CAFE costs are mounting...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

For starters it doesn't seem you really understand the oil market. The current run up in prices was caused by speculation, and we will continue to have run ups like this. Reigning in the speculation would be a good start, stable oil prices benefit everyone.


That was just accomplished in the last couple of months by increasing dollar intervention and now opening strategic reserves intervention and gas went down to "only" $3.35 in my area. Interesting how it didn't go down to the under $1 range from before 2000 or even under $2 before 2005 (IIRC). Peak oil anyone?
 
Originally Posted By: engineerscott

If you favor CAFE like laws, then indeed you believe that you know better than the public at large what they should be buying than they do, otherwise you'd favor letting people buy what they will.


Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
[Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


Possibly so, but it's all the "smart" people lining up to "help" society that I worry about.
 
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

Either way getting off oil would be a good start, its really hurting our economy at the moment.


Actually, what is hurting our economy more than anything is having a federal government that is $14.5 trillion in debt and it piling up additional debt at roughly a $1.6 trillion/year rate. Our economy would be doing relatively well with oil at $100/barrel absent our current debt and deficit. These debt levels introduce huge uncertainties into the economy, and business more than anything else, shun investment under uncertain economic conditions.



Businesses, and successful miserly rich people, spend money only when cornered, and then, as little as possible. The idea that they should be appeased or placated will return a poor "return on investment" in policy.

Yeah, they could invest overseas instead. This just means the US has to be less insane than China or the Eurozone. Look at Greece, LOL.

If anything, fears of inflation will make them want to dump out of cash. For the nine years I've owned my home everyone has been crowing, OMG, interest rates are going to jump next quarter... they haven't yet.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: engineerscott

If you favor CAFE like laws, then indeed you believe that you know better than the public at large what they should be buying than they do, otherwise you'd favor letting people buy what they will.


Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


You make my point perfectly. People that support CAFE like regulation simply believe that their fellow man is too stupid to make the correct (or rather, the choice they believe to be correct) decision. Fair enough, but please advise the world of that explicitly when you support these laws.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

Either way getting off oil would be a good start, its really hurting our economy at the moment.


Actually, what is hurting our economy more than anything is having a federal government that is $14.5 trillion in debt and it piling up additional debt at roughly a $1.6 trillion/year rate. Our economy would be doing relatively well with oil at $100/barrel absent our current debt and deficit. These debt levels introduce huge uncertainties into the economy, and business more than anything else, shun investment under uncertain economic conditions.



Businesses, and successful miserly rich people, spend money only when cornered, and then, as little as possible. The idea that they should be appeased or placated will return a poor "return on investment" in policy.

Yeah, they could invest overseas instead. This just means the US has to be less insane than China or the Eurozone. Look at Greece, LOL.

If anything, fears of inflation will make them want to dump out of cash. For the nine years I've owned my home everyone has been crowing, OMG, interest rates are going to jump next quarter... they haven't yet.
laugh.gif



Not true at all. Successful rich people who do not inherit their wealth got there generally through continually reinvesting their wealth to make more money, and the most successful are the ones that do the most reinvestment. The cartoon character of wealthy men hoarding their cash is with few exceptions a myth.

You are correct though that these large deficits and national debts are inflationary which will result in the wealthy investing their money in places other than the U.S. and selecting investments whose returns are not denominated in U.S. dollars. If the dollar is being inflated the wealthy will flee U.S. dollars and dollar denominated investments in droves. They'd be stupid not to.
 
Originally Posted By: OilNerd
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
[Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


Possibly so, but it's all the "smart" people lining up to "help" society that I worry about.


Exactly. Keep in mind that it's the "smart" people that got us into our current situation.

C.S. Lewis said it best:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
 
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: engineerscott

If you favor CAFE like laws, then indeed you believe that you know better than the public at large what they should be buying than they do, otherwise you'd favor letting people buy what they will.


Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


You make my point perfectly. People that support CAFE like regulation simply believe that their fellow man is too stupid to make the correct (or rather, the choice they believe to be correct) decision. Fair enough, but please advise the world of that explicitly when you support these laws.




You wrongly assume that I support CAFE, CAFE is the result of a lack of political will to do the things required to steer society to doing the things that actually need to be done to conserve oil.
 
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: OilNerd
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
[Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


Possibly so, but it's all the "smart" people lining up to "help" society that I worry about.


Exactly. Keep in mind that it's the "smart" people that got us into our current situation.


Name me 5 politicians that have PHDs before making a statement like that.
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: OilNerd
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
[Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


Possibly so, but it's all the "smart" people lining up to "help" society that I worry about.


Exactly. Keep in mind that it's the "smart" people that got us into our current situation.


Name me 5 politicians that have PHDs before making a statement like that.


I won't name them however 26 members of US congress have PHD's.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%29PL%3B%3D%0A
 
Originally Posted By: rjundi


I won't name them however 26 members of US congress have PHD's.

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%29PL%3B%3D%0A


Great Link, take out people with Law degrees (who in my opinion have an expertise that doesn't add a lot of value to society), it illustrates pretty well that the smart people are not running the country and never really have.
 
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
For you pure market guys the tipping point in regards to truck and suv sales seems to be $4 a gallon, and $150 a barrel for the world economy.


At that point free men are either going to have to man up and work a bit harder to fill that big old Hemi Dodge up, or buy more efficient vehicles.

Just don't want to hear any complaining.


You won't hear it from me. I'll be laughing at all the folks on CNN, crying about gas prices while filling up their behemoth of choice.

I don't care what they buy. I may think some of their choices are stupid, but then I've never been accused of being too sensitive.

But folks have to realize that cheap fuel is not a right, and if they choose to buy vehicles that consume large quantities of fuel, one of the natural consequences may be digging deeper into their pockets to fill the tank.

Sadly, the folks in DC want to go after the car makers and oil companies instead of letting the voters face the consequences of their personal decisions in the market.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy


At that point free men are either going to have to man up and work a bit harder to fill that big old Hemi Dodge up, or buy more efficient vehicles.

Just don't want to hear any complaining.


You won't hear it from me. I'll be laughing at all the folks on CNN, crying about gas prices while filling up their behemoth of choice.

I don't care what they buy. I may think some of their choices are stupid, but then I've never been accused of being too sensitive.


I stopped laughing when I was compelled through taxation to buy then scrap (C4C) others' poor choices in vehicles.

Perhaps this CAFE thing, even if it evolves from this proposal, is revenge, in the name of all taxpayers who did right then bailed out the gluttons.
 
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

Either way getting off oil would be a good start, its really hurting our economy at the moment.


Actually, what is hurting our economy more than anything is having a federal government that is $14.5 trillion in debt and it piling up additional debt at roughly a $1.6 trillion/year rate. Our economy would be doing relatively well with oil at $100/barrel absent our current debt and deficit. These debt levels introduce huge uncertainties into the economy, and business more than anything else, shun investment under uncertain economic conditions.



Really??!? I hate debt and govt debt as much as anyone. But Joe six pack who "deserves" what his heart desires and doesn't plan for the future is the one who gets hurt by this...

Businesses can pass on increased costs. Joe can't do anything but absorb it. Then Joe stops buying and things go down the tubes.

Again, I'm not advocating debt, weak dollars, etc., but tue other side of this is that people have NOT demonstrated at large to be able to properly plan and be disciplined with their spending habits. Given this, it is their fault when oil goes up in price and they can't sustain it... But at the same time, it's easier to solicit votes by spending for these people.

The population has done it to themselves.
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: engineerscott

If you favor CAFE like laws, then indeed you believe that you know better than the public at large what they should be buying than they do, otherwise you'd favor letting people buy what they will.


Not that I am in favour of legislating choice but what Hemisphere are you living in???, society as a collective has gotten progressively stupider every year for at least the last 20-30 years and there seems no sign of that ending any time soon.


Unfortunately this is true. I'm not advocating central planning, but people really are easily brainwashed and generally have no clue of the result of their decisions. I really don't trust "Susie Coach Purse" to make an intelligent energy decision. Sorry.

And people tend to make self destructive decisions based upon what feels right for the next 15 minutes. People are happy taking a dump in their drinking water supply if it is convenient.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: engineerscott
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

Either way getting off oil would be a good start, its really hurting our economy at the moment.


Actually, what is hurting our economy more than anything is having a federal government that is $14.5 trillion in debt and it piling up additional debt at roughly a $1.6 trillion/year rate. Our economy would be doing relatively well with oil at $100/barrel absent our current debt and deficit. These debt levels introduce huge uncertainties into the economy, and business more than anything else, shun investment under uncertain economic conditions.



Really??!? I hate debt and govt debt as much as anyone. But Joe six pack who "deserves" what his heart desires and doesn't plan for the future is the one who gets hurt by this...

Businesses can pass on increased costs. Joe can't do anything but absorb it. Then Joe stops buying and things go down the tubes.

Again, I'm not advocating debt, weak dollars, etc., but tue other side of this is that people have NOT demonstrated at large to be able to properly plan and be disciplined with their spending habits. Given this, it is their fault when oil goes up in price and they can't sustain it... But at the same time, it's easier to solicit votes by spending for these people.

The population has done it to themselves.


And until you start to make it painful for those who don't plan ahead, don't learn the simple math to understand compound interest and what not, folks will continue to make decisions as they do because the consequences are paid by others.

This is true for both the little guy and the guys at the top.

If the federal government was out of the business of shielding folks from the consequences of their decisions, the deficit would be smaller or even non-existent.

You stunt the march to maturity if you shield people from the consequences of their choices, regardless their socio-economic strata. When you do this, you end up with a bunch of childish entitlement minded citizens.

Look around you. Do you see folks who own their stuff? Or do they always blame someone else, like big oil, or big auto, or big pharma, or big banks, or whomever they blame?

They blame others.

I'd never get elected to office because I'd tell folks they need to expect less and take care of more of their own stuff. If they didn't finish school when they had free education offered to them, they need to go back and stop blaming "the man" because they can't get a job. If their parents didn't do the right things, they need to learn the right things and stop blaming their parents for their current situation. And so on.

I might get 15% of the vote, but that's about it. The other 85% would still want goodies from the government be it bank bailouts or their section 8 housing and their EBT card.
 
So you tell them, sorry, you made this mess, what is your plan to clean it up.

You don't say, wow that's tough, here's a check, here's an EBT card, here's a section 8 home, here's a few billion to bail out your bank, car company, or whatever.

Why would folks stop taking a dump in their own water when they know someone else will come along and make it better?

The ants are getting tired of being forced to care for the grasshoppers.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I'd never get elected to office because I'd tell folks they need to expect less and take care of more of their own stuff....

I might get 15% of the vote, but that's about it.


I'd vote for you.

Signed,
Ant
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I'd never get elected to office because I'd tell folks they need to expect less and take care of more of their own stuff....

I might get 15% of the vote, but that's about it.


I'd vote for you.

Signed,
Ant


15% is very optimistic. I say 0.2%
 
Originally Posted By: Duffman77

Name me 5 politicians that have PHDs before making a statement like that.



You assume that PhDs and "smart" are correlated, I do not. But, to answer your question, 23 members of the U.S. House of Representatives of the 111th Congress hold PhDs ( source here: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%29PL%3B%3D%0A ). And notably, our current President holds a B.A. from Columbia and a JD from Harvard and was widely touted as being "smart" during the campaign.

And of course, there are a bevy of PhDs of all sorts advising the leaders of both political parties in the U.S. on economic policy. They are the ones that advised that a $700B bank bailout would right the economy and after that they advised that if we only spent $1T in (borrowed) stimulus money that unemployment would never rise above 8%. And most of the "smart" people in our government have advised that federal debt, which not reaches 100% of GDP, is nothing to worry about and that $1.6T annual deficits are nothing to get excited about. This smart advice is not coming from Joe Bob and Mary Sue redneck in flyover country, that's for sure. They actually have more sense than that in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SubieRubyRoo
  • Locked
True "all-in" EV costs equivalent to $17+/gal
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Astro14
M
1 Week Review - 2025 Toyota Tacoma Hybrid Limited
3 4 5
Replies
84
Views
23K
mikeduf
Falcon_LS
Review: '23 GMC Yukon XL Denali (8,659 mi)
2
Replies
20
Views
14K
97prizm
OVERKILL
  • Locked
The real cost of wind and solar: Why rates don't match the claims
4 5 6
Replies
116
Views
13K
oil pan 4
wemay
  • Locked
China may ease electric car quotas, delay emission rules help auto industry
Replies
3
Views
1K
M56959
Back
Top Bottom