Auto Execs Urge Gas Tax Hike


PDA






Sindawe
October 6, 2005, 03:20 PM
DETROIT — Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc., the country's largest auto retailer, this week called for a 10-cents-a-year hike in the current federal gas tax of 18 cents per gallon to decrease dependence on foreign oil.

Last week, General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said a gradual increase in the gas tax would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Auto manufacturers have expressed support for higher U.S. gas taxes as an alternative to government mandates to raise fleet average fuel economy. AutoNation's Jackson said an increase in the gas tax, which has not changed for a decade, would prompt a "fundamental change in outlook."

CNW Marketing Research Inc. said Tuesday it recently surveyed 5,193 consumers and found "modest support for such a notion if the money were guaranteed to go to that end, but no support if the money were to be used for general fund or non-oil-related purposes." CNW said opposition to a gas tax increase declined to 31 percent in 2005 from 57 percent in 2003.

What this means to you: Mr. Jackson's remarks may not sound inviting, but raising the price of gas is the only guaranteed way to get people to buy more fuel efficient cars and trucks.

Source: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=107496
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

:fire: I already drove a vehicle that got equivalent gas mileage as the majority of NEW cars, and it was 15 years old! (35.6 mpg on the last tank), and I'm replacing it with one the most fuel efficient non-hybrids in my price range. What the :cuss: else does this fool want? :banghead: :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "Auto Execs Urge Gas Tax Hike" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Master Blaster
October 6, 2005, 03:32 PM
Last week, General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said a gradual increase in the gas tax would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Auto manufacturers have expressed support for higher U.S. gas taxes as an alternative to government mandates to raise fleet average fuel economy.

I think this says it all.

They want somone else to bear the cost and the blame.

Azrael256
October 6, 2005, 03:35 PM
What the :cuss: else does this fool want? For you to buy another car. At first, I thought it was insane. The logic goes that higher fuel prices kill car sales. It is generally true, BUT, if your next generation of cars is going to be super efficient (or at least look that way) while all your previous customers are trying to get rid of the gas-guzzling SUV you sold them in 2001...

It's really a pretty good strategy. Evil as they come, but smart.

Nazirite
October 6, 2005, 03:36 PM
Can you say boycott.

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 03:40 PM
I think it should be the other way around. The government should raise the mininum MPG from 20 (I think) to 30 MPG per new car.

We should make the car manufactors start making more feul efficient cars. I know it's going to hurt in the wallet as they pass on to us higher car prices. But I really do believe that fact we are so reliant on foreign oil is making this great nation weak.

I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV. Those things were designed for the country and hauling wood. Not transport some snot nosed kids to baseball practice.

We as a nation need to move away from gas guzzler cars.

It'll be a truely happy day, when we can tell those :cuss: :cuss: OPEC to take their oil and shove it.

Nehemiah Scudder
October 6, 2005, 03:44 PM
And this type of thing is why I'm still a Democrat.

Sometimes, you have to whop Business up side the head in order to get the best result.

Either way you want to handle this (and there's a number of ways), there's going to be some pain involved. The questions are: How long to you want to wait for "market forces" to balance out? And, who takes the most of the pain?

Personally, I think they should raise standards somewhat agressively to put a slightly greater amount of pressure on the manufacturers, to give them incentive to innovate.

kahr40
October 6, 2005, 03:46 PM
I think we need a fundamental change in outlook from Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation Inc and his tribe.

dasmi
October 6, 2005, 03:46 PM
When I finish paying off my F-150, I'm going to get rid of it, and get an old diesel mercedes. Probably a 300SD Turbo. 25-30 MPG, big, safe, reliable car. Oh, and bio-diesel friendly.
http://www.frankspittleinc.com/81_mb_300sd/002.jpg
www.greasecar.com

HankB
October 6, 2005, 03:54 PM
"modest support for such a notion if the money were guaranteed to go to that end, but no support if the money were to be used for general fund or non-oil-related purposes." Support if the money goes to "that end?" WHAT END WOULD THAT BE? The .gov would be getting more money, so what the <self censored, Art's grammaw rule> do these <again> think the <and again> government is going to DO with the money?

Why do these <expletives> always, always, ALWAYS want to stick their <expletive> hands in my pocket with some sort of tax increase, NO MATTER WHAT THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM?

We're OVERSPENT, not UNDERTAXED. :banghead: :fire: :barf: :cuss:

DeseoUnTaco
October 6, 2005, 03:58 PM
Yes, grease is the future of transportation. The reality: oil might be $80/barrel or even $100/barrel within 12 to 24 months. Everyone can see that this is a realistic possibility.

But the price of grease (vegetable oil and waste grease) has nothing to do with the price of oil. It has more to do with labor costs, currency exchange with the Mayalsia Ringit, and other independent factors.

Right now you can buy food-grade vegetable oil at discount grocery stores for about the price of a gallon of gas. That's food-grade, sold in a container. How much cheaper would non-food-grade be, solid in bulk? And remember it's a commodity that we can produce right here, and is not controled by religious fanatics half way around the world.

billwiese
October 6, 2005, 04:20 PM
More stupidity all around.

US car co's want this because they might, on the off chance, get some extra customers for their smaller cars, making them profitable. (For all sorts of structural reasons, US small car product lines often run at a loss.) Likely will have the unintended effect of reduced economic growth, causing people to keep their old cars longer.

It's my money, I'll spend it how I friggin' want. If I really have to crunch $$, I just drive a bit less on the discretionary side.

This is the same idiot thinking as the car execs (esp foreign!) who want to build so called enviro-friendly cars that decompose in landfills better. Their cars decompose rapidly enough sitting on the street, work on fixing that.

I watch the way I drive - I don't do jackrabbit starts or accelerate to get in line for a red light. And I change my O2 sensor every 50K miles.

And while I think the average soccer mom is not a good driver - esp w/4 screaming kids and talking on a cellphone while putting on makeup - I do understand her (and her husband) wanting to protect her kids in a tank-like full-size SUV. Typical American SUVs (Explorer, Tahoe, 'Burban, Expedition, etc.) are much safer if you subtract out the rollover factor - which is simply caused by idiots taking curves too fast or thinking that 4WD = any road, any time, any speed.

I drive a new Ford F150. I am not comfortable in a smaller vehicle as I am 6'5", almost 250lb. I enjoy having a nice structure around me. I like pickups because they are simple, reliable and easy to fix. I can keep one running for a long time should I choose to retain it, so my total cost of ownership is low.
And even given fuel prices, it's cheaper to have a $17K F150 than a $24K Honda Accord.

So they will take my truck from my cold, dead hands.

My only other real option was a Ford Crown Victoria, since I will not buy a front-wheel drive car and since the Chevy Caprice is no longer in production.
And I didn't wanna pay $10K extra for the extra sheet metal in an SUV.

Conceivably I could drive a V6 but do I like my vehicle to get out of its own way. When I had my GMC Sierra w/Vortec V6 and 2 people were in it, I usu shifted outta OD temporarily to merge onto a freeway to get enough 'oomph'.

All these folks saying they can make cars more efficient are forgetting that there's only a fixed amount of horsepower you can extract from a given parcel of fuel. Plus, the fuel already has additives in it (esp in CA) that make it 5+% less efficient anyway (which makes moot the environmental argument for 'clean fuel' - since you're burning more so-called clean fuel to go same distance as regular fuel, it's a wash emissions-wise).

Sure, technologies like regenerative braking can recapture some otherwise- lost power. And some drivetrain losses could be reduced too. But it takes a certain given HP to move a car of a given weight at a given acceleration. So you end up having to make a lighter, smaller, and thus less safe car.

BTW I saw a statistic where 20% of folks will have some moderate to major effect in their life from a car accident. So I look on the cost of gas to drive a heavier vehicle around as, in effect, a bit of alternate health insurance.

The oil is in funky areas of the world. These societies have no other product in their economy. They HAVE to sell oil to us. We just need to maintain more control of the little wookies.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

mr_dove
October 6, 2005, 04:24 PM
I totally support the idea as long as the funds are used to fund things like alternative transportation and alternative fuel research.

increasing gas prices has the following benefits.


encourages the use of alternative transporation (busses, trains, bikes, walking, etc)
more people walking and biking to work will reduce our nations huge obesity problem somewhat.
reduce traffic congestion
reduce sprawl by encouraging some people to move closer to their jobs.


and the biggies is that it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

AZ Jeff
October 6, 2005, 04:25 PM
Given that fuel costs are such a small portion of the overall cost of owning and operating a vehicle, raising gas taxes will NOT have a significant effect on the TOTAL cost of ownership.

None the less, some less-than-critical thinkers will now say "gosh, gas just went up 20 cents per gallon, I better buy a new $20,000 car that gets better fuel economy".

Those of us who understand the TOTAL cost of ownership will just be more circumspect about when and where we drive.

Standing Wolf
October 6, 2005, 05:54 PM
We should make the car manufactors start making more feul efficient cars. I know it's going to hurt in the wallet as they pass on to us higher car prices.

We should make the gun manufacturers start making safer guns. I know it's going to hurt in the wallet as they pass on to us higher gun prices.

Realistically speaking, government turns problems into crises, crises into disasters. We need less of it, not more.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 05:57 PM
General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said a gradual increase in the gas tax would push consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. HAHAHA! This joker is stuck with tons of Suburbans, Tahoes and Avalanches he can't sell and wants Uncle Sugar come bail him out.

Here's my fuel efficient vehicle. A solid 40+mpg

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 06:07 PM
Gentlemen,

I disagree. I know some of you love your big hunking SUV's. And I know you guys are getting hit in the wallet worse than us with the small 40mpg cars.

But I hate to tell you, but it's you guys that are causing us to be in a gas crunch. Your cars get something like 16-20 mpg. Making you use more gas than you need to in order to get to one place or another. Hence causing you to spend more money to buy more gas.

Increased demand = lower supply.
Lower supplies = higher prices.
Higher prices = More money for OPEC (and we all know, money = power)
Powerful OPEC = Weak USA

This is a simplist analysis, but it's the freaking truth. Let China who is the second biggest user of oil take the higher oil prices. I think the US should invest heavily in Nuclear power, solar power, hell little turbines powered by running mice. Anything is better than bowing down to OPEC's demands.

Daniel T
October 6, 2005, 06:11 PM
Gas is already almost $3 a gallon. What does any of that have to do with an extra $.10 per gallon tax?

Editted to add:
I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV.

I really despair any time I see a phase like this used on a GUN RIGHTS message board. Do you think any anti's think you "need" any firearms at all?

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 06:13 PM
I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV.

Would you like to guess how many fuel efficient passenger sedans out there can accomodate three infant or child safety seats? Come on think hard...

If Soccer Mom Jane has more than 2 kids, you will quickly learn why she needs an SUV, or mini van.

As far as the tax idea is concerned, I don't think it goes far enough. I would be in favor considerably more tax than that, so long as all the tax went towards developing alternative fuel. I also think that all money spent on corporate research of alternative fuel should be tax free.

billwiese
October 6, 2005, 06:20 PM
Mr Dove wrote:
I totally support the idea as long as the funds are used to fund things like alternative transportation and alternative fuel research.


You're high, dude.

Another gov't money-pit morass. A portion will get spent on things like midnight basketball and how climate change affects the fuzzy lousewort.

Iincreasing gas prices has the following benefits.
encourages the use of alternative transporation (busses, trains, bikes, walking, etc)

No it won't. I won't take public transportation to work - a bus, a trolley train and another bus? 52 minutes for a 23 minute trip?

In metro areas, buses are dangerous. When you look at folks on public transportation (excl ultra metro areas during commute hrs like central NYC and SF) there's usually a reason those folks can't drive (legal, mental, etc.)

People drive because they like the isolation and (perceived) security of their cars and time flexibility. And that they don't have to sit next to a smelly and/or unstable homeless guy.

Lotsa transit systems' schedules get sparse outside commute hours and are primarily designed for 9-5 employees. Here in Silicon Valley I don't know anyone that does 9-5. Of course, that mindset is still characteristic of the socialist life planners that populate gov't agencies who can't conceive of anyone staying after 5PM at work because they've never seen that.

Plus, in many places, public transit goes nowhere useful.

And due to crazy union contracts, labor costs and high overhead make public transit in many areas cost about the same as driving to work. Ask people in SF Bay Area - when BART raised parking fees, many BART commuters switched back to driving.

more people walking and biking to work will reduce our nations huge obesity problem somewhat.

What the HELL is it anyone else's business how fat I am? Plus if I die early, I take less Soc Security. Gov't should actually encourage double-cut steaks and smoking to balance the budget. (half-serious, half in jest)

reduce traffic congestion

It doesn't cost that much extra to build roads of the right capacity in the first place. Much more expensive to build a road, then widen it later.


* reduce sprawl by encouraging some people to move closer to their jobs.


Another socialist urban planner mindwarpage.

People live where they want to live for various reasons - home size, crime rates, school system quality, central location due to separate commutes of husband & wife, etc.

And when you change jobs every 2-3 years you don't know exactly where your next one will be - so planning for it is moot, other than it's in overall general region.

You will just increase many folks' cost by attempts to force this - people, in general, try to live in approximately the best area (by their definition they can afford to live.

Don't define what's right for other folks.

and the biggies is that it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.


We need to drill more oil and also go massively nuclear for power grid.

I have far far less grief w/money going outside US for raw materials than us buying stuff from China.

The oil-bearing world has only one product to sell. They HAVE to cooperate, and they are easier to keep in line.

A relatively few crazy Arabs can cause us problems (WTC, etc.) But China is the real enemy.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Bigjake
October 6, 2005, 06:22 PM
exactly , lonegunman.

Also, y'all show me a pickup that can pull 30 mpg (or even 20) and i'll show you and underpowered POS incapable of pulling (no pun intended) 90 % of most farm or construction workloads.

Let the market work its way out, i can't belive fellow gunnys would advocate the .gov medling in anything else, given their track record.

Lobotomy Boy
October 6, 2005, 06:55 PM
Also, y'all show me a pickup that can pull 30 mpg (or even 20) and i'll show you and underpowered POS incapable of pulling (no pun intended) 90 % of most farm or construction workloads.

I don't think you could call my '04 4x4 F150 Supercrew an underpowered POS, and I regularly get 22-25 on the highway. It has the smaller (4.6-L) V-8 and no "off-road" or "towing" package, and when I go on long trips I pump the tires up to 40 psi. My truck would be a poor choice for towing heavy loads, but since I don't tow heavy loads, I prefer good gas mileage over the low-geared rear end that is the primary component of the off-road or towing packages. My truck will haul six adult men, their rifles, and four whitetail deer through the swamps of northwest Minnesota with no problem, and that's all I need it to do.

People should honestly assess their needs. If you get a bigger engine and a package that has a lower-geared rear differential, you are going to burn more fuel. If you have to haul a utility trailer every day, or if you have to tow a boat or a camper across country, then you might need that. If you just drive off road for hunting and such, which I do on a regular basis, you sure as hell don't need a low-geared rear end. I often wonder at these idiots I see running around town with pickups with "Z-71" or "FX-41" or whatever the hell Ford calls its off road package plastered on the sides of their trucks. These fools never leave the city or tow anything, yet every day they pay a price in lower fuel mileage. I figure most of them are so mechanically illiterate they don't understand the relationship between final-drive gearing and fuel mileage.

Or else they have really small weiners.

Gannet
October 6, 2005, 07:01 PM
Amazing how all the "freedom lovers" want the government to tell everyone else what kind of vehicle they have to drive.

CAFE standards are nothing but socialism. It's the exact same thing as every other wacked socialist plan and, guess what, like every other wacked socialist plan it doesn't work. "We know what's good for you, trust us, let us pass a bunch of laws and regulations, and things will be better, we promise!"

Haven't you guys learned anything? Sheesh.

If you want to reduce demand for oil, tax it or otherwise restrict supply until prices rise. Demand will then fall. Any other solution is stupid and doomed to failure.

It's called a market.

Deavis
October 6, 2005, 07:16 PM
But I hate to tell you, but it's you guys that are causing us to be in a gas crunch. Your cars get something like 16-20 mpg. Making you use more gas than you need to in order to get to one place or another. Hence causing you to spend more money to buy more gas.

What does driving bigger cars have to do with there being a gas crunch? IF you switched to a country of smaller cars, you would see the same consumption or very near to it. Why? People would move farther out and drive more often. Just like building an extra lane on the freeway, people will immediately take advantage in a way that you can't fathom= with the "central" planning mindset.

More importantly, you are acting as if you have a right to purchase gasoline. Gasoline, like everything else is a resource. There is always competition for resources and if you can't afford that resource, well tough luck. It is no different with food, land, or, hell, women. Do you complain when that 40 year old guy is walking out with a hot 23 year old model, wearing a Armani suit, driving a Viper, and wearing a boat anchor on his wrist? That guy is driving up the "cost" to obtain women, it isn't fair! :rolleyes:

I bet you also get mad when people run their house AC at 69į because it "raises" your bill. The problem is, you aren't willing to compete for that resource and they are. If I don't like the price of a resource, I either don't use it or go earn more money so I can afford it. Life is a competition and the market reflects that.


Increased demand = lower supply.
Lower supplies = higher prices.
Higher prices = More money for OPEC (and we all know, money = power)
Powerful OPEC = Weak USA

You logic only works in a zero sum game. Increased dmeand can lead to greater production to satisfy that demand. There is a higher demand for gasoline today in the US but compared to the 70's (with inflation) we were paying less for gasoline (I thought I read we were no longer less). Demand went up, supply went up, and price went down? How is that possible? It just can't happen!

The human race and the economy cannot be modeled as a zero sum game. When things get scarce, unlike other animals, we come up with new ways to get things done. That is why we have opposable thumbs and a brain... That way we can do more than just twiddle them when stuff goes wrong.

I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV. Those things were designed for the country and hauling wood. Not transport some snot nosed kids to baseball practice.

From a guy who's screen name is "50 freak"? Unless you are 50 and a bit freaky, go Viagra, then the "You don't need that xxx..." argument should be the last thing you ever utter in a post! Is that not the ultimate in irony?

AZ Jeff
October 6, 2005, 07:55 PM
Didn't we just have this discussion on free market economics and the price of gasoline about 4 weeks ago, right after hurricane Katrina caused gas to spike to $3 a gallon?

Didn't anyone LEARN anything about supply, demand, and price in that discussion?

I will agree to letting some of you posters tell me what kind of car a can drive (and what gas mileage it must get), just as long as I can tell YOU what kind and how many FIREARMS YOU CAN OWN!!!

Geeesh................

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 07:57 PM
Deavis,

Calm down buddy. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

I never said that there is no need for large SUVs and such. I said there is no need for soccer moms to be transporting their snot nosed little kids around in a huge Tahoe or something that sized. I live in the Silicon Valley and the closest we come to going offroading or hauling wood is watching the Redneck games. Besides you can fit more kids and stuff in a more fuel economical Mini Van or station wagon than a gas guzzling Hummer.

So there is no need for these soccer moms to have a huge car like that. It's a statis symbol and unfortunately everyone here pays for that vanity.

But this is America and it is their choice to buy whatever they chose. Just know that your choice will have an effect on others around you. So don't bitch when your paying $50 bucks a gallon. Those of us that only have to fill up every two weeks aren't going to be hurt as bad as you.

As for other countries, typically they have smaller more efficent cars and their gas prices are by far more than what we pay. But the difference is they don't use cars as frequently as we do. How many here knows a family that doesn't have at least one car? Typically here we have 2-3 cars per family. More cars, more gas consumption. Higher prices.


You logic only works in a zero sum game. Increased dmeand can lead to greater production to satisfy that demand. There is a higher demand for gasoline today in the US but compared to the 70's (with inflation) we were paying less for gasoline (I thought I read we were no longer less). Demand went up, supply went up, and price went down? How is that possible? It just can't happen!

I guess that would be true if not for the fact we are maxed out at our production and processing limit. And OPEC says their maxed out at pumping out the oil. Unless you can magically bring oil out of the ground, refine it and fill up every gas station in the US on a continual basis, you're going to see gas prices continue to rise.

And you know what, I agree, my example is a oversimplified and doesn't take in account other factors. Maybe you have the time to sit there and factor in every freaking possibility that may arise on a global economic scale, but frankly I don't. Hence you will noticed I stated I was giving an "simplistic analysis" of the problem we face.

But I agree with Bill. The reason we are seeing such a high rise in gas prices is we (the world) has only a finite limit on the oil we pull out of the ground. But with the recent introduction of China and India as major buyers of oil in the world, the US is having to pay extra for oil. More buyers, the price of a limited commodity goes up. It's not like we can all say to OPEC, your prices are too much, we'll go to your competitors. There aren't very many countries that have the oil producing ability that OPEC has.

That is why I keep saying the US needs to ween itself off of foreign oil and let China and India pay the high prices. In the current situation the only winner is OPEC.

And how do you know my name "50 Freak" doesn't mean I like 50 year old women? Or maybe 50 women at a time? Or I do it 50 times? Don't attack someone when you don't know squat about them.

rick_reno
October 6, 2005, 08:14 PM
Repleace "Lord" with "Government" in the following tune.

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porches, and I must make amends.
Worked hard all my life time, no help from my friends.
So, oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three.
So, Lord, won't you buy me a color TV?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town?
I'm counting on you Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round.
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town?

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 08:23 PM
My friends all drive Porches

How does one drive a porch?

Mnemesyne
October 6, 2005, 08:24 PM
Gas prices are insane enough...car prices are worse....Husband and I have a flexible fuel truck, but try to find the alternative fuel here in SE ohio....If it wasn't for the fact we both drive 60+ miles from home just to find work, I'd just ride a bicycle and be done with it.......guess that's the sacrifice I make to live in the country....

If the auto exec's want to raise the fed tax, then let those pricks pay the difference...Heaven knows they can afford it better then the avg person..... :fire:

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 08:27 PM
I am curious, what does "50 Freak" mean?

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 08:56 PM
How does one drive a porch?

You don't want to know...... :eek: :eek: :eek:

I am curious, what does "50 Freak" mean?

I could tell you but I'd have to kill you. And yes I do work security in a mall. :neener: :neener:

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 09:04 PM
So can I conclude 50 BMG?

If I have to drive a Nissan instead of my Suburban, that means you have to use a 22 short instead of your 50. Deal?

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 09:14 PM
So can I conclude 50 BMG?

If I have to drive a Nissan instead of my Suburban, that means you have to use a 22 short instead of your 50. Deal?

Guys this is a pretty far stretch. Your grasping for straws.....

But if it came down to it and my not shooting 50's would weaking OPEC's stranglehold over us then I'll stop shooting my 50 in a heartbeat. :D :D

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 09:19 PM
Why is that such a stretch?

The anti-gunners use the argument that no one needs a 50 caliber rifle... you are making the same argument about automobiles.

But if it came down to it and my not shooting 50's would weaking OPEC's stranglehold over us then I'll stop shooting my 50 in a heartbeat.

If not driving my SUV would weaken the anti-gunners, I would stop driving my Suburban in a heart beat. Same argument.

R.H. Lee
October 6, 2005, 09:29 PM
I guess that would be true if not for the fact we are maxed out at our production and processing limit. And OPEC says their maxed out at pumping out the oil. Unless you can magically bring oil out of the ground, refine it and fill up every gas station in the US on a continual basis, you're going to see gas prices continue to rise.
The solution is to make more gasoline. There is plenty of oil locked up in shale in 3 western states. There is more oil in Anwar. We have even more oil off the California coast that has never been extracted. Then build more refineries. That's the answer.

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 09:43 PM
The solution is to make more gasoline. There is plenty of oil locked up in shale in 3 western states. There is more oil in Anwar. We have even more oil off the California coast that has never been extracted. Then build more refineries. That's the answer.

"NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD" That's what's stopping us from going this route.

Everyone wants cheap gas, but no one wants a refinery in their back yard.

GunGoBoom
October 6, 2005, 09:49 PM
I'm all for it - PROVIDED that this new tax supplants and thus eliminates the federal income tax completely - one which we didn't even need until WWI, and which was supposed to be temporary to fund WWI and then end.

pax
October 6, 2005, 09:54 PM
Oh, that's brilliant.

Last time I looked, gas was hovering right around $3 a gallon -- considerably more than it was a year ago. Those fools think another 10 cents is going to make a difference, when a dollar or more hasn't?? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, people keep spouting stuff like this: I honestly don't see why soccer mom Jane needs a freaking huge SUV. Those things were designed for the country and hauling wood. Not transport some snot nosed kids to baseball practice.
Thank you very much. Tell you what, I'll decide what works for my family, and you decide what works for your family. Hmmm?

At least for a change they are being honest that it's all about social engineering, and not about raising revenue.

pax

Three dollars a gallon?!? Send more troops! -- bumper sticker idea from a friend

biere
October 6, 2005, 09:58 PM
I shortened this down to clean it up a bit.

People in article wanting to raise gas taxes and folks posting in here to rasie the gas tax, What are you thinking? Doesn't the gov. get enough taxes now?

As for telling me what to drive, get over yourself. I am already tired of the gov. telling me that machine guns made before 1986 are ok if they were registered, other than that the guns must be evil and I can't own any. Keep it up and see how freedom in this country goes.

I like my 18mpg suv, heck I like my 12 mpg 1 ton 4x4 as well. I haul stuff a lot. I live in the country where mud and snow wind up on the roads a lot. But I am not going to sit here and make excuses because I work for a living and I can afford to buy gas for my trucks and I am happy to do so because that truck is worth the cost to me.

I feel like some of these posters should go read about the russion volga or whatever it was. I guess east germany may have had their own commie car as well.

50 Freak
October 6, 2005, 10:21 PM
Thank you very much. Tell you what, I'll decide what works for my family, and you decide what works for your family. Hmmm?

Hey Pax, I never told you what you could or couldn't drive. What I said is there are plenty of people out there drive big SUV type cars when there really isn't a need for them. I don't know if you live in a big city or the country, but in the city, most of the rich suburbanites drive these huge cars that they really don't need. Why? not because they are transporting 6 kids or hauling firewood. But rather it's a statis symbol. So you have soccer mom with her one kid and soccer dad both driving big gas guzzling SUVs. Multiply that by millions and do you still think that's not a drain on the limited avaible gas pool out there?

Is it their choice to do so?.....Yes, it's America, and you have choices but don't sit there and gripe about the high gas prices....Just like if you want a Class 3 license, don't gripe about the high prices of machine guns. Limited supply means high prices.

If the guberment increases the per MPG requirement per car, then yes the car companies (if they think SUVs will continue to be lucrative) will find a way to introduce fuel economical SUVs (like a hybrid SUVs like you see coming out soon). Simple economic encentives works wonders.

And Soccer mom and Soccer dad can continue driving SUVs till their hearts content. If they can afford it then. More power to them.

My point is, our country cannot continue being reliant on foreign oil. It is not good for our security or world influence. There are many different alternatives out there to ween this country from cheap foreign oil and it's about time it happens.

So I'm all for the $10 gas prices. I'm going to get hurt, but not as much as others out there. I make enough money to supply both me and the wife with a couple of nice SUVs. But it's our choice to both drive fuel economical cars. Her a station wagon and me a 10 year old four banger. What works for me may not work for you. YMMV.

Lone_Gunman
October 6, 2005, 10:25 PM
I think what people are opposed to, 50 freak, is you telling them what they need, or don't need, in statements such as:

What I said is there are plenty of people out there drive big SUV type cars when there really isn't a need for them.

Who cares if they need it, or if it is just a status symbol.

Tell me why you need a 50 BMG? Are you fighting Iraqis and need to make 1 mile shots? Or do you shoot a 50 BMG because you want to and you can.

I don't think you need a 50 BMG.

Lupinus
October 6, 2005, 10:31 PM
I havn't read every post here in detail so if I am repeating something my apologies-

I think that is the exact wrong direction. For most people gas is hardly affordable as it is. 3.19 a gallon where I am. For people that have to drive a bit to work it is hardly worth it to travel to make axtra money latly. If anything the goverment should be suspending a good portion of gas tax's so people can at least make it profitable to go to work. And how about people who need their truck's for various reason's? Work etc. Or people who live in bad climate's and need 4x4 because reguardless if the sky is blue or there is five feet of snow on the ground it is a must for them to be able to get to work (hospital worker's, police, and the like).

Most of the people that can afford some of the gas guzzling corvett's and stuff arn't exactly poor. And the people proposing this tax sure arn't poor.

If you want to help the situation lower gas tax's and drill in Alaska, or find a way to send a message to the oil companies we won't pay for the large mark up's so they can continue to make billion's of dollar's a year.

pax
October 6, 2005, 10:41 PM
So I'm all for the $10 gas prices. I'm going to get hurt, but not as much as others out there. I make enough money to supply both me and the wife with a couple of nice SUVs. But it's our choice to both drive fuel economical cars. Her a station wagon and me a 10 year old four banger. What works for me may not work for you. YMMV.
You're wrong. $10 gas prices are going to hurt you, plenty.

Maybe not directly at the pump. But you're going to pay for your folly.

I'll tell you what: I went to pick up a load of sawdust for my barn the other day, and got talking to the fellow running the tractor. He said he was just barely hanging on, teeth and toenails, and was probably going to have to close up shop if the gas prices get any worse. Multiply this one person, this one self-sustaining business, by millions of others across the country and the picture becomes rather grim.

A buddy of mine drives truck. He says you wouldn't believe the drastic increase in shipping prices, for everything from groceries to furniture. You'll pay that, several times over. Think the price of groceries isn't going to go up drastically, to cover that?

Go ahead and cheer for this stupidity. You'll pay for it.

I think we are seeing the beginning of the next Great Depression. And fools are cheering it on.

pax

The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal is a mind-bogglingly stupid animal. It has almost no capacity for learning from experience and is therefore surprised by virtually everything that happens to it. -- Douglas Adams

Art Eatman
October 6, 2005, 11:26 PM
Granted that the rise in gasoline price is obvious, but in terms of constant dollars it's no higher than it was 25 years ago.

What's far more hurtful is the overall effect on the economy of the cost of crude oil. Constant dollars or no, all manner of prices are going up: Plastics is a biggie. Whether as common an item as Clorox (up some 5% in August) or nylon/rayon/orlon/dacron, stuff is gonna cost more. And, a bit of add-on to all those soft drinks in plastic bottles. Plastic toys at Toys-R-Us, too.

Farmers will either get higher prices for grains or go broke. Your hot dog buns and your corn flakes are gonna cost more.

Iron and steel have more than doubled in the last couple of years. Cement is up. Same for copper and aluminum. Not only do these costs affect cars and refrigerators, they mean that the cost of raw materials bought by China goes up. Then, when (not if) the Yuan goes to float against the dollar, not even Wally World will save you.

And natural gas has risen from $2/M to $14/M in just the last couple of years. Happy cooking; happy winter heating, folks...

Art

pax
October 6, 2005, 11:33 PM
Granted that the rise in gasoline price is obvious, but in terms of constant dollars it's no higher than it was 25 years ago.
Art, I don't know about 25 years ago. I do know about 10 years ago. My husband was working then the same job he's working now -- one which involves a lot of out-of-pocket vehicle travel. And the astronomical jump in gas prices over those years has hurt us plenty.

pax

rick_reno
October 6, 2005, 11:38 PM
How does one drive a porch?

You've obviously never visited Louisiana.

Lupinus
October 6, 2005, 11:41 PM
I wasn't around 25 year's ago.

But I know that when in five year's gas price's double or more then double you have a problem.

Build mroe refinerie's, and drill in Alaska and gas price's will go down. As long as we rely on hostile goverment's for our oil an refuse to build more refineries gas price's will continue to skyrocket.

Art Eatman
October 7, 2005, 12:09 AM
pax, it doesn't matter if you call it inflation or call it a decrease in the buying power of the dollar, insofar as price increases. Gasoline prices have not kept pace with the rise in prices of other consumer items until recently.

Do a simple graph (just representational, not exact): Assume "inflation" in various consumer items' prices is a 45-degree straight line. Assume gasoline prices are a 30-degree straight line. A couple of years back from today, the gasoline price line then breaks upward at, say, 60 or 75 degrees and now itersects the inflation line. Oversimplified, obviously, but reasonably representational.

Recent increases in crude oil prices stem from the simple Economics 101 bit about a relatively constant supply availability coupled with a rising demand. Ergo, $65/bbl oil.

China and India are importing a tremendous amount more oil than just a few years back, and existing oil fields are near their production limits. The U.S. and the North Sea are past their peak productivity and so are in decline. Saudi Arabia is plateaued and is expected to see a decline in the relatively near future.

The present movement out of SUVs and into econoboxes (57% reduction in sales of SUVs, the last two months, after a 27% reduction in May) is a reprise of the 1970s and early 1980s. We also know that use of public transportation is up, for commuting, as is car-pooling. How much good this will do in reducing the price of a gallon of gas is an unknown.

A notable decline in the demand for gasoline in 1979 was an indicator of the economic problems at the end of the Carter presidency and the recession which ensued...

Google for "stagflation"...

Art

gc70
October 7, 2005, 12:40 AM
Gas was expensive in the late '70s, auto manufacturers began making smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, and lots of people made substantial changes in their energy consumption. We had a chance to really do something about our energy use and dependence on foreign energy sources.

What DID we do? We quit building nuclear power plants (fear factor), quit building oil refineries (air pollution), abandoned development of oil-shale conversion (environmental damage), put huge parts of the coutry off-limits for oil & gas drilling and coal mining (environmental damage), and demanded ever-larger vehicles... all because gas got really cheap.

Most Americans apparently don't mind being dependent on foreign oil, as long as it is cheap foreign oil.

Deavis
October 7, 2005, 01:30 AM
Deavis,

Calm down buddy. Don't get your panties in a bunch.


Don't presume that you could get my panties in a bunch. I don't wear any, unless it is a rented tux. You can't go commando in another man's fatigues. :D, more on that later.

Let's go over this very carefully...

I said there is no need for soccer moms to be transporting their snot nosed little kids around in a huge Tahoe or something that sized. I live in the Silicon Valley and the closest we come to going offroading or hauling wood is watching the Redneck games. Besides you can fit more kids and stuff in a more fuel economical Mini Van or station wagon than a gas guzzling Hummer.

1) You presume to tell another person what is appropriate for the task that they wish to accomplish even though you have no frame of reference into the reasons behind their decision.
2) You then presume to tell an entire nation what they should and should not do based on your incredibly small personal frame of reference, Silicon Valley.
3) Then you make a nonsensical comparison between two vehicles designed for completely different purposes and try to equate their usage based solely on your perception of what people should use them for. Not to mention the fact that you have no idea what the soccer mom does with her vehicle when she isnít passing you on the freeway.


Based on you logic, let's play a little game. I'm a very athletic white guy who lives in a small town with everything in walking distance and a town drunk who is the only black man there. Therefore, based on your methodology, everyone should be able to foot-commute to work and all blacks are drunks. The fat out of shape man in Idaho with a 20 mile drive doesn't *need* a car because I can jog 5 miles to work, what is 15 more? If the one black man in my neighborhood is drunk, they must all be. After all, that is the way it is where I live, it has to be that way everywhere else.

Scary reasoning, but that is essentially what you are doing. I have chosen issues that magnify the situation, but the principle is exactly the same. You are expressing an elitist view and most firearm owners who fight for the 2A on here know the danger of elitist creep.

Just know that your choice will have an effect on others around you. So don't bitch when your paying $50 bucks a gallon.

Who is bitching? I told you to get another job if you don't want to pay market price for gas or stop driving. Competition for resources, see my post above.

As for other countries, typically they have smaller more efficient cars and their gas prices are by far more than what we pay. But the difference is they don't use cars as frequently as we do. How many here knows a family that doesn't have at least one car? Typically here we have 2-3 cars per family. More cars, more gas consumption. Higher prices.

Wrong on many counts
1) Other countries typically have much more developed public transportation systems than newer American Cities. Thus more people don't need to own a car, look at NYC for an American example
2) Other countries with older cities, Europe especially, are not very conducive to automotive traffic. Most of our cities are designed FOR automotive transport.
3) Gas prices in other countries are severely inflated due to taxation, which is why diesel fuel was so much cheaper over there for years. That is no longer the case
3) More cars != more consumption != more demand. Your statement is a blanket statement, which is only true in certain situations. I already dispelled it once.
4) The Suburban American lifestyle is highly dependent on commuting as a means to offset the price of housing. This offset is still incredibly positive, which allows for substantial increases in gas cost that would otherwise be spent on housing in the city and public transport (which isn't always cheap). People have been saving for years in housing and now they have to absorb a new cost rather than buy their 8th gas-guzzler. Another :D

guess that would be true if not for the fact we are maxed out at our production and processing limit. And OPEC says their maxed out at pumping out the oil. Unless you can magically bring oil out of the ground, refine it and fill up every gas station in the US on a continual basis, you're going to see gas prices continue to rise.


Thank you for reinforcing my point. To get more oil, we simply have to build more capacity. Simple as that. It isn't a zero sum game, so quit trying to frame it that way.

Maybe you have the time to sit there and factor in every freaking possibility that may arise on a global economic scale, but frankly I don't.

If you can't talk intelligibly about first order economic principles then perhaps you should consider not commenting on that aspect of a topic. Iím not demeaning you or your posts, Iím just indicating that supply and demand is an extremely easy first order concept to discuss. I have not introduced any variables into my posts that take more than 10 seconds to identify, quantify, and evaluate. Explaining that human ingenuity does not allow for a zero sum equation to exist is pretty straightforward. Don't get upset when I point out flaws in your reasoning because you are unwilling to consider simple extensions of the topic outside of a very small frame of referecen. See above for the penalties of a small frame of reference.

The reason we are seeing such a high rise in gas prices is we (the world) has only a finite limit on the oil we pull out of the ground.

Really, are you sure about that? Capacity is simple to build, especially for oil. There is a boatload of oil that has not yet been tapped due to its location/condition. For instance, many places are not being drilled due to the abundance of sand in the formation. Sand control isn't cheap, but once oil prices are high enough to offset the extra cost, people will begin to drill there. They will then come up with better sand control methods, just as they came up with great chemical leaching methods to extend the life of older formations. Once that happens, prices will again drop and the cycle will start over again. Perhaps you can also comment on the theories and evidence that oil may not be a finite resource as once believed. Also, we should discuss the huge untapped resources in the ocean.

"NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD" That's what's stopping us from going this route.

Everyone wants cheap gas, but no one wants a refinery in their back yard.

Economic issue that can be solved with money. Pay for the right to build it and have lawmakers quash outlandish environmental laws. This will happen make no mistake about it. You simply have to provide the right economic incentives with the proper political method. The only thing that is keeping us from increasing capacity is our own choice to limit ourselves. You will see many bogus environmental laws biting the dust in the future as the nature worshippers, who have many times filled the spiritual void of atheism with an inanimate object, lose their hold on the publics sympathies

My point is, our country cannot continue being reliant on foreign oil. It is not good for our security or world influence. There are many different alternatives out there to wean this country from cheap foreign oil and it's about time it happens.

Your solution to that issue is to take away the right of an American to choose what he wants or to force the market in a direction you want based on your belief that this is a bad thing. Rather than offer people an incentive to change their lifestyle, i.e. positive reinforcement, you choose to limit them, negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement always causes backlash because people don't like to be told what to do. If you prefaced your argument with, "If we offered each American an incentive program to drive Hybrid cars, we could cut our dependence on foreign oil." Then you have to convince a person why weaning us off foreign oil is a good idea and then get them to demand a change. The change would be completely different in its nature and you would find that people would willingly switch if you could convince them. However, with your argument, you will never, ever convince anyone with a shred of personal respect, they will fight you. Win a manís heart and he will willingly go beyond what you ask.

And how do you know my name "50 Freak" doesn't mean I like 50 year old women? Or maybe 50 women at a time? Or I do it 50 times? Don't attack someone when you don't know squat about them.

Next time, I'll be sure to follow my puns with a :D because it is obvious that I wasn't the one with my panties in a bunch or had 50 pairs of them wrapped around my head, whatever your style is. :D See, :D I don't get worked up over topics such as this, I just bringing up points that contradict elitist views. Notice, Iím not faulting you for your view, which I believe is elitist, Iím merely pointing our why I think it is and the negative aspects of it.

Build mroe refinerie's, and drill in Alaska and gas price's will go down. As long as we rely on hostile goverment's for our oil an refuse to build more refineries gas price's will continue to skyrocket.

aha, now that is a nice solution J

Moparmike
October 7, 2005, 02:27 AM
I present you with half of our fix for foriegn oil: Thermal Depolymerization (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=thermal+depolymerization). When you make oil for $8 (pre-profit, 2003)* a barrel out of everything from turkey guts to sewage to anything else, you get $1/gal of gas.


Myself, I like driving my S-class Benz at 14mpg. However, I have considered getting a diesel.

And whenever its over 25*F and not raining/snowing, I drive this:
http://www.bikez.com/bike/21102/index.jpg
Sure, its only a 250cc, but even with my 290lb butt on it, it puts a smile on my face at 65-70 miles to the gallon. I bought it when gas was $1.60, and haven't regretted it since. :D

cracked butt
October 7, 2005, 03:24 AM
When government steps in to try to push social policy contrary to what the market forces dictate, nothing good can come of it.

These Heads of car manufacturers are asking for this tax becuase they can't sell cars. Ford as a company is in the tank, and GM is pretty close behind them. They know that they will still sell SUVs and pickup trucks because these are the vehicles that people want and demand. This tax might push a few people to buy some of the more fuel efficient cars that are rotting away on the lots which the the car companies pretty have to give away in order to sell. Previously, these manufacturers had to build shoddy cars that fell apart after 5 years in order to get customers to need to buy a new car, seems that that ploy didn't work too well either when consumers found Japanese cars much better made.

For those of you who are complaining about wealthy peoples' choices in vehicles that they drive, get over it, you are the only ones bitching about the cost of gas. You can complain and try to push for all kinds of punitive taxes to try to bring people down to your level- maybe you don't like people who live in bigger houses, maybe you don't like people who make more money than you do... in the end, these people will still have more than you because they didn't get where they are on luck alone, but you will have set up road blocks to your own future success.

50 Freak
October 7, 2005, 03:30 AM
1) You presume to tell another person what is appropriate for the task that they wish to accomplish even though you have no frame of reference into the reasons behind their decision.
2) You then presume to tell an entire nation what they should and should not do based on your incredibly small personal frame of reference, Silicon Valley.
3) Then you make a nonsensical comparison between two vehicles designed for completely different purposes and try to equate their usage based solely on your perception of what people should use them for. Not to mention the fact that you have no idea what the soccer mom does with her vehicle when she isnít passing you on the freeway.

No, youíre the one making the presumptions. I said the problem I have is with soccer moms driving large sized gas guzzling SUVs. Their choice in buying a SUV is something between them and their wallet.
My point is I donít believe every person in a SUV (even in my ďsmall personal frame of referenceĒ) necessary needs a SUV. Do you agree?

Based on you logic, let's play a little game. I'm a very athletic white guy who lives in a small town with everything in walking distance and a town drunk who is the only black man there. Therefore, based on your methodology, everyone should be able to foot-commute to work and all blacks are drunks. The fat out of shape man in Idaho with a 20 mile drive doesn't *need* a car because I can jog 5 miles to work, what is 15 more? If the one black man in my neighborhood is drunk, they must all be. After all, that is the way it is where I live, it has to be that way everywhere else.

Scary reasoning, but that is essentially what you are doing. I have chosen issues that magnify the situation, but the principle is exactly the same. You are expressing an elitist view and most firearm owners who fight for the 2A on here know the danger of elitist creep.
Whatever guy.

Youíre reasoning sucks and youíre analogy sucks. Iím not even going to waste my time answering this.


Who is bitching? I told you to get another job if you don't want to pay market price for gas or stop driving. Competition for resources, see my post above.

I have no problems paying market prices. My costs for maintaining the family cars are at a minimal. I donít choose to buy big SUVs as I donít have a need for them. And I'll stop eatting out everynight and cut down to once a week when all the effect of high gas prices hit in the form of higher food costs and etc. I'm pretty happy with my financial situation and honestly won't be effected very much.

I do however feel real bad for the guys out there that earn behind the wheel or barely scraping by. They're the ones that are really going to get hurt.


Wrong on many counts
1) Other countries typically have much more developed public transportation systems than newer American Cities. Thus more people don't need to own a car, look at NYC for an American example

Your right on this, but try telling our Americans they donít need a car and they have a hissy fit. Itís their God given right to drive huge assed cars.

2) Other countries with older cities, Europe especially, are not very conducive to automotive traffic. Most of our cities are designed FOR automotive transport.

So you want us to be more like Europe and develop more public transportation like underground rail and etc...Where's the money coming from... Last I checked we were in a huge defecit.

3) Gas prices in other countries are severely inflated due to taxation, which is why diesel fuel was so much cheaper over there for years. That is no longer the case

And we donít have a lot of taxes on our gas???

3) More cars != more consumption != more demand. Your statement is a blanket statement, which is only true in certain situations. I already dispelled it once.

Tell me how my ďblanket statement is incorrect? You're argueing:
more cars = less consumption = less demand. Time for you to go back to Economics 101.


4) The Suburban American lifestyle is highly dependent on commuting as a means to offset the price of housing. This offset is still incredibly positive, which allows for substantial increases in gas cost that would otherwise be spent on housing in the city and public transport (which isn't always cheap). People have been saving for years in housing and now they have to absorb a new cost rather than buy their 8th gas-guzzler.

Point in fact. If you are living further away from work because the housing prices next to work cost more. Wouldnít it make more economic sense to buy a fuel economic car as opposed to a gas guzzling SUV? You made my point.


Thank you for reinforcing my point. To get more oil, we simply have to build more capacity. Simple as that. It isn't a zero sum game, so quit trying to frame it that way.
No youíre right on this. We can continue to rely on oil and drill our hearts away in the ANWR and suck all the oil there till itís gone. Then where would we drill? What would we do will all the refineries we built to process our oil??? Would we be back in the same prediciment we are right now?? Would we be reliant again on Russian oil? Brunei oil? or OPEC again?


Maybe you have the time to sit there and factor in every freaking possibility that may arise on a global economic scale, but frankly I don't.


If you can't talk intelligibly about first order economic principles then perhaps you should consider not commenting on that aspect of a topic. Iím not demeaning you or your posts, Iím just indicating that supply and demand is an extremely easy first order concept to discuss. I have not introduced any variables into my posts that take more than 10 seconds to identify, quantify, and evaluate. Explaining that human ingenuity does not allow for a zero sum equation to exist is pretty straightforward. Don't get upset when I point out flaws in your reasoning because you are unwilling to consider simple extensions of the topic outside of a very small frame of referecen. See above for the penalties of a small frame of reference.


Blah blah blah, Iím so greatÖÖ


The reason we are seeing such a high rise in gas prices is we (the world) has only a finite limit on the oil we pull out of the ground.


Really, are you sure about that? Capacity is simple to build, especially for oil. There is a boatload of oil that has not yet been tapped due to its location/condition. For instance, many places are not being drilled due to the abundance of sand in the formation. Sand control isn't cheap, but once oil prices are high enough to offset the extra cost, people will begin to drill there. They will then come up with better sand control methods, just as they came up with great chemical leaching methods to extend the life of older formations. Once that happens, prices will again drop and the cycle will start over again. Perhaps you can also comment on the theories and evidence that oil may not be a finite resource as once believed. Also, we should discuss the huge untapped resources in the ocean.

SureÖgreat ideaÖ.lets dump tons of money into drilling anywhere we think there is oil. Never mind the geopolitical consequences we will have to face as we start building 1000ís of oil platforms in international waters.

Oh.....We can just raise more taxes and cut more programs to effect these changes. or better yet, lets have private businesses front he money.Ö.Sure, lets give Exxon Mobile the exclusive rights to ass rape us with years on dependency on ďtheirĒ oil. Think they wonít do it? Who do you think has been having record profits these last few years???


Economic issue that can be solved with money. Pay for the right to build it and have lawmakers quash outlandish environmental laws. This will happen make no mistake about it. You simply have to provide the right economic incentives with the proper political method. The only thing that is keeping us from increasing capacity is our own choice to limit ourselves. You will see many bogus environmental laws biting the dust in the future as the nature worshippers, who have many times filled the spiritual void of atheism with an inanimate object, lose their hold on the publics sympathies

And you have some pixie dust to come up with all this money to get Grandma Smith and Susie Q homemaker to allow you to drill in their back yards. Sure lets quash these outlandish environmental laws (not saying I donít agree with you on this). But seriously, how are you going to find politicians with balls big enough to go against the Sierra Club and all those tree hugging political juggernauts???? Maybe we could get Hillary to run on the platform. "Two oil rigs in every back yard".

Quote:
Your solution to that issue is to take away the right of an American to choose what he wants or to force the market in a direction you want based on your belief that this is a bad thing. Rather than offer people an incentive to change their lifestyle, i.e. positive reinforcement, you choose to limit them, negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement always causes backlash because people don't like to be told what to do. If you prefaced your argument with, "If we offered each American an incentive program to drive Hybrid cars, we could cut our dependence on foreign oil." Then you have to convince a person why weaning us off foreign oil is a good idea and then get them to demand a change. The change would be completely different in its nature and you would find that people would willingly switch if you could convince them. However, with your argument, you will never, ever convince anyone with a shred of personal respect, they will fight you. Win a manís heart and he will willingly go beyond what you ask.

No, wrong go back to first baseÖ.I never said once ďtake away soccer momís right to buy a big stinking SUVĒ I challenge you to find that statement. I said if you're going to drive a big gas guzzling car, don't bitch about the gas prices.

However I do believe in both positive and negative reinforcement.

Postitive reinforcement:
Business: economic encentives to produce more fuel effiecent cars
Consumer: more money saved by buying more fuel economical cars
Benefits: Business make and save more money. Consumers have more money to buy goods spurring faster national economic recovery.

Negative reinforcement:
Business: business as usual, continue producing gas guzzlers
Consumer: Buy expensive gas guzzling cars and continue paying $10 bucks a gallon.
Benefits: As seen in the late 70's, the public will be weened off real quick on gass guzzlers. Manufacters will switch to producing fuel economic cars (as we are seeing in currents trends right now with the recent popularity of Hybrids)


It is always a better to use both positive and negative reinforcement to effect a desired change. Using just one and not the other will often times get you an undesired result. Psych 101


I don't get worked up over topics such as this, I just bringing up points that contradict elitist views. Notice, Iím not faulting you for your view, which I believe is elitist, Iím merely pointing our why I think it is and the negative aspects of it.
Iím the furthest you can get to an ďelitistĒ. Iím more of a realist. I donít believe if we all held hands and sang cumbuya and everything will get better. I believe we sometimes need a good kick in the ass to effect changes that will be beneficial to all in the long run. Even if those changes hurt us initially.

Quote:
Build mroe refinerie's, and drill in Alaska and gas price's will go down. As long as we rely on hostile goverment's for our oil an refuse to build more refineries gas price's will continue to skyrocket.


aha, now that is a nice solution J.

Great short term solutionÖ.Where would we be in a few years when the oil in the ANWR runs out? Not saying itís not a good idea. Do this in combination with economic encentives to produce more fuel efficient cars while building other sources of power (nuclear, wind, solar). And weíll have this problem licked.

Anyways Iím tired of this thread. Good luck to you all and see ya on the boards.

Zedicus
October 7, 2005, 03:49 AM
High Gas Prices? I may not like them But there are 2 things I have to say about them.

1. It isnt going to stop me buying a Socalled Gas Guzzling Truck. :D
2. Atleast it isnt as High as Gas in the UK is... (Aprox $8 - $8.50 a Gallon) :cool:

Lone_Gunman
October 7, 2005, 08:21 AM
My point is I donít believe every person in a SUV (even in my ďsmall personal frame of referenceĒ) necessary needs a SUV. Do you agree?

My point is I donít believe every person shooting a 50 BMG (even in my ďsmall personal frame of referenceĒ) necessary needs a 50 BMG. Do you agree?

And we donít have a lot of taxes on our gas???

Not compared to other countries.

wingman
October 7, 2005, 09:01 AM
Mass transit for the working folks, get use to it in time only the rich will
have cars.

roo_ster
October 7, 2005, 01:07 PM
My point is I donít believe every person in a SUV (even in my ďsmall personal frame of referenceĒ) necessary needs a SUV. Do you agree?
No.

Likely they need some sort of transportation & a SUV performs that function. It may not be as stylish as your ride or what you would choose, but it is what they decided to buy with their cash.

So...what if it is just one person tooling around in that SUV, day in & day out? Is that somehow "wrong" or "unnecessary" or "not needed" buy the driver? I think not.

If I had the money, I would buy my wife a Ford Excursion to drive around town. See, I like my wife & child a whole lot and desire to give them every advantage I can, to include the advantage of a larger vehicle in case of an auto wreck. The thought that others want to make it even more difficult for me to purchase such does not make me kindly disposed toward them.

Many of the same people who cry 'No blood for oil!' also want higher gas-mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and flimsier cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents -- in other words, trading blood for oil.
----Thomas Sowell

Art Eatman
October 7, 2005, 02:42 PM
SUVs or no SUVs, that's not the point of any of it. The deal is that when the cost of doing some activity becomes intolerably high, people change their views. We're a billfold-driven society.

We don't need any tax on heavy vehicles or gas-hog vehicles. The marketplace HAS ALREADY begun to speak. SUV sales down 27% in May; down by some 50+% in the last two months.

Separately: The reason mass transit works in Europe is that the land area is small and the population is dense, when compared to the US. Mass transit there is profitable. Passenger trains just can't be profitable, here. Even if we had passenger trains that ran full, the miles per passenger woulld be many times that of Europe.

Few of our cities are shaped like Manhattan or San Francisco--long and narrow. A sprawling city, particularly one with rivers and hills, has very long travel times for intra-urban busing to be profitable.

With probably a hundred million people already ensconced in a residence that's a fairly long commute from work, how do you tell them "Move closer to your job!"?

Art

Firethorn
October 7, 2005, 06:49 PM
Now, I know most of the people on this board like their large vehicles. But given the increase in price of gasoline and all the problems with giving money to the middleeast, I'm curious as to how many of you have heard of this system?

Personal Rapid Transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit)

The idea is that you have < 1 mile walk, and this system will take you to the station closest to your destination. It's on demand, non-stop, electric(from line, not battery except in emergencies). It uses a grid system to increase capacity, instead of big cars.

Because it uses electricity straight from the power plant, you'd be able to produce power using any of the 'green' power systems. Nuclear, Solar, Wind, etc... They even argue that it'd be more efficent emmissions wise with coal vs. gasoline vehicles.

Right now, it really makes sense, because with micro-stations, it'd be really hard to get more than a few people if you try to bomb it.

Now, I know that we aren't likely to give up our vehicles, for hunting and trips to the range if nothing else, but if you could get even 10% of the USA to stop burning a gallon of gas a day, it'd make a huge difference.

MechAg94
October 7, 2005, 08:06 PM
If you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, get rid of the the stupid environmental standards and start dilling for oil all over Alaska and off the East and West coasts of the US. And build a few more refineries and nuke plants. That would put a huge dent in oil problems. This is not a demand/supply issue. It is a restricted supply problem. The govts have restricted it.

Chrontius
October 7, 2005, 08:55 PM
Really, are you sure about that? Capacity is simple to build, especially for oil. There is a boatload of oil that has not yet been tapped due to its location/condition. For instance, many places are not being drilled due to the abundance of sand in the formation. Sand control isn't cheap, but once oil prices are high enough to offset the extra cost, people will begin to drill there. They will then come up with better sand control methods, just as they came up with great chemical leaching methods to extend the life of older formations. Once that happens, prices will again drop and the cycle will start over again. Perhaps you can also comment on the theories and evidence that oil may not be a finite resource as once believed. Also, we should discuss the huge untapped resources in the ocean.

Have you ever asked the last question? (http://mit.edu/tylerc/www/twt/LQ1.htm)

Earth only weighs so many tons. Only a small fraction of this can be fossil fuel.

Homo sapiens can only tolerate so much CO2 in the atmosphere before nasty ???? like blood pH changes occur and the electron transport chain stop. There is a mathematical upper bound on the fuels that can be burned before Earth craps out. Granted, we probably won't live to see that, but it depends on how much credibility you give the "functional immortality in 2020" medical field.


Economic issue that can be solved with money. Pay for the right to build it and have lawmakers quash outlandish environmental laws. This will happen make no mistake about it. You simply have to provide the right economic incentives with the proper political method. The only thing that is keeping us from increasing capacity is our own choice to limit ourselves. You will see many bogus environmental laws biting the dust in the future as the nature worshippers, who have many times filled the spiritual void of atheism with an inanimate object, lose their hold on the publics sympathies

Nature-worshippers? Seems to me that if they organized as a religeon, they could actually make an 'equal protection' case to stop oil drilling. Besides, look at the rainforests and such as the life-support system on a starship. You can pull parts from life support to repair malfunctioning warp drives, but does it sound like a good idea to you?

Pebble-bed nukes are a much more sustainable long-term energy source and should be more than enough to tide us over until fusion gets cheap, which should be enough to tide us over until total-conversion gets cheap which should...


My point is I donít believe every person in a SUV (even in my ďsmall personal frame of referenceĒ) necessary needs a SUV. Do you agree?

I didn't. I've since driven a succession of four-bangers (the much-missed '85 VW Jetta being my favorite car of all time)


Mass transit for the working folks, get use to it in time only the rich will

Wingman, you ever watch Equilibrium? Go see it, if only for the 'gun kata' scenes. I think you've got something there. :-p

Deavis
October 7, 2005, 09:05 PM
No, youíre the one making the presumptions. I said the problem I have is with soccer moms driving large sized gas guzzling SUVs. Their choice in buying a SUV is something between them and their wallet.
My point is I donít believe every person in a SUV (even in my ďsmall personal frame of referenceĒ) necessary needs a SUV. Do you agree?

You are making presumptions. You believe that people donít need an SUV because you assume they can use something else in its place. To make it into a presumption you introduce a set of facts to support it. That, is a presumption! It is not an assumption because you are basing your belief on a set of facts that you have hake come up with to justify your assumption. Those facts, as you know them, may or may not be correct depending on your frame of reference.

Is it a fact that you can stick more diet cokes into a station wagon, which has a larger overall internal volume than an SUV? Sure, in most cases larger overall volume would allow you to stack more stuff inside. However, what if the soda cans are too tall to fit in the station wagon since it is shorter and longerÖbut they will fit in the SUV! Now an SUV is a necessity, which proves that you cannot presume that people can use a station wagon over an SUV. Frame of reference!

Yes, I do agree that every person who drives an SUV may not use it for the purpose which you believe it should be used for. However, I do not agree that most people who own an SUV do not need one because I donít have any insight into their reason for owning one.

Youíre reasoning sucks and youíre analogy sucks. Iím not even going to waste my time answering this.

You are exactly right. That analogy does suck and I chose it to be that way. My reasoning was following yours, just using an example that you donít happen to support. Just take the time to realize that your opinion is, at the very basic level, based on the same sort of elitist argument that I highlighted. If you do so, you will see my example was very apt for its purpose, showing that your argument is elitist and short-sighted.

Itís their God given right to drive huge assed cars.

It is their right to drive a big ass car. That is the beauty of what America should be. If you can afford it and it doesnít cause harm to another, then you can do it. If you want to own a 50 caliber rifle, then this is America and you should be able to do so if you arenít a criminal. If we as a society decide that the pollution from the cars presents a public health burden we shouldnít outlaw them, we should tax them to pay for the damage that it causes.

An analogy, smoking bans in bars. They say it is a health issue, but nobody ever talks about regulating the PPM of the cigarette byproducts because the real reason they want to ban cigarettes is that they are elitists who knows better than some dumb smoker. If it was a health issue, like cooking chicken to 185F before serving it, they would introduce air quality standard.

So you want us to be more like Europe and develop more public transportation like underground rail and etc...Where's the money coming from... Last I checked we were in a huge deficit.

I simply made a statement. Nothing more, nothing less. We can talk about that if you want thoughÖ

And we donít have a lot of taxes on our gas???

Compared to Europe, no we do not.

Tell me how my ďblanket statement is incorrect? You're arguing:
more cars = less consumption = less demand. Time for you to go back to Economics 101.

Wrong, it is time for you to do some critical thinking. Here is a simple example that proves my statement can be correct. Notice, I simply said that your equation was not always true and that you were discounting simple first order effects such as human ingenuity

You have 1000 cars on the road today. You introduce a new model of a car that is twice as fuel efficient as the old car. 500 people switch to the new car and sell their old car to the government as part of a rebate system. Letís assume some simple numbers. Original fuel economy is 10mpg, new is 20mpg, the average driver goes 100mi a year. Simple math shows the following

1000 cars * 100 mi/year * 1/10mpg = 10,000 gallons of gasoline consumed in a year

(500 cars * 100mi/year * 1/10mpg) + (500 cars * 100mi/year * 1/20mpg) = 7500 gallons a year.

There is a simple example of how introducing a fuel-efficient car with the proper incentive has reduced overall consumption of gasoline and given the simple constraints I outlined reduced demand. Even if the 500 people with new cars double their driving that year, the overall demand will not go up. Would you care to rephrase your question?

Point in fact. If you are living further away from work because the housing prices next to work cost more. Wouldnít it make more economic sense to buy a fuel economic car as opposed to a gas guzzling SUV? You made my point.

No, I did not prove your point. Look at what I wrote. I said this:

This offset is still incredibly positive, which allows for substantial increases in gas cost that would otherwise be spent on housing in the city and public transport

Notice I said that the offset between housing costs and gas consumption was still very positive. Therefore, many people will choose to use the SUV because they can afford it. They may have reasons, such as they feel safer in an SUV. I didnít say that it made economic sense, human behavior doesnít always make sense, I simply proved that they could afford to drive an SUV and switching to a Hybrid was not necessary for that lifestyle to be sustained in its current state.

Blah blah blah, Iím so greatÖÖ

No, your replies are short-sighted and your viewpoint elitist. You fail to think rationally and make easily assailable points. That is why I have easily shown your points to be faulty. It has nothing to do with me being good or bad, I simply work with what you give me. Here is a prime example:

Oh.....We can just raise more taxes and cut more programs to effect these changes. or better yet, lets have private businesses front he money.Ö.Sure, lets give Exxon Mobile the exclusive rights to ass rape us with years on dependency on ďtheirĒ oil. Think they wonít do it? Who do you think has been having record profits these last few years???

Interesting, please letís talk about allowing private companies to stimulate change. It is an effective and efficient method of bringing about changes. To your last point, do you have any idea about the expenses involved in drilling for oil or are you simply parroting what you read in a newspaper? Those companies take huge risks and make huge capital investments, why shouldnít they reap the benefits of those risks? Is it because you donít think it is fair they are successful?

And you have some pixie dust to come up with all this money to get Grandma Smith and Susie Q homemaker to allow you to drill in their back yards. Sure lets quash these outlandish environmental laws (not saying I donít agree with you on this). But seriously, how are you going to find politicians with balls big enough to go against the Sierra Club and all those tree hugging political juggernauts???? Maybe we could get Hillary to run on the platform. "Two oil rigs in every back yard".

You are being incredibly short-sighted. Cell phone companies pay people to locate towers on their land all the time and just in case you didnít know, people are paid all the time to allow drilling on their property. I helped design the electrical components for a 12 compressor natural gas operation out in the middle of a guys acreage in Texas. His request? We paint them to blend in and not use stadium style floodlights. That man was more than happy to take the money and allow us to pull gas out of the ground.

take away soccer momís right to buy a big stinking SUVĒ

You are correct and I am wrong you said this:

So there is no need for these soccer moms to have a huge car like that. It's a statis symbol and unfortunately everyone here pays for that vanity.

But this is America and it is their choice to buy whatever they chose.

Your premise, however, is still wrong as long as you try to argue from a need-based position. Need should not enter the picture in this country whether it is a gun or a car. The minute you allow that sort of thinking you are forfeiting a part of your freedom. Corny, but true.

Anyways Iím tired of this thread. Good luck to you all and see ya on the boards.

So soon? Come on! Certainly you want to shore up your argument a bit more. If you canít convince us, how are you going to convince the entire US? Iím not being personal, Iím just trying to point out that your argument needs to be refined.

Deavis
October 7, 2005, 09:29 PM
An interesting story, thanks for the link. It is something interesting to ponder but as the last sentence indicates, it isnít of any practical concern for a man alive today. Certainly one day it may be, but today, it isnít and we have no way of predicting our ability to change the world around us in 1 billion years. Really great read though!

Earth only weighs so many tons. Only a small fraction of this can be fossil fuelÖ.

That is true, but who says that oil is actually a fossil fuel? There are some theories out there that say otherwise but that is neither here nor there.

Granted, we probably won't live to see that, but it depends on how much credibility you give the "functional immortality in 2020" medical field.

You are assuming that we wonít switch over to a new energy source if the pollution got so bad that it endangered lives in a measurable way, i.e. blood poisoning. One of my main overtones has been that you cannot predict what will happen in the future with regards to technology. People are just too damn inventive for such limitations. History is littered with people making short-sighted predictions because they underestimate human ingenuity. As long as there is a problem to solve and money to be made doing it, you will drive solutions!

Nature-worshippers?

Yes, that is my new conundrum. Iím trying to understand the zealot like fanaticism of people in the Sierra club that are rabid. The only thing I can come up with is that it is like a spiritual religion to them. Iím trying to figure that one out J

GT
October 7, 2005, 10:00 PM
wow.... lotsa worked up folk.

I'll keep it short and simple.

In order to foil the socialists I make it a point to buy the biggest engine I can, the biggest gun I can and the most polluting car I can.

And there is nothing anyone can do to stop me.
I also don't care to hear any BS opinions by the 40mpg crowd who can't AFFORD a decent car so have to find a Moral High Ground excuse for their embarrassment.

There is no problem with middle east oil the problem is with socialists back here who won't build refineries.

It is my proud avocation to use so much gasoline that they are forced to.

Next on my shopping list.... a Hemi!

Let the folks that live in the EUrinal ride the dang bus.
I am an American.

G

wingman
October 7, 2005, 10:22 PM
[QUOTE]With probably a hundred million people already ensconced in a residence that's a fairly long commute from work, how do you tell them "Move closer to your job!"?Quote:

Art, I agree it would be tough however if we continue on our present path,
increased population, poor education, loss of manufacturing jobs, we will
have mass transit forced down our throats, again that would be for the
working class only.

If you enjoyed reading about "Auto Execs Urge Gas Tax Hike" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!