old man there who used to ice fish every single year since his father took him at the age of 7. But now days he has to stop. Because the ice is to thin thought the winter. Thats only one slice of the effect Global Warming is having. It's very easy to say we will adapt. But think about it for a moment. How do you expect poor countries to adapt when they don't have the money? What is Bangladesh supposed to against cyclones? Tell it's poor people who need the sea to stay away from the coast?
If more Katrinas happened I don't think you would have that kinda attitude.

As I said the impoverished of the world haven't adapted to the natural extremes of their current climate, a new one is not going to be different. Fishing is just as fun on a boat as in a shanty, if not more so.

And I don't know were you get your news from, but Katrina, by the time it hit, was not an abnormally bad storm. It just happened to hit in just the right weak spot that was known about since the 1960's when it was flooded by Camillie. For some reason NO likes to play russian roulette with their levees.

bobunf · 2008-05-13 00:53:06

According to the Bureau of the Census, American Housing Survey for 2000 the distance Americans traveled from home to work was distributed as follows:

Less than 1 mile 4%
1 to 4 miles 21%
5 to 9 miles 22%
10 to 19 miles 29%
20 to 29 miles 13%
30 to 49 miles 9%
50 miles or more 2%

This approximates a log-normal distribution. Other types of trips follows a similar distribution.

Examining these figures it is easy to see the effects that plug-in hybrid automobiles could have on the use of gasoline. Assuming there were no facilities for plugging in at destinations, plug-in hybrids with a range of:

5 miles would reduce gasoline usage by 39%
10 miles would reduce gasoline usage by 55%
20 miles would reduce gasoline usage by 75%

This could be accomplished with technology that is within 20 or so months of mass marketing and would be fully implemented within about ten years with no great investments or inconveniences. The environmental impacts would be beneficial.

Assuming there were facilities for plugging in at half of the destinations, plug-in hybrids with a range of:

5 miles would reduce gasoline usage by 44%
10 miles would reduce gasoline usage by 65%
20 miles would reduce gasoline usage by 84%

These reductions could be accomplished with modest investments in plug-in facilities and some increase in generating capacity, although, even this could be largely avoided.

With such an easy solution and environmental benefits nearly at hand, it hardly seems like the current oil bubble is a significant problem for the US approach to gasoline taxes and mass transit.

Of course, there are many other approaches to dealing with high oil prices, which may be equally effective in substantially reducing the significance of oil.

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-16 17:04:06

No, private companies are not going to build roads directly, that would violate the purpose of their existence. It would tolerated just as well, if not worse than wasteful spending by the government.

So what does this have to do with my original point. I asked you if the non government sector would build a mass transit system if the taxes on fuel were low. I'll take that has a no.

Never the less, companies do contribute, just like private citizens, to public coffers by paying taxes. There is two ways go about it, either heavy on the outset, like a 50% tax on gas, which stifles growth and limits the capital available to companies to grow their business. The other is lower at the beginning, but by leaving people more of their own money, they invest it and do more business overall, actually contributing more in taxes, while also making more money. Thus, more money in the public coffers for infrastructure.

Like the Bush tax breaks? If you give rich people lower taxes eventually there will be more money for the government. How did that work out? Oh yeah. It didn't actually increase revenue. It decreased it. Leaving Social Security and Medicare even bigger holes.

As for individual countries use of car, the US does have a different relationship. The small, crowded streets of Europe and Asia are more conducive to the "golf carts" that are inevitably more fuel efficient. These however, would not work well on American roads, were the space and speeds would make them death traps. We like to do things and go places that simply do not exist any other place on Earth. You can cross the largest country in Europe in a train in a day. The same trip would take a week in the US.

Cause and effect. Cheap fuel - Big cars and high travelling.

The trouble with that analogy is were not running out of oil anytime soon. Were not even allowed to explore thanks to the democrats. The Brazilians just found one of the largest reserves ever off their Atlantic coasts. We have Alaska, California, both Florida coasts, Colorado oil shale, Alberta oil sands, god knows were else. It's not an unending supply, and the effort required to get it will increase. That is reason enough to shift to renewable home grown sources.

The trouble with what you said is that it doesn't take into account rising demand. Now thanks to the high prices demand is falling in the US. If the prices went down they would shoot through the roof. Oil will run out. Unless a HUGE reserve several times the size of the Saudi reserves are found.

Well, I suppose those "suffering" from Stockholm really don't "suffer" in the conventional sense.

Not has much has those stuck out in the middle of no where with no food and no chances of anybody coming to rescue them.

In a free country people have the uninfringed right to live and work were ever they want. Believe it or not there isn't employment for every conceivable field on every street corner.

In the UK service jobs are around the corner. Office jobs are usually a bus ride away. Inner city jobs are a train or two away.

By the way. In free countries. People are allowed to shout I have a bomb in planes.

What do the Germans have to do with it?

50 million German-Americans.

The majority of expressed freedoms to come out of the Revolutionary period were direct responses to injustices, real and imagined, committed by the British crown.

Most of it imagined. Like the imagined victory of 1812.

And I don't know were you get your news from, but Katrina, by the time it hit, was not an abnormally bad storm. It just happened to hit in just the right weak spot that was known about since the 1960's when it was flooded by Camillie. For some reason NO likes to play russian roulette with their levees.

There is a difference between 1960 and 2005. In 2005 the waters were warmer then normally leading to a lot of storms. Katrina was just one of many. Waters that were normally to cold to have Hurricanes suddenly had Hurricanes over them.

Less than 1 mile 4%
1 to 4 miles 21%
5 to 9 miles 22%
10 to 19 miles 29%
20 to 29 miles 13%
30 to 49 miles 9%
50 miles or more 2%

So half of the people travelled more then 10 miles on their cars. Very unusual and environmentally dangerous. I bet they are closing their eyes and just pumping.

With such an easy solution and environmental benefits nearly at hand, it hardly seems like the current oil bubble is a significant problem for the US approach to gasoline taxes and mass transit.

Buying a hybrid would mean that people have spend money on a Japanese car. Something you Conservatives get itchy about. Besides in this economical environment how many people can afford to spend thousands on a car? It wouldn't even help the economy. A train how ever is different. Just buy a season ticket and the money goes to the government and the American company.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-20 10:14:50

The trouble with that analogy is were not running out of oil anytime soon. Were not even allowed to explore thanks to the democrats. The Brazilians just found one of the largest reserves ever off their Atlantic coasts. We have Alaska, California, both Florida coasts, Colorado oil shale, Alberta oil sands, god knows were else. It's not an unending supply, and the effort required to get it will increase. That is reason enough to shift to renewable home grown sources.
Whats worst is various states set up their own emissions standards, requiring different formulas, and creating artificial shortages.
Now theres going to be natural variations, natural disasters that destroy infrastructure, wars that disrupt supply, growing demand, all that will make the price go up. The speculators make money that way. But the government doesn't need to contribute by both limiting supply and then making windfall tax profits by their own shortages.

One thing I must admit that even if were not running out of oil, the World supply of it is quite unreliable, and its price girates quite a bit. I don't really care if Saudi Arabia has a 100 year supply of crude oil, the problem is, as Winston Churchill said, is its concentration. Oil is concentrated in all the wrong places across the globe and it grants boons of cash to the undeserving, lazy, and violent. These people also seem highly unappreciative of all the cash we're putting into their pockets. One of the reason's I am not so sympathetic to the Palestinians is that they have rich friends who give them weapons and everything they need to kill Jews, yet they continue to let them live in squallor in the shadow of Israeli occupation. If the Saudis wanted to put the Palestinians up in nice homes in their own territory free of violence, they probably could, especially with the prices were paying for gas today, but instead of sharing the wealth with their Palestinians brothers, they are using them for cannon-fodder against Israelis and programming them to "self-destruct" in order to create carnage. The reason the Israelis are the way they are is in part because the Palestinians are the way they are, and the Saudis and their so-called "friends" the Iranians want to keep them that way. We would end this war alot sooner if half our population weren't so willing to give into them in the name of their opposition to war.

Rxke · 2008-05-21 00:00:46

Wow, Tom, for once I agree with you!

You nailed it.

Grypd · 2008-05-21 04:31:45

Sorry Rxke and Tom I can qarauntee that the Iranians and the Saudi's do not like each other. They never have and for all intents never will. Though they are Islamic states they are also of two very seperate sides of the religion and you can add to the pot that Iranians are Persians and the Saudi's Arabs and are traditional enemies. They also both want to be the top dog in the gulf.

But like everything they really dont have as much control over the value of Oil as they wish you to think. Oil pumped out of the ground has to be refined and there simply is no spare capacity to do that. The refineries in existence are going at full tilt and they need to be refitted soon and though there are new refineries being built for the forseeable future as soon as they come online others will have to be switched off to get serviced.

Another point is that the middle east has a growing economy, population and a demand for services that are having to be met. Everyone is wanting the new washing machines, Air conditioners, Fresh water production etc and that requires electricity. In the middle east the gas that comes out of wells is often used by pumping back into the ground to keep the pressure in the wells up and so increasing the amount of Oil flowing and to provide heat to the refineries. But as the demand for electricity has grown so has there need to use that gas for making electricity. What this has meant is that Oil production has slowed and has even lead to deals being done for middle east countries to start importing coal for power production.

cIclops · 2008-05-21 07:55:03

One thing I must admit that even if were not running out of oil, the World supply of it is quite unreliable, and its price girates quite a bit. I don't really care if Saudi Arabia has a 100 year supply of crude oil, the problem is, as Winston Churchill said, is its concentration. Oil is concentrated in all the wrong places across the globe and it grants boons of cash to the undeserving, lazy, and violent.

Churchill would be wrong today. Oil production is worldwide, much of it outside the Middle East. The largest producer right now is Russia and there are big producers such as Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, China, Norway and of course the US. Next to Saudi Arabia, the second largest reserves are in Canada. Are you calling the Canadians undeserving, lazy, and violent?

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-21 08:54:00

Sorry Rxke and Tom I can qarauntee that the Iranians and the Saudi's do not like each other. They never have and for all intents never will. Though they are Islamic states they are also of two very seperate sides of the religion and you can add to the pot that Iranians are Persians and the Saudi's Arabs and are traditional enemies. They also both want to be the top dog in the gulf.
But like everything they really dont have as much control over the value of Oil as they wish you to think. Oil pumped out of the ground has to be refined and there simply is no spare capacity to do that. The refineries in existence are going at full tilt and they need to be refitted soon and though there are new refineries being built for the forseeable future as soon as they come online others will have to be switched off to get serviced.
Another point is that the middle east has a growing economy, population and a demand for services that are having to be met. Everyone is wanting the new washing machines, Air conditioners, Fresh water production etc and that requires electricity. In the middle east the gas that comes out of wells is often used by pumping back into the ground to keep the pressure in the wells up and so increasing the amount of Oil flowing and to provide heat to the refineries. But as the demand for electricity has grown so has there need to use that gas for making electricity. What this has meant is that Oil production has slowed and has even lead to deals being done for middle east countries to start importing coal for power production.

It is not an efficient market if the price of the commodity gyrates so vastly, if there are few refineries and most of them go offline for maintenance at once, this is an indicator that there are few suppliers in the market. The nature of the oil market is such that there can't be perfect or even efficient competition between producers, its all dependent on few suppliers. There are insufficient producers to guarantee a stable price and future demand is not properly anticipated, exploration is not done sufficiently, and if it all depends on the policy of a few corporations or governments, then there is something wrong with this source of energy.

An efficient market would not reward lazy people with the hard earned money of working people. People have to work hard to earn their paychecks while fat lazy Arabs sit on their duffs, steal money, and plot the next terrorist attack against their customers. I think an oil cartel or any sort of artificial monopoly is stealing, and I think we have sufficient military resources to put a stop to that if we really wanted. I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for those oil rick fat cats that have all that time on their hands to buy weapons and arm terrorists while pursuing their religious Jihad. Maybe the oil fields of the Middle East ought to be considered a World Resource and exporpriated accordingly. Iran and Saudi Arabia would collapse economically without their oil wealth, they don't work for it, they hire foreigners to pump it out for them, and they take the money and spend some of it on Jihad, and I think the rest of the World's population ought to have something to say about it. What precisely I can't say. Preferrably I'd rather see cars that run on something else besides petroleum products, not smaller more efficient cars, the point is not to save money but not to give it to the undeserving and violent, and little toy two cylinder gasoline cars just don't do it for me, no matter how much the environmentalists may like them.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-21 09:06:11

One thing I must admit that even if were not running out of oil, the World supply of it is quite unreliable, and its price girates quite a bit. I don't really care if Saudi Arabia has a 100 year supply of crude oil, the problem is, as Winston Churchill said, is its concentration. Oil is concentrated in all the wrong places across the globe and it grants boons of cash to the undeserving, lazy, and violent.
Churchill would be wrong today. Oil production is worldwide, much of it outside the Middle East. The largest producer right now is Russia and there are big producers such as Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, China, Norway and of course the US. Next to Saudi Arabia, the second largest reserves are in Canada. Are you calling the Canadians undeserving, lazy, and violent?

The proof is in the price of gas and oil, it shouldn't go from $1.50 to $2 to $3 and then $4 per gallon all in a short period of time. If this was an efficient market with plenty of suppliers, there wouldn't be bottlenecks that can be manipulated by a few to produce vast gyrations in the price of gasoline and oil. I'd rather have an energy source that is predictable and reflective of the labor and resources that go into producing it, oil is not such an energy source. There are alot of countries that have some oil, but only a few countries have most of it. It shouldn't matter whether we develop our North Slope Alaskan oil or not because their should be plenty of other countries willing to develop their equivalents of Alaskan oil if we won't, the market and demand for oil should ensure that there should be plenty of oil while keeping the price of it within a narrow range compared to the person's purchasing power. The Sun for instance produces a more or less constant 1400 watts per square meter on a clear sunny day, there are no countries that get most of the World's sunshine and they can't set the price of energy produced by the Sun because of their monopoly or near monopoly. I think coal is a more democratic form of energy, as its more evenly distributed if dirty.

My priority is not to let deranged despots of the Middle East and other unfriendly places to get our energy dollars, so they can't arm terrorists and build nuclear weapons, and if that means a dirtier environment, I'd just say that's too bad and point my finger at those same despots and say it is all their fault for making us do this. If I could I'd make sure the Middle East got most of our acid rain and sulferous emissions as well, but you can't have everything.

bobunf · 2008-05-21 13:18:38

“It is not an efficient market if the price of the commodity gyrates so vastly”

This is a flawed understanding of how markets work and behave.

I don’t think that one could argue that the US stock market is not efficient. Nonetheless, there have always been wild gyrations in the price of stocks—even the market averages fluctuate very sharply at times. For instance—just three recent examples:

On March 16, 2,000, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 5%--in seven hours!
In January 2000, the DJIA hit 11,750; 33 months later it was at 7,197—a 39% drop.
On October 11, 2007 the DJIA closed at 14,165; it was at 11,635 on January 22, 2008—an 18% drop in 103 days.

The behaviour of individual stocks and commodities is much more volatile.

Nobody alleges “few suppliers;” that “it all depends on the policy of a few corporations or governments;” that “there is something wrong” with the New York Stock Exchange.

Instead, people say things like, “the markets clear every day,” which is a bit of a tautology.

There are a lot of buyers and a lot of sellers in the oil markets; the only entity that produces or consumes more than 20% of the oil supply is the United States, which consumes a little over 20% of world production.

Consider this table:

World Oil Producers & Consumers, 2006 - (millions of barrels per day)

Producers........Production
1 Saudi Arabia 10.72
2. Russia 9.67
3 United States 8.37
4. Iran .. 4.12
5. Mexico 3.71
6. China 3.84
7. Canada 3.23
8. UAEmirates 2.94
9. Venezuela 2.81
10. Norway 2.79
11. Kuwait 2.67
12. Nigeria 2.44
13. Brazil 2.16
14. Iraq ........... 2.01
Includes all countries with total oil production exceeding 2 million barrels per day in 2006. Includes crude oil, natural gas liquids, condensate, refinery gain, and other liquids.

Consumers......Consumption
1 United States 20.59
2. China 7.27
3. Japan 5.22
4. Russia 3.10
5. Germany 2.63
6. India ............ 2.53
7. Canada 2.22
8. Brazil 2.12
9. South Korea 2.12
10 Saudi Arabia 2.07
11. Mexico 2.03
12. France 1.97
13. UK . 1.82
14. Italy 1.71
Includes all countries that consumed more than 2 million barrels per day in 2006.

Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA). www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/ .

It looks as though the only entity with potentially monopolistic market power is the United States, which has the ability to easily flex that market power by reducing its own consumption or increasing its own production.

The current oil markets are responding to new information at it becomes available. Today, for instance, it was reported that oil stocks had unexpectedly declined, and the price of oil rose about 5%.

Commodity prices are subject to bubbles (entirely without evil malefactors; just humans behaving like humans)—tulips, salad oil, coconut oil, silver, gold, housing, and, of course, oil. I suspect the current rise in oil prices is a bubble, which will be pricked within a couple of years.

Not because the market is inefficient because of few suppliers or consumers, but because bubbles burst.

Bob

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2008-05-08 18:07:32

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#127 2008-05-08 19:59:36

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#128 2008-05-09 01:43:26

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#129 2008-05-09 01:49:13

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#130 2008-05-09 07:41:19

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#131 2008-05-09 12:32:51

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#132 2008-05-09 13:40:21

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#133 2008-05-09 13:59:05

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#134 2008-05-09 14:55:31

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#135 2008-05-09 15:08:00

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#136 2008-05-09 15:23:34

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#137 2008-05-09 15:41:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#138 2008-05-09 17:06:25

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#139 2008-05-09 18:44:55

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#140 2008-05-10 08:20:13

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#141 2008-05-12 21:16:41

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#142 2008-05-13 00:53:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#143 2008-05-16 17:04:06

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#144 2008-05-20 10:14:50

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#145 2008-05-21 00:00:46

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#146 2008-05-21 04:31:45

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#147 2008-05-21 07:55:03

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#148 2008-05-21 08:54:00

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#149 2008-05-21 09:06:11

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

#150 2008-05-21 13:18:38

Re: Current Gasoline/Petrol Price$

Board footer