energy policy
 

Ok, this isn't really off topic as the bulk of the boating discussed
on this group is by boats dependent on fuel.

I can't say I'm happy about either parties energy policy.

Bush? Clearly in the pocket of the oil interests.

Kerry? Open up the strategic oil reserves to lower prices. That
sounds just a bit like pandering for votes rather than facing the
issue. I've heard much whining about Kerry's vote for increased fuel
taxes. Well, if we'd begun ratcheting up the cost of fuel gradually
over they years to make conservation make sense, we wouldn't be in
this jamb, and the budget wouldn't be nearly as out of whack.

How about some long term plan to solve a problem that clearly isn't
going away. As much as people like to trash Carter, he at least had
the balls to do what was in the best interest of the country afa
energy policy goes.

You want to fight middle east supported terrorism? Severely
restricting the flow of cash to that region would be a good start.
We, as a country, have decided it's our right to have 90# women
driving SUVs the size of school buses. As long as we don't have any
will power when it comes to energy use, we'll have our citizens
fighting and dying to preserve our wasteful ways.

bb

energy policy
 

We, as a country, have decided it's our right to have 90# women
driving SUVs the size of school buses.

And as long as that 90-pound woman doesn't insist on buying 92 octane gas at
$1.19 a gallon, there isn't a problem.

When the 90-pound woman says, "Let's screw up the whole world drilling willy
nilly everywhere there might a few million barrells of oil to help preserve my
$1.19 premium," that's a problem.

200 years from now, when our great great grandkids are still alive, people will
find it quaint that we used petroleum for transportation- but they would still
be living with the effects of irresponsible drilling.

The Republicans are always hollering for free markets. Let the price of gas
seek its place in the market and we'll see a lot fewer SUV's. Yes, driving an
SUV, (or owning a boat), is a choice that we should be free to make----but we
shouldn't expect any guarantees about what the ultimate personal costs of that
decision could be.

I believe the actual cost of providing the energy should be passed along to the
final consumers of the energy. (that'd be you and me) Part of the cost of
energy as of now and probably into the foreseeable future will be a large US
military force in the middle East. We need to inspire the Arabs to continue
selling to us, and to discourage them from further consideration
of switching to the Euro as the standard currency of trade.

Unless you blow around under sail, it's pretty tough for a boater to get
cranked up about fuel efficiency. Even a super-efficient power boat won't do
much better than 3-4 nmpg.

From a resource efficiency standpoint, most boaters live in a glass house and
better not throw many rocks in the debate over oil supply and priorities of
use.

energy policy
 

In article ,
says...
Ok, this isn't really off topic as the bulk of the boating discussed
on this group is by boats dependent on fuel.

I can't say I'm happy about either parties energy policy.

Bush? Clearly in the pocket of the oil interests.

Kerry? Open up the strategic oil reserves to lower prices. That
sounds just a bit like pandering for votes rather than facing the
issue.

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

jps

energy policy
 

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

energy policy
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

energy policy
 

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

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:27:59 -0700, jps wrote:

Two things:

One, he voted once ten years ago to raise taxes on fuel. Much has
been
made of a short dalliance, which has never since been revisited.

We should have been increasing fuel taxes. If gas had been taxed to
$3 a gallon years ago, the supply situation wouldn't be what it is
today. Cheap fuel has been about as good to our long term economic
health as cheap hamburgers have been to our physical health.

Two, Kerry is advocating diverting present contributions to the
strategic oil reserves to the refineries. I haven't heard him
advocate
on behalf of using the present reserves, but perhaps I've missed
something.

Supposedly, a large part of the problem is refinery capacty is running
at about 97%. As long as 8 mpg personal transportation is wildly
popular, things aren't going to get any better.

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.

bb

Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.


A big part of the problem is the countless formulas required by the EPA
for cities around the country.......the economies of scale are lost thanks
to guvmint regs.

energy policy
 

And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.


Calif Bill wrote:
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

You're right, but you miss the point totally. What *should* have been
happening all along is that the price of gas rises with inflation. But
then the economy would not have had it's booms dependent on ridiculously
cheap transportation and the explosion of personal credit.

The price of gas is very low, considering inflation... that's why
everybody thinks SUVs are stylin'. But it is foolish policy that got us
here, and foolish consumerism that leads some people to the conclusion
that we should fight wars (against the whole world, if necessary) to
keep gas cheap.

And, as 'bb' rightly points out, our deadliest enemies are profiting
from our foolishness.

DSK

energy policy
 

On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:52:02 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.

Ok, who said anything about $10 a gallon gas? It's down to either you
or the strawman.

bb

energy policy
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive. See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation, is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

energy policy
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
And, even if diverting supplies from the strategic reserves helped, it
would be temporary at best. Until we do something to control demand,
supplies will be strained, the middle east will have us by the short
hairs, and the terrorists will be swimming in money. But hey, Hummers
are really cool.


Calif Bill wrote:
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

You're right, but you miss the point totally. What *should* have been
happening all along is that the price of gas rises with inflation. But
then the economy would not have had it's booms dependent on ridiculously
cheap transportation and the explosion of personal credit.

The price of gas is very low, considering inflation... that's why
everybody thinks SUVs are stylin'. But it is foolish policy that got us
here, and foolish consumerism that leads some people to the conclusion
that we should fight wars (against the whole world, if necessary) to
keep gas cheap.

And, as 'bb' rightly points out, our deadliest enemies are profiting
from our foolishness.

DSK


You miss the point totally! If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.

energy policy
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:52:02 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.

Ok, who said anything about $10 a gallon gas? It's down to either you
or the strawman.

bb

You or your clone was saying $5 a gallon, so why not $10? You know what you
are, we are just arguing price now.

energy policy
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

That you like to bitch about everything.

If you want to decrease the consumption of gas in the US, you need to
provide incentives for people using energy efficient transportation. The
most effective way is the increase the cost of gas. All Europeans countries
tax the hell out of gas, to keep consumption down.

energy policy
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

For your edification. Relative to the economy, gas is cheaper than 1970.
You just want those $100k/year jobs and $0.23 a gallon gas. I remember when
I made $5k a year (about 1964) and the CEO of the company (Fortune 500) was
knocking down about $89k/year. Thought that if I ever made 20k I would be
in fat city. When I exceeded the CEO's yearly, I still was not in fat city,
as the rest of the costs had escalated also. My first $25k house is now
$400k, My house that costs about $50k after additions is a $900k house.
Figure a 16x multiplier and that $0.23 gallon gas should be $3.68 gallon. A
large part of the energy problem is government regulations. We are require
to add MTBE to gas in California (and other states) by the Fed's. Reduces
air pollution by a stated 6%, but since we get 10% less mileage with MTBE,
the overall saving is less, as well as we have poisoned the waters all over
the nation with a really toxic substance. The Fed's to help out ADM (very
good friend of the Clinton Administration) are requiring alcohol to be added
to gas. Less mileage, and costs more per gallon to produce than the gas.
Now they have reformulated diesel #2 for OTR (over the road) and the price
is up, and the energy per gallon is down. (less mileage). Chevron and the
other oil companies have stated they can make just as clean burning fuel
without adding MTBE or alcohol. But government requirements are preventing
this.

energy policy
 

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:35:51 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:52:02 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.

Ok, who said anything about $10 a gallon gas? It's down to either you
or the strawman.

bb

You or your clone was saying $5 a gallon, so why not $10? You know what you
are, we are just arguing price now.

Strawman's off the hook.

bb

energy policy
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:KR7rc.39570$6f5.4166619@attbi_s54...



"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

That you like to bitch about everything.

If you want to decrease the consumption of gas in the US, you need to
provide incentives for people using energy efficient transportation. The
most effective way is the increase the cost of gas. All Europeans
countries
tax the hell out of gas, to keep consumption down.






They tax the hell out of gas to keep a socialist lifestyle going while
hiding the true costs. Also, the public transit is great. Part of it is
the high density of cities and reasonable ticket prices. Go anywhere within
central Paris for about $0.75. A carnet of tickets (10) was about $5.80 in
2002. Just like the NY subway, change trains and get anywhere within the
major Paris area for that one ticket. Compare that to out local BART mass
transit. From the Dublin Station to Oakland is $2.10 and if you want to go
the extra 1.5 mile to the Oakland airport, get on the BART Shuttle that
requires a $2 BART ticket and does not start running until 7am, even though
BART runs at 4AM. Makes it damn hard to use BART for early morning business
trips to SoCal. Used to take the 7am flight, and with security need to be
there are 6am. Mass transit is not ususable for this. over $10 RT to San
Francisco. 2 people in a car drive cheaper. 3 people do not even have to
pay a bridge toll. There are areas, where you can pick up commuters to get
the bridge free. Central Europe is not very big, compared to most of the
US.

energy policy
 

Calif Bill wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:KR7rc.39570$6f5.4166619@attbi_s54...



"basskisser" wrote in message
.com...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message

news:CXVqc.3073

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

That you like to bitch about everything.

If you want to decrease the consumption of gas in the US, you need to
provide incentives for people using energy efficient transportation. The
most effective way is the increase the cost of gas. All Europeans

countries

tax the hell out of gas, to keep consumption down.







They tax the hell out of gas to keep a socialist lifestyle going while
hiding the true costs.


Ah, yes...that danged socialist lifestyle...decent health care for
everyone, inexpensive higher education, decent housing, hardly any
homeless, lower crime rates, lower rates of violence, less infant death
mortality...awful, eh?


Also, the public transit is great.

Well, you know about that danged socialist lifestyle...with decent
public transit.

energy policy
 

Calif Bill wrote:
You miss the point totally!

Not at all. Here's the problem... you are not reading what I posted. You
replying with a canned preprogrammed message. This does not make you
sound intelligent.

... If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.

1- the economy *is* in the dumper.
2- the gov't *is* foolishly spending even more money

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.

DSK

energy policy
 

Different people wrote (sorry, I lost the attributions, but I make my point
in general, not to refute any particular person)"

If you want to decrease the consumption of gas in the US, you need to
provide incentives for people using energy efficient transportation.
The
most effective way is the increase the cost of gas. All Europeans
countries

tax the hell out of gas, to keep consumption down.

They tax the hell out of gas to keep a socialist lifestyle going while
hiding the true costs.

Also, the public transit is great.

It may or may not be used to fund unnecessary "socialist" government
programs. I'm not here to argue that.

But, having been in Europe for over 5 months over the past few years, and
having driven from the tip of Italy to northern Norway and from the
Netherlands to far east side of Slovakia, I'd have to say they have a very
strong interest in keeping automobile use and fuel consumption down as much
as they can for AIR POLLUTION and TRAFFIC CONGESTION reasons. Have you
driven in the traffic or breathed the air in urban Europe lately???

Those reasons, in and of themselves, are valid reasons for society -
collectively through their political system - to take control through means
such as fuel and vehicle taxes and funding decent mass transit through, yes,
user's fees and taxes. To me, it is entirely reasonable for European
countries -as well as some localities and states in the US - to do this and
it has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism might be another reason, but
these stand alone as reasonable and valid, imho.

Cam

energy policy
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

For your edification. Relative to the economy, gas is cheaper than 1970.
You just want those $100k/year jobs and $0.23 a gallon gas. I remember when
I made $5k a year (about 1964) and the CEO of the company (Fortune 500) was
knocking down about $89k/year. Thought that if I ever made 20k I would be
in fat city. When I exceeded the CEO's yearly, I still was not in fat city,
as the rest of the costs had escalated also. My first $25k house is now
$400k, My house that costs about $50k after additions is a $900k house.
Figure a 16x multiplier and that $0.23 gallon gas should be $3.68 gallon. A
large part of the energy problem is government regulations. We are require
to add MTBE to gas in California (and other states) by the Fed's. Reduces
air pollution by a stated 6%, but since we get 10% less mileage with MTBE,
the overall saving is less, as well as we have poisoned the waters all over
the nation with a really toxic substance. The Fed's to help out ADM (very
good friend of the Clinton Administration) are requiring alcohol to be added
to gas. Less mileage, and costs more per gallon to produce than the gas.
Now they have reformulated diesel #2 for OTR (over the road) and the price
is up, and the energy per gallon is down. (less mileage). Chevron and the
other oil companies have stated they can make just as clean burning fuel
without adding MTBE or alcohol. But government requirements are preventing
this.

Sorry, your senile babbling does nothing to answer the question.

energy policy
 

"John Smith" wrote in message news:KR7rc.39570$6f5.4166619@attbi_s54...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

That you like to bitch about everything.

What a truly ignorant response. You don't know me, yet feel you can
judge me such as the above? That simply shows you're ignorant beyond
belief, or at least acting like it in this newsgroup.

If you want to decrease the consumption of gas in the US, you need to
provide incentives for people using energy efficient transportation. The
most effective way is the increase the cost of gas. All Europeans countries
tax the hell out of gas, to keep consumption down.

Taxing, yes. Falsely raising prices for profit does nothing but ****
people off, and rightly so.

energy policy
 

DSK wrote in message ...
Calif Bill wrote:
You miss the point totally!

Not at all. Here's the problem... you are not reading what I posted. You
replying with a canned preprogrammed message. This does not make you
sound intelligent.

... If they taxed the fuel an extra 3 bucks a
gallon, the economy would be in the dumper and the government would be
foolishly spending even more money.

1- the economy *is* in the dumper.

What? I am trying figure out when the ecnomic Chicken Littles are
going to prove that.

Inflation is in check. Oh yeah... unemployment. Unemployement hasn't
been this bad since... well since... since... Clinton was in office.
The last time I looked at unemployment figures they were at something
5.8%. In 1996 they were at 5.6% and Clinton said it was a enough
reason to re-elect him.

Please don't try to tell me how today's 5.8% is different for
yesterdays. We measure unemployment the same way now as we did then.

This is a realistic economy. Unlike the overvalued boom we had in the
90s. There was no way to sustain that economy.

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. But I am
not prepared to give it to John Kerry. Kerry will spend even more and
then try to tax the hell out of us. Even then - he will not be able
to keep up.

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.

Yes - oil has been cheap in the US. But even then - the only reason
it's significantly more expensive elsewhere is primarily because of
taxes. I always laugh at those that opine gas prices in the US are
artificially low (usually some part of the left wing). But gas in the
US really never costs much less than it does in Europe, even though
they historically have paid twice as much at the pump.

energy policy
 

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!



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...

... 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?

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.

DSK

energy policy
 

energy policy
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to
drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for
inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

For your edification. Relative to the economy, gas is cheaper than
1970.
You just want those $100k/year jobs and $0.23 a gallon gas. I remember
when
I made $5k a year (about 1964) and the CEO of the company (Fortune 500)
was
knocking down about $89k/year. Thought that if I ever made 20k I would
be
in fat city. When I exceeded the CEO's yearly, I still was not in fat
city,
as the rest of the costs had escalated also. My first $25k house is
now
$400k, My house that costs about $50k after additions is a $900k house.
Figure a 16x multiplier and that $0.23 gallon gas should be $3.68
gallon. A
large part of the energy problem is government regulations. We are
require
to add MTBE to gas in California (and other states) by the Fed's.
Reduces
air pollution by a stated 6%, but since we get 10% less mileage with
MTBE,
the overall saving is less, as well as we have poisoned the waters all
over
the nation with a really toxic substance. The Fed's to help out ADM
(very
good friend of the Clinton Administration) are requiring alcohol to be
added
to gas. Less mileage, and costs more per gallon to produce than the
gas.
Now they have reformulated diesel #2 for OTR (over the road) and the
price
is up, and the energy per gallon is down. (less mileage). Chevron and
the
other oil companies have stated they can make just as clean burning fuel
without adding MTBE or alcohol. But government requirements are
preventing
this.

Sorry, your senile babbling does nothing to answer the question.

You just don't understand.

energy policy
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to
drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for
inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it sucks
now, so what is the point?

For your edification. Relative to the economy, gas is cheaper than
1970.
You just want those $100k/year jobs and $0.23 a gallon gas. I remember
when
I made $5k a year (about 1964) and the CEO of the company (Fortune 500)
was
knocking down about $89k/year. Thought that if I ever made 20k I would
be
in fat city. When I exceeded the CEO's yearly, I still was not in fat
city,
as the rest of the costs had escalated also. My first $25k house is
now
$400k, My house that costs about $50k after additions is a $900k house.
Figure a 16x multiplier and that $0.23 gallon gas should be $3.68
gallon. A
large part of the energy problem is government regulations. We are
require
to add MTBE to gas in California (and other states) by the Fed's.
Reduces
air pollution by a stated 6%, but since we get 10% less mileage with
MTBE,
the overall saving is less, as well as we have poisoned the waters all
over
the nation with a really toxic substance. The Fed's to help out ADM
(very
good friend of the Clinton Administration) are requiring alcohol to be
added
to gas. Less mileage, and costs more per gallon to produce than the
gas.
Now they have reformulated diesel #2 for OTR (over the road) and the
price
is up, and the energy per gallon is down. (less mileage). Chevron and
the
other oil companies have stated they can make just as clean burning fuel
without adding MTBE or alcohol. But government requirements are
preventing
this.

Sorry, your senile babbling does nothing to answer the question.

You just don't understand.

Oh, I understand too well. You apparently do not. Just a hint for you.
There are many, many gasoline formulas, required by different STATES.
You can go from there, and find enough errors in your above babbling
to fill a book.

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.

energy policy
 

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

Curtis CCR wrote:
I admit that it was gratuitous accusation.

In other words, you acted like an asshole.


... But are you saying it
isn't true?

In my case, it definitely is not.


Curtis CCR wrote:
Could your point be more muddy?

It only looks muddy because your head is in the sand.


And you could only afford to continue boating with climbing gas prices
if your income kept up to.

What a brilliant observation. Obviously, if one's income does not keep
pace with inflation, then one must give up something. I can see that you
are one of the keenest economic thinkers of our time.


.. 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.

Depends on what time frame and scale you look at. In school I did a very
involved project on petro fuel economics and can tell you (or anybody
who is seriously interested) why that is not strictly true.


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.

With respect to a higher rate of tax on fuel, there is some truth to
that. OTOH in Europe they recover a lot of expenses associated with
autos through direct tax of fuel, instead of indirectly as we do here.



World oil demand is climbing - it's not just the US.

True but the US is by far the world's most gluttonous consumer.

... China is getting
very oil thirsty.

Yeah, China's per-capita energy & gasoline use is what, a fiftieth of
ours or less?


But our economy in the dumper? Not even.

Yeah, that must explain why the Republican spinmeisters are lying their
asses off and pointing to falsified unemployment numbers. Where are new
housing starts? Where are durable good orders?

Here's the most basic proof the economy is stagnating... interest rates
are staying very low and barely twitching upward. This means that demand
for capital is low... in other words, in the dumper.

And yet, this is after a bazillion dollar war build-up. Even with a huge
jump in gov't spending, the economy as a whole is not ramping up.

When it does, you *will* see interest rates go up. It's just that
simple. Meanwhile, keep your head stuck in the sand.

DSK

energy policy
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:CXVqc.3073
Yes, make that gas $10 a gallon. almost no one could afford to
drive.
See
where the economy would be then. As to price, adjusted for
inflation,
is
cheaper than about 1970.

And I was driving in 1970, and it wasn't easy to make sure I had
enough gas to make it to school and back. It sucked then, and it
sucks
now, so what is the point?

For your edification. Relative to the economy, gas is cheaper than
1970.
You just want those $100k/year jobs and $0.23 a gallon gas. I
remember
when
I made $5k a year (about 1964) and the CEO of the company (Fortune
500)
was
knocking down about $89k/year. Thought that if I ever made 20k I
would
be
in fat city. When I exceeded the CEO's yearly, I still was not in
fat
city,
as the rest of the costs had escalated also. My first $25k house
is
now
$400k, My house that costs about $50k after additions is a $900k
house.
Figure a 16x multiplier and that $0.23 gallon gas should be $3.68
gallon. A
large part of the energy problem is government regulations. We are
require
to add MTBE to gas in California (and other states) by the Fed's.
Reduces
air pollution by a stated 6%, but since we get 10% less mileage with
MTBE,
the overall saving is less, as well as we have poisoned the waters
all
over
the nation with a really toxic substance. The Fed's to help out ADM
(very
good friend of the Clinton Administration) are requiring alcohol to
be
added
to gas. Less mileage, and costs more per gallon to produce than the
gas.
Now they have reformulated diesel #2 for OTR (over the road) and the
price
is up, and the energy per gallon is down. (less mileage). Chevron
and
the
other oil companies have stated they can make just as clean burning
fuel
without adding MTBE or alcohol. But government requirements are
preventing
this.

Sorry, your senile babbling does nothing to answer the question.

You just don't understand.

Oh, I understand too well. You apparently do not. Just a hint for you.
There are many, many gasoline formulas, required by different STATES.
You can go from there, and find enough errors in your above babbling
to fill a book.

Take a reading comprehension course. I stated that the government
regulations require the oil companies to make 500 different blends. Now
this increases costs, as you can not ship excess from one market to the
next. The government had imposed so many road blocks to buliding new
refineries, that none have been build in over 30 years. Major modifications
are even restricted. Same thing you stated above:
There are many, many gasoline formulas, required by different STATES.
Now where are my errors?

energy policy
 

DSK wrote in message . ..
LOL anybody who disagrees is a wild-eyed left-winger, eh?

Curtis CCR wrote:
I admit that it was gratuitous accusation.

In other words, you acted like an asshole.

You are engaging in a political discussion on energy, and I made a
political observation about the subject (gratuitous or not, it was
true, BTW) and I am an asshole for doing so?

... But are you saying it
isn't true?

In my case, it definitely is not.

And since you sniped the comment that we are talking about - I wrote:

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

Are you trying to lead me to believe that you are wild-eyed RIGHT
winger?

I really try to avoid these discussion in rec.boats. Sometimes I let
myself get into them. But if you are going to pick apart sentences so
that you simply call me an asshole... well... **** you... I'm not
playing with you anymore. And if you want to follow up this post with
some claim of victory in the debate, please do. You can believe
whatever you'd like - you already do.

energy policy
 

Curtis CCR wrote:
Are you trying to lead me to believe that you are wild-eyed RIGHT
winger?

Not at all. We seem to have more than our quota of them around here anyway.


I really try to avoid these discussion in rec.boats. Sometimes I let
myself get into them. But if you are going to pick apart sentences so
that you simply call me an asshole... well... **** you... I'm not
playing with you anymore. And if you want to follow up this post with
some claim of victory in the debate, please do. You can believe
whatever you'd like - you already do.

Very good. Act like an asshole, then arrogantly dismiss any dissent from
your stated opinions. Refuse to admit any possible responsibility for
your own actions. Ignore all the facts.

Keep it up and you could be just like NOBBY. Is that your goal?

Meanwhile, since the price of fuel *is* relevant to boating, I'm kind of
disappointed to see what could have been a serious discussion get hijacked.

DSK