PDA

View Full Version : I certainly don`t want to stick up for Slick Willy.....


BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 09:56 AM
I recall this time last year conservatives and Bushies were saying how all these high gas prices were Willys fault. I did not like Bush last year. Well, I`ve seen the light, he seems to be a good prez. He`s not gonna do squat about these problems. I am certainly not gonna blame it on him. I think its out of the prez hands.

ck_IN
05-14-2001, 10:07 AM
As is the case with much of the economy, the president is largely reduced to the role of cheerleader. The gas prices weren't totally the Slickster's fault, but his total lack of an energy policy didn't help. Today's prices are in part due to that negligence.

I do wish Bush would act more quickly on the current problem. Rolling back the Clinton gax tax; $.05/gal, would be a good start. At least Bush is putting together an energy policy. We'll have to wait and see if it works.

oleman47
05-14-2001, 10:18 AM
There was no energy crisis under Clinton, and he took care of rising crude rather quickly. I think when Bush's favorables drop under 40% the crisis will be over.

ck_IN
05-14-2001, 10:27 AM
<qoute>There was no energy crisis under Clinton, and he took care of rising crude rather quickly</quote>

What planet are you on? My gas prices last year were almost as high as this year. Clinton's 'fix' was to release ~2mill barrels of oil from the strategic reserve. The only problem is that we use ~9mill barrels of oil a day. So that 'fix' lasted a grand total of 4.5 hours.

The only reason our energy problem wasn't worse last year is that the market solved itself. The Slickster, as is typical, had nothing to do with it.

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 10:29 AM
Energy Crisis?! Convenient term. I prefer to call it being bent over a barrel.

DaWolf
05-14-2001, 10:31 AM
I did find it funny to hear Bush say the other day that his tax cuts are coming at the right time so that people can afford to pay higher energy prices. LOL...

Clint in Wichita
05-14-2001, 10:37 AM
CK,

I don't know where you live, but here the gas about 40-50 cents per gallon higher than it was last year at this time. Every time I get gas now, I break my own personal record for the most I've ever paid for a gallon of gas.

I do agree that this whole "crisis" is a hoax. If it isn't, then why are oil companies raking in record profits?

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 10:38 AM
I do recall that there was a 1mil. barrel per day decrease
back in Feb. Who was to blame for that?

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 10:42 AM
Dawolf - What the hell was he talking about?! I guess hes planning on cutting us a check this summer.

mlyonsd
05-14-2001, 10:55 AM
IMHO the only people to blame are the consumers themselves.

People flocking to car dealers during the stock market rise to buy SUV's that get 11 mpg. Demand has been on the rise while supplies have not matched the increase.

So the price goes up and everybody wants the gas tax cut. Most of that money goes towards road infrastructure. Next John Q. Public starts crying because of pot holes.

The public should be screaming for energy alternatives to eliminate our need for oil. We can put a man on the moon, build a space station, but can't come up with another source of fuel? Get real.

oleman47
05-14-2001, 10:59 AM
Did you notice how happy Bush was announcing his tax cuts would go to the oil industry? Ever notice how Bush redefines words. Compassion is abolishing the inheritance tax, energy policy is perks and takings.

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 11:00 AM
mlyonsd - Excellent point. I frown every time I see a Lincoln Navagator or Ford Expedition.

oleman47
05-14-2001, 11:02 AM
You will not see a drive for alternate energy supplies or use, some words maybe. This is going to be big gov't subsidization of their friends.

htismaqe
05-14-2001, 11:07 AM
At least Bush will be subsidizing legitimate American companies, rather than Chinese nationals, criminals, and communist sympathizers...

oleman47
05-14-2001, 11:14 AM
Look, it is screwing everyone else, except a very small group of people and businesses. That is the energy policy. You pay them not to screw you.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
05-14-2001, 11:17 AM
<b>(Not speaking to anyone specifically here, just an opposing point of view)</b>

If I choose to or not to drive an SUV, why should the rest of you care?

If I'm willing to pay the money to purchase an SUV, purchase the gas to fuel said SUV, and pay the insurance on an SUV, why should the guy driving the micro-sedan care? After all, didn't you make the same deliberate choice to purchase a small car?

If I'd rather pay for the gas to enjoy a vehicle I want to own, who are you (the corporate you, not anyone specifically here) to tell me I can't? It's my money to choose to spend anyway I wish. After all, I earned it.

<b>(Now, if said SUV-driver is grousing about the cost of fuel, I have no sympathy for him either. ;))</b>

I guess I'm not well enough versed in the rhetoric here.

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 11:24 AM
Misplaced - what is you SUV?(make-model) some are fuel effecient.

oleman47
05-14-2001, 11:35 AM
Misplaced
The use of SUV's does impact others indirectly and directly. Directly in a collison with a smaller car, and indirectly as an excuse for the oil barons to fleece us and for Bush to give them many perks and our tax cuts.

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 11:35 AM
FWIW - I drive an Olds98 Regency. Not a compact car by any means. It does get pretty good gas mileage.

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
05-14-2001, 11:36 AM
KChiefs30,

Why does it matter? If I choose to drive a Lincoln Town Car, and want to spend that kind of money for gas, what gives anyone else the right to grouse about how I spend my money as long as it's legal?

My point was I thought people on this board were all about personal responsibility? If so, then as long as I am willing to spend my money on a gas guzzler, what's the beef? Now, if I was seeking a federal subsidy so I could pay for my gas guzzler, you'd have a legitimate beef in my eyes, but if it's my paycheck and my car, why should I care what anyone else thinks, and why should you (the corporate you again) care what I drive?

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
05-14-2001, 11:43 AM
Oldman,

I knew <b>YOU</b> would be the first to bring up the SUV/Small car collision rabbit. It's an old dodge that my students used to do, try to distract the instructor by getting him off subject

That comment has nothing to do with the discussion about gasoline and everything to do with obfuscation.

Besides, if you drive a small car, which is more prone to be damaged in an accident, then it's a choice that you made for yourself. My first car was a '67 Chrysler Newport, purchased because my dad wanted to ensure that if I did get into an accident, I'd survive (damn thing was a tank).

Again, my point was about personal choice.

But thanks for attempting to chase that particular rabbit.

alanm
05-14-2001, 11:45 AM
We are not experiencing a oil shortage. There's plenty of oil. We have a shortage of the 9 variations of mandated refined gasoline to appease the air quality czars. That said there hasn't been a new refinery built in the last 20 years. Who's fault is that?

KCTitus
05-14-2001, 11:49 AM
I've been reading a lot of pissing and moaning about the 'oil companies' getting rich.

Good for them...if you dont like it, you can allways ride your bike to work. LOL!

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 12:32 PM
That wasn`t funny.

DaWolf
05-14-2001, 12:32 PM
True enough. I suppose all TV networks should collaborate and make TV pay per view to up their profits, and I suppose all burger joints should collaborate and raise the price of hamburgers to $20. I could always eat more salad and watch less TV...

KCTitus
05-14-2001, 01:01 PM
There is PPV TV, Do you pay for it? Why? Ever watched a boxing match that lasted 80 seconds? Why?

Gas prices suck, dont get me wrong, but there is no conspiracy, there is a supply problem and now that summer is here, most large cities have to use a new blend of gas that is 'environmentally' friendly and many of the refineries dont make this type of gas.

I hate paying the high price, but need/want to buy the stuff, so I gotta pay the price.

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 01:07 PM
Titus - I live in a small town, why am I paying 1.80?

I have difficulty believing no conspiracy.

What makes you believe that?

Baby Lee
05-14-2001, 01:07 PM
and he took care of rising crude rather quickly.
I though taking care of things that were rising and crude was Monica's job. :) :)

BTW - MI, when you purchased the '67 Chrysler Newport, was it new??

JC-Johnny
checking for geezer status - :)


PS - on the issue of all pay-per-view. Don't be surprised. As advertising becomes more and more irrelevant [TiVo, VCRs, etc.], and as the digital age makes copies capable of higher and higher fidelity, content providers are looking to technologies to ensure 'watch-once' status and transform TV watching into a 'pay-as-you-go' medium.

mlyonsd
05-14-2001, 01:13 PM
I agree with Gregg.

What you have is supply and demand economics. Demand goes up and supply doesn't price goes up.

Cut the demand or increase the supply if you don't want to pay high prices.

Conspiracy? No, I think the oil companies are getting rich by design.

BigMeatballDave
05-14-2001, 01:13 PM
I have seen a 50 cent increase over the last 4-5 months.

KCTitus
05-14-2001, 01:20 PM
Because I dont believe large companies are that smart and it doesnt make sense to withhold supply in an effort to drive up prices.

If company A were able to get 1.60/Gallon for its product which included double the amount of profit as before, wouldnt company A want to get as much gas out there at that price as quickly as possible? Definately, since demand is so strong, the profits are there and will remain there, so withholding gas to 'drive prices higher' only hurts company A, because company B will go ahead and put out its product at that price.

Also, as with the tobacco company, if there were a 'conspiracy' Im sure someone would blow the whistle.

KCTitus
05-14-2001, 01:24 PM
and in the last 4-5 months you have gone from winter to summer.

Every year gas prices go up in summer. Last year price went up considerably and gas was over 2 bucks/gallon in the midwest where the new forumlated gas was in short supply.

Clint in Wichita
05-14-2001, 01:36 PM
If there was a supply problem, there would be no record profits.

Mobil/Exxon recorded more profit in the first quarter of this year than ANY company...EVER!

Seems like that would be hard to do with a shortage of product.

KCTitus
05-14-2001, 01:42 PM
Sure there would...If suppy is low and demand is high, you're going to charge a higher price for the product.

pure supply/demand.

If supplies were plentiful, then other companies would charge less for the same product thus forcing Exxon to cut prices/profits.

Baby Lee
05-14-2001, 01:53 PM
Mobil/Exxon recorded more profit in the first quarter of this year than ANY company...EVER!

Seems like that would be hard to do with a shortage of product.

Ever try to buy a beanie baby?

yoswif
05-14-2001, 02:16 PM
As long as we have one party socialist government combined with a corporate owned socialist press, large corporations will make record profits where the policies of the one party socialist government has destroyed the free market with socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies. If you don't like the results of one party socialist government, including corporate welfare socialism, price fixing scams, shortages, and record corporate profits, don't support one party socialist government.

Does any one think these large corporations would be giving all that money to the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party if they wanted to compete in a free market instead of being protected from competition by socialist tax and regulatory policies and socialist judicial activism policies?

If large corporations really wanted free markets to compete in, wouldn't they be giving all that money to the Libertarian Party, instead of the Republicrat (Demopublican)/Socialist Party?

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
05-14-2001, 02:56 PM
JC-Johnny

I got the "Tan Tank" in 1976, right after I got my license. It was about 9-10 years old then. 8 mpg/city//12 mpg/highway. Course, when gas was 0.35 a gallon, who cared. Once it jumped over 0.50, I knew it was time to get something a tad more economical, like a '71 Impala. (351, V8, etc... I think that one almost got 18 mpg/highway) ;)

philfree
05-14-2001, 05:31 PM
Going all the way back to post #10. There was an alternative to petroleum. When Henry Ford built his first prototype automobile. He designed it to run on fuel produced on Hemp Seed Oil as well as gasoline. That Ol' Henry was a pretty smart fella! The petroleum Industry saw this as compitition and used people who smoked what they renamed "Marijuana" as a tool to make Hemp illegal. It worked and now we are a society controlled by the Petroleum Industry. And it wasn't just about gasoline but the textile industry as a whole. PLASTIC!

PhilFree

DanT
05-14-2001, 06:41 PM
One of the more obvious reasons why anyone using busy roads might care about the proliferation of SUVs is that they seem to take up so much more "bandwidth" than the other passenger cars. The vehicles following behind them seem to give them quite a bit more clearance than they do shorter vehicles. Go take a gander at your nearest expressway and compare how much "inter-vehicle space" is taken up by SUVs compared to the passenger cars, where "inter-vehicle space" is defined as the space between the rear bumper of the lead car and the front bumper of the following car.

I think users should be taxed proportionate to demand, and I doubt that SUVs are being taxed proportionate to the demand they put on busy roads, given that a 20 mpg sedan doesn't seem to me to take up near as much bandwidth ("lanelength") as a 20 mpg SUV, even though both are paying the same amount in fuel tax.

BTW, vehicle spacing seems to be a busy area of research, especially by folks trying to design intelligent highway systems in which the control of vehicles will be automated. There are fuel-efficiency advantages in maintaining a steady traffic flow and also in setting up spacing that will let vehicles take advantage of "drafting". It would be interesting to see what the highways are like in 20 years!

Another way to save fuel by better engineering is to optimize traffic lights to reduce the amount of stops and starts that urban drivers have to make per trip. Chicago is inexcusably ridiculous in this regard, as my California-born sweetheart would often point out!

Raiderhader
05-14-2001, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by kchiefs30
I do recall that there was a 1mil. barrel per day decrease
back in Feb. Who was to blame for that?


OPEC is to blame. Thank you Slick for making us more dependant on OPEC and Saddam. What a stroke of genuis that was. :rolleyes:

kcfanintitanhell
05-14-2001, 09:35 PM
philfree-Just a quick word on the hemp subject-I read today that North Dakota just legalized the wholesale growing of hemp in the state for every commercial purpose-including fuel oil. maybe the tide is turning. It should bear watching what tricks big oil tries to use in a state that now allows hemp growing. They have had the advantage of disseminating misinformation because, being that it was illegal to cultivate, there was no refuting their claims. A state the size of North Dakota could provide almost 15% of this country's energy needs, were the entire agricultural area be converted to hemp growing. I doubt if every farmer in the state will jump immediately on the bandwagon, but it's a great start.

philfree
05-14-2001, 11:30 PM
KCfaninhell,
What if the feds let farmers grow hemp on part of there properties instead of paying them a subsidy to grow nothing? Probably create an economic boom. Farmers make more money, more workers are needed to process the hemp into various products and trucks and drivers are needed to ship the hemp products to wholesalers who inturn sell it and then have it shipped to the retailers who sell the products to the public. Of course that wouldn't make for good subject matter for movies. I mean the war on drugs provides all kinds of subject matter for that!

PhilFree

BigMeatballDave
05-15-2001, 01:54 AM
I remember a fuel called "Gasohol" in the late 70's.
I don`t remember much, I was just a kid. It was just Ethanol, wasn`t it?(Moonshine) What ever happened to it?

kcfanintitanhell
05-15-2001, 06:26 PM
philfree-
Yea, I can almost see the movie trailer now- "HEMP!"-starring Keanu Reeves and Jodie Foster as a struggling North Dakota farm family trying to make ends meet on their 1000-acre wheatfields, paying outrageous fuel prices for their tractors and combines, convert to hemp cultivation and find themselves in a shooting war with an oil czar (played by Robert Downey Jr).

But here's something to ponder- bureaucracies are notorious for adhering to the phrase "this is way it's always been done so let's make it the way it's being done always." What if the first autos made actually could only run on hemp oil? Would we now have Hempcon, British Hemp, Standard Hemp (you get the point) calling the shots (not to mention OHEC-it grows pretty well anywhere), and there would probably be grassroots rumbling about something called petroleum,which we could drill out of the ground and would be much cheaper, but........

Brock
05-15-2001, 07:57 PM
God knows North Dakota needs something to do.

Zebedee DuBois
05-15-2001, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by kcfanintitanhell
Would we now have Hempcon, British Hemp, Standard Hemp (you get the point) calling the shots (not to mention OHEC-it grows pretty well anywhere),


OHEC LOL :D
that's is too funny, titanhell! Good one!

Multi1
05-16-2001, 12:00 PM
GREED is what the gas prices are all about.

The only thing!!!