$2.96 a gallon
 

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.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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?

$2.96 a gallon
 

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.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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. ;-)

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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

$2.96 a gallon
 

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.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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. ;-)

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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.

$2.96 a gallon
 

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.

$2.96 a gallon
 

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


The oil industry needs to have its books audited by really independent
outside accountants, and face excessive profits taxes.

Your hatred has bred naiveté. It has blinded you to the world we now live
in.

You are probably a much more educated man than I. But in all my studies of
business finance, economics, the Internal Revenue Code, and the United
States Constitution, I have never come across a legitimate definition of
"excessive profits", or for that matter, a suggested punishment of same.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"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


Yup. All politicians should spend two terms. One in office and one in
prison.

$2.96 a gallon
 

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:51:41 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

Harry, have you ever found a thread in which you couldn't insert your 'Bush
hate' rhetoric? What adolescent crap!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

$2.96 a gallon
 

What's going on with Big Oil today is analogous.


Perhaps, but it's not a certainty. But even if the analogy is accurate, it
is still conceptual in nature. Much like the concept of price gouging, the
definition of excess profits is very obscure and vague, if it exists at all.
There is a reason that price gouging charges are rarely prosecuted and
almost never successfully so. Without a clear and precise definition of the
concept, proving a case is nearly impossible. At this point, one man's
definition of profiteering is another man's definition of capitalism in its
highest form. Who gets to choose who's definition is the most just? And
it's not just a simple matter of numbers. There is clearly an element of
morality involved here, and any attempt to legislate morality is always a
bit of a sticky wicket. And so goes the perils of a free market society.
At any rate, it would seem that the general gist of your solution to the
problem would be to redistribute wealth from a particular corporate sector,
in this case Big Oil, to the government, via a special provision in the tax
code or a piece of legislation. What a surprise. In other words, robbery,
as you see it, by corporations is unmitigated evil, but robbery by the
government is chaste and just. This has rarely been a good plan, but it is
very Sherwood Forest chic.

But never mind all that. Let's assume for a moment that you indeed were
King of the Forest, and that your heist and shakedown of those that actually
generated the riches through legal means of production was complete. Now
that the coffers of your administration have been enriched in the name of
social justice, what next? From my perspective, your blatant act of
thuggery simply replaced one crime (assuming you believe one has been
committed in the first place), with another. The deck chairs on the Titanic
have successfully been rearranged, but the ship is still in peril. Women
and children first. The true root of the problem has not even begun to be
addressed. And without that, the status quo is pretty much maintained.

The root of the problem is so obvious, it amazes me how little attention it
gets in the banter that always follows a run up in gas prices. Well not
really. It's human nature to point a finger of blame 180 degrees away from
one's self, and Big Oil is such an easy and readily accepted target. Fish
in a barrel, as it were. Much easier than a true analysis of the real
problem, for which there are no easy solutions at hand. We have met the
enemy, and he is us. And it's not a pretty picture.

Are you aware of the astonishing rate of daily conversion of bicycles and
oxcarts to motorized vehicles in China and India, as well as other
developing economies? Do you realize that this process is in its very early
stages and is irreversible? Do your realize that as global wealth and
affluence increases exponentially, so does energy consumption?

Are you aware that all the dino juice that exits today and will ever exist
tomorrow has long since been produced, and that it gets increasingly more
difficult and expensive to find and extract from the ground as time goes on?

Can you tell me the last time a new refining facility was built in the
United States? A new nuke plant?

Are you able to draw any parallels from the above questions with the
irrefutable economic laws of supply and demand? Do you think any of this
might be responsible for the price of a gallon of gas?

Perhaps the central issue is not one of excessive profits, but rather
excessive consumption, of which we are all guilty to some degree. But just
as there is no standard for the concept of excessive profits, there is no
such standard for the concept of excessive consumption.

It seems to me that the only sure way out of this mess is a real and viable
alternative to oil-based energy. It is as obvious as it is elusive. So, I
guess that if I was to expend a bunch of my bodily energy banging a drum for
a cause, it would have much less to do with the evils of profiteering, and
would have more to do with creating epic-sized incentives in the area of
alternative energy research. So, if I were King of the Forest, I'd be
thinking of ways to get the energy companies and the scientific community to
get all over this issue. The promises of riches usually will get most
people's attention. You prefer the stick, I prefer the carrot. I'd also
try and find a way to address the sad state of our educational system, with
one of the targeted goals to increase the level of interest and competence
of students in the sciences. Technology got us into this mess, and it's
going to have to get us out of it. There should be a national sense of
purpose and dedication to the cause similar to the one of putting a man on
the moon in the 1960's. Maybe in a decade or two, we can think out way out
of this. In the meantime, fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy
ride.

$2.96 a gallon
 

Are you able to draw any parallels from the above questions with the
irrefutable economic laws of supply and demand? Do you think any of this
might be responsible for the price of a gallon of gas?


I forgot one that I intended to include. I think it's important enough to
add to the equation:

Are you aware of the cosmic joke that has managed to locate most of the
world's oil in countries run by crazy-assed lunatics?

$2.96 a gallon
 

RG wrote:
snip

Are you aware of the cosmic joke that has managed to locate most of the
world's oil in countries run by crazy-assed lunatics?



Are you referring to Texas of the 1980s & '90s?

$2.96 a gallon
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

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.


As much as I'd like to blame bush, aren't these oil prices less related to
bush tactics and more related to increasing world demand and static or
decreasing world supplies.

My gripe is with our consecutive administrations and the consecutive
generations of voters which have failed to prepare for this very energy
challenge that we all know existed. With open global markets and an absence
of product to sell to the world (our major export is our consumerism), we
find ourselves crying about the price of gas because our personal economies
are overwhelmed by our dependence on gas. In my lifetime, the oil crisis of
the '70's should have been our wakeup call. And, finally, my personal fear
that we are at the mercy of other countries for our energy needs is what
will be a major factor in the fall of the US Empire.

Then, there's my personal conspiracy theory to add to the mix: the oil
industry is manipulating supplies and prices to force us to allow the
devastation of the continental shelf and arctic tundra for US oil profits.
Again, a failure to make a break from our dependence on non-sustainable oil
supplies for our countries energy needs.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"Bryan" wrote in message
m...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

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.


As much as I'd like to blame bush, aren't these oil prices less related to
bush tactics and more related to increasing world demand and static or
decreasing world supplies.

You'd think, except for one thing: The price swings are too fast to reflect
world demand. How quickly did we just go from $2.50 to $3.00? Three weeks?
Demand most certainly did NOT increase by the same proportion. This is
nothing but a game. Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get
futures traders the phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful
purpose. "Oil prices rose due to fears of this that or the other thing....".
Bull****.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
snip

Are you aware of the cosmic joke that has managed to locate most of the
world's oil in countries run by crazy-assed lunatics?

Are you referring to Texas of the 1980s & '90s?

Not surprising that you would think so, Don. Your blame-o-meter for all the
world's woes has always been stuck pointing in a southerly direction. You
might want to send it in for a reality check and general recalibration.

$2.96 a gallon
 

Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced by
the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
snip

Are you aware of the cosmic joke that has managed to locate most of the
world's oil in countries run by crazy-assed lunatics?

Are you referring to Texas of the 1980s & '90s?

Now that's a funny retort.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..
Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced by
the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

The product is too important to be left up to the whims of a bunch of suits.
And, whims is exactly what they are. Did you notice that when that Saudi
refinery was attacked a month or two ago, the price hiccup was nothing
compared to the current one, which is based on absolutely nothing?

$2.96 a gallon
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bryan" wrote in message
m...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
m...

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.


As much as I'd like to blame bush, aren't these oil prices less related to
bush tactics and more related to increasing world demand and static or
decreasing world supplies.


You'd think, except for one thing: The price swings are too fast to reflect
world demand. How quickly did we just go from $2.50 to $3.00? Three weeks?
Demand most certainly did NOT increase by the same proportion. This is
nothing but a game. Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get
futures traders the phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful
purpose. "Oil prices rose due to fears of this that or the other thing....".
Bull****.


Exactly...
astronomical profits for a few... misery for the masses.

$2.96 a gallon
 

Found this link in another NG.

Still digesting it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

RCE

$2.96 a gallon
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RG" wrote in message
. ..
Until we have a "hard" solution, I have an idea. Get futures traders the
phuque out of the oil business. They serve no useful purpose.

Actually they do. If your business profits are significantly influenced
by the price of oil, futures contracts pay a very important role in the
stabilization and predictability of those profits. It's called hedging.
But I suspect you knew that.

The product is too important to be left up to the whims of a bunch of
suits. And, whims is exactly what they are. Did you notice that when that
Saudi refinery was attacked a month or two ago, the price hiccup was
nothing compared to the current one, which is based on absolutely nothing?

Yes, I noticed. It may seem like the current market move is based on
absolutely nothing, but I think that is a mischaracterization. The basis
for a market movement may not be obvious, tangible, or even logical but it's
there. The market wouldn't move without it. However, you are on the right
track about whims. Markets tend to be very psychological and emotional, and
often not immediately rational. How is the recent movement in oil prices
any different than a 200 point swing up or down of the Dow on any given day?
Was there really a commensurate shift in the fundamental value of those
thirty companies during that six and a half hours of trading? Not likely.
The reason for all short-term market movements can usually be traced to the
basic motivators of fear and greed. And there is no shortage of suits that
wish they had the power to move oil prices up or down by merely wishing it
so. But it just doesn't work that way. Collective fear and greed for the
future make those short-term movements happen.

As to the event of the Saudi refinery attack, if the attack had been
successful, you would have seen a much different market reaction. As it
was, what you witnessed was a sigh of relief after a major bullet was
dodged.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...
Found this link in another NG.

Still digesting it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

RCE

Unfortunately, I believe this is the real deal. If so, $3 per gallon gas
will be looked back on as a fond memory. Scary stuff.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...
Found this link in another NG.

Still digesting it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

RCE

Very sobering piece.....

$2.96 a gallon
 

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:37:44 -0400, "RCE" wrote:

Found this link in another NG.

Still digesting it.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

RCE


From page 2:

"Reallocate your financial assets so that you are as best
positioned to handle these issues as you can realistically
hope to be."

Where would that be?

It *is* a pretty scary damn article!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

$2.96 a gallon
 

From page 2:

"Reallocate your financial assets so that you are as best
positioned to handle these issues as you can realistically
hope to be."

Where would that be?


Under a mild version of the scenario, cash would be king. Under a more
extreme version, even cash would be useless, as would any financial asset.
At that point it comes down to food, water, shelter, and weaponry.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RG wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
From page 2:

"Reallocate your financial assets so that you are as best
positioned to handle these issues as you can realistically
hope to be."

Where would that be?

Under a mild version of the scenario, cash would be king. Under a more
extreme version, even cash would be useless, as would any financial
asset. At that point it comes down to food, water, shelter, and
weaponry.
Gold.

Nonsense. That's a myth. Leading up to the crisis, gold will indeed
shine. There is no reason for it, but it will happen. But once the ****
really hits the fan, it will be of little real value. Tell me how you
eat or drink gold. Tell me how it shelters you from the cold. It can
make an effective weapon at extremely close range. It's heavy as hell
and a bar could easily smash an opponent's skull, but there are better
choices for that.

Gold is one of the world's most strange assets. Unlike industrial
metals, gold has almost no intrinsic value as it relates to global
economic production. And yet it has always been a prized possession.
The vast majority of the world's gold production is consumed by the
jewelry industry. Another very small percentage is used by the
electronics and technology industries. But if life comes down to food,
gas, and bullets, bling will have very little value on the street in a
barter-based economy. Gold in any meaningful quantity is extremely
cumbersome and will only slow you down in your quest for survival.

Gold has been highly valued for thousands of years. Gold coins *are*
attractive in a barter-based economy.

Only by conventional tradition, I suspect. I don't understand these things,
but I think I agree with RG. In the upcoming world crisis I can't see gold
as being valuable for anything. Platinum, maybe, but not gold.

I am going to hold onto the 500 gals of diesel fuel currently stored in my
boat and sell it off, quart by quart when I need cash.

RCE

$2.96 a gallon
 

Gold has been highly valued for thousands of years. Gold coins *are*
attractive in a barter-based economy.

There's no disputing that has been the history of gold. But I think it will
be a much different situation for gold if a complete economic meltdown
happens in the future. If we are reduced to foraging for the bare
necessities of survival, I believe gold will be way down the list of prized
possessions. Of course I'm speaking of an extreme situation, but it is not
unthinkable. In an oil-based economy, when oil availability becomes truly
insufficient to meet life's daily needs, very ugly things will happen.
Hyper-inflation will be one effect. Not unlike Germany saw in the early
thirties. And we know where that lead.

The truly scary thing about this doomsday scenario as opposed to historical
major economic crises, is that the world today is so much more dependent on
oil for all the goods and services the world relies on. Even in the worst
historical economic meltdowns, the raw materials needed to pull ourselves
out of the dive were plentiful. In today's world, when oil becomes scarce,
everything becomes scarce. And that's when the scenario of street anarchy
becomes a reality. It scares the bejeezus out of me. All that each of us
has worked a lifetime for will become for the most part, meaningless.
Imagine the ugliness of life in New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of
Katrina as a normal way of life with no end in sight. What do you suppose a
gold chain was worth on the streets of NO during the first week after
Katrina? Or a gold coin, if you could find anybody who owned one? I'm
guessing either was worth much less than a bag of ice.

$2.96 a gallon
 

I am going to hold onto the 500 gals of diesel fuel currently stored in my
boat and sell it off, quart by quart when I need cash.


I've been on the boat since yesterday afternoon. This morning, I walked
over to the fuel dock just to see how bad things have gotten. A new
shipment of gas was delivered to the marina yesterday, and the pump prices
were changed accordingly. $4.50 per gallon for regular gas. After my 10%
marina member discount, that takes me down to $4.05. Holy crap. And I'm
sitting on 1/8th of a tank. Between that and all the doomsday talk in the
group, I'm about ready to lay out on the swim platform and open a vein.

But I tell you, it certainly does make me think about putting a for sale
sign on the boat before the rush. If these ugly predictions come true,
there will be no marketplace to sell a boat. It will have no value other
than shelter. At that point, you just call the bank and tell them it's
theirs. Multiply that times thousands and thousands of boat owners (and
RV's and SUV's, etc) and then guess what happens to the solvency of the
banks. And on and on.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
RG wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RG wrote:
From page 2:

"Reallocate your financial assets so that you are as best
positioned to handle these issues as you can realistically
hope to be."

Where would that be?

Under a mild version of the scenario, cash would be king. Under a more
extreme version, even cash would be useless, as would any financial
asset. At that point it comes down to food, water, shelter, and
weaponry.
Gold.

Nonsense. That's a myth. Leading up to the crisis, gold will indeed
shine. There is no reason for it, but it will happen. But once the ****
really hits the fan, it will be of little real value. Tell me how you
eat or drink gold. Tell me how it shelters you from the cold. It can
make an effective weapon at extremely close range. It's heavy as hell
and a bar could easily smash an opponent's skull, but there are better
choices for that.

Gold is one of the world's most strange assets. Unlike industrial
metals, gold has almost no intrinsic value as it relates to global
economic production. And yet it has always been a prized possession.
The vast majority of the world's gold production is consumed by the
jewelry industry. Another very small percentage is used by the
electronics and technology industries. But if life comes down to food,
gas, and bullets, bling will have very little value on the street in a
barter-based economy. Gold in any meaningful quantity is extremely
cumbersome and will only slow you down in your quest for survival.

Gold has been highly valued for thousands of years. Gold coins *are*
attractive in a barter-based economy.


The hell with gold........just stock up on MGD beer, Dorito's, Krispy Kremes
and Twinkies. When everything is scarce those items will be in high demand
and provide the best trading opportunities.. ;-)

$2.96 a gallon
 

The hell with gold........just stock up on MGD beer, Dorito's, Krispy
Kremes and Twinkies. When everything is scarce those items will be in
high demand and provide the best trading opportunities.. ;-)

A bottle of Jack will be worth a bloody fortune. Or your neighbor's life.

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RG" wrote in message
.. .

I am going to hold onto the 500 gals of diesel fuel currently stored in
my boat and sell it off, quart by quart when I need cash.


I've been on the boat since yesterday afternoon. This morning, I walked
over to the fuel dock just to see how bad things have gotten. A new
shipment of gas was delivered to the marina yesterday, and the pump prices
were changed accordingly. $4.50 per gallon for regular gas. After my 10%
marina member discount, that takes me down to $4.05. Holy crap. And I'm
sitting on 1/8th of a tank. Between that and all the doomsday talk in the
group, I'm about ready to lay out on the swim platform and open a vein.

But I tell you, it certainly does make me think about putting a for sale
sign on the boat before the rush. If these ugly predictions come true,
there will be no marketplace to sell a boat. It will have no value other
than shelter. At that point, you just call the bank and tell them it's
theirs. Multiply that times thousands and thousands of boat owners (and
RV's and SUV's, etc) and then guess what happens to the solvency of the
banks. And on and on.


Not me. When doomsday hits, I'll anchor the boat in shallow water and in a
warm climate, squatter's rights style. I'll fish for food, catch rain for
water, and say "screw it". Occasional land transportation, when required,
will be via Mrs.E's hay burners kept on a nearby oat field, obtained again
by squatter's rights. For protection though, I guess I better learn how to
put the bullets in my shotgun.

Do those Magma propane boat barbeques also burn wood?

RCE

$2.96 a gallon
 

RG wrote:

I am going to hold onto the 500 gals of diesel fuel currently stored in my
boat and sell it off, quart by quart when I need cash.



I've been on the boat since yesterday afternoon. This morning, I walked
over to the fuel dock just to see how bad things have gotten. A new
shipment of gas was delivered to the marina yesterday, and the pump prices
were changed accordingly. $4.50 per gallon for regular gas. After my 10%
marina member discount, that takes me down to $4.05. Holy crap. And I'm
sitting on 1/8th of a tank. Between that and all the doomsday talk in the
group, I'm about ready to lay out on the swim platform and open a vein.

But I tell you, it certainly does make me think about putting a for sale
sign on the boat before the rush. If these ugly predictions come true,
there will be no marketplace to sell a boat. It will have no value other
than shelter. At that point, you just call the bank and tell them it's
theirs. Multiply that times thousands and thousands of boat owners (and
RV's and SUV's, etc) and then guess what happens to the solvency of the
banks. And on and on.



That's a bit dramatic. It might create a buyer's market for boats, but
not much more. For the average boater, fuel costs are a relativley
small part of the overall cost of boating.

Do you really belive that boat owners will default on their loans just
because fuel costs have increased? Those that do should have found
another, cheaper, recreational activity.

Dan

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"RG" wrote in message
.. .

I am going to hold onto the 500 gals of diesel fuel currently stored in
my boat and sell it off, quart by quart when I need cash.


I've been on the boat since yesterday afternoon. This morning, I walked
over to the fuel dock just to see how bad things have gotten. A new
shipment of gas was delivered to the marina yesterday, and the pump
prices were changed accordingly. $4.50 per gallon for regular gas.
After my 10% marina member discount, that takes me down to $4.05. Holy
crap. And I'm sitting on 1/8th of a tank. Between that and all the
doomsday talk in the group, I'm about ready to lay out on the swim
platform and open a vein.

But I tell you, it certainly does make me think about putting a for sale
sign on the boat before the rush. If these ugly predictions come true,
there will be no marketplace to sell a boat. It will have no value other
than shelter. At that point, you just call the bank and tell them it's
theirs. Multiply that times thousands and thousands of boat owners (and
RV's and SUV's, etc) and then guess what happens to the solvency of the
banks. And on and on.


Not me. When doomsday hits, I'll anchor the boat in shallow water and in a
warm climate, squatter's rights style. I'll fish for food, catch rain for
water, and say "screw it". Occasional land transportation, when
required, will be via Mrs.E's hay burners kept on a nearby oat field,
obtained again by squatter's rights. For protection though, I guess I
better learn how to put the bullets in my shotgun.

*Bullets* in a shotgun?

You better hire a bodyguard or hand the weapon over to Mrs. E. for proper
use.. ;-)

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RG" wrote in message
.. .

I am going to hold onto the 500 gals of diesel fuel currently stored in
my boat and sell it off, quart by quart when I need cash.


I've been on the boat since yesterday afternoon. This morning, I walked
over to the fuel dock just to see how bad things have gotten. A new
shipment of gas was delivered to the marina yesterday, and the pump prices
were changed accordingly. $4.50 per gallon for regular gas. After my 10%
marina member discount, that takes me down to $4.05. Holy crap. And I'm
sitting on 1/8th of a tank. Between that and all the doomsday talk in the
group, I'm about ready to lay out on the swim platform and open a vein.

But I tell you, it certainly does make me think about putting a for sale
sign on the boat before the rush. If these ugly predictions come true,
there will be no marketplace to sell a boat. It will have no value other
than shelter. At that point, you just call the bank and tell them it's
theirs. Multiply that times thousands and thousands of boat owners (and
RV's and SUV's, etc) and then guess what happens to the solvency of the
banks. And on and on.


I am very happy we sold our 32 footer two years ago and replaced it with a
small single engine runabout. ;-)

$2.96 a gallon
 

"RG" wrote in message
m...



That's a bit dramatic. It might create a buyer's market for boats, but
not much more. For the average boater, fuel costs are a relativley small
part of the overall cost of boating.

In today's world, I absolutely agree. The more recent discussions in this
thread have been focused on much more extreme scenarios that could
possibly play out in the future.


Do you really belive that boat owners will default on their loans just
because fuel costs have increased?

Yes, if we are talking per gallon fuel costs deep into double digits,
possibly triple digits, and even possibly unavailable at any price. That
is the framework in which my comment was made, and which the discussion
over the last 24 hours has been focused in this thread. You may think
such a scenario unthinkable, but many believe it is not.


Everyone's situation is different, of course, depending on what kind of boat
they have and how and what they use it for.

But here's an eye opener for me. In the fall of 2002, I took my boat from
MA to Florida, something that many people here on the east coast do yearly.
That trip's fuel cost was about 4,300 bucks, if I recall correctly (log book
not handy). In many places south of Virginia diesel was selling for about a
dollar/gal at that time.
Right now the same trip would be closer to 14K in fuel costs. I like
boating, but I don't like it that much. So, for now anyway, the boat stays
put. Fortunately I am loan free on it, so it doesn't hurt so much, but I
also think that it's already too late to sell if so inclined and expect to
get fair market value.

Makes a great summer cottage on the Cape, though.

RCE

$2.96 a gallon
 

But here's an eye opener for me. In the fall of 2002, I took my boat
from MA to Florida, something that many people here on the east coast do
yearly. That trip's fuel cost was about 4,300 bucks, if I recall correctly
(log book not handy). In many places south of Virginia diesel was selling
for about a dollar/gal at that time.
Right now the same trip would be closer to 14K in fuel costs. I like
boating, but I don't like it that much. So, for now anyway, the boat
stays put. Fortunately I am loan free on it, so it doesn't hurt so much,
but I also think that it's already too late to sell if so inclined and
expect to get fair market value.


But it will always be worth fair market value. The real question is just
what fair market means in dollars and cents. At $3 fuel, it means one
thing. At $5 fuel, it means something else. At $10 dollar fuel, you and I
don't want to know.



Makes a great summer cottage on the Cape, though.



Can you imagine a scenario where several hours of generator time would be
considered an evening's splurge?