Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop that.
According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14 mpg on
a good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s - low 30s.
I wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if I'm wrong,
but I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only
a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking
lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot
of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more
average selection of drivers.


Few trucks, but lots of big cars with huge, sweeping fins.
That's what consumers liked .... that's what they got.

I understand your position and the points you are making, Doug. I just
don't think you are going to change a nation's 100 year old mindset
overnight or anytime soon for that matter. You are correct in everything
you say, if you subscribe to that type of thinking. Most don't. Nobody is
going to give up suburbia and move back to the cities anytime soon.
Incentives have been forced down our throats to no avail .... HOV lanes that
are 10% utilized, gas guzzler taxes, even high fuel prices. Americans want
their big cars and trucks, whatever the cost.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

How about changing what they buy, and HOW they buy? Perhaps leasing
should be on the hit list, at least for non-business customers. That
almost guarantees that someone won't hang onto a car very long. Some cars
are still babies when they're two years old, so selling them used is
easy. Others are known to be middle aged at 2 years, and you can see them
lined up at any dealership, collecting dust. That's wasteful.

The changing of what they buy is happening right now, this very minute.
Trust me, dealerships across the nation will be having brisk business this
week from people trading in high fuel consuming vehicles for more
economical ones. The motivator? None other than high fuel prices. The
machinery of a free market system in perfect motion.

Leasing has provisions to deal with the issue as well. Leasing companies
right now are no doubt lowering the expected residual factors on high fuel
consumption cars and trucks. This will increase the monthly payments to
new lessees, thereby reducing demand. As a side note, the car that I
owned the longest of any was a car that I originally leased and then
bought at the end of the lease term. Total of seven years, which is a
very long time for me.


Good! :)

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

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

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


Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead
by setting an example.





Go play stupid with someone else. Maybe your stapler is interested.


Personal attacks and insults only show you have nothing left to argue
with.

Now I could call you a bleeding heart hypocrite who wants everyone else
but himself to change...........but I won't. ;-)


What makes you think I haven't? Oh...wait. I forgot. You're asking the
impossible: Everyone should get rid of their cars. But, it was already
explained to you that because of the nature of our society, that would be
impossible, except in cities where people are already accustomed to using
mass transportation. So, never mind. This is too tricky a concept for you.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that only
a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things. First,
think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray the
customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the 1960s -
1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in parking
lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the parking lot
of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent a more
average selection of drivers.


All you are talking about Doug, is consumer preferences. People buy what
they want to own, depending on their preferences. The best way to change
what they buy is to change their preferences. If you are expecting
consumers to make those changes on their own, without a big-time motivator,
dream on. The is no more effective way to change consumer preferences
toward automobiles than with the price of gas. The process is underway.
Expect to see many less "trucks" in the supermarket parking lot in five
years. Seriously. This method of changing preferences is far more natural
and will be far more effective than any governmental mandated changes, and
will happen much more quickly than waiting for it to happen due to a rising
social consciousness.

The bonus of higher gas prices besides changing what people buy, is that it
makes the economic viability of, and therefore the research into alternative
energy technology more of a reality.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

It *should* reduce waste, assuming the manufacturers don't keep pumping
out so many new ones that they also sit on the lots for a year at a time.
Unfortunately, they do.

Not for long. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what's going
on in Detroit these days. Excess capacity is being sold off and shut down
as quickly as possible. It would be happening much, much faster if not for
the formidable obstacle of the UAW. But it is happening. The survival of
the domestic auto industry depends on it.

You really need to develop at least a modicum of faith in free markets. It
is not a false religion.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that
only a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things.
First, think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray
the customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the
1960s - 1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in
parking lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the
parking lot of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent
a more average selection of drivers.


All you are talking about Doug, is consumer preferences. People buy what
they want to own, depending on their preferences. The best way to change
what they buy is to change their preferences. If you are expecting
consumers to make those changes on their own, without a big-time
motivator, dream on. The is no more effective way to change consumer
preferences toward automobiles than with the price of gas. The process is
underway. Expect to see many less "trucks" in the supermarket parking lot
in five years. Seriously. This method of changing preferences is far
more natural and will be far more effective than any governmental mandated
changes, and will happen much more quickly than waiting for it to happen
due to a rising social consciousness.

The bonus of higher gas prices besides changing what people buy, is that
it makes the economic viability of, and therefore the research into
alternative energy technology more of a reality.


The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I *am*
suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its unwillingness to
offend the auto industry, and present the public with information would help
them change their preferences. Why not? It's no different than the
advertising which makes people buy things, right? People don't just buy
based on their own preferences. They also do so because humans are
"clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no matter how stupid the
group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong group, sometimes not. But,
effect one customer, and he/she may effect others. Actually, that's a
virtual certainty.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
. ..

It *should* reduce waste, assuming the manufacturers don't keep pumping
out so many new ones that they also sit on the lots for a year at a time.
Unfortunately, they do.

Not for long. Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what's
going on in Detroit these days. Excess capacity is being sold off and
shut down as quickly as possible. It would be happening much, much faster
if not for the formidable obstacle of the UAW. But it is happening. The
survival of the domestic auto industry depends on it.

You really need to develop at least a modicum of faith in free markets.
It is not a false religion.



I'm paying very close attention, and I see the process at work. However,
this will not completely change those who don't understand the difference
between having the right to buy anything they want, and the concept of
whether their decisions are good ones for the country as a whole.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
om...


Come on Doug, do you want to effect a change or not? You have to lead
by setting an example.





Go play stupid with someone else. Maybe your stapler is interested.


Personal attacks and insults only show you have nothing left to argue
with.

Now I could call you a bleeding heart hypocrite who wants everyone else
but himself to change...........but I won't. ;-)


What makes you think I haven't?


So did you sell your boat to lead by example?

BTW: What do you drive? What does your wife drive?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

The thing is, I'm not suggesting government mandated anything. What I *am*
suggesting is that the government might be able to lose its unwillingness
to offend the auto industry, and present the public with information would
help them change their preferences. Why not? It's no different than the
advertising which makes people buy things, right? People don't just buy
based on their own preferences. They also do so because humans are
"clubby" - they want to be members of a group, no matter how stupid the
group may be. Sometimes they choose the wrong group, sometimes not. But,
effect one customer, and he/she may effect others. Actually, that's a
virtual certainty.

Wanting to belong is nothing more than a facet of personal preference. The
government can disseminate all the information it wants to, but it is
unlikely that it is telling anything to anyone that they don't already know.
Not terribly effective.

A good parallel here is the Surgeon's General warning on every pack of
cigarettes. Is there an American alive today that doesn't already know the
health risks of smoking? And yet it continues. But in reduced numbers.
However, I think the reduced numbers have much more to do with the financial
cost of a pack of cigs, versus any governmental educational program. If you
want to get an American's attention, speak to him through his wallet.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


As far as the 40 mpg hybrids you keep mentioning, you need to stop
that. According to two people I know who own them, Escalades get 12-14
mpg on a good day. A Camry or an Impala get numbers in the high 20s -
low 30s. I wasn't a math whiz in high school, so please correct me if
I'm wrong, but I *think* that's about twice the gas mileage of an
Escalade.




A 40 mpg hybrid, a Camry or an Impala are not suitable to tow a 5000 lb
boat to the launch site.
A F-350 diesel pickup that gets 16-18 mpg is, among many other uses.

RCE



I never suggested that someone who needs to tow should own anything but a
vehicle capable of doing it.

Maybe we should check here and see what we both believe, based on our own
observations. I'll use the word "truck" here to mean actual trucks, SUVs,
Humjobs, etc. Now: For every 100 trucks you see, what percentage do you
think actually tow anything, or, for that matter, to do ANYTHING that
only a truck can do? To assist with the answer, think about two things.
First, think about how trucks are sold in commercials - how they portray
the customers, and the activities shown. Second, think back to the
1960s - 1970s. Do you have any memory of how many trucks you'd see in
parking lots, compared to what you see now? I'm not talking about the
parking lot of a hunting lodge - I'm talking about places which represent
a more average selection of drivers.


Few trucks, but lots of big cars with huge, sweeping fins.
That's what consumers liked .... that's what they got.

I understand your position and the points you are making, Doug. I just
don't think you are going to change a nation's 100 year old mindset
overnight or anytime soon for that matter. You are correct in everything
you say, if you subscribe to that type of thinking. Most don't. Nobody
is going to give up suburbia and move back to the cities anytime soon.
Incentives have been forced down our throats to no avail .... HOV lanes
that are 10% utilized, gas guzzler taxes, even high fuel prices. Americans
want their big cars and trucks, whatever the cost.

RCE

Part of the problem is that absolutely nobody is suggesting that people
change.* And, let's face it: Some people need to be reminded. I see no
reason why a president could not reason with people. Hell...we're told not
to question the war, and a big chunk of the population happily obeys.

* Bert and Fred should come along here sometime soon and say that I'm trying
to "control peoples' behavior". I'd be interested in seeing what these
numbskulls would do if they were diagnosed with precancerous moles, and
their doctors suggested that they should be more careful about exposure to
the sun. "Look, doctor boy - don't try and control MY behavior!"