From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <b5fff548-482b-4cfa-bb95-92e149cfd8ce(a)d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>2/3 of most folks "driving" is home-to-work-to-home SOLO commuting.
>what $8 gasoline will do - as well as HOV./HOT Lanes is to take you
>out of your SOLO car and put you in a Van or Bus or Carpool or public
>transportation...

All of which are terrible.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <c817bb6c-3d47-4934-8d91-ffb408347341(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>some of what you say has some merit. Much of it is pure
>rationalization of what you want ... based on cheap energy and all of
>that would change if energy was not cheap and no..you'd not die from
>it but you'd have to re-prioritize how you chose to spend your money -
>as those folks have who already pay more for energy.

In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
puts it.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Larry G on
On Jul 25, 5:33 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <c817bb6c-3d47-4934-8d91-ffb408347...(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups..com>,
> Larry G  <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >some of what you say has some merit. Much of it is pure
> >rationalization of what you want ... based on cheap energy and all of
> >that would change if energy was not cheap and no..you'd not die from
> >it but you'd have to re-prioritize how you chose to spend your money -
> >as those folks have who already pay more for energy.
>
> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
> puts it.

with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.

I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
what we do.

they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
the house and transportation.

Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
start with.

Most folks in Europe, for instance, don't drive an SUV solo to/from
work every day.

we do - even though there are lots of other ways to use 1/2 the
energy. i used to have an econo-box... 10K initial price, 4-seater,
got 30 mgp... drove it until it got 200K on it...

I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.

my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
had money for other things..


From: Dave Head on
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 21:21:55 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article <6lhn465lfsga3jdu7or7i12tb5ptpkt7ud(a)4ax.com>,
>Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote:
>>
>>12000 miles a year? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Most people 'round
>>here commute from Fredericksburg area to Washington DC, about 100
>>miles a day, total, or 25,000 miles a year just to go to work. $8 /
>>gallon at 25 mpg is $8,000 just for 1 person to go to work. If there
>>were 2 people, going to separate parts of DC, they'd have to double
>>that to $16,000 miles a year, just to go to work. What they'd be
>>doing is buying a condo, instead of a house, in DC, paying about 2X -
>>3X as much as they pay for a house and lot in Fredericksburg, and both
>>taking the Metro to work, which is not cheap either, prolly around $8
>>- $10 a day for 1 person, and of course twice that for the 2 of 'em.
>
>You see, Dave, you've just gone and shot your whole argument down,
>despite your disagreement with my numbers. Even at $8/gallon
>additional, it doesn't make economic sense for them to move to DC, as
>the housing costs would eat up the savings.

No, not true. The house costs ARE savings. That is, the real estate
has value, and they're buying it. Its just that their retirement plan
is now "sell the house" and retire somewhere that doesn't cost so
much. And, they can afford to contribute less to things like a 401K,
'cuz their house is going to be so valuable.

>And if they
>didn't... then as gas prices rose, housing prices in Metro-accessible
>areas would also rise until an equilibrium was reached and it no
>longer made sense to move closer.

Well, in actuality, their house at any sort of distance from
Fredericksburg, like mine that is 20 miles out, would devalue to
approximately zero.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <b9a03e0e-b8b9-4326-8473-b8334adb985f(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Jul 25, 5:33=A0pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>>
>> In other words, Dave is exactly right, he'd have to "live lower" has he
>> puts it.
>
>with higher energy costs - probably - depending on his income level.
>There are guys in Europe and Japan that live just as high on the hog
>as he does - despite the higher cost of energy.

At a given income level, higher energy costs mean a lower standard of living.

>I'm not advocating higher energy costs - only pointing out that
>people do not die or living shorter lifespans because they use 1/2
>what we do.

A lie (you advocated a $1 tax on gasoline) and a strawman.

>they use 1/2 what we do - and on the whole they live longer and have a
>standard of living that is equivalent to us - though more modest on
>the house and transportation.
Which is to say that it is NOT an equivalent standard of living.

>Given our use of energy - we could make significant cuts in it without
>even sacrificing much anyhow because our use is so prolifigate to
>start with.

Again, that's wrong; we will have to sacrifice much to make significant cuts
in energy use.

>I carpooled in that car instead of a 15mpg SUV solo every day.
>
>my energy use was 1/2 and I did not suffer because it it.. I actually
>had money for other things..

So adjusting your schedule to match the schedule of other people in
your carpool was of no consequence?
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.