|
Doug Kanter wrote:
Your explanation of futures is largely accurate, except that each time they're bid up, the price at the pumps rises. This should infuriate you. That's exactly what happens here. A sister province has gas price regulation and the per liter price is usually 5 to 10 cents cheaper...and they don't even have a refinery. There is an ongoing debate in Nova Scotia about returing to gas price regulation to protect the public from gouging. |
Competition from whom? We have what.....3 major oil companies now? They have
absolutely no reason on earth to lower prices. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I hate it, but I know if the govt. got involved in the oil industry it would be more inefficient than today, and in the long run we all would be screwed. I can remember when Jimmy Carter was in office and credit card companies were charging 21-25% interest on their cards. Everyone was screaming, the govt. needs to step in and correct this problem. Well, very soon after the boost in interest competition corrected the problem. Competition will correct the problem much quicker and more efficiently than a governmental bureaucracy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Your explanation of futures is largely accurate, except that each time they're bid up, the price at the pumps rises. This should infuriate you. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, Oil futures are based upon the best guess of it's future worth. They do not determine what someone will actually pay for the oil in the future. If oil futures are bid up to $120 a barrel, that does not mean that will be the market price when the future is due. It is normally that the price of commodity will not be the same price as that on a futures contract. The difference is the profit or lose realized by the person holding the futures contract. While it is easy to hold stock certificates in a bank, when it comes time to pay off on your futures contract, most people have to sell the oil, they do not have empty tankers sitting around to hold the oil waiting for a better price. They will have to sell the oil at the market price, which is determined by supply and demand. Trust me, if the US reduced it consumption by 25% and China reduced it's consumption by 25% we would see one hell of a drop in oil prices. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... True, but this does not address the current issue: The price of oil, as it stands today, is not related to supply or demand. It is where it is because the price has been bid up to current levels based purely on speculation. This is no different than the way tech stocks were inflated all out of proportion a few years ago. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, As China continues to expand it manufacture capacity and it's citizens continue to increase their consumption of oil, the price of oil will continue to increase. I hate this as much as you do, because I too buy gas and heat my home. The truth is the only way we can change this is to find alternative energy and more efficient ways to use oil. If we nationalize the oil industry, it is not going to change the long term problem. If we elect a democratic house, senate and president, it still is not going to change the long term direction. Al Gore wrote a book (I think it was about 10 yrs ago) that forecasted this exact situation we are faced with today. It is time to face the facts, oil is a finite resource and we are using it up very fast. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Well....at least we know that the vehicles from the big 3 will be gone within a few years. As far as the figures for the big trucks, I think you have to subtract those sold to people who actually MUST have such vehicles for their work. That would leave us with real numbers for the yahoos who buy "a hemi" just because they feel like it. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I know you prefer to talk to the experienced salepeople to determine buying patterns, but I found it easier to look at sales history. These gas guzzlers purchased in 2004 will continue to guzzle gas for the next 15 - 20 yrs. Best-selling vehicles Car First-half 2004 sales Base price . Ford F-Series 432,969 $19,920 . Chevrolet Silverado 322,907 $19,485 . Dodge Ram pickup 223,609 $20,365 . Toyota Camry 213,625 $19,560 . Honda Accord 192,106 $16,390 . Ford Explorer 168,059 $23,690 . Honda Civic 162,483 $13,500 . Ford Taurus 144,035 $20,320 . Chevrolet Impala 139,460 22,395 . Dodge Caravan 131,367 $18,995 "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
Doug,
Using your logic, when the US auto industry was controlled by 3 auto manufacturers there was no competition between them. Exxon Royal Dutch/Shell BP (4) ChevronTexaco Fina Elf There really is 5 major oil companies competiting for market share. Do you believe the US would be better if we nationalized our oil companies? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Competition from whom? We have what.....3 major oil companies now? They have absolutely no reason on earth to lower prices. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I hate it, but I know if the govt. got involved in the oil industry it would be more inefficient than today, and in the long run we all would be screwed. I can remember when Jimmy Carter was in office and credit card companies were charging 21-25% interest on their cards. Everyone was screaming, the govt. needs to step in and correct this problem. Well, very soon after the boost in interest competition corrected the problem. Competition will correct the problem much quicker and more efficiently than a governmental bureaucracy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Your explanation of futures is largely accurate, except that each time they're bid up, the price at the pumps rises. This should infuriate you. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, Oil futures are based upon the best guess of it's future worth. They do not determine what someone will actually pay for the oil in the future. If oil futures are bid up to $120 a barrel, that does not mean that will be the market price when the future is due. It is normally that the price of commodity will not be the same price as that on a futures contract. The difference is the profit or lose realized by the person holding the futures contract. While it is easy to hold stock certificates in a bank, when it comes time to pay off on your futures contract, most people have to sell the oil, they do not have empty tankers sitting around to hold the oil waiting for a better price. They will have to sell the oil at the market price, which is determined by supply and demand. Trust me, if the US reduced it consumption by 25% and China reduced it's consumption by 25% we would see one hell of a drop in oil prices. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... True, but this does not address the current issue: The price of oil, as it stands today, is not related to supply or demand. It is where it is because the price has been bid up to current levels based purely on speculation. This is no different than the way tech stocks were inflated all out of proportion a few years ago. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, As China continues to expand it manufacture capacity and it's citizens continue to increase their consumption of oil, the price of oil will continue to increase. I hate this as much as you do, because I too buy gas and heat my home. The truth is the only way we can change this is to find alternative energy and more efficient ways to use oil. If we nationalize the oil industry, it is not going to change the long term problem. If we elect a democratic house, senate and president, it still is not going to change the long term direction. Al Gore wrote a book (I think it was about 10 yrs ago) that forecasted this exact situation we are faced with today. It is time to face the facts, oil is a finite resource and we are using it up very fast. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Well....at least we know that the vehicles from the big 3 will be gone within a few years. As far as the figures for the big trucks, I think you have to subtract those sold to people who actually MUST have such vehicles for their work. That would leave us with real numbers for the yahoos who buy "a hemi" just because they feel like it. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I know you prefer to talk to the experienced salepeople to determine buying patterns, but I found it easier to look at sales history. These gas guzzlers purchased in 2004 will continue to guzzle gas for the next 15 - 20 yrs. Best-selling vehicles Car First-half 2004 sales Base price . Ford F-Series 432,969 $19,920 . Chevrolet Silverado 322,907 $19,485 . Dodge Ram pickup 223,609 $20,365 . Toyota Camry 213,625 $19,560 . Honda Accord 192,106 $16,390 . Ford Explorer 168,059 $23,690 . Honda Civic 162,483 $13,500 . Ford Taurus 144,035 $20,320 . Chevrolet Impala 139,460 22,395 . Dodge Caravan 131,367 $18,995 "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, Using your logic, when the US auto industry was controlled by 3 auto manufacturers there was no competition between them. Exxon Royal Dutch/Shell BP (4) ChevronTexaco Fina Elf There really is 5 major oil companies competiting for market share. Do you believe the US would be better if we nationalized our oil companies? That would make it worse......could you imagine trying to get a new refinery built if the oil companies were nationalized? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Competition from whom? We have what.....3 major oil companies now? They have absolutely no reason on earth to lower prices. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I hate it, but I know if the govt. got involved in the oil industry it would be more inefficient than today, and in the long run we all would be screwed. I can remember when Jimmy Carter was in office and credit card companies were charging 21-25% interest on their cards. Everyone was screaming, the govt. needs to step in and correct this problem. Well, very soon after the boost in interest competition corrected the problem. Competition will correct the problem much quicker and more efficiently than a governmental bureaucracy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Your explanation of futures is largely accurate, except that each time they're bid up, the price at the pumps rises. This should infuriate you. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, Oil futures are based upon the best guess of it's future worth. They do not determine what someone will actually pay for the oil in the future. If oil futures are bid up to $120 a barrel, that does not mean that will be the market price when the future is due. It is normally that the price of commodity will not be the same price as that on a futures contract. The difference is the profit or lose realized by the person holding the futures contract. While it is easy to hold stock certificates in a bank, when it comes time to pay off on your futures contract, most people have to sell the oil, they do not have empty tankers sitting around to hold the oil waiting for a better price. They will have to sell the oil at the market price, which is determined by supply and demand. Trust me, if the US reduced it consumption by 25% and China reduced it's consumption by 25% we would see one hell of a drop in oil prices. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... True, but this does not address the current issue: The price of oil, as it stands today, is not related to supply or demand. It is where it is because the price has been bid up to current levels based purely on speculation. This is no different than the way tech stocks were inflated all out of proportion a few years ago. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, As China continues to expand it manufacture capacity and it's citizens continue to increase their consumption of oil, the price of oil will continue to increase. I hate this as much as you do, because I too buy gas and heat my home. The truth is the only way we can change this is to find alternative energy and more efficient ways to use oil. If we nationalize the oil industry, it is not going to change the long term problem. If we elect a democratic house, senate and president, it still is not going to change the long term direction. Al Gore wrote a book (I think it was about 10 yrs ago) that forecasted this exact situation we are faced with today. It is time to face the facts, oil is a finite resource and we are using it up very fast. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Well....at least we know that the vehicles from the big 3 will be gone within a few years. As far as the figures for the big trucks, I think you have to subtract those sold to people who actually MUST have such vehicles for their work. That would leave us with real numbers for the yahoos who buy "a hemi" just because they feel like it. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I know you prefer to talk to the experienced salepeople to determine buying patterns, but I found it easier to look at sales history. These gas guzzlers purchased in 2004 will continue to guzzle gas for the next 15 - 20 yrs. Best-selling vehicles Car First-half 2004 sales Base price . Ford F-Series 432,969 $19,920 . Chevrolet Silverado 322,907 $19,485 . Dodge Ram pickup 223,609 $20,365 . Toyota Camry 213,625 $19,560 . Honda Accord 192,106 $16,390 . Ford Explorer 168,059 $23,690 . Honda Civic 162,483 $13,500 . Ford Taurus 144,035 $20,320 . Chevrolet Impala 139,460 22,395 . Dodge Caravan 131,367 $18,995 "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
I don't think automobile companies competed on price back then. For reasons
nobody will ever understand, people have an almost religious loyalty to certain brands. Even now, with the big 3 offering all sorts of ridiculous discounts, and free satellite-activated rust control, there's still a certain amount of brand loyalty, especially for people who live in caves and pretend that Toyota and Honda don't exist. As far as competition between oil companies, when do you suppose it'll begin? Next week? A year from now? Here, like everywhere else, there are commercial strips with large intersections, often with 3 brands of gas on opposite corners. The prices differ by perhaps a penny. So....when will the "correction" take place, and why? "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, Using your logic, when the US auto industry was controlled by 3 auto manufacturers there was no competition between them. Exxon Royal Dutch/Shell BP (4) ChevronTexaco Fina Elf There really is 5 major oil companies competiting for market share. Do you believe the US would be better if we nationalized our oil companies? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Competition from whom? We have what.....3 major oil companies now? They have absolutely no reason on earth to lower prices. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I hate it, but I know if the govt. got involved in the oil industry it would be more inefficient than today, and in the long run we all would be screwed. I can remember when Jimmy Carter was in office and credit card companies were charging 21-25% interest on their cards. Everyone was screaming, the govt. needs to step in and correct this problem. Well, very soon after the boost in interest competition corrected the problem. Competition will correct the problem much quicker and more efficiently than a governmental bureaucracy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Your explanation of futures is largely accurate, except that each time they're bid up, the price at the pumps rises. This should infuriate you. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, Oil futures are based upon the best guess of it's future worth. They do not determine what someone will actually pay for the oil in the future. If oil futures are bid up to $120 a barrel, that does not mean that will be the market price when the future is due. It is normally that the price of commodity will not be the same price as that on a futures contract. The difference is the profit or lose realized by the person holding the futures contract. While it is easy to hold stock certificates in a bank, when it comes time to pay off on your futures contract, most people have to sell the oil, they do not have empty tankers sitting around to hold the oil waiting for a better price. They will have to sell the oil at the market price, which is determined by supply and demand. Trust me, if the US reduced it consumption by 25% and China reduced it's consumption by 25% we would see one hell of a drop in oil prices. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... True, but this does not address the current issue: The price of oil, as it stands today, is not related to supply or demand. It is where it is because the price has been bid up to current levels based purely on speculation. This is no different than the way tech stocks were inflated all out of proportion a few years ago. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, As China continues to expand it manufacture capacity and it's citizens continue to increase their consumption of oil, the price of oil will continue to increase. I hate this as much as you do, because I too buy gas and heat my home. The truth is the only way we can change this is to find alternative energy and more efficient ways to use oil. If we nationalize the oil industry, it is not going to change the long term problem. If we elect a democratic house, senate and president, it still is not going to change the long term direction. Al Gore wrote a book (I think it was about 10 yrs ago) that forecasted this exact situation we are faced with today. It is time to face the facts, oil is a finite resource and we are using it up very fast. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Well....at least we know that the vehicles from the big 3 will be gone within a few years. As far as the figures for the big trucks, I think you have to subtract those sold to people who actually MUST have such vehicles for their work. That would leave us with real numbers for the yahoos who buy "a hemi" just because they feel like it. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I know you prefer to talk to the experienced salepeople to determine buying patterns, but I found it easier to look at sales history. These gas guzzlers purchased in 2004 will continue to guzzle gas for the next 15 - 20 yrs. Best-selling vehicles Car First-half 2004 sales Base price . Ford F-Series 432,969 $19,920 . Chevrolet Silverado 322,907 $19,485 . Dodge Ram pickup 223,609 $20,365 . Toyota Camry 213,625 $19,560 . Honda Accord 192,106 $16,390 . Ford Explorer 168,059 $23,690 . Honda Civic 162,483 $13,500 . Ford Taurus 144,035 $20,320 . Chevrolet Impala 139,460 22,395 . Dodge Caravan 131,367 $18,995 "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
big deal. let's do some calculation. say you used to spend
30 bucks a week on gas (I think most people don't), now you spend 50. so what? 20 bucks difference. one family meal at a cheap restaurant. the folks crying are middle class and higher (cottage? boat?) and are spending oodles of money on non-critical items already. this is just something else to talk about. some are just complainers. ....thehick |
"frank-in-toronto" wrote in message
... big deal. let's do some calculation. say you used to spend 30 bucks a week on gas (I think most people don't), now you spend 50. so what? 20 bucks difference. one family meal at a cheap restaurant. the folks crying are middle class and higher (cottage? boat?) and are spending oodles of money on non-critical items already. this is just something else to talk about. some are just complainers. ...thehick "...the folks crying..." ??? You have stats on who's complaining? Let's see them. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. Prius on a good day makes 45 mpg. That is nice, but the only ones who are beating the 45 mpg max are the "hot rodders" who are stuffing more batteries in and adding the "plug in hybrid" capability. Long highway trip, you will get about 30 on a hybrid. Very little braking, slowing down, etc that is recovered as stored energy. The around town and short stop and go trips are the most efficient use. The plug in modifiers get the advantage of the extra battery capacity and plug in to the house charging. Up until a couple of years ago, that voided the hybrids warrantee. |
Most of your hybrids and very high fuel efficiency vehicles are small,
lightweight and not enough capacity to haul around the 2-4 kids and their gear as well as the groceries. It is fine for a DINK or single person, not one who wants to haul the kids to the little league game, or camping and to tow a boat of trailer. It may be OK as a 2nd vehicle for the commuter. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The confusion began here when you said consumers would not buy fuel efficient vehicles until this that or the other thing happened. I pointed out that these vehicles exist and are selling nicely already. This is not an absolute statement, since it should be obvious that MORE of these vehicles will be sold as fuel prices increase, and as the current crop of still-useful vehicles ages and needs replacement. It did NOT disagree with anything you said in your last paragraph beginning with "I can't figure out...". One exception, though: Oil prices are largely disconnected from supply and demand. If you believe otherwise, you are not familiar with how daily prices are REALLY pegged by speculators. The price increases of the past 12 months are wildly out of proportion to changes in supply & demand. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I can't figure out what you are saying. Are you saying gas prices are not controlled by supply and demand? Do you not agree that we can substantially reduce our consumption by buying fuel efficient cars? Are you disagreeing with the experts when they say the only long term solution is to find alternative energy sources, and at the current price of fossil fuel there is no economic incentive to developed and market alternative energy? Do you think everyone including Al Gore missed the boat on this? pHs - how did you like my boating reference? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The confusion began here when you said consumers would not buy fuel efficient vehicles until this that or the other thing happened. I pointed out that these vehicles exist and are selling nicely already. This is not an absolute statement, since it should be obvious that MORE of these vehicles will be sold as fuel prices increase, and as the current crop of still-useful vehicles ages and needs replacement. It did NOT disagree with anything you said in your last paragraph beginning with "I can't figure out...". One exception, though: Oil prices are largely disconnected from supply and demand. If you believe otherwise, you are not familiar with how daily prices are REALLY pegged by speculators. The price increases of the past 12 months are wildly out of proportion to changes in supply & demand. The prices are in line with the growth in demand. That is what drives the futures market. Huge change in demand from China. All those manufacturing jobs that went there require energy to run the factory. Melt the scrap iron, make the plastics, and run the screw guns that put the items together. Commodity markets are a bet on the availability of the commodity. And the commodity: Oil has not become more available and the refinery capacity has not increased. Good bet on the future price. The other thing that drives the price is the underpriced oil that has been supplied for the last 10 years or so. I think it was Southwest Airlines that locked in oil at $25 barrel for 10 years or so. That is expiring, but the traders have to make up that money some how. And they shift that loss to the new contracts. |
True, but look around you on the highway. What percentage of cars would you
estimate have just one or two passengers on a typical work day? A few years back, the University of Rochester posted students from a stats class at the entrance to the NY State Thruway and found that about 85% of vehicles had one passenger. This was a weekday morning from rush hour through lunch time. That's one as in "1". Obviously, nobody's going to tow with a hybrid, but that's not relevant. "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... Most of your hybrids and very high fuel efficiency vehicles are small, lightweight and not enough capacity to haul around the 2-4 kids and their gear as well as the groceries. It is fine for a DINK or single person, not one who wants to haul the kids to the little league game, or camping and to tow a boat of trailer. It may be OK as a 2nd vehicle for the commuter. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The confusion began here when you said consumers would not buy fuel efficient vehicles until this that or the other thing happened. I pointed out that these vehicles exist and are selling nicely already. This is not an absolute statement, since it should be obvious that MORE of these vehicles will be sold as fuel prices increase, and as the current crop of still-useful vehicles ages and needs replacement. It did NOT disagree with anything you said in your last paragraph beginning with "I can't figure out...". One exception, though: Oil prices are largely disconnected from supply and demand. If you believe otherwise, you are not familiar with how daily prices are REALLY pegged by speculators. The price increases of the past 12 months are wildly out of proportion to changes in supply & demand. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I can't figure out what you are saying. Are you saying gas prices are not controlled by supply and demand? Do you not agree that we can substantially reduce our consumption by buying fuel efficient cars? Are you disagreeing with the experts when they say the only long term solution is to find alternative energy sources, and at the current price of fossil fuel there is no economic incentive to developed and market alternative energy? Do you think everyone including Al Gore missed the boat on this? pHs - how did you like my boating reference? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The confusion began here when you said consumers would not buy fuel efficient vehicles until this that or the other thing happened. I pointed out that these vehicles exist and are selling nicely already. This is not an absolute statement, since it should be obvious that MORE of these vehicles will be sold as fuel prices increase, and as the current crop of still-useful vehicles ages and needs replacement. It did NOT disagree with anything you said in your last paragraph beginning with "I can't figure out...". One exception, though: Oil prices are largely disconnected from supply and demand. If you believe otherwise, you are not familiar with how daily prices are REALLY pegged by speculators. The price increases of the past 12 months are wildly out of proportion to changes in supply & demand. The prices are in line with the growth in demand. That is what drives the futures market. Huge change in demand from China. All those manufacturing jobs that went there require energy to run the factory. Melt the scrap iron, make the plastics, and run the screw guns that put the items together. Commodity markets are a bet on the availability of the commodity. And the commodity: Oil has not become more available and the refinery capacity has not increased. Good bet on the future price. The other thing that drives the price is the underpriced oil that has been supplied for the last 10 years or so. I think it was Southwest Airlines that locked in oil at $25 barrel for 10 years or so. That is expiring, but the traders have to make up that money some how. And they shift that loss to the new contracts. Do you think China's demand has increased proportionately to the rise in gas prices over the past 12 months? I have dinner on the grill, so I don't have time to go looking for stats, but I'll guess "no". |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. Prius on a good day makes 45 mpg. That is nice, but the only ones who are beating the 45 mpg max are the "hot rodders" who are stuffing more batteries in and adding the "plug in hybrid" capability. Long highway trip, you will get about 30 on a hybrid. Very little braking, slowing down, etc that is recovered as stored energy. The around town and short stop and go trips are the most efficient use. The plug in modifiers get the advantage of the extra battery capacity and plug in to the house charging. Up until a couple of years ago, that voided the hybrids warrantee. Interesting, but not relevant to what we're discussing. |
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:39:39 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:
With the increase in the cost of oil, alternative energy sources become more economically viable. When they become more economically viable, more will be produced.....funny how capitalism can solve the problem :-) Well, it better start solving. Oh, and let's not limit ourselves to oil as an energy source. Look around you, see all those plastics? Oil based. Open your refrigerator, see all that food? Oil based fertilizers put it there. Medicine cabinet? Yup, many medicines are oil based. Oil isn't just fuel. It is everywhere in our daily lives. |
Doug,
You are making a great argument for raising the price of gas high enough that people will car pool and buy fuel efficient cars. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... True, but look around you on the highway. What percentage of cars would you estimate have just one or two passengers on a typical work day? A few years back, the University of Rochester posted students from a stats class at the entrance to the NY State Thruway and found that about 85% of vehicles had one passenger. This was a weekday morning from rush hour through lunch time. That's one as in "1". Obviously, nobody's going to tow with a hybrid, but that's not relevant. "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... Most of your hybrids and very high fuel efficiency vehicles are small, lightweight and not enough capacity to haul around the 2-4 kids and their gear as well as the groceries. It is fine for a DINK or single person, not one who wants to haul the kids to the little league game, or camping and to tow a boat of trailer. It may be OK as a 2nd vehicle for the commuter. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The confusion began here when you said consumers would not buy fuel efficient vehicles until this that or the other thing happened. I pointed out that these vehicles exist and are selling nicely already. This is not an absolute statement, since it should be obvious that MORE of these vehicles will be sold as fuel prices increase, and as the current crop of still-useful vehicles ages and needs replacement. It did NOT disagree with anything you said in your last paragraph beginning with "I can't figure out...". One exception, though: Oil prices are largely disconnected from supply and demand. If you believe otherwise, you are not familiar with how daily prices are REALLY pegged by speculators. The price increases of the past 12 months are wildly out of proportion to changes in supply & demand. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I can't figure out what you are saying. Are you saying gas prices are not controlled by supply and demand? Do you not agree that we can substantially reduce our consumption by buying fuel efficient cars? Are you disagreeing with the experts when they say the only long term solution is to find alternative energy sources, and at the current price of fossil fuel there is no economic incentive to developed and market alternative energy? Do you think everyone including Al Gore missed the boat on this? pHs - how did you like my boating reference? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
I don't think carpooling has any life in it as an option any more. There are
places where driving is as hideous as fingernails on a blackboard (Long Island, for instance), and carpooling makes perfect sense. It really didn't catch on, and I don't think the price of fuel would change that. We may be talking about extremes here, though. Let's get moderate. Eliminate from the equation those people who drive a gigantic Lincoln or Caddy SUV to work, all alone, because those people are idiots and you'll never change them. You'll never get them to switch to a Toyota Prius, or even a Camry. Instead, focus on people who have 2 mini vans in the family, but only really need one for those times when they need to move a lot of kids or furniture or 15 bags of mulch. I know people like that. One vehicle is used for commuting, and the other is allowed to get beat up & filthy with heavy errands (or sticky children). Those are the families who should AT LEAST switch to a sedan that takes them from 23 mpg to 30 or 32 mpg. I'd suggest public service advertising focused at those people, but there's a big diaper crowd here who needs to have their bottle of milk, and they'd call such advertising either a waste of money, or excessive government control. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, You are making a great argument for raising the price of gas high enough that people will car pool and buy fuel efficient cars. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... True, but look around you on the highway. What percentage of cars would you estimate have just one or two passengers on a typical work day? A few years back, the University of Rochester posted students from a stats class at the entrance to the NY State Thruway and found that about 85% of vehicles had one passenger. This was a weekday morning from rush hour through lunch time. That's one as in "1". Obviously, nobody's going to tow with a hybrid, but that's not relevant. "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... Most of your hybrids and very high fuel efficiency vehicles are small, lightweight and not enough capacity to haul around the 2-4 kids and their gear as well as the groceries. It is fine for a DINK or single person, not one who wants to haul the kids to the little league game, or camping and to tow a boat of trailer. It may be OK as a 2nd vehicle for the commuter. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... The confusion began here when you said consumers would not buy fuel efficient vehicles until this that or the other thing happened. I pointed out that these vehicles exist and are selling nicely already. This is not an absolute statement, since it should be obvious that MORE of these vehicles will be sold as fuel prices increase, and as the current crop of still-useful vehicles ages and needs replacement. It did NOT disagree with anything you said in your last paragraph beginning with "I can't figure out...". One exception, though: Oil prices are largely disconnected from supply and demand. If you believe otherwise, you are not familiar with how daily prices are REALLY pegged by speculators. The price increases of the past 12 months are wildly out of proportion to changes in supply & demand. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, I can't figure out what you are saying. Are you saying gas prices are not controlled by supply and demand? Do you not agree that we can substantially reduce our consumption by buying fuel efficient cars? Are you disagreeing with the experts when they say the only long term solution is to find alternative energy sources, and at the current price of fossil fuel there is no economic incentive to developed and market alternative energy? Do you think everyone including Al Gore missed the boat on this? pHs - how did you like my boating reference? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Stop into a Toyota or Honda dealer, ask to speak briefly to their most experienced salesperson, and ask what's selling. Or, you could just look around. I agree that too many gas pigs are sold to people who have absolutely zero need for a truck of any kind, but that doesn't negate the fact that cars like Corollas and Civics are selling like hotcakes, and they're not even in the category of "high efficiency", compared to vehicles like the Prius (50+ mpg). "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, What is silly is your inability to see the obvious. There is one reason for the increase of gas prices. There is an increase in demand, without any increase in supply. Consumers will not pay for better fuel efficient cars until the cost of the gas guzzlers make it worth their while. The fact that a few people buy fuel efficient cars, does not negate the fact that too many people are buying gas guzzling SUV and Trucks, while keeping their home thermostat set at 78 degrees. Heck even Al Gore who was dumb as dirt, knew you had to raise the cost of gas to make it economically viable to find alternative energy sources. Al's idea was to tax gas $3/gal and use the tax to find alternative energy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Most of the people in rec.boats who complain about the price of gas, are driving trucks with low mpg and boats that burn tons of gas. If they really were concerned about the price of gas, they would buy a hybrid car and a either a trawler or sailboat. They refuse to see the obvious. Consumers will not buy a fuel efficient car or boat, or pay for alternative energy sources until the cost of petrol fuels make it worth while to do so. That's silly. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars being sold. It's been that way for years. Even a basic Corolla gets over 30 mpg. Same with models from Honda. Dealers don't need to whore these out with stupid "employee discount" offers, as do the big 3. |
Bill McKee wrote:
Prius on a good day makes 45 mpg. That is nice, but the only ones who are beating the 45 mpg max are the "hot rodders" who are stuffing more batteries in and adding the "plug in hybrid" capability. Long highway trip, you will get about 30 on a hybrid. Very little braking, slowing down, etc that is recovered as stored energy. The around town and short stop and go trips are the most efficient use. The plug in modifiers get the advantage of the extra battery capacity and plug in to the house charging. Up until a couple of years ago, that voided the hybrids warrantee. In my office of 12 there are 2 stock Honda Insights averaging 60+ mpg year round over the last 4+ years. -rick- |
LOL Harry!
And to think, for ol' "Bushie" it was at least 80% clear profit! you should have bought into Haliburton stock 4yrs ago when you had the chance! |
Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices As millions of Americans hop in their cars for vacation, the average price for a gallon of gas has spiked to $2.60 -- and many people are paying more than $3.00 per gallon to fill their tank. While most everyone is feeling the pinch, "for many lower-income people -- often those who work in service jobs or are looking for work -- each new bump up in price means altering daily routines, spending less on clothes and food, and keeping the kids at home instead of driving them to the pool or friends' houses." A big part of the problem is that, despite huge advances in technology, "America's cars and trucks are significantly less efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's," driving up demand, and the price, for fuel. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has staunchly resisted efforts to help solve the problem by improving fuel efficiency standards. Now, all Americans are paying the price. BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONCEALS FUEL ECONOMY REPORT: In late July, "the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision...to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy." The decision to block the release of the report was made "because it would have come on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation." The study showed that "the average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's." Specifically, "the average 2004 model sold by Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen was at least a half-mile a gallon less fuel-efficient than in the previous model year, a sharp drop." (A report by Environmental Defense provides details for all major manufacturers.) That wasn't news the Bush administration wanted public to hear because the bill "largely ignore[d] auto mileage regulations." Several Senators offered amendments "to strengthen fuel economy standards for S.U.V.'s, minivans and pickups" but they were all rejected. Bush signed the energy bill, which gave away billions to the energy industry, on August 8. Even the administration acknowledges the bill will do nothing to reduce gas prices. FAST, FURIOUS AND GAS-GUZZLING: The failure to mandate the production of more fuel efficient vehicles is a giant missed opportunity. There have been "leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades" that could make cars much more efficient. But in the absence of stricter efficiency standards, these gains "have been mostly used to make cars faster." Also, since the early 1980s, "average new vehicle weight has risen to about 4,000 pounds today, from about 3,200." During that time "the horsepower of an average engine has roughly doubled over two decades, trimming four seconds from the time it takes for the average vehicle to accelerate from zero to 60." KEEP ON TRUCKING: The key to avoiding fuel efficiency standards is to classify every new and trendy "crossover" vehicle as a truck. Light trucks "are held to a lower [average fuel efficiency] standard-20.7 mpg as of model year 2003, compared to 27.5 mpg for cars." Manufacturers are also moving vehicles that were once classified as cars to the truck class "to sell more of the large trucks on which profit margins have been so high." Today "S.U.V.'s and other light-duty vehicles account for 40 percent of the nation's oil use." With only the smallest cars remaining in the "car class" there is no pressure to improve the efficiency of those vehicles either. President Bush and the Congress had the opportunity to close these loopholes and improve overall efficiency in the energy bill, but didn't do it. New regulations set to be released later this month will create up to five classes of vehicles based on height and width. Dan Becker of the Sierra Club says the upcoming proposal is "an invitation to game the system." BUSH PROTECTS MASSIVE LOOPHOLE FOR HUMMERS: In 2003, President Bush proposed extending "fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles," which are now completely exempt. As gas prices soar to record levels, the administration has abandoned the proposal. The exemption applies to vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds. When it was created, "vehicles of that weight were generally used for commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are intended for family use." The exemption, along with potential tax breaks for consumers who purchase them, create "powerful incentives to produce such vehicles." |
wrote in message
oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
Doug,
The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices As millions of Americans hop in their cars for vacation, the average price for a gallon of gas has spiked to $2.60 -- and many people are paying more than $3.00 per gallon to fill their tank. While most everyone is feeling the pinch, "for many lower-income people -- often those who work in service jobs or are looking for work -- each new bump up in price means altering daily routines, spending less on clothes and food, and keeping the kids at home instead of driving them to the pool or friends' houses." A big part of the problem is that, despite huge advances in technology, "America's cars and trucks are significantly less efficient, on average, than they were in the late 1980's," driving up demand, and the price, for fuel. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has staunchly resisted efforts to help solve the problem by improving fuel efficiency standards. Now, all Americans are paying the price. BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONCEALS FUEL ECONOMY REPORT: In late July, "the Environmental Protection Agency made an 11th-hour decision...to delay the planned release of an annual report on fuel economy." The decision to block the release of the report was made "because it would have come on the eve of a final vote in Congress on energy legislation." The study showed that "the average 2004 model car or truck got 20.8 miles per gallon, about 6 percent less than the 22.1 m.p.g. of the average new vehicle sold in the late 1980's." Specifically, "the average 2004 model sold by Nissan, Hyundai and Volkswagen was at least a half-mile a gallon less fuel-efficient than in the previous model year, a sharp drop." (A report by Environmental Defense provides details for all major manufacturers.) That wasn't news the Bush administration wanted public to hear because the bill "largely ignore[d] auto mileage regulations." Several Senators offered amendments "to strengthen fuel economy standards for S.U.V.'s, minivans and pickups" but they were all rejected. Bush signed the energy bill, which gave away billions to the energy industry, on August 8. Even the administration acknowledges the bill will do nothing to reduce gas prices. FAST, FURIOUS AND GAS-GUZZLING: The failure to mandate the production of more fuel efficient vehicles is a giant missed opportunity. There have been "leaps in engine technology over the last couple of decades" that could make cars much more efficient. But in the absence of stricter efficiency standards, these gains "have been mostly used to make cars faster." Also, since the early 1980s, "average new vehicle weight has risen to about 4,000 pounds today, from about 3,200." During that time "the horsepower of an average engine has roughly doubled over two decades, trimming four seconds from the time it takes for the average vehicle to accelerate from zero to 60." KEEP ON TRUCKING: The key to avoiding fuel efficiency standards is to classify every new and trendy "crossover" vehicle as a truck. Light trucks "are held to a lower [average fuel efficiency] standard-20.7 mpg as of model year 2003, compared to 27.5 mpg for cars." Manufacturers are also moving vehicles that were once classified as cars to the truck class "to sell more of the large trucks on which profit margins have been so high." Today "S.U.V.'s and other light-duty vehicles account for 40 percent of the nation's oil use." With only the smallest cars remaining in the "car class" there is no pressure to improve the efficiency of those vehicles either. President Bush and the Congress had the opportunity to close these loopholes and improve overall efficiency in the energy bill, but didn't do it. New regulations set to be released later this month will create up to five classes of vehicles based on height and width. Dan Becker of the Sierra Club says the upcoming proposal is "an invitation to game the system." BUSH PROTECTS MASSIVE LOOPHOLE FOR HUMMERS: In 2003, President Bush proposed extending "fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles," which are now completely exempt. As gas prices soar to record levels, the administration has abandoned the proposal. The exemption applies to vehicles weighing over 8,500 pounds. When it was created, "vehicles of that weight were generally used for commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are intended for family use." The exemption, along with potential tax breaks for consumers who purchase them, create "powerful incentives to produce such vehicles." By your logic then, all of Europe must have two or three times the bad leadership that we have. And countries like Venezuela, where gas is 13 cents a gallon must have the best leadership ever! |
Harry has never been in the stock market. When the stock market was
booming, Harry used to read the newspaper to see what stocks had increased in value. Whenever a stock had jumped up, that suddenly was the stock Harry had purchased a few years ago. Harry used to say he only made money in the stock market by buying Shorts on companies which were overvalued. He said there was too much money to be made by selling US companies short. When Harry read about the rise in Microsoft stock, he suddenly remembered the 10,000 shares of Microsoft stock he purchased on the first day the stock was offered. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Tim wrote: LOL Harry! And to think, for ol' "Bushie" it was at least 80% clear profit! you should have bought into Haliburton stock 4yrs ago when you had the chance! Sorry, but I have no interest in profiteering from warmongering. I'm virtually "out" of the stock market these days, and plan to remain out of it, other than a few blocks of shares in companies I follow for "interest" reasons. For my purposes, there are better investments. |
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? How predictable for the liebrals to blame consumer choice on Bush. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
Cuz I like to keep my money here, where it can roll around and spawn more
money for everyone to play with. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message . .. If Detroit has any decent businesspeople at the reins nowadays, they will come up with a 50-60 mpg (or more) commuter vehicle. I'd buy one....... Cars like the Toyota Prius are already in that mpg range. Why wait for Detroit to get its head out of its ass? |
I purchased a fuel efficient SUV because the cost of fuel was low enough
that I did not mind 18 mpg. With the increase in fuel costs and no realistic change in the future, in fact, it is reasonable to forecast more increases in the future. I know my next car will be hybrid. The increase in fuel costs will happen under any president or congress. It is a world market that is controlling the cost of fuel. Some people in here either can't seem to comprehend that fact, or prefer to ignore it for political gain. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? How predictable for the liebrals to blame consumer choice on Bush. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... I purchased a fuel efficient SUV because the cost of fuel was low enough that I did not mind 18 mpg. With the increase in fuel costs and no realistic change in the future, in fact, it is reasonable to forecast more increases in the future. I know my next car will be hybrid. Same here. The increase in fuel costs will happen under any president or congress. It is a world market that is controlling the cost of fuel. Some people in here either can't seem to comprehend that fact, or prefer to ignore it for political gain. I would not be surprised to see more sailboats and Motor/sailers in the future as well "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? How predictable for the liebrals to blame consumer choice on Bush. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Harry has never been in the stock market. When the stock market was booming, Harry used to read the newspaper to see what stocks had increased in value. Whenever a stock had jumped up, that suddenly was the stock Harry had purchased a few years ago. Right. Just more of his lies. It was always funny to listen to him chime in with "I did that" or "I have that" when someone else mentioned it. He reminds me of that little lizard, that stands up and puffs out its chest to make himself look bigger. After everyone leaves, he returns to his scrawny self, and goes back under that rock of his. Harry used to say he only made money in the stock market by buying Shorts on companies which were overvalued. He said there was too much money to be made by selling US companies short. When Harry read about the rise in Microsoft stock, he suddenly remembered the 10,000 shares of Microsoft stock he purchased on the first day the stock was offered. Krause says a lot of crap, and thats exactly what it is...crap. It has been proven...he *IS* a liar, and that he has no boat...period. -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
$3.28 per gallon here.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. |
Wow, I just doubled checked my rated MPG on my car and it is 20 mpg city and
25 mpg highway, that is better than I remembered. When I buy my next car it will be a hybrid, due to the forecasted gas prices in the future. When gas reaches $4 gallon, and it will, people will still be complaining about the cost of gas as they drive status symbol luxury SUV. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... I purchased a fuel efficient SUV because the cost of fuel was low enough that I did not mind 18 mpg. With the increase in fuel costs and no realistic change in the future, in fact, it is reasonable to forecast more increases in the future. I know my next car will be hybrid. The increase in fuel costs will happen under any president or congress. It is a world market that is controlling the cost of fuel. Some people in here either can't seem to comprehend that fact, or prefer to ignore it for political gain. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? How predictable for the liebrals to blame consumer choice on Bush. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
wrote in message ups.com... Harry Krause wrote: Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. It's a real stretch to try to blame George Bush for five decades of over consumption, five decades of refusal to seriously pursue alternative energy sources, five decades of ass-kissing BIG OIL and THE BIG THREE automakers. He can be held accountable for the things like the gutting of CAFE standards during his administration. He can be criticized for developing a national "energy policy" that concentrates primarily on squeezing the last few drops of oil out of the ground and excusing his family's (and other) oil companies from taxes in the process. He can be resented, a bit, because he and his family are getting filthy rich(er) every time the price of a bbl of oil goes up a buck. He clearly has no personal incentive to wish for lower oil prices, but it isn't fair to lay the blame for the current pricing on Bush. The SUV aspect of this whole thing is amusing. Not that SUV's are primarily responsible for the high prices of oil- but if you remember the last few years every time some environmentalist suggested that it might not be in the national interest to offer vehicles that got less than 10 mpg the right wing radio shows all began to squeal, (on cue), "we need to let the free market decide what people will buy and drive". I hope those same apologists have the same "free market" attitude toward the price of oil. You're seeing $3 at the marina- on the west coast we're seeing $3 at a lot of regular gas stations (for high octane). I had an interesting thought this morning when I glanced at the copy of "Unrestricted Warfa China's Master Plan to Destroy America " sitting on my nightstand. China has pegged its currency to the dollar, causing it to be artificially deflated. If they allowed it to float, several things would happen...one of which would be that our trade deficit with China would likely fall. The other thing that would happen would be that gas would be cheaper in China. Even with a drop in the cost of gas in China, the general consensus is that a rise in the value of the yuan would be disastrous for China's export economy...particularly in the short-term. What if the price of gas was being intentionally inflated so that the Chinese response would be the unpegging of the yuan to the dollar? As much as our economy depends on low fuel costs, the Chinese economy is even more dependent on it. Why? Because fuel costs make up a larger percentage of the overall expense of doing business over there. Employee costs are extremely high over here, and low over there. But fuel costs are the same. The easiest way to diminish China's competitive advantage is to raise the expenses that have a larger effect on their economy than ours. |
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... .................snip............ He described recent US government actions as "aggressive" in a speech at a youth festival in Caracas. As a result, Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States, could go elsewhere," he said. produces 80% of the world's supply. ...............snip.............. If Chavez turns off the spigot, you'll start to see violence at the gas pump. Harry.......You heard it first here! Venezuela will soon be attacked by the USA..........There will be some feeble excuse invented by the CIA and American troops will invade. Nope. Iran is in the crosshairs right now. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... Imagine what happens when we decide to sell our natural gas and oil to China instead of south. Imagine what happens when we then pull the plug on the $460 billion in trade we do with Canada each year. And if you divert your gas and oil to China, that will simply lower Chinese demand for Mid East oil...driving down the price of Saudi oil to the US. |
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... Imagine what happens when we decide to sell our natural gas and oil to China instead of south. Imagine what happens when we then pull the plug on the $460 billion in trade we do with Canada each year. And if you divert your gas and oil to China, that will simply lower Chinese demand for Mid East oil...driving down the price of Saudi oil to the US. Obviously donnie cannot grasp simple world economics. |
The mothballed refineries were closed due to the fact that it was too
expensive to upgrade them to meet new EPA regulations or to allow them to be competitive with newer refineries. Even if that was not the case, Harry's suggestion that opening the mothballed refineries is a solution to our current problems shows his inability to grasp complex problems. The solution to this problem is not increasing capacity, but reducing consumption via improved efficiency and alternative energy solutions. At the very best, reopening these less efficient refinery is a very expensive short term solution. It is very possible that the increase expenses involved in opening these refineries would result in an increase in costs, that would be passed onto consumers. Supply and demand works as a market vehicle to allow the most efficient companies to expand market share. If the oil companies thought they could meet the EPA regulations and make money long term, they will open these mothballed refiners on their own. The companies greed will have them expand their capacity. In the long term interest of the consumer, it makes much more sense to provide excess capacity by a reduction in demand, or by building state of the art efficient and environmentally sound refineries. Harry likes to use the mothballed refineries as the problem, because it allows him to blame big business instead of facing the cruel hard facts of using fossil fuel. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: $3.28 per gallon here. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. Best news I've had all day! :?} Seriously, these fuel prices are going to have a significant impact on boat sales, if they haven't already. Might be nice if the idiot in the White House started jawboning "Big Oil" about excess profits, or convincing them to get some mothballed refineries back on stream. Or something other than ****ing off oil-producing countries. |
That seems to be a common problem in rec.boats. I wish more colleges
required economics to be a required core course. "P. Fritz" wrote in message Obviously donnie cannot grasp simple world economics. |
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... The mothballed refineries were closed due to the fact that it was too expensive to upgrade them to meet new EPA regulations or to allow them to be competitive with newer refineries. Even if that was not the case, Harry's suggestion that opening the mothballed refineries is a solution to our current problems shows his inability to grasp complex problems. The solution to this problem is not increasing capacity, but reducing consumption via improved efficiency and alternative energy solutions. At the very best, reopening these less efficient refinery is a very expensive short term solution. It is very possible that the increase expenses involved in opening these refineries would result in an increase in costs, that would be passed onto consumers. Supply and demand works as a market vehicle to allow the most efficient companies to expand market share. If the oil companies thought they could meet the EPA regulations and make money long term, they will open these mothballed refiners on their own. The companies greed will have them expand their capacity. In the long term interest of the consumer, it makes much more sense to provide excess capacity by a reduction in demand, or by building state of the art efficient and environmentally sound refineries. Harry likes to use the mothballed refineries as the problem, because it allows him to blame big business instead of facing the cruel hard facts of using fossil fuel. More refinery operating would reduce the "spot" increases around the country due to local shortages caused by the reformulated gas requirements. Any easing of EPA requirements to operate the the older refineries would result in the liebrals screaming about Bush polluting. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: $3.28 per gallon here. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. Best news I've had all day! :?} Seriously, these fuel prices are going to have a significant impact on boat sales, if they haven't already. Might be nice if the idiot in the White House started jawboning "Big Oil" about excess profits, or convincing them to get some mothballed refineries back on stream. Or something other than ****ing off oil-producing countries. |
They're made here. They employ a ****load of Americans who can actually be
proud of producing vehicles that don't suck. "Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message . .. Cuz I like to keep my money here, where it can roll around and spawn more money for everyone to play with. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Stanley Barthfarkle" wrote in message . .. If Detroit has any decent businesspeople at the reins nowadays, they will come up with a 50-60 mpg (or more) commuter vehicle. I'd buy one....... Cars like the Toyota Prius are already in that mpg range. Why wait for Detroit to get its head out of its ass? |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? How predictable for the liebrals to blame consumer choice on Bush. Perhaps you should go back a couple of messages and read the article, which deals with LEGISLATIVE FACTS, not political opinions. Then you might have some inkling of what you were talking about. |
Speaking of status symbols, I was just at the barber shop, browsing a car
magazine. Lincoln's selling what they call a "luxury pickup truck". Someone ought to be shot for that. You *know* they're not going to bought by bricklayers & carpenters who are gonna beat the crap out of them. That leaves.....well...you know who. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Wow, I just doubled checked my rated MPG on my car and it is 20 mpg city and 25 mpg highway, that is better than I remembered. When I buy my next car it will be a hybrid, due to the forecasted gas prices in the future. When gas reaches $4 gallon, and it will, people will still be complaining about the cost of gas as they drive status symbol luxury SUV. "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... I purchased a fuel efficient SUV because the cost of fuel was low enough that I did not mind 18 mpg. With the increase in fuel costs and no realistic change in the future, in fact, it is reasonable to forecast more increases in the future. I know my next car will be hybrid. The increase in fuel costs will happen under any president or congress. It is a world market that is controlling the cost of fuel. Some people in here either can't seem to comprehend that fact, or prefer to ignore it for political gain. "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Juan Valdez" wrote in message ... Doug, The reason for the increase in cars w/ lower fuel efficiency is the increase in SUV's and pickup trucks. This represents a change in buying habits, not a change in fuel efficiency. There are two ways to have people buy more fuel efficient cars. One make the cars/trucks more expensive by either taxing or raising the cost of the less efficient vehicles or (2) new technology to improve fuel efficiency. Since everyone is already working on new technology, the only way to change the consumer's buying habits is increasing the cost of the vehicles. There are two ways to tax or raise the cost of less efficient vehicles, one in the initial purchase price, or in the cost of operating the vehicle. I wonder why Clinton didn't propose a sur-tax on SUV's or Pickup Trucks when he was in office? How predictable for the liebrals to blame consumer choice on Bush. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dan J.S. wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Regular grade gasoline was $3.05 a gallon yesterday at several docks in Annapolis. Diesel was $2.61 to $2.65. Thanks, Dubya. If you really believe it's Bush's fault, you lost all credibility you had. Bad Policy Fuels High Prices It should be amusing to see how the automatons defend this, or pretend they were not aware of it. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com