The imminent gas crunch of the new millenia

[RD]

 

ok i know, but wouldnt you think that lowering the speed limits in all states would lower the demand for gas, hence lower the price?  they did it in the 70's why not again?

your thoughts about this, whether you are for or against and why.

[Troy]

Lowering the speed limits will only increase revenues... for the police!

Why should the government be in charge of saving us a few bucks on gas? People are free to slow down on their own without it being mandated. Heck, if most people just drove the current speed limits they'd use less gas. I'd rather telecommute.

Troy

[Brock Samson]

    I Read an article in Car and Driver by their enginering editor about three or four years ago which stated that the real gas crisis will hit about 2020, as i recall he did a fair amount of research to arrive at that conclusion.
Patrick Bedard now works for DCX last I heard

[RD]

I'd rather telecommute.

you techies have great opportunities to work in your PJ's, eating cap'n crunch, and doing server maintenance all at the comfort of your big ol' couch, while watching scooby doo on boomerang dont ya? 

[Lowprofile]

Well, here's my    worth....

I Totally agree with Troy. If people would drive the posted speed limits now, we would save millions of gallons of gas & diesel. I drive for a living, and my fuel costs have more than doubled in the past year. It costs me on average $550 dollars to fuel my truck roughly every thousand miles. Now thats twice & sometimes 3 times a wk depending on how many miles I've driven and how much I've idled my truck. I am seriously looking into buying a APU [aux. power unit, aka a generator] to save fuel, and wear & tear on my engine. [not to mention, its good for mother earth]

I wish the govt would have mandated alt. fuels for govt vehicles. Why don't more cities,counties & states mandate that all non emergency vehicles in their fleets run on Natural gas or Propane/LPG??? This should have been done years ago. City and school buses, heavy construction vehicles,some of the worst polluters, Cabs, local delievery trucks and vans, US Postal service, UPS, FedEx, etc.......

We as a nation, dropped the ball a long time ago when it comes to energy, And now all those third world countries ain't so third world anymore......

Will we ever Learn

[RD]

its fine saying "if people would just travel the speed limit now" but do you not think that a lower speed limit would lower the fuel consumption even moreso then doing 70 on an interstate, when the interstate could be 60mph?  granted there will be speeders then too, but those speeders at a 60 mph speed limit will go 65 or 70 whereas at a 70 mph speed limit they will be doing 75 and 80.  overall, gas consumption would not be as large as it is now.  you cannot argue with that point.

[Lowprofile]

No, you can't argue with that.  But, on average, people drive between 68 & 77 miles per hr on the open interstate system. If everyone just slowed down to 65, and set the cruse, the gallons of fuel saved would be tremendous.

[RD]

Why should the government be in charge of saving us a few bucks on gas?

because they did it in the past, and if left up to the capitalist economy, it will not take care of itself, it will only get worse.   government is there to protect its citizens from unjust situations, they do it with monopolies, trusts, labor injustices, homeland security, etc. etc.   why should they not intervene now to protect joe schmoe who makes $5.25 an hour, just to see half of his hourly wage go to a gallon of gas.

5.25 x 8 = 42 - 5 (taxes of all sorts) = 37 - 30 (a tank of gas a week) = 7 + 148 (other 4 days of work in the week) = 155.   $155 dollars per week. heaven forbid he has to fill up twice a week. $125 then (125 x 4 = 500 per month).   Hope he has 3 jobs that are walking distance from each other.

i know its a stretch, but you can see how it will dig into his pockets.   my 98 neon costs $31 to fill up now, and its a 12 gallon tank.

[Troy]

Can't argue that going slower would save fuel (that's scientific). However, I can question the right of the government to force it upon us. I'd be willing to bet that the government would raise gas taxes before lowering the speed limit. Higher costs would slow consumption and pad their pockets at the same time. Lowering the speed limit has it's drawbacks: changing all those signs would cost money, the tax revenues would fall due to lower fuel consumption, and the revenues from speeding tickets would mostly stay in the local economy. There's no incentive for the government to do anything (except play on the fears of the people to get elected). I can drive 85 mph in my Celica and still burn 1/3rd as much fuel as driving 50 mph my Suburban. Maybe the government should mandate that we all drive economy cars? Maybe they should force everyone to carpool on drives more than 10 miles? Maybe "recreational vehicles" (boats, off-road vehicles, collector cars, motor homes, etc.) and driving for any purpose other than necessary trips should be banned? Where should it stop? For the most part, people have a right to be as responsible (or irresponsible) as they see fit. When the price of gas gets too prohibitive for most people then they'll find a way to decrease consumption on their own.

I was always under the impression that speed limits were enforced as a safety measure - not as a way to save money. On the flip side, wouldn't sitting in traffic jams for 2 hours to go three miles consume more fuel than driving 70 mph for 15 miles? Let's ban traffic jams!

Troy

[Troy]

Why should the government be in charge of saving us a few bucks on gas?

because they did it in the past, and if left up to the capitalist economy, it will not take care of itself, it will only get worse.  government is there to protect its citizens from unjust situations, they do it with monopolies, trusts, labor injustices, homeland security, etc. etc.  why should they not intervene now to protect joe schmoe who makes $5.25 an hour, just to see half of his hourly wage go to a gallon of gas.

5.25 x 8 = 42 - 5 (taxes of all sorts) = 37 - 30 (a tank of gas a week) = 7 + 148 (other 4 days of work in the week) = 155.  $155 dollars per week. heaven forbid he has to fill up twice a week. $125 then (125 x 4 = 500 per month).  Hope he has 3 jobs that are walking distance from each other.

i know its a stretch, but you can see how it will dig into his pockets.  my 98 neon costs $31 to fill up now, and its a 12 gallon tank.

Joe Shmoe needs to take out Federal Student Loans and go to a college where he can walk...

Seriously, if you are making minimum wage then there's no point in driving a long way to work. Get a job closer to home or work longer hours on fewer days per week. How many miles can you go on a tank of gas in that Neon? I can easily make it 420 miles on a 13 gallon tank with gas to spare. That's 40 miles each way to work for Joe Schmoe.

Troy

[70charginglizard]

Let's ban traffic jams!

Troy

[KMPX2]

They say these prices are here to stay. Funny thing is I can remember thinking that if prices leveled off at $1 I would be happy. Now $2 would make me happy. Sad thing is I remember when it was like 75 cents a gallon

[RD]

Can't argue that going slower would save fuel (that's scientific). However, I can question the right of the government to force it upon us.

But Troy, the federally and state mandated speed limits are, in the literal sense, a means for the government to force its citizens to not exceed a certain level of speed.   There is already questions on the validity of the higher speed limits when it comes to accidents and deaths at higher speeds.   If the government is to "force" us to go at a certain level of speed, why not "force" us to go at a lower level of speed?   What is it really going to hurt?

The advantages:
(1) better gas mileage.
(2) typically better reaction times to incidents based upon the closing rate of vehicles upon accidents or obstructions in the road with a lower speed rather than a higher one.
(3) less emissions being pushed into the atmosphere.

I am sure there are more, but I have not done the proper research other than the common sense issue.

I'd be willing to bet that the government would raise gas taxes before lowering the speed limit. Higher costs would slow consumption and pad their pockets at the same time.

This has some validity, but let us hope it does not happen.

Lowering the speed limit has it's drawbacks: changing all those signs would cost money,

many of those road signs are made in the prison systems, and the transportation departments in each state usually has the largest budget to begin with

the tax revenues would fall due to lower fuel consumption

If the individuals spend less money on gas, that means they will have more money to spend in retail stores and such, hence, the tax revenues from other establishments will still be prevalent within each government's income, thus causing hardly any effect.   (Wal-Mart is already noticing a loss in profits due to people not wanting to drive their cars and pay for gas to even go to their stores.   What about the sales tax revenues that they provide to a states revenue?).

and the revenues from speeding tickets would mostly stay in the local economy.

people will still speed no matter what the speed limit states, so this will not be a factor.

There's no incentive for the government to do anything (except play on the fears of the people to get elected). I can drive 85 mph in my Celica and still burn 1/3rd as much fuel as driving 50 mph my Suburban. Maybe the government should mandate that we all drive economy cars? Maybe they should force everyone to carpool on drives more than 10 miles? Maybe "recreational vehicles" (boats, off-road vehicles, collector cars, motor homes, etc.) and driving for any purpose other than necessary trips should be banned? Where should it stop? For the most part, people have a right to be as responsible (or irresponsible) as they see fit. When the price of gas gets too prohibitive for most people then they'll find a way to decrease consumption on their own.

That is a lot of maybe's ya think?   I mean "maybe this" and "maybe that" is a good way to promote subjective thinking, but in this case I do not think it is completely relevant.   There are so many maybe's in this world, but I believe you are taking this a little too far towards the paranoid section of the "path of freedom" is getting smaller and smaller each day and not focusing on the true issue.

I was always under the impression that speed limits were enforced as a safety measure - not as a way to save money. On the flip side, wouldn't sitting in traffic jams for 2 hours to go three miles consume more fuel than driving 70 mph for 15 miles? Let's ban traffic jams!

Troy

Prior to the 70's, the speed limits were around the 70 mph slots.   It was not until after the gas crunch that you see the speed limits being restricted by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.   They took away the rights to manage the states highways and roadways unders the interstate commerce act I believe.   This legislation was brought forth by the Carter administration to help alleviate the oil shortage.   It was a political maneuver that only showed its true rewards in the long term.   With the lower speed limits came lower rates of accidents, which in turn allowed the insurance companies to lower their rates to reasonable levels.   But this was only realized in the early 90's how the lower speed limits actually affected the nation as a whole.

awaiting your rebuttal mon ami, RD. 

[Brock Samson]

here in calif the speed limit was 55 MPH, and lemmie tell ya' people that's frickin  s l o w . . . 
seems me and my cars (even my old vans) were most comfortable at approx 80 - 82 MPH...  and that's more like it... 
   driving smoothly is how i save gas... 

[Plum Crazy 71]

I have heard that there was a study on driving.  It was "proven", from what I was told, that people pay more attention at 70MPH than they do at 60.  (Hmmm, what are the keystrokes for "stirring the pot"...lol.)

[Steve P.]

I have heard that there was a study on driving.   It was "proven", from what I was told, that people pay more attention at 70MPH than they do at 60.   (Hmmm, what are the keystrokes for "stirring the pot"...lol.)

I read that too. I believe it was a study done FOR State Farm ins.  They didn't want to hear it but it made the papers anyway.. I can tell you that when I have to go to Tampa in the morning I am first unwilling, then scarred and then I am pissed off. I see people on phones, reading news papers, books, maps and the ever so popular PUTTING ON WAR PAINT......  It kills me.. Some day I am sure it reallllly will!!

[Shakey]

All of this will be solved when Silver RT chimes in and offers a solution.

Be patient folks! 

[bull]

[LahTera]

Seems to me that if they made the stop lights run smoother, we could do a lot less stopping and going, and THAT'S what sucks up the gas!

My car tends to overheat on hot days, so when I'm at a long light, I literally shut if off and watch the lights until it's time to start again. 

I can't stand doing the speed limit, only to hit another stop light.  I figure I'm SAVING gas by going 5 over to make all the lights.  If the city wants to rig it that way, I'll drive it that way.  If they rigged 'em so the lights changed appropriately at doing the speed limit, I'd do the speed limit.  What ticks me off are the jokers who do 5-10 under the speed limit in the left lane and make sure I catch those stop lights!

There, that was my rant for the day.   

LahTera

[Troy]

But Troy, the federally and state mandated speed limits are, in the literal sense, a means for the government to force its citizens to not exceed a certain level of speed.  There is already questions on the validity of the higher speed limits when it comes to accidents and deaths at higher speeds.  If the government is to "force" us to go at a certain level of speed, why not "force" us to go at a lower level of speed?  What is it really going to hurt?

The advantages:
(1) better gas mileage.
(2) typically better reaction times to incidents based upon the closing rate of vehicles upon accidents or obstructions in the road with a lower speed rather than a higher one.
(3) less emissions being pushed into the atmosphere.

I am sure there are more, but I have not done the proper research other than the common sense issue.

You originally asked:

ok i know, but wouldnt you think that lowering the speed limits in all states would lower the demand for gas, hence lower the price?

You never mentioned safety or emissions. I question the right of the government to babysit my fuel consumption. They already have laws in place that are supposed to lower emissions via vehicle checks and CAFE standards. Do we need more legislation? The speed limits are now set according to the what is deemed safe for the particular roadway so it shouldn't make a huge difference if the limits are lowered. Those topics are basically irrelevant to the original question though.

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

I'd be willing to bet that the government would raise gas taxes before lowering the speed limit. Higher costs would slow consumption and pad their pockets at the same time.

This has some validity, but let us hope it does not happen.

Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

If the individuals spend less money on gas, that means they will have more money to spend in retail stores and such, hence, the tax revenues from other establishments will still be prevalent within each government's income, thus causing hardly any effect.  (Wal-Mart is already noticing a loss in profits due to people not wanting to drive their cars and pay for gas to even go to their stores.  What about the sales tax revenues that they provide to a states revenue?).

The federal gas taxes are supposed to be earmarked for the highway system I believe. Shifting the tax revenue to another department creates a larger budget deficit there. I'd say the manager in charge would see it as considerably more than "hardly any effect". Besides, there is no Federal sales tax so the only benefit to the government here is income tax from the retailers. Federal gas taxes are at $0.18 per gallon and I believe most states are about the same. Some states have no sales tax so shifting gas sales to retail sales will hurt them. Other states have sales taxes in the 5-7% range so it's a wash with gas at $3.00 per gallon ($3 in retail sales x 6% = $0.18). You're also assuming that people will spend the money that they save on gas.

There's no incentive for the government to do anything (except play on the fears of the people to get elected). I can drive 85 mph in my Celica and still burn 1/3rd as much fuel as driving 50 mph my Suburban. Maybe the government should mandate that we all drive economy cars? Maybe they should force everyone to carpool on drives more than 10 miles? Maybe "recreational vehicles" (boats, off-road vehicles, collector cars, motor homes, etc.) and driving for any purpose other than necessary trips should be banned? Where should it stop? For the most part, people have a right to be as responsible (or irresponsible) as they see fit. When the price of gas gets too prohibitive for most people then they'll find a way to decrease consumption on their own.

That is a lot of maybe's ya think?  I mean "maybe this" and "maybe that" is a good way to promote subjective thinking, but in this case I do not think it is completely relevant.  There are so many maybe's in this world, but I believe you are taking this a little too far towards the paranoid section of the "path of freedom" is getting smaller and smaller each day and not focusing on the true issue.

Your original post was mostly hypothetical so I can use all the "maybe"s that I want. My question was: "Where should it stop?" You are advocating that the government should control our actions. I'm saying that we don't need any more babysitting legislation. People will only buy as much gas as they can afford to use and they'll find ways to decrease that consumption when necessary. People need to be accountable for their own actions and not have the government taking care of them.

I was always under the impression that speed limits were enforced as a safety measure - not as a way to save money. On the flip side, wouldn't sitting in traffic jams for 2 hours to go three miles consume more fuel than driving 70 mph for 15 miles? Let's ban traffic jams!

Prior to the 70's, the speed limits were around the 70 mph slots.  It was not until after the gas crunch that you see the speed limits being restricted by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  They took away the rights to manage the states highways and roadways unders the interstate commerce act I believe.  This legislation was brought forth by the Carter administration to help alleviate the oil shortage.  It was a political maneuver that only showed its true rewards in the long term.  With the lower speed limits came lower rates of accidents, which in turn allowed the insurance companies to lower their rates to reasonable levels.  But this was only realized in the early 90's how the lower speed limits actually affected the nation as a whole.

The speed limits were originally the work of Nixon in 1974. They were supposed to be a temporary solution. Later on, the states were blackmailed to support the measures. The limits were raised to 65 mph in 1987 and then completely repealed in 1995. If all these benefits were so good then why would the laws have changed? Why did it take 21 years to revert to what we had and why would it happen once these benefits were realized? The whole safety issue came about after the fact and cars themselves have become safer since then. Modern tires and suspension allows cars to handle better and you can actually stop from 80 mph more than once. My insurance rates still aren't reasonable - which may explain the huge profits that insurance companies brag about in their financials.

Troy

[2fast4u]

  My cousin has a 79 Chevy PU that now has a 396 in it....when he purchased the PU it was set up with propane by the farmer he bought it from and it is still used today!  He can run it on the propane or Gasoline.....propane for mileage and gas for horsepower!  The last he told me, propane cost was below a dollar per pound!  His long bed holds the 80 gallon tank at the front.  He tells me that he can drive 1500 miles before refueling! 

   I wonder if it would be smart for more of us to use propane on older carburated vehichles....not necessarily Mopars, but pick-ups and vans!

Terry

[Troy]

Reminds me of Hank on "King of the Hill".

Troy

[RD]

You never mentioned safety or emissions.

[they are correlated plus', nothing more, nothing less]

I question the right of the government to babysit my fuel consumption. They already have laws in place that are supposed to lower emissions via vehicle checks and CAFE standards. Do we need more legislation?

[the legislation would be to establish speed limits that will help with the lowering of fuel consumption, though they will affect emissions, that is just a byproduct, then again the emission standpoint was not my key element, i mentioned that only has a residual side effect.]

The speed limits are now set according to the what is deemed safe for the particular roadway so it shouldn't make a huge difference if the limits are lowered. Those topics are basically irrelevant to the original question though.

[whether they are set at what is "deemed" safe is irrelevant to the fact that lowering the speed limit will lower the demand on fuel and thus lower the profits of the oil companies, hence lower the price of the fuel (if the ol' economic class phrase is correct with the theories of supply vs. demand)]

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

[do you honestly think that that would happen?   They could do that, but if they do, do you not think that an uproar would happen?   The truth would come out at that time, and some way shape or form, something will have to happen to remedy it.   If not, then we should all become complacent little plebians who desire to become automatons.]

Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

[Taxes?   That wouldn't fly here in the United States because (1) we are not a democratic socialist or socialist country whose citizens are used to getting the holy living crap taxed out of them (2) If Europe does something, when have you seen the U.S. copy it?   (3) who cares about Europe, we are talking about us.   no offense to the european population, two cocky americans are debating ]

The federal gas taxes are supposed to be earmarked for the highway system I believe. Shifting the tax revenue to another department creates a larger budget deficit there. I'd say the manager in charge would see it as considerably more than "hardly any effect". Besides, there is no Federal sales tax so the only benefit to the government here is income tax from the retailers. Federal gas taxes are at $0.18 per gallon and I believe most states are about the same. Some states have no sales tax so shifting gas sales to retail sales will hurt them.

[those states also have the highest population per capita then the other states. Kansas, yes I could see a possible problem, but in Texas where the population of Houston is larger then the entire state of Kansas, I could see them finding other means to produce revenue]   

Other states have sales taxes in the 5-7% range so it's a wash with gas at $3.00 per gallon ($3 in retail sales x 6% = $0.18). You're also assuming that people will spend the money that they save on gas.

[I am not assuming that, what I am saying is that individuals will not visit retail stores because the gas is too expensive, i.e. they do not want to drive to the store to spend money.   So if they do not want to drive, then they will not be spending more money on gas, nor will they be spending money in the stores.   Its a double whammy on the state revenues.]


Your original post was mostly hypothetical so I can use all the "maybe"s that I want.

[not trying to state what you can or cannot say, just stating what I viewed as a stretch of the imagination]

My question was: "Where should it stop?" You are advocating that the government should control our actions. I'm saying that we don't need any more babysitting legislation.

[So has it dawned on you that they do that already?   Are you one of the "the path of freedom is thinner and thinner" alarmists?   If we could control our own actions, do you think that we would need a government in the first place?   Come on man, this is not babysitting legislation, this would be legislation that would be implemented to affect the economy as a whole to include the average citizens pocketbook.   What is so dreadfully wrong with that legislation?   What will it hurt you to go 10 mph slower?   Nothing at all, that is how much it will hurt you.]   

People will only buy as much gas as they can afford to use and they'll find ways to decrease that consumption when necessary. People need to be accountable for their own actions and not have the government taking care of them.

[again, the government is there to take care of its citizens, or it would never have been emplaced to begin with]

The speed limits were originally the work of Nixon in 1974. They were supposed to be a temporary solution. Later on, the states were blackmailed to support the measures. The limits were raised to 65 mph in 1987 and then completely repealed in 1995. If all these benefits were so good then why would the laws have changed? Why did it take 21 years to revert to what we had and why would it happen once these benefits were realized?

[i cannot answer that, because i do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist and its irrelevant to what the facts state.   lower speed limits increase fuel economy and decrease the demand on fuel.]


RD

[Rocky]

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

[do you honestly think that that would happen?   They could do that, but if they do, do you not think that an uproar would happen?   The truth would come out at that time, and some way shape or form, something will have to happen to remedy it.   If not, then we should all become complacent little plebians who desire to become automatons.]



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...............................................





Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

[Taxes?   That wouldn't fly here in the United States because (1) we are not a democratic socialist or socialist country whose citizens are used to getting the holy living crap taxed out of them (2) If Europe does something, when have you seen the U.S. copy it?   (3) who cares about Europe, we are talking about us.   no offense to the european population, two cocky americans are debating ]



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..............................#2





[again, the government is there to take care of its citizens, or it would never have been emplaced to begin with]


OMFG.....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOCOPTER,LOLOCOSTER




WOW, nothing but WOW................

[Ghoste]

Wow, cool.   If the spped limit was lowered back to 55, I'd be able to keep up in traffic with my 67 and all you guys that bought overdrives would be turning, what, 1000 rpm?
If you slow the general driver, one thing I think you will see is an outcry from the anti cars to get rid of high polluting gas hogs (insert your favorite year of classic Charger here) and force the nation to drive Prius's and carpool.  The world is different than the first time 55 was implemented and it already hates your car.  More ammo is all they need.

[Troy]

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

[do you honestly think that that would happen?  They could do that, but if they do, do you not think that an uproar would happen?  The truth would come out at that time, and some way shape or form, something will have to happen to remedy it.  If not, then we should all become complacent little plebians who desire to become automatons.]

It happens all the time. I'm surprised you didn't know that:
At its March 2000 meeting, OPEC set up a price band mechanism triggered by the OPEC basket price, to respond to changes in world oil market conditions. According to the price band mechanism, OPEC basket prices above $28 per barrel for 20 consecutive trading days or below $22 per barrel for 10 consecutive trading days would result in production adjustments. This adjustment was originally automatic, but OPEC members changed this so that they could fine-tune production adjustments at their discretion. Since its inception, the informal price band mechanism has been activated only once. On October 31, 2000, OPEC activated the mechanism to increase aggregate OPEC production quotas by 500,000 barrels per day.

On August 3, 2005, the OPEC basket price rose to $55.43 per barrel, its highest price since the price band mechanism was established. Since December 2, 2003, when the basket price last crossed the $28 per barrel threshold, the OPEC basket price has traded above the $28 per barrel level for 432 consecutive trading days through August 4, 2005. At its January 30, 2005 meeting, OPEC decided that market changes had rendered the band unrealistic, and decided to temporarily suspend the price band mechanism.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opec.html

Remember that when this "basket" idea came about, oil was selling between $15 and $20 per barrel with the average over the last 40 years at around $18. The whole idea was to control (and raise) prices.

Example of the government stepping in with a "quick-fix":
The rapid increase in crude prices from 1973 to 1981 would have been much less were it not for United States energy policy during the post Embargo period. The US imposed price controls on domestically produced oil in an attempt to lessen the impact of the 1973-74 price increase.  The obvious result of the price controls was that U.S. consumers of crude oil paid about 50 percent more for imports than domestic production. Put another way U.S producers received less than world market price.

Did the policy achieve its goal? In the short term the recession induced by the 1973-1974 crude oil price rise was less because U.S. consumers faced lower prices.  However, it had other effects as well.  In the absence of price controls U.S. exploration and production would certainly have been significantly greater. The higher prices faced by consumers would have resulted in lower rates of consumption: automobiles would have had higher mileage sooner, homes and commercial buildings would have been better insulated and improvements in industrial energy efficiency  would have been greater than they were during this period. As a consequence, the United States would have been less dependent on imports in 1979-1980 and the price increase in response to Iranian and Iraqi supply interruptions would have been significantly less.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Whoops!

Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

[Taxes?  That wouldn't fly here in the United States because (1) we are not a democratic socialist or socialist country whose citizens are used to getting the holy living crap taxed out of them (2) If Europe does something, when have you seen the U.S. copy it?  (3) who cares about Europe, we are talking about us.  no offense to the european population, two cocky americans are debating ]

The gas tax has been rising since 1932 when it was first introduced. The government noticed that there was an untapped revenue stream and needed to balance the budget. Certain groups believe that a tax of more than $1 per gallon would help in controlling consumption. It's not something I just made up.

My question was: "Where should it stop?" You are advocating that the government should control our actions. I'm saying that we don't need any more babysitting legislation.

[So has it dawned on you that they do that already?  Are you one of the "the path of freedom is thinner and thinner" alarmists?  If we could control our own actions, do you think that we would need a government in the first place?  Come on man, this is not babysitting legislation, this would be legislation that would be implemented to affect the economy as a whole to include the average citizens pocketbook.  What is so dreadfully wrong with that legislation?  What will it hurt you to go 10 mph slower?  Nothing at all, that is how much it will hurt you.] 

What makes a politician any smarter than the average citizen? We vote them into office (for better or worse) and they are servants of the people. I am perfectly capable of controlling my actions and anyone who isn't needs to be committed or hospitalized in some other manner.

Democracy itself is based on a social contract: In order to live in society, human beings agree to an implicit social contract, which gives them certain rights in return for giving up certain freedoms they would have in a state of nature. ... the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals are the terms of the social contract, and the state is the entity created for the purpose of enforcing that contract. Also, the people may change the terms of the contract if they so desire; rights and responsibilities are not fixed or "natural". However, more rights always entail more responsibilities, and fewer responsibilities always entail fewer rights.

People will only buy as much gas as they can afford to use and they'll find ways to decrease that consumption when necessary. People need to be accountable for their own actions and not have the government taking care of them.

[again, the government is there to take care of its citizens, or it would never have been emplaced to begin with]

Ummmm... whatever. Maybe a review of American history would be in order?

Troy

[XXSpiralXX]

Well, here's my    worth....

I Totally agree with Troy. If people would drive the posted speed limits now, we would save millions of gallons of gas & diesel. I drive for a living, and my fuel costs have more than doubled in the past year. It costs me on average $550 dollars to fuel my truck roughly every thousand miles. Now thats twice & sometimes 3 times a wk depending on how many miles I've driven and how much I've idled my truck. I am seriously looking into buying a APU [aux. power unit, aka a generator] to save fuel, and wear & tear on my engine. [not to mention, its good for mother earth]

I wish the govt would have mandated alt. fuels for govt vehicles. Why don't more cities,counties & states mandate that all non emergency vehicles in their fleets run on Natural gas or Propane/LPG??? This should have been done years ago. City and school buses, heavy construction vehicles,some of the worst polluters, Cabs, local delievery trucks and vans, US Postal service, UPS, FedEx, etc.......

We as a nation, dropped the ball a long time ago when it comes to energy, And now all those third world countries ain't so third world anymore......

Will we ever Learn

  You know, if all the factorys switched to hydrogen theyd be doing the world a favor too, but no theyre trying to push it onto the little guys, leaving the factories to eat up all the fossil fuels and kill the environment. But, theyre the ones in charge so its do as I say, not as I do.

[RD]

well its obvious that troy and i can debate this topic until the cows come home, but nevertheless, I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this.  Thanks for the discussion, but "55, staying alive" is how I will continue to think   I truly think at this point we are merely 

[Steve P.]

I also believe that driving at 55 MPH would save gas.. The real question is: WHO THE HELL WANTS TO??  

The population here is big and growing in leaps and bounds. It makes me crazy.   I can't wait till I can get out on the OPEN road and stretch my legs..  

Before you give me any crap about moving out to the country,,,, I did!! 11 years ago we moved to a quiet little county full of cow pastures. The little housing tract that we live in was the ONLY housing around and it was surrounded by pastures in every direction.. Stores were not far away but were small..

Now if you want to buy a new house anywhere near here you had better have a trunk full of cash and a high credit number..

I am ready for the old country roads of Upstate New York..............

[derailed]

Just to let you know Steve, If your looking at buying any back road country property in upstate NY anytime soon(if you can still find it), your gonna need a little more than a trunk full of cash. Land got real stupid here.

[Steve P.]

DRAILED,, where are you living??  I am from Rochester.. I found 6.7 acres with a 2100 SF. house and a 30 by 50' shop for $169K..

I live in a 1200 SF. house now on .15 of an acre and 2 realtors have told me I can get $185K..  Taxes are much cheaper here but auto insurance is RIDICULOUS!!

[bull]

Dang, Steve! All $169k will get you in Portland is an 800 sf boarded up meth house these days. I paid $167,500 for my house three years ago and it recently appraised at $239k. It's 1930 sf, two story, five bed 2 1/2 bath, two car garage with an RV pad on a 90X50 lot.

[RD]

u thread hijackers!

[bull]

Sorry! 

[RD]

i dont care, i thought it was funny

[mustanghater]

does this mean we can buy 2002 cameros  and hemi magnums for next to nothing 

[Steve P.]

Dang, Steve! All $169k will get you in Portland is an 800 sf boarded up meth house these days. I paid $167,500 for my house three years ago and it recently appraised at $239k. It's 1930 sf, two story, five bed 2 1/2 bath, two car garage with an RV pad on a 90X50 lot.

I'm doing better than you Bull..  I bought this place 3.5 years ago for the low, low price of $67,500.oo..  Of course I have done allot of work on it but it's now worth $185,K and climbing..

Oh yeah, my lot is 70 X 100 and have RV parking also.. I just wish it was all BIGGER!!

Rochester used to be a very big industrial city.. Many, many big companies. Now the big money there is what the baby boomer's are spending.. Too many jobs went out of the country.. We lost 2 huge GM plants there alone!! Now Kodak is all but gone under... Film is a thing of the past and there are tons of digital companies out there.. Sybron is defunct. Many others are gone also.. It's a damn shame...

[derailed]

Steve, Im between Albany and Saratoga. Land here is rediculous. Average prime 3 acre lot here is around $50 to$75k if not more. If you get out on the outskirts a little bit and head north its not as bad but it sounds like you got one heck of a deal. My friend has 8 acres with a 1500 square foot cape cod house on it and hes paying $6000 a year in taxes in the next town over from me. Wow i didnt realize Kodack was almost all done. I use to deliver alot of fuel oil to that plant and it was still pretty busy 10 years ago.

[PocketThunder]

 

[bull]

Steve, Im between Albany and Saratoga. Land here is rediculous. Average prime 3 acre lot here is around $50 to$75k if not more. If you get out on the outskirts a little bit and head north its not as bad but it sounds like you got one heck of a deal. My friend has 8 acres with a 1500 square foot cape cod house on it and hes paying $6000 a year in taxes in the next town over from me. Wow i didnt realize Kodack was almost all done. I use to deliver alot of fuel oil to that plant and it was still pretty busy 10 years ago.

I paid $45k for my stupid little lot and here you're talking about $50k for 3 acres! Cripes! But, it sounds like there's not much work there right now. I've got two jobs and I'm going nuts.

[Steve P.]

Well the fact is  ten years ago Kodak was still getting rid of many but had tens of thousands still.. If you go back to Rochester now you will HLPAG your pants!!  Many of the old Kodak buildings are completely gone.. All of the Elmgrove plant has been sold off.. Lee Rd. is down to a hand full of people. State St. , (main offices), has enough left over parking to hold a Super Bowl.....  It's just not the same..

Some French auto parts maker moved into the old Rochester Products building and was making train loads of money, but their mother company in France was losing it's butt, (in France), and moved it's production back to France.. Heinz Ketchup, (started out in Rochester in 1869), moved to Pa. Hell, I think Ragu is gone now too!!

It's very sad.. I have seen Rochester in it's hay day and am now watching it slowly go under.. Rochester used to be a MAJOR PLAYER in industry...

[hemihead]

I live in the Pittsburgh area. Real Estate is cheap, taxes are climbing like everywhere else,but the the industry has left here too.Not much steel industry here anymore,coal mines are all but closed.There are lots of minimium wage jobs here if you like to work 16 hours a day at 2 jobs or 12 hours a day at 1 job.Heinz left Pittsburgh for Illinois.The roads suck here,the women are ugly,the musclecars are way over priced.We have the 2nd highest gas tax in the country.There is a fee and a fine for everything in this state.Oh yeah, the weather sucks here too.So move here, the cost of living is low but plan on a long commute to earn a living.
It is coming to the point that the blue collar guy will not be able to afford to drive.The privelege of driving will be for the white collar worker and upper crust.

[Steve P.]

I live in the Pittsburgh area. Real Estate is cheap, taxes are climbing like everywhere else,but the the industry has left here too.Not much steel industry here anymore,coal mines are all but closed.There are lots of minimum wage jobs here if you like to work 16 hours a day at 2 jobs or 12 hours a day at 1 job.Heinz left Pittsburgh for Illinois.The roads suck here,the women are ugly,the musclecars are way over priced.We have the 2nd highest gas tax in the country.There is a fee and a fine for everything in this state.Oh yeah, the weather sucks here too.So move here, the cost of living is low but plan on a long commute to earn a living.
It is coming to the point that the blue collar guy will not be able to afford to drive.The privilege of driving will be for the white collar worker and upper crust.

  It seems like before long we will have another class.. Maybe it will be called the BLACK collar worker.. I also feel as though CEO's should go by GOLD collar.. Their pay in many cases is beyond ridiculous..  How much is enough??

A buddy of mine here in Florida has many years of management in the food and beverage industry. Since I met him about 10 years ago he has lost many jobs.. Hotels selling out and new ceo's with their own ideas have put him in bad shape.. He now works a few days per week and is struggling to keep his house.  I would like to know how the government figures we are in good shape??? The cost of living today and lack of GOOD jobs is forcing educated people to flip burgers.. Where are the uneducated people going to work??   I know... They can all join the military.

[Ghoste]

I see in the paper today that Vipers qualify for the great employee discount program.   I don't ever recall seeing Vipers as part of a rebate program before.   Surely the fuel cost spike hasn't left a glut of Vipers sitting on dealer lots.   This is just to make you read the ad right?

[HalfastAMX]

He now works a few days per week and is struggling to keep his house.   I would like to know how the government figures we are in good shape??? The cost of living today and lack of GOOD jobs is forcing educated people to flip burgers.. Where are the uneducated people going to work??

Well, one of the last resorts for the people may be Labor. There is no way in hell that any of the tradesmen i know will let foreigners or unskilled, non-union, little ratbastards invade our market. Hell, its one of the few jobs impossible to export.
Its not possible to do the things i do elsewhere. You cant build a 60 story scraper in china and ship it back here. They arent going to erect a 500 foot tall, 3 mile long bridge in some other rat trade little country either.

Bottom line is that union trade work isnt some joke anymore, it pays well, has great benefits, and is sometimes very satisfying.
Besides, you get to see AMERICA

BUY UNION   BUY AMERICAN   BOYCOTT CHINA


1/2

Ironworkers #86 Seattle Wa
                        #29 Portland Or.
                        #742 Honolulu Hi
                        #790 Oakland Ca
                        #118 Las Vegas Nv
                        #27 Salt lake city Ut

[Steve P.]

I'm with you Dean.. It's rather hard to build a power plant in Mexico and ship it here too.. The problem is, there are only so many of those type jobs..

I think we should really start putting it in peoples faces..

BUY AMERICAN/BUILD AMERICA

No more selling out...................... 

[Ghoste]

It's too late.  Corporate America isn't America anymore, it's corporate fuedalism and the execs operate in a mini aristocracy designed to line their own pockets at the expense of the peasantry.  If it can be built cheaper in China, tough.  Wal-Mart will peddle it someplace for them.
Sorry rant off.  I hate the political threads and yet here I am. 

[Steve P.]

Political or not, this is OUR LIVES!!

TV sells like no other.. I remember years ago, the local government was all about cleaning up our city and their commercials boasted, (KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL)...   It worked for a while.. Till not long after they stopped showing the ads.


Remember in the 70's??  (BUY AMERICAN).....

Clothes lines made in America

Made In America USED to mean something!!!!

[Brock Samson]

   WOW!! this thread goes all over the place,...  
The gas went up here 11 cents per gallon for reg.   in one week now at $2.81 +.. at the "cheap" station.

  I took my Charger out Thursday for only the third time this year, went down to the "cheap" station, while waiting for the light to change at the intersection a '06 sedan tried to beat me to the pump (silver sxt), so guess who won...   
A bunch of kids waiting for the bus there & watching this cheered as I whupped it's sorry 4 door ass,.. he drove on...    musta been kinda embarrased..  
So any how, it cost me $47.oo to fill up with premium and the tank wasn't empty...  

  Kodak used to have a headquarters here in SF, i read they laid everyone off and moved out of the city, sold the property, it   musta been worth quite a bit being near the bay 'n all, but they were allready on the ropes from FUJIFILM muscleing them out of the film market.

In the '90s Honk Kong money started buying up all the property here in SF being as Hong Kong was going to the Communists and there is still a massive influx into the USA,.. better brush up on your Cantonise..
It's completly out of control here with the housing market, and everything's approching if not far exceedeing a million bucks.
  

If ya' haden't heard unions are on the ropes...
I know first hand.   
The labor. Sec isn't a friend to unions in case ya haven't heard,.. and the unions haven't helped their cause by spending all our union dues buying off politicians who turned around and screwed us.
(Remember NAFTA?... How about Bill Clinton's Chinese connections?.. and he was supposedly a Democrat!...)  http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=30&article_id=9763&page_number=1
...all the while union jobs are going the way of the Mom and Popp stores,..
...replaced by Walmarts...
    Here they've done turned SF into a gigantic strip mall, ALL the family owned businesses are gone, replaced by franchises...
I feel soooo damn old cause I keep telling folks how I used to know the family that owned this place or how this used to be a great this or that but now it's a Burger King...


  My aunt's 4 BR place in Liberty New York sold for $25,000 a few years back, because it's a dieing town with no jobs at all.
  ok, I'm done..   

[Ghoste]

You're preaching to the choir here.   I work in a unionized auto assembly plant and the writing is on the wall.   People tell me it's union greed but I have been to the golden tower that passes as our head office and if I'm greedy, how come I don't have limo service, 5 star dining facility, and laundry service on site.   I have a gaurd at the gate who searches me because I'm a potential thief instead of a uniformed doorman to open doors for me.   The barbed wire fence around our plant is angled to keep us in not intruders out.   I don't see sky or sunlight or weather instead of a panoramic view from a skyscraper in the city where head office is.
Are unions without blame?   No.   But if I'm racing to the bottom to compete with a worker in China then head office can go screw themselves and move there.   

[Steve P.]

Here-Here...   I hate Wall-to-China-Mart.. Sometimes you are otherwise very limited. Then again, isn't that what WALLS AROUND YOU MART is all about?

Bottom line is, we let this happen to us. NOW WE need to do something to repair the damage and make our kids future bright...

[Troy]

This thread is certainly nowhere near where it started....

I'll try to comment on things that caught my eye: If people would stop shopping at Wal-Mart then they would go out of business. I am pretty sure they are not run by the government nor would the government step in to save them if they went bankrupt. Therefore, no one is to blame for making the company so powerful except the people who support them. FYI - Wal-Mart was blaming gas prices for their drop in sales but many of their competitors in the same industry posted higher profits. Figure it out. The unions (their leadership mainly) have made some very, very poor decisions which put them where they are now. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to disagree with the leadership once you are in the union so I don't see any changes on the horizon. CEOs are generally paid based on performance. If the companies they run aren't profitable then they are out on the street but if they understand how to manage then they can become very successful. I fail to see where the government is responsible for the ability of it's citizens to own and drive cars - owning a vehicle has always been a privilege and a major expense.

In the early 1900s only the rich could afford train rides, boat trips, automobiles, and airplanes (or even more than one horse!). Technology and ingenuity made mass production possible which lowered prices and made more products available/affordable for the "average" person. Telephones put the telegraph industry out of commission and, later on, automated switchboards cost the jobs of many people. In the early-to-mid 1990s a 486 powered PC cost about $4500, color monitors were for the elite, rediculously slow modems were the size of shoe boxes and very few people understood the technology or could afford to use it. They give laptops to school children now and I couldn't live without high speed internet access (nor could several million other people). Things change - people learn to adapt. One major factor that has always driven technology (and change) has been money. When costs get too high it is a catalyst for change to bring prices (costs) back in line. When costs go up on "necessities" people have to find other ways to balance the budget OR find ways to lower their dependence on those "necessities". It's worked this way for thousands of years and the best solution so far has been to shut up and act (do something to create change). Complaining and relying on others to solve the problem only makes the problem solvers rich.

Troy

[hemihead]

I guess it just comes down to what side of the fence you live on. 

[Troy]

I guess it just comes down to what side of the fence you live on.

Climb the fence...

Troy

[FastbackJon]

I remember when regular hit $1.90, and it doesn't seem like too long ago. I saw that price up on a gas station sign and thought no way it would go higher than that. I would never pay more than $1.90 for a gallon of gas, and if I had to, I would record or keep a mental number in my mind to how many times I did it.

And boy did that plan go down the drain. Today I just put in $38 worth of 92 octane at $2.87 in my '68 R/T. Plus $6.50 for octane booster. I got a steal of a deal considering the other stations in town had the same octane for up to $2.99.

Best thing I can hope for is to get a good job out of college, so I don't have to worry so much about little things like gas money. Might even buy a motorcycle for the 15 minute trip to work in the future, who knows.

[hemihead]

Jump off the fence lol

[Brock Samson]

yeah, the grass is greener, due to all the manure... 

[6pkrunner]

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Given China's and lately India's massive increase in demand for fuel the writing is on the wall. Alternative fuels are going to emerge. The influence of big business will put this off as long as possible. It should have been in the works many moons ago. Well it was, but the increase in demand from China and India wasn't factored in. Clock's ticking. Maybe 10 years, maybe 30 - but its coming.

[derailed]

Steve i agree with you 110 percent. I saw alot of industry when i was in the trucking business and since ive been railroading close down in this state and its scary. The GE plant that builds turbines here once employed 20000 people and is now down less than 5000.They are only planning on building 17 turbines there for next year and theres talk of shutting it down all together. I have 2 young kids and would like to think there will be a place here in this country somewhere for them to work when they grow up. I dispise companies like wal mart for what they represent. There motto bring it home to america is just that because they bring the crap they sell here from 3rd world countries.