BimmerFest BMW Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Recent CNN article:

As gas goes up, driving goes down

got me wondering. Seattle traffic can sometimes be a pain. So, is it evil to want gas prices to go up even more?

If the price of gas doubles, how much would that cut down on traffic?

I would prefer that difference in money be directly invested in building new roads and more efficient mass transit. But I'll celebrate less traffic any way it comes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Difference in money is being invested here as we speak
I'm surprised that Boeing didn't win that contract. The Prince wants a party plane. Come on, who knows about excessive indulgences better than Americans? :dunno: We could have so nailed this project.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Interesting article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060503434.html

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.
I love free markets. But sometimes they lack the appropriate discipline. Thus, I don't think of this so much as controlling the market than as a way of effectively taxing those that would benefit most from advances in this area (alternative energy research, improved transportation infrastructure, etc.).

[note to moderator: if this thread annoys anyone being in the e60 forum, please feel free to move elsewhere]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I like Krauthammer. He's a straight-shooter and likes to say things most folks don't want to hear. His idea is only half the story. Yea tax gas but the tax is still on top of the base price which does not need to be $4. Let's pay $4 per gallon WITH the tax and keep the extra $4 a gallon in the consumer's pockets.

The liberals in the American government will not allow the extra drilling in our richest fields. Instead they are willing to line the pockets of speculators (the rich people they accuse the conservatives of catering to) and pay to fund dictators and oppressive regimes who own the bulk of the world's oil. Then they piss and moan over policy to protect America's interests in the same region they force us to take oil from.

Rediculous. Drill at home. Convert some coal. Open some Nuke Plants. Give the finger to OPEC and Chavez.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks for your comments, Wag. I'm overall a liberal, so I have a few points to make.

The liberals in the American government will not allow the extra drilling in our richest fields.
Note that the EIA (Energy Information Administration) did an analysis of what drilling in the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would mean for the production and cost of oil in this country.

They determined that "the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025."

"But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge's oil remained off the market."

Thus, this would account for only 4% of the oil that we would consume. Based on their projected price/demand curves, they found that this would "only slightly reduce America's dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel."

That is less than 0.5% of a barrel of oil, or about 2 cents a gallon. That's something, but honestly, do you really care about 2 cents a gallon? I'm not exactly a tree hugger, but that's a very small gain for ****ing over the earth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

Instead they are willing to line the pockets of speculators (the rich people they accuse the conservatives of catering to)
I think you are jumping to a conclusion here. I don't believe "liberals" are excited about lining the pockets of any particular group as much as they are concerned with making the right decision, which may involve choosing the lesser of two evils. If some ultra rich group gets even more rich because the right decision is being made, that's fine. But no need to give them disproportionate tax breaks, which is the "catering" aspect, and has nothing to do with this issue.

and pay to fund dictators and oppressive regimes who own the bulk of the world's oil. Then they piss and moan over policy to protect America's interests in the same region they force us to take oil from.
It really is unfortunate that much of the world's oil just so happens to be located in some rather unfriendly places. But those are the cards we have been dealt. How we face this challenge defines us as a people. We can throw our significant military weight around and use aggression and brute force, but I would prefer to see us overcome this challenge in a very different way: significant dedication to research and development of new technologies that make oil largely obsolete.
 

·
Giant Robot
Joined
·
608 Posts
I like Krauthammer. He's a straight-shooter and likes to say things most folks don't want to hear. His idea is only half the story. Yea tax gas but the tax is still on top of the base price which does not need to be $4. Let's pay $4 per gallon WITH the tax and keep the extra $4 a gallon in the consumer's pockets.
I'm all for $8 per gallon TAX, on top of the price of gas. Invest the tax in mass transit and renewable energy and we'll be independent in 15 years. Give rebates to the poorest, but make them expire over 10 years so they'll be forced to move to sustainable living arrangements.

The liberals in the American government will not allow the extra drilling in our richest fields. Instead they are willing to line the pockets of speculators (the rich people they accuse the conservatives of catering to) and pay to fund dictators and oppressive regimes who own the bulk of the world's oil. Then they piss and moan over policy to protect America's interests in the same region they force us to take oil from.
That drilling will make those rich people richer, but at full production which would years away, it'd be a relative drop in the bucket. We could drill and tap every drop of American oil and we'd still be beholden to the oppressive dictators. We can't produce our way to oil independence, we can only look for alternative power sources and efficiency.

Rediculous. Drill at home. Convert some coal. Open some Nuke Plants. Give the finger to OPEC and Chavez.
Coal is terribly dirty and mining it absolutely devastates the area. Nuke plants create poison that lasts, essentially, forever. If you wanna give the finger to OPEC and Chavez, sell your car and ride the bus. Otherwise, you're just giving them hand jobs and paying for it. :jack:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Well read my post again. Never did I mention a single drilling source. Nor did I mention the Arctic perserve (although that is ONE source). You also have other rich areas off our coasts. BUT NONE of that will work alone without reducing our NEED for "Oil Only" solutions.

Adding other NON-Oil sources of energy, Nuke, Wind, Solar, ETC would reduce our need. ONE extra drilling source AND keeping our current level of consumption is not my suggestion. I'm sorry you made that assumption.

Your facts are correct if you are a point and shoot NON-multi solution person...like the majority of our Legislative "Leadership". MSNBC is the biggest propaganda tool the liberals have and they will "spin" any information possible to show them in a positive light. Yes I know Fox does it for conservatives so please don't counter with that common knowledge.

There is going to have to be a multi-pronged strategy if we wish to make ourselves less (and eventually) energy independent. Alternative sources for industry (including freight movement, ie trucking and rail) and energy production. Introduction of alternative energy CHOICES for vehicles and homes and business. Those solutions and more PLUS the addition of more oil sources AND using our already RICH coal resources (also cleaner to refine).

If you believe the liberals do not own the congress and senate AND are any different from the conservatives in their need to appease the rich, powerful and influential then your are naive.

I also would love to solve the worlds problems with dialogue but you could ask the likes of Iran or Saddam Hussein or Chavez all you want and I'm sure the answer would be the same. OPEC could produce more but why should they? This is NOT an American problem. Excessive expansion in emerging economies is also adding to the demand, and therefore the cost increase (see economics 101). AND here's a hint...apply some exponential math to the population of the world and keep doing the same things we are doing and these problems will continue to get worse.

These clowns can't see past the end of their noses when it comes to their actions affect on the future (More likely they just don't care). Minimum Wage hikes are a great example of this. Businesses aren't just going to eat the cost of those raises in one big happy group hug. They are gonna cut jobs to make up for the lost revenue (they don't call them BUSINESSES for nothing). And the extra 1.50 an hour is NOT going to pay many peoples child care. We put people out of work for teens to be able to afford more video games. But it looks good in a 2 minute re-election ad (Wage increases belong to Congress and unemployment belongs to the President in public opinion). Unless you of course are Nancy Pelosi and cry out for National Minimum wage hikes and fail to include American Samoa which just happens to supply labor (and fish) to Starkist/Del Monte. Who just happen to be headquartered out of her home district.

This is the same simplistic strategy the Elitist Congress & Senate feed us ignorant peasants daily. Fed to us through their media machines.

But I digress.

Yay BMWs! :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
MSNBC is the biggest propaganda tool the liberals have and they will "spin" any information possible to show them in a positive light.
To be clear, the parts of the MSNBC article that I quoted are just reporting on EIA findings. There's no spin. It's what the EIA said in their report.

I typically don't read MSNBC. I previously read the EIA findings, and since I don't like to post without a source, I did a Google search and the MSNBC article was the top result so I used that.

Regarding Fox, I did a search on foxnews.com, and this is the article that I found:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr29/0,4670,BushEnergyFactCheck,00.html

It's actually quite a good article. I highly recommend reading it.

There is going to have to be a multi-pronged strategy if we wish to make ourselves less (and eventually) energy independent. Alternative sources for industry (including freight movement, ie trucking and rail) and energy production. Introduction of alternative energy CHOICES for vehicles and homes and business. Those solutions and more PLUS the addition of more oil sources AND using our already RICH coal resources (also cleaner to refine).
The main reason that I don't support drilling in Alaska's ANWR (and other apparently ubiquitous sites) is that it doesn't make much of a difference with regards to our price for oil (as the Fox article also points out).

Your point is that the EIA is not thinking broadly enough. They are not considering what would happen if the US were to significantly reduce consumption. If the US were to significantly reduce consumption, then perhaps that small extra amount of oil from ANWR is the difference between having to buy foreign oil and being independent.

It's an interesting point. Can you back it up?

I also would love to solve the worlds problems with dialogue but you could ask the likes of Saddam Hussein ...
We can't ask him anything. We invaded his country and killed him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Everyone should ride motorcycles. 4-6 bikes can fit into the same space a car does, and usually get double the mileage. I ride a bike to work, and traffic rarely slows me down, I save $160/week, and the commute is actually a little fun. What more could you ask for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Everyone should ride motorcycles. 4-6 bikes can fit into the same space a car does, and usually get double the mileage. I ride a bike to work, and traffic rarely slows me down, I save $160/week, and the commute is actually a little fun. What more could you ask for.
I used to ride a Honda VFR. Loved the bike. Got about 35 mpg, but whatever, that's not why I bought it.

Decided to stop riding after I was hit on the highway by a drunk driver with no license or insurance. The drunk driver hit a concrete barrier wall, flipped upside down and then hit me. I was extremely lucky, and the cops couldn't believe that I walked away from the accident with only minor injuries.

I like my steel passenger cage, crumple zones, and air bags. I wish you safe riding, friend.
 

·
Here for life!!!
Joined
·
567 Posts
: popcorn:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Your point is that the EIA is not thinking broadly enough. They are not considering what would happen if the US were to significantly reduce consumption. If the US were to significantly reduce consumption, then perhaps that small extra amount of oil from ANWR is the difference between having to buy foreign oil and being independent.

It's an interesting point. Can you back it up?
Well lets not continue to assume I'm an ANWR only guy. Lets do some math.

If ANWR alone can supply 4% of our oil at today's consumption rate how much can it supply if we reduced our Oil usage by 50%?

We import around 68% of our oil so one could assume a 50% reduction in consumption you could get our foreign need to 34ish% Just adding in ANWR could bring us to about 28% foriegn. Allow for further exploration. Add some platforms. Turn up the pipeline. Use some of our own coal. All of this while we continue to work to reduce our consumption rates. Alternate energy sources. Greater mass transit. Better consumption discipline by corporations and people.

It's definately not an overnight thing. It is very long-term. But we aren't taking it seriously as a society. That's where Krauthammer is exactly right. And business who use mass transit do not just suck-up these added fuel charges for long. They pass that bill to the consumer as well, i.e surcharges and price increases.

Fact is we aren't moving down any alternate path significantly. We have no "Ace in the Hole". Our Oil producing enemies can say and do what they want about/to us and we just have to suck it up. What are we gonna do? Boycott their oil? We cannot. Our only plan B is "protecting America's interests in the region". That's when the speculators move in and take advantage of the instability and our lack of foresight.

I'm just saying you can't piss & moan about the war AND piss & moan about gas prices AND piss and moan about increasing our domestic production and then continue to sit on your hands about the core issues. They waste their time attacking the symptoms while ignoring the root causes. Then they praise themselves to the ignorant peasants about how they "eased our pain". Only to find their 'band-aid" fixes spring leaks after they have reaped the benefits.

The ability for oil prices to be manipulated by specualtion was shown just this week. Zero has changed in the production (matter of fact Sudi Arabia agreed to a small INCREASE) or consumption and yet the price just pops up $11 per barrel because an analyst predicted $150 per barrel by July. Why is that? Nothing changed but the potential for profit. How do we reverse the speculation boom on oil? We already proved the Oil Companies aren't reaping the benefits with the "waste of time" congressional hearings. I guess the riots across the globe over gas prices wasn't clue enough.

Here's an example...Tell the world you are going to increase the production of grain-based ethanol products. Then be completly clueless about why food prices have skyrocketed. Yea let's turn food into gas and then watch the gas prices go to record levels and not be able to make THAT connection.

What are they gonna try next? Suing Iran and Saudi...OHH that's right, THEY ARE. Rediculous!

What happens after the little dutch boy runs out of fingers? Yea he eventually gets squashed by the leaking dam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
IMHO, politicians are politicians, they are all pretty much the same - regardless of their party affiliation. There are very, VERY few that make the transition to Washington without turning on us and looking out for Number One.

The price of fuel is going nowhere but up for the forseeable future, and internal combustion engines will be around for quite a while as well. We might as well accept that fact. What's the alternative? Electric? Talk about environmental distruction and high costs -- what the heck are we going to do with millions of old batteries? Until there is some technology leap in the electric car arena, I don't see that as a real solution. We'll just start complaining about the high cost of electricity. Oh, wait, WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT?!?! I like the Hydrogen solutions that are out there, but without en efficient means of acquiring Hydrogen, that seems a way out there as well. Ethanol? Maybe, but one bad crop year and we're all screwed.

Drilling in the US will at least provide jobs for our citizens, as opposed to other countries. Like it or not, oil company profits ARE helping our economy... Imagine what the stock markets would do if they were tanking! No pun intended ;) There are MANY drilling opportunities within the USA, and combined they will make a significant dent in our use of foreign oil. We'll never stop importing it, but we can import less.

OK, I thought this was a BMW discussion board.........

-- Kelly
 

·
Giant Robot
Joined
·
608 Posts
Oil profits are helping our economy do what, sink? Sounds like voodoo economics to me.

We need to move towards living arrangements that are walking distance or reachable by mass transit to work and shopping, and away from drive everywhere suburban sprawl.

I work from my home. My wife has a 12 mile round trip, in city commute. We still manage to put a total of 12,000 miles/year on our cars. Urban planning and taxes have to come before people can get out of their cars more often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Oil profits are helping our economy do what, sink? Sounds like voodoo economics to me.
Where do you invest your money? Your mattress?

-- Kelly
 

·
Giant Robot
Joined
·
608 Posts
I don't invest in oil and I avoid speculative bubbles if I'm not getting value directly from what I buy. The rising oil prices are not helping our economy, though they are helping some investors. They are strangling our economy and shipping billions to evil governments who subjugate their peoples.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
If you have any money in a mutual fund, 401K, etc. -- just about anything in which you are not picking the individual companies (not funds) yourself -- you are investing in oil. It is one of the few markets that has significant gains right now, and will for the forseeable future. Fund managers almost can't help but put some money there if they want to see respectable gains. Chevron, for example has seen about an 80% gain over the last 3 years, which is about average for the Oil & Gas Industry. The entire NASDAQ has seen only a 20% gain. THe DJIA, about 18% gain. The S&P 500, about a 15% gain........

I don't dispute that the price of fuel is hurting a large segment of our population, and we should have alternative forms of transportation. It's just makes evolutionary sense. But if the oil companies were not boosting our economy as a whole, those people might not have a job at all. On the same note, it's the morons that bought more house than they could afford, and got it with a bend-me-over adjustable-rate mortgage that is significantly contributing to our economic slide right now. And now who is expected to bail them out? You and I!

The economy tends to suffer when we have an election after a President has been in office for 8 years. Remember 1999/2000? I think we'll bounce back next year.

-- Kelly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
I don't invest in oil and I avoid speculative bubbles if I'm not getting value directly from what I buy. The rising oil prices are not helping our economy, though they are helping some investors. They are strangling our economy and shipping billions to evil governments who subjugate their peoples.
OTOH rising oil prices are destroying the SUV market, so its not all bad.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top