Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gasoline Prices

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

  • Mike Anime
    replied
    not possible when you are forced to be on disability due to bad health. on th ebright side my new car has good gasmilage i see about 25 city because i drive at a steady pace no big speedups and hard breaking here. i have the timing on most of the lkights i go through down pretty good so i know when to start speeding up or breaking just enough to get the lights green.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    The wages could be $100 an hour and you will still not be able to afford things; since as wages rise, the cost of everything else rises to pay for the wage increases. If you want to be able to afford things, you will have to get a job where you earn a salary, not a wage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Anime
    replied
    i can barley afford gas as it is and i never travel these days unless i HAVE to for work, helping the family shopping and even then i try to concolidate those into as few trips as possible even to the point of napping in my car at the work parking lot between i get out of work @ 11 AM or 12PM and go back in @ 4PM on saturadays. and i only live within 15 minuites of (speedlimit) travel time of work but then im the lucky one most people have to work about 20+ miles away from work x 5 to 7 days a week thats one day at work just for next weeks travel to work in gas money.


    my father had a 75 round trip to work and back 7 days a week exept thanksgiving and x-mas and the week they shut down each year for inventory controll. but thats still 51 weeks x 7 days x75 miles per day and at todays prices im just happy he is retired.

    and to top it off CT pays higher than the national average because of the "MTBE" we are forced to use.

    make matters worse things for the wage increases have not improved that much over the 15+ years i have been working it started @ 4.00 and today is only 5.15
    Last edited by Mike Anime; Thu 20 Jul '06, 9:27pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    Originally posted by chrispadfield View Post
    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).
    Raising the cost of oil will not result in cutbacks to usage. Americans rarely drive because they want to drive, rather, they drive because they have to drive, so they will drive the same regardless of the price unless it was a depression, during which they would be unable to drive due to lack of gasoline or their inability to purchase it.

    Originally posted by chrispadfield View Post
    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.
    I did not suggest forcing anything. I only suggested that they tell automobile manufacturers things they can do to make their cars more efficient (if I was advising a bunch of politicians on how to do this, I would tell them to assemble a panel of experts to determine what will raise the MPG), give automobile manufacturers a certain amount of time to get it done and then either reward them for doing it through tax cuts or punish them for failing to do it through tax hikes, which would reward or punish them by affecting demand for their cars.

    There is a difference between taxes and mandates. With taxes, nothing stops them from selling the cars in the state so long as the taxes are paid but with mandates they cannot sell the cars in the state unless the mandates are met, and if they were met, they would not be the same cars, now would they?

    Originally posted by cirisme View Post
    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)


    What governmental restrictions prevent the mpg's from rising?
    I did not say that governmental restrictions did (nor do I claim that they do not as I am not well versed enough in the topic to know), but I do recognize that automobile manufacturers need incentives to do the things that would increase MPG. Currently, if they were to put engines into cars that can use synthetic motor oils, which raise fuel economy, revenues would remain the same and their profit margins would go down. Meaning that putting such engines into cars is currently bad for business. Now, if the government was to raise taxes on vehicles that cannot use synthetic motor oils and cut taxes on vehicles that can use synthetic motor oils, their profit margins would go down from the resulting drop in sales, and that would provide them the incentive to make the change, as making the change would lower taxes, resulting in a rise in sales and therefore a rise revenues, increasing the amount of money in their pockets verus what would have been there if they had done nothing. So while previously putting engines into cars that could use synthetic motor oil would be bad for businss, the simple addition of a tax on vehicles that do not meet standards and a tax cut on vehicles that do meet standards would make putting those engines into cars good for business. If the government was to do this, but for more things (e.g. better quality tires, cvt transmissions, etcetera) and with a certain notice so the vehicle manufacturers have time to design cars to meet the standards, we could get significant changes in vehicles' MPG.

    This is by no means a new concept. Nations have done this for centuries, but with different products and for different reasons. They did it in the form of tariffs, and instead of doing it to raise the MPG on vehicles, they did it to protect their industries. In the past fifty years, we have seen mandate after mandate and none of them have worked. Instead of trying something new that does not work, I suggest that we try something old that is known to work, and that we not use it for the same exact reasons for which it was originally used, but to promote one breed over another, like it was original used and like we want to do.

    By the way, I have never done it for gasoline reasons either, at least not primarily anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • cirisme
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • chrispadfield
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cirisme
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrNase
    replied
    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?!

    Leave a comment:


  • Thomas P
    replied
    @MrNase: Gas prizes are reeeaaally getting crazy in europe

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrNase
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Martz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    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 15 Jul '06, 2:31pm. Reason: Clarifications

    Leave a comment:


  • chrispadfield
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

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