Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved, because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI, weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5 mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for today's

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved, because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI, weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5 mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for today's


Believe what you want.

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature
that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU.
Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved,
because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding
along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards
in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much
work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a




href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you
see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There
was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember
the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to
a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the
country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to
meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough
to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the
research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and
infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure.
As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in
the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the
ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take?
Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR
oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie
down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but
most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new
technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the
engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search
for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette
got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI,
weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5
mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there
would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for
today's


Believe what you want.

I believe what I KNOW to be correct.

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature
that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU.
Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved,
because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding
along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards
in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much
work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a




href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you
see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There
was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember
the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to
a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the
country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to
meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough
to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the
research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and
infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure.
As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in
the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the
ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take?
Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR
oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie
down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but
most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new
technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the
engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search
for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette
got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI,
weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5
mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there
would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for
today's


Believe what you want.

I believe what I KNOW to be correct.


I guess you are easy to be parted from your money.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved, because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a




href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI, weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5 mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for today's


Believe what you want.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of literature that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU. Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved, because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a

href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern safeguards in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as much work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be a




href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do you see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem. Remember the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared to a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have enough to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure. As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think the ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take? Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is lie down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so, but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it. When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days, the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the search for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI Corvette got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI, weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and 16.5 mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think there would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for today's


Believe what you want.

Asslicker once again shows why he is the "king of NG idiots"

Most of the weight taken from current production is derived fom reducing
the load.........thinner sheet metal, unibody construction instead of
frames, shaving fractions of ounces off of every part in the car.......like
springs and brackets in the brake system, plastic instead of metal parts,
etc etc.

What does that mean? Door dings from the slightest touch, higher and more
frequent repair costs. More deaths from lighter weight vehicles

P. Fritz wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
You better take an economics course. We would
have a
depression
at
least as
big as 1929.

Oh, please. I BEG you. Show me ONE piece of
literature that
says
anything of the sort. That's a stretch even for YOU.
Why
would
there be
a depression? There may be some down time involved,
because
the
government would rather put it's money into plodding
along
with
the
same old technology (fossil fuels), rather than fund
research
and
development of a




href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a



href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a


href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a';
return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a.

But, there would be new firms working on new ways to
do
things.
Was there a depression as big as 1929 when there was
a
previous
oil
shortage? Do you not think there are modern
safeguards in
place
to
protect us against that, even IF it were to happen?

Yes, I'd be employed. There would be just as
much work
designing
new,
more energy efficient buildings. There would be
a





href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=new%20technologies"
onmouseover="window.status='new technologies';
return
true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"new
technologies/a
sprouting up to meet energy requirements using
alternative
means. A
novel idea, our economy could suffice on NEW
technology.
The
right
wing
just wants to keep us in the dark ages, as
always.
Hell,
when
motor
cars first started appearing, people NEVER
thought
they'd
replace
the
horse. Especially on farms. How many horses do
you see
on
working,
profitable farms today?



As I said, you better take an economics course. There
was a
small
recession
when the price quickly rose up during the 70's. Lots
of
Silicon
Valley was
out of work as well as a lot of the rest of the
country.
That
was
just
cost, not supply. There was a supply problem.
Remember the
odd
/
even days
for gas and the long lines. That is nothing compared
to a
60%
lack
of
energy supplies. Most every manufacturing job in the
country
will be
gone
while the search for energy reigns supreme.

My god you are dense. We produce enough oil right here
to meet
demands,
IF conservative measures are used. We certainly have
enough to
keep
afloat while new forms of energy are either made cost
effective, or
developed entirely. Who do you think will be doing the
research
and
development? Building specialized buildings, and
infrastrucure?
Designing those?


Probably not you. Probably very few. They will use
existing
buildings as we
will be short of the supplies to build new infrastructure.
As
to
having
enough oil to survive. Yes we do have enough. But it is
in the
ground, in
areas that are not being drilled. How long do you think
the ramp
up
to
drill in ANWAR, off the California Coast, etc. will take?
Too
long
to stave
off a very large rescession.

So, let me get this straight. IF we were to be dependent on
OUR oil
resources, you think that the only thing people will do is
lie down
and
die? Perhaps YOU are mentally resourceful enough to do so,
but most
educated people in the U.S. will work very hard developing
technology
already in research stages, as well as working on new
technologies.
Again, you probably remember this, and I've read about it.
When
gasoline engines were developed enough to actually be
useful,
people
NEVER thought that tractors would replace farm horses, and
cars
would
replace buggies. You are using that exact form of narrow
mindedness.
Look back at the recession. A LOT of good technology came
from
that. If
you remember, before that, cars were huge, heavy, and the
engines
of
the day, while powerful, weren't fuel efficient. Now days,
the
horsepower produced from a given gallon of gas is much
greater.


Sure there will be a very small minority employed in the
search for
alternative energy sources. Just as there were people
employed
during the
"Great Depression".

There will never be another "great depression.

As to fuel efficiency, most has come from smaller
lighter vehicles. Maybe 5% from technology. My 1964 FI
Corvette got
about
16.5 mpg on average and on the highway got about 18 mpg. This
is
with a 375
HP 327 CID / 5.3L engine. My 1999 5.4L Ford Expedition FI,
weight is
50%
more than the Corvette got 14.5 mpg or less around town and
16.5 mpg
max on
the highway. You are highly mistaken if you do not think
there would
be a
"Extremely Great Depression".

Gee, do you think that maybe "lighter vehicles" were the result
of
technology? Now, that 5% part is PURE horse****. Yesterday's
carburated, heavy large displacement engines were NO match for
today's


Believe what you want.

Asslicker once again shows why he is the "king of NG idiots"

Most of the weight taken from current production is derived fom
reducing
the load.........thinner a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=sheet%20metal"
onmouseover="window.status='sheet metal'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"sheet metal/a, unibody
construction instead of
frames, shaving fractions of ounces off of every part in the
car.......like
springs and brackets in the brake system, plastic instead of metal
parts,
etc etc.

What does that mean? Door dings from the slightest touch, higher
and more
frequent repair costs. More deaths from lighter weight vehicles


I see that you still aren't adult enough to debate something without
childish name calling. Have a lonely weekend? How's things going
raising your kid? Get enough support from usenet?