Harry Krause wrote:
..

Is this going to be the next political kick in the butt for Bush?

I dunno, Harry. i really don't think Bush has much to do with it.

I rememebr when Gas at the pumps jumped from $.35 to $.74 per gallon
over night when Jimmy Carter was in office.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
.
Is this going to be the next political kick in the butt for Bush?

I dunno, Harry. i really don't think Bush has much to do with it.

I rememebr when Gas at the pumps jumped from $.35 to $.74 per gallon
over night when Jimmy Carter was in office.


74 cents a gallon? Wow!

When considering inflation, the 1976 USD was worth $.27 to a 2006 USD.

A $.39 increase/gallon in 1976 in today's USD's converts to a $1.44
increase.

And you were saying?

74 cents a gallon? Wow!

When considering inflation, the 1976 USD was worth $.27 to a 2006 USD.

A $.39 increase/gallon in 1976 in today's USD's converts to a $1.44
increase.

And you were saying?


Let's focus on what you're saying, or at least making an attempt to say.
You either don't understand the concept of reduced purchasing power due to
inflation, or have difficulty explaining it. A 1976 dollar was worth more
in terms of purchasing power than a 2006 dollar. The exact opposite of the
way you stated it.

The Consumer Price Index was established in 1967, which shall be referred to
as the base year. The CPI index for the base year is 100. The value of the
index as of March 31, 2006 is 578.86, the latest statistic available. The
index value for 1976, the year of comparison in this thread, is 170.5.

This means that a 2006 dollar is worth only $.1728, when compared to a 1967
dollar (100/578.86). This also means that a 2006 dollar is worth only
$.2945 when compared to a 1976 dollar (170.5/578.86). Therefore, it can
also be said that a 1976 dollar was worth 3.4 times what a 2006 dollar is
worth (578.86/170.5) in terms of purchasing power.

Therefore, your calculation of a $.39 increase/gallon equating to a $1.44
increase in today's dollars is a bit overstated. The true math equates $.39
to $1.33 ($.39*3.4). However, this seems like an odd way to examine the
situation. Why not just compare the cost of a gallon of gas then versus
now, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars? A 1976 price of $.74 per
gallon, after the mentioned increase that year, was offered in an earlier
post. I'm not sure if that number is 100% accurate, but I have no quarrel
with it. Using that 1976 value, and the CPI data offered above, that means
that a gallon of gas today should cost $2.52 per gallon ($.74*3.4), if gas
was to have increased in price commensurate with the CPI. The only
conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the cost of gas appears to
have risen slightly higher than the aggregate cost of living when using 1976
and 2006 as your goalposts in time, a conclusion I don't find particularly
profound or shocking. Actually a bit of a bore, not really amounting to
much. Not entirely unlike yourself, Jim. Using any different slices of
time for comparison would likely yield different conclusions, or at least
those drawn about the cost of gas.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
74 cents a gallon? Wow!
When considering inflation, the 1976 USD was worth $.27 to a 2006 USD.

A $.39 increase/gallon in 1976 in today's USD's converts to a $1.44
increase.

And you were saying?


Let's focus on what you're saying, or at least making an attempt to say.
You either don't understand the concept of reduced purchasing power due
to inflation, or have difficulty explaining it. A 1976 dollar was worth
more in terms of purchasing power than a 2006 dollar. The exact opposite
of the way you stated it.

The Consumer Price Index was established in 1967, which shall be referred
to as the base year. The CPI index for the base year is 100. The value
of the index as of March 31, 2006 is 578.86, the latest statistic
available. The index value for 1976, the year of comparison in this
thread, is 170.5.

This means that a 2006 dollar is worth only $.1728, when compared to a
1967 dollar (100/578.86). This also means that a 2006 dollar is worth
only $.2945 when compared to a 1976 dollar (170.5/578.86). Therefore, it
can also be said that a 1976 dollar was worth 3.4 times what a 2006
dollar is worth (578.86/170.5) in terms of purchasing power.

Therefore, your calculation of a $.39 increase/gallon equating to a $1.44
increase in today's dollars is a bit overstated. The true math equates
$.39 to $1.33 ($.39*3.4). However, this seems like an odd way to examine
the situation. Why not just compare the cost of a gallon of gas then
versus now, in terms of inflation adjusted dollars? A 1976 price of $.74
per gallon, after the mentioned increase that year, was offered in an
earlier post. I'm not sure if that number is 100% accurate, but I have
no quarrel with it. Using that 1976 value, and the CPI data offered
above, that means that a gallon of gas today should cost $2.52 per gallon
($.74*3.4), if gas was to have increased in price commensurate with the
CPI. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the cost of
gas appears to have risen slightly higher than the aggregate cost of
living when using 1976 and 2006 as your goalposts in time, a conclusion I
don't find particularly profound or shocking. Actually a bit of a bore,
not really amounting to much. Not entirely unlike yourself, Jim. Using
any different slices of time for comparison would likely yield different
conclusions, or at least those drawn about the cost of gas.





I just love these rationalizations you guys use in an attempt to make
everyone feel better about being butt-fu*ked by the Friends of Bush.

The friends of Bush?

Regardless, I do not agree with or want folks to feel better about the way
the oil companies are raping us. I have posted facts supporting that
position, including posting of the billion dollar profits of Exxon and the
million dollar payoff given to the retiring CEO of the same company.

And contrary to what RG has to say I do understand inflation and I do not
need his high school entry level economics class lecture to me/this NG on
the matter. ;-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


I just love these rationalizations you guys use in an attempt to make
everyone feel better about being butt-fu*ked by the Friends of Bush.


Using your expression, we've been butt-fu*ked one way or another by every
administration since Harry S Truman's.
The older I get, the more I realize it and the more disgusted of politicians
and politics I become.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


I just love these rationalizations you guys use in an attempt to make
everyone feel better about being butt-fu*ked by the Friends of Bush.


Using your expression, we've been butt-fu*ked one way or another by every
administration since Harry S Truman's.
The older I get, the more I realize it and the more disgusted of
politicians and politics I become.

RCE



http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...shism-harm.htm

I just love these rationalizations you guys use in an attempt to make
everyone feel better about being butt-fu*ked by the Friends of Bush.

I don't recall mentioning anything regarding Bush, his friends, or anything
related to politics in general. It was not a rationalization, but rather a
simple mathematical argument. I offered no opinion as to it's cause. It is
merely a statement of historical fact.

It hardly surprises me that you see politics in a simple statement of
arithmetic and economic statistics that are public record and span a number
of administrations. Nor does it surprise me that you are constantly feeling
butt-****ed (really, does your asterisk actually serve a purpose? Does it
make you feel more clean and righteous? Or is it just your take on being
clever?). I really don't have any advice for you on how to protect your
tender backside, but I'd prefer it if you'd refrain from suggesting that I'm
in a similar (vulnerable) position.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I just love these rationalizations you guys use in an attempt to make
everyone feel better about being butt-fu*ked by the Friends of Bush.


Using your expression, we've been butt-fu*ked one way or another by every
administration since Harry S Truman's.
The older I get, the more I realize it and the more disgusted of
politicians and politics I become.

RCE


Under today's circumstances, a president with cojones would state that he
didn't believe the "accounting" of oil companies that claimed they were
only earning a 10% profit, would have the DoJ start really serious
investigations, and would urge passage of special "excess profits" taxes
on the petrol industry.

The current guy is doing nothing serious.


Remind me again on what Carter did in the '70's during the high gasoline
pricing and shortages. ;-)

"RG" wrote in message
. ..



snip

I really don't have any advice for you on how to protect your tender
backside, but I'd prefer it if you'd refrain from suggesting that I'm in a
similar (vulnerable) position.



Unless you have a magic wand and pay a reduced price at the
pump.............you certainly are.

Unless you have a magic wand and pay a reduced price at the
pump.............you certainly are.

The only magic wand in play here is the one that Harry feels is up his
rectum. Like you, the price I pay for gas is the price determined by
current market conditions. Also like you, the current market price tends to
have an effect on my rate of consumption, as well as the rest of my
finances. I don't recall reading anywhere that I have to like it, but on
the other hand, it doesn't mean that I equate the situation with being
sodomized by a political entity.

If you feel you can produce 20 gallons of gas for your car's tank at a price
less than Chevron is willing to sell it to you for, please feel free to do
so. If you can produce food for less than the supermarket is willing to
sell it to you for, again, please feel free to do so. And finally, if you
can self-perform that much-needed lobotomy for less than the neurosurgeon is
willing to do it for, please have at it.