Go Back   986 Forum - for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2005, 06:19 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
Sound logic on gas prices

I know this is an emotional subject with many of us. However, one of my fav. economists prepared this article to shed some light on the subject.

Anyone in Hawaii should send this to their lawmakers.

Enjoy!


A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
GASOLINE PRICES

Click here to Print |

Nationally, the average per gallon price for regular gasoline is $2.50.

Are gasoline prices high? That's not the best way to ask that question. It's akin to asking, "Is Williams tall?" The average height of U.S. women is 5'4", and for men, it's 5'10". Being 6'4", I'd be tall relative to the general U.S. population. But put me on a basketball court, next to the average NBA basketball player, and I wouldn't be tall; I'd be short. So when we ask whether a price is high or low, we have to ask relative to what.

In 1950, a gallon of regular gasoline sold for about 30 cents; today, it's $2.50. Are today's gasoline prices high compared to 1950? Before answering that question, we have to take into account inflation that has occurred since 1950. Using my trusty inflation calculator (www.westegg.com/inflation), what cost 30 cents in 1950 costs $2.33 in 2005. In real terms, that means gasoline prices today are only slightly higher, about 8 percent, than they were in 1950. Up until the recent spike, gasoline prices have been considerably lower than 1950 prices.

Some Americans are demanding that the government do something about gasoline prices. Let's think back to 1979 when the government did do something. The Carter administration instituted price controls. What did we see? We saw long gasoline lines, and that's if the gas station hadn't run out of gas. It's estimated that Americans used about 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their cars while waiting in line. In an effort to deal with long lines, the Carter administration introduced the harebrained scheme of odd and even days, whereby a motorist whose license tag started with an odd number could fill up on odd-numbered days, and those with an even number on even-numbered days.

With the recent spike in gas prices, the government has chosen not to pursue stupid policies of the past. As a result, we haven't seen shortages. We haven't seen long lines. We haven't seen gasoline station fights and riots. Why? Because price has been allowed to perform its valuable function -- that of equating demand with supply.

Our true supply problem is of our own doing. Large quantities of oil lie below the 20 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amount of land proposed for oil drilling is less than 2,000 acres, less than one-half of one percent of ANWR. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are about 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. But environmentalists' hold on Congress has prevented us from drilling for it. They've also had success in restricting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the shore of California. Another part of our energy problem has to do with refining capacity. Again, because of environmentalists' successful efforts, it's been 30 years since we've built a new oil refinery.

Few people realize that the U.S. is also a major oil-producing country. After Saudi Arabia, producing 10.4 million barrels a day, then Russia with 9.4 million barrels, the U.S. with 8.7 million barrels a day is the third-largest producer of oil. But we could produce more. Why aren't we? Producers have a variety of techniques to win monopoly power and higher profits that come with that power. What's a way for OPEC to gain more power? I have a hypothesis, for which I have no evidence, but it ought to be tested. If I were an OPEC big cheese, I'd easily conclude that I could restrict output and charge higher oil prices if somehow U.S. oil drilling were restricted. I'd see U.S. environmental groups as allies, and I would make "charitable" contributions to assist their efforts to reduce U.S. output. Again, I have no evidence, but it's a hypothesis worth examination.

Return to Articles Page

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2005, 07:25 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 54
fuel costs

Well said!
__________________
http://www.pcars.us/albums/4802.jpgTOM986
TOM986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 02:50 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 146
I'd have to research this in more detail, but the problem with using 1950 as the base is that the US was still feeling the effects of post World War II inflation. Plus, I'm not sure whether the Korean War was on at that point. These may have contributed to higher than usual gasoline prices at the time. As a kid in the mid- to late 1950s, I distinctly remember premium gas widely available in the northeast for under 30 cents a gallon. In fact, I remember my father filling his 1958 Buick for under 30 cents a gallon. I'm not sure it crossed 30 cents until the early '60s and, as I recall, the rate of increase was pretty mild until the '70s gas shortages. Using this guy's "trusty inflation calculator" and moving the year to 1958 and premium gas to 30 cents, the current price should be $1.97 -- for premium. Instead, it's currently headed for $4.

This guy sounds like an apologist for a government that's done little or nothing about gas prices while oil companies are awash in profits. And, typical for these guys, he twists the statistics to fit his thesis.
longislander1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 02:57 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 146
Sorry to beat on this one, but I was right, guys. Take a look at this chart: http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm and you'll see that there was virtually no gas price inflation until the early to mid-'60s. This is another bogus argument by a conservative columnist. These guys give the respectable conservatives a bad name. Next thing you know, Williams will be writing that we found WMDs in Iraq!
longislander1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 03:54 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 435
Random thoughts:

Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.

As the world grows, adding more people, more homes, and more cars - unless supply rises with the growth, then prices will go up. Simple math.

Our home and business development models are built on suburban sprawl. This takes a lot of petroleum to function. There is no short term way to alter the fact that we all have to drive a lot. If the parameters change (gas goes up) to the point of discomfort, we will change our patterns long term. On an individual level you can beat the system now: live near work, drive an efficient car, insulate your attic.

Last thought: If we built nuclear plants in the 1950's and 60's that are still on line, surely we could build better, safer plants today. South Carolina has a couple of nuclear plants in a relatively small state - electric prices are 12% below national average and there is a good energy supply to attract new industry.

Theory aside, $3 gas bites. (Near term reaction).
limoncello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 05:13 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 146
Now that's some sound logic on gas prices! Limoncello, I hope you're finding an adequate supply. I heard things were running short in SC.
longislander1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 05:34 AM   #7
Registered User
 
tqtran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by limoncello
Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.
(Near term reaction).
limoncello - Good point but sorry to say that you can not use your data. Anything $$$ wise pre June 5, 1933 is irrelevant.

longislander1 's data starting @1950 is good.
tqtran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 06:33 AM   #8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 435
Sorry for the stale data.
SC gas supply - had lines yesterday, seems better this morning. Saw one station raising the price from $2.45 to $2.99 for regular.
Aside from gas, if you'd like a good example of a supply and demand market, watch the prices on plywood, lumber and shingles in the next 6 months. It could also affect the money market, if enough people borrow money to repair/replace their homes. Harder to guess that one, though.
Gas mileage: noted the Boxster 20-21 mpg figures in another thread. It's about what I get, except for the track. I burned almost a tank in 3 runs, but as Tom cruise once said, sometimes you just gotta say "WTF".
limoncello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 06:41 AM   #9
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
I think the amusing point is that the government is supposed to "do something" about the current level of gas prices.

For those of you in that crowd, what specifically do you feel the government "should do." And, in the same vein, how much SHOULD gas cost anyway? What is the magic number?

Those of us who remember the last time the government stepped in to handle prices, well, that didn't work out very well. I remember the gas lines and it was NOT fun.

I think that Williams credentials as an economist are substantial. He is not apologizing for anyone, simply saying that there are some very fundamental factors that COULD be worked to improve the supply of oil and refined gasoline.

I will post other respected economists who agree 100% on this. Frankly, when is the last time anyone here actually took on the "greens" when they were blocking ANYTHING that remotely looked like it could generate energy within the US.

On the point above on nuclear eneregy, yes, yes yes. However, the same Greens who fight oil drilling would have a fit if you propose to build a nuclear plant in the US.

From the GREENS point of view, we would all park our Porsches and buy a Prius. It is the "virtuous" thing to do, right?

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 06:44 AM   #10
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
All good points.

Thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by limoncello
Random thoughts:

Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.

As the world grows, adding more people, more homes, and more cars - unless supply rises with the growth, then prices will go up. Simple math.

Our home and business development models are built on suburban sprawl. This takes a lot of petroleum to function. There is no short term way to alter the fact that we all have to drive a lot. If the parameters change (gas goes up) to the point of discomfort, we will change our patterns long term. On an individual level you can beat the system now: live near work, drive an efficient car, insulate your attic.

Last thought: If we built nuclear plants in the 1950's and 60's that are still on line, surely we could build better, safer plants today. South Carolina has a couple of nuclear plants in a relatively small state - electric prices are 12% below national average and there is a good energy supply to attract new industry.

Theory aside, $3 gas bites. (Near term reaction).
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 06:45 AM   #11
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
More logic on gas prices!

An oil 'crisis'?
Thomas Sowell (archive)


August 23, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend


With oil prices passing the record-breaking $60 a barrel level and heading even higher, the word "crisis" is now being used and all sorts of political "solutions" are being proposed. Is there really a crisis?

One of the dictionary definitions of a crisis is "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death." Is that where we are when it comes to oil? Are we either going to solve the problem of oil or see it destroy us economically?

Political and media definitions of "crisis" are much looser than the dictionary's definition. In political semantics, the word "crisis" has come to mean any situation that someone wants to use to justify doing something that will be called a "solution." Crises are a dime a dozen by political and media definitions.

Almost as common as crises are conspiracy theories. Whenever the price of gasoline shoots up, California's Senator Barbara Boxer can be depended on to demand an investigation of the oil companies. The fact that previous investigations have found no conspiracies is no deterrent.

Why, then, are oil prices so high?

There is no esoteric reason. It is plain old supply and demand. With the economies of huge nations like China and India developing more rapidly, now that they have freed their markets from many stifling government controls, more oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply.

What should our government do?

We will be lucky if they do nothing. But, with Congressional elections coming up next year, that is very unlikely. Candidates for Congress next year, and politicians hoping to run for President in 2008, are virtually guaranteed to come up with all sorts of "solutions."

These "solutions" will be packaged as brilliant new ideas, courageous and far-seeing. But most will be retreads of old ideas that remain untested or which have been tested in the past and found wanting.

Price controls, arbitrary new higher gas mileage standards for cars, "alternative energy sources," and other nostrums are sure to surface once again.

The last time we had price controls on gasoline, we had long lines of cars at filling stations, these lines sometimes stretching around the block, with motorists sitting in those lines for hours.

That nonsense ended almost overnight when President Ronald Reagan, ignoring the cries of liberal politicians and the liberal media, got rid of price controls with a stroke of the pen.

What happened is what usually happens when government restrictions are ended: There was more production of oil. In fact the 1980s became known as the era of an "oil glut" and gasoline prices declined.
Today production is being held back, not by price controls, but by political hysteria whenever anyone suggests actually producing more oil ourselves. Organized nature cults go ballistic at the thought that we might drill for oil in some remote part of Alaska that 99 percent of Americans will never see, including 99 percent of the nature cultists.
People used to ask whether there is any sound if a tree falls in an empty forest. Today, there are deafening political sounds over oil-drilling in an empty wilderness.

Nor can we drill for oil offshore, or in many places on land, again for political reasons. Nor can we build enough refineries or even build hydroelectric dams as alternative sources of power.

Many of the same people who cry "No blood for oil!" also want higher gas mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and more flimsy cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents -- in other words, trading blood for oil.

Apparently the only things we can do are the things in vogue among nature cultists and the politicians that cater to them, such as windmills and electric cars. That is why we would be better off if the government did nothing and let people adjust their own energy consumption individually in their own ways as the prices of gasoline and fuel oil rise. But that is also politically unlikely.


Soaring oil prices have revived the old bogeyman that the world is running out of oil. Economics is a great field for nostalgia buffs because the same old fallacies keep coming back, like golden oldies in music.

Back in 1960, a best-selling book titled "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard showed that the known reserves of petroleum in the United States were only enough to last another 13 years at the current rate of usage. Yet, 13 years later, the United States had larger known reserves of petroleum than in 1960.

This has been a worldwide phenomenon. At the end of the 20th century, the known reserves of petroleum in the world were more than ten times what they were in the middle of the 20th century -- despite an ever-growing use of oil.
There is of course some finite amount of oil and of other natural resources. The big leap is in going from saying that there is a finite amount to saying that we are running out.

When John Stuart Mill was a young man, he worried that we were running out of music, since there were only 8 notes and therefore there was only a finite amount of music possible. At that point Brahms and Tchaikovsky had not yet been born nor jazz created.

No matter how many centuries' supply of oil there is on the planet, the high cost of oil exploration ensures that only the most minute fraction of that oil will be known at any given time. Thus there have long been recurring false predictions that we were running out of petroleum, as well as other natural resources.

The high cost of extracting and processing oil ensures that not even half of the oil in a known pool of oil will be brought to the surface and sent off to the refineries.

A generation ago, only about a quarter of the oil in a pool was likely to be brought to the surface. That is because the cost of extracting and processing oil from a given pool tends to increase as you drain from deeper into that pool.

Even at $60 a barrel, most of the oil that is known to exist is too costly to extract. How much will be extracted depends on how much higher the price of oil goes -- and how much new technology can recover more oil at lower costs.
What if the government did nothing about oil prices? Rising prices would lead people to reduce their use of oil and lead producers to drain some of the more costly oil out of the ground.

Many people in politics and in the media seem to be alarmed about the rising cost of gasoline and of the petroleum from which it is made. But they only seem to be. What they are really alarmed about are the prices -- and prices and costs are very different things.

Prices are what pay for costs. The government can impose price controls on gasoline or petroleum tomorrow but that will not have the slightest effect on the cost of oil exploration or the cost of extracting and processing the oil that is found.

When the costs are no longer being fully covered by prices, production is likely to be cut back, whether it is the production of oil or anything else. This is not speculation. This is what has been happening for literally thousands of years, going back to price controls in ancient Rome and Babylon.

Yet price controls have always been popular politically, despite being counterproductive economically. After all, how many votes do economists have and how many voters know economics?
Some people love to believe that prices should be kept down to a "reasonable" level, something that everyone can "afford." Yet the notion of "reasonable" prices is itself unreasonable. The costs of producing oil don't depend on what we can afford or consider "reasonable." Nor does the cost of anything else.
Someone can always invoke the image of an elderly person on a fixed pension being unable to buy enough fuel oil to keep warm in the winter. Taking care of such isolated situations would not make a dent in the massive government budget. But the real goal of such anecdotes is to justify imposing government controls on all of us.

Make no mistake about it, there are many people out there just itching to tell us what to do -- and make us do it. That is why the word "crisis" gets used so much, and not just about oil, in order to soften us up for their taking over our lives. That is a bigger problem than the so-called "oil crisis."

Last edited by Brucelee; 09-01-2005 at 06:50 AM.
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 07:02 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,708
seems to me people want to drive big SUV and gas hungry sportscars and
not pay allot for gas like the rest of the world.

I guess we'll just have to wait for all that Oil the pro-Iraq war people were promising Bush. It's coming soon right??

funny story I recently met a girl who lives an hour away. At
$30 for 1/2 tank, I'm having second thoughts.
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 07:12 AM   #13
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
Your last point is amusing and EXACTLY what happens when the price of a good is increasing. Each consumer makes decisions about the use of that resource/service and then acts. Some folks won't date the girl, some will, some will ask her to meet at the motel half way.

Others will use their motorcycle for a romantic outing.

Re: the Iraq oil, the oil is flowing. In and of itself, it won't make a large dent in price, simply not enough there.

I think the interesting issue is that we are willing to fight a war around the world to ensure oil is pumping (among other things) but we will not confront the greens in the US on getting at more of our own oil or in building Nuclear PPs here in the US.

"let the good times roll!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectlap
seems to me people want to drive big SUV and gas hungry sportscars and
not pay allot for gas like the rest of the world.

I guess we'll just have to wait for all that Oil the pro-Iraq war people were promising Bush. It's coming soon right??

funny story I recently met a girl who lives an hour away. At
$30 for 1/2 tank, I'm having second thoughts.
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 07:28 AM   #14
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,708
I was just kidding about the Iraq oil. Yet I'm not so sure that it wasn't floated as a justification for a premptive (read NOT an iminent threat) in Washington. Did our oil intelligence fail as well?

We can drill every hole in the world and our fixation with cars and travel will rise with it. Ever go for a drive on the highway and count the number of SUV's, Luxury gas guzzlers, PORSCHES, and pick ups? and once in a blue moon you'll seen one of those hybrid cars.
This country doesn't take well to being told "do you really need a 4 ton automobile?"
Its easier to feed the beast than to get it on a diet. A diet that would make our dollars go longer and perhaps give our children some clean air to breathe.
Humans have been on this planet for Millions of years yet we've done more harm to this little blue planet in the last 100 years than the previous 1000.
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 08:30 AM   #15
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
Well, I not sure where your points are headed?

Humans love being in motion, there is no question about that. From the horse to horsepower, this has cativated our attention for centuries.

Yes, I see no end to our love affair with mobility. In the long run, that love will drive us beyond petroleum products and to who knows what.

While I might think an SUV is a dumb thing, the great thing is that I do not have to buy one. I am free to spend my money on other things. Shoot, I can eschew driving altogether if I want. I love not having anyone else tell me how I should move around or if I should move around.

The key point here is that price IS the mechanism that makes supply and demand intersect. Mess with that mechanism and you are head for trouble. Just ask Jimmy Carter!

Specific to your comments on clean air, I suggest that you look at the modern auto in the US. For example, my wife's Subaru is so clean that the air coming out of the tailpipe is cleaner than the air coming into the intake (if you are driving in LA). IIt actually functions as an air cleaner.

The rap on autos and pollution is outdated at best.

Lastly, if you want to see environmental devastation, I suggest you research the history of floods, earthquakes, typhoons, forest fires, glaciers, ice ages, etc. I think our "fragile" plant has plenty of destruction "built in" and it has survived just fine. The doom and gloom of the 1970s forecasted our end by 1999 but here we are, just doing fine!

Now, if we can only survive the world that the "greens" have in store for us. We would all be riding bikes and wearing Birkenstocks!

IMHO!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectlap
I was just kidding about the Iraq oil. Yet I'm not so sure that it wasn't floated as a justification for a premptive (read NOT an iminent threat) in Washington. Did our oil intelligence fail as well?

We can drill every hole in the world and our fixation with cars and travel will rise with it. Ever go for a drive on the highway and count the number of SUV's, Luxury gas guzzlers, PORSCHES, and pick ups? and once in a blue moon you'll seen one of those hybrid cars.
This country doesn't take well to being told "do you really need a 4 ton automobile?"
Its easier to feed the beast than to get it on a diet. A diet that would make our dollars go longer and perhaps give our children some clean air to breathe.
Humans have been on this planet for Millions of years yet we've done more harm to this little blue planet in the last 100 years than the previous 1000.
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 10:44 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Perfectlap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 8,708
The rap on autos and pollution outdated?

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change".
__________________
GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW

Last edited by Perfectlap; 09-01-2005 at 10:48 AM.
Perfectlap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 10:46 AM   #17
Registered User
 
slogans7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 244
Thanks for mention of Jimmy Carter. Boy, what a mistake he made in his innagural address:

"Our material resources, great as they are, are limited. Our problems are too complex for simple slogans or for quick solutions. We cannot solve them without effort and sacrifice. Walter Lippmann once reminded us, 'You took the good things for granted. Now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty which you must fulfill. For every good which you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and your ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer.'"

On the other foot, in spite of being in a war, Americans are asked to sacrifice nothing. Yay W!

I fear I'm getting too political here. Apologies in advance.
__________________
2002 Triple-Black Boxster S
slogans7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 11:26 AM   #18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectlap
There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone.

and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
There are a billion Chinese, but there are not "a billion Chinese who are buying cars". There are, however, many more Chinese now able to afford cars, and you can thank everyone who walks into Walmart for that. They now have jobs, and more expendable income due to those jobs. Two distinct reasons for that...

1. Our labor unions have priced the American worker right out of their jobs.

2. Americans want clean air, water, and soil, but are unwilling to pay for goods manufactured under those restrictions.

And maybe you haven't been to LA recently, but I've spent significant time there and in the DFW area recently, and LA seemed hands-down much more polluted than DFW. If California didn't have tougher pollution standard there would no longer be any freeway shootings there... because you wouldn't be able to see the car next to you!
JackG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 11:33 AM   #19
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
All that and the air quality in the USA is markedly cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

China and India will deal with their air quality issues also.

Next disaster in the making?

Of course, we COULD have less air pollution if we want. We simply need to incur the costs. Drive less (a cost) mandate fuel economy standards that are higher (a cost) make the engines even cleaner (a cost) etc. etc.

Which cost would you incur and for how much cleaner air?

All of us are FOR things like cleaner air (even if we can't define that) esp if it seems to cost others vs our selves. If we had to pay for additional air pollution devices on our cars voluntarily, how many of us would (I wouldn't).

Re: global warming, give me a break!

The recent data suggests the polar ice caps are getting THICKER!

BTW- why is it bad that the Chinese are buying cars but it is OK if Americans are.






Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfectlap
The rap on autos and pollution outdated?

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change".
Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2005, 11:35 AM   #20
Registered User
 
Brucelee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 8,083
The misery quotient under the Rev Carter was certainly the highest I can remember in my lifetime. The guy was an awful President and has made an even worse ex-President.

But, he is a nice man and so, he goes on.




Quote:
Originally Posted by slogans7
Thanks for mention of Jimmy Carter. Boy, what a mistake he made in his innagural address:

"Our material resources, great as they are, are limited. Our problems are too complex for simple slogans or for quick solutions. We cannot solve them without effort and sacrifice. Walter Lippmann once reminded us, 'You took the good things for granted. Now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty which you must fulfill. For every good which you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and your ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer.'"

On the other foot, in spite of being in a war, Americans are asked to sacrifice nothing. Yay W!

I fear I'm getting too political here. Apologies in advance.

Brucelee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page