On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:22:40 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Nothing to do with trucks, freight, etc. They need to travel. The main
problem is that regular consumers need to be weaned off of large, gas
guzzling cars and Stupid Utility Vehicles. If gas prices rose to north of
$5/gal, the car companies would be forced to make cars more efficient
because no one would buy the gas pigs.


Wouldn't hurt to stop using those stupid plastic water bottles (I
believe that industry actually started on that left coast), plastic
bags and non returnable glass bottles. Lot of oil and energy goes
into making them.

I run on the Natchez Trace Trails just about daily covering an average
of about five miles. Can't go a day without seeing several plastic
water bottles and bags trashing up my trails. And contrary to what you
might think, the vast majority does not get recycled.

It ain't the car companies. It is the fools that buy them. Car
companies will make whatever there is demand for. I'm not sure $5/gal
would get it there.

Frank

True, you can get an armored Mini-Cooper now
for $56k.

Another option would be to allow citzens to carry
arms in cities, per the 2nd Amendment.

"Capt. JG" wrote
Sounds close to right. There's very little reason for the urban assault
vehicles, especially in cities.

"katy" wrote

Capt. JG wrote:
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force people
to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do it,
according to economists.

I think large cities should be proactive on this issue and legislate that
unless there is a specific reason for driving a pick up truck or SUV in
the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that those vehicles be disallowed
(passing through on the xway not counting).

What does this have to do with gas prices?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
True, you can get an armored Mini-Cooper now
for $56k.

Another option would be to allow citzens to carry
arms in cities, per the 2nd Amendment.

"Capt. JG" wrote
Sounds close to right. There's very little reason for the urban assault
vehicles, especially in cities.

"katy" wrote

Capt. JG wrote:
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force
people to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do
it, according to economists.

I think large cities should be proactive on this issue and legislate
that unless there is a specific reason for driving a pick up truck or
SUV in the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that those vehicles be
disallowed (passing through on the xway not counting).

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force people
to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do it,
according to economists.

Yeah, I've heard that, too. And I disagree.

Americans love big, consumptive vehicles (boats, airplanes, and motorhomes
as well as cars). All those fuel prices will do is put some people in the
poor house, shut down some small ma-pa businesses, convince Daimler-Chrysler
to import the Smart Car, and tank the economy while causing inflation and
interest rates to rise. But the total fuel burned in this country won't
change much, if at all.

Ethanol is a great alternative fuel, and almost inexhaustible. But Big Oil
has seen to it that it will never be readily accepted, at least as long as
the flow of crude is unimpeded, despite the cost.

Max

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force people
to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do it,
according to economists.

I think large cities should be proactive on this issue and legislate that
unless there is a specific reason for driving a pick up truck or SUV in
the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that those vehicles be disallowed
(passing through on the xway not counting).

If you think people cried "foul" when the Patriot Act was passed, wait until
you tell them they can't drive their monster trucks and SUVs into the
cities.

Max

Brazil is 90+ precent self reliant because of ethanol they produce from
sugar cane.

But burning any fuel is not the way to go. Solar, Wind, and Nuke is the
way to go IMO.

Joe

HOw many suburbans are are chose because
they are easy to armor.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
What does this have to do with gas prices?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
True, you can get an armored Mini-Cooper now
for $56k.

Another option would be to allow citzens to carry
arms in cities, per the 2nd Amendment.

"Capt. JG" wrote
Sounds close to right. There's very little reason for the urban assault
vehicles, especially in cities.

"katy" wrote

Capt. JG wrote:
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force
people to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do
it, according to economists.

I think large cities should be proactive on this issue and legislate
that unless there is a specific reason for driving a pick up truck or
SUV in the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that those vehicles be
disallowed (passing through on the xway not counting).

I agree with Max.

Also, American's are simply big and can't fit in, and
won't buy, cars built for midgets.

"Maxprop" wrote

"Capt. JG" wrote

The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force people
to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do it,
according to economists.

Yeah, I've heard that, too. And I disagree.

Americans love big, consumptive vehicles (boats, airplanes, and motorhomes
as well as cars). All those fuel prices will do is put some people in the
poor house, shut down some small ma-pa businesses, convince
Daimler-Chrysler to import the Smart Car, and tank the economy while
causing inflation and interest rates to rise. But the total fuel burned
in this country won't change much, if at all.

Ethanol is a great alternative fuel, and almost inexhaustible. But Big
Oil has seen to it that it will never be readily accepted, at least as
long as the flow of crude is unimpeded, despite the cost.

Max

Mys Terry wrote:
his usual crapola...

So...discounting immigration, the us, GB, and Europe have all
achieved zero population, and in some places have a negative birth
rate in the middle class up. So who decides who does and doesn't
get to have babies? You? And who do you choose?
And who do you commit genocide on? Africa? They're doing a really
good job already on themselves. China? They've been committed to
that for years and yet they could still physically engulf the US
with population alone. Who's going to enforce world legislation?
And when a pandemic hits, and wipes out millions, who will be the
replacement stock? Sorry, but MysTerry as God just doesn't fit into
any world I want to live on.

Maxprop wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
The point is not to "collapse" the economy. The point is to force people
to change their driving and car purchase habits. That would do it,
according to economists.

I think large cities should be proactive on this issue and legislate that
unless there is a specific reason for driving a pick up truck or SUV in
the city, less than 3 occupants, etc, that those vehicles be disallowed
(passing through on the xway not counting).

If you think people cried "foul" when the Patriot Act was passed, wait until
you tell them they can't drive their monster trucks and SUVs into the
cities.

Max


Tax them and they'll comply.