Fat people? Less gas!
Mike Kruger
real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent after five
years.
http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
--
Mike Kruger
Go ahead, threaten me like you have the American people for so long! You're
part of a dying breed, Hapsburg, like people who can name all fifty states!
The truth hurts, doesn't it, Hapsburg? Oh sure, maybe not as much as landing
on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts! [Naked Gun 2-1/2]
Tom Sherman
> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per gallon in
> real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent after five
> years.
>
> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
>
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
xho...@gmail.com
> Mike Kruger wrote:
> > According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per
> > gallon in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent
> > after five years.
> >
> > http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
> >
> Correlation and causation confused yet again.
Did you read the dissertation? Because unless you did, how would you
know that that particular error has been committed?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
Mike Kruger
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mike Kruger wrote:
>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per
>>> gallon in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15
>>> percent after five years.
>>>
>>> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
>>>
>> Correlation and causation confused yet again.
>
> Did you read the dissertation? Because unless you did, how would you
> know that that particular error has been committed?
An article he's submitted to a journal is here.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecjcourte/gas_obesity.pdf
He seems to be hedging well enough for academic use: "A causal relationship
between gasoline prices and obesity is possible ... I find empirical support
for this theory. My estimates imply..." That's the start of the abstract.
I haven't read the entire paper yet. There's 19 equations, most of which
seem to be regressions.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
ride their bikes. So they'll get less fat. How isn't that causation?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
sally
prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and Germany, I did not see
huge numbers of skinny people.
Hactar
These countries also have people with different physiognomies, and
mostly speak other languages. Should all of these factors have equal
weight? Why or why not? Discuss.
--
The powers in charge keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic
fervor with the cry of national emergency. Always there has been some
terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not furnish the sums demanded.
Yet these disasters seem never to have been quite real. -- D. MacArthur
bill van
I haven't seen body weight and gasoline prices correlated. But some work
has been done on body weight and urban form:
http://sciencenewsmagazine.org/articles/20070120/bob9.asp
(longish)
--
bill
remove my country for e-mail
DougC
> In article <Xns99DCD83...@192.160.13.20>,
> sally <sa...@sally.com> wrote:
>> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher gasoline
>> prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and Germany, I did not see
>> huge numbers of skinny people.
>
> These countries also have people with different physiognomies, and
> mostly speak other languages. Should all of these factors have equal
> weight? Why or why not? Discuss.
>
I have read in one print magazine that the cause of obesity in most
first-world countries is not usually lack of exercise, but an imbalanced
diet. Many of the persons studied could afford a healthier diet, they
just made poor choices for their food intake.
~
Tom Keats
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>>
>> xho...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Mike Kruger wrote:
>> >>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per
>> >>> gallon in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15
>> >>> percent after five years.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
>> >>>
>> >> Correlation and causation confused yet again.
>> >
>> > Did you read the dissertation? Because unless you did, how would you
>> > know that that particular error has been committed?
>>
>> An article he's submitted to a journal is here.
>> http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecjcourte/gas_obesity.pdf
>>
>> He seems to be hedging well enough for academic use: "A causal relationship
>> between gasoline prices and obesity is possible ... I find empirical support
>> for this theory. My estimates imply..." That's the start of the abstract.
>>
>> I haven't read the entire paper yet. There's 19 equations, most of which
>> seem to be regressions.
>>
> If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
> ride their bikes.
No they won't. They'll begrudgingly pay the
ten bucks a gallon, and continue to drive.
They're hooked. Totally and inextricably addicted.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Sir Thomas of Cannondale
one will need to go anywhere, because there will be
no jobs.
Take for expample my meager job; I drive a school bus. Already, the bus
company and the school system are talking about
cutting back on routes, etc. Diesel is up to $3 plus per gallon.
Yes, there is waste in the system. Yes, it would be much better if the kids
walked.
But what about all those single mothers I work with. They depend on the
part time job to pay the rent, etc.
What we need is a total effort, led by the president, to get our energy
needs, transportation needs, economy, etc ready for the
$10 dollar per gallon gas. If not? Anarchy. Crime will go through the
roof. Unemployment will be unbelievable.
Just stop for a moment and think ... $10 per gallon gasoline. The poor
could not afford to drive. How will then get anywhere.
And where will they go? To the mall? For what.
Your posting is interesting in that bicycles will be very much a part of the
transportation system. As will walking.
But we will have huge problems to deal with as well.
========================================
"Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:BGPWi.16339$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Mike Kruger
>
> I have read in one print magazine that the cause of obesity in most
> first-world countries is not usually lack of exercise, but an
> imbalanced diet. Many of the persons studied could afford a healthier
> diet, they just made poor choices for their food intake.
> ~
This just arrived in the morning's e-mail from the National Bureau of
Economic Research
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w12954 by
Sara Bleich, David Cutler, Christopher Murray, and Alyce Adams
The conclusions of this paper are surprising and startling ;) "Results
show that rising obesity is primarily the result of consuming more
calories."
"increased caloric intake accounted for 93 percent of the change in adult
obesity from1990 to 2001 (the remainder is attributable to reduced energy
expenditure). The increase in caloric intake appears to be driven by
technological innovations, such as lower food prices and the ease with which
businesses can enter the marketplace, as well as changing sociodemographic
characteristics such as increased labor force participation and increased
urbanization.
Across the developed world, average food prices fell by 12 percent from 1980
to 2002, which the authors associate with a corresponding higher caloric
intake of approximately 38 calories. A 10 percent increase in female labor
force participation was associated with an increase of approximately 70
calories. A 10 percent increase in urbanization was associated with an
increase of approximately 113 calories.
The authors point out that a very small net increase in calories may lead to
a large increase in obesity, and they predict expected changes in weight
based on the associations they observe between caloric supply and the
drivers of increased consumption. For example, they show that increasing
food prices by 12 percent would be associated with a decrease of 1.5
kilograms (3.4 pounds) for the average 65-kilogram (143-pound) person.
Similarly, they show that decreasing urbanization by 5 percent would be
associated with a decrease of 2.2 kilograms (5 pounds) for the average
65-kilogram person."
This study is also subject to the usual limitations of causal inference.
landotter
> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
You mean still drive giant SUVs? I suspect not. The truth is, three
dollars a gallon isn't that high if you consider inflation and
historical high gas prices. Ten dollars a gallon is crazy too much to
pay and you would see a response.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
The rule in England is, "Just as long as I can fit in the Tube."
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
>
> Mke,, if gasoline goes up and up .. making it very very expensive ... no
> one will need to go anywhere, because there will be
> no jobs.
>
> Take for expample my meager job; I drive a school bus. Already, the bus
> company and the school system are talking about
> cutting back on routes, etc. Diesel is up to $3 plus per gallon.
>
> Yes, there is waste in the system. Yes, it would be much better if the kids
> walked.
>
> But what about all those single mothers I work with. They depend on the
> part time job to pay the rent, etc.
>
> What we need is a total effort, led by the president, to get our energy
> needs, transportation needs, economy, etc ready for the
> $10 dollar per gallon gas. If not? Anarchy. Crime will go through the
> roof. Unemployment will be unbelievable.
>
If gasoline is ten dollars a gallon, a lot of alternatives come to mind.
Obviously you can walk or bike, but consider that trains will make more
sense for transporting goods. That would make the roads safer since
accidents involving big rigs, whether or not the drive of the truck is
at fault, tend to be disproportionally deadly.
Other alternatives include gasification (etc.) of waste biological
materials. Call it the Soylent Green of our energy future.
> Just stop for a moment and think ... $10 per gallon gasoline. The poor
> could not afford to drive. How will then get anywhere.
> And where will they go? To the mall? For what.
>
> Your posting is interesting in that bicycles will be very much a part of the
> transportation system. As will walking.
>
Many countries have many people riding bikes. Consider China.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
increases in petrol prices.
landotter
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > > According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>
> > You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>
> > In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>
> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> increases in petrol prices.
Yup. Fuel pricing does little to discourage miles driven. Folks I know
in the UK and Sweden that live outside of cities drive just as much.
The secret to getting people to drive less is inextricably linked to
urban design.
> "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
Brilliant!
Bill Sornson
> sally wrote:
>>
>> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher
>> gasoline prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and
>> Germany, I did not see huge numbers of skinny people.
>>
> The rule in England is, "Just as long as I can fit in the Tube."
Obviously doesn't mean an MRI machine, since the waits for things like that
are quite lengthy!
Tom Sherman
>
>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>
>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>
> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> increases in petrol prices.
But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
sensible vehicles.
Lee Ayrton
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> landotter wrote:
>>>
>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>
>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>> increases in petrol prices.
>
> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more sensible
> vehicles.
I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
Lee "Depending on what China does, of course" Ayrton
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
Richard Evans
>
>But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>sensible vehicles.
Let's see. I drive 12k per year and get 15mpg from my paid-for 6-cyl
Mazda, using 800 gals per year. At $3/gal that costs me $2,400 per
year.
Gas goes to $10 per gallon and my 800 gals cost $8000.
Or, I trade for a new car that gets 30mpg. I now use 400 gals per
year. At $10, that's $4000, per year. But the new car costs me
(conservatively) about $400 a month for 4-5 years, so in addition to
gas I'm now paying about $4,800 in car payments, for a total of $8,800
per year.
If the new car costs (including interest) $24,000 over five years, and
I save $4k per year in gas, it takes me six years to break even. The
more expensive the new car, the longer the break-even point.
"Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
regardless of the cost of gas.
Blinky the Shark
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>> landotter wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>
>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>> bars.
>>>
>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>
> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> sensible vehicles.
<yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
xho...@gmail.com
> Yup. Fuel pricing does little to discourage miles driven. Folks I know
> in the UK and Sweden that live outside of cities drive just as much.
Just as much as what?
Tom Sherman
Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was $10/gallon?
[1] Or rebuilt, as a cost far higher than the market value after the
rebuild (in most cases).
Tom Sherman
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>
>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>
>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>> sensible vehicles.
>
> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> dollars.
The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
decades, and will continue to do so.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>
>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>> bars.
>>>>
>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>> sensible vehicles.
>
> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>
> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
vehicle mass?
Richard Evans
>>
>> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
>> regardless of the cost of gas.
>
>Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
>replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was $10/gallon?
I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>
Tom Sherman
be able to approach that figure.
The company compact pickups I drive with V6 gasoline engines and
automatic transmissions get relatively poor mileage of 16-18 mpg, which
is not much better than the 14 mpg I achieved in a full size van with a
gasoline V8. :(
Gooserider
"Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:BGPWi.16339$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent after five
> years.
>
> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
And if people weighed less, gas consumption would reduce, and the price
would drop.
Blinky the Shark
Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>>
>>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
>> vehicle mass?
>
> Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
>
their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
Blinky the Shark
Sorry, Sparky. Nothing I said implied that I'm an SUV lover.
Boron Elgar
<sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>So do you like your view being blocked by over sized SUVs, or the danger
>their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
>can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
>person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
I prefer to reserve use of my SUV to run over cyclists who do not obey
traffic laws. It is so much easier with the SUV than with a small car.
Really - I hardly notice it.
boron
Richard Evans
>Richard Evans wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
>>>> regardless of the cost of gas.
>>> Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
>>> replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was $10/gallon?
>>
>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>
>A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
>be able to approach that figure.
I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>
>The company compact pickups I drive with V6 gasoline engines and
>automatic transmissions get relatively poor mileage of 16-18 mpg, which
>is not much better than the 14 mpg I achieved in a full size van with a
>gasoline V8. :(
Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
Bill Turlock
ossum!
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
>>>>> regardless of the cost of gas.
>>>> Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
>>>> replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was $10/gallon?
>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>>
>> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
>> be able to approach that figure.
>
> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a
compact pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine
between torque and power peaks.
>> The company compact pickups I drive with V6 gasoline engines and
>> automatic transmissions get relatively poor mileage of 16-18 mpg, which
>> is not much better than the 14 mpg I achieved in a full size van with a
>> gasoline V8. :(
>
> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
If it were $10/gallon, would you find the small turbo-diesel more
attractive?
Tom Sherman
Sparky is a penguin [1].
You implied that the only reason for smaller, more sensible vehicles
would be higher gas prices. Maybe a review of what you write for meaning
is in order?
[1] <http://www.thismodernworld.com/>.
huey.c...@gmail.com
My 99 S-10 long bed (injected 4.3 gas engine, RWD) gets 20mpg in the
city, and around 24 on the highway.
--
Huey
Bob Ward
No, the oil companies would charge more to recover the drop in
revenue.
Look what the Electric and Water companies have been doing.
frkr...@gmail.com
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >Richard Evans wrote:
> >> My "car" is actually a
> >> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
> >> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
> >> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>
> >A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
> >be able to approach that figure.
>
> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
Hmm. How much acceleration do you really need?
Our "family" car is now a Pontiac Vibe. 1.8 Liters, IIRC. Standard
engine. The only time I felt the acceleration was a bit slow was
when towing a trailer about half the mass of the car!
Even my ancient Honda Civic wagon, 1.5 liters, has more acceleration
than I ever need. Seriously, that engine hasn't seen its red line in
probably ten years. And I've noticed that car models almost always
gain horsepower from year to year. I don't understand why so many
people would actually need that.
Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
- Frank Krygowski
Blinky the Shark
Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
> You implied that the only reason for smaller, more sensible vehicles
> would be higher gas prices. Maybe a review of what you write for meaning
> is in order?
The discussion was - at least as it got crossposted here - about prices
and MPG. That's what I responded to. I have a reasonably efficient car
because of costs.
This is a holy wars issue, and I try to avoid them.
Now, excuse me while - in keeping with my earlier analogy - I hit my thumb
with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.
Oh...and my best bicycle-riding year, I put 2,500 miles on my touring bike
to 3,500 miles on my automobile.
[1a] Opus the Penguin
Tom Sherman
I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
of his use of Linux.
>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>
> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>
> Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
> of his use of Linux.
>
>>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>
>>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>
> I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
In a very early strip, Michael Binkley tells his father he has a pet
German Shepard, but it is actually Opus the penguin. This was before
Opus became a regular character with speech and personality. (Note:
based on my memory of reading the strip in a collection over 15 years ago).
Blinky the Shark
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>>
>> Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
>> of his use of Linux.
>>
>>>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>>
>>>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>>> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>>
>> I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
>
> In a very early strip, Michael Binkley tells his father he has a pet
> German Shepard, but it is actually Opus the penguin. This was before
> Opus became a regular character with speech and personality. (Note:
> based on my memory of reading the strip in a collection over 15 years ago).
Ah.
I didn't even know Michael's last name. Even though it's very much like
my first name. If I ever have to change my name, like for the Witness
Protection Program, maybe I'll use Binkley the Shark.
Charles Bishop
<lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>
>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>
>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more sensible
>> vehicles.
>
>I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
wages.
Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
company.
>
>Lee "Depending on what China does, of course" Ayrton
They're the 800 lb gorilla?
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>
>Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
>of his use of Linux.
>
>>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>
>>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>>
>> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>
>I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
"I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, [so] I wasn't aware of that."
"I . . . follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that."
charles, writing for comprehension, bishop
Richard Evans
>>>>
>>> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
>>> be able to approach that figure.
>>
>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
>> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
>> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>
>With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a
>compact pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine
>between torque and power peaks.
Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
better mileage.
>
>>> The company compact pickups I drive with V6 gasoline engines and
>>> automatic transmissions get relatively poor mileage of 16-18 mpg, which
>>> is not much better than the 14 mpg I achieved in a full size van with a
>>> gasoline V8. :(
>>
>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>
>If it were $10/gallon, would you find the small turbo-diesel more
>attractive?
No. I might go back to a four cylinder and rent a car for my
occasional long trips. But I would not consider a diesel.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
Richard Evans
>On Nov 3, 10:13 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Richard Evans wrote:
>> >> My "car" is actually a
>> >> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>> >> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>> >> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>
>> >A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
>> >be able to approach that figure.
>>
>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
>> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
>> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>
>Hmm. How much acceleration do you really need?
My previous 3L Ranger (same engine as the Mazda) was barely adequate.
My earlier 2.3L Mazda, with standard transmission was even less barely
adequate. My 4L is adequate, but still no race car.
>
>Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
>acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
I'm not talking maximum, just enough to safely accelerate into traffic
on the interstate.
Erich
Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a
> >compact pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine
> >between torque and power peaks.
>
> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
> better mileage.
Would you consider an automatic shifting manual transmission?
> >If it were $10/gallon, would you find the small turbo-diesel more
> >attractive?
>
> No. I might go back to a four cylinder and rent a car for my
> occasional long trips. But I would not consider a diesel.
Why would you not consider a diesel?
--
Erich
Tom Sherman
I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
suck up to people.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
>>>> be able to approach that figure.
>>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
>>> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
>>> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>> With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a
>> compact pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine
>> between torque and power peaks.
>
> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
> better mileage.
The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
transmission should not be granted licenses.
>>>> The company compact pickups I drive with V6 gasoline engines and
>>>> automatic transmissions get relatively poor mileage of 16-18 mpg, which
>>>> is not much better than the 14 mpg I achieved in a full size van with a
>>>> gasoline V8. :(
>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>>> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>>> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>> If it were $10/gallon, would you find the small turbo-diesel more
>> attractive?
>
> No. I might go back to a four cylinder and rent a car for my
> occasional long trips. But I would not consider a diesel.
Why not? Diesels are fun to drive.
[1] Even this reason is gone now that computers and servos can do the
shifting.
Richard Evans
>In article <i6uri35i7b1qno6ti...@4ax.com>,
> Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a
>> >compact pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine
>> >between torque and power peaks.
>>
>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>> better mileage.
>
>Would you consider an automatic shifting manual transmission?
You mean without a clutch? Maybe. I swore off stick after getting
caught in a 50-mile stop-and-go traffic jam out of D.C. one afternoon.
>
>> >If it were $10/gallon, would you find the small turbo-diesel more
>> >attractive?
>>
>> No. I might go back to a four cylinder and rent a car for my
>> occasional long trips. But I would not consider a diesel.
>
>Why would you not consider a diesel?
Noisy, smelly, unfamilair technology, and availability of fuel. Yes, I
know they've made progress on the noisy/smelly part.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more sensible
> >> vehicles.
> >
> >I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
> >away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
> >But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
> >commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
> >return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>
> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
> wages.
>
Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
> Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
> is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
> company.
>
There is something called "wage inflation".
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >sensible vehicles.
>
> Let's see. I drive 12k per year and get 15mpg from my paid-for 6-cyl
> Mazda, using 800 gals per year. At $3/gal that costs me $2,400 per
> year.
>
> Gas goes to $10 per gallon and my 800 gals cost $8000.
>
> Or, I trade for a new car that gets 30mpg. I now use 400 gals per
> year. At $10, that's $4000, per year. But the new car costs me
> (conservatively) about $400 a month for 4-5 years, so in addition to
> gas I'm now paying about $4,800 in car payments, for a total of $8,800
> per year.
>
> If the new car costs (including interest) $24,000 over five years, and
> I save $4k per year in gas, it takes me six years to break even. The
> more expensive the new car, the longer the break-even point.
>
> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
> regardless of the cost of gas.
>
Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
for the privilege. These are the same sorts of people who are willing to
pay more money they could avoid for lots of gasoline. So that means that
a disproportionate amount of the cars bought today are actually trucks,
SUVs, that sort of thing.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
> >> regardless of the cost of gas.
> >
> >Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
> >replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was $10/gallon?
>
> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>
Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Richard Evans wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
> >>> regardless of the cost of gas.
> >> Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
> >> replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was $10/gallon?
> >
> > I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
> > my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
> > that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
> > compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
> > ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
> > that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
> >
> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
> be able to approach that figure.
>
I recall that 80s diesel pickups from Toytoa got like 35 mpg, maybe it
was 30 mpg. Certainly it was at least that much. That's with a 4 cyl.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>
At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon? The reason you don't
care about $3 gas is because $3 isn't historically that high,
considering inflation. If you consider increased wealth and increases in
mileage since the 70s, $3 is even less of a serious issue.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Even my ancient Honda Civic wagon, 1.5 liters, has more acceleration
> than I ever need.
>
Put in the 1.3 and five tall gears and you won't be saying that. OTOH,
if you want to drive, you can drive think about which gear you have to
be in or your smoked on that hill climb.
> Seriously, that engine hasn't seen its red line in
> probably ten years. And I've noticed that car models almost always
> gain horsepower from year to year. I don't understand why so many
> people would actually need that.
>
> Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
> acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
>
If you are being chased by the cops. So if you are a bank robber, I
think think you need the turbo or the 8 cyl.
Tom Sherman
>
Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can not
afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a fairly
new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older vehicle can
outweigh the payments on a newer one. If an older vehicle is very well
maintained so as to be reliable, you will NOT get fair value from
insurance if someone else damages or steals it (been there, done that).
Tom Sherman
>
>
>
>> Even my ancient Honda Civic wagon, 1.5 liters, has more acceleration
>> than I ever need.
>>
> Put in the 1.3 and five tall gears and you won't be saying that. OTOH,
> if you want to drive, you can drive think about which gear you have to
> be in or your smoked on that hill climb.
I have driven up steep hills in trucks with 150+ pounds per horsepower.
Of course, this is difficult to do if the driver is intent on stuffing
his face with a Big Mac while gabbing on the phone.
Tom Sherman
>
>
>
>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>
> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon? The reason you don't
> care about $3 gas is because $3 isn't historically that high,
> considering inflation. If you consider increased wealth and increases in
> mileage since the 70s, $3 is even less of a serious issue.
Only the very top income brackets have seen increased wealth (in the US)
over the last three decades.
Tom Sherman
>
Of course, those pickup were smaller and lighter than what passed for a
compact pickup today (the smaller size is not necessarily a bad thing).
Peter Boulding
<sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in
<fgl12p$uui$3...@registered.motzarella.org>:
>>If you consider increased wealth and increases in
>>mileage since the 70s, $3 is even less of a serious issue.
>Only the very top income brackets have seen increased wealth (in the US)
>over the last three decades.
"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the
top 20% of households."
- CIA Factbook on the US economy.
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html>
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Richard Evans
>
>The only reason for an automatic transmission (unless required due to
>physical handicap) [1] is that it makes it easier to maneuver while
>backing a trailer. People that can not drive a non-synchromesh
>transmission should not be granted licenses.
I' ve been driving for the better part of fifty years and I've driven
my share of stick, even before they were synchromesh. Fortunately,
outside of Usenet at least, personal preference is still valid.
Richard Evans
>
>
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets only
>> 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to repeat myself,
>> gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>
>At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways, but
not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that basis
alone.
YMMV.
Opus the Penguin
> In article <Xns99DCD83...@192.160.13.20>,
> sally <sa...@sally.com> wrote:
>> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher
>> gasoline prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and
>> Germany, I did not see huge numbers of skinny people.
>
> These countries also have people with different physiognomies, and
> mostly speak other languages. Should all of these factors have
> equal weight? Why or why not? Discuss.
>
Yes. We should all learn to speak French. Then we will be skinny.
--
Opus the Penguin
I have a two year old. It doesn't matter which way it hangs. - Glenn
Dowdy
Richard Evans
>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>
>Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
just to save a few bucks on gas.
Tom Sherman
rec.bicycles.* would be a boring place if we did not have highly
opinionated discussions!
Tom Sherman
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 11:55:06 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in
> <fgl12p$uui$3...@registered.motzarella.org>:
>
>>> If you consider increased wealth and increases in
>>> mileage since the 70s, $3 is even less of a serious issue.
>
>> Only the very top income brackets have seen increased wealth (in the US)
>> over the last three decades.
>
> "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the
> top 20% of households."
> - CIA Factbook on the US economy.
> <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html>
>
Lee Ayrton
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>
>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>> sensible vehicles.
>>
>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive smaller,
>> more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change away from
>> long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace. But some
>> Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher commute
>> cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual return to
>> something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>
> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top executives,
There is a thing called "voting with their feet". If jobs are available,
people can and do move from lower-paying jobs to higher-paying work.
They'll leave the cannery and work at the packing house, if that's where
the money is. In order for the cannery to hire enough workers, it raises
wages (and prices). The mushroom farm notices that the cannery is now
paying a higher wage and raises its wages (and prices) to slow the loss of
workers. The nursing home begins to lose workers to the mushroom
farm. Lather, rinse, repeat.
> who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the company performs.
Well, that's a different kettle of fish to grind.
> Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+ decades, and will
> continue to do so.
Focusing only on the case at hand, the cost of gasoline, the
inflation-adjusted cost at the 1980 peak was $3.06 in 2007 dollars.
Contention: Inflation has, historically, erased the constant-dollar rise
in fuel costs.
Discuss.
Reference material:
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
Richard Evans
>>
>Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
>be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
conservative for a car payment of any kind these days. I suppose you
could go back to one that's old enough to cost less, but then where is
your big gas savings running old technology?
My current Mazda cost $20k in 2001, which is pretty reasonable for any
kind of new car, and even with 48-month 0% financing it cost $416 a
month.
>
>Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
>buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
>for the privilege.
I say again: $400 a month doesn't buy much privilege.
Opus the Penguin
> landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup. Fuel pricing does little to discourage miles driven. Folks I
>> know in the UK and Sweden that live outside of cities drive just
>> as much.
>
> Just as much as what?
>
Just as much as other people who drive that same amount.
Opus the Penguin
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard Evans wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much
>>>>> paid for, regardless of the cost of gas.
>>>> Cars have to be replaced [1] at some point. When you do need a
>>>> replacement vehicle, would you get a 2 to 4 ton SUV if gas was
>>>> $10/gallon?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I
>>> do buy my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I
>>> can find one that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car"
>>> is actually a compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups
>>> since 1973 and don't ever plan to buy anything else. When they
>>> come out with a small pickup that does what I want AND gets
>>> 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>>
>>A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel
>>should be able to approach that figure.
>
> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even
> consider it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those
> needs is decent highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of
> a 2L.
Why do you consider that a "need"? How much more are you willing to
pay to have this need met?
Lee Ayrton
But think of all the jobs in Detroit you'll be saving.
Lee "C*Os, mostly" Ayrton
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
You keep saying "new" car and doing the maths based on that
consideration alone.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> >>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> >>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> >>>>> increases in petrol prices.
> >>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >>>> sensible vehicles.
> >>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> >>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> >>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> >>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> >>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> >>> dollars.
> >> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
> >> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
> >> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
> >> decades, and will continue to do so.
> >>
> > You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>
> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
> suck up to people.
>
Is that really the reason?
Tom Sherman
Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
Lee Ayrton
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should be
>>> able to approach that figure.
>>
>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
>> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
>> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>
> With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a compact
> pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine between torque
> and power peaks.
Some (many? (all?)) automatics for light truck diesels are
computer-controlled to match the gear and the engine performance. Big
trucks, too:
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/mag/trucks_freightliner_offers_aisin/
Tom Sherman
"If the jobs are available". That is a very big if.
The higher paying jobs are being shipped off to low wage countries, and
unemployment and lack of a social safety net is built into the US
economy for the very purpose of provide capital leverage over labor.
>> who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the company
>> performs.
>
> Well, that's a different kettle of fish to grind.
I like mixed metaphors.
>> Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+ decades, and
>> will continue to do so.
>
> Focusing only on the case at hand, the cost of gasoline, the
> inflation-adjusted cost at the 1980 peak was $3.06 in 2007 dollars.
> Contention: Inflation has, historically, erased the constant-dollar rise
> in fuel costs.
>
> Discuss.
>
>
> Reference material:
> http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
> http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
That is a whole 'nother kettle of axes.
Tom Sherman
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
>> be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
>
> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days. I suppose you
> could go back to one that's old enough to cost less, but then where is
> your big gas savings running old technology?
My late model Honda Civic meets all my transportation needs, except for
the occasional need to haul larger items, and costs less than
three-quarters of the aforementioned $400/month. I also get a real world
34-35 mpg, driving like a maniac. :)
> My current Mazda cost $20k in 2001, which is pretty reasonable for any
> kind of new car, and even with 48-month 0% financing it cost $416 a
> month.
>
>
>> Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
>> buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
>> for the privilege.
>
> I say again: $400 a month doesn't buy much privilege.
Who wants that type of privilege?
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>
> >>> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
> >>> be able to approach that figure.
> >>
> >> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
> >> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
> >> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
> >
> >With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a
> >compact pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine
> >between torque and power peaks.
>
> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
> better mileage.
>
If this is true, then how can the US reduce its thirst for gasoline and
deal with its balance of trade problems? If you won't change, why should
we think anyone else will?
> No. I might go back to a four cylinder and rent a car for my
> occasional long trips. But I would not consider a diesel.
>
At the moment, the price of diesel fuel has increased to equal about its
extra energy content compared to gasoline. In the past, it was actually
cheaper and therefore an extremely good deal.
Richard Evans
>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>> better mileage.
>>
>If this is true, then how can the US reduce its thirst for gasoline and
>deal with its balance of trade problems? If you won't change, why should
>we think anyone else will?
I absolutely will change. As soon as the manufacturers produce a car
that gives me the features I want at greatly increased mileage. As I
said earlier, I think it sucks that a six-cylinder engine gets only
15mpg, but that's pretty much standard across all similar truck lines.
There's an episode of Penn & Teller on Showtime this week that
includes a road test of a hybrid car. It got 45mpg on the highway, but
takes 12.6 seconds to go zero to sixty and has no room for a family of
four. Yet we are expected to buy the damn thing just because it gets
good mileage.
FWIW, in 1969 I had a CobraJet 428 Mercury that got 12mpg around town
and 16 on the highway. I eventually traded it because hi-test was too
expensive at forty two cents per gallon. That, and it needed new plugs
every 7,500 miles and you had to pull the engine to get at the ones in
the back.
I also once had a 400 cubic inch Chevy pickup with 4WD. It couldn't
get over 9mpg if you pushed it off a cliff. I eventually traded it for
a 4-cyl Chevy LUV, but not until I no longer needed the power of the
big truck.
It's all a cost-benefit analysis and right now even $10 per gallon
wouldn't move me to trade for something that won't do what I want it
to.
Richard Evans
>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even
>> consider it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those
>> needs is decent highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of
>> a 2L.
>
>Why do you consider that a "need"? How much more are you willing to
>pay to have this need met?
I've already answered that multiple times. Move on.
Charles Bishop
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Charles Bishop wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.07...@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
>
>
>> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
sensible
>> >> vehicles.
>> >
>> >I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>> >smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>> >away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>> >But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>> >commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>> >return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>>
>> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
>> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
>> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
>> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
>> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
>> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
>> wages.
>>
>Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
>place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically get it. Also if they're
worth the salary + commuting costs if they live far away, they are worth
that if they walk to work.
>
>
>
>> Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
>> is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
>> company.
>>
>There is something called "wage inflation".
It doesn't result from one, or several people asking for mone money.
--
charles
Richard Evans
>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways, but
>> not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that basis
>> alone.
>>
>You keep saying "new" car and doing the maths based on that
>consideration alone.
Yes because it's a relatively conservative estimate based on the
assumption that new technology will provide the addtional mileage. and
it's the path I would take. My current truck is seven years old and
has only 50k miles on it. What sort of used car could I trade for that
would be an improvement?
If you would settle for something fifteen years old with 140k miles
on it, then post your equation. It won't change my mind.
Richard Evans
>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
>
>But think of all the jobs in Detroit you'll be saving.
In the last forty years I've owned over a hundred cars, new and used.
I've done my share for Detroit.
Richard Evans
>>
>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
>>
>Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
>change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
>for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
So I won't be making any payments on the second car?
Charles Bishop
<tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>> >> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>> >> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>> >> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>> >> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>> >> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>> >>
>> >Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>> >mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>>
>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
>>
>Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
>change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
>for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
I don't think this is true. When I had both my old pickup and new pickup,
my insurance rate went down.
--
charles
art...@yahoo.com
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> > xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Mike Kruger wrote:
> > >>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per
> > >>> gallon in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15
> > >>> percent after five years.
>
> > >>>http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
>
> > >> Correlation and causation confused yet again.
>
> > > Did you read the dissertation? Because unless you did, how would you
> > > know that that particular error has been committed?
>
> > An article he's submitted to a journal is here.
> >http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecjcourte/gas_obesity.pdf
>
> > He seems to be hedging well enough for academic use: "A causal relationship
> > between gasoline prices and obesity is possible ... I find empirical support
> > for this theory. My estimates imply..." That's the start of the abstract.
>
> > I haven't read the entire paper yet. There's 19 equations, most of which
> > seem to be regressions.
>
> If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
> ride their bikes. So they'll get less fat. How isn't that causation?
They could always take the bus.
bill van
<ctbishop-041...@dialup-4.246.39.61.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net>
,
ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> In article <slrnfiqo34....@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
> Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
> >
> >Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
> >of his use of Linux.
> >
> >>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
> >
> >>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
> >>
> >> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
> >
> >I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
>
> "I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, [so] I wasn't aware of that."
>
> "I . . . follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that."
>
Now Albert 'ad 'eard about lions-
'Ow they was ferocious and wild;
To see lion lyin' so peaceful
Just didn't seem right to the child.
So straightway the brave little feller,
Not showin' a morsel of fear,
Took 'is stick with the 'orse's 'ead 'andle
And stuck it in Wallace's ear.
You could see that the lion din't like it,
For givin' a kind of a roll,
'E pulled Albert inside the cage with 'im
And swallered the little lad - 'ole!
--
bill
remove my country for e-mail
Patrick M Geahan
> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
No stripped-down buckets, either.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
frkr...@gmail.com
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman
That only works for people with enough parking space for a trailer, or
renting one if the need is infrequent enough.
Lee Ayrton
There are advantages to both approaches, but both of them require
sufficient real estate to park two vehicles and in some places (ie
Boston) there isn't room for even one.
Richard Evans
>Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
>> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
>
>Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
>of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?
Consider this headline:
"Edmunds.com Reports Average New Vehicle Price Tops $30K for the First
Time"
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/101245/article.html
So, my "average cost" is even more conservative than Edmunds'
Lee Ayrton
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>>> better mileage.
>>>
>> If this is true, then how can the US reduce its thirst for gasoline and
>> deal with its balance of trade problems? If you won't change, why should
>> we think anyone else will?
>
> I absolutely will change. As soon as the manufacturers produce a car
> that gives me the features I want at greatly increased mileage. As I
> said earlier, I think it sucks that a six-cylinder engine gets only
> 15mpg, but that's pretty much standard across all similar truck lines.
> There's an episode of Penn & Teller on Showtime this week that
> includes a road test of a hybrid car. It got 45mpg on the highway, but
> takes 12.6 seconds to go zero to sixty and has no room for a family of
> four. Yet we are expected to buy the damn thing just because it gets
> good mileage.
http://cars.about.com/cs/testdrives/fr/prius_tst.htm
2004 Prius. 60 MPG city, 51 MPG highway, 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Seats 4
comfortably -- and, yes, I've ridden in one.