| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
PBS NewsHour: RISING TIDE January 1, 1996 TRANSCRIPT http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html [snip] DAVE MacFARLANE, Alden Yachts: I don't know anybody in the Marine industry that didn't know that there was a total disaster to start, and it's still amazing to think how somebody could come up with an idea that would shut off a business, and everybody that was in the business knew this would happen, and yet it floated right through. KWAME HOLMAN: The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone. WALTER SCHULZ, Boat Builder: (1992) When that tax came down, I mean, it was just as if, I know the metaphor sounds exaggerated, as if someone turned the faucet off. KWAME HOLMAN: At that time we talked with Walter Schulz, founder and president of Shannon Yachts. After 17 years of building boats, his company did collapse. Schulz was forced to declare bankruptcy. WALTER SCHULZ: American boat builders, manufacturers were able to still dominate. We were able to compete head-to-head in terms of price. We were able to compete head-to-head in terms of technology. We were able to make the technological advances that still continue to dominate. We were able to make the design advances that dominate the world market. And that existed, by the way, right up until last year, I mean, and then it vaporized. KWAME HOLMAN: We talked with Ken Kubic, manager of the East Passage Marine on Narragansett Bay. KEN KUBIC, East Passage Marina: (1992) We used to do close to $400,000 worth of launching and christening work for these manufacturers, and that, that just dried up to nothing. KWAME HOLMAN: When we talked with Dave MacFarlane in 1992, Alden Yachts had no new boats on order. MacFarlane had been forced to lay off dozens of skilled workers and at the time concluded the luxury tax was costing the government more money than it was collecting. DAVE MacFARLANE: (1992) If you look at approximately say 35 or so people laid off at about say two hundred and sixty-five to three hundred and ten dollars a week in unemployment, if you add that up, you know, it comes to about $1/2 million. KWAME HOLMAN: Some members of Congress realized almost immediately they made a mistake in levying the luxury tax. SEN. JOHN BREAUX, (D) Louisiana: (1992) Now there's no question that the economy has hurt the boat-building business, but I think that they were just barely treading water. And what Congress did was come up and kind of put our foot on top of their heads and just shoved them under the water line, and as a result, they really are drowning. KWAME HOLMAN: It took a relentless grassroots lobbying campaign by the boat builders, but Congress finally did repeal the federal luxury tax on boats in August of 1993. We returned to Rhode Island a few weeks ago to see if the boat-building industry had returned. It had for Dave MacFarlane. Joe Dockery ordered his $2 1/2 million yacht from MacFarlane five days after the luxury tax was repealed. JOE DOCKERY: It was pretty close to immediately. We were just waiting for it to end, and as soon as it ended, we moved. KWAME HOLMAN: Ray Lavoie, supervisor of all electrical and mechanical work at Alden, was one of the few survivors of the layoffs. RAY LAVOIE, Alden Yachts: (inspecting yacht) I think we're all set. KWAME HOLMAN: He said once the luxury tax was repealed, the turnaround in business was instantaneous. RAY LAVOIE: Almost immediately, almost immediately, we started selling some boats, and interest picked up, and most of the individuals that we called that were working here came back. KWAME HOLMAN: Alden now has a backlog of half a dozen boats on order, and its full-time work force is nearly back to where it was before the luxury tax was implemented. RAY LAVOIE: So it's a good feeling. _______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com |
OT A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
wrote in message Newsflash: The luxury tax, implemented by Republican Conservative George Bush, was repealed in 1993 by Democratic Moderate, Bill Clinton. Fact: G.H.W.Bush was opposed to the luxury tax, but signed the bill as a compromise measure in order to obtain congressional approval for other of his initiatives, not to mention some provisions of his own in that same bill. Fact: The luxury tax was a democrat initiative to penalize the rich. All it accomplished was the demise of many businesses that employed thousands of blue-collar workers. The old unintended result reared its ugly head, and Clinton signed the repeal as any rational president would have done. Max |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
"Cindy Alronn" wrote ...
KWAME HOLMAN: The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. .... BS!. The PO was asking $15,000 for my boat. I offered $10,000 and he accepted. If he'd held out for $11,000 (10% more) I'd have accepted that too. I've put well over $5000 (50%) more into her over the past year just to make her fit my wife and I, so I really cannot believe that 10% makes anybody decide not to buy or to buy overseas. We've been looking at boats in the $150-200,000 range just in case we decide to sell the house after we retire. Trust me, if we find a boat we want, 10% isn't going to deter us. Moreover, it's not as though the so called "conservatives" would quit spending the money if/when that tax went away. They'd just borrow it and leave our kids to pay the interest. Clinton was a tax-and-spend Democrat. Bush is a borrow and spend even more Republican. Which is worse? |
OT A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Holy ****! Clinton did something right????????
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message Newsflash: The luxury tax, implemented by Republican Conservative George Bush, was repealed in 1993 by Democratic Moderate, Bill Clinton. Fact: G.H.W.Bush was opposed to the luxury tax, but signed the bill as a compromise measure in order to obtain congressional approval for other of his initiatives, not to mention some provisions of his own in that same bill. Fact: The luxury tax was a democrat initiative to penalize the rich. All it accomplished was the demise of many businesses that employed thousands of blue-collar workers. The old unintended result reared its ugly head, and Clinton signed the repeal as any rational president would have done. Max |
OT Kentucky Fried Chickens' new "Hillary Special",
Kentucky fired chickens' new "Hillary Special":
Two fat thighs, a left wing, and a small breast. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Your point is well taken. It is crucial that the
government downsize itself and become fiscally responsible. That will not happen until the next crash when it will be unavoidable. The economic reason for the current spending is it is believed to forestall recession. And the big fear is of course the inevitable upcoming depression--which can be delayed, but not prevented. Unfortunately, delaying tactics only extend the term of economic crashes. The balloon will break at some point, consumer confidence will be lost and we will all be hit hard as real estate prices crash. Those with liquid assets will be in the best situation to capitalize. Those in weak positions will lose out. Indicators of this are the following: 1. A rising percentage of debt compared to nominal GNP. 2. The furious efforts of the banking industry to roll unsecured debt into secured real estate. 3. A record of extraodinarily high returns in many forms of investment a decade or more ago which typically cycles to normal returns and then far below average returns. 4. Debt compunding faster than income. 5. Foreign debt defaults. 6. Financial scandals. Research the Hatry Scandal and the famous frauds of Ivar Kreuger, and the Credit Moblier Scandal, and compare them to their respective economic environments. It would be far better for the government to adopt conservative spending habits, but they never do, each group points to the other when things are bad, and takes credit when things are good. The truth is all governments tend to be both irresponsible and inept. A smart person will reduce expenditures, increase savings and open a Swiss Bank account. Vito wrote leave our kids to pay the interest. Clinton was a tax-and-spend Democrat. Bush is a borrow and spend even more Republican. Which is worse? |
OT Kentucky Fried Chickens' new "Hillary Special",
I suppose you hate Chelsea too?
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart Senior" wrote in message et... Kentucky fired chickens' new "Hillary Special": Two fat thighs, a left wing, and a small breast. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
There is no upcoming depression. That's wacko. Despite
bu**** and company, it's just not going to happen. All of the recommendations (except the Swiss account) are worth doing anyway. Any smart person who can do it, should do it. Many people cannot in a large measure because of the current administration. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Bart Senior" wrote in message et... Your point is well taken. It is crucial that the government downsize itself and become fiscally responsible. That will not happen until the next crash when it will be unavoidable. The economic reason for the current spending is it is believed to forestall recession. And the big fear is of course the inevitable upcoming depression--which can be delayed, but not prevented. Unfortunately, delaying tactics only extend the term of economic crashes. The balloon will break at some point, consumer confidence will be lost and we will all be hit hard as real estate prices crash. Those with liquid assets will be in the best situation to capitalize. Those in weak positions will lose out. Indicators of this are the following: 1. A rising percentage of debt compared to nominal GNP. 2. The furious efforts of the banking industry to roll unsecured debt into secured real estate. 3. A record of extraodinarily high returns in many forms of investment a decade or more ago which typically cycles to normal returns and then far below average returns. 4. Debt compunding faster than income. 5. Foreign debt defaults. 6. Financial scandals. Research the Hatry Scandal and the famous frauds of Ivar Kreuger, and the Credit Moblier Scandal, and compare them to their respective economic environments. It would be far better for the government to adopt conservative spending habits, but they never do, each group points to the other when things are bad, and takes credit when things are good. The truth is all governments tend to be both irresponsible and inept. A smart person will reduce expenditures, increase savings and open a Swiss Bank account. Vito wrote leave our kids to pay the interest. Clinton was a tax-and-spend Democrat. Bush is a borrow and spend even more Republican. Which is worse? |
OT Kentucky Fried Chickens' new "Hillary Special",
That's about 12 years old....
-- katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004 |
OT Kentucky Fried Chickens' new "Hillary Special",
I know, but I still enjoy it.
katysails wrote That's about 12 years old.... |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
... There is no upcoming depression. That's wacko..... I wish .... |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Well, so do I but it's not going to happen in all reasonable likelyhood.
There's no evidence of something cataclysmic like that. The world economy is relatively stable, certain the 1st world is in economic terms. While there are major problems, India and Pakistan seem to be headed in the right direction, at least not threatening each other on a daily basis. China and Taiwan are not being beligerant. North Korea isn't any more unstable than usual. The US and the rest of the 1st world economies are generally doing ok. What do you base that on? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Vito" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... There is no upcoming depression. That's wacko..... I wish .... |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
A sr economist one step under Greenspan said we (US) is now dependent on
borrowing from Euro banks who could suddenly decide to invest in their own economies and that'd drive our gummyment into receiverhip. "Jonathan Ganz" wrote What do you base that on? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Vito" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... There is no upcoming depression. That's wacko..... I wish .... |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:37:06 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Well, so do I but it's not going to happen in all reasonable likelyhood. There's no evidence of something cataclysmic like that. The world economy is relatively stable, certain the 1st world is in economic terms. While there are major problems, India and Pakistan seem to be headed in the right direction, at least not threatening each other on a daily basis. China and Taiwan are not being beligerant. North Korea isn't any more unstable than usual. The US and the rest of the 1st world economies are generally doing ok. What do you base that on? http://www.dieoff.org/page116.htm |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I don't think that is a reasonable outcome. I doubt he thinks it's likely.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Vito" wrote in message ... A sr economist one step under Greenspan said we (US) is now dependent on borrowing from Euro banks who could suddenly decide to invest in their own economies and that'd drive our gummyment into receiverhip. "Jonathan Ganz" wrote What do you base that on? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Vito" wrote in message ... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... There is no upcoming depression. That's wacko..... I wish .... |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Too much reading for me right now...care to summarize?
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:37:06 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, so do I but it's not going to happen in all reasonable likelyhood. There's no evidence of something cataclysmic like that. The world economy is relatively stable, certain the 1st world is in economic terms. While there are major problems, India and Pakistan seem to be headed in the right direction, at least not threatening each other on a daily basis. China and Taiwan are not being beligerant. North Korea isn't any more unstable than usual. The US and the rest of the 1st world economies are generally doing ok. What do you base that on? http://www.dieoff.org/page116.htm |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for
word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon gas. But give the great unwashed a taste of five at the pump then back it off to $3.00 they will be so happy they will forget it used to cost $2. Just like they did in the early seventies. Call it raising funds to pay bills or call it devaluing the value of the debt or both . . .it worked then and it will work again IF the resultingincome is used to reduce the debt load and not 'spent' as some sort ofmythical windfall like the so called peace dividend or the so called balanced budget with a surplus that never existed (reference the Dep't of the Treasury balance sheet for those years). IF by chance some conservational benefit isderived that would also be nice . ... in fact it might even be used as a supporting reason BUT it won't be the main reason in realpolitik. However I'm now getting near AARP years old so my main concern is, like with most seniors, me. Grandparents and parents didn't care about me and my generation when they could have done something . .. .why should I pay the price? As the Brit's use to say, and may still do so, "I'm all right Jack, Whats yours is mine and what's mine's me own." And that's the true legacy of the USA. M. PS don't brag about those energy conserving sails so much. Remember it was Red Ron Dellums of California that proposed a tax on sail boats because they didn't pay their fair share. Shhhhhhhh......... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. 65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children will have to live without. http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:51:09 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Too much reading for me right now...care to summarize? Oil, or lack of it. Production of world oil supplies are expected to peak sometime between now and 2025. As oil is a gift deeply entwined in our lives, the future without it will be quite traumatic. Depending on who you listen to, the effects range from the death of a growth based economy, to a population die off. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Oil, or lack of it. Production of world oil supplies are expected
to peak sometime between now and 2025. As oil is a gift deeply entwined in our lives, the future without it will be quite traumatic. Depending on who you listen to, the effects range from the death of a growth based economy, to a population die off. Fortunately, the US has lots of coal to make electricity with. Electric motors with batteries will work just as well as combustion motors. It just costs more to scrub the pollution from the coal emissions. Nuclear power will look pretty attractive at that point too. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
This implies that we won't find viable alternatives between now
and then. There will probably be some severe problems in high population 3rd world countries, but they already have these problems. The 1st world will be much less affected. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:51:09 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Too much reading for me right now...care to summarize? Oil, or lack of it. Production of world oil supplies are expected to peak sometime between now and 2025. As oil is a gift deeply entwined in our lives, the future without it will be quite traumatic. Depending on who you listen to, the effects range from the death of a growth based economy, to a population die off. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:05:36 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
This implies that we won't find viable alternatives between now and then. There will probably be some severe problems in high population 3rd world countries, but they already have these problems. The 1st world will be much less affected. I'm not so sure. Alternatives? As an energy source, perhaps, but for plastics, medicines, fertilizers, perhaps not. Also, as peak oil is now, time is running out. A little factoid, the US population consumes its entire weight in oil . . . every week. http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember,
we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:05:36 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: This implies that we won't find viable alternatives between now and then. There will probably be some severe problems in high population 3rd world countries, but they already have these problems. The 1st world will be much less affected. I'm not so sure. Alternatives? As an energy source, perhaps, but for plastics, medicines, fertilizers, perhaps not. Also, as peak oil is now, time is running out. A little factoid, the US population consumes its entire weight in oil . . . every week. http://www.oilcrisis.com/debate/oilcalcs.htm |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. 65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children will have to live without. http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left.
If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars. 65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children will have to live without. http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift. One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather than later. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Damn, and we ran out of dinasours... I wish we could get
moving. I'm seriously thinking about buying a hybrid, but they're just not quite what I need. The Ford Escape is pretty close. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift. One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather than later. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
... we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. Now that's ridiculous. -- jlrogers±³© Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin Eschew Obfuscation. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. That's going to make you popular, assclown. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:26 -0400, "Michael"
wrote this crap: Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon I wanted a tax on stupid people, but I found out we already have one. It's called a "lottery." Now why don't we have a tax on lottery tickets? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts'
used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. PDW In article , thunder wrote: On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for years... I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy. Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift. One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather than later. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:
Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts' used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing, especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not later. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I think that would be great. It would force you to sell your
crapola Hunter. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:25:26 -0400, "Michael" wrote this crap: Actually I first read the same statement about 30 years ago almost word for word. The only difference was gas was supposed to rise to a cost $2 a gallon. You will however see $5 a gallon gas talked about and like the early seventies it may even rise to that but not for purposes of conserving energy. Rather for purposes of raising funds to pay off the, created by both political partys, national debt. You can't tax $1.50 on $2.00 a gallon gasoline just as back then you couldn't tax 65 cents on 35 cent a gallon I wanted a tax on stupid people, but I found out we already have one. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Why's that? It's not easy, but it's possible. We could certainly
be tied to the middle east a lot less. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "jlrogers±³©" wrote in message om... Jonathan Ganz wrote: ... we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. Now that's ridiculous. -- jlrogers±³© Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin Eschew Obfuscation. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
You're already popular with the gay crowd.
You go by popularity? Sounds like the typical fool. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote this crap: Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to. I suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. That's going to make you popular, assclown. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one example. Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms infrastructure. Simple now. Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time. Frankly your record sucks. PDW In article , thunder wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote: Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts' used to say exactly the same thing. Back in the 1970's. And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing, especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not later. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:28:02 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:
I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one example. Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms infrastructure. Simple now. Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time. Frankly your record sucks. If it makes you comfortable to characterize me as a doomsayer so be it, but frankly you don't know anything about my record. I entered this thread in response to Jon's talk about a recession. As this country's economy is based of cheap imported energy, any upward energy pricing will have a major effect on it. As our domestic oil production peaked in 1970, I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive energy policy. I believe this only makes sense and is not doomsaying. By the way, fuel cells show promise for a cleaner environment, but they are not a energy source. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
I agree that spiraling oil prices will have an effect on our
economy. In fact, they have quite an observable effect. However, I believe we have the wherewithal to overcome the adverse economic consequences. Not saying you're a doomsayer. I'm saying that the doomsayers are wrong that the economy will collapse. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:28:02 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote: I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one example. Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms infrastructure. Simple now. Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time. Frankly your record sucks. If it makes you comfortable to characterize me as a doomsayer so be it, but frankly you don't know anything about my record. I entered this thread in response to Jon's talk about a recession. As this country's economy is based of cheap imported energy, any upward energy pricing will have a major effect on it. As our domestic oil production peaked in 1970, I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive energy policy. I believe this only makes sense and is not doomsaying. By the way, fuel cells show promise for a cleaner environment, but they are not a energy source. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:30:25 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:
I agree that spiraling oil prices will have an effect on our economy. In fact, they have quite an observable effect. However, I believe we have the wherewithal to overcome the adverse economic consequences. Not saying you're a doomsayer. I'm saying that the doomsayers are wrong that the economy will collapse. One thing I have noticed over my years is that this country is incredibly resilient. We have made mistakes, but we also have overcome them. IMHO abandoning Carter's energy self-sufficient initiatives was a mistake. Since then, our energy policy has been market driven leaving us vulnerable to the whims of foreign interests. Oil may not be the primary reason for the Iraq War, but no doubt it wasn't far from any of our minds. I firmly believe we can ameliorate our dependence on oil, but it will take a major national effort that has yet to enter mainstream debate. Whether or not to drill an ANWR just isn't enough. It has been pretty clearly established that roughly 1/2 the world's supply of oil has already been burned. Now, that might not prove catastrophic in our lifetime, but I fear we are leaving our children and their children headed for a train-wreck. |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
"thunder" wrote
I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive energy policy. Gasoline was $1.25 in San Diego in 1979 but only 43 cents a few miles away in Tiajuana. Why? A Mexican official explained "Cuz you have an Energy Czar and a comprehensive energy policy and we don't" |
A place where liberal politics and yachting collided
Thank you Professor Maltus.
thunder wrote: On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:51:09 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote: Too much reading for me right now...care to summarize? Oil, or lack of it. Production of world oil supplies are expected to peak sometime between now and 2025. As oil is a gift deeply entwined in our lives, the future without it will be quite traumatic. Depending on who you listen to, the effects range from the death of a growth based economy, to a population die off. -- jlrogers±³© Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin Eschew Obfuscation. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com