If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
I WON'T buy gas on May 19.

Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
Charleston,Arkansas

On 16 May 2004 18:36:56 -0700, (Bob Olds)
wrote:

>If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
>will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
>estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
>I WON'T buy gas on May 19.
>
>Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
>Charleston,Arkansas

That won't accomplish anything.... you'll still be driving
and will simply buy gas some other day. Same amount of gas
sold and same profit...

john

John Ammeter wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2004 18:36:56 -0700, (Bob Olds)
> wrote:
>
> >If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
> >will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
> >estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
> >I WON'T buy gas on May 19.
> >
> >Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
> >Charleston,Arkansas
>
> That won't accomplish anything.... you'll still be driving
> and will simply buy gas some other day. Same amount of gas
> sold and same profit...
>
> john

I dunno, John.

He might have a point.

Those gas pumps are wired directly to someone's soul.

The _would_ notice if there were a national consensus.


Worth a try.


Richard

>Worth a try.
---------------------------------------------

Dear Richard (and the Group),

The only message a one day deferral of gas-buying would send is that the
American public is as dumb as a stump.

If you want your message to appear in the bottom line of a corporation you must
boycot their product, as gun owners did with Smith & Wesson. To simply defer
your purchase is the sort of meaningless feel-good bull**** they feed to
college kids to keep them from burning down the school.

As a point of historical interest there has been at least a dozen such idiot
plans to "send a message" to the oil companies, dating back to the Arab oil
embargo following the 1973 'Yom Kipper' war. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see how ineffective they have been.

--------------------------------------------

Want to send a REAL message?

Imagine what would happen if EVERYONE in the nation stayed home for a day.
Don't go ANYWHERE. Don't buy ANYTHING. Don't even turn on the TV. Freeways
completely empty of vehicles. Public buildings with their doors locked and
parking lots empty. Sporting events not being played in an empty, echoing
stadium.

Never happen of course, for the simple reason that such an expression of your
individual freedom just happens to be illegal for most of us 'free' citizens of
the United States of America.

Better to play it safe. So go ahead and defer your purchase of gas for a day.
Or fill up the day before. Really show those oil companies who's the boss.
Yeah... that should do it.

-R.S.Hoover

On 16 May 2004 18:36:56 -0700, (Bob Olds) wrote:

>If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
>will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
>estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
>I WON'T buy gas on May 19.

As John said, you just end up purchasing it some other time.
The problem is the refineries are running at capacity trying to meet a
record demand and until we, in general "conserve", the demand will
keep the price up there.

Yes, I drive an SUV but I also get about 30% better gas mileage than I
did 20 years ago and I only drive about 8,000 miles a year copared to
30,000 so I not only save 30% on mileage I save roughly 75% on
driving. That means I use a lot less gas than I did 20 years ago.

Recycling. Any one stop to think if it was saving energy they'd be
paying us for the stuff instead of charging. Recycling Aluminum is
profitable, that's why you see people picking up the cans. They get
paid for them and I'm not refering to states with a deposit.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
>Charleston,Arkansas

Why is that illegal??????

--
David D Cowell
Wildcat Computers, Inc.
http://www.wildcatcomputers.net
800-686-4685
"Veeduber" > wrote in message
...
> >Worth a try.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Richard (and the Group),
>
> The only message a one day deferral of gas-buying would send is that the
> American public is as dumb as a stump.
>
> If you want your message to appear in the bottom line of a corporation you
must
> boycot their product, as gun owners did with Smith & Wesson. To simply
defer
> your purchase is the sort of meaningless feel-good bull**** they feed to
> college kids to keep them from burning down the school.
>
> As a point of historical interest there has been at least a dozen such
idiot
> plans to "send a message" to the oil companies, dating back to the Arab
oil
> embargo following the 1973 'Yom Kipper' war. It doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to see how ineffective they have been.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Want to send a REAL message?
>
> Imagine what would happen if EVERYONE in the nation stayed home for a day.
> Don't go ANYWHERE. Don't buy ANYTHING. Don't even turn on the TV.
Freeways
> completely empty of vehicles. Public buildings with their doors locked
and
> parking lots empty. Sporting events not being played in an empty, echoing
> stadium.
>
> Never happen of course, for the simple reason that such an expression of
your
> individual freedom just happens to be illegal for most of us 'free'
citizens of
> the United States of America.
>
> Better to play it safe. So go ahead and defer your purchase of gas for a
day.
> Or fill up the day before. Really show those oil companies who's the
boss.
> Yeah... that should do it.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

These various gas boycotts are an urban legend now. Just go to snopes
and search on gas boycott.

John

On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:21:19 -0500, "JohnT." >
wrote:

>These various gas boycotts are an urban legend now. Just go to snopes
>and search on gas boycott.

I wonder why they would even make that much attention as they have
accomplished absolutely nothing, nor have I ever head any claims that
one did. Guess I'll have to go check.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>John

On 17 May 2004 07:19:16 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:

>>Worth a try.
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Dear Richard (and the Group),
>
>The only message a one day deferral of gas-buying would send is that the
>American public is as dumb as a stump.

Which we already knew.

>
>If you want your message to appear in the bottom line of a corporation you must
>boycot their product, as gun owners did with Smith & Wesson. To simply defer
>your purchase is the sort of meaningless feel-good bull**** they feed to
>college kids to keep them from burning down the school.

Which only works some of the time.

>
>As a point of historical interest there has been at least a dozen such idiot
>plans to "send a message" to the oil companies, dating back to the Arab oil
>embargo following the 1973 'Yom Kipper' war. It doesn't take a rocket
>scientist to see how ineffective they have been.

Actually it wasn't a boycott, but people conserving when we had that
real shortage back in the 70s. We started economizing, car pooling,
buying cars that got good gas mileage and it really did show up as a
drop in the demand for oil. Really put a crimp in the US auto
industry for a few years too.

But, we used less, so gas became plentiful, we forgot about becoming
really independent of foreign oil and we are now back to big engines,
6.000# plus vehicles, and the possibility of a real shortage this
summer because the refineries don't have enough capacity to provide
that much gas.

People cant take the blame, they need some one or something else to
blame so they blame the oil industry for making big profits because
the demand is at an all time high. They blame the politicians for not
forcing the oil refineries to charge less, all the time using more
gas. Proving once and for all, as does the TV program, there is no
intelligent life in the universe.

As I mentioned in another post; I now get 20% better gas mileage and
drive only 25% as much as I did 20, or even 10 years ago. My wife's
car has over 170,000 on it and it still gets 37 mph.

18 instead of 15 and 8,000 instead of 30,000, or 22,000 fewer miles.
If my math is correct I was using 2000 gallons a year. I now use 444.5
gallons for a decrease of 1555 gallons per year. At $2.00 per gallon
that is over $3,100 saved per year at today's prices.

However, it's not just the dollar savings, but the reduction in what
we use.

I wonder what effect it would have IF every family would reduce their
use by 75%, or even try. It is possible by learning to schedule and
combine trips. Most just complain and continue on with business as
usual as they don't want to deal with the inconvenience of planning
and scheduling.

Even though we could afford to drive as much as we used to and
purchase new vehicles every few years, we cut back on the use and
drive 'em till the wheels are about ready to fall off...or they get
totaled.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>Want to send a REAL message?
>
>Imagine what would happen if EVERYONE in the nation stayed home for a day.
>Don't go ANYWHERE. Don't buy ANYTHING. Don't even turn on the TV. Freeways
>completely empty of vehicles. Public buildings with their doors locked and
>parking lots empty. Sporting events not being played in an empty, echoing
>stadium.
>
>Never happen of course, for the simple reason that such an expression of your
>individual freedom just happens to be illegal for most of us 'free' citizens of
>the United States of America.
>
>Better to play it safe. So go ahead and defer your purchase of gas for a day.
>Or fill up the day before. Really show those oil companies who's the boss.
>Yeah... that should do it.
>
>-R.S.Hoover

Roger Halstead > wrote in message
> The problem is the refineries are running at capacity trying to meet a
> record demand and until we, in general "conserve", the demand will
> keep the price up there.

"Running at capacity" is just a b_llsh_t excuse for increasing
profits. They fear (rightly so) that people would get ****ed off if
they realized the gas companies largely control the market and set
whatever price they damn well please. If they ask for too much,
people will modify (in the long run) their consumption, if they ask
for too little, they've left money on the table.

With the amount of money that is at stake, do you think that for a
minute that the agrigate gasoline use of 10's of millions of people
would be so hard to predict that they would actually be caught off
guard (as opposed to intentionally having a shortage) by days getting
longer in the summer? Its been summer before, last year as I
remember, and I'm not even an high paid analyst.

If you really want to send a message to those crooks, support a
gasoline tax (in leiu of general obligation bonds and other taxes)
that fully supports the cost of people driving motor vehicles. This
includes road contruction, maintanence, highway patrol, uninsured
motorists going to the hospital, polution, alternative fuel
development, etc.

Its very simple, use more, pay more. Its crazy to subsidize the
consumption of road fuels with other taxes. Also its hard to jack up
prices when the actual costs of driving are being paid at the pump.
It will give people an incentive to conserve. You'll pay more at the
pump but less on April 15th. How well you make out will depend on how
much fuel you use.

"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> "Running at capacity" is just a b_llsh_t excuse for increasing
> profits.

I don't really know about the refineries, but you don't have to be a genius
to look at the huge monstrosities that clog our roads and figure out that THERE
is at least part of the problem. My Honda Civic takes me everywhere I need to
go in comfort, and probably is burning half the gas of the vehicle in the next
lane. If you really want to show the greedy *******s a thing or two, figure out
how to burn less gas.

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Running at capacity" is just a b_llsh_t excuse for increasing
> > profits.
>
> I don't really know about the refineries, but you don't have to be a
genius
> to look at the huge monstrosities that clog our roads and figure out that
THERE
> is at least part of the problem. My Honda Civic takes me everywhere I
need to
> go in comfort, and probably is burning half the gas of the vehicle in the
next
> lane. If you really want to show the greedy *******s a thing or two,
figure out
> how to burn less gas.
>

Lessee........ we're runing out of oil, trees, water, air, food and
waterfront property. Pull your heads out of the sand and quit breeding like
lemmings. Spaceship Earth only holds so many passengers. Devote every spare
dollar towards annexing more real estate. Mars is just a step.

Oh, sorry. Just fantacizing. Rutan is to blame.

Rich S.

Lets get everyone to stay home May 19. Sounds interesting...

--
Dan D.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/ddevillers/start.html


..
"Veeduber" > wrote in message ...
> >Worth a try.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Richard (and the Group),
>
> The only message a one day deferral of gas-buying would send is that the
> American public is as dumb as a stump.
>
> If you want your message to appear in the bottom line of a corporation you must
> boycot their product, as gun owners did with Smith & Wesson. To simply defer
> your purchase is the sort of meaningless feel-good bull**** they feed to
> college kids to keep them from burning down the school.
>
> As a point of historical interest there has been at least a dozen such idiot
> plans to "send a message" to the oil companies, dating back to the Arab oil
> embargo following the 1973 'Yom Kipper' war. It doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to see how ineffective they have been.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Want to send a REAL message?
>
> Imagine what would happen if EVERYONE in the nation stayed home for a day.
> Don't go ANYWHERE. Don't buy ANYTHING. Don't even turn on the TV. Freeways
> completely empty of vehicles. Public buildings with their doors locked and
> parking lots empty. Sporting events not being played in an empty, echoing
> stadium.
>
> Never happen of course, for the simple reason that such an expression of your
> individual freedom just happens to be illegal for most of us 'free' citizens of
> the United States of America.
>
> Better to play it safe. So go ahead and defer your purchase of gas for a day.
> Or fill up the day before. Really show those oil companies who's the boss.
> Yeah... that should do it.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Build a refinery!
Find some oil!
Make some $!

How?

Well I'm looking for work (sold business, relocated).
I have board level managerial experience, oil industry experience,
geophysics degree and exploration experience. My ChE uncle built
refineries for ARAMCO for 30 years, is bored with retirement, and
ready to work.

If there is all this obscene profit, as proposed, then it makes sense
to get into the business. Am I right?

Will need serious players to finance...

Are any of you bitchin turkeys serious enough to put up some bucks and
put together a company? Go look at free edgar for some financials on the
competition. If you still think you can play, write.

t

Bob Olds wrote ...
> If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
> will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
> estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
> I WON'T buy gas on May 19.


Thank you for redefining the fundamentals of both economics and human
behavior. Your Nobel prize will be mailed to you.

Given the draconian effect that your boycott will have, we can expect
gasoline prices to fall to just pennies per gallon by midday.
Refineries, storage facilities & delivery stations should also fall to
scrap value. My plan (and that of thousands of others) is to buy up
all such surplus fuel & facilities using the change under the sofa
cushions. We'll see you Thursday morning at the pumps.

Daniel

"Bob Olds" > wrote in message
m...
> If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
> will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
> estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
> I WON'T buy gas on May 19.


And this will cost the oil companies money how? The gas out will not
inconvenience them in the slightest. Now, if everyone just stopped buying
gas, period, that might mean something.

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> "Bob Olds" > wrote in message
> m...
> > If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
> > will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
> > estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
> > I WON'T buy gas on May 19.
>
> And this will cost the oil companies money how? The gas out will not
> inconvenience them in the slightest. Now, if everyone just stopped buying
> gas, period, that might mean something.


It's not about costing them money, guys.

As has been pointed out (to death) we will all burn just as much gas
as we would have, regardless of when it was purchased.

The point of civil disobeadence is to make a point.

To say something.

Usually to someone who is not listening.


Richard

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Olds" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
> > > will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
> > > estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
> > > I WON'T buy gas on May 19.
> >
> > And this will cost the oil companies money how? The gas out will not
> > inconvenience them in the slightest. Now, if everyone just stopped
buying
> > gas, period, that might mean something.
>
>
> It's not about costing them money, guys.
>

It isn't? I thought hitting "the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit)"
was about costing them money. Silly me.

Incredibly intelligent post. Unfortunately, you underestimate the level of
emotion with the big oil haters. They think that they could not possibly
get into the energy business, likely due to a conspiracy.

Gasoline is really running only $1.40 per gallon except for taxes and maybe
higher transport costs or local mandates that add refining costs (if your
state mandates refining processes or has managed to keep the refineries out
of everyone's backyard, then you are paying more). There is no one to blame
except for environmentalists and shieks, and even they are not doing so much
damage that the stuff is not cheaper than bottled water.

Otherwise, any bank in town would loan you the money to open an oil or gas
company. Unless they are in a conspiracy with big oil?

BTW there is plenty of oil and natural gas available in the US. The good
peoples of California and Florida have decided their beach views are more
important than the rest of our pocketbooks. The folks in the lower 48 have
prevented use of much of Alaskan reserves, and the nice people of Colorado
and some of their neighbors are sitting on the natural gas we need.

This will only change when no one can afford to drive to see the sites that
we are supposedly preserving for them and their grand children. When the
tourist industry is wiped out due to high fuel prices, they will stop
backing the environmental lobbies. That is when the change will occur.




"tongaloa" > wrote in message
...
> Build a refinery!
> Find some oil!
> Make some $!
>
> How?
>
> Well I'm looking for work (sold business, relocated).
> I have board level managerial experience, oil industry experience,
> geophysics degree and exploration experience. My ChE uncle built
> refineries for ARAMCO for 30 years, is bored with retirement, and
> ready to work.
>
> If there is all this obscene profit, as proposed, then it makes sense
> to get into the business. Am I right?
>
> Will need serious players to finance...
>
> Are any of you bitchin turkeys serious enough to put up some bucks and
> put together a company? Go look at free edgar for some financials on the
> competition. If you still think you can play, write.
>
> t
>
>
>

Jay,

Do you have any research showing that fuel taxes are not supporting the
costs of roads? I remember a story on television about the transportation
fund being held in surplus to help balance the budget or something.

I have always toyed with the gas tax idea, it makes a lot of sense in many
ways. The only problem is that it is a drain on the economy in several bad
ways, and I can't get my arms around what the unintended consequences might
be.

One of them would likely be higher taxes to build more public transportation
unless much of the fuel tax is earmarked for that. More public
transportation would mean an increase in corruption in government as the
extra control over where people go and how is just too yummy for those
folks.





"Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> Roger Halstead > wrote in message
> > The problem is the refineries are running at capacity trying to meet a
> > record demand and until we, in general "conserve", the demand will
> > keep the price up there.
>
> "Running at capacity" is just a b_llsh_t excuse for increasing
> profits. They fear (rightly so) that people would get ****ed off if
> they realized the gas companies largely control the market and set
> whatever price they damn well please. If they ask for too much,
> people will modify (in the long run) their consumption, if they ask
> for too little, they've left money on the table.
>
> With the amount of money that is at stake, do you think that for a
> minute that the agrigate gasoline use of 10's of millions of people
> would be so hard to predict that they would actually be caught off
> guard (as opposed to intentionally having a shortage) by days getting
> longer in the summer? Its been summer before, last year as I
> remember, and I'm not even an high paid analyst.
>
> If you really want to send a message to those crooks, support a
> gasoline tax (in leiu of general obligation bonds and other taxes)
> that fully supports the cost of people driving motor vehicles. This
> includes road contruction, maintanence, highway patrol, uninsured
> motorists going to the hospital, polution, alternative fuel
> development, etc.
>
> Its very simple, use more, pay more. Its crazy to subsidize the
> consumption of road fuels with other taxes. Also its hard to jack up
> prices when the actual costs of driving are being paid at the pump.
> It will give people an incentive to conserve. You'll pay more at the
> pump but less on April 15th. How well you make out will depend on how
> much fuel you use.

Roger,

Thanks for pointing out one of my favorites.

I drive a big ugly SUV. Until recently, I drove it all of a half mile to
get to work. Meanwhile, I see all these environmentalists and their bumper
stickers in town from the burbs and just know they used three times the fuel
I did.

Now, I office out of my home. Strangely, I am driving more due to the
difference in the new business, and looked into trading but it just won't
pay. The old SUV is not depreciating hardly at all, and the risk of buying
another late nineties vintage vehicle is not worth the few hundred dollars I
would save in fuel per year. Buying new would mean depreciation.

The old SUV will just have to do for another 100k. That will likely take 10
or 12 years though :)







"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 May 2004 07:19:16 GMT, (Veeduber) wrote:
>
> >>Worth a try.
> >---------------------------------------------
> >
> >Dear Richard (and the Group),
> >
> >The only message a one day deferral of gas-buying would send is that the
> >American public is as dumb as a stump.
>
> Which we already knew.
>
> >
> >If you want your message to appear in the bottom line of a corporation
you must
> >boycot their product, as gun owners did with Smith & Wesson. To simply
defer
> >your purchase is the sort of meaningless feel-good bull**** they feed to
> >college kids to keep them from burning down the school.
>
> Which only works some of the time.
>
> >
> >As a point of historical interest there has been at least a dozen such
idiot
> >plans to "send a message" to the oil companies, dating back to the Arab
oil
> >embargo following the 1973 'Yom Kipper' war. It doesn't take a rocket
> >scientist to see how ineffective they have been.
>
> Actually it wasn't a boycott, but people conserving when we had that
> real shortage back in the 70s. We started economizing, car pooling,
> buying cars that got good gas mileage and it really did show up as a
> drop in the demand for oil. Really put a crimp in the US auto
> industry for a few years too.
>
> But, we used less, so gas became plentiful, we forgot about becoming
> really independent of foreign oil and we are now back to big engines,
> 6.000# plus vehicles, and the possibility of a real shortage this
> summer because the refineries don't have enough capacity to provide
> that much gas.
>
> People cant take the blame, they need some one or something else to
> blame so they blame the oil industry for making big profits because
> the demand is at an all time high. They blame the politicians for not
> forcing the oil refineries to charge less, all the time using more
> gas. Proving once and for all, as does the TV program, there is no
> intelligent life in the universe.
>
> As I mentioned in another post; I now get 20% better gas mileage and
> drive only 25% as much as I did 20, or even 10 years ago. My wife's
> car has over 170,000 on it and it still gets 37 mph.
>
> 18 instead of 15 and 8,000 instead of 30,000, or 22,000 fewer miles.
> If my math is correct I was using 2000 gallons a year. I now use 444.5
> gallons for a decrease of 1555 gallons per year. At $2.00 per gallon
> that is over $3,100 saved per year at today's prices.
>
> However, it's not just the dollar savings, but the reduction in what
> we use.
>
> I wonder what effect it would have IF every family would reduce their
> use by 75%, or even try. It is possible by learning to schedule and
> combine trips. Most just complain and continue on with business as
> usual as they don't want to deal with the inconvenience of planning
> and scheduling.
>
> Even though we could afford to drive as much as we used to and
> purchase new vehicles every few years, we cut back on the use and
> drive 'em till the wheels are about ready to fall off...or they get
> totaled.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> >
> >--------------------------------------------
> >
> >Want to send a REAL message?
> >
> >Imagine what would happen if EVERYONE in the nation stayed home for a
day.
> >Don't go ANYWHERE. Don't buy ANYTHING. Don't even turn on the TV.
Freeways
> >completely empty of vehicles. Public buildings with their doors locked
and
> >parking lots empty. Sporting events not being played in an empty,
echoing
> >stadium.
> >
> >Never happen of course, for the simple reason that such an expression of
your
> >individual freedom just happens to be illegal for most of us 'free'
citizens of
> >the United States of America.
> >
> >Better to play it safe. So go ahead and defer your purchase of gas for a
day.
> >Or fill up the day before. Really show those oil companies who's the
boss.
> >Yeah... that should do it.
> >
> >-R.S.Hoover
>

Richard Lamb > wrote in message >...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Olds" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
> > > will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
> > > estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
> > > I WON'T buy gas on May 19.
> >
> > And this will cost the oil companies money how? The gas out will not
> > inconvenience them in the slightest. Now, if everyone just stopped buying
> > gas, period, that might mean something.
>
>
> It's not about costing them money, guys.
>
> As has been pointed out (to death) we will all burn just as much gas
> as we would have, regardless of when it was purchased.
>
> The point of civil disobeadence is to make a point.
>
> To say something.
>
> Usually to someone who is not listening.
>
>
> Richard

Yes, Richard's point is the key. The point is to make politicians
squirm and sweat, to make Oil CEO's burn favors in resisting gov
pressure to build additional refineries. At the very least it will
disrupt daily tanker truck delivery schemes. If the merged media
ignores our disobedience, we could up the ante in a month and expand
the boycott for a week. Corporate America can't fire everybody.

Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
a more golden age of aviation.

I was involved in three labor actions at my outfit. All significantly
improved the working lives of the guys comming behind us.

pacplyer

Hi "Dude", thank for responding to my post. Read below for more
comments...

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> Jay,
>
> Do you have any research showing that fuel taxes are not supporting the
> costs of roads? I remember a story on television about the transportation
> fund being held in surplus to help balance the budget or something.

Yes I do, if fuel taxes fully supported the cost of construction and
maintenance of roads then I wouldn't have to keep voting "No" on all
the road construction bonds that seem to come up every election. Also
I wouldn't have to keep sending hundereds of dollars (arbitrarily
based on the value of my vehicle) to the DMV every year just to
"register" my car. Building and maintenance is an ongoing process and
always will be, its stupid to borrow money for this use. All the
interest and commision is less infrastructure we could have had, or
equivalently less taxes we would have had to pay out of our pay
checks. Bonds are used to pay for a lot of roads because there is no
political will to pay for them as we go. This is a result of a
previous poster's comment that John Q Public is dumb as a stump.

> I have always toyed with the gas tax idea, it makes a lot of sense in many
> ways. The only problem is that it is a drain on the economy in several bad
> ways, and I can't get my arms around what the unintended consequences might
> be.

It does make a lot of sense and is it a worse drain on the economy
than the alternative, higher income tax? There will be consequences
no doubt. Businesses that unfairly benefit (at everyones expense)
from subsidized infrastructure (like trucking) will see a decline in
the demand for their services due to thier higher prices. This will
manifest itself in slighlty higher prices for goods that continue to
move by truck (rather than train).

> One of them would likely be higher taxes to build more public transportation
> unless much of the fuel tax is earmarked for that. More public
> transportation would mean an increase in corruption in government as the
> extra control over where people go and how is just too yummy for those
> folks.

Its a tough trade between 2 evils, the inefficiency of a well meaning
government or the profit motive and corruption of a monopoly. But
demend for more public transportation would be another outcome. Where
I live, people on the dole are able to afford to drive around in cars.

On 19 May 2004 12:41:41 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

>Hi "Dude", thank for responding to my post. Read below for more
>comments...
>
>"Dude" > wrote in message >...
>> Jay,
>>
>> Do you have any research showing that fuel taxes are not supporting the
>> costs of roads? I remember a story on television about the transportation
>> fund being held in surplus to help balance the budget or something.
>
>Yes I do, if fuel taxes fully supported the cost of construction and
>maintenance of roads then I wouldn't have to keep voting "No" on all
>the road construction bonds that seem to come up every election. Also
>I wouldn't have to keep sending hundereds of dollars (arbitrarily
>based on the value of my vehicle) to the DMV every year just to
>"register" my car. Building and maintenance is an ongoing process and
>always will be, its stupid to borrow money for this use. All the
>interest and commision is less infrastructure we could have had, or
>equivalently less taxes we would have had to pay out of our pay
>checks. Bonds are used to pay for a lot of roads because there is no
>political will to pay for them as we go. This is a result of a
>previous poster's comment that John Q Public is dumb as a stump.

Austin is about to get 8 new toll roads. TXDoT says they have no
other alternative. They are holding "public hearings" and getting
plenty of flack (like putting tolls on already paid for roads to pay
for other roads) but are basically saying it's a done deal.

>
>> I have always toyed with the gas tax idea, it makes a lot of sense in many
>> ways. The only problem is that it is a drain on the economy in several bad
>> ways, and I can't get my arms around what the unintended consequences might
>> be.
>
>It does make a lot of sense and is it a worse drain on the economy
>than the alternative, higher income tax? There will be consequences
>no doubt. Businesses that unfairly benefit (at everyones expense)
>from subsidized infrastructure (like trucking) will see a decline in
>the demand for their services due to thier higher prices. This will
>manifest itself in slighlty higher prices for goods that continue to
>move by truck (rather than train).

The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.

>
>> One of them would likely be higher taxes to build more public transportation
>> unless much of the fuel tax is earmarked for that. More public
>> transportation would mean an increase in corruption in government as the
>> extra control over where people go and how is just too yummy for those
>> folks.

In Austin, we pay a 1/2 per cent sales tax to support the mass transit
authority. They have been pushing light rail for several years, in a
city that doesn't easily support a fixed base transit structure. But
"other cities have it", so we must, too. Meanwhile, the buses run
mostly empty with the exception of a few express routes.

>
>Its a tough trade between 2 evils, the inefficiency of a well meaning
>government or the profit motive and corruption of a monopoly. But
>demend for more public transportation would be another outcome. Where
>I live, people on the dole are able to afford to drive around in cars.

Agreed. Gas just hit $1.90 here. This may motivate car pool/van pool
thinking, but most people still prefer the "freedom" of their car.

My wife has a 25 mile one way commute. We had considered moving
north, but the houses are at least 50% higher for the same thing. So
we're looking at a hybrid for her.

--
dillon

When I was a kid, I thought the angel's name was Hark
and the horse's name was Bob.

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
> business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
> might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
> a more golden age of aviation.

If it was up to Nader there would be no general aviation.

Dear Newsgroup,

I really like this group. But I have seen this BS idea on just about every
newsgroup I visit. So pardon my off topic rant.

A better idea would be to reduce unnecessary travel. Instead of not buying
gas how about we make it a focus of national pride not to drive as much.

Cut down on demand. As demand decreases so will prices. When you are
really bored, look at how many vehicles have a driver only. Remember car
pools?

How about getting it through our thick heads that we can't afford vehicles
that get 30 or less miles per gallon. As Americans, we use 27 percent of
the worlds supply of petroleum. Wait until China gets fully industrialized.
You ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm done.

Regarding 4130, I just put in an order to Wicks Aircraft for some .090 sheet
and actually got it. No backorder either. Anyone check with Mr. Vogelsong
at Dillsburg lately? I checked Aircraft spruce and they were stocking 4130
plate in both warehouses. Is the 4130 shortage fact or fiction like the
peanut butter shortages of the 80s or was it the 70s? Man time fly's.


--
John "Ebby" Ebensperger
Hatz Classic s/n 37
Camden, NY

Dillon Pyron > wrote in message >...

> Austin is about to get 8 new toll roads. TXDoT says they have no
> other alternative. They are holding "public hearings" and getting
> plenty of flack (like putting tolls on already paid for roads to pay
> for other roads) but are basically saying it's a done deal.

We have one nearby that is going BK. Sounds like the tax-payers are
going to have to bail it out what was supposed to be a self supporting
road. Now that the real estate developers have cashed out of the new
serviced areas, they can turn the burden of the road over to
tax-payers.

> The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
> And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
> Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
> consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.

Thats perfectly fine, some goods will find less energy intensive ways
of moving such as trains. The closer you connect the cost of a
service with the use of the service, the more efficient its use will
be.

> In Austin, we pay a 1/2 per cent sales tax to support the mass transit
> authority. They have been pushing light rail for several years, in a
> city that doesn't easily support a fixed base transit structure. But
> "other cities have it", so we must, too. Meanwhile, the buses run
> mostly empty with the exception of a few express routes.

Seems silly to have a general tax when a gas tax would raise revanue
and increase ridership.

> Agreed. Gas just hit $1.90 here. This may motivate car pool/van pool
> thinking, but most people still prefer the "freedom" of their car.

Of course people prefer the freedom of a car, just like I'd prefer the
freedom to not have to drag my butt to work every day.

> My wife has a 25 mile one way commute. We had considered moving
> north, but the houses are at least 50% higher for the same thing. So
> we're looking at a hybrid for her.

Thats one of the things that subsidized gas has encouraged- extended
suburbs. Why live in the city when you have a car and cheap gas?
Likely your time in the car costs more than the gas.

Check on some real people's mileage on those hybrids. I've heard both
good and bad about the actual gas milage. Apparently the EPA measures
gas milage by extrapolating from exhaust pipe emmisions rather than
actual road tests.

>The theory is that heavier vehicles cause more damage to the roads.
>And heavier vehicles use more fuel, thus paying their "fair share".
>Unfortunately for all of us, they get to pass those costs on to the
>consumer and write them off on their taxes. We don't.
>

Its a fact that heavy vehicles do the damage.....they pretty much do ALL the
damage...

You can design a road to say have a load capacity of 10 tons....

And you could literally have billions of car passes over it and it wouldnt
damage it a bit....

Then you could have a few million passes of big 9.5 ton trucks and and it would
get damaged over a period of time....

But, get one sorry SOB with a 10.1 ton truck driving on it....and the road bed
cracks....and once it cracks its load capacity is pretty much gone and
virtually every additional vehicle pass (even little cars) just adds to the
damage....

I guess I am trying to point out that the damage function is VERY/EXTREMELY
nonlinear in relation to the load level....

And dont ask me what I think should be done to trucks/truckers that have been
found to be over the legal load limit...

take care

Blll

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
> > business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
> > might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
> > a more golden age of aviation.
>
> If it was up to Nader there would be no general aviation.

Probably true. But you don't have to worry: Nader's not going to get
elected and General Aviation is not a factor in the 2004 election so
he won't really be after it. By voting for him however, you give more
voice to the working american. This gives strength to Nader's holy
war against big monopolies like big oil. Support for him also
redefines the issues of the other two lack-luster parties who don't
really support the little guy (and his falling disposable income
problem) since they're both whores of major corporations. It is
true, Ralph wants to tax weath (your airplane.) But he'll never get
the chance since if his numbers come up, the the winning admin will
put the brakes on CEO greed to keep Ralph from picking up speed. And
that's what I want: the pendulum to swing back the other direction for
a while so that the little guy can afford to fly again. What do you
guys think?

pacplyer

In > pacplyer wrote:

> Probably true. But you don't have to worry: Nader's not going to get
> elected and General Aviation is not a factor in the 2004 election so
> he won't really be after it. By voting for him however, you give more
> voice to the working american. This gives strength to Nader's holy
> war against big monopolies like big oil. Support for him also
> redefines the issues of the other two lack-luster parties who don't
> really support the little guy (and his falling disposable income
> problem) since they're both whores of major corporations. It is
> true, Ralph wants to tax weath (your airplane.) But he'll never get
> the chance since if his numbers come up, the the winning admin will
> put the brakes on CEO greed to keep Ralph from picking up speed. And
> that's what I want: the pendulum to swing back the other direction for
> a while so that the little guy can afford to fly again. What do you
> guys think?

I think even more democrats need to vote for Nader this time around.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

On 19 May 2004 08:50:12 -0700, (pacplyer) wrote:

>Richard Lamb > wrote in message >...
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>> >
>> > "Bob Olds" > wrote in message
>> > m...
>> > > If everyone in the U.S. will NOT buy gasoline on MAY 19 , Then we
>> > > will hit the oil companies in the bottom line (Profit). It is
>> > > estimated that this would cost them in the millions.
>> > > I WON'T buy gas on May 19.
>> >
>> > And this will cost the oil companies money how? The gas out will not
>> > inconvenience them in the slightest. Now, if everyone just stopped buying
>> > gas, period, that might mean something.
>>
>>
>> It's not about costing them money, guys.
>>
>> As has been pointed out (to death) we will all burn just as much gas
>> as we would have, regardless of when it was purchased.
>>
>> The point of civil disobeadence is to make a point.
>>
>> To say something.
>>
>> Usually to someone who is not listening.
>>
>>
>> Richard
>
>Yes, Richard's point is the key. The point is to make politicians
>squirm and sweat, to make Oil CEO's burn favors in resisting gov

A one day pause in purchasing gas sure isn't going to do it, not
unless that gas is never purchased. If you purchase it the day before
or the day after the one day means absolutely nothing and proves
nothing. Nor does it drive any point home, not even a pin.

>pressure to build additional refineries. At the very least it will
>disrupt daily tanker truck delivery schemes. If the merged media

It'll have about as much effect as me sneezing at the local mall.

>ignores our disobedience, we could up the ante in a month and expand

Disobedience must have been redefined. Not buying gas on a particular
day, or for that matter, even the complete stopping of using it could
not be described as disobedience even with the wildest stretch of the
imagination.

However IF those same people, assuming there are enough participating
to count on more fingers and toes than I own, would instead, cut their
gas usage in half, or to only a quarter of what they have been using
it would make a difference.

>the boycott for a week. Corporate America can't fire everybody.

And why would any one get fired for not using gas?

>
>Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
>business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
>might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
>a more golden age of aviation.

It's not the politicians. It's the drivers. You! Me! the guy next to
you on the express way. American drivers just don't have the mind set
to substantially lower their use of gas, or change their driving
habits.

Don't blame the refineries. If they were making such a great profit my
stocks would be going up a lot more than they have. Don't blame the
politicians either. They are just excuses so we don't have to change
the way we do things.

US Reserves? Off shore reserves? Alaskan reserves? Sure we could use
them and that would gain us how many years. This stuff is not
limitless.

So we come to the hybrid cars which is a good start for commuting, but
not long haul. There are small cars that do better on long haul than
they hybrids, but in town they are great. Expensive, but great.

Fuel cells? Hydrogen power? Electric cars?
Fuel cells still require fuel, be it fossil or renewable. Of course
to get the Alcohol from corn takes about twice as much gas to produce
as we get out of it. Not a very good trade off. The fuels cells can
be made efficient, but so can *small* internal combustion engines. Of
course the fuel cells create far less pollution than the internal
combustion engines so that is another plus for the fuel cells and
there are some new ones that look very promising. Still, the cars
that will use fuel cells are going to be relatively small.

Hydrogen. Stuff is great. Metal sponges will soak it up making it
safe to use and it's the most plentiful element we have. Just one
problem. Nearly all of it is tied up with Oxygen to make water. IE it
has already been burned. To get the H2 back out of H2O takes energy.
Lots of energy. Use H2 in a fuel cell and it's clean with very
little pollution from the vehicle and virtually none from the
combustion. But...again we are back to small cars.

Electric? Now here's one that really gets pushed. No pollution?
Wellllll... The car it self doesn't generate pollution while running
except for tires and lubrication, BUT it takes banks of batteries
who's construction and disposal create heaps and bunches of pollution
and energy.

Efficiency? They are about on the bottom of the totem pole. Every
time there is a conversion there is a loss in efficiency. So... You
have to create the electricity in the first place. That takes a lot
of fuel. If all our cars were electric figure out how many KW hours
increase we would need in power generation. (any mathematicians out
there willing to tackle that and tell me how much coal or natural gas
we'd have to burn to create the electricity? So, you build large
electrical generation plants which burn fossil fuels, creating loads
of pollution and as a side effect get blamed for acid rain.
But we have a long ways to go. You have to transport the electricity
and there is some loss in the transmission. Then we have to charge
the batteries where there is still more loss and finally we take the
power from the batteries and turn it into motion in electric motors
which also lose energy in the conversion.

How much more fuel does it take to generate one HP with an electric
motor than to develop one HP with a good efficient gas or diesel
engine, or better yet compared to a good fuel cell.

In each and every case I've looked at it boils down to the end user,
using less energy by driving less, driving a smaller vehicle, or both
as being the only real alternative to expensive fuel. *All*
alternative fuels at present cost more than gasoline and most likely
will continue to do so.

Until the American drivers as a whole learn to conserve, through
scheduling, car pooling, driving smaller cars and developing a mind
set of "can do" instead of blaming some one or something else for
their woes we will remain stuck in a cycle of high to low and back
again prices as well as moving from feast to famine and back.

We are, with only a couple of exceptions, a country with the cheapest
gas in the world and here we are, complaining because our gas is now
up to almost half the cost of what they pay in the UK.

The highway fund, like the aviation trust fund contained a great deal
of money and was being robbed to make the general fund look good. It
was used to artificially help create the appearance of having a
balanced budget. We actually did have some budget surpluses and
instead of paying off our debts we wanted the money back and bowing to
popular, but misinformed demands the politicians voted for tax cuts
and rebates and now we are back to record deficit spending.
It of course is not quite this simple, but it's the general idea.


Of course they also voted for tax reform to prevent special interest
groups from having too much say (soft money). Unfortunately the laws
they passed are not as represented. Those same laws basically are gag
orders to prevent any association from direct rebuttal of any
incumbent's statements even if they are outright lies.
For example (and I use the two most controversial topics I can think
of), If you are pro choice, or pro life an organization may not
directly answer any statements made by an incumbent that disagrees
with their views whether they are based in fact or false hood.
>
Whether you are pro firearms, or an anti gunner you may not contradict
the incumbent's statements.

The law states these gag orders are for 60 days prior to a major
election such as senators, representatives, and president.
That is not the exact wording, but I think it's close.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>I was involved in three labor actions at my outfit. All significantly
>improved the working lives of the guys comming behind us.
>
>pacplyer

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
> Until the American drivers as a whole learn to conserve, through
> scheduling, car pooling, driving smaller cars and developing a mind
> set of "can do" instead of blaming some one or something else for
> their woes we will remain stuck in a cycle of high to low and back
> again prices as well as moving from feast to famine and back.
>

American drivers already do those things to the extent practically possible.
Most people don't drive alone because they want to; it is because they have
to. No bus or carpool runs from the office to the grocery store to the day
care to the bank to the post office, etc. No carpool carries your tools to
and from the construction site (which changes every day), or carries the
laundry, or drops your term paper off at the community college.

Probably the stupidest thing America ever did was to destroy the railroad
infrastructure. For some reason we decided that it was better to carry
freight in trucks rather than on rail cars. Freight is now treated as if it
were human passengers, each with individual needs. Now transportation
planners think the solution is to treat humans as if they were inanimate
cargo. Neither of these ideas work, nor will they ever work.

Roger Halstead > wrote <snip>

> And why would any one get fired for not using gas?

Well if you and a lot of other workers don't show up to work for a
week, as Vedubber suggested (and I like this idea,) you will damage
the economy significantly and management of most firms will take
hostages to put down the rebellion.

>
> >
> >Then if that doesn't work, vote for Ralph Nader. He hates big
> >business. He speaks Arabic (I think he is a converted rag-head.) He
> >might be able to diffuse this world-wide holy/oil war and return us to
> >a more golden age of aviation.
>
> It's not the politicians. It's the drivers. You! Me! the guy next to
> you on the express way. American drivers just don't have the mind set
> to substantially lower their use of gas, or change their driving
> habits.

This blaming the consumer is ridiculous. Let's say we all switch to
compact cars and outlaw SUV's. Nothing in your solution prevents big
oil companies from closing more refineries as they have been doing in
order to bottleneck the supply and drive up prices. Nor does your
idea prevent them from curtailing exploration to impact supply. Most
of the major oil companies are larger than Standard Oil was when we
pressured politicians and broke up that monopoly. As a worker I only
care about two things: Disposable income and days off. Anything that
impacts those two things will make me "throw the bums out" and give a
different party a chance to improve my American standard of living.
High oil prices put me in a smaller airplane. My 30 gph twin will not
get off the ground again until fuel drops below one dollar/gallon.
(violin anyone? ;-)

>
> Don't blame the refineries. If they were making such a great profit my
> stocks would be going up a lot more than they have. Don't blame the
> politicians either. They are just excuses so we don't have to change
> the way we do things.

Sound like you are heavy into energy stocks Rodge. :) The energy
crisis in Calif was caused by exactly that shortage of power
generating facilities. The higher cost of gas in Calif (vs the other
states) IS due to lack of refinery capacity (they blame clean air
standards; I blame CEO human greed.) We sacked Governor Davis for
impacting the cost of our driving. I'll vote against a US admin that
lets the cost of living get out of control.

>
> US Reserves? Off shore reserves? Alaskan reserves? Sure we could use
> them and that would gain us how many years. This stuff is not
> limitless.

I don't buy this old shortage saw at all. The Spratly Islands alone
have energy reserves that could be greater than all the mid-east. It
is not developed because seven regional (and non-regional) countries
lay claim to the floor of the South China Sea. I repeatedly spotted
Chinese warships engaged in attacks on Mayasian and Philippine
homesteads on those islands. We would later hear about those reef
markers being blown out of the water when we got to KL. If that
region could be developed, oil prices would plummet. Tom Clancy wrote
a book (SSN)about WWIII starting in a conflict over these vast oil
reserves. So, for my lifetime there's plenty of energy left on this
planet, if politicians experience the pressure to go after it.
Limitless? No. Enough to turn us into Venus? Yes.

Enjoyed and agree with the rest of your post Rodger. pac - out

> So we come to the hybrid cars which is a good start for commuting, but
> not long haul. There are small cars that do better on long haul than
> they hybrids, but in town they are great. Expensive, but great.
>
> Fuel cells? Hydrogen power? Electric cars?
> Fuel cells still require fuel, be it fossil or renewable. Of course
> to get the Alcohol from corn takes about twice as much gas to produce
> as we get out of it. Not a very good trade off. The fuels cells can
> be made efficient, but so can *small* internal combustion engines. Of
> course the fuel cells create far less pollution than the internal
> combustion engines so that is another plus for the fuel cells and
> there are some new ones that look very promising. Still, the cars
> that will use fuel cells are going to be relatively small.
>
> Hydrogen. Stuff is great. Metal sponges will soak it up making it
> safe to use and it's the most plentiful element we have. Just one
> problem. Nearly all of it is tied up with Oxygen to make water. IE it
> has already been burned. To get the H2 back out of H2O takes energy.
> Lots of energy. Use H2 in a fuel cell and it's clean with very
> little pollution from the vehicle and virtually none from the
> combustion. But...again we are back to small cars.
>
> Electric? Now here's one that really gets pushed. No pollution?
> Wellllll... The car it self doesn't generate pollution while running
> except for tires and lubrication, BUT it takes banks of batteries
> who's construction and disposal create heaps and bunches of pollution
> and energy.
>
> Efficiency? They are about on the bottom of the totem pole. Every
> time there is a conversion there is a loss in efficiency. So... You
> have to create the electricity in the first place. That takes a lot
> of fuel. If all our cars were electric figure out how many KW hours
> increase we would need in power generation. (any mathematicians out
> there willing to tackle that and tell me how much coal or natural gas
> we'd have to burn to create the electricity? So, you build large
> electrical generation plants which burn fossil fuels, creating loads
> of pollution and as a side effect get blamed for acid rain.
> But we have a long ways to go. You have to transport the electricity
> and there is some loss in the transmission. Then we have to charge
> the batteries where there is still more loss and finally we take the
> power from the batteries and turn it into motion in electric motors
> which also lose energy in the conversion.
>
> How much more fuel does it take to generate one HP with an electric
> motor than to develop one HP with a good efficient gas or diesel
> engine, or better yet compared to a good fuel cell.
>
> In each and every case I've looked at it boils down to the end user,
> using less energy by driving less, driving a smaller vehicle, or both
> as being the only real alternative to expensive fuel. *All*
> alternative fuels at present cost more than gasoline and most likely
> will continue to do so.
>
> Until the American drivers as a whole learn to conserve, through
> scheduling, car pooling, driving smaller cars and developing a mind
> set of "can do" instead of blaming some one or something else for
> their woes we will remain stuck in a cycle of high to low and back
> again prices as well as moving from feast to famine and back.
>
> We are, with only a couple of exceptions, a country with the cheapest
> gas in the world and here we are, complaining because our gas is now
> up to almost half the cost of what they pay in the UK.
>
> The highway fund, like the aviation trust fund contained a great deal
> of money and was being robbed to make the general fund look good. It
> was used to artificially help create the appearance of having a
> balanced budget. We actually did have some budget surpluses and
> instead of paying off our debts we wanted the money back and bowing to
> popular, but misinformed demands the politicians voted for tax cuts
> and rebates and now we are back to record deficit spending.
> It of course is not quite this simple, but it's the general idea.
>
>
> Of course they also voted for tax reform to prevent special interest
> groups from having too much say (soft money). Unfortunately the laws
> they passed are not as represented. Those same laws basically are gag
> orders to prevent any association from direct rebuttal of any
> incumbent's statements even if they are outright lies.
> For example (and I use the two most controversial topics I can think
> of), If you are pro choice, or pro life an organization may not
> directly answer any statements made by an incumbent that disagrees
> with their views whether they are based in fact or false hood.
> >
> Whether you are pro firearms, or an anti gunner you may not contradict
> the incumbent's statements.
>
> The law states these gag orders are for 60 days prior to a major
> election such as senators, representatives, and president.
> That is not the exact wording, but I think it's close.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >I was involved in three labor actions at my outfit. All significantly
> >improved the working lives of the guys comming behind us.
> >
> >pacplyer

Goo points all, pac.

for what it's worth?

I'll give a 30% chance (at this time) that gas prices will
rise another dollar per gallon before the election....


Any takers?


Richard

Richard Lamb > wrote in message >...
> Goo points all, pac.
>
> for what it's worth?
>
> I'll give a 30% chance (at this time) that gas prices will
> rise another dollar per gallon before the election....
>
>
> Any takers?
>
>
> Richard

I'd bet you're pretty close. I've got an old 100 gallon truck tank
sitting in the hangar, if I was ambitious I'd fill it up on the dips
as a hedge against pump robbery. I've heard that China has an auto
boom going which has no end in sight (more than a billion potential
new drivers) causing the Chinese to snap up all the oil they can get
their hands on. Me thinks this is a real bad omen for world oil
market pricing. The chinese will be behind the wheel and we'll all be
on bicycles like Vedub suggests. Oh well, it was fun being a
motorhead while it lasted!

pac "putt-putt Mo-ped" plyer

Good point. They are now realizing that the way they have been counting
trips for analyzing transportation needs and uses is all wrong. Of course,
those who used the data to grind an axe are reluctant to admit it.

Trains for freight or passengers have an effect that buses and trucks do
not. The permanency causes the communities to develop around them. Thus,
the market drives efficient behavior. Strangely, the market drives
inefficient behavior when you get the freedom that comes with the road
system. By being so efficient, it allows us to make transportation and land
use decisions that are counter to many other desirable outcomes.

The mix of costs in time, labor, fuel, and real estate seem to work out
better in some ways if people move closer together around transportation
hubs.



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Until the American drivers as a whole learn to conserve, through
> > scheduling, car pooling, driving smaller cars and developing a mind
> > set of "can do" instead of blaming some one or something else for
> > their woes we will remain stuck in a cycle of high to low and back
> > again prices as well as moving from feast to famine and back.
> >
>
> American drivers already do those things to the extent practically
possible.
> Most people don't drive alone because they want to; it is because they
have
> to. No bus or carpool runs from the office to the grocery store to the day
> care to the bank to the post office, etc. No carpool carries your tools to
> and from the construction site (which changes every day), or carries the
> laundry, or drops your term paper off at the community college.
>
> Probably the stupidest thing America ever did was to destroy the railroad
> infrastructure. For some reason we decided that it was better to carry
> freight in trucks rather than on rail cars. Freight is now treated as if
it
> were human passengers, each with individual needs. Now transportation
> planners think the solution is to treat humans as if they were inanimate
> cargo. Neither of these ideas work, nor will they ever work.
>
>

So your saying that the pre-tax price of a gallon of regular unleaded (about
1.40) will go to about $2.40 per gallon?

By 30% you mean you want 3 to 1 odds?

Since I have no intentions of gambling on the internet, lets put up a
promise for Young Eagle's flights or something gentlemanly and aviation
oriented.

Say, I will do 30 if it goes that high, and you will do 10 if it does not?

I must warn you, according to the former governer of California, I may be
considered to be part of the "Energy Mafia".


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
...
> Goo points all, pac.
>
> for what it's worth?
>
> I'll give a 30% chance (at this time) that gas prices will
> rise another dollar per gallon before the election....
>
>
> Any takers?
>
>
> Richard

You may be right about this, but the value of the Yuan could likely collapse
before this all comes to fruition. Get your contracts in Dollars. USA may
not always be on top, but we will be have the least risk of falling to the
bottom of almost anyone.

In spite of ourselves, sometimes.


"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> Richard Lamb > wrote in message
>...
> > Goo points all, pac.
> >
> > for what it's worth?
> >
> > I'll give a 30% chance (at this time) that gas prices will
> > rise another dollar per gallon before the election....
> >
> >
> > Any takers?
> >
> >
> > Richard
>
> I'd bet you're pretty close. I've got an old 100 gallon truck tank
> sitting in the hangar, if I was ambitious I'd fill it up on the dips
> as a hedge against pump robbery. I've heard that China has an auto
> boom going which has no end in sight (more than a billion potential
> new drivers) causing the Chinese to snap up all the oil they can get
> their hands on. Me thinks this is a real bad omen for world oil
> market pricing. The chinese will be behind the wheel and we'll all be
> on bicycles like Vedub suggests. Oh well, it was fun being a
> motorhead while it lasted!
>
> pac "putt-putt Mo-ped" plyer