"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.

"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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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


Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.

"Tim" wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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


Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.


Maybe. But let's face it: It's true. The only way to deny it is to give many
consumers a pass by saying they were brainwashed by advertising, which is
pretty powerful stuff.

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

"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


The little Ford Ranger trucklet I just got with a 4.0L V6 gets just about
the same miles per gallon on gas as the 11,500 lb. GVW F-350 Powerstroke
Diesel Crew Cab 4x4 behemoth that it replaced did on diesel.

Eisboch
It's not easy being green.

"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.

On May 8, 9:28�am, "Eisboch" wrote:
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

?????????????? You start by identifying a group comprised of "those
with more left leaning political views" and then begin ascribing a
common sentiment to everybody in that group. That's pretty dangerous
ground. No group is comprised of people who all think exactly the same
way.

More left than what?

Stereotypes are nearly always wrong.

But, to the remainder of your comment.....

Is market manipulation the same as a "natural increase" in prices?

Will yanking the price up and down to assure that the greener
technologies the high prices encourage don't achieve any real economic
traction ultimately result in an energy-efficient economy and
society? As surely as we're flirting with $4 (very close to that for
92 Octane in a lot of places on the W coast right now) in the late
spring and perhaps beyond, prices will begin moderating by July. By
fall they'll be "down" to $2.65 a gallon and we'll all be singing
"Happy Days are Here Again" until late February 2008.

Raping and pillaging at a little higher rate for a little longer every
year is a shrewd business practice. No problem with that, you don't
get to be a policy maker in a major oil company by being anything less
than shrewd. Pile up the mega-billions in profits in a short period of
time, and then start loosening the noose before the politicians have
to begin listening to the anguished cries of suffering constituents.

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.

Conservation remains in the best interest of western civiliation.
There are important differences between a national conservation policy
that creates some reasonable alternatives to the consumption of
petroleum products and a marketing scheme by BIGOIL. I burn bio diesel
in the boat and bought a hybrid car. If everybody did only an
equivalent amount, we would break the choke hold of BIGOIL. Difference
is, I'm not prepared or inclined to *demand* that everybody drive a
hybrid, burn bio-diesel, or do something else roughly equivalent.
BIGOIL and their crew of apologists does demand that everybody swap a
pint of blood for a gallon of gas everytime they need fuel for
business or pleasure use.

We have a social and physical infrastructure founded on the assumption
that cheap oil would be almost eternally available. It's hard to
imagine that more than a tiny percentage of folks still think that
cheap oil will prevail in the future or that the current and recent
annual pricing trends are just flukes. A progressive society would
strive toward an orderly transition and energy independence from our
professed enemies, but we sit around fairly helplessly and allow a
tough situation (that most of us agree is a reality) to do little more
than serve as a fig leaf for profiteering by BIGOIL.

My boat burns about 2 gph. Even at $15-20 a gallon I could afford to
go boating. From a personal perspective, I'm fairly immune to the
effects of fuel costs gone out of control. Most of my friends and
business associates are boaters or depend on the boating industry for
a livlihood (as do I). So yeah, I'm personally pretty concerned about
the long term ramifications to boating as a recreational activity and/
or viable business fostered by scandalous profiteering. Yes, even
though the oil companies have every legal right to charge as much as
they can get away with and even if, in the same position, I would
likely do the same.

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?

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