Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gasoline Prices

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Martz View Post
    You have to admit there is a conflict of interest though, with the people who run the US goverment and their families being heavily involved in the oil business.

    Regardless of if a statement is true or not, people will jump to this conclusion because it's so easy to associate the two.
    What the Bush family interests are and how President Bush runs the country are two separate things and the fact that the Japanese automobile manufacturers have not had any more progress than the United States automobile manufacturers demonstrates that President Bush has not done anything to inhibit the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. If anything, he has helped accelerate the development as the United States automobile manufacturers are receiving financial aid from the federal government to augment spending on development. So far though, the automobile manufacturers have not been able to develop hydrogen powered vehicles faster than the Japanese, even with the government's cash infusions.

    Comment


    • #32
      What the Bush family interests are and how President Bush runs the country are two separate things and the fact that the Japanese automobile manufacturers have not had any more progress than the United States automobile manufacturers demonstrates that President Bush has not done anything to inhibit the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. If anything, he has helped accelerate the development as the United States automobile manufacturers are receiving financial aid from the federal government to augment spending on development. So far though, the automobile manufacturers have not been able to develop hydrogen powered vehicles faster than the Japanese, even with the government's cash infusions.
      I am not sure why you think the Japanese and the US are on parity with regards to hydrogen vehicles. While neither have mass scale production from what I understand BMW, Nazda and Nissan are far further down the line. Toyota of course has gone for fuel efficiency first.

      One reason of course for this is that GM and Ford can't really afford the investment that the Japanese companies can, because they almost both bankrupt.

      However, I think the more obvious show of support is that of the failure to pass vehicle emission standards for cars and cut the loop holes on SUVs. Whether this is support for the oil industry or the car industry however is debatable.
      Christopher Padfield
      Web Based Helpdesk
      DeskPRO v3.0.3 Released - Download Demo Now!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
        What the Bush family interests are and how President Bush runs the country are two separate things...
        I agree they are two seperate things - which is why it's a conflict of interest.

        If you had an investment in an oil company, would you vote to increase taxes on oil and its distillations and make it more expensive?

        On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in. It makes people drive less, is better for the environment and reduces wear and tear on roads which saves more money. If people drive more you receive more in taxes and can improve society even futher.

        On the other hand, if you are an investor/businessman, tax increases will lose you money. Less gas/fuel will be sold and used, and you're companies growth will decline. So you would sell your shares so that you don't lose money or keep them and watch them devalue?

        There is a conflict of interst - it's fine that he runs the two seperately, but he's either a good President or a good businessman. He can't be both.

        And he's only getting richer.
        HP DL-380 G6, 2x E5520, 28GB RAM, 4x300GB SAS, VMWare ESXi
        -
        Unreal Tournament : Assault forums - irc://irc.utassault.net:6667 -

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Martz View Post

          On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in. It makes people drive less, is better for the environment and reduces wear and tear on roads which saves more money. If people drive more you receive more in taxes and can improve society even futher.
          Not everyone would agree with this. Whats to say that the government can manage money? Allocating more money for government spending could lead to a corrupt government, and not just corrupt businesses. I already disagree with a lot of the current spending habits the Clinton and Bush administration have instituted.
          Trent Gillespie Mod Theater Gillespie Photography

          Comment


          • #35
            Not everyone would agree with this. Whats to say that the government can manage money? Allocating more money for government spending could lead to a corrupt government, and not just corrupt businesses. I already disagree with a lot of the current spending habits the Clinton and Bush administration have instituted.
            It's much harder to argue against higher gas taxes. It would encourage much more rapid development into alternative fuels thus reducing the West's need to fund corrupt dictatorships. It's unconciable that we fund places like Saudi Arabia and Iran just so we can drive bigger cars. In the short term it would also reduce the demand for gas reducing the hold they currently have over us.

            A $2/gallon gas tax might be painful in the short term but in the medium to long term would make the whole world a lot safer, create sources of unlimited and far cheaper fuel/electricity not to mention the environmental benefits.

            Anyway, this has got too much into politics .. bailing out
            Christopher Padfield
            Web Based Helpdesk
            DeskPRO v3.0.3 Released - Download Demo Now!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Martz View Post
              I agree they are two seperate things - which is why it's a conflict of interest.

              If you had an investment in an oil company, would you vote to increase taxes on oil and its distillations and make it more expensive?
              No sane man who drives a car would vote to increase taxes on oil because that would be another tax on him.

              Originally posted by Martz View Post
              On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in. It makes people drive less, is better for the environment and reduces wear and tear on roads which saves more money. If people drive more you receive more in taxes and can improve society even futher.
              People will drive the same amount as long as they are able to drive because they do not drive because they want to drive but because they have to drive, so to raise taxes on oil would hurt both the middle class and the economy while the environmental effects and wear and tear will be unhindered, unless there is a Great Depression, in which people will be unable to drive, which would, of course, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and wear and tear on the road, providing the ability to make much needed cuts as government revenues would decline drastically, but the cuts on road maintenance would not cover the decline. The Democrats will propose tax hikes which will supposedly solve the problem, further augmenting the depression and wiping out the majority of the middle class. After that the Democrats will blame the Republicans and institute a war on poverty, in which those who are poor become poorer, those who are still in the middle class become poor and those who are rich become the middle class or become paupers themselves.

              Originally posted by Martz View Post
              On the other hand, if you are an investor/businessman, tax increases will lose you money. Less gas/fuel will be sold and used, and you're companies growth will decline. So you would sell your shares so that you don't lose money or keep them and watch them devalue?
              If you are an investor/businessman, tax increases do not mean a thing to you and you will simply pass on the increased costs to your buyers, who will pay because gasoline is essential for them to get from point A to point B and we will see $7 per gallon gasoline prices like they have in England where they have the wonderful oil taxes you describe.

              Originally posted by Martz View Post
              There is a conflict of interst - it's fine that he runs the two seperately, but he's either a good President or a good businessman. He can't be both.
              On the contrary, a good businessman will cut expenses and that means eliminating corruption and increasing government efficiency like one would in a business, freeing up money and allowing for tax cuts which will stimulate the economy by increasing the rate at which money moves, further raising the government's income and allowing for further tax cuts.

              Originally posted by Martz View Post
              And he's only getting richer.
              The acculumation of wealth is a cyclic effect of the free market as there is a set amount of money that must be spent a year for a particular style of living and those with a greater income will have a budget surplus, verus those with a lesser income who would just be able to save for retirement, and those with budget surpluses will invest, and make more money while those who do not will not be able to invest, but as time passes each generation will be better able to generate income than the last and they too will be among those with budget surpluses and those who are not will be there too one day. Going against this is contrary to the free market and bad for the economy and anyone who wishes to promote peace and equality should not be focused on class envy.

              Originally posted by tgillespie View Post
              Not everyone would agree with this. Whats to say that the government can manage money? Allocating more money for government spending could lead to a corrupt government, and not just corrupt businesses. I already disagree with a lot of the current spending habits the Clinton and Bush administration have instituted.
              Traditionally programs that have run afoul the Constitutional powers delegated to the federal government have resulted in government waste and corruption. The no child left behind program is one example of that. Others would include FDR's programs, among which some, like his farm subsides, are still in effect, and also Lyndon B. Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid programs, which paid doctors and pharmacetical companies for products and services that they used to render to the less fortunate for free, leading to continually raising health care costs until we reached the near crisis we have today. The Democrats might have been right about President Bush's IQ, but they were not right about the person they suggested to replace him, who was an even worse student than Bush was:

              http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...tudent?mode=PF

              Originally posted by chrispadfield View Post
              It's much harder to argue against higher gas taxes. It would encourage much more rapid development into alternative fuels thus reducing the West's need to fund corrupt dictatorships. It's unconciable that we fund places like Saudi Arabia and Iran just so we can drive bigger cars. In the short term it would also reduce the demand for gas reducing the hold they currently have over us.

              A $2/gallon gas tax might be painful in the short term but in the medium to long term would make the whole world a lot safer, create sources of unlimited and far cheaper fuel/electricity not to mention the environmental benefits.

              Anyway, this has got too much into politics .. bailing out
              How will higher gasoline taxes encourage "much more rabid development?" There is already a need and the car companies are developing hydrogen powered cars as fast as they can. A greater need will not lead to faster development, it will just lead to slower car sales because people will not be able to afford newer cars, slowing down development inside the United States.

              If you want to do something, then see to it that alternatively powered cars are made and are on the market at parity with gasoline powered cars, then place a tax on new gasoline powered cars instead of advocating another depression.

              You know, people have been talking about alternative fuels since WWII, and after the war, Chrysler started work on an engine that could run on any carbon based fuel. They came up with first, second, third, fourth and fifth generation engines, and by 1979, they had an engine that was superior to any conventional engine on the market in every category and they were ready to begin mass production. However, they were on the brink of bankruptcy and to avoid bankruptcy, they secured a loan from the federal government under President Carter's administration. The loan was made under two conditions, the first was that they sell their M1 tank division, and the second, was that they discontinue development of their turbine engines and keep them off the market.

              So there you have it. The federal government kept revolutionary engines that are still superior to anything we have today off the market 27 years ago and if they had not done so, we would be driving cars powered by them today and we would not have our current dependency on foreign oil. Heck, we would not have a dependency on any oil. You could run a turbine engine off olive oil, corn oil, ethanol, jet fuel, you name it, it will run off it. If the federal government took action today, and that means Congress, changing the regulations so that such an engine could be brought to market, Chrysler could probably begin mass production within a few months and bring cars to market with them in one to two years, just as if it were still 1979. If you do not believe me, go read about it for yourself:

              http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html
              Last edited by Shining Arcanine; Sat 15th Jul '06, 2:31pm. Reason: Clarifications

              Comment


              • #37
                Ah, that explains everything then, thank you Shining.

                I retract all of my statements, and stand corrected.

                I'll pass your comments on to the other few million people world wide who share a similar view point to me.
                HP DL-380 G6, 2x E5520, 28GB RAM, 4x300GB SAS, VMWare ESXi
                -
                Unreal Tournament : Assault forums - irc://irc.utassault.net:6667 -

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Bob Isaac View Post
                  You need to come to the UK, prices are up and down like a fiddlers elbow. They also vary from station to station.

                  Bob
                  Same here in Germany!

                  I paid $1.67 for one liter and the other day it was $1.74. And the gas station in the city where I spent my holiday in took $1.77 for one liter.

                  I get the feeling it gets more expensive every damned day.
                  That's the end of that!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Want to save money? Drive slower!

                    Driving slower = more money in your pocket. There are dozens of small changes you can make to your driving style to get high MPGs.
                    Bike Forums.net

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      @MrNase: Gas prizes are reeeaaally getting crazy in europe
                      http://www.mcseboard.de/images/buttons/lastpost.gif www.MCSEboard.de
                      German Windows Server & IT Pro Community dedicated to Windows Client & Server Systems. MVPs inside

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Joe View Post
                        Want to save money? Drive slower!

                        Driving slower = more money in your pocket. There are dozens of small changes you can make to your driving style to get high MPGs.
                        I assume you have never been to Germany. There are places where you can legally drive as fast as you like.

                        Life's too short to drive slowly.


                        I get what you mean but that is like another kind of punishment.. Why shall I drive slow? Why don't they make the gas prices lower?!
                        That's the end of that!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If you had an investment in an oil company, would you vote to increase taxes on oil and its distillations and make it more expensive?

                          On the one hand, your President of the United states, and to increase taxes means a better society for people to live in.
                          To be fair, most conservative idealogy says that taxes do not help society. And I would be inclined to agree with that, especially in this particular case. (gas is heavily taxed already in most states)

                          What's not needed is more taxes that will drag the entire economy down (while you may not be directly affected because of your efficient car, you will be affected when the pirce of everything else is increase) but an increase in the minimum MPG's that auto-makers put out. No reason that number can't increase year after year right now.
                          TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Joe View Post
                            Want to save money? Drive slower!

                            Driving slower = more money in your pocket. There are dozens of small changes you can make to your driving style to get high MPGs.
                            That is what I do. I find that with all of the red lights, I do not get to my destination much faster when I accelerate to 50 MPH (10 MPH over the speed limit) than when I accelerate to 40 MPH. Also, when I see a red light ahead of me, I do not accelerate and simply coast to the light, even if I am driving at 5 MPH. Another thing I do is that when I am approaching a light at 40MPG, I gradually break so that if the light changes and everyone starts moving, I will not need to convert more gasoline into kinetic energy. Doing this, I manage to get exactly the same fuel economy that the EPA predicted my car should get and I do not have refill the tank as often as I would if I drove like a maniac.

                            Originally posted by cirisme View Post
                            To be fair, most conservative idealogy says that taxes do not help society. And I would be inclined to agree with that, especially in this particular case. (gas is heavily taxed already in most states)

                            What's not needed is more taxes that will drag the entire economy down (while you may not be directly affected because of your efficient car, you will be affected when the pirce of everything else is increase) but an increase in the minimum MPG's that auto-makers put out. No reason that number can't increase year after year right now.
                            The only question is how will they increase the MPG? Will the government mandate it, despite not changing things that prevented them from increasing the MPG in the first place, or will the government make it preferable for them to increase the MPG through economic incentives? I think that instead of placing MPG requirements on automobile manufacturers, the several states should come up with a list of the things that the automobile manufacturers could do to increase MPG (e.g. use CVT transmissions, use synthetic motor oil and design motors so that the synthetic oil will not leak through the motor, use longer lasting tires, check tire pressure before sale, etcetera) and raise taxes on vehicles that do not have those things done and lower taxes on vehicles that do have those things done, after giving automobile manufacturers three or so years so that they will have had time to design those things into their vehicles. If the several states do that, it should lead to increases in the MPG ratings we are seeing for vehicles on the market.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                              The only question is how will they increase the MPG? Will the government mandate it, despite not changing things that prevented them from increasing the MPG in the first place, or will the government make it preferable for them to increase the MPG through economic incentives? I think that instead of placing MPG requirements on automobile manufacturers, the several states should come up with a list of the things that the automobile manufacturers could do to increase MPG (e.g. use CVT transmissions, use synthetic motor oil and design motors so that the synthetic oil will not leak through the motor, use longer lasting tires, check tire pressure before sale, etcetera) and raise taxes on vehicles that do not have those things done and lower taxes on vehicles that do have those things done, after giving automobile manufacturers three or so years so that they will have had time to design those things into their vehicles. If the several states do that, it should lead to increases in the MPG ratings we are seeing for vehicles on the market.
                              Why would you want the government designing cars but have problems with them setting MPG requirements or increasing gas taxes? The idea when government interferes is to do so in a non-distonary way as possible. If your end aim is to decrease the use of oil, either price oil higher or go about it in a direct way (MPG requirements). Forcing through individual aspects of car design by legislation is a horribly inefficient (and market breaking) way of trying to get a reduction in fuel usage.
                              Christopher Padfield
                              Web Based Helpdesk
                              DeskPRO v3.0.3 Released - Download Demo Now!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
                                That is what I do. I find that with all of the red lights, I do not get to my destination much faster when I accelerate to 50 MPH (10 MPH over the speed limit) than when I accelerate to 40 MPH. Also, when I see a red light ahead of me, I do not accelerate and simply coast to the light, even if I am driving at 5 MPH. Another thing I do is that when I am approaching a light at 40MPG, I gradually break so that if the light changes and everyone starts moving, I will not need to convert more gasoline into kinetic energy. Doing this, I manage to get exactly the same fuel economy that the EPA predicted my car should get and I do not have refill the tank as often as I would if I drove like a maniac.
                                Ditto, though I wind up with 2 extra than what was advertised.

                                (but I have never done it for gas reasons, it's just MUCH less stressful)

                                Will the government mandate it, despite not changing things that prevented them from increasing the MPG in the first place
                                What governmental restrictions prevent the mpg's from rising?
                                TheologyWeb. We debate theology. srsly.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X