Gas Prices
lancej...@gmail.com
everyones' mind because we all depend on it. Gas prices just keep on
going up. Is there anything that can be done about it. Will the
government ever step in and do something? Gas is at about $3.50 where
I live and it's startin to hurt. I know that there has got to be a
solution to this problem. A few things to do are: 1. Try to drive
less. 2. Think about purchasing a hybrid vehicle. 3. Try to carpool
whenever possible. I have a blog on this subject, and there is some
good information on there. If you are interested, I recommend taking
a look. http://beatfueldependance.blogspot.com/.
I think if we come together in a concerted effort to fight this
problem, we can figure it out, and save all of us from going to the
poor house.
Dave
lancej...@gmail.com wrote:
> I just wanted to throw this topic out there. I know it's on
> everyones' mind because we all depend on it. Gas prices just keep on
> going up. Is there anything that can be done about it. Will the
> government ever step in and do something?
What would you expect the government to do about a finite resource that took millions of years to make?
> Gas is at about $3.50 where
> I live and it's startin to hurt. I know that there has got to be a
> solution to this problem. A few things to do are: 1. Try to drive
> less.
Great idea. But unless you quit your job, it's not a real practical solution for most folks. But then, quitting your job isn't real practical, either. :)
> 2. Think about purchasing a hybrid vehicle.
If gas was $7/gallon, it would still take many years for that investment to pay for itself. Hybrids are not that much more fuel-efficient than regular automobiles.
> 3. Try to carpool
> whenever possible.
OK for most folks, that would be never, as far as "whenever possible" goes. If you are single and your roommate happens to work the exact same hours in the exact same building that you do, maybe. Other than that, just not a practical suggestion.
> I have a blog on this subject, and there is some
> good information on there.
It would have to be better than the non-solutions you posted publicly to usenet, or why bother? -Dave
Rod Speed
> I just wanted to throw this topic out there.
Well you cant.
> I know it's on everyones' mind because we all depend on it.
Not everyone does.
> Gas prices just keep on going up. Is there anything that can be done about it.
There is nothing that can be done about it except pay the higher prices.
> Will the government ever step in and do something?
There is nothing that any govt can do about the increasing cost of crude oil.
> Gas is at about $3.50 where I live and it's startin to hurt.
Then you should have got a clue and got a fuel efficient vehicle
and not waste your time travelling long distances every day.
> I know that there has got to be a solution to this problem.
Nope, there isnt.
> A few things to do are: 1. Try to drive less.
Those of us with a clue have been doing that for a long time now.
> 2. Think about purchasing a hybrid vehicle.
No thanks, the best non hybrid vehicles get better mileage than they do.
> 3. Try to carpool whenever possible.
No thanks.
> I have a blog on this subject, and there is some good information on there.
Nope, not a shred.
> If you are interested, I recommend taking a look.
> http://beatfueldependance.blogspot.com/.
Nothing there about beating fuel dependance.
> I think if we come together in a concerted effort
> to fight this problem, we can figure it out,
Plenty of us had it figured out decades ago.
And we didnt need to 'come together' to do that.
> and save all of us from going to the poor house.
Only the fools will ever end up there.
Seerialmom
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
>
I second all your comments, Dave.
William Souden
The Henchman
<lancej...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2118a003-e5f2-4b90...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think if we come together in a concerted effort to fight this
> problem, we can figure it out, and save all of us from going to the
> poor house.
I don't seem to have problems with high gas prices. It was too cheap for
too long. Too bad you didn;t have more foresight.
My only concern about higher gas prices is stock market effect, and the Dow
got back into 13 000+ territory today and the TSX has been hovering around
14 000+. Since things are humming along fine there is no need to worry
about gas prices then.
Everyone knew gas prices were going to go up. Too bad you didn't prepare
for it.
Jeff
> On May 1, 5:57 am, Dave <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> lancejnel...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I just wanted to throw this topic out there. I know it's on
>>> everyones' mind because we all depend on it. Gas prices just keep on
>>> going up. Is there anything that can be done about it. Will the
>>> government ever step in and do something?
>> What would you expect the government to do about a finite resource that took millions of years to make?
>>
There is no oil shortage at present. Oil prices are up for several reason.
A vastly devalued dollar that is still falling.
A large about of uncertainty and fear in the market.
A futures market that is out of control.
Each of those adds about $20 to the price of a barrel.
Our government created or contributed to each of those problems. None
of those will be addressed under the current president.
As far as the future when peak oil arrives, there is no real plan to
deal with that either.
As far as what we can do, I'd suggest planning your trips more
carefully. Don't let your car idle for long periods. Get a better
mileage or second vehicle if you have a real gas hog.
Bill
THE U.S...
Yet the price of this crude oil is dictated by foreign countries.
I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
Write your elected representatives...
(Ask those running for office if they represent "We the people" or big oil
corporations.)
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
max
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So, what you're saying is... American producers shouldn't get the best
price for their product and should be forced to pay a price set by the
government? How Hugo Chavez of you.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
Patrick Karl
And if they're truthful, the answer will be: big oil corporations.
I suspect that what has happened here is that the big oil corporations
have bought the right to extract the oil in return for a royalty for
each barrel lifted. The only question under this scenario is exactly
what the royalty is. I suspect a few dollars per barrel. So the big
oil corporations pay the US a few dollars per barrel and sell it on the
world market, which extends into the US, for $115. It's the kind of
racket one can set up if one controls the congresscritters.
Elmo
I am an oil company. I run a lot of wells. In a few cases, I actually own
the land the well sits on (in?). More commonly, I have a lease where I
agree to pay the owner of the land a royalty on the oil that comes out of
that well.
Now that I have the oil out of the ground, what am I to do with it? I'll
sell it. How much shall I sell it for? Whatever the market will bear.
Right now, the market for oil is paying about $100 (USD) per barrel. But
I'm going to be extra nice and sell it to you at a discount. OOPS! The
stockholders just found out that I undersold the product and they kicked
my executives out. The next batch won't make that mistake.
--
Self-interest, caused by low selfish desire, is the root
cause of contemporary world chaos and individual misery.
Jan Flora
max <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <680oj4F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > A lot of crude oil comes from ALASKA from property OWNED BY THE PEOPLE OF
> > THE U.S...
> >
> > Yet the price of this crude oil is dictated by foreign countries.
> >
> > I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
> > set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
> >
> > Write your elected representatives...
> > (Ask those running for office if they represent "We the people" or big oil
> > corporations.)
> > http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
>
>
> So, what you're saying is... American producers shouldn't get the best
> price for their product and should be forced to pay a price set by the
> government? How Hugo Chavez of you.
>
> .max
Actually, Alaska crude belongs to the people of Alaska. The oil wells
are on STATE land, not federal land.
It's not YOUR oil, it's OURS.
Jan in Alaska
Jan Flora
Patrick Karl <jpk...@gmail.com> wrote:
Big Oil has to pay royalties to the State of Alaska, not the feds, since
the oil & gas leases are on state land, not federal land.
We run our state government on our oil & gas royalties.
Our legislature raised the royalty rate last summer in Special Session,
after Exxon (the folks who have never paid the settlement for the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in 1989) made the largest profits of any corporation
ever. Worldwide. Ever. BP and Conoco-Phillips also made record profits
off OUR oil.
Jan in Alaska
SMS
> A lot of crude oil comes from ALASKA from property OWNED BY THE PEOPLE OF
> THE U.S...
>
> Yet the price of this crude oil is dictated by foreign countries.
>
> I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
> set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
When Arco and BP merged, they shut down one of their fields in Alaska
because they just had too much oil. More than they could refine. It's
not in their interest to produce as much as they can, and flood the
market. In any case, the oil companies have been closing down refineries
to limit refining capacity, to avoid a glut of gasoline. Nor will they
sell these refineries to anyone else that wants to operate them.
Of course the oil companies aren't alone in this sort of strategy, i.e.
when Whole Foods opened a huge new store across the street from their
old store, they said that they'd sell their old store, but with a deed
restriction that it could not be operated as a supermarket. They don't
want an Asian market coming in and selling produce for 1/4th of what
Whole Foods charge (i.e. conventional, non-organic, navel oranges are
3lbs/99¢ at the Asian market, $1.33/lb at Whole Foods).
The oil companies' investement in George W. Bush and the Republicans has
paid off well for them.
> Write your elected representatives...
> (Ask those running for office if they represent "We the people" or big oil
> corporations.)
Why would you believe the answer?
Anonymous
"Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:680oj4F...@mid.individual.net...
You can do that real easily....
First, invest the large sums necessary to find the oil,
extract the oil, and then refine the oil into its end use.
Then, you may sell it to whomever you choose, at
the price you choose.
Please, let us know when and where we may buy
your product for half the now prevailing market price.
I'll be waiting....
max
Jan Flora <snow...@xyz.net> wrote:
fair enough. You should be directing your response to the previous
poster, then. Are you suggesting a company doing business in/with the
State of Alaska shouldn't get the best price possible?
Doug Miller
>THE U.S...
No, actually, it's owned by the oil companies that bought the land, or the
drilling rights to the land, where the oil is.
>
>Yet the price of this crude oil is dictated by foreign countries.
No, actually, it's the result of a global marketplace.
>
>I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
>set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
So you're suggesting that an American corporation should sell oil in the
United States at, say, $40 a barrel when they could be selling it in Japan at
$115, right?
Why the hell would they want to do that?
I'll tell you what would happen the instant they tried. First, there'd be a
hell of a lawsuit from their shareholders, to whom they hold a _contractual
obligation_ to maximize their profits. Second, somebody would buy that oil at
$40 and turn around and sell it to Japan at -- you guessed it -- $115 and
pocket the profit.
Or perhaps you're suggesting that the Federal government should *force* them
to sell it here at a cheap price.
Wrong again. First, the Federal government has no authority under the
Constitution to dictate the prices at which a corporation may sell its
products. Second, there's the reselling scenario mentioned previously.
>
>Write your elected representatives...
Be my guest. If you're lucky, one or two of them might spend a little time
trying to explain to you how free markets work. Chances are, most of them will
simply ignore you.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Join the UseNet Improvement Project: killfile Google Groups.
http://www.improve-usenet.org
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe
The Henchman
Spoken like somebody who knows very little about economics. I suppose you
plan on banning coal exports?
Nicik Name
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67v729F...@mid.individual.net...
> lancej...@gmail.com wrote:
>Get the fuck out of here you dumb fuck
Nicik Name
"The Henchman" <don'tas...@iampoor.net> wrote in message
news:zkuSj.94965$XH2....@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>
> <lancej...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2118a003-e5f2-4b90...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> I think if we come together in a concerted effort to fight this
>> problem, we can figure it out, and save all of us from going to the
>> poor house.
>
> I don't seem to have problems with high gas prices. It was too cheap for
> too long. Too bad you didn;t have more foresight.
Nicik Name
"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:KvednfASmMK8jYbV...@earthlink.com...
> Seerialmom wrote:
>> On May 1, 5:57 am, Dave <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>> lancejnel...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I just wanted to throw this topic out there. I know it's on
>>>> everyones' mind because we all depend on it. Gas prices just keep on
>>>> going up. Is there anything that can be done about it. Will the
>>>> government ever step in and do something?
>>> What would you expect the government to do about a finite resource that
>>> took millions of years to make?
>>>
>
> There is no oil shortage at present. Oil prices are up for several reason.
>
> A vastly devalued dollar that is still falling.
>
> A large about of uncertainty and fear in the market.
>
> A futures market that is out of control.
>
> Each of those adds about $20 to the price of a barrel.
>
> Our government created or contributed to each of those problems. None of
> those will be addressed under the current president.
>
> As far as the future when peak oil arrives, there is no real plan to
> deal with that either.
>
> As far as what we can do, I'd suggest planning your trips more
> carefully. Don't let your car idle for long periods. Get a better mileage
> or second vehicle if you have a real gas hog.
Truly Stunned
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> There is no oil shortage at present. Oil prices are up for several reason.
>
> A vastly devalued dollar that is still falling.
>
> A large about of uncertainty and fear in the market.
>
> A futures market that is out of control.
>
> Each of those adds about $20 to the price of a barrel.
Agreed on each point. Also notable is that American oil reserves are
full to capacity and yet prices continue to rise, abrogating any idea
the law of supply and demand.
> Our government created or contributed to each of those problems. None
> of those will be addressed under the current president.
Also agreed, with this exception: the current US federal government does
not see high fuel prices as a "problem". Rather, it views them as the
goal it has held since it came into power almost eight years ago. In
hindsight, it is clear that this rise in price has always been actively
sought by this government, at a cost to the American people of shiploads
of blood and a great percentage of their current and future public
wealth.
Tax cuts on gasoline would have so minor an effect at the pump that the
idea is laughable-- yet another tax break for oil company revenues.
Bill
> Constitution to dictate the prices at which a corporation may sell its
> products.
>
Well laws and constitutions can be changed if "We the people" want them
changed.
I know plenty of "We the peoples" who are quite fed up with these high oil
prices. Oil companies/refineries can be nationalized or price regulated as a
monopoly. This is currently done on a local level with phone and cable TV
companies.
Who owns the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska?
Larry Caldwell
billnoma...@yahoo.com (Bill) says...
> Well laws and constitutions can be changed if "We the people" want them
> changed.
Democracies normally fall to tyranny during times of turmoil or civil
war. The turmoil is caused by the leaders of democracies buying votes
with the public treasury, which bankrupts the government.
At least that is what Polycrates thought, in the 2nd century. When I
hear people like you willing to swap the constitution for a tank of gas,
I think maybe he was right.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Larry Caldwell
billnoma...@yahoo.com (Bill) says...
> I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
> set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
We can't use it, Billy. All the refining capacity is on the gulf.
Tankers won't make it through the Panama Canal. We would have to ship
it all the way around Cape Horn. It's easier to just ship it to the Far
East, and use the money to buy oil from Venezuela. If it were cheaper
to ship it from Alaska to Louisiana, we would do that.
Paul M. Eldridge
<firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote:
>In article <680oj4F...@mid.individual.net>,
>billnoma...@yahoo.com (Bill) says...
>
>> I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
>> set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
>
>We can't use it, Billy. All the refining capacity is on the gulf.
>Tankers won't make it through the Panama Canal. We would have to ship
>it all the way around Cape Horn. It's easier to just ship it to the Far
>East, and use the money to buy oil from Venezuela. If it were cheaper
>to ship it from Alaska to Louisiana, we would do that.
Hi Larry,
Some really great points. It's sad to think some of us would turn
over every last square inch of wilderness, whatever the cost, simply
to keep gas in our F350s. Well, get a clue, folks! The days of cheap
gasoline are over, so you might as well suck it up and get use to it.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are an estimated 4.3
billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Sounds great until you realize the United States consumes
something in the range of 21 million barrels of oil per day, so if
every last drop could be brought to market (and that would be a truly
herculean effort), the U.S. would burn through its entire supply in as
little as two hundred days. Gee, that's less than seven payments on
the F350.
Cheers,
Paul
Rod Speed
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>> There is no oil shortage at present. Oil prices are up for several reason.
>> A vastly devalued dollar that is still falling.
>> A large about of uncertainty and fear in the market.
>> A futures market that is out of control.
>> Each of those adds about $20 to the price of a barrel.
Nope, only the first one does.
> Agreed on each point.
More fool you.
> Also notable is that American oil reserves are full to capacity
No they aint.
> and yet prices continue to rise, abrogating any idea the law of supply and demand.
Supply and demand involves a hell of a lot more than JUST the US oil reserves, stupid.
>> Our government created or contributed to each of those problems.
Wrong, as always. Only the first.
>> None of those will be addressed under the current president.
Not even possible to do that.
> Also agreed,
More fool you.
> with this exception: the current US federal government does not
> see high fuel prices as a "problem". Rather, it views them as the
> goal it has held since it came into power almost eight years ago.
Just another utterly mindles conspiracy theory.
> In hindsight, it is clear that this rise in price has
> always been actively sought by this government,
Just another utterly mindles conspiracy theory.
> at a cost to the American people of shiploads of blood and
> a great percentage of their current and future public wealth.
Like it or lump it, sucker.
> Tax cuts on gasoline would have so minor an effect at the pump that
> the idea is laughable-- yet another tax break for oil company revenues.
Like it or lump it, sucker.
Rod Speed
> billnoma...@yahoo.com (Bill) wrote
>> Well laws and constitutions can be changed if "We the people" want them changed.
Pity they arent actually stupid enough to want the feds to control oil prices.
> Democracies normally fall to tyranny during times of turmoil or civil war.
Not in modern times they dont. In spades with the US.
> The turmoil is caused by the leaders of democracies buying
> votes with the public treasury, which bankrupts the government.
Doesnt happen in the US.
> At least that is what Polycrates thought, in the 2nd century.
Pity that the world has moved on just a tad since then.
> When I hear people like you willing to swap the constitution for a tank of gas,
No one is suggesting anything like that.
> I think maybe he was right.
Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
The Real Bev
> I just wanted to throw this topic out there. I know it's on
> everyones' mind because we all depend on it. Gas prices just keep on
> going up. Is there anything that can be done about it. Will the
> government ever step in and do something? Gas is at about $3.50 where
> I live and it's startin to hurt. I know that there has got to be a
> solution to this problem. A few things to do are: 1. Try to drive
> less. 2. Think about purchasing a hybrid vehicle. 3. Try to carpool
> whenever possible. I have a blog on this subject, and there is some
> good information on there. If you are interested, I recommend taking
> a look. http://beatfueldependance.blogspot.com/.
>
> I think if we come together in a concerted effort to fight this
> problem, we can figure it out, and save all of us from going to the
> poor house.
Buy 100 shares of your favorite oil company and PRAY that gas prices go
up. Buy 200 shares and you're in even better shape.
Remember, you heard it here first.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the
majority, but to be insane in such a useful way that
they can't commit you." -- Mark Edwards
Truly Stunned
jdoe <jd...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 05:39:10 -0500, Truly Stunned
> <vio...@thebridgeofsighs.sad> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> >Agreed on each point. Also notable is that American oil reserves are
> >full to capacity and yet prices continue to rise, abrogating any idea
> >the law of supply and demand.
> >
> and where did you conjure up this piece of misinformation? simply put
> you are wrong and clueless
Right. You are one of the mouthpieces who claimed that rising gas prices
are the result of falling oil refinery capacity, aren't you? Thus,
reduced refining capacities result in lower amounts of fuel to sell,
putting upward pressure on fuel prices. It may be fiction, but it's a
pretty good story.
Never mind that _fact_ that US oil refining capacity has increased every
year for the last 15 years, equivalent to the addition of one new,
state-of-the-art oil refinery each year. Each year of the last 15 has
added capacity to refine an additional 150,000-300,000 barrels of oil
per day; the average *increase* of daily oil refining capacity in the US
has been nearly 1.7 million barrels _every_ _single_ _day_ since 1985.
This is without the construction of any new refineries since 1976. Quite
the pennysavers, those oil executives, eh?
Unlike you, I require the indiscriminate hurling of no ignorant insults
to bloody your nose. You do a very good job of cutting yourself off at
the knees without my help. No doubt you have personally experienced your
.sig without anyone else's participation.
I also do not need to do your homework for you. These are published oil
company figures. Like I would tell any 4-year-old, if I can find them,
you can find them. Look them up yourself.
Don Klipstein
>Larry Caldwell <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote
>> billnoma...@yahoo.com (Bill) wrote
>
>>> Well laws and constitutions can be changed if "We the people" want
>>> them changed.
>
>Pity they arent actually stupid enough to want the feds to control oil prices.
>
>> Democracies normally fall to tyranny during times of turmoil or civil war.
>
>Not in modern times they dont. In spades with the US.
>
>> The turmoil is caused by the leaders of democracies buying
>> votes with the public treasury, which bankrupts the government.
>
>Doesnt happen in the US.
In spades or worse still that happens in the US!
American congresscritters or prospective congresscritters try to get
elected/re-elected to Congress all-too-much on basis of "delivering
pork/bacon" and minimizing short-term taxation on basis of borrowing via
"Treasury Securities".
Such "Deficit Spending" has lending by private investors (whether
American or otherwise) being loaned to subsidizing America's
congresscritters temporarily delivering more pork than has to paid by
taxes on short term basis (but has to be paid plus interest on long term
basis). Such USA Treasury borrowing also sucks away loans that would
otherwise mostly be loaned to private enterprise!
Meanwhile, how well known is it that from roughly 2001 to roughly 2006
there has been a huge upward surge in a form of USA pork spending that
has specific name of "earmarks"? Should be well-known!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jan Flora
Although I'm opposed to opening ANWR at this time, for reasons other
than the price of oil & gasoline, no one, in fact, knows how much oil
there is in ANWR. All estimates are WAG's.
My neighbor was on the drill rig that drilled test wells many, many
years ago. They signed confidentiality doc's before they got to work on
the rig. When we asked the neighbor if there was oil there, he wagged
his eyebrows. (That's Inupiat for "yes.") When we asked him if there was
a lot of oil there, he wagged his eyebrows a lot.
So the neighbor said there's lots of oil there. Well, shit, any bonehead
that has studied sedimentary geology at all knows there's oil there --
the formation of the mountains in ANWR is Sadlerochit -- an oil bearing
formation. The name of the mountain range is the Sadlerochit Range, for
Pete's Sakes. Here's some photos -- (the photog. Roy Corral is a
local)--
http://www.arcticrefugeart.org/gazetteer/sadlerochits_g.html
Why aren't you guys talking about conservation, instead of drilling?
I've been waiting for the Bushies to talk about conservation. Good thing
I wasn't holding my breath.
Why are so many people driving Hummers? I think anyone who wants to
drive a Hummer should be given one of their very own, to drive around in
Iraq. We'll also give them crummy body armor and an M-16 or whatever the
weapon of the day is.
There are oil fields on Alaska's North Slope with FAR more oil potential
than ANWR, and they aren't in sensitive caribou and polar bear habitat.
FAR, FAR more potential for BIG oil. (I drink with the guys who drill
oil wells on the slope. I get this news first hand.) When the money is
right, ANWR will be opened and there's nothing we'll be able to do about
it. Polar bears and caribou be damned. And they will. Not to mention the
G'witch'in Indians who rely on the caribou for food, culture and life.
If anyone wants to poke around, look up Sarah James from Arctic Village.
Her village is in ANWR.
For Paul -- there was a big stink up here in Alaska in the last few
years that USGS wasn't allowed to report Actual Verifiable
Scientifically-based Information. The Bushies spun the info and
published what they wanted the reports to say, not what the scientists
really discovered. I know it's hard to believe that GW Bush would
actually lie to the American public, but he did. *sigh*
Jan in Alaska
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Larry Caldwell <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote
>>> billnoma...@yahoo.com (Bill) wrote
>>>> Well laws and constitutions can be changed if "We the people" want them changed.
>> Pity they arent actually stupid enough to want the feds to control oil prices.
>>> Democracies normally fall to tyranny during times of turmoil or civil war.
>> Not in modern times they dont. In spades with the US.
>>> The turmoil is caused by the leaders of democracies buying
>>> votes with the public treasury, which bankrupts the government.
>> Doesnt happen in the US.
> In spades or worse still that happens in the US!
No it doesnt. The govt is nothing like bankrupted.
> American congresscritters or prospective congresscritters
> try to get elected/re-elected to Congress all-too-much on
> basis of "delivering pork/bacon" and minimizing short-term
> taxation on basis of borrowing via "Treasury Securities".
The govt is nothing like bankrupted.
> Such "Deficit Spending" has lending by private investors (whether
> American or otherwise) being loaned to subsidizing America's
> congresscritters temporarily delivering more pork than has to paid
> by taxes on short term basis (but has to be paid plus interest on
> long term basis). Such USA Treasury borrowing also sucks away
> loans that would otherwise mostly be loaned to private enterprise!
The govt is nothing like bankrupted.
> Meanwhile, how well known is it that from roughly 2001 to roughly
> 2006 there has been a huge upward surge in a form of USA pork
> spending that has specific name of "earmarks"? Should be well-known!
The govt is nothing like bankrupted.
Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
Hi Jan,
Thanks for sharing your insight and for providing a link to these
pictures; they really underscore the area's immense beauty. I was
somewhat reluctant to use the USGS estimate because, as you say,
nobody really knows how much oil exists and, more specifically, how
much is economically recoverable (e.g., to this point, the last time I
checked, Shell's Alberta tar sands project was running three times
over budget and their Sakhalin II costs had doubled to $20 billion).
FWIW, I'm also told by industry insiders that the USGS tends to be
somewhat "optimistic" in its assessments (political manipulation, as
you suggest? .... paging Mr. Gale Norton... Mr. Norton to the courtesy
phone). In any event, Americans would be ill-advised to squander what
could very well be their last remaining reserve of domestic oil, for
reasons of national security if nothing else, unless, of course, you
plan to invade an oil-rich country, kill their citizenry and rob them
blind..... opps, never mind. ;-)
I have to admit I indulge in a little schadenfreude whenever I pull
into a gas station and see all those Hummers, Tahoes and Excursions
filling up at the pumps (what can I say, I have my weaknesses). I
recently overheard one driver complain that the pump would only
dispense up to $100.00 at a time! You almost want to put your arm
around their shoulder and say "There, there, don't worry, there's an
endless supply of cheap crude oil just waiting to be tapped and prices
will heading back to a buck a gallon any day now. (*)
Cheers,
Paul
* To give you a sense of the enormous costs in finding new oil, BP is
paying £297,000 (US$ 520,000.00) a day to lease a *single* drillship
in the Gulf of Mexico and their Thunder Horse production platform cost
a cool $5 billion (2005 dollars).
Paul M. Eldridge
>Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:gu7r14l0oao6u474t...@4ax.com:
>
>> I have to admit I indulge in a little schadenfreude whenever I pull
>> into a gas station and see all those Hummers, Tahoes and Excursions
>> filling up at the pumps (what can I say, I have my weaknesses). I
>> recently overheard one driver complain that the pump would only
>> dispense up to $100.00 at a time!
>
>I asked one local gas station about that out of curiousity, as I
>can't recall seeing that on the pumps before. I was told it was
>a corporate decision and that it only means that after that the
>pumps can be reset to dispense more. Why, I do not know but as
>I'm a cynic I'm sure it has something to do with minimizing loss
>reductions for the companies.
Hi Terri,
I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
(I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
transaction was set at $75.00).
Here in Halifax, diesel is now selling for $1.43 per litre
($5.38/gallon), so you can hit this $100.00 limit in as little as 18.6
gallons.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul M. Eldridge
>Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:fflr14he7qelmkd99...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 4 May 2008 14:48:42 GMT, Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I asked one local gas station about that out of curiousity, as I
>>>can't recall seeing that on the pumps before. I was told it was
>>>a corporate decision and that it only means that after that the
>>>pumps can be reset to dispense more. Why, I do not know but as
>>>I'm a cynic I'm sure it has something to do with minimizing loss
>>>reductions for the companies.
>>
>> Hi Terri,
>>
>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>
>That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>
Hi Terri,
I suspect the widespread use of credit cards is the primary reason why
higher gas prices haven't, as yet, fully registered on our collective
consciousness. But sooner or later, we'll start to get the picture.
>> Here in Halifax, diesel is now selling for $1.43 per litre
>> ($5.38/gallon), so you can hit this $100.00 limit in as little as 18.6
>> gallons.
>
>I have a friend in Halifax! Her husband is a philosophy Professor at the
>nearby University. I hear your new sewage treatment system is working
>well!
Halifax is a great city and I hope someday you'll have the opportunity
to see it for yourself (and, yes, our new sewage treatment system is a
welcome addition, indeed). Here's a quick introduction to get you
started:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sshM02j_YaQ
Cheers,
Paul
Jim Elbrecht
>Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>news:fflr14he7qelmkd99...@4ax.com:
-snip-
>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
$4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
Jim
George
your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
caloo calay
caloo calay
commutes are long. Even with a 35 mpg car, it adds up quick. Of
course they could "unlock" themselves, but that would be a big pain in
the a##, involving moving closer to work (and inviting immediate
firing or layoff), or quitting current job and getting new job closer
to home (also a pain : new health insurance, possible loss of health
ins for 6 months, new job might suck, etc etc)
Small cars are less safe than big cars. Get whacked in a small car
and have a llifetime of pain. No fun.
I have a big old guzzler car, and I may just keep it, and get a new
job closer to home. I have an 80 mile round trip 5 day a week
commute, which equals $4,000 per year in gas !!!
I get 21 mpg in the big safe guzzler, and a tiny car will get 35 mpg,
which would bring the $4,000 down to $2,400.
Why are the mpg's so horrible even in small cars? I had a 1984 5
speed stick shift Nissan Sentra wagon that got 49 mpg hiway. Why the
heck can't they make that car today? Nowadays the best mpg is 35
mpg, in a 4 cyl car. Most 4 cyl cars are even worse, down around 30
mpg.
h
"Terri" <Te...@micron.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A946734...@130.133.1.18...
>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>
??? Why doesn't it make sense to use a credit card for gas? I use my card
for everything I possibly can, including my heating oil. I pay it off every
month, and I get between 1-5% back on all my purchases. Last year I got
$750, while never paying the credit card company a penny. Plus, I don't have
to carry cash or write entries in a checkbook. What doesn't make sense about
that?
h
>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>
>> Jim
> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for your
> "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
Umm, the rewards are from the credit card issuer, not the merchant. I'm a
merchant, and I have no idea who uses a rewards card and who doesn't.
Rewards don't affect merchants' costs one bit, unless the merchant is also
the issuer of the card (Sears, etc.)
George
You have to mark up your prices to cover the costs of credit cards. And
either by law in some states and typically always in your merchant
agreement you can't offer a cash discount so all of your customers are
paying for their "rewards". Thats one reason why I patronize the cash
only gas station down the road from me. Better price and the megabanks
don't get to collect another fee.
h
"George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:s8idnTbng84UZIDV...@comcast.com...
I'm internet only, with clients around the world. How could I use anything
other than credit cards? All my clients pay with cards.
Chloe
You seem to assume the bank is passing along the entire cost of the rebates
to the merchants. Do you have any basis for that assumption?
My RBS Mastercard is now offering a 6% rebate on gas purchases. It's only
good for two months, but I'll take what I can!
Rod Speed
> Jim Elbrecht wrote
>> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote
>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote
>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard
>>>> pre-authorizations (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but
>>>> the MasterCard limit per transaction was set at $75.00).
>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was
>> getting when I signed up.
> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for your "rewards" because the merchant has to
> charge more.
Nope, the card companys get it from the interest they charge
the fools who dont pay off their cards in full every month.
h
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:481e0b75$0$20206$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Hp-dnWTXFOkqd4DV...@comcast.com...
>> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>>> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:fflr14he7qelmkd99...@4ax.com:
>>> -snip-
>>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>>
>>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
>> your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>
> You seem to assume the bank is passing along the entire cost of the
> rebates to the merchants. Do you have any basis for that assumption?
>
As a merchant, I can tell you that they don't. I pay the same 2% I've always
paid per transaction, rewards card or not, which is a LOT less than PayPal's
fees.
The Etobian
wrote:
>You have to mark up your prices to cover the costs of credit cards. And
>either by law in some states and typically always in your merchant
>agreement you can't offer a cash discount so all of your customers are
>paying for their "rewards". Thats one reason why I patronize the cash
>only gas station down the road from me. Better price and the megabanks
>don't get to collect another fee.
In my experience, cash-only gas stations are either the same price or
higher than the ones accepting credit cards.
The Etobian
wrote:
>Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
>your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
Why is it that if credit cards charge merchants 2%, that credit cards
are thought to cost 2% more than cash?
Since when is handling cash (from customer to bank, and everything in
between) free?
Dave
> speed stick shift Nissan Sentra wagon that got 49 mpg hiway. Why the
> heck can't they make that car today?
Federal regulations adding mass and WEIGHT. That, and customers expect even
4-banger engines to produce 200HP or somewhere near there. Strip away all
the excess weight, drop the cylinders to TWO OR THREE, and tune the engines
for fuel economy rather than high horsepower and high torque. Then you will
see a Nissan Sentra wagon at close to 80MPG highway. But it'll never
happen. Not in the U.S. anyway. -Dave
Rod Speed
>> Why are the mpg's so horrible even in small cars? I had a 1984 5 speed stick shift Nissan Sentra wagon that got 49
>> mpg hiway. Why the heck can't they make that car today?
> Federal regulations adding mass and WEIGHT.
The small consumer diesels add weight and gain better mpg anyway.
> That, and customers expect even 4-banger engines to produce 200HP or somewhere near there.
Nope, the car manufacturers produce them like that.
> Strip away all the excess weight, drop the cylinders to TWO OR THREE, and tune the engines for fuel economy rather
> than high horsepower and high torque. Then you will see a Nissan Sentra wagon at close to 80MPG highway. But it'll
> never happen. Not in the U.S. anyway.
Have fun explaining how come the VW diesels manage to do it fine even now.
George
> A lot of folks are "locked in" to high gas consumption because their
> commutes are long. Even with a 35 mpg car, it adds up quick. Of
> course they could "unlock" themselves, but that would be a big pain in
> the a##, involving moving closer to work (and inviting immediate
> firing or layoff), or quitting current job and getting new job closer
> to home (also a pain : new health insurance, possible loss of health
> ins for 6 months, new job might suck, etc etc)
>
> Small cars are less safe than big cars. Get whacked in a small car
> and have a llifetime of pain. No fun.
Not necessarily, go watch any of the numerous videos where a Smart car
(made by Daimler, and now available in the US) passes all of the safety
tests and is shown being survivable driven into walls at speed and all
sorts of side impact situations.
George
cards. In that situation the buyer and seller are usually face to face.
George
> "George" <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Hp-dnWTXFOkqd4DV...@comcast.com...
>> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>>> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:fflr14he7qelmkd99...@4ax.com:
>>> -snip-
>>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for your
>> "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>
> You seem to assume the bank is passing along the entire cost of the rebates
> to the merchants. Do you have any basis for that assumption?
>
I am not assuming that. I think they are trying to buy mindshare to
convince everyone what a great idea it is to use a credit card for
*everything* so that it will expedite a cashless economy with them being
involved in every transaction.
Also look at all of the current marketing showing 20 somethings all
happily dancing around buying their coffee, donuts and whatever trivial
purchase with credit cards.
> My RBS Mastercard is now offering a 6% rebate on gas purchases. It's only
> good for two months, but I'll take what I can!
>
>
Sure, but it is only a temporary come on but unfortunately a lot of
people (not saying you are) will claim such things are persistent.
George
No one claimed it is but if you are involved in anything where good data
is collected and analyzed you will find that it costs a lot more to
accept plastic.
William Souden
The Real Bev
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to carry.
My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all credit cards.
There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a couple of
gift-certificate cards and more.
> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
> your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
Yeah, but there's not much you can do about his business choices. If
paying by CC with rebate is cheaper than paying cash, it would seem
obvious what should be done providing you don't have to use so much
extra gas to get to the cheaper station that the exercise isn't worth doing.
--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Will give investment advice for food.
The Real Bev
> In my experience, cash-only gas stations are either the same price or
> higher than the ones accepting credit cards.
In SoCal the Arco stations (cash or debit card only, with an added
charge for DCs) have generally been cheaper than any of the other
stations (except Costco), all of which take credit cards. It's gotten a
bit mixed up recently, and you can no longer count on Arco/Costco being
the cheapest after the rebate, although they're generally comparable.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to worry about a 2-cent difference on a
17-gallon tank, but it's the principle of the thing.
Jim Elbrecht
wrote:
>Chloe wrote:
-snip-
>> My RBS Mastercard is now offering a 6% rebate on gas purchases. It's only
>> good for two months, but I'll take what I can!
>>
>>
>Sure, but it is only a temporary come on but unfortunately a lot of
>people (not saying you are) will claim such things are persistent.
Not 6% - but I've been getting 3% on gas for several years- [Chase
Rewards] and my parents have been getting 4% on either a AAA or AARP
card.
My Chase Amazon card gives me 3% on Amazon purchases and 1% on all
others. [paid in Amazon credits which I have no problem spending]
They also gave me $100 just to get the card.
As long as you have enough self control to pay them off every month,
credit cards are money makers these days.
Jim
krw
+use...@gmail.com says...
> George wrote:
>
> > Jim Elbrecht wrote:
> >> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
> >>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
> >>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
> >>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
> >>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
> >>
> >> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
> >> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>
> Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to carry.
> My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all credit cards.
> There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a couple of
> gift-certificate cards and more.
My Amex doesn't (1% on everything) so I got a BP Visa that gives 5%
back on gas (2% on meals/travel and auto repairs, 1% everything else
- doubled for the first two months). Can't beat the *cash* back
either. My Amex only gives gift cards and then in small amounts.
> > Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
> > your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>
> Yeah, but there's not much you can do about his business choices. If
> paying by CC with rebate is cheaper than paying cash, it would seem
> obvious what should be done providing you don't have to use so much
> extra gas to get to the cheaper station that the exercise isn't worth doing.
Yep. The business isn't being forced to take plastic. AS long as
it's cheaper to buy with plastic than without it doesn't take a
genius to figure out which way to go.
--
Keith
The Real Bev
> Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>>That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>
> I guess I still don't get it then. I use cash to buy my gas. The guy
> down the road charges two prices for gas. The price for cash paying
> customers such as myself is less than those using credit cards.
Indeed, but the other guy down the road might sell gas for even less
either way. Around here, double-price stations rarely have the best prices.
--
Cheers, Bev
================================
Eat right. Stay fit. Die anyway.
Don Klipstein
One way to get more horsepower from a given size engine is to
"oversquare" it (increase ratio of bore to stroke) to allow higher RPM
(due to shorter stroke). However, fuel economy is adversely affected.
One reason I know of is increased surface area exposed to the hot exhaust,
and more heat is conducted from the hot exhaust before it has done its
work.
One more issue with modern cars is expectation that an automatic
transmission will not downshift at highway speed if the car hits an uphill
section of an interstate. So at highway speed on level ground, many cars
are revving faster than they have to.
I have a 1993 Olds Delta 88 LSS "Royale", a fairly large car that gets
about 32 MPG at 65 MPH. One reason is that it is rather aerodynamic.
Many econoboxes aren't. Another is that the transmission gear ratios have
the engine only revving about 1900 RPM at 65 MPH. (I just drove it at 65
MPH a couple hours ago - I hope I got these figures right!) One more
reason is that the automatic transmission has lockup torque converter,
or for whatever reason settles in some sort of "overdrive" where there
appears to be lack of slip in the transmission during highway driving.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
William Souden
cash,credit and debit. In addition each pump has its own credit card
terminal so there is never a line.
Larry Caldwell
@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, user1...@aol.com (caloo calay) says...
> Small cars are less safe than big cars. Get whacked in a small car
> and have a llifetime of pain. No fun.
Not according to Consumer Reports. In crash tests, SUVs and light
trucks were significantly more dangerous to drive than a conventional
compact car.
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
Rod Speed
Much smaller percentage than they get from the fools who dont pay off their cards in full every month.
Larry Caldwell
elbr...@email.com (Jim Elbrecht) says...
> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
Next month, Discover is offering 5% cash back on service station
purchases. I think you have to go online to sign up at their web site.
Then I use the cash back account to buy $25 B. Dalton/Waldenbooks gift
cards for $20, which is another 5%. Then Walden Books has its own
rewards program. What can I say? I buy a lot of books. Using a credit
card for gas buys about $300 worth of books a year, at no additional
cost to me.
Larry Caldwell
(The Real Bev) says...
> Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to carry.
> My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all credit cards.
> There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a couple of
> gift-certificate cards and more.
I have gone to two wallets. One is just essentials - cash, my ATM card,
auto insurance card, etc.; stuff I don't want to be without. The other
wallet is for everything else. Often times, it stays home. When I
carry it, having two wallets evens out the lumps in my pockets.
William Souden
can not pay in full is a fool? Of course with no car ,no family and no
job these situations never happen to you.
William Souden
The Real Bev
> user1...@aol.com (caloo calay) says...
>
>> Small cars are less safe than big cars. Get whacked in a small car
>> and have a llifetime of pain. No fun.
>
> Not according to Consumer Reports. In crash tests, SUVs and light
> trucks were significantly more dangerous to drive than a conventional
> compact car.
More rollovers?
The Real Bev
> In article <bosTj.239$yg5...@newsfe06.lga>, bashley1...@gmail.com
> (The Real Bev) says...
>
>> Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to carry.
>> My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all credit cards.
>> There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a couple of
>> gift-certificate cards and more.
>
> I have gone to two wallets. One is just essentials - cash, my ATM card,
> auto insurance card, etc.; stuff I don't want to be without. The other
> wallet is for everything else. Often times, it stays home. When I
> carry it, having two wallets evens out the lumps in my pockets.
My handbag weighs 7 pounds; an extra wallet would just add a couple
more ounces. There are times I've gone out with only keys, a credit
card, my driver's license and a $20 bill, but it just feels WRONG.
I really like those indestructable nylon wallets with the velcro
fasteners, although eventually the velcro gives out. What I don't
understand is why they don't make the flaps longer to allow for stuffing
that sucker with cards and change.
Rod Speed
What was being discussed was paying for GASOLINE, you stupid race track bum.
SMS
> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
Why would you think that?
The cheapest place to buy gas in my area is Costco. Not only doe the
Costco Amex card give a 3% rebate(consumer card) or 5% rebate (business
card), you can't pay with cash even if you wanted to. It's debit or
credit card (only Amex) only. At $3.80 a gallon, that 5% rebate is a 19¢
per gallon rebate.
In fact, even though Arco has the cheapest gasoline after Costco, you
have to pay cash, or pay a fee to use a debit card, so Arco ends up
being more expensive than some of the other stations that take credit
cards at no extra fee. Since Arco limits the prices that their
franchisees can charge for gasoline, it would be impossible for them to
take credit cards with the gas prices so high because the credit card
fees per gallon are nearly equal to the retailer's mark-up per gallon
(which is a fixed amount per gallon over the wholesale cost, not a
percentage). All the money is being made by the refineries, and the
lessees of the oil fields, not by the retailers.
SMS
> Umm, the rewards are from the credit card issuer, not the merchant. I'm a
> merchant, and I have no idea who uses a rewards card and who doesn't.
> Rewards don't affect merchants' costs one bit, unless the merchant is also
> the issuer of the card (Sears, etc.)
I noticed that some credit card processors process rewards cards at a
higher rate than non-rewards cards, so it does cost the merchant extra.
I.e, "http://www.novainfo.com/costco/index.asp". It may be that the
processors that charge higher rates for _all_ cards, don't differentiate
between rewards and non-rewards cards.
SMS
> You have to mark up your prices to cover the costs of credit cards. And
> either by law in some states and typically always in your merchant
> agreement you can't offer a cash discount
Cash discounts are fine. Surcharges for credit cards are not. I've
noticed a lot of independent gas stations have started having lower
prices for cash again, something that went away for quite a while.
SMS
> Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to carry.
> My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all credit cards.
> There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a couple of
> gift-certificate cards and more.
The Amex card is also a Costco card, so it's really not an extra card. I
try to cut back on cards periodically. One Amex/Costco (5% on gas/1% on
everything) and one Visa (2% rebate on everything) seems to be
sufficient for credit cards, at least domestically. For international
use, I use a Visa card where the bank isn't adding any extra fees on top
of Visa's 1% fee, and there are only a few Visa card issuers that don't
add those extra garbage fees.
William Souden
can not pay in full each month.
Welfare boy, did you see the Derby? Did the customers look like bums?
William Souden
sales fool/ race track bum
h
>> Jim
> I guess I still don't get it then. I use cash to buy my gas. The guy
> down the road charges two prices for gas. The price for cash paying
> customers such as myself is less than those using credit cards.
Interesting. That's not legal where I live.
Rod Speed
> Still holds true.
Wrong, as always, you stupid race track bum.
George
> Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com> wrote in
> news:oopr14lhh96n3c0ft...@4ax.com:
>
>> Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>> news:fflr14he7qelmkd99...@4ax.com:
>> -snip-
>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>
> I guess I still don't get it then. I use cash to buy my gas. The guy
> down the road charges two prices for gas. The price for cash paying
> customers such as myself is less than those using credit cards.
Same here only slightly different. The megabanks pushed through
legislation in my state that prohibits a merchant from offering any
pricing that highlights their tribute. So there are totally separate
filling stations. Some are cash only and are always cheaper and then
there are the CC/cash places that can't offer a cash discount.
Chloe
news:MPG.22881dfc...@news.peaksky.com...
> In article <oopr14lhh96n3c0ft...@4ax.com>,
> elbr...@email.com (Jim Elbrecht) says...
>
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>
> Next month, Discover is offering 5% cash back on service station
> purchases. I think you have to go online to sign up at their web site.
> Then I use the cash back account to buy $25 B. Dalton/Waldenbooks gift
> cards for $20, which is another 5%. Then Walden Books has its own
> rewards program. What can I say? I buy a lot of books. Using a credit
> card for gas buys about $300 worth of books a year, at no additional
> cost to me.
If you want to save even more on books, you might be interested in
www.paperbackswap.com I've been swapping there for over a year now and it's
saved me a ton of money.
Elmo
> In article <betatron-B86FF7...@news.ftupet.com>,
> max <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <680oj4F...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "Bill" <billnoma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A lot of crude oil comes from ALASKA from property OWNED BY THE PEOPLE OF
>>> THE U.S...
>>>
>>> Yet the price of this crude oil is dictated by foreign countries.
>>>
>>> I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans and
>>> set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
>>>
>>> Write your elected representatives...
>>> (Ask those running for office if they represent "We the people" or big oil
>>> corporations.)
>>> http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
>>
>> So, what you're saying is... American producers shouldn't get the best
>> price for their product and should be forced to pay a price set by the
>> government? How Hugo Chavez of you.
>>
>> .max
>
> Actually, Alaska crude belongs to the people of Alaska. The oil wells
> are on STATE land, not federal land.
>
> It's not YOUR oil, it's OURS.
>
> Jan in Alaska
And the pipeline?
--
Self-interest, caused by low selfish desire, is the root
cause of contemporary world chaos and individual misery.
Elmo
> Bill wrote:
>> A lot of crude oil comes from ALASKA from property OWNED BY THE PEOPLE
>> OF THE U.S...
>>
>> Yet the price of this crude oil is dictated by foreign countries.
>>
>> I say Alaska oil should only be sold in the U.S. for use by Americans
>> and set at a reasonable price. It is OUR OIL!
>
> because they just had too much oil. More than they could refine. It's
> not in their interest to produce as much as they can, and flood the
> market. In any case, the oil companies have been closing down refineries
> to limit refining capacity, to avoid a glut of gasoline. Nor will they
> sell these refineries to anyone else that wants to operate them.
>
> Of course the oil companies aren't alone in this sort of strategy, i.e.
> when Whole Foods opened a huge new store across the street from their
> old store, they said that they'd sell their old store, but with a deed
> restriction that it could not be operated as a supermarket. They don't
> want an Asian market coming in and selling produce for 1/4th of what
> Whole Foods charge (i.e. conventional, non-organic, navel oranges are
> 3lbs/99¢ at the Asian market, $1.33/lb at Whole Foods).
>
> The oil companies' investement in George W. Bush and the Republicans has
> paid off well for them.
>
>> Write your elected representatives...
>> (Ask those running for office if they represent "We the people" or big
>> oil corporations.)
>
The matter of refineries is enigmatic. Running a refinery is pretty
much like owning a money printing press but no one wants to build any
new refineries. While safety and maintenance should be a very important
matter (see also BP Houston), it stretches credibility to have them
running at 85-90% of design capacity most of the time. Reminds me of
how all of those California electrical generating plants were down for
maintenance just when the power was needed the most resulting in much
larger profits for the power brokers (no pun intended) like Enron than
would have been the case had there been plentiful power at lower cost.
Elmo
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 21:51:50 -0800, Jan Flora <snow...@xyz.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Although I'm opposed to opening ANWR at this time, for reasons other
>> than the price of oil & gasoline, no one, in fact, knows how much oil
>> there is in ANWR. All estimates are WAG's.
>>
>> My neighbor was on the drill rig that drilled test wells many, many
>> years ago. They signed confidentiality doc's before they got to work on
>> the rig. When we asked the neighbor if there was oil there, he wagged
>> his eyebrows. (That's Inupiat for "yes.") When we asked him if there was
>> a lot of oil there, he wagged his eyebrows a lot.
>>
>> So the neighbor said there's lots of oil there. Well, shit, any bonehead
>> that has studied sedimentary geology at all knows there's oil there --
>> the formation of the mountains in ANWR is Sadlerochit -- an oil bearing
>> formation. The name of the mountain range is the Sadlerochit Range, for
>> Pete's Sakes. Here's some photos -- (the photog. Roy Corral is a
>> local)--
>>
>> http://www.arcticrefugeart.org/gazetteer/sadlerochits_g.html
>>
>> Why aren't you guys talking about conservation, instead of drilling?
>> I've been waiting for the Bushies to talk about conservation. Good thing
>> I wasn't holding my breath.
>>
>> Why are so many people driving Hummers? I think anyone who wants to
>> drive a Hummer should be given one of their very own, to drive around in
>> Iraq. We'll also give them crummy body armor and an M-16 or whatever the
>> weapon of the day is.
>>
>> There are oil fields on Alaska's North Slope with FAR more oil potential
>> than ANWR, and they aren't in sensitive caribou and polar bear habitat.
>> FAR, FAR more potential for BIG oil. (I drink with the guys who drill
>> oil wells on the slope. I get this news first hand.) When the money is
>> right, ANWR will be opened and there's nothing we'll be able to do about
>> it. Polar bears and caribou be damned. And they will. Not to mention the
>> G'witch'in Indians who rely on the caribou for food, culture and life.
>>
>> If anyone wants to poke around, look up Sarah James from Arctic Village.
>> Her village is in ANWR.
>>
>> For Paul -- there was a big stink up here in Alaska in the last few
>> years that USGS wasn't allowed to report Actual Verifiable
>> Scientifically-based Information. The Bushies spun the info and
>> published what they wanted the reports to say, not what the scientists
>> really discovered. I know it's hard to believe that GW Bush would
>> actually lie to the American public, but he did. *sigh*
>>
>> Jan in Alaska
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Thanks for sharing your insight and for providing a link to these
> pictures; they really underscore the area's immense beauty. I was
> somewhat reluctant to use the USGS estimate because, as you say,
> nobody really knows how much oil exists and, more specifically, how
> much is economically recoverable (e.g., to this point, the last time I
> checked, Shell's Alberta tar sands project was running three times
> over budget and their Sakhalin II costs had doubled to $20 billion).
> FWIW, I'm also told by industry insiders that the USGS tends to be
> somewhat "optimistic" in its assessments (political manipulation, as
> you suggest? .... paging Mr. Gale Norton... Mr. Norton to the courtesy
> phone). In any event, Americans would be ill-advised to squander what
> could very well be their last remaining reserve of domestic oil, for
> reasons of national security if nothing else, unless, of course, you
> plan to invade an oil-rich country, kill their citizenry and rob them
> blind..... opps, never mind. ;-)
>
> I have to admit I indulge in a little schadenfreude whenever I pull
> into a gas station and see all those Hummers, Tahoes and Excursions
> filling up at the pumps (what can I say, I have my weaknesses). I
> recently overheard one driver complain that the pump would only
> dispense up to $100.00 at a time! You almost want to put your arm
> around their shoulder and say "There, there, don't worry, there's an
> endless supply of cheap crude oil just waiting to be tapped and prices
> will heading back to a buck a gallon any day now. (*)
>
I recall when the pumps couldn't charge more than 99.9 cents per gallon.
--
You know what an El Cid Princess is, right? drive a big
SUV way too fast, don't care about running over animals,
tail gate you and blow the horn if you don't get out of
the way. They are more important than the rest of us and
cannot be bothered with life's inconveniences.
Elmo
> On 4 May 2008 16:08:46 GMT, Terri <Te...@micron.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.e...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>> news:fflr14he7qelmkd99...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> I asked one local gas station about that out of curiousity, as I
>>>> can't recall seeing that on the pumps before. I was told it was
>>>> a corporate decision and that it only means that after that the
>>>> pumps can be reset to dispense more. Why, I do not know but as
>>>> I'm a cynic I'm sure it has something to do with minimizing loss
>>>> reductions for the companies.
>>> Hi Terri,
>>>
>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>
>
> Hi Terri,
>
> I suspect the widespread use of credit cards is the primary reason why
> higher gas prices haven't, as yet, fully registered on our collective
> consciousness. But sooner or later, we'll start to get the picture.
>
I've been thinking much the same -- when you're putting the purchase
price on a general-purpose charge card like Visa, the balance goes
up and the minimum payment goes up but it isn't like you had to reach
into your pocket and pull out dollars to pay.
>>> Here in Halifax, diesel is now selling for $1.43 per litre
>>> ($5.38/gallon), so you can hit this $100.00 limit in as little as 18.6
>>> gallons.
>> I have a friend in Halifax! Her husband is a philosophy Professor at the
>> nearby University. I hear your new sewage treatment system is working
>> well!
>
> Halifax is a great city and I hope someday you'll have the opportunity
> to see it for yourself (and, yes, our new sewage treatment system is a
> welcome addition, indeed). Here's a quick introduction to get you
> started:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=sshM02j_YaQ
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
--
The majority are misguided and ruled by some self-styled
leaders, who seek the limelight by fair means or foul.
They do not want the Truth, lest they lose their selfish
ends and be out of the picture. So, in order to be in the
public eye, they invent lies, concoct stories, distort
facts, and, in the name of public service, they present
these lies before the public. The public is misled either
because they are big names or by the very tricks of the
originators, who have the ability to misrepresent facts with
sensational talks that influence the weakness of the mass mind.
It is the same all over the world -- a game of winning and
losing -- the inevitable struggle for existence is in all
departments and aspects of life. The struggle goes on and on
in religion, politics, morality, ethics, business, industry,
et cetera, at different times and places, in different ways,
according to the conditions.
Elmo
station. I remember hearing that when a merchant signs up to use
major credit cards, they also agree not to offer a cash discount. So
people who pay cash are still paying that 2-3% processing fee.
--
They're locking them up today they're throwing away the key
I wonder who it'll be tomorrow you or me.
Elmo
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> Jim Elbrecht wrote
>>>>>> pre-authorizations (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but
>>>>>> the MasterCard limit per transaction was set at $75.00).
>>
>>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>
>>>> of $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I
>>>> signed up.
>>
>>> your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>>
>> Nope, the card companys get it from the interest they charge
>> the fools who dont pay off their cards in full every month.
>>
> And they get a percentage of each sale from the merchant.
other epithets.
--
This is an election year. By common law,
the truth is legally suspended.
Elmo
> In article <bosTj.239$yg5...@newsfe06.lga>, bashley1...@gmail.com
> (The Real Bev) says...
>
>> Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to carry.
>> My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all credit cards.
>> There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a couple of
>> gift-certificate cards and more.
>
> I have gone to two wallets. One is just essentials - cash, my ATM card,
> auto insurance card, etc.; stuff I don't want to be without. The other
> wallet is for everything else. Often times, it stays home. When I
> carry it, having two wallets evens out the lumps in my pockets.
>
little folder that gets stuffed into the coin purse. That way if when
I'm on the bicycle I have what they'll need to identify me if I get
crunched by some jagoff in a gas guzzler and if I happen to make it to
the ER alive, they'll be more likely to try to save my dead ass.
SMS
> And they call people who pay them off promptly "freeloaders" and
> other epithets.
Since the card issuers know from credit reports who's carrying a big
balance and paying a lot of interest, it would be easy for them to send
their card offers only to those users. Yet there seems to be no shortage
of credit card offers to those users that pay in full each month. They
seem to be happy enough getting their percentage on each transaction.
George
Exactly, I don't know where the legend started about people who pay off
the balance as being "freeloaders". The megabanks make a nice income on
all of the merchant fees they collect from each transaction where one of
their cards is used. I pay in full each month and get plenty of
solicitations by other banks who know there is money to be made on me.
Elmo
more income than just the transaction fee alone?
gjensen
Here is an article I found helpful about ways to use less gas
http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.com/save-environment/save-gas-money.html
On May 1, 8:33 pm, lancejnel...@gmail.com wrote:
> I just wanted to throw this topic out there. I know it's on
> everyones' mind because we all depend on it. Gas prices just keep on
> going up. Is there anything that can be done about it. Will the
> government ever step in and do something? Gas is at about $3.50 where
> I live and it's startin to hurt. I know that there has got to be a
> solution to this problem. A few things to do are: 1. Try to drive
> less. 2. Think about purchasing a hybrid vehicle. 3. Try to carpool
> whenever possible. I have a blog on this subject, and there is some
> good information on there. If you are interested, I recommend taking
> a look.http://beatfueldependance.blogspot.com/.
>
> I think if we come together in a concerted effort to fight this
> problem, we can figure it out, and save all of us from going to the
> poor house.
Chinese Bicycle Guy
> Exactly, I don't know where the legend started about people who pay off
> the balance as being "freeloaders". The megabanks make a nice income on
> all of the merchant fees they collect from each transaction where one of
> their cards is used.
I wonder how they do this. My Visa card pays me a 2% rebate on all
purchases, which is more than most merchants pay in fees, and remember
this rebate comes from the bank, who only gets part of the fee (some
goes to Visa). My Amex rebates 5% on gasoline, which is much more than
the merchant pays in fees to Amex. So I'm pretty sure that I'm a
freeloader. I pay no interest, I sign up for no insurance, I don't pay
balance transfer fees. How long will these companies put up with us
freeloaders?
George Grapman
The will put up with it as long as people keep paying interest on
their payments. It is the same as a grocery store that offer buy one get
one free. They may not make money on the people who just buy that item
that it is more than offset by those who fill up their carts.
Ann
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in
> news:DrxTj.1681$nW2...@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Terri wrote:
>>
>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>
>> Why would you think that?
> Because of how it where I live. As I mentioned in an earlier post, where I
> am it's cheaper to pay cash. Additionally, the same place that is cheaper
> is a mere 1/4 mile from my house.
>
>
>> The cheapest place to buy gas in my area is Costco. Not only doe the
>> Costco Amex card give a 3% rebate(consumer card) or 5% rebate (business
>> card), you can't pay with cash even if you wanted to. It's debit or
>> credit card (only Amex) only. At $3.80 a gallon, that 5% rebate is a
>> 19¢ per gallon rebate.
>
> Right, but consider not everyone lives where buying the cheapest gas is
> practical. I'm rural (see misc.rural in x-post) and a good 25 miles from
> the nearest Costco.
Twenty-five miles from a Costco is downright metropolitan.
> If I happen to be there getting groceries at the same
> time I need gas, it works out great. It doesn't make much sense for me to
> make a 50 mile round trip ride (and about an hour and a half of my day)for
> the express purpose of getting Costco's cheaper gas. What I would have
> saved is moot if I have to drive those miles to get it.