The cost of boating just went up. Gas hits all-time high.
NOYB
NOYB
"NOYB" <no...@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:MvG%h.12576$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Chuck Gould
> Thank you, Madam Speaker. You're doing a bang-up job.
Actually, the percentage of your net worth required to purchase a boat
is probably plummeting. A softening retail environment for boats (the
little and some of the middle guys can't do the fuel costs) as well as
rampaging securities market put upper income professionals, like
dentists, into a pretty good position to buy right now.
"Boating is more affordable than ever!"
If you're going to blame Pelosi for the price of refined petroleum
products, don't forget to thank her for the very nice uptick in your
stock portfolio. She has as much to do with one as with the other. Zip
in both cases.
HK
> On May 7, 7:15�am, "NOYB" <n...@noyb.com> wrote:
>> Thank you, Madam Speaker. �You're doing a bang-up job.
>
> Actually, the percentage of your net worth required to purchase a boat
> is probably plummeting. A softening retail environment for boats (the
> little and some of the middle guys can't do the fuel costs) as well as
> rampaging securities market put upper income professionals, like
> dentists, into a pretty good position to buy right now.
>
> "Boating is more affordable than ever!"
Nice rationalizations! Need a larger shovel?
>
> If you're going to blame Pelosi for the price of refined petroleum
> products, don't forget to thank her for the very nice uptick in your
> stock portfolio. She has as much to do with one as with the other. Zip
> in both cases.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Our national energy policy, whatever it is (it's a secret) was
established by Dick Cheney in 2001 during a series of meetings with oil
industry executives.
Chuck Gould
> >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. ?You're doing a bang-up job.
>
> > Actually, the percentage of your net worth required to purchase a boat
> > is probably plummeting. A softening retail environment for boats (the
> > little and some of the middle guys can't do the fuel costs) as well as
> > rampaging securities market put upper income professionals, like
> > dentists, into a pretty good position to buy right now.
>
> > "Boating is more affordable than ever!"
>
> Nice rationalizations! Need a larger shovel?
Not at all.
The market is soft right now. Everybody used to laugh when somebody
would make a ridiculous offer on an older boat with a pair of 350-HP
gas engines and use the excuse, "I need to buy it that cheaply so I
can afford to repower with diesels". That line of logic isn't as
ridiculous these days.
Prices and demand for relatively fuel efficient boats both seem to be
holding up somewhat so far, but if you want something that will cost
$2000 to fill up for an ambitious 3-day weekend you can pick it up
pretty cheaply. Many of the guys who felt their boat didn't sell last
year because of high fuel prices and who thought this year might be
better are looking at the calendar, (mid May), and starting to chop
prices pretty aggressively.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:MvG%h.12576$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
How do you imagine Pelosi affected gas prices?
HK
Ahh, so as dumb as a boat purchase was previously, it's even dumber
down. Boats...the world's fastest depreciating asset? Fortunately,
Parkers are still a hot commodity.
Chuck Gould
> Fortunately,
> Parkers are still a hot commodity.
I wonder if they call them "parkers" because that's where they spend
their time, parked. (Just kidding!!)
JimH
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UgH%h.8018$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
I guess the same way Bush and/or Cheney affected high gas prices last year.
;-)
John H.
The same way Cheney did?
JoeSpareBedroom
news:463f4def$0$16703$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Well, by creating a war, they *did* increase the perception of risk to the
oil supply. Based on that, gamblers bid up the price.
JimH
If true then gasoline prices would have gone up immediately after the war
started and continued to rise as conflicts continued. That was not the case
though.
Try again.
JoeSpareBedroom
How often have you heard this little blurb on the news? "Oil jumped a dollar
per barrel on news of renewed violence in (wherever)".
HK
"They" (Cheney and Bush) did more than that. Not only did their war make
our oil supply more risky, their naive foreign policies have alienated
us from other countries in the world and, of course, there's Dick's
"secret" energy policies. Who knows what negative impact they have had
on consumer prices.
D.Duck
"Chuck Gould" <chuckgou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178548315.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
What about those of us that have already purchased?
Reginald P. Smithers III
of a commodity.
NOYB
"D.Duck" <D...@ld.duck> wrote in message
news:gOednW3SUs71w6Lb...@giganews.com...
> What about those of us that have already purchased?
We deserve it since we're causing global warming.
NOYB
The same way Bush affected gas prices to make his buddies rich.
NOYB
We waged a new war in the last 6 months?
Prices were down until a month or two ago.
JoeSpareBedroom
Compared to when?
JoeSpareBedroom
If you can't describe the precise mechanism by which Pelosi did this, then
your original theory is nonsense, or you just posted it to be annoying.
JimH
Pssst....Doug........it was..................and made about as much sense as
the BS being thrown out last year against Bush and Cheney.
D.Duck
Maybe I should sell and buy a new one.
Wayne.B
>Fortunately,
>Parkers are still a hot commodity.
Are you still trying to sell yours Harry?
For how long, a year now?
John H.
If you can't describe the precise mechanism by which Cheney did this, then
your Harry theory is nonsense.
NOYB
Compared to the last time they hit $3, genius.
HK
I've actually never *tried* to sell it. Never ran an ad, never put a
sign on it, never did anything, really. I did offer to sell it to
Herring here at a really good price, but he wasn't interested. I do keep
track of resale prices, though, and am pleased that rigs in very good,
"low mileage" condition like mine are selling for prices that were about
$5000 more than I had in mind for the poster here who gave up boating to
become a bad golfer.
NOYB
I posted it to demonstrate the absurdity in the notion that the governing
party drives gas prices for profits.
NOYB
"D.Duck" <D...@ld.duck> wrote in message
Do you have enough carbon credits saved up for that?
HK
CNN is reporting that a number of big producers have shut down a number
of their refineries because of "problems." The problems must be their
feeling they could scalp the public a bit more prior to the start of
summer.
JoeSpareBedroom
You're in a mood. Hygienist refusing to give blowjobs this week?
John H.
Of course, that 'really good price' was never disclosed!
But, "$5000 more than I had in mind" sounds very truthful. But, I never got
to see the lobsta boat either!
John H.
LOL!!!
John H.
You just got blown out of the water. Bedroom full this weekend?
Reginald P. Smithers III
sell it.
Don White
"John H." <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2av33lb35nrgldeo...@4ax.com...
>
> You just got blown out of the water. Bedroom full this weekend?
You picking fights with everyone you come across this week Johnny?
Please explain again how this improves the newsgroup.
Chuck Gould
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ytL%h.8031$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "NOYB" <n...@noyb.com> wrote in message
> >news:Q0L%h.12642$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:UgH%h.8018$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
> >>> "NOYB" <n...@noyb.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:MvG%h.12576$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>> Thank you, Madam Speaker. You're doing a bang-up job.
>
> >>> How do you imagine Pelosi affected gas prices?
>
> >> The same way Bush affected gas prices to make his buddies rich.
>
> > If you can't describe the precise mechanism by which Pelosi did this, then
> > your original theory is nonsense, or you just posted it to be annoying
>
> I posted it to demonstrate the absurdity in the notion that the governing
>
> - Show quoted text -
You certainly succeeded in demonstrating the absurdity that either
political party controls gas prices.
Oil companies control gas prices.
The daily laugh is listening to the latest rounds of excuses for high
prices. Too much demand for gas in general, not enough demand for
specific types of gas, turmoil in the mideast, peace and prosperity in
the far east, not enough refinery capacity (please ignore the fact
that we have been shutting refineries routinely for over a decade,
thanks), not enough oil being extracted from the National Parks and
wildlife refuges, the high cost of extracting oil from national parks
adn wildlife sanctuaries.....etc, etc, etc.
Bottom line, really, when all the BS is sliced away, is that the oil
companies are doing exactly what anybody else would do in their stead;
charging every last fricking nickel the market will bear and shorting
supply to create a bidding war. If the practice creates some human
misery and has a negative impact on other businesses not involved in
the refining and distribution of oil---- tough toenails. These people
are in business to make every last dime they possibly can- as are we
all. They shouldn't be expected to sell for less than their product
can bring simply to promote the general welfare of the country and the
economy.
JoeSpareBedroom
> You certainly succeeded in demonstrating the absurdity that either
> political party controls gas prices.
Go away and think for 20 minutes about how this situation is connected to
cheaper goods from overseas.
RCE
"HK" <payer...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:W7KdnZLj3OALBaLb...@comcast.com...
>
> CNN is reporting that a number of big producers have shut down a number of
> their refineries because of "problems." The problems must be their feeling
> they could scalp the public a bit more prior to the start of summer.
I almost hate to bring this up, but ....
I remember, maybe 15-20 years ago, economic experts saying that the USA was
going to face some significant changes in the future. Manufacturing would
decline, Al Gore talked about the "Information Highway", job growth would
be in the service sector and the USA's overall economic influence that
developed as a result of WWII would weaken as the world shifted to a global
economy. Weaker nations have become strong. Even Russia is a quickly
developing economic power. The Ruble and the Euro are getting stronger
against the dollar.
For years everyone acknowledged that Americans were getting cheap gas and
fuel compared to the rest of the world and we did. It was a perk we enjoyed
for having the world's most powerful and influential economy.
The playing field is much flatter now and will continue to equalize. Quite
frankly, 3 bucks a gallon for gas is *still* cheap.
I really don't think oil companies or politicians have much control over
this.
Eisboch
Wayne.B
>I do keep
>track of resale prices, though, and am pleased that rigs in very good,
>"low mileage" condition like mine are selling for prices that were about
>$5000 more than I had in mind for the poster here who gave up boating to
>become a bad golfer.
I guess I'm fortunate that I didn't have to give up boating to become
a bad golfer.
Wayne.B
wrote:
>You certainly succeeded in demonstrating the absurdity that either
>political party controls gas prices.
>
>Oil companies control gas prices.
So buy an oil company, or at least a few shares in one. Prices are
reasonable and most pay a decent dividend.
The truth is that oil companies buy their feedstock and sell their
product in open auction markets. Find out who is bidding up prices
and ask them to stop. This all involves a radical new economic theory
called supply and demand.
As an alternative you can move to Venezuela. They are subsidizing the
price of petro products to their citizens at dirt cheap prices. Some
day they will still have low prices but nothing left to sell.
Chuck Gould
>
> I really don't think oil companies or politicians have much control over
> this.
>
> Eisboch
Oil companies don't control what they charge for refined products?
A 42 gallon bbl of oil produces about 20 gallons of gas and about 7
gallons of diesel- along with some other petroluem products that are
sold at a profit.
Even *if* the entire cost of raw materials was passed through solely
to the gasoline consumer, (and it certainly isn't), a $1 jump in the
price of a barrel of oil would only ad 5 cents to the price of a
gallon of gas. Even under a ridiculous scenario where diesel and misc.
petroleum products got a free ride on the back of gasoline, the $10
increase in a bbl of oil since January
should result in a 50-cent run-up, not $1.25. In reality, the raw
materials cost is spread to diesel and other refined products so the
increased cost of crude oil reflected in the price of a gallon of gas
is probably closer to 30-cents (not 50) since January.
Chuck Gould
> "Chuck Gould" <chuckgould.ch...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Demand for oil overseas raises competition for a world wide commodity.
Pretty obvious. That affects the price of a bbl of oil more than
refined products, however. Because the environmental laws are lax or
worse in many of those developing economies it's a lot cheaper to
refine the oil there than it would be to refine it here and then ship
it overseas again. We may be competing with the Chinese for crude, but
not for refined products from US refineries.
RCE
You are considering raw material costs only. There are many other costs
involved ... salaries, refinery operations and maintenance, benefits,
retirement plans and the pressure of stockholders to meet expectations or
announced guidance.
I think the oil companies have to play a forecasting and averaging game
which is why the same gas from the same barrel of crude can go up 30 cents a
gallon in a week. They are not pricing on what a barrel of crude is today,
but rather on what they think it will be a month, 6 months or a year from
now. Factor in the demand issue .... (at some price demand will drop) ...
and crude costs may go down .... but the other costs and pressure for
profits continue. I suspect it's very complex. I know from personal
experience and on a much, much more simple scale, that a public company with
stockholders watching daily to meet announced expectations that it is a very
different way of doing business now-a-days. When my company went from
being a small, private ma and pa type operation to part of a much larger
(1B+) public company the whole world changed in terms of what was important.
(Which is also why I retired <g>)
Eisboch
Chuck Gould
> On 7 May 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Chuck Gould <chuckgould.ch...@gmail.com>
I don't begrudge the oil companies' right to be greedy as hell.
In fact, unless we want to become a socialist society and economy this
porice gouging just comes with the territory.
Theoretically, their rape and pillage pricing creates more opportunity
for alternative energy technologies to become viable. We've had
alternative energy in boating for centuries....it's called sailing. I
wouldn't be excited about making the switch to sail, but if were just
getting into boating today I'd be more likely than before to take up
sailing and fuel prices would be a major factor in that equation.
John H.
wrote:
>On May 7, 3:59?pm, Wayne.B <waynebatrecdotbo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 2007 15:06:51 -0700, Chuck Gould <chuckgould.ch...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You certainly succeeded in demonstrating the absurdity that either
>> >political party controls gas prices.
>>
>> >Oil companies control gas prices.
>>
>> So buy an oil company, or at least a few shares in one. rices are
>> reasonable and most pay a decent dividend.
>>
>> The truth is that oil companies buy their feedstock and sell their
>> product in open auction markets. ind out who is bidding up prices
>> and ask them to stop. his all involves a radical new economic theory
>> called supply and demand.
>>
>> As an alternative you can move to Venezuela. hey are subsidizing the
>> price of petro products to their citizens at dirt cheap prices. Some
>> day they will still have low prices but nothing left to sell.
>
>I don't begrudge the oil companies' right to be greedy as hell.
>In fact, unless we want to become a socialist society and economy this
>porice gouging just comes with the territory.
>
>Theoretically, their rape and pillage pricing creates more opportunity
>for alternative energy technologies to become viable. We've had
>alternative energy in boating for centuries....it's called sailing. I
>wouldn't be excited about making the switch to sail, but if were just
>getting into boating today I'd be more likely than before to take up
>sailing and fuel prices would be a major factor in that equation.
Just imagine how much better off we'd be if we had the same percent of
power from nuclear energy as the French.
John H.
You're right. Becoming a bad golfer was effortless and required no
sacrifice! Now, how much is it going to cost me to get the index below 28?
John H.
wrote:
Tell us again about the most popular transportation in Canada. Surely it's
not a gas guzzler, right?
Donnie, that *was* funny, and you know it!
Dan
>
>
> Ahh, so as dumb as a boat purchase was previously, it's even dumber
> down. Boats...the world's fastest depreciating asset? Fortunately,
> Parkers are still a hot commodity.
Keep telling yourself that, Hank.
wf3h
HK wrote:
> >
>
> Our national energy policy, whatever it is (it's a secret) was
> established by Dick Cheney in 2001 during a series of meetings with oil
> industry executives.w
what i love about this is, when ira magaziner and hilary clintion
tried to get us universal health care, the right wing (bill kristol)
went ape shit, screaming about secret cabals.
when dick cheney hands the country, and 3000 dead troops....over to
his oil buddies, no one said a damn thing.
Don White
Do you really have that much trouble reading and understanding what you
read? No wonder the school system is in such a mess.
I said " The best selling car in Canada for a number of years has been the
Honda Civic"
You do understand the difference between a 'car' and a 'truck' don't you
Johnny?
NOYB
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:1178590403....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> HK wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Our national energy policy, whatever it is (it's a secret) was
>> established by Dick Cheney in 2001 during a series of meetings with oil
>> industry executives.w
>
>
> what i love about this is, when ira magaziner and hilary clintion
> tried to get us universal health care
To which office was Hillary elected to in 1992?
Then what right did she have to make policy that would have destroyed the
healthcare system for 260,000,000 Americans with insurance so that
40,000,000 uninsured could get access?
Short Wave Sportfishing
I have a great Hillary story.
Back when she was put in "charge" (read Ira Magaziner was in charge -
Hillary was just his mouth piece), they had an open Town Meeting in
New London to solicite public comments. I was invited by Sam "The
Man" Gedenjson who was then the Congressman from the 2nd District
which included my town. (I was invited by virtue of some veterens
work I had some with Sam and the VA - probably the only thing he ever
did as a Congressman that actually had some impact).
So, we're at the meeting, there about 150 people, about half senior
citizens. During the participatory part, this little old lady stands
up at the microphone and asked the following question (paraphrased).
"Can you tell me how your proposal will reduce my and my husband's
prescription costs, doctor's cost and my husbands stroke therapy
payments?"
This was Hillary's exact response.
"I only deal in policy, I don't deal in specifics".
Yep. Never made the news either. :>)
JoeSpareBedroom
I was thinking more along these lines: Although some people inexplicably
deny this, higher oil prices affect every link in the manufacturing chain,
simply because of freight costs. Now, some businesses may switch to overseas
manufacturing because they just feel like cranking up their profit margin
ASAP. But others may do so when costs here reach the point where they have a
choice of either move, shut their doors for good, or try raising prices and
have their customers shut down their companies by refusing to pay those
higher costs.
To simplify: Do higher oil prices push manufacturing jobs overseas?
JoeSpareBedroom
Good question. I'll pair it with another one: To which office was Manucher
Ghorbanifar elected to? What right does he have to try and influence our
policies?
Or, to simplify this for you: Do you think our policy makers speak to
absolutely nobody that wasn't elected?
animal05
You also have to factor in the supply issue. Price is a way of
manipulating demand. If price remained constant and supply dropped
below demand, shortages and/or outages would occur. Lets face it, in a
capitalistic market, if someone else can supply more of the same goods
for slightly less, making more overall profit, they will. My
understanding is that currently there is a shortage of refined product,
due to some refineries either off line or retooling. Part of the
problem is the hundreds of different formulas required by the feds
around the country.
Chuck Gould
>
> You also have to factor in the supply issue. Price is a way of
> manipulating demand. If price remained constant and supply dropped
> below demand, shortages and/or outages would occur. Lets face it, in a
> capitalistic market, if someone else can supply more of the same goods
> for slightly less, making more overall profit, they will. My
> understanding is that currently there is a shortage of refined product,
> due to some refineries either off line or retooling. Part of the
> problem is the hundreds of different formulas required by the feds
> around the country.
The rules of a capitalistic market do not apply when the raw materials
are controlled by an oligopoly. There is no opportunity for new
players to enter the field and supply superior or cheaper refined
products. Even *if* there were a new and independent refinery built,
the operators would need to rely on their competitors for raw
materials....not a good business model in any industry.
There is a shortage of refined product because world demand has
increased to the point where there is no longer any surplus supply.
Every drop will sell. By choosing to "retool and repair" refineries
during the onset of the peak demand months, the oil companies short
the market in some economies and drive prices up dramatically in
response. The normal risk of shorting the market is that your
competitor will increase supply to meet the demand, which could cost
you relationships with your customers and leave you with unsold
product.
When any member of an oligopoly shorts the market, it benefits the
other members as well. There is no need for outright, formal, illegal
"collusion". Because worldwide demand exceeds supply, there is no risk
of a competitor ramping up production to steal your customers- you
will find somebody, somewhere, willing to pay whatever you want to
charge. If that attitude disrupts economies or creates hardships for
people who have previously relied on a predictable supply of a product
at a predictable price that's too fricking bad. The oil companies are
in business to make a profit......period.
It goes without saying that boating will suffer, probably very badly,
as fuel costs
go higher and higher every year. That's been the trend for three
years, and any realistic person would have to assume that (excuses
about refineries, floods, hurricanes, etc aside) it's now the basic
business formula for BIGOIL. Few people are going to buy any
recreational vessel or vehicle that needs to consume enormous
quantities of petroleum products to operate, and who can blame them?
Tough as it is when the costs are $4-5 at the fuel dock, imagine what
would happen if fuel goes to $6-7, or $7-8? The volatility of fuel
prices and the very real possibility that they could be double what
they are now in just a couple of years has to discourage any
reasonable person from "investing" a couple of hundred thousand in a
boat, or taking out a 15-year marine mortgage to make payments for
one.
I think I can see where we're going on a few fronts over the next few
to several years, and I wish the picture were slightly prettier from
here. We're entering an era of fewer options for all but the folks in
the very highest income brackets, as well as when a flock of
consequences begin coming home to roost.
Eisboch
Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views expressed
about fuel prices?
It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning political
views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in the USA,
it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per gallon compared to
the rest of the world. Conservation was preached, encouraged and some even
advocated raising the price of gas to force further conservation and the use
of smaller, fuel efficient autos in order to reduce demand.
Fast forward to today and it seems that the same people are now blaming big
business greed and politicians lining their pockets for the natural increase
in prices.
Can't win.
Eisboch
NOYB
"Harry Krause" <harry....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5abnq1F...@mid.individual.net...
It's both. Oil is not immune from the laws of supply and demand. But
there's an amplifying factor at work too.
Calif Bill
Most of the retooling of refineries is a government requirement. Going from
Winter to Summer Blend. When California had real shortages a couple of
years ago, we could not get fuel from Arizona, that had a surplus, because
it did not meet the Calif. State blend requirements. And the refineries
were required to add MTBE. The stuff ate up seals at an extreme rate. One
of the reasons there were more refinery fires.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:XrudnSz13by7ON3b...@comcast.com...
The problem with preaching conservation is that the suggested methods
usually involve long term solutions. I wonder what would happen if a real
president with some balls said the following during one of his TV
appearances:
"I can fund research until the cows come home, but we might never find
solutions which make every type of vehicle more efficient. And, at some
point, you have to stop looking for others to find solutions, and volunteer
to do the one thing that's inarguably effective. Next time you're ready to
buy a car, be honest, and buy based on your real needs. Stop thinking that
the only alternative to an SUV is a Ford Focus. Ignore the crap you're being
told in the commercials. Is the only reason you bought an SUV that you have
a family of 5 and a week's worth of groceries? Wouldn't a van fit your needs
equally well? Did you justify the SUV by convincing yourself they were
safer, or that you wanted to be able to see over all the other trucks? Did
you buy a pickup to haul 3 sheets of plywood just once in the entire time
you owned the vehicle? Those aren't reasons. I'm not saying you have to go
out and buy a Prius or a Mini-Cooper. But, how about reducing your gas usage
by 30%, just by looking at the difference between an SUV and a mini-van?
(points to chart with 5 car models shown below) We can't create laws to
change your buying habits, and there's nothing I can do about what oil
companies charge for fuel. But, you are capable of having a significant
impact on how much oil this country uses.
If you're not buying a car this year, write to your favorite car
manufacturer and tell them what you want to buy when you're ready. If they
continue to pile up SUVs at their dealerships, that's their problem, not
yours.
During WWII, our grandparents planted victory gardens. You can't pick a
better car, in order to help this country? Grow up already."
Toyota Sequoia SUV: 15/18 mpg
Toyota Sienna van: 19/26 mpg
Chrysler Town & Country van: 19/26 mpg
Ford Crown Victoria: 17/26 mpg
Buick Lucerne: 17/28 mpg
Calif Bill
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishbo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Op20i.8071$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
What is an SUV? My wife drives a 1996 S-10 Blazer. It is smaller than the
Sienna van.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:Js20i.4780$296....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
You know exactly what I mean. Stick with the example shown, since it is 100%
valid in this context.
John H.
wrote:
>
>"John H." <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ksiv331opkd6q575l...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 May 2007 19:02:52 -0300, "Don White" <whi...@ns.sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John H." <jher...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:a2av33lb35nrgldeo...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> You just got blown out of the water. Bedroom full this weekend?
>>>
>>>
>>>You picking fights with everyone you come across this week Johnny?
>>>Please explain again how this improves the newsgroup.
>>>
>>
>> Tell us again about the most popular transportation in Canada. Surely it's
>> not a gas guzzler, right?
>>
>> Donnie, that *was* funny, and you know it!
>
>Do you really have that much trouble reading and understanding what you
>read? No wonder the school system is in such a mess.
>I said " The best selling car in Canada for a number of years has been the
>Honda Civic"
>You do understand the difference between a 'car' and a 'truck' don't you
>Johnny?
>
And now you're doing the Canadian Two-Step. Pretty cute, too!
Chuck Gould
?????????????? You start by identifying a group comprised of "those
with more left leaning political views" and then begin ascribing a
common sentiment to everybody in that group. That's pretty dangerous
ground. No group is comprised of people who all think exactly the same
way.
More left than what?
Stereotypes are nearly always wrong.
But, to the remainder of your comment.....
Is market manipulation the same as a "natural increase" in prices?
Will yanking the price up and down to assure that the greener
technologies the high prices encourage don't achieve any real economic
traction ultimately result in an energy-efficient economy and
society? As surely as we're flirting with $4 (very close to that for
92 Octane in a lot of places on the W coast right now) in the late
spring and perhaps beyond, prices will begin moderating by July. By
fall they'll be "down" to $2.65 a gallon and we'll all be singing
"Happy Days are Here Again" until late February 2008.
Raping and pillaging at a little higher rate for a little longer every
year is a shrewd business practice. No problem with that, you don't
get to be a policy maker in a major oil company by being anything less
than shrewd. Pile up the mega-billions in profits in a short period of
time, and then start loosening the noose before the politicians have
to begin listening to the anguished cries of suffering constituents.
The oil companies have a right to earn a profit. We don't have any
right to cheap oil. The frustration is in being so blatantly
manipulated, and a minor amusement is hearing the programmed
apologists offering the freshest round of big oil excuses for the
various refinery emergencies that just happen to occur during the same
strategically beneficial period each year.
Conservation remains in the best interest of western civiliation.
There are important differences between a national conservation policy
that creates some reasonable alternatives to the consumption of
petroleum products and a marketing scheme by BIGOIL. I burn bio diesel
in the boat and bought a hybrid car. If everybody did only an
equivalent amount, we would break the choke hold of BIGOIL. Difference
is, I'm not prepared or inclined to *demand* that everybody drive a
hybrid, burn bio-diesel, or do something else roughly equivalent.
BIGOIL and their crew of apologists does demand that everybody swap a
pint of blood for a gallon of gas everytime they need fuel for
business or pleasure use.
We have a social and physical infrastructure founded on the assumption
that cheap oil would be almost eternally available. It's hard to
imagine that more than a tiny percentage of folks still think that
cheap oil will prevail in the future or that the current and recent
annual pricing trends are just flukes. A progressive society would
strive toward an orderly transition and energy independence from our
professed enemies, but we sit around fairly helplessly and allow a
tough situation (that most of us agree is a reality) to do little more
than serve as a fig leaf for profiteering by BIGOIL.
My boat burns about 2 gph. Even at $15-20 a gallon I could afford to
go boating. From a personal perspective, I'm fairly immune to the
effects of fuel costs gone out of control. Most of my friends and
business associates are boaters or depend on the boating industry for
a livlihood (as do I). So yeah, I'm personally pretty concerned about
the long term ramifications to boating as a recreational activity and/
or viable business fostered by scandalous profiteering. Yes, even
though the oil companies have every legal right to charge as much as
they can get away with and even if, in the same position, I would
likely do the same.
Eisboch
"Harry Krause" <harry....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5abnq1F...@mid.individual.net...
> Eisboch wrote:
If those who advocated increasing gas prices to encourage conservation had
their way ... wouldn't that also have been "manipulated"?
I think Europeans who, for many, have been paying double what we pay for
years are getting a kick out of all our whining.
Eisboch
JoeSpareBedroom
news:Xns992A918AA8...@66.250.146.128...
> In message news:Op20i.8071$B25....@news01.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach
> forth the following:
>
>> I'm not saying you have to go
>> out and buy a Prius
>
>
> http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_164968
> 5.php
>
> Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one
> and squash a Prius with it. The Toyota Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-
> efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting
> (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second
> motor,
> and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles – trailing a cloud of carbon –
> to
> Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component
> that
> goes to a battery factory in Japan.
>
> Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and
> smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon
> dioxide.
> But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost
> of
> New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per
> lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25,
> compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).
....none of which is relevant to the idea of a leader asking Americans to
make behavioral changes that won't hurt a bit, and will actually help.
Chuck Gould
<nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In messagenews:Ib20i.4776$296...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net,
> Calif Bill sprach forth the following:
>
> > The rules of a capitalistic market do not apply when the raw materials
> > are controlled by an oligopoly.
>
> many countries.
>
> > There is no opportunity for new
> > players to enter the field and supply superior or cheaper refined
> > products.
>
>
> > Even *if* there were a new and independent refinery built,
> > the operators would need to rely on their competitors for raw
> > materials....not a good business model in any industry.
>
>
> > There is a shortage of refined product because world demand has
> > increased to the point where there is no longer any surplus supply.
>
>
> > If that attitude disrupts economies or creates hardships for
> > people who have previously relied on a predictable supply of a product
> > at a predictable price that's too fricking bad. The oil companies are
> > in business to make a profit......period.
>
> "in business to make a profit". Oh, wait. No they're not. So your point
> is worthless.
>
> > Few people are going to buy any
> > recreational vessel or vehicle that needs to consume enormous
> > quantities of petroleum products to operate, and who can blame them?
> > Tough as it is when the costs are $4-5 at the fuel dock, imagine what
> > would happen if fuel goes to $6-7, or $7-8?
>
>
> > I think I can see where we're going on a few fronts over the next few
> > to several years, and I wish the picture were slightly prettier from
> > here.
>
>
> > We're entering an era of fewer options for all but the folks in
> > the very highest income brackets, as well as when a flock of
> > consequences begin coming home to roost.
>
>
> > Most of the retooling of refineries is a government requirement. Going
> > from Winter to Summer Blend. When California had real shortages a
> > couple of years ago, we could not get fuel from Arizona, that had a
> > surplus, because it did not meet the Calif. State blend requirements.
>
>
> > And the refineries were required to add MTBE. The stuff ate up seals
> > at an extreme rate. One of the reasons there were more refinery fires.
>
A theme?
Yeah, you keep advocating for opening ANWR. :-)
USGS estimates that peak production from ANWR would be only about
876,000 bbl a day, and that's ten years or more out there. At current
consumption, that's around 3% of US energy needs.
There is also no assurance that if the Japanese, the Chinese, or
somebody else is willing to pay a lot more for oil recovered from ANWR
that a single drop of this crude would ever be refined in or sold in
the US. If congress passed a law that oil fron ANWR *must* be refined
and sold in the US, that would merely free up some other domestic
supply to be sold overseas.
Must we rape every last corner of the planet in pursuit of a 19th
century economic model before we move forward into the 21st? I'd like
to think not.
Pleasure boating, as we know it today, may not be part of the
landscape before too many more years go by. That could be part of
moving forward into the 21st Century. Damn. But whoever said life was
fair?
JoeSpareBedroom
> In message news:5c30i.8190$ya1....@news02.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach
> forth the following:
>
>> "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>> news:Xns992A918AA8...@66.250.146.128...
>>> In message news:Op20i.8071$B25....@news01.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom
>>> sprach forth the following:
>>>
>>>> I'm not saying you have to go
>>>> out and buy a Prius
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>> http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_16
>>>
>>> Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy
>>> one and squash a Prius with it. The Toyota Prius hybrid is, of course,
>>> fuel- efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and
>>> smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered
>>> second motor,
>>> and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles – trailing a cloud of carbon
>>> – to
>>> Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component
>>> that
>>> goes to a battery factory in Japan.
>>>
>>> Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and
>>> smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon
>>> dioxide.
>>> But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy
>>> Cost of
>>> New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per
>>> lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25,
>>> compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).
>>
>>
>> ....none of which is relevant to the idea of a leader asking Americans
>> to make behavioral changes that won't hurt a bit, and will actually
>> help.
>
> opening
> ANWR?
That's an example of something that's contentious, and could take forever to
deal with. Sort of like the never ending debate about the meaning of the 2nd
amendment. Meanwhile, asking people to grow up and take responsibility for
their actions is free, and will actually work, starting immediately. Are you
resistant to the idea of voluntary behavioral changes?
Chuck Gould
<nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> In messagenews:1178648922....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Chuck
> Gould sprach forth the following:
>
> > Must we rape every last corner of the planet
>
Ah, obfuscation- those who cannot address the argument will take issue
with a single phrase.
JoeSpareBedroom
>> Meanwhile, asking people to grow up and
>> take responsibility for their actions is free, and will actually work,
>> starting immediately.
>
> So you're going to tell a single mom making $8 an hour that they need to
> trade in their 1983 Electra for a $22,000 Accord? How is that "free"?
>
>> Are you resistant to the idea of voluntary
>> behavioral changes?
>
> Nothing that involves government is voluntary. Government is by
> definition
> coercion ("you must") or proscription ("you can't"). That you do not
> understand this most basic concept explains the inanity of most of your
> posts.
I never said anything about telling anyone to trade in their car
immediately. I'm talking about upcoming purchases. And, there is nothing
coercive about a president using his TV time to ask people to rethink their
habits.
D.Duck
Does this qualify?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/27/business/gas.php
JoeSpareBedroom
news:VJSdnRS1meqrRd3b...@giganews.com...
It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different car is
venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't think of any
other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos or crotches than
automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real president with balls to touch
the subject. The message would be somewhat insulting, but sometimes, people
need a bucket of cold water dumped on their heads.
Tim
Very valid and convincing thought, but *grow up, already* would shoot
it down.
JoeSpareBedroom
news:1178655519.7...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Maybe. But let's face it: It's true. The only way to deny it is to give many
consumers a pass by saying they were brainwashed by advertising, which is
pretty powerful stuff.
Dave Hall
>
>Do you know what cracks me up about some of the various views expressed
>about fuel prices?
>
>It wasn't too many years ago that those with more left leaning political
>views were concerned about the high consumption rate of gasoline in the USA,
>it's continued supply and it's artificially low price per gallon compared to
>the rest of the world.
What was or is "artificial" about US gasoline prices compared to the
rest of the world? Our prices, absent taxes, have always been about
the same as everyone elses as far as I know. The only reason we were
paying $1 per gallon while Europe was paying the equivalent of $5 per
gallon was the $4 in extra taxes that they were paying - either as
direct gasoline/energy taxes or the extra income and VAT tax burden on
the refiners and sellers that were reflected into the base fuel
prices. Theirs was and is the "artificial" price.
Dave hall
D.Duck
This is from the above link. Sounds like he did ask us to cut back, not
only to buy more efficient vehicles
He added that if Americans could avoid going on "a trip that's not
essential," that would be "helpful."
He also issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy
use and to encourage employees to use public transportation.
JoeSpareBedroom
Not far enough. Sorry. I understand I may be insulting one of your icons,
but that's just the way it goes.
JimH
"D.Duck" <D...@ld.duck> wrote in message
news:VJSdnRS1meqrRd3b...@giganews.com...
>
Interestingly the Highway Trust Fund is losing $ billions because of more
fuel efficient vehicles and folks changing their driving habits.
D.Duck
He's not one of my icons. I don't agree with many of the things he has and
has not done. But you said he should say something....he already has.
JoeSpareBedroom
In order for this to be done right, it would require a real president, as I
stated earlier. We do not have that at this moment. Someone like Mario Cuomo
would be an example of someone real. Someone who can function without a
script.
JimH
Here you go again trying to dictate what consumers can purchase.
Regarding the advertising, the Big 3 have knocked off attacking each other
and are focusing on "buy American". The problem is that buying American may
mean buying a Toyota and not a Cadillac. It is now a global economy and one
can no longer be assured that the GM, Ford or Chrysler product is
manufactured in the US or that the majority of components are US made.
The Big 3 deserves what is happening to them. Lack of foresight, management
giving the unions whatever they wanted and executives receiving outrageous
salaries/bonus's/incentives have led to their demise. One example is the
new Ford CEO, Alan Mulally (hired on September, 2006 taking over after Bill
Ford Jr resigned) taking in $39 million in salary, stock options and bonus
money for those 4 months. This was after Ford had a net loss of almost $13
billion in 2006.
They continue to dig their own grave.
JimH
"Just Say No to Drugs" worked great! Eh?
JoeSpareBedroom
news:4640e3b4$0$8959$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
And that was a response to what in particular, assuming you can still
remember why you typed it?
JoeSpareBedroom
Once again, I said nothing of the sort. But, as I wrote the original
message, I wondered if you or someone like you would come along and claim
something was being "dictated". You're very predictable.
You wreck 3 right rear tires in a month. Your mechanic says "You really
should stop grinding them against the curb when you park". Is he dictating?
Everything below is irrelevant to what I said in the original message.
JimH
<gene.b...@myworkshop.idleplay.net> wrote in message
news:n6f143l7p1k7o2bea...@4ax.com...
> On 08 May 2007 18:03:20 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
> <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>All the more reason to storm the statehouse. And then open ANWR :-).
>
> by U.S. consumers in 2020 from 62 to 60 percent. That is very little
> benefit for unnecessarily risking a valuable tourism resource.
A tourism resource???????????
RCE
> It doesn't go far enough, because asking people to pick a different car is
> venturing into a decision that verges on religion. I can't think of any
> other product which is so tightly bound to people's egos or crotches than
> automobiles. Like I said, it would take a real president with balls to
> touch the subject. The message would be somewhat insulting, but sometimes,
> people need a bucket of cold water dumped on their heads.
Have no fear. The concept of supply and demand in a free market will do all
the policing required. At some price people will take drastic action and
demand will fall quickly. The oil companies and others involved still have
to sell product to sustain growth while covering costs.
Prices will drop.
Eisboch
JoeSpareBedroom
news:k_2dnaIDE5YDeN3b...@giganews.com...
I'm not so sure about that. A lot of people think that if they can afford
expensive gasoline, it means there's no problem. They don't think outside of
their own situation. Someone needs to impress upon them (through
suggestions, not laws) that "there's a world outside of you". The prevalence
of certain types of vehicles is proof that this message hasn't gotten
through yet.
JimH
Nice spin. No cigar though.
>
> Everything below is irrelevant to what I said in the original message.
Not really........you brought up the auto advertising.