gas prices too high or too low?

hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
wagons because they are considered trucks....

a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
and safety standards as a passanger car

"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...1&article=6769

(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....

the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$



xenman > wrote in message >. ..
> On 9 Jun 2004 19:39:58 -0700, (ben) wrote:
>
> >Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> >for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices and if ya think
> >driving an SUV is unpatriotic? In my own mind its a complicated
> >question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> >the USA are dependent upon foreign oil). It was a topic that was sort
> >of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> >another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
> >
>
> SUV's are really no different that minivans and station wagons. On
> average they have more cargo carrying capability than sedans and
> as a result they consume more fuel. Some SUV are two wheel drive
> and some minivans and stations wagons are 4WD.
>
> So why does the news media continue to attack SUVs for poor
> fuel economy but ignore minivans and station wagons? Are they
> still going to attack them later this year when they start to have
> gasoline/electric hybrid engines?

if I wasn't such a nice guy, I might think:

1) ya drive a big old SUV to make up for sexual inadequacy,

2) or bet ya were a bully in school because it made ya feel like a big
important person,

3) or bet you are too dumb to make any reasonable intellectual
argument

but since I'm a nice guy and above all the childish name calling, I'll
leave ya with these thoughts...

gore is a typical politician (who lies for political gain, as all
politicans do), FYI I did not vote for him or clinton

second if ya like president bush jr ya have to realize in many
respects he will be considered to be much much much worst than clinton
(by future historians).

just think his moves to tear down the separation of church and state
is akin to what the taliban - this nation was set up so people could
live in a society free of a religious state church, with his
introduction of some ideas of religion (even though they may seem
moral and just), religious arguements tend to say one group is better
than another - look at the taliban their god was suppose to be
just.... I think it was president Lincoln hit the nail on the head
when he said how can the name of god be invoked by both sides (that
was of course during the civil war when both the north and south said
god was on their side)

second republicans (to be fare so are many politicans in democratic
party) are hypocrites, when they say they believe in the free market
system....

just think about their position on the current topic of SUVs, if they
had balls to stand up to corporate interests they could say that SUVs
should be treated just like CARS in the CAFE standards (if the playing
field were level, then the fleet of vehicles produced by the auto
makers would different since they would be taxed on producing
inefficent vehicles - there is a gas guzzler tax on cars that get poor
mileage, then should be one on SUVs), if people need a specific
vehicle for a particular use (like going off road) they would buy it
since they would use it and be willing to pay for it, the free market
would sort out what kind of vehicles get made in this case.

as it stands, auto makers produce lots of SUVs because of the CAFE
standard loophole,

"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...1&article=6769

then secondly the general public buy into the tough image of SUVs....

http://www.phaster.com/counter-ads/counter-suvs.html


(Harry Grogan) wrote in message . com>...
> (ben) wrote in message . com>...
> > Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> > for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices and if ya think
> > driving an SUV is unpatriotic? In my own mind its a complicated
> > question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> > the USA are dependent upon foreign oil). It was a topic that was sort
> > of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> > another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
>
>
> Just think,Alpha Male Gore said in his book the internal combustion
> engine is more of a threat to mankind than a nuclear weapon.He thought
> gas should be $5 a gallon.As for "SUV's" I'll drive what I damned well
> please.I'll squash your bicycle with my V-10 four wheel drive
> Excursion!!
> >
> >
> > http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/ar...patriotic.html
> >
> >
> > I just filled up my land cruiser and it took $100+, oh well its my toy
> > and its the only vehicle that can accomplish what I want it to do, so
> > I don't mind paying for the priviliage of driving the darn thing, but
> > with gas prices all over the news and oil prices now just dropping are
> > people going to ignore the recient gas price spike??????

if I wasn't such a nice guy, I might think:

1) ya drive a big old SUV to make up for sexual inadequacy,

2) or bet ya were a bully in school because it made ya feel like a big
important person,

3) or bet you are too dumb to make any reasonable intellectual
argument

but since I'm a nice guy and above all the childish name calling, I'll
leave ya with these thoughts...

gore is a typical politician (who lies for political gain, as all
politicans do), FYI I did not vote for him or clinton

second if ya like president bush jr ya have to realize in many
respects he will be considered to be much much much worst than clinton
(by future historians).

just think his moves to tear down the separation of church and state
is akin to what the taliban - this nation was set up so people could
live in a society free of a religious state church, with his
introduction of some ideas of religion (even though they may seem
moral and just), religious arguements tend to say one group is better
than another - look at the taliban their god was suppose to be
just.... I think it was president Lincoln hit the nail on the head
when he said how can the name of god be invoked by both sides (that
was of course during the civil war when both the north and south said
god was on their side)

second republicans (to be fare so are many politicans in democratic
party) are hypocrites, when they say they believe in the free market
system....

just think about their position on the current topic of SUVs, if they
had balls to stand up to corporate interests they could say that SUVs
should be treated just like CARS in the CAFE standards (if the playing
field were level, then the fleet of vehicles produced by the auto
makers would different since they would be taxed on producing
inefficent vehicles - there is a gas guzzler tax on cars that get poor
mileage, then should be one on SUVs), if people need a specific
vehicle for a particular use (like going off road) they would buy it
since they would use it and be willing to pay for it, the free market
would sort out what kind of vehicles get made in this case.

as it stands, auto makers produce lots of SUVs because of the CAFE
standard loophole,

"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...1&article=6769

then secondly the general public buy into the tough image of SUVs....

http://www.phaster.com/counter-ads/counter-suvs.html


(Harry Grogan) wrote in message . com>...
> (ben) wrote in message . com>...
> > Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> > for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices and if ya think
> > driving an SUV is unpatriotic? In my own mind its a complicated
> > question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> > the USA are dependent upon foreign oil). It was a topic that was sort
> > of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> > another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
>
>
> Just think,Alpha Male Gore said in his book the internal combustion
> engine is more of a threat to mankind than a nuclear weapon.He thought
> gas should be $5 a gallon.As for "SUV's" I'll drive what I damned well
> please.I'll squash your bicycle with my V-10 four wheel drive
> Excursion!!
> >
> >
> > http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/ar...patriotic.html
> >
> >
> > I just filled up my land cruiser and it took $100+, oh well its my toy
> > and its the only vehicle that can accomplish what I want it to do, so
> > I don't mind paying for the priviliage of driving the darn thing, but
> > with gas prices all over the news and oil prices now just dropping are
> > people going to ignore the recient gas price spike??????

> People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> you're just talking out of your ass.

Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a lot
of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not, this
country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate whether
it should be or not. Right now, it just is.

Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we were
willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer miles.
Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
thing.

Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about SUV's.
I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them as
often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most of
the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than their
share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> you're just talking out of your ass.

Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a lot
of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not, this
country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate whether
it should be or not. Right now, it just is.

Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we were
willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer miles.
Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
thing.

Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about SUV's.
I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them as
often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most of
the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than their
share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I'm not sure what the right price is, because it is a very complicated
issue, for example how does an economist value the harm caused by
pollution (there are some estimates, but it economics is not a hard
science unlike physics, where I can work out a solution and a second
party can confirm my exact calculation).

the national geo article said the real price of gas is about $4.00
bucks plus a gal, and just looking at the illustration I could think
of additional variable that would add to the cost, but I guess it is
as good of a 1st order approximation that one could agree upon.

doing a google search on a paper on the price of gas I found:

http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2000/09/28/

I should let it be know that not too long ago, I met the author of
this paper when he was in town (I get all kinds of journals and
worldwatch happens to be one of them), it was a most of the people
there were egg head types who worked at scripps and UCSD (don't know
why I got an invite but figure what the hey why not go for the food
and drinks).

to tell the truth I don't know that would be a fair and just price, I
just figure that it should be at least where it is now or higher.

as it stands the free market system is not in effect as far as gas
prices are concerned (most of the general public would not be able to
live their current life style if they had to pay the fair cost of gas,
they have grown addicted to oil)

when ya think about it critically the problem is akin to a drug
addiction, at some point we need to kick our national addiction to oil
and I think it would be better if we slowly learn to live within our
means rather than let external forces make changes for us, in
economics there are two sides of the equation supply and demand (I
think it best in the national interest to work on the lowering the
demand).

if it were up to me, I would make it a law that everyone one else pay
that higher price (and adjust it for inflation) the exclude myself
from paying anything for gas (ya know kind of like how congress
excludes itself from many laws it passes, for example I think they
have a separate retirement system, medical system, etc.).




"charliew2" > wrote in message >...
> Sgt. Sausage wrote:
> > "ben" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> >> for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices
> >
> > Which thoughts exactly?
> >
> > Relative to the world, I think we're far to low on
> > gas prices.
> >
> > Relative to past domestic prices, taking into
> > consideration inflation, I still think we're too low.
> >
> > On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> > high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> > to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> > price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> > a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> > to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> > current prices to that "ideal" price.
> >
>
> (cut)
>
> I've seen this type of thinking before, though not expressed so explicitly.
> If you could indulge me a bit, please take a bit of time to think about the
> "ideal" price and try to tell me why that particular price is ideal.

I'm not sure what the right price is, because it is a very complicated
issue, for example how does an economist value the harm caused by
pollution (there are some estimates, but it economics is not a hard
science unlike physics, where I can work out a solution and a second
party can confirm my exact calculation).

the national geo article said the real price of gas is about $4.00
bucks plus a gal, and just looking at the illustration I could think
of additional variable that would add to the cost, but I guess it is
as good of a 1st order approximation that one could agree upon.

doing a google search on a paper on the price of gas I found:

http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2000/09/28/

I should let it be know that not too long ago, I met the author of
this paper when he was in town (I get all kinds of journals and
worldwatch happens to be one of them), it was a most of the people
there were egg head types who worked at scripps and UCSD (don't know
why I got an invite but figure what the hey why not go for the food
and drinks).

to tell the truth I don't know that would be a fair and just price, I
just figure that it should be at least where it is now or higher.

as it stands the free market system is not in effect as far as gas
prices are concerned (most of the general public would not be able to
live their current life style if they had to pay the fair cost of gas,
they have grown addicted to oil)

when ya think about it critically the problem is akin to a drug
addiction, at some point we need to kick our national addiction to oil
and I think it would be better if we slowly learn to live within our
means rather than let external forces make changes for us, in
economics there are two sides of the equation supply and demand (I
think it best in the national interest to work on the lowering the
demand).

if it were up to me, I would make it a law that everyone one else pay
that higher price (and adjust it for inflation) the exclude myself
from paying anything for gas (ya know kind of like how congress
excludes itself from many laws it passes, for example I think they
have a separate retirement system, medical system, etc.).




"charliew2" > wrote in message >...
> Sgt. Sausage wrote:
> > "ben" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> >> for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices
> >
> > Which thoughts exactly?
> >
> > Relative to the world, I think we're far to low on
> > gas prices.
> >
> > Relative to past domestic prices, taking into
> > consideration inflation, I still think we're too low.
> >
> > On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> > high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> > to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> > price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> > a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> > to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> > current prices to that "ideal" price.
> >
>
> (cut)
>
> I've seen this type of thinking before, though not expressed so explicitly.
> If you could indulge me a bit, please take a bit of time to think about the
> "ideal" price and try to tell me why that particular price is ideal.

Brian-

Where the heck are you living that gas was $1.20 in '81? I started driving
in '87 and I clearly remember paying around 87 cents per gallon then.

-Dave

"Default User" > wrote in message
<snip>
> He he. All the talk about gas prices amuse me. When I hired in to the
> cumpnee in 1981, gas prices were about $1.20 or so, and I made about 1/3
> of what I do now. That didn't stop me from buying my 1980 Blazer.
> Brian Rodenborn

Brian-

Where the heck are you living that gas was $1.20 in '81? I started driving
in '87 and I clearly remember paying around 87 cents per gallon then.

-Dave

"Default User" > wrote in message
<snip>
> He he. All the talk about gas prices amuse me. When I hired in to the
> cumpnee in 1981, gas prices were about $1.20 or so, and I made about 1/3
> of what I do now. That didn't stop me from buying my 1980 Blazer.
> Brian Rodenborn

>>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
>>you're just talking out of your ass.

Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
transportation is about three mile away.

If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to drive.

Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
they don't NEED to drive?

r

Ron Tipton
Dragonhome.org