$5,000 Retro Fit Hybrid Kit
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
Next: A "SAVAGE SERVILITY" -- "The Holiday Season" !!!
From: John Larkin on 15 Nov 2009 20:33 On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:59:34 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. >> >> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. >> >> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw >> >>material >> >>(crude oil) >> >> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who >> > is? >> >> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will >> be paying the debt we are accumulating. Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money. > >Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate. > >The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists >agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to >do something about it. The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious. And even if they did agree, they'd usually be wrong. You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the future is making you neurotic. John
From: Jim Yanik on 16 Nov 2009 09:44 jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m(a)mwt.net> wrote in news:ifydnXYl5YJKOp3WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d(a)bright.net: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> "Paul E. Schoen" <paul(a)peschoen.com> wrote in >> news:bOZLm.11939$Sw5.2687(a)newsfe16.iad: >> >> > >> > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> > message news:4mk0g5hbeti1qevmtnjoii2omkp3is7m2g(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill >> >> <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. >> >> >> >> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. >> > >> > The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw >> > material (crude oil) and also the cost of its effect on the >> > environment when it is burned. So the war in the Middle East should >> > most fairly be subsidized by fuel taxes. We are already subsidizing >> > terrorist activities with the profits made by the Arabs and other >> > countries who produce the oil, >> >> because the DemocRATs/environuts keep blocking DOMESTIC oil >> reproduction and refineries. > > Is the communist and evironutt agenda to make oil prices high by > creating scarcity and lower the cost of production by limiting capital > expenses? Is the strategy to drowned the oil companies in profits? > > -jim > look at the oil companies profit MARGINS,they are lower than other US categories,like medical,insurance. Oil companies margins are pretty much par for US business. It's just that they do a huge VOLUME,thus huge earnings. Since when is profit evil? But it IS clear that producing oil domestically stengthens the US,and weakens the foreign producers that fund terrorism. It gives *US workers* good-paying jobs,that also provide tax revenue for gov't,and the beneficial effects spread out through our economy.Those US workers spend their money,buy products,those sales mean other companies hire,the sales taxes fund state gov'ts,etc. Producing oil domestically reduces tanker shipping and lowers the chances of environmentally damaging oil spills in our waters. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Brent on 16 Nov 2009 09:49 On 2009-11-16, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > Producing oil domestically reduces tanker shipping and lowers the chances > of environmentally damaging oil spills in our waters. US oil is more expensive because of political, extraction, and refining costs. The political instability cost of the middle east (and some other regions) oil is passed to the US taxpayer. End the military and foreign aid subsidies that foreign oil gets and domestic oil will become attractive.
From: Bret Cahill on 16 Nov 2009 10:36 > >> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. > > >> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. > > >> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw > >> >>material > >> >>(crude oil) > > >> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who > >> > is? > > >> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will > >> be paying the debt we are accumulating. > > Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money. That's why fuel will be $5/gallon again next year and $10/gallon in 2 years. > >Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate. > > >The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists > >agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to > >do something about it. > The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious. They were including the shills at Hoover and the Chicago School. > And even if they did > agree, they'd usually be wrong. I'ld like to see the sample myself. > You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the > future is making you neurotic. Lots of opportunities in technical fields especially materials science and heat transfer. And in hauling coal. Bret Cahill
From: jim on 16 Nov 2009 11:40
Jim Yanik wrote: > > jim <".sjedgingN0sp"@m(a)mwt.net> wrote in > news:ifydnXYl5YJKOp3WnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d(a)bright.net: > > > > > > > Jim Yanik wrote: > >> > >> "Paul E. Schoen" <paul(a)peschoen.com> wrote in > >> news:bOZLm.11939$Sw5.2687(a)newsfe16.iad: > >> > >> > > >> > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > >> > message news:4mk0g5hbeti1qevmtnjoii2omkp3is7m2g(a)4ax.com... > >> >> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill > >> >> <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> > >> >>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. > >> >> > >> >> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. > >> > > >> > The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw > >> > material (crude oil) and also the cost of its effect on the > >> > environment when it is burned. So the war in the Middle East should > >> > most fairly be subsidized by fuel taxes. We are already subsidizing > >> > terrorist activities with the profits made by the Arabs and other > >> > countries who produce the oil, > >> > >> because the DemocRATs/environuts keep blocking DOMESTIC oil > >> reproduction and refineries. > > > > Is the communist and evironutt agenda to make oil prices high by > > creating scarcity and lower the cost of production by limiting capital > > expenses? Is the strategy to drowned the oil companies in profits? > > > > -jim > > > > look at the oil companies profit MARGINS,they are lower than other US > categories,like medical,insurance. > Oil companies margins are pretty much par for US business. > It's just that they do a huge VOLUME,thus huge earnings. > Since when is profit evil? My suspicion is there is no oil company that would want to hire you as an accountant. The question is why are you blaming DemocRATs/environuts for not building any new refineries? The laws that govern the construction of new refineries were written when Republicans were in power and how does keeping old refineries in use and not replacing them with new refineries help the environment? Also, I've never seen any evidence that yearly refinery output has ever failed to keep pace with demand. The consumption of oil in the US is on the decline. What gave you the idea that there would be economic advantage in building new refineries? |