2008 thread has returned

[Decker]

Yeah, didn't many of them even buy them and dismantle them?

Yup.  That's how it worked here in Milwaukee.  At least that's what my grandparents told me.

[OzmO]

Yup.  That's how it worked here in Milwaukee.  At least that's what my grandparents told me.

Argh!  for the life of me i know i read that in a book somewhere where they did that in many of the major cities.   I just can't remember the name of the book.

[calmus]

It's a fact of history that, back in 30s-40s, US automakers conspired to kill light rail across the nation.  And they did a pretty damn good job of it.

Over the past 20+ years, the creation of SUVs instead of smaller more efficient cars showed me that we need a managed free market.

It's also a fact of history that sometime around the mid-point of the last century people of their own volition elected to move into suburbs.  No car-maker sent them there.

[Decker]

It's also a fact of history that sometime around the mid-point of the last century people of their own volition elected to move into suburbs.  No car-maker sent them there.

That's terrific.  How does that play a role in the decimation of public transportation so that the elite few can monopolize the market they helped cultivate? 

Anyway, to me it's another indication that we need a managed economy.  Left to its own designs, pure ego driven aquisition eats at our resources and space like cancer.

Nothing illustrates that better than the fools driving Hummers and the like:  limited oil and rising prices and we have numbnuts driving giant gas guzzlers. 

[calmus]

That's terrific.  How does that play a role in the decimation of public transportation so that the elite few can monopolize the market they helped cultivate? 

Anyway, to me it's another indication that we need a managed economy.  Left to its own designs, pure ego driven aquisition eats at our resources and space like cancer.

Nothing illustrates that better than the fools driving Hummers and the like:  limited oil and rising prices and we have numbnuts driving giant gas guzzlers. 

I have no clue what you're going on about. Here's the way I see it.

Cars and fuel are cheap, so people move out to the suburbs.  It's not like somebody sent them there.

Most Americans have an antipathy to traveling by train.

Will this all change? Yes.  Are there plans to change it yet? unfortunately, no.

You can argue "decimation" or whatever, but the evidence indicates that a lot of people in many parts of the country wanted to live further away from work and did not want to have to commute by train. 

Just look at the stats on California or Texas. perfectly horrendous.

[calmus]

So, it seems to me on the one hand the Tre/Decker gang is arguing that government/industry conspired to make the sheep suffer, and then on the other hand, they're suggesting that the sheep are doing it on their own? I'm confused.

The people had plenty of say-so in this matter and they said so.

[Decker]

I have no clue what you're going on about. Here's the way I see it.

Cars and fuel are cheap, so people move out to the suburbs.  It's not like somebody sent them there.

Most Americans have an antipathy to traveling by train.

Will this all change? Yes.  Are there plans to change it yet? unfortunately, no.

You can argue "decimation" or whatever, but the evidence indicates that a lot of people in many parts of the country wanted to live further away from work and did not want to have to commute by train. 

Just look at the stats on California or Texas. perfectly horrendous.

Until fairly recently, gas was more expensive in the 1960s (when adjusted for inflation).  

I see what you are saying.  

It seems pretty clear that:  The auto industry helped kill electric light rail.  Left to his own designs, the consumer will do as he pleases even if it is to his own detriment.  Oil resources are limited and we are willingly burning through them with giant gas guzzling cars.

The EL Train in Chicago is pretty successful.  In 2006, 195.2 million rode the rails.  Not bad for a recalcitrant public.

[Decker]

So, it seems to me on the one hand the Tre/Decker gang is arguing that government/industry conspired to make the sheep suffer, and then on the other hand, they're suggesting that the sheep are doing it on their own? I'm confused.

The people had plenty of say-so in this matter and they said so.

Sometimes problems are complex.  Meaning that they are not simple.  Is it as easy as an either or question?  No.

The auto industry acted in its own interest to the general public's detriment and the general public played along out of its own interest of personal autonomous mobility.  After all, how many options did the public have at the time after the auto industry destroyed mass rail transit?

[calmus]

No, sir - do you actually think any of the decision-makers in the U.S. want people biking to work?  Why do you think they build all the houses out in the suburbs where the jobs are not?  C'mon man, you've got to do better than that.

That's what I was responding to....

And Chicago is in no way representative of the rest of the country. Quite recently there were studies that showed that people in California and texas had no interest in shifting their position. 

Also, an amazingly few mass transit systems are in the works.  people can vote on these issues nd they've voted no.

[shootfighter1]

In London, the underground system was just unbelievable.  No need for a car....and the country's train system would take you anywhere you wanted to go.  It was really cool.  However, our cities are so much more spread out...and in some cities, the rail systems aren't as good or as frequent to make them effective for the masses.

What about drilling in certain areas of Alaska guys...that would immediately address the situation so we could get the hell out of the middle east.  We ignore our own natural resources.  And there is a way to do this and keep it relatively friendly to the environment.  We need a better bio-fuel, which will come at some point....but thats not going to help us in the next couple yrs.  We're f'ed right now.
Obama raising taxes on gas companies is just going to pass the costs on to us.  McCain's gas holiday will only provide some relief for the summer.  Not gonna do it!

[calmus]

Europe has a different mentality than us.  We've got more "wide open spaces" and it's affected the way we think of ourselves.  People in some cities could live like Londoners do, but most of us would be quite unhappy.

I'm absolutely against any drilling in Alaska. There is no way to effectively control environmental repercussions  from drilling/refining.

I've already outlined how to tax oil firms in a way that gives them no incentive to pass on the costs.  Some might says its anti-capitalist, but it's a better solution than rampant capitalism.

Bio-fuels have a long way to go before they become viable.  Passing the equivalent of sin taxes on full-size cars and light trucks will also help people get their minds right.

[Tre]

I've never been to Alaska, but I hope there will be enough of its natural beauty left for my grandkids' grandkids to enjoy someday. 

I'm generally anti-drilling on our own soil until there's no alternative, but IF we were absolutely committed to rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure for clean, renewable energy, I'd be all for it.  The Alaskan oil could tide us over for the next 30-40 years while we transition to an entirely new economy and way of life that are not oil-dependent.

[youandme]

I'm generally anti-drilling on our own soil until there's no alternative, but IF we were absolutely committed 

I agree, we should build a pipeline from Iraq to America so we won't have to drill on our own soil.

If it helps we should invade Iran and mix Iraq and Iranian oil, and then we will have some of the best oil in the world.

Sounds like a plan. oh yea 

[calmus]

I've never been to Alaska, but I hope there will be enough of its natural beauty left for my grandkids' grandkids to enjoy someday. 

I'm generally anti-drilling on our own soil until there's no alternative, but IF we were absolutely committed to rebuilding the U.S. infrastructure for clean, renewable energy, I'd be all for it.  The Alaskan oil could tide us over for the next 30-40 years while we transition to an entirely new economy and way of life that not oil-dependent.

I'd rather pay $10-12 a gallon for motor gasoline than drill in Alaska.  Did you guys look at the table I posted? Do you realize how much oil goes to feed our cars?

[240 is Back]

I'd rather pay $10-12 a gallon for motor gasoline than drill in Alaska.  Did you guys look at the table I posted? Do you realize how much oil goes to feed our cars?

Would you pay 3x as much for food, clothing, and everything else you buy?

[calmus]

Would you pay 3x as much for food, clothing, and everything else you buy?

That's why I specified motor gasoline, 240.     I've actually thought this through unlike some other idiots posters. 

[240 is Back]

That's why I specified motor gasoline, 240.     I've actually thought this through unlike some other idiots posters. 

sorry, i read it too fast

[shootfighter1]

You don't think we can perform regulated, focused drilling in the huge Alaskan landmass which preserves the ecosystem?
With the technology now, I'll bet we can, with minimal reprocussions to the land or ecosystem. The key is to work with ecoscientists and the gov understanding that the ultimate goal is to create a usable bio-fuel in the next 20 yrs.  And contributing funds to research & development to acheive that goal & speed the process.  American was once known for its technical ingenuity!  
Otherwise, we will be paying $5 per gallon very soon, much higher costs for food and shipping all goods, and still be fighting in the middle east!  By not drilling in selected regions, we are paying a grave price!

[24KT]

We need to drill in Alaska to temporarily increase our own supply (with appropriate environmental restrictions).  The massive reserves in Alaska (and possibly a few other areas) would give us many years to work to the ultimate goal of a more economical and bio-friendly fuel.  This is the best short-term solution.  With the $ we would save by increasing our own supply, we would also put some increased funds into biofuel research & development.

Drilling Alaska is not the answer. If people got 3 more miles per gallon from their cars, it would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, at it's best, in Alaska would produce.¹

I am a fan of protecting our planet but there are areas that are oil rich where we can drill right now which would vastly ease the financial crisis and reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil.  We won't be using oil forever and this would be a temporary solution that buys us time.

BioFuels as well are not the answer. The attraction to Bio-fuels is that they are renewable, ...however, bio fuels divert a tremendous amount of our food supply which results in higher prices worldwide. We have people eating dirt sandwiches around the world because the price of corn and other food staples has shot through the roof. In addition, biofuels produce more NO_x than fossil fuels which is bad for the environment.

Oil prices are hard on everyone but the truckers are getting killed (which affects all business and food)

Ain't that the truth. What is occuring right now... is basically a "thinning of the herd". There was a time when independent owner operators could make a good living in the trucking industry, ...however, the price of fuel is having such an adverse effect on truckers, because the freight rates have not increased along with all the other costs. Brokers are still paying 1970's wages, ...but the truckers are paying 2008 insurance premiums, 2008 maintenance costs, 2008 fuel costs. This above all else is what is squeezing the truckers the most. Like all other industries caught in this crunch, ...the little guy is edged out in favour of the huge multinationals who have the ability to secure huge volume discounts on everything from parts, insurance, fuel etc., ie: Walmart for example. While you and I may be paying $1^.99 for a 2 ltr bottle of soda, ...Walmart and it's massive buying power through volume discounts is able to acquire that same bottle of soda for perhaps $0^.30  That makes a huge impact. in addition, many brokerage firms do not pass on the fuel surcharges they collect from the clients onto the drivers. This too is impacting the drivers. I have spoken to some drivers who have been offered loads at rates that wouldn't even cover the cost of the fuel to get them there. There are approx 1800 ind truckers who are going out of business everyday in the USA as a result of this. When times are bad, only the very strong, and the very talented survive. Who does it leave? ...the big multi-national trucking firms, ...and those independants who have an edge.

Cutting the gas tax on memorial day as McCain suggests is also not the answer. like Obama said, it is a mere pittance. Just more political smoke and mirrors in my opinion. What I would like to see though is an exemption from tolls. A few days ago, I was up late chatting with a few trucker friends who had loads they were hauling through the night along the eastern seaboard. One guy had paid about $400 just in toll charges. He's a real smart, savvy trucker, who knows just about every backroad and rt turnoff to avoid as many tolls as possible, ...but by the time we got off the line, ...he had still paid about $400 in toll charges. That's not right! These guys are the ones who keep the economy going.

There are resources out in the marketplace that will give fuel consumers an edge. Independant truckers, as well as ordinary consumers who're also seeking relief from the high prices, (provided they're permitted to hear about them) Those who take advantage of these resources will be the ones who survive.

1: Senator Joseph Leiberman in his debate with former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, during the 2000 Presidential campaign ( a remark which Cheney did not contest. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000d.html

[24KT]

So, it seems to me on the one hand the Tre/Decker gang is arguing that government/industry conspired to make the sheep suffer, and then on the other hand, they're suggesting that the sheep are doing it on their own? I'm confused.

The people had plenty of say-so in this matter and they said so.

There was indeed a conspiracy... at least in the state of California.

California had a fabulous mass transit system in the works, ...until the chairman of GM sat down with the governor.
They chose to scrap it, knowing that to do so would force California residents to buy more cars... GM cars.
The fact that California due to geographic imperative is probably the state most in need of efficient public transit didn't factor into the decision. We're now seeing the long term ramifications of corporate greed, and corporate special interest triumphing over the needs and interest of the population.

[Tre]

Drilling Alaska is not the answer. If people got 3 more miles per gallon from their cars, it would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, at it's best, in Alaska would produce.¹

Reality is this:

People have been building more efficient engines for years, but the automakers refuse to use the technology. 

[24KT]

Reality is this:

People have been building more efficient engines for years, but the automakers refuse to use the technology. 

That's because it's a double-edged sword. Up until now, historically, it has been impossible to increase the efficiency without raising the pollution. And conversely, decreasing the pollution lowered the fuel efficiency.

The internal combustion engine has got to be the most inefficient system ever designed.

Then too, there was GM's massive destruction of the electric car. What a blunder!

[War-Horse]

Cars can run on water. 


http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

[24KT]

Ya, a couple of my colleagues have modified their engine to do that.

One of my friends said he did see a decrease in fuel consumption, but he also lost a tremendous amount of power as well. He uses our MPG products to increase the power and further decrease the rate of fuel consumption.

[shootfighter1]

There's no downside to more efficient motors (except for the oil companies).  I'm all for that.
I don't think anyone knows the exact benefits of increasing our supply of oil from Alaska, but I'll bet it would be significant.  Supply & demand economics.

Well, perhaps bio-fuel isn't exactly right...any type of fuel which is eco-friendly and reduces our reliance on oil and the middle east.