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
news 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. :-)