"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political views were concerned about the high consumption rate of
gasoline in the USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially low
price per gallon compared to the rest of the world. Conservation
was preached, encouraged and some even advocated raising the price
of gas to force further conservation and the use of smaller, fuel
efficient autos in order to reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for
the natural increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a
real president with some balls said the following during one of his
TV appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And,
at some point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions,
and volunteer to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next
time you're ready to buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real
needs. Stop thinking that the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford
Focus. Ignore the crap you're being told in the commercials. Is the
only reason you bought an SUV that you have a family of 5 and a
week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your needs equally
well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they were safer,
or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other trucks? Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire
time you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you
have to go out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about
reducing your gas usage by 30%, just by looking at the difference
between an SUV and a mini-van? (points to chart with 5 car models
shown below) We can't create laws to change your buying habits, and
there's nothing I can do about what oil companies charge for fuel.
But, you are capable of having a significant impact on how much oil
this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If
they continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their
problem, not yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick
a better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller
than the Sienna van.


You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it is
100% valid in this context.


Nope, what is an SUV? The boogey man of the 21st century. Why is it
when an SUV type vehicle is in an accident, it is always reported the
SUV crashed. But if it is a mini car that crashed into the SUV, it will
read SUV involed in accident. The first reporting seems as if the SUV
is doing the driving, not a person.


Look at the list of vehicles I provided. It does not contain a generic
SUV. It contains a specific one which may be representative of others
which get similar mileage. Any normal person should be able to interpret
that list and say "Yeah...mine's like that one", or not.

Any normal person.


I was referring to your "SUV".


You did a great job of "referring" to it. You mentioned a Blazer, and
provided no numbers to show whether it belonged in the list. No mpg numbers,
and your words are empty.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 May 2007 01:49:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:10:27 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Someone like Mario Cuomo
would be an example of someone real

BBBAAAWWWWAAAHHHHHHAAAAA!!!!

Please - somebody make him stop - I'm having stomach cramps from
laughing too hard.

BBAAAAWWAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAA!!!!!

Cuomo may not be your choice, but I know this: If it were up to you to
choose a president, with no input from anyone else, there is no way you
would've chosen Bush.

Oh - you "know" that?

Tell me - know do you "know" that?

Please - enlighten me.

You're much too smart to choose someone like Bush. I don't believe you'd
choose anyone who crumbles without a script, 100% of the time.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 09 May 2007 01:49:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 08 May 2007 17:27:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg

Ford F-25- 7.3 liter diesel - 17/22 mpg

Anything higher than a given number is higher than a given number. Your
example fits.

Wha?

Yep. Your truck's an 18% improvement over a vehicle that gets 18 mpg. It's
gooder.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:07:54 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On 8 May 2007 10:45:56 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

The oil companies have a right to earn a profit. We don't have any
right to cheap oil. The frustration is in being so blatantly
manipulated, and a minor amusement is hearing the programmed
apologists offering the freshest round of big oil excuses for the
various refinery emergencies that just happen to occur during the same
strategically beneficial period each year.

OK, so let's assume this is all true and that US petro consumers are
being manipulated to death and taking it in the shorts.

Where else in the world other than Venezuela and a few other big oil
producers can you buy more cheaply? If the oil companies were having
trouble selling their product, prices would drop in a hurry. Is that
supply and demand, or is it manipulation?

The majority of gasoline sold is used for "essentials." Getting to
work, and getting the groceries. There is no real price competition
because it is a limited resource and there are just a few retailers.
With gasoline so far no entrepreneur has come up with a better or
cheaper mousetrap.
Prices can be easily manipulated and are manipulated. Happens in all
businesses which control a limited resource - including trained
personnel - until that resource can be increased or replaced.
I've benefitted from that myself.
Price manipulation is a product of supply and demand, real or not in
the case of such a closely held commodity like gasoline.
I haven't heard of gas stations running out of gas during this recent
spike, but the oil companies can say they are raising prices to
prevent that from happening. Who will dispute that?
Personally gas prices don't affect me much, and never have.
High gas prices most affect people who use a lot of it.
Makes sense to just use less if you can't afford it.
Of course for many people that ends up causing a yo-yo effect;
gas is expensive, buy an economy car, gas is cheap, get a Hummer,
gas gets expensive, back to the economy car.
Some people will just have to make adjustments, and low-paid people
who have to drive a good distance to work will suffer most.
I've got my views on how to solve the gas price "problem," but I've
decided to leave it up to the newsgroup to get this issue resolved.
I'll just wait for that to happen.

--Vic

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political views were concerned about the high consumption rate of
gasoline in the USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially
low price per gallon compared to the rest of the world.
Conservation was preached, encouraged and some even advocated
raising the price of gas to force further conservation and the use
of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming big business greed and politicians lining their pockets for
the natural increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested
methods usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would
happen if a real president with some balls said the following during
one of his TV appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And,
at some point, you have to stop looking for others to find
solutions, and volunteer to do the one thing that's inarguably
effective. Next time you're ready to buy a car, be honest, and buy
based on your real needs. Stop thinking that the only alternative to
an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're being told in the
commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you have a
family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your
needs equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself
they were safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the
other trucks? Did you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just
once in the entire time you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons.
I'm not saying you have to go out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper.
But, how about reducing your gas usage by 30%, just by looking at
the difference between an SUV and a mini-van? (points to chart with
5 car models shown below) We can't create laws to change your buying
habits, and there's nothing I can do about what oil companies charge
for fuel. But, you are capable of having a significant impact on how
much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready.
If they continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their
problem, not yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't
pick a better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller
than the Sienna van.


You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it
is 100% valid in this context.


Nope, what is an SUV? The boogey man of the 21st century. Why is it
when an SUV type vehicle is in an accident, it is always reported the
SUV crashed. But if it is a mini car that crashed into the SUV, it
will read SUV involed in accident. The first reporting seems as if the
SUV is doing the driving, not a person.


Look at the list of vehicles I provided. It does not contain a generic
SUV. It contains a specific one which may be representative of others
which get similar mileage. Any normal person should be able to interpret
that list and say "Yeah...mine's like that one", or not.

Any normal person.


I was referring to your "SUV".


You did a great job of "referring" to it. You mentioned a Blazer, and
provided no numbers to show whether it belonged in the list. No mpg
numbers, and your words are empty.


Blazer used to get 19-20 highway. Since it is a run around town car anymore
with 140k miles, never check the mileage. The only reason I know the
mileage on the diesel truck is the computer tells me.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
. ..

Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views
expressed about fuel prices?

It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning
political views were concerned about the high consumption rate of
gasoline in the USA, it's continued supply and it's artificially
low price per gallon compared to the rest of the world.
Conservation was preached, encouraged and some even advocated
raising the price of gas to force further conservation and the use
of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to reduce demand.


Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now
blaming big business greed and politicians lining their pockets
for the natural increase in prices.

Can't win.

Eisboch


The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested
methods usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would
happen if a real president with some balls said the following
during one of his TV appearances:

"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never
find solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient.
And, at some point, you have to stop looking for others to find
solutions, and volunteer to do the one thing that's inarguably
effective. Next time you're ready to buy a car, be honest, and buy
based on your real needs. Stop thinking that the only alternative
to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're being told in the
commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you have a
family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit
your needs equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing
yourself they were safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over
all the other trucks? Did you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of
plywood just once in the entire time you owned the vehicle? Those
aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have to go out and buy a Prius
or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your gas usage by 30%,
just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create
laws to change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do
about what oil companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of
having a significant impact on how much oil this country uses.

If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready.
If they continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their
problem, not yours.

During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't
pick a better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."


Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg


What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller
than the Sienna van.


You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it
is 100% valid in this context.


Nope, what is an SUV? The boogey man of the 21st century. Why is it
when an SUV type vehicle is in an accident, it is always reported the
SUV crashed. But if it is a mini car that crashed into the SUV, it
will read SUV involed in accident. The first reporting seems as if
the SUV is doing the driving, not a person.


Look at the list of vehicles I provided. It does not contain a generic
SUV. It contains a specific one which may be representative of others
which get similar mileage. Any normal person should be able to
interpret that list and say "Yeah...mine's like that one", or not.

Any normal person.


I was referring to your "SUV".


You did a great job of "referring" to it. You mentioned a Blazer, and
provided no numbers to show whether it belonged in the list. No mpg
numbers, and your words are empty.


Blazer used to get 19-20 highway. Since it is a run around town car
anymore with 140k miles, never check the mileage. The only reason I know
the mileage on the diesel truck is the computer tells me.


"Around town" numbers are meaningless anyway, for a long list of reasons.

On May 8, 5:07�pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On 8 May 2007 10:45:56 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

The oil companies have a right to earn a profit. We don't have any
right to cheap oil. The frustration is in being so blatantly
manipulated, and a minor amusement is hearing the programmed
apologists offering the freshest round of big oil excuses for the
various refinery emergencies that just happen to occur during the same
strategically beneficial period each year.

OK, so let's assume this is all true and that US petro consumers are
being manipulated to death and taking it in the shorts.

Where else in the world other than Venezuela and a few other big oil
producers can you buy more cheaply? *If the oil companies were having
trouble selling their product, prices would drop in a hurry. *Is that
supply and demand, or is it manipulation?

We're *exporting* refined products from refineries in the Pacific NW
and then justifying some of the highest prices in the nation 'round
here based on "shortage of supply". So the answer to your question is
really both. It's supply and demand, with a manipulated supply side of
the equation.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On May 8, 5:40�am, animal05 wrote:
You also have to factor in the supply issue. �Price is a way of
manipulating demand. �If price remained constant and supply dropped
below demand, shortages and/or outages would occur. �Lets face it, in a
capitalistic market, if someone else can supply more of the same goods
for slightly less, making more overall profit, they will. �My
understanding is that currently there is a shortage of refined product,
due to some refineries either off line or retooling. �Part of the
problem is the hundreds of different formulas required by the feds
around the country.

The rules of a capitalistic market do not apply when the raw materials
are controlled by an oligopoly. There is no opportunity for new
players to enter the field and supply superior or cheaper refined
products. Even *if* there were a new and independent refinery built,
the operators would need to rely on their competitors for raw
materials....not a good business model in any industry.

There is a shortage of refined product because world demand has
increased to the point where there is no longer any surplus supply.
Every drop will sell. By choosing to "retool and repair" refineries
during the onset of the peak demand months, the oil companies short
the market in some economies and drive prices up dramatically in
response. The normal risk of shorting the market is that your
competitor will increase supply to meet the demand, which could cost
you relationships with your customers and leave you with unsold
product.

When any member of an oligopoly shorts the market, it benefits the
other members as well. There is no need for outright, formal, illegal
"collusion". Because worldwide demand exceeds supply, there is no risk
of a competitor ramping up production to steal your customers- you
will find somebody, somewhere, willing to pay whatever you want to
charge. If that attitude disrupts economies or creates hardships for
people who have previously relied on a predictable supply of a product
at a predictable price that's too fricking bad. The oil companies are
in business to make a profit......period.

It goes without saying that boating will suffer, probably very badly,
as fuel costs
go higher and higher every year. That's been the trend for three
years, and any realistic person would have to assume that (excuses
about refineries, floods, hurricanes, etc aside) it's now the basic
business formula for BIGOIL. Few people are going to buy any
recreational vessel or vehicle that needs to consume enormous
quantities of petroleum products to operate, and who can blame them?
Tough as it is when the costs are $4-5 at the fuel dock, imagine what
would happen if fuel goes to $6-7, or $7-8? The volatility of fuel
prices and the very real possibility that they could be double what
they are now in just a couple of years has to discourage any
reasonable person from "investing" a couple of hundred thousand in a
boat, or taking out a 15-year marine mortgage to make payments for
one.

I think I can see where we're going on a few fronts over the next few
to several years, and I wish the picture were slightly prettier from
here. We're entering an era of fewer options for all but the folks in
the very highest income brackets, as well as when a flock of
consequences begin coming home to roost.


Exactly on target. Others will try to brand you as anti Big Business
etc. They view unregulated (unpoliced) Big Business as some sort of holy
grail when in fact it is just the opposite of holy. Maximum Profits are
their only "morals" and without Laws(morals) they rape and pillage as
they damned well please. The Consumers can't do a thing about it and
the Business Government won't protect consumers. It the same as if
Genghis Kahn was back in the saddle and raping the People only its Big Oil.

On 8 May 2007 20:50:52 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

We're *exporting* refined products from refineries in the Pacific NW
and then justifying some of the highest prices in the nation 'round
here based on "shortage of supply". So the answer to your question is
really both. It's supply and demand, with a manipulated supply side of
the equation.

If they are exporting refined product, it says to me that they are
able to sell it for more somewhere else.

That's demand.

"wf3h" wrote in message
ps.com...

NOYB wrote:
"wf3h" wrote in message

what i love about this is, when ira magaziner and hilary clintion
tried to get us universal health care

To which office was Hillary elected to in 1992?

to the office she was appointed to by the president of the USA. ever
hear of THAT office?

No, what's the name of it?

(And I asked about the office she was *elected* to in 1992)


Then what right did she have to make policy that would have destroyed the
healthcare system for 260,000,000 Americans with insurance so that
40,000,000 uninsured could get access?

and when DID you stop beating your wife? incidentally, 300,000,000
americans use energy....that dick cheney feels so deeply belongs only
to the rich.


85% of this country is getting along just fine with the health insurance
that they have, but the Democrats want to muck things up for them in order
to benefit the 15% who are uninsured. Smells of socialism to me. And it
stinks.

If you want socialism, move to the EU.