Thread: energy policy
View Single Post
  #26   Report Post  
Curtis CCR
 
Posts: n/a
Default energy policy

DSK wrote in message ...
Curtis CCR wrote:
This is a realistic economy. Unlike the overvalued boom we had in the
90s. There was no way to sustain that economy.


What we have now is a small term depression. A steady decline in
aggregate demand nationally, and this is also reflected world wide.
Unemloyment isn't that bad, but the gov't is often saying two different
things (I tend to believe the nonpartisan GAO, which will not remain
nonpartisan if Bush gets reelected). If you count working at McDonalds
as full time manufacturing employment, then sure the economy is great.

The main reason why the economy isn't irretrievably in the dumber is
because Uncle Sam has been spending bazillions on the military for the
past two years... taking that into account, a "mediocre" national
economy sucks!


A DEPRESSION? You have got to be kidding. What the hell kept you
from jumping off a building when Carter was running the country?

2- the gov't *is* foolishly spending even more money



Gotta give you that one. And a lot of republicans are not too
thrilled with GWB's stewardship of the nation's checkbook.


I think a number are less than thrilled with his armtwisting, too.


My point, which you clearly did not bother to read, is that if the price
of gasoline had climbed steadily with inflation, we would not be in
any of the several messes we are in now.



And rec.boats would be left to the handful of people that could afford
it.


Excuse me? Did you understand the point above? If you could afford
boating in 1970, and the price of gas kept up with inflation, you could
afford it now...


Could your point be more muddy? You said your point was that if gas
prices had climbed steadily with inflation, "we would not be in any of
the several messes we are in now." Is boating in one of the messes
you were referring to?

And you could only afford to continue boating with climbing gas prices
if your income kept up to. Average household income as outpaced
inflation, but that's primarily because significantly more households
have two full time money earners than they did in 1970.

Also considered that if EVERYTHING kept pace with inflation, inflation
itself you have been much higher. Gasoline has kept pace with the
cost of production over 30 years. Just like computers... if
electronics had kept pace with inflation my latest TV would have cost
about $5,000, and the Mac I bought a couple of months ago would cost
over $10,000. There are kinds of things that haven't kept pace with
inflation. If they had, we'd be in a whole new mess...

... I always laugh at those that opine gas prices in the US are
artificially low (usually some part of the left wing).


LOL anybody who disagrees is a wild-eyed left-winger, eh?


I admit that it was gratuitous accusation. But are you saying it
isn't true? gas prices have not been artifically low in the US.
Refiners have historically made money - so the prices we have been
charged have covered more than the cost of production.

It seems to me to be Europeans that often think gas is too cheap here.
It's not artificially cheap here - it's artificially expensive
there.

Take a look at refinery operating capacity, and the rate at which new
capacity is being built, and figure whether we are slipping. Prices are
not sustainable at this level, which is why they are going up. Duh.


You're right on that - supply and demand. It's not the only reason
for higher prices, but it's a significant factor.

We have about half the number of refineries running in the US today
than we did 25 years ago. But the half that are left are pumping
damned near the same amount of product. They are running at over 90%
capacity. That should tell you that the most inefficient refineries
are gone. Efficiencies allow producers to produce more and keep costs
down.

Nobdy should be blaming George Bush for a lack of refining capacity.
Who would want to build a new refinery? And if someone wanted to, who
would let them?

World oil demand is climbing - it's not just the US. China is getting
very oil thirsty. Numerous reports point to China as a significant
contributor to demands for oil - I am not blaming China for wanting
oil, but they are now competing more for the resource and it effects
the price. And China is not filling a reserve --- but they might.
They announced last week that they are building strategic reserve
facilities. If they start to fill it - watch prices then.

But our economy in the dumper? Not even.