Gas @ $3 this summer? bleegh.

[alembic5]

2001 Suzuki GSXR1000 in my garage! I've seen as much as 49 MPG, and average around 45. Good fun for a machine that will do 0-60 in 2.7 seconds... 🙂

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Anubis
<--- Laughs at all you SUV owners and your 12 MPG

I doubt someone with a $60k+ Escalade Hummer cares very much..

You'd be surprised.

When I did a month in sales at a Honda dealership last year and when rumors of $2-3/gallon were rampant because of the war, people were coming in with year-old Cherokees, two year-old Suburbans, etc. to look at trading them in on Accords and Civics.

I laughed after they would leave when we told them they were upside down for about $10,000-15,000 on their truck.

Morons.

Personally, I'd love to see it up about $2....$2.50/gallon. People might start driving with some sense and those useless Suburban Assault Vehicles will become pass&eacute; and I'll be able to back out of parking spaces without having to creep out ever so slowly or keep a 1/4 mile between me and the one in front of me so I can see down the road.

 

[beer]

And the general health is indeed a national interest. Medicare and Medicaid were the #1 federal expense of the first quarter of the fiscal year at about 150 billion. Social security was #2, interst on the public debt was #3, and military was #4.

Obviously promoting less pollution is a good thing. While I disagree with some of thet people that equate pollution with global warming, I definitely agree that excessive vehicular traffic produces pollution which raises the medicare/medicaid cost of the government, as well as higher health premiums for everyone else.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: beer
me, get a clue?

Since you seem so opposed to taxes, tell me where the funding should come from then. I'd like to hear EVERYONE THAT IS OPPOSED TO GASOLINE TAXES' OPINION ON WHERE THE FUNDING WILL COME FROM IF IN YOUR IDEALISTIC WORLD, GASONLINE WAS ENTIRELY AT MARKET PRICE.

People who buy gas drive on roads. How is there a better solution?

I really get the feeling some of you have the thought process as complex as a gopher.

Yes, get a clue.

First, I'm not entirely opposed to gasoline taxes. Roads must be paid for. I'm all for that. As fuel economy tends to be related to vehicle weight, and fuel consumption tends to be related to road use, I might that funding roads through gas taxes is an entirely equitable system.

However, you did not mention gas taxes for roads in your original post, so for you to switch to that platform now is total bullsh!t on your part. What you did in fact mention was drastically increasing gas taxes to increase funding on unpopular and unprofitable public transportation and to artificially subsidize the price of diesel. That platform does not in any way compare to using gas taxes to fund public roads and highways.

In fact, let's analyze your post again:

am all for it. I would prefer to see gas(NOT DIESEL) fixed at about $3/gallon with the excess taxes doing something decent, like funding more public transportation and subsidizing the diesel fuel fluctuations to a price of about $1.35 a gallon.

The gasoline in this country is kept at an articial low and as such people buy vehicles without any regards to fuel economy. Even as engines become more and more efficient the average MPG of all cars on the road is falling.

Nope, no mention of gas taxes to fund roads.
Yep, mention of a FIXED (i.e. non-market based, artificial price) price of $3/gallon, with excess taxes going to "something decent" (once again, no mention of road funding, and "something decent" could be just about anything).
Yep, mention of subsidizing diesel.
Yep, mention of "artificial" gas prices while proposing that they be made even more artificial.


I really get the feeling that you have the thought process of a self-justifying liar.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: beer
Amused -

As much as you seem to advocate free markets, you seem to lack the understandinf of a fundamental concept. It's like farm subsidies. Everyone wants what is in their own best interest, so people would produce as much as they can. But in the end that drives prices down for farily obvious reasons.

The same idea can apply to this 'pollution free' engine you speak of. People have no individual incentive to purchase low emission vehicles, like a Prius. Everyone says 'let someone else do it.' The cost of gasoline is too low for them to purchase a Prius over a normal, fully-combustion car. But it serves a government interest to have peope purchase hybrids, much the same way it serves a government interest to have farm subsidies. The farm subsidies better a qualty of life for all, and incentives on hybrids would do the same.

However, I forsee an argument from you saying, 'The US won't do it, it's anti-capitalist!" But so are farm subsidies! And yet we spend billion each year on farm subsidies.

And incentives for farmers, and incentives for commuters in this example are basically identical, although very different.

More elitist bullsh!t.

If low emmissions engines could compete in price and power with high emissions engines, they would sell. People would be rushing out to buy them. THAT is the incentive. Altruism is NOT an incentive. Never has been, never will be. Get used to it. But you can't get used to it, so you want to FORCE people to by an engine that cannot compete with current technology by raising taxes on fuel. What you fail to realize is that by doing so, you will crash the economy within months, if not weeks. Artificial price hikes ALWAYS damage an economy. Drastically raising the price on such a basic item used by all sectors of the economy will have a rapid and dramatic effect.

Farm Subsidies should be stopped. If they cannot compete, they should sell out and find something else to do.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: beer
And the general health is indeed a national interest. Medicare and Medicaid were the #1 federal expense of the first quarter of the fiscal year at about 150 billion. Social security was #2, interst on the public debt was #3, and military was #4.

Another reason why socialism is anathema to personal freedom.

Obviously promoting less pollution is a good thing. While I disagree with some of thet people that equate pollution with global warming, I definitely agree that excessive vehicular traffic produces pollution which raises the medicare/medicaid cost of the government, as well as higher health premiums for everyone else.

Again, promoting less polution must come from alternative engines and fuels that can compete with existing technology.

 

[GoingUp]

Its ungodly expensive in europe... funny how when I lived there I paid $5 a gallon.... now back here I gripe about payin $1.60

Well my parents sold my camry and gave me their old explorer.... a lot nicer car but gets half the gas mileage 🙁

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: beer
Amused -

As much as you seem to advocate free markets, you seem to lack the understandinf of a fundamental concept. It's like farm subsidies. Everyone wants what is in their own best interest, so people would produce as much as they can. But in the end that drives prices down for farily obvious reasons.

The same idea can apply to this 'pollution free' engine you speak of. People have no individual incentive to purchase low emission vehicles, like a Prius. Everyone says 'let someone else do it.' The cost of gasoline is too low for them to purchase a Prius over a normal, fully-combustion car. But it serves a government interest to have peope purchase hybrids, much the same way it serves a government interest to have farm subsidies. The farm subsidies better a qualty of life for all, and incentives on hybrids would do the same.

However, I forsee an argument from you saying, 'The US won't do it, it's anti-capitalist!" But so are farm subsidies! And yet we spend billion each year on farm subsidies.

And incentives for farmers, and incentives for commuters in this example are basically identical, although very different.

More elitist bullsh!t.

If low emmissions engines could compete in price and power with high emissions engines, they would sell. People would be rushing out to buy them. THAT is the incentive. Altruism is NOT an incentive. Never has been, never will be. Get used to it. But you can't get used to it, so you want to FORCE people to by an engine that cannot compete with current technology by raising taxes on fuel. What you fail to realize is that by doing so, you will crash the economy within months, if not weeks. Artificial price hikes ALWAYS damage an economy. Drastically raising the price on such a basic item used by all sectors of the economy will have a rapid and dramatic effect.

Farm Subsidies should be stopped. If they cannot compete, they should sell out and find something else to do.

But the point is, farm subsidies aren't being stopped. They aren't being stopped since if they were stopped, each farmer would produce more and a significant part of the US agriculture business would be affected. Forcing our agriculture companies to compete with the world would drive them into bankruptcy and more jobs would be lost.

It serves a national interest to have farm subsidies. It would serve a national interest to incentivize (word?) hybrid purchases. You'll stll be paying the costs of pollution somehow, but instead of saving money by driving a pollution nightmare, you're spending it paying for some indigent to have surgery. What's the difference? You still pay for it regardless.

 

[beer]

it doesn't matter about personal freedoms. The point is that government is paying for Medicare and regardless, you, the taxpayer, have to pay for it. I have no doubt that lowering pollution generation would lower medicare costs in the long run. That is my point.

Public health is a national concern. You seem to think it isn't. Everybody pays for it in some ways. Your idealistic world doesn't exist and never will.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Amused
Farm Subsidies should be stopped. If they cannot compete, they should sell out and find something else to do.

well farm subsidies were indented to help the small/family owned farmer compete with huge corporations that now control most farms.

It didn't work. the companies got around the it and now get subsidies for the farms also (which they don't need). I have owned a farm for the last 7 years. there are very few successful family farms anymore. they just cant compete with these huge corporations that are around.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: beer
it doesn't matter about personal freedoms. The point is that government is paying for Medicare and regardless, you, the taxpayer, have to pay for it. I have no doubt that lowering pollution generation would lower medicare costs in the long run. That is my point.

Public health is a national concern. You seem to think it isn't. Everybody pays for it in some ways. Your idealistic world doesn't exist and never will.

You have just proved every negative that I have ever said about socialism and more.

Is America the Land of the Free? Not if the socialists have their way (they even admit it), because they're gonna do what they think is best for us whether we fscking like it or not, and either way we all have to pay for it.

That is the very definition of tyranny.

 

[Chaotic42]

Haven't they said this every year for the last 5 or so?
Every year it goes up a little.
<X-Files>
Maybe they're faking us out so they can raise the price a little, make us happy it isn't $3/gal, and make more money!
</X-Files>

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
Farm Subsidies should be stopped. If they cannot compete, they should sell out and find something else to do.

well farm subsidies were indented to help the small/family owned farmer compete with huge corporations that now control most farms.

It didn't work. the companies got around the it and now get subsidies for the farms also (which they don't need). I have owned a farm for the last 7 years. there are very few successful family farms anymore. they just cant compete with these huge corporations that are around.

The ideas of 'national interest' seem to be over the head of amused. In his world, everyone would consume as much as they could afford, drive wherever they could in whtever they want, and free market policies would dictate anything and everything that happens in the world, and if you were unemployed or didn't purchase health insurance and got shot, you would die because no one would help you since you couldn't pay it off. The hopsital would never help you because everything is capitalist, and if you couldn't pay then that was that.

That is basically what Amused is saying, although to an extreme. The point is that consumption cannot and pollution cannot be continued at this rate, because free markets care only about this exact moment in time, and not the future.

If we lived in Amused's world, everyone would purchase the cars we have now until the exact day we ran out of fossil fuels. No one would have the incentive to purchase anything other than a regular internal combustion engine, since it will always be the cheapest, and things like pollution don't matter in free markets. No one would research fuel cells because no one would purchase them.

So, in other words, we'd be fuckd.

 

[beer]

Vic -

The problem with all your posts is explained in my prior post. Obviously you know free markets well, so it should be no surprise to you that in a truly free market, no one cares about pollution or the future. No one would fund fuel cells beccause until the day we run out of fossil fuels, the research will be unprofitable. Gasoline engines will always be cheaper than fuel cells, and that means that gasoline engines would be used as long as possible. Unfortunately, developing better fuel cells would require people purchase the earlier generation ones, which they would never do because of the cost gap.

The point is that pollution and the future years are vital national interets. Thats why we have some socialist tendencies, like Medicare. The fact of the matter that is, if you've ever lived in an urban area, you know how bad pollution is and you would be a fool to argue that it wasn't a national problem.

And one ever claimed America was the land of the free. Since George Bush is appearantly your idol, seeing how conservative you appear on this board, doesn't John Asscroft prove in one fell swoop that America has become substantially less free in the last 3 years?

 

[DXM]

The media's been proclaiming gas prices to reach $3/gallon every summer for the last 2 years, so hopefully they're just as wrong this year as they've been the last two. 😀 But seriously, gas prices increasing is an unavoidable reality. Oil are estimated to increase in price about 200% per barrel over the next 20 years due to the industrialization of Asia and Latin America.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: beer
Vic -

The problem with all your posts is explained in my prior post. Obviously you know free markets well, so it should be no surprise to you that in a truly free market, no one cares about pollution or the future. No one would fund fuel cells beccause until the day we run out of fossil fuels, the research will be unprofitable. Gasoline engines will always be cheaper than fuel cells, and that means that gasoline engines would be used as long as possible. Unfortunately, developing better fuel cells would require people purchase the earlier generation ones, which they would never do because of the cost gap.

The point is that pollution and the future years are vital national interets. Thats why we have some socialist tendencies, like Medicare. The fact of the matter that is, if you've ever lived in an urban area, you know how bad pollution is and you would be a fool to argue that it wasn't a national problem.

And one ever claimed America was the land of the free. Since George Bush is appearantly your idol, seeing how conservative you appear on this board, doesn't John Asscroft prove in one fell swoop that America has become substantially less free in the last 3 years?

Sigh... amazing the assumptions that some people will make.
For one thing, I think GWB is the goddamned antichrist. I hate him for the same reasons I hate socialists. Both have idiotic policies based on unreasonble fears that they use in an attempt to steal freedoms from the unsuspecting American public.

In a truly free market, private interests will do whatever is profitable. Sometimes, like with hybrids, research and development goes through because the product will in fact be both beneficial and profitable. Other times, like with fuel cells, the research and development doesn't go through because all the benefit is based off the idiocy of parrotting socialists who think the basic laws of the universe (in the case of fuel cells, the law of conservation of energy, or where does the hydrogen come from?) can be broken to satisfy your own whims.
Because, in the case of fuel cells, it will cost far more in energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water than can ever be gotten back by combining them back together in the fuel cell process to recreate the water, fuel cells will not only be unprofitable, but an environmental disaster. But then again, I bet you though electic cars would be great too, right? Maybe we could just make all the electricity that would have been needed out of nowhere?

But then again, it now appears obvious that you think that diesel is less harmful, from a pollution standpoint, than gasoline, and for that you get

* infinity +1. Never heard of hydrocarbon particulates?

Gasoline engines are still used because they are the best we have so far, whether you can accept that or not. Were the promising alternatives to actually work better, private industry would already have implemented them in the name of competition and profit, just like how companies that make technology products always want to be the first to market with something new.

As for your other various rants, they're nothing more but that and whining. Pay your own way through life.


edit: and if you don't like all that, then either (1) stop driving and stop riding in any IC engine-powered vehicle, and/or (2) make your own and better engine. Either way, quit whining and trying to force people to do your bidding.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Ranger X

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i thought some places in CA last year hit around $2.50 ? $3 isn't that much higher

$3 everywhere else meanns $4-$4.50 in Cali

I highly doubt gas prices will rise that high in California. Last year gas prices hit near $2.50 for premium and to say it'll be almost $2 more expensive than last year is just ridiculous.

On average it is 60 to 90 cent higher per gallon than Arizona. Why would this change in a gas shortage?

 

[beer]

I didn't say diesel was less harmful. I said that it served a national interest. The entire logistics industry relies on diesel, and when the price of diesel fluctuates, it affects the price of goods in every store in the country. So either taxpayers pay to fix the price of diesel at a reasonable range, or the consumers are subject to varying costs of living. The MPG example merely shows that in any case, diesel is most cost-efficient than gaslone from an operational standpoint, but was not my main point.

Your electric car example is good. I always thought they were stupid for that same reason. But nonetheless, watt for watt even the dirtiest powerplants are much more efficient than cars (at least the ones that are in operation today)

I have more reply to add to this, but I have to catch my train home

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Amused
Farm Subsidies should be stopped. If they cannot compete, they should sell out and find something else to do.

well farm subsidies were indented to help the small/family owned farmer compete with huge corporations that now control most farms.

It didn't work. the companies got around the it and now get subsidies for the farms also (which they don't need). I have owned a farm for the last 7 years. there are very few successful family farms anymore. they just cant compete with these huge corporations that are around.

The ideas of 'national interest' seem to be over the head of amused. In his world, everyone would consume as much as they could afford, drive wherever they could in whtever they want, and free market policies would dictate anything and everything that happens in the world, and if you were unemployed or didn't purchase health insurance and got shot, you would die because no one would help you since you couldn't pay it off. The hopsital would never help you because everything is capitalist, and if you couldn't pay then that was that.

That is basically what Amused is saying, although to an extreme. The point is that consumption cannot and pollution cannot be continued at this rate, because free markets care only about this exact moment in time, and not the future.

If we lived in Amused's world, everyone would purchase the cars we have now until the exact day we ran out of fossil fuels. No one would have the incentive to purchase anything other than a regular internal combustion engine, since it will always be the cheapest, and things like pollution don't matter in free markets. No one would research fuel cells because no one would purchase them.

So, in other words, we'd be fuckd.

Tell, me, Beer. Where are the stories of people dying in the streets before LBJ's "Great Society?"

OOPS!!!

Maybe you should take a bit of history before telling me that the lack of socialist programs will kill people. Charity MORE than made up for Welfare, Medicare and Medicade for decades before they were introduced in the late 60s. All these programs have created is a sense of entitlement and perpetual, generational poverty.

And guess what? Medical care was FAR cheaper BEFORE Medicare and Medicade. Charities were willing, ready and able to cover the medical costs for essential services for the poor. NO ONE was starving in the streets or dying from lack of emergency or basic medical care.

In fact, the "Great Society" socialist plan has failed to meet a single one of it's goals. So much for socialist ideology.

Finally, new technologies take off EVERY DAY in the US, Beer. If and when a COMPETITIVE engine technology is found, it WILL sell. The problem is, you want to force people to buy into a FLAWED technology that not only costs twice as much up front, but requires thousands of dollars in new batteries every few years. Why the fsck would people buy into something so flawed? They don't because it cannot compete.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: beer

People who buy gas drive on roads. How is there a better solution?

You're ignoring ATVs, dirt-bikes, I'm sure some more off-road devices I'm not thinking of at the moment, and lawn mowers.

There are lots of ways to burn gasoline and never touch a paved road.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused
In fact, the "Great Society" socialist plan has failed to meet a single one of it's goals. So much for socialist ideology.

Yep.

But what is the solution that socialists always have when socialism always fails?














More socialism!!!

:disgust::frown:

"When all else fails, we'll whip the horse's eyes!"



And fuel cells, as I already mentioned, are just as flawed as electric cars and for the same reason. Forcing them on the public, especially in the name of "national interest", would actually be disastrous to the national interest. Pollution would merely be moved from one area to another, and at enormous cost.
Hybrids, which have been developed in the private sector, are the next big step, will truly work, and show amazing promise.
So much for the idea that government knows better than the private sector or that free markets don't work.