Pickens, energy investor, predicts oil may soon reach $150 a barrel.
He says the depletion of producing wells will be sustained by the new wells at 85 million barrels daily.
Demand for oil is increasing at 1.4% or 1.19 M barrels yearly.
There are non governmental predictions that gasoline will reach near $5.00 a gallon by this fall.
$14 oil gave us gasoline under 30 cents a gallon.
30 cent a dozen eggs now $2. a dozen gave us chicken poop in our water.
Does this indicate a robust economy or runaway inflation?
Explain how the Federal Reserve's policies are at play here.
I suggested here last fall that $5 gallon gasoline might be a good thing for America and as we approach that figure there are some positive outcomes emerging.
*The head of GM suddenly reverses the company mantra that electric cars, hybrids and smaller cars are not feasible. GM now is moving quickly to bring the Volt to market, which is stimulating efforts for more durable, effective battery drive systems. He was quite impressed with the Tesla performance and its pre-production sales. Now GM has spread its hybrid drives across their platform even including the ever popular Tahoe SUV. Ford is also on board.
*People are tiring of long commutes from inconvenient suburban neighborhoods that are not served by mass transit and thus have created an expensive car based lifestyles. I doubt the Cherry Street/Pearl/Brookside infill projects are anomalies. Momentum and school districts will continue to feed suburban housing as Realtors/Builders are in the same situation that GM was in with the larger profits that came from SUV's in spite of the fact they were gas hog dinosaurs. The move to economical inner city living is real. Once again we in Tulsa are behind the curve compared with our sister city 90miles away but we're coming around.
*We are starting to see the lunacy of converting food to fuel just to maintain lifestyles based on SUV's and remote, high status housing. Expect to see fewer vehicles per family and more locally grown food.
Its really exciting because there are more than these three and more to come. Politics, education, health care and transportation are all due giant changes. We have always needed drastic events to effect change in this country. 911, Pearl Harbor, stock market crashes, fuel shortages, influenza, etc. Out of each of those came changes that redirected our efforts. $5 gallon gas is an opportunity.
Sure there's some opportunity to $5.00 per gallon fuel, but the negative impact will far outweigh the positive. There are far-reaching implications to the economy, especially in retail and tourism- where much discretionary income gets spent.
Those who will take it the hardest will be middle class on down. Vacations will be cancelled, discretionary spending is going to dwindle just to keep the car running to get back and forth to work.
I fail to see much optimism in this for the average work-a-day Joe or Jane.
Something's going to have to happen anyway.
Let's face it: There's a finite amount of oil in the ground. There will be price fluctuations, but in the long haul it's clear the price will keep going up. That happens when you have trouble getting enough of it.
I know there are still number of people, albeit dwindling, who think it's a conspiracy by the oil companies. But the signs that worldwide production is flattening have been there for years. Saudi Arabia, the big dog in oil, has been warning for years that it simply is not able to crank out as much as it used to.
Yep, it's going to be somewhat painful. But we and the rest of the world are going to have to suck it up, find alternatives and start altering lifestyles a bit. We don't have a choice. People are going to have to stop living a bazillion miles from work. They're going to have to stop driving 15-miles-per-gallon behemoths as primary transportation.
I'm as middle-class as they come, and I started such energy-conservation changes a decade ago because I saw it was coming. And you know what? It wasn't that difficult.
As a whole, I'm optimistic that solutions will come. Great strides are being made with batteries that can run cars. Great strides are being made with the cost-efficiencies of solar. Ditto for wind power design.
There will be challenges as energy gets more costly. But there will be a lot of opportunities, too. The middle class and the poor will feel the impact the most. But America has dealt with more daunting situations before and emerged. It will again.
So adding ethanol to the fuel system (Thinning the gas out) really did not decrease the rate that gasoline cost. Why is that?
I don't think its the middle class that is going to be bothered with it, its the working class and poor that will. Most of those suburbanites arent going to care either, they are middle class and can afford it. Some of them may decide to get a more fuel efficient vehicle, but thats about it.
quote:
shaodows wrote
Does this indicate a robust economy or runaway inflation?
Neither. Thank you for once again putting your ignorance on display. Our inflation rate is somewhere below 10%. It might be as high as 7%, but it is not in the "runaway" area but a long shot. The inflation rate over the last 15 years averages around 4.5%, exactly where we would want it to be.
Currently inflation is being pegged by two major forces. 1) The price of oil and 2) the weakening US Dollar. Of the two the price of oil is the most concerning as it has no positive effect (weak dollar helps exports, encourages travel to the US, and makes the cost of doing business here cheap for foreign investors - THINK OUTSOURCING of Japanese jobs). Oil just flat out makes everything more expensive across the board... the only positive is it will wean us off oil in the long run.
If you want "runaway inflation" go to Zimbabwe or the Congo. Where your $2 a dozen eggs will cost $2,300 by the end of the year. THATS runaway inflation.
Though, the Feds recent policies have not made me happy.
- - -
Artist: I agree with you for the most part. The middle class will be able to afford our gas. BUT, we will have to cut back on other things. The overall effect of this is bad news for everyone - including the middle class.
And corn based ethanol is a joke. The energy inputs are far too high compared to the yield to be a truely viable alternative to oil.
Hopefully the price of oil gives us a kick in the pants towards more Amtrak service and the development of high speed rail.
There's no more fuel efficient way to travel.
Here in Tulsa we have few options other than driving or flying (unless you count taking the Greyhound, which usually takes many times longer than driving, not to mention the extremely sketchy nature of greyhound passengers).
Airfares aren't going down. With fewer airlines and higher fuel prices we're gonna start seeing much higher prices for air travel.
Thumbs up on this post. I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Something's going to have to happen anyway.
Let's face it: There's a finite amount of oil in the ground. There will be price fluctuations, but in the long haul it's clear the price will keep going up. That happens when you have trouble getting enough of it.
I know there are still number of people, albeit dwindling, who think it's a conspiracy by the oil companies. But the signs that worldwide production is flattening have been there for years. Saudi Arabia, the big dog in oil, has been warning for years that it simply is not able to crank out as much as it used to.
Yep, it's going to be somewhat painful. But we and the rest of the world are going to have to suck it up, find alternatives and start altering lifestyles a bit. We don't have a choice. People are going to have to stop living a bazillion miles from work. They're going to have to stop driving 15-miles-per-gallon behemoths as primary transportation.
I'm as middle-class as they come, and I started such energy-conservation changes a decade ago because I saw it was coming. And you know what? It wasn't that difficult.
As a whole, I'm optimistic that solutions will come. Great strides are being made with batteries that can run cars. Great strides are being made with the cost-efficiencies of solar. Ditto for wind power design.
There will be challenges as energy gets more costly. But there will be a lot of opportunities, too. The middle class and the poor will feel the impact the most. But America has dealt with more daunting situations before and emerged. It will again.
CF quoted: Thank you for once again putting your ignorance on display. Our inflation rate is somewhere below 10%. It might be as high as 7%, but it is not in the "runaway" area but (did you mean "by")a long shot. The inflation rate over the last 15 years averages around 4.5%, exactly where we would want it to be.
Good buddy I do not question that you are very intelligent and have an unlimited source of information but when you start spreading that inflation is 4.5% BS I assume that Monroe calculator you are using to come up with that figure needs a few squirts of sewing machine oil on the gears. You can buy a digital calculator at a flee market for a $1 dollar that will give you some update information.
"Weak dollar" is the political excuse for run-away-inflation. The trade with China where they are buying our recyclable throw-a-ways and sending them back here as a completed product, then they are taking our weak dollar and competing with us for the oil products. This has allowed them to enter into the auto buying market and compete with us for the gasoline while we spend our time on entertainment like the Greeks and the Romans did. I am not aware what world you live in but does it have pink clouds on the horizon all the time?
Ok, when you start talking about our historical rate of inflation being acceptable, that is where I get sick to my stomach.
The idea that we accept *ANY* sort of inflation as "normal" is insane. Think about how large the US Economy is, and even larger the scope of the entire monetary system using the dollar is. Debaseing something that huge by 4.5% a year (which is a compounding amount over time) is downright criminal.
Shadows is also trying to make the point that real world inflation is much higher than the crooks in charge will report in official numbers. The reality is that over about the last 5 years, the prices of many necessities have doubled or tripled. Energy being the biggest part of this, but also food, housing, education, and medical care. There might be other areas of the economy offering better value and lower price increases, but for people on lower incomes, those few basic areas encapsulate their entire living. Plasma TVs might be cheap and abundant, yard labor is affordable, and forum spammers are a dime a dozen, but the EFFECTIVE inflation rate for people who can't afford to even consider those luxuries is nowhere near as low as Bernanke and Bush want everyone to keep fooling themselves into believing.
In theory, a fiat money system regulated by a brilliant team of economists and banks will be able to survive, and provide a stable system free of panics and depressions. Inflation, however, is the very proof that they are not doing their jobs correctly, and instead have chosen to defraud the citizenry. Yes, as the world fills up with more people, more goods and services are being produced and rendered, as more innovative techniques and technologies are concieved, there is more VALUE in the system and thus, it would make sense, for there to be more MONEY in the system. What INFLATION is, is when the Fed Reserve doesn't just put that new value into the system, they put in many times more new dollars than the actual increase in value has been.
That excess new money in the system isn't an accident, however. It is by design. Because by this design, the wealthy have first use of the new money (in the form of loans so cheap they might as well be free), the government gets unlimited spending capabilities, and needless consumption will continue indefinitely. This is all available to them by the ability to devalue your savings, and pass massive inflation along to you.
That is a pretty messed up system to just accept as "normal".
What this all comes down to with the price of oil is the fact that yes, the VALUE of oil is going up somewhat, due to demand pressures such as China, and worries about peak oil. But the only reason the PRICE has gone up so much is the exposure of the Fed Reserve's inflationary tactics to the world oil market. The petrodollar scheme set up when Nixon ended the gold standard was bound to backfire at some point.
YoungTulsan... while not "devaluing" your comments as many of them are on point, the fact is a successful capitalistic economy needs "controlled" infaltion to be successful. We all have some inflationary expectations built in to our phsycology... you would expect to make more in 5 years than today right? You would expect, or maybe hope is the better word now, that you house is worth more in the future than now. You make decisions to invest your money in a way that builds wealth correct? All fo these things have an infaltionary aspect to them. Capitalism has 2 main enemies, "hyper"inflation and deflation. Hence the reason the Fed would like to be able to target 1-2% infaltion.... enough to make things worth more but not enough to debase their value. Targeting zero inflation would invite deflation... and we do NOT want deflation. I am not arguing that we do not have problems and that many of those problems can be attributed to excess leverage (debt) or acknowledging that debtors that attempt to pay of that debt with devalued money run the risk of causing uncomfortable high inflation but, it is a bit of a stretch to look at our economy and make the call for hyperinflation. When breaking down the components of CPI the single largest parts of the number is tied to housing and labor.... and those parts of our economy are suffering from at best disinflation, at worst actual deflation, which when combined with higher energy and food costs leads to a much lower number on overall inflation. In addition, the history of the Fed has been to strip out food and energy costs as they are too volitile to make monetary decisions based on short term movements in these components. This "core" CPI number is currently running at just over 2%... Sooner or later if food and energy stay higher for long enough this will bleed over into the core number but if they decline then it will not be an issue. I tend to believe that inflation will be more of a problem but not until housing and labor join the party.
As to your other point of the government "masking" actual infaltion. I must admit I have a bit of cynism like you. The fact is their are a huge amount of entitlement programs tied to the reported CPI which puts the government in aposition to want that rate to be as low as possible.
Young Tulsan: After reading your post I assumed you took in account that the downtown elitist will band you from their turf. You describe inflation in words that are understandable to the working poor.
I built a house in what is now midtown Tulsa in 1947.
The loan value was $5250. The payments were $28 a month including escrow account. After weathering and surviving Oklahoma storms and renting the house of which the interior reflects a disaster, the market value is established at 9 times the original cost of construction, the taxes are $46 a month. Is this inflation or increased value? Is this an antique of gross inflation after the dollar was floated?
At the rate of compounded inflation those in their twenties who want to retire at 70, will be required to have in their savings near a million dollars to maintain the living standard they enjoy today.
Inflation was capped during WWII by government freezing the value, including wages, on a closed monetary system. After the war in a period of adjustment, private companies who entered into the political circus, looked at their employee pension plans and laid the ground work for our socialistic way of devaluating these pensions through inflation.
Four airlines ask for protection in one week. One would assume the retired WW2 pilots that flew for the airlines, now drawing their pension, has increased contributions to the fund to where it along with the fuel increases make fare increases their only choice thus more inflation.
Government pensions is another story.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
CF quoted: Thank you for once again putting your ignorance on display. Our inflation rate is somewhere below 10%. It might be as high as 7%, but it is not in the "runaway" area but (did you mean "by")a long shot. The inflation rate over the last 15 years averages around 4.5%, exactly where we would want it to be.
Good buddy I do not question that you are very intelligent and have an unlimited source of information but when you start spreading that inflation is 4.5% BS I assume that Monroe calculator you are using to come up with that figure needs a few squirts of sewing machine oil on the gears. You can buy a digital calculator at a flee market for a $1 dollar that will give you some update information.
"Weak dollar" is the political excuse for run-away-inflation. The trade with China where they are buying our recyclable throw-a-ways and sending them back here as a completed product, then they are taking our weak dollar and competing with us for the oil products. This has allowed them to enter into the auto buying market and compete with us for the gasoline while we spend our time on entertainment like the Greeks and the Romans did. I am not aware what world you live in but does it have pink clouds on the horizon all the time?
Pretty damn lucid post there Shadows, I gotta say your Monroe calculator comment was the best laugh I had all day.
You're right, I'm off on my inflation number. I was too high:
(http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/images/charts/Articles/DecadeInflation.jpg)
YoungTulsan, I understand your concern with inflation but it is a fact in a currency based economy. For that matter, it was a fact in gold based economies too. In anything but a barter system inflation occurs and if managed is healthy for an economy.
But I agree that management of inflation and keeping it under the 4.5% range is very important to the economy. But going under 2% is considered bad for the economy. And deflation starts a death spiral.
quote:
Shadows saidInflation was capped during WWII by government freezing the value, including wages, on a closed monetary system. After the war in a period of adjustment, private companies who entered into the political circus, looked at their employee pension plans and laid the ground work for our socialistic way of devaluating these pensions through inflation.
While I appreciate your comments Shadows, they are just wrong. The data clearly indicates a higher rate of inflation during WWII than most other periods, including the post war era you blamed for devaluing pensions.
That is not hard to explain, during the war the government issued itself unlimited credit and created vast amounts of new wealth.
However, I agree with you rover riding assertion that rising oil prices and the weak dollar are concerns for the US economy. Coupled with the Federal Reserves release of capital inflation is a real concern for me. Thanks for the discussion on this matter.
Interesting to note that in looking at the above chart... the worst economic period for this country was in the decades of the 20's (albeit late 20's) and 30's.... periods with the lowest inflation and in fact the only periods with deflation.
Infaltion is bad... but deflation is worse. The Fed has many more tools to fight inflation than deflation. And Shadows, to offer that the answer is for the government to freeze wages, prices and close the monetary system is laughable.
On another note.... the Federal Highwway Administration released preliminary numbers yesterday that indicated for the first time in decades the actual miles driven and gasoline usage was DOWN in 2007. In addition, public transportation ridership was at a 50 year high. Consumers are never happy about having to make changes to their habits but it would appear that we are doing just that.
In addition, car sales in the US were down 8% in the first quarter and SUV sales were down 27%.
Having been attacked here for saying inflation, counting energy and food, was running near %9 in August 2007, I will go out on a limb and say that it could reach double digits this summer. I will not buy our lying governments statistics especially in an election year.
I do think our dollar has bottomed but it may take several periods before it helps to lower the cost of oil per barrel. The further chaos in Iraq will not help.
The dynamics of the "middle" class are changing. Energy and food are only one component. Declining house values, spiraling down more today than during the depression at %30 in many areas, only adds to the complexity of the definition.
Tulsans are fortunate. Most of the country is in a tail spin. Our middle class here will keep on churning due to oil and aerospace jobs. Elsewhere, the majority of middle class is being morphed into the upper lower class. The situation gets exacerbated upon another big hic cup in the financial sector. The Fed has no where else to run with rates without creating a new dollar bottom.
There is still major hurt to follow from Boone Picky and his flock who just are enjoying the ride. A retroactive windfall profits tax should be implemented immediately to offset our decaying infrastructure. It would help the psyche of our country as well. Not likely with their pals in the White House. 8 years of conflicting interests and bad policy from Bushco find us here now.
Summer will be long, hot and very expensive both in our pocket books and to our environment. Our air here will be monstrous. The big greedy oil barons and the huge refiners and polluters should reimburse the "middle" and "lower" class for their windfall at the expense of others' misery and angst. It might help save the republic in the long run.
[edit]FOTD was right, I over reacted. [/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If you got hurt, you either weren't paying attention, were wholly ignorant, or thought you could ride the wave and get off before it crashed. Sloth, ignorance, or greed.
You say this like everyone who owns a home just does it for the investment purposes. People do need to LIVE in homes, you know? Regular people who had nothing to do with the housing market madness shouldn't have to pack up and move their families just because Greenspan and Bush wanted to artificially stimulate more consumption and construction that really wasn't necessary or warranted.
CF, you turned my suggestion on equalization into a personal attack. I am willing to sacrafice some of my windfall profits towards the real priorities of our fellow citizens in dire straights and towards our decaying situation at home....
What suggestions do you have to help give a hand up to the hundreds of thousands getting trounced by Bushenomics?
Also, If Exxon/Chevron/Conoco lose the lease to the Alaska gas field because they have failed 22 times to implement a plan for a pipeline, what does that do for the price per barrel?
The big oilies manipulate the markets. Believe it or not.
quote:
Originally posted by bokworker
YoungTulsan... while not "devaluing" your comments as many of them are on point, the fact is a successful capitalistic economy needs "controlled" infaltion to be successful. We all have some inflationary expectations built in to our phsycology... you would expect to make more in 5 years than today right?
"Built in to our psychology" only because we have to live with the repercussions of the system as it exists. Just because we are conditioned to it doesn't make it right.
You might expect to make more money 5 years from now, because your VALUE as a worker should increase as you gain experience. It shouldn't just be because of cost-of-living inflation increases. If you work for someone, they should pay you what your value to the company is. If you run a company, your company will make more money year-over-year if they increase the efficiency of the business model, or acquire new customers. This just expecting to make more over time just "because", seems almost like a subconscious form of entitlement.
quote:
You would expect, or maybe hope is the better word now, that you house is worth more in the future than now.
Yes. Home improvements add value. Better infrastructure of the community adds value. Desirable entertainment and recreation opportunities popping up nearby add value. The value rises as there is more demand to live where you live. In contrast, if you live somewhere where the infrastructure is decaying, you aren't putting any money into improving your home, and there is no increase in demand to live where you do, why should your home's price go up "just because" ?
quote:
You make decisions to invest your money in a way that builds wealth correct? All fo these things have an infaltionary aspect to them. Capitalism has 2 main enemies, "hyper"inflation and deflation. Hence the reason the Fed would like to be able to target 1-2% infaltion.... enough to make things worth more but not enough to debase their value. Targeting zero inflation would invite deflation... and we do NOT want deflation.
I agree that deflation is even worse, but a crazy deflation scenario is only POSSIBLE because of the "all money is based on debt" system that we have right now thanks to the Federal Reserve Act. Right now, when production stops (Less new stuff to borrow more money against), the money supply either drys up, or the Fed Reserve has to inflate a bunch of money based on nothing to correct the problem. Yes, it is possible for a hard money economy to dry up as well, by people hoarding money and refusing to spend it, but I think the very nature of our economy and lifestyle today would keep people from doing that. They want to buy things, eat things, experience things. The threat of a deflationary depression is like the fire under our butts to keep perpetually consuming more and more year over year. That cannot continue ad infinitum. Eventually our monetary system will have to transition to something different, or it will simply collapse and implode. We should make changes now, while we are still living somewhat comfortably and peacefully (compared to what would happen in a collapse).
quote:
I am not arguing that we do not have problems and that many of those problems can be attributed to excess leverage (debt) or acknowledging that debtors that attempt to pay of that debt with devalued money run the risk of causing uncomfortable high inflation but, it is a bit of a stretch to look at our economy and make the call for hyperinflation. When breaking down the components of CPI the single largest parts of the number is tied to housing and labor.... and those parts of our economy are suffering from at best disinflation, at worst actual deflation, which when combined with higher energy and food costs leads to a much lower number on overall inflation. In addition, the history of the Fed has been to strip out food and energy costs as they are too volitile to make monetary decisions based on short term movements in these components. This "core" CPI number is currently running at just over 2%... Sooner or later if food and energy stay higher for long enough this will bleed over into the core number but if they decline then it will not be an issue. I tend to believe that inflation will be more of a problem but not until housing and labor join the party.
CPI simply isn't a cost of living index, or an index of inflation. If you leave out food and energy, don't use it as a measure for people's costs of living.
quote:
As to your other point of the government "masking" actual infaltion. I must admit I have a bit of cynism like you. The fact is their are a huge amount of entitlement programs tied to the reported CPI which puts the government in aposition to want that rate to be as low as possible.
Now you are talking smart. Look to the motivating factors and it explains why there is so much pressure for them to release data that is simply untrue.
You're right FOTD, I over reacted to your post. I have edited my post accordingly.
Instead of a retroactive tax on success, increase the cost of access to publicly owned assets. They want new leases in the Gulf and are getting them at record bid prices. Raking in billions for the fed.
Open up bidding to all who come off the coast of the #1 and #3 users of oil: Florida and California. The revenue for the states would be huge, the revenue for the fed equally. Oil prices would fall. The profits made on those fields get double taxed (at the wellhead and as a profit) and we create JOBS.
Same with Alaska. Open it up to bidding. By the time the field is developed we won't need a new pipeline because the Alaska pipeline will not be operate at capacity anyway.
THEN, take that money we receive in venture profits (selling un-utilized federal assets) and use it for alternative energy. Stream line nuclear power initiatives to provide a safe and viable alternative. Provide inducement prices and grants for viable alternative energy projects. You want a viable electric car?
Award a Federal Contract to buy 10,000 Federal Vehicles per year for the first 5 years for the first manufacturer who offers a vehicle that is:
1) Entirely Electric
2) 120 miles range (3 times the daily average)
3) Over night recharging
4) Meets federal safety standards
5) 70 MPH minimum top speed
Gear the contract so it must be manufactured in the USA. $40,000 per vehicle for the first year. $38, 36, 34, and finally $32,000 in the 5th year. At the end of year 5 the winning patents expire and are public domain (the winning company should have leg up on the competition AND would have had a nice payoff anyway).
That would bring the price into the realm of reality for many people and hopefully funding the research and providing the demand for the start up.
That's $1.8 Billion over 5 years. The government gets something, spurs industry, and encourages research in a direction we desire. Inducement prizes work, with the buying power of the Fed as an inducement the American people get something for the money both as a purchase AND the result.
Those are the initiatives I would like to see. Not taxing private interests because of success and other policies that just punish the status quo instead of inducing people to change it.
Why doesn't the government just keep a royalty interest? It would amount to a lot more than a meager 1.8 billion dollars.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Pickens, energy investor, predicts oil may soon reach $150 a barrel.
He says the depletion of producing wells will be sustained by the new wells at 85 million barrels daily.
Demand for oil is increasing at 1.4% or 1.19 M barrels yearly.
There are non governmental predictions that gasoline will reach near $5.00 a gallon by this fall.
$14 oil gave us gasoline under 30 cents a gallon.
30 cent a dozen eggs now $2. a dozen gave us chicken poop in our water.
Does this indicate a robust economy or runaway inflation?
My theory is that Pickens is just an astute businessman (and snake) trying to elicit a self-fulfilling prophecy on the price of oil. Don't burn me alive here, as this is just my personal theory. He is portrayed as an "expert" on the oil industry and oil prices, which he indeed is by most accounts. However, facts reported by experts tend to ingrain themselves in human psychology as being true, undeniable, and inevitable facts. "Experts" are not seen as having a vested interest in the facts they report. The way I see it, Pickens often reports projections of oil prices as early as possible to reduce the long-term "shock" factor. In effect, he is attempting to decrease the price elasticity of oil in the United States. I have no facts whatsoever to back that up, but I want to explore it further.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why doesn't the government just keep a royalty interest? It would amount to a lot more than a meager 1.8 billion dollars.
Because the value to the public is more than the $1.8 Billion or any other licensing fee. Government research is best utilized in the public domain. Hording the information and releasing it only to paying industry members lends itself to corruption and under utilization of the resource.
Basically, if the public funds the research they should all be able to bennefit from it - especially since the point of this en devour was to get a no-emissions car on the road. The tactic outlined above would encourage major participants to advance towards the desired goal and provide a return to the most successful. It would then free up the information for the utilization by anyone who can use it, thus providing a fair return for the winner and a competitive chance for everyone else (and the market).
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Pickens, energy investor, predicts oil may soon reach $150 a barrel.
He says the depletion of producing wells will be sustained by the new wells at 85 million barrels daily.
Demand for oil is increasing at 1.4% or 1.19 M barrels yearly.
There are non governmental predictions that gasoline will reach near $5.00 a gallon by this fall.
$14 oil gave us gasoline under 30 cents a gallon.
30 cent a dozen eggs now $2. a dozen gave us chicken poop in our water.
Does this indicate a robust economy or runaway inflation?
My theory is that Pickens is just an astute businessman (and snake) trying to elicit a self-fulfilling prophecy on the price of oil. Don't burn me alive here, as this is just my personal theory. He is portrayed as an "expert" on the oil industry and oil prices, which he indeed is by most accounts. However, facts reported by experts tend to ingrain themselves in human psychology as being true, undeniable, and inevitable facts. "Experts" are not seen as having a vested interest in the facts they report. The way I see it, Pickens often reports projections of oil prices as early as possible to reduce the long-term "shock" factor. In effect, he is attempting to decrease the price elasticity of oil in the United States. I have no facts whatsoever to back that up, but I want to explore it further.
I think that is probably a very good assessment of the situation. I did hear on the radio a minute ago that Pickens thinks we need to switch to natural gas as the primary fuel if we are to become energy independent. Is NG his dog in the race?
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Pickens, energy investor, predicts oil may soon reach $150 a barrel.
He says the depletion of producing wells will be sustained by the new wells at 85 million barrels daily.
Demand for oil is increasing at 1.4% or 1.19 M barrels yearly.
There are non governmental predictions that gasoline will reach near $5.00 a gallon by this fall.
$14 oil gave us gasoline under 30 cents a gallon.
30 cent a dozen eggs now $2. a dozen gave us chicken poop in our water.
Does this indicate a robust economy or runaway inflation?
My theory is that Pickens is just an astute businessman (and snake) trying to elicit a self-fulfilling prophecy on the price of oil. Don't burn me alive here, as this is just my personal theory. He is portrayed as an "expert" on the oil industry and oil prices, which he indeed is by most accounts. However, facts reported by experts tend to ingrain themselves in human psychology as being true, undeniable, and inevitable facts. "Experts" are not seen as having a vested interest in the facts they report. The way I see it, Pickens often reports projections of oil prices as early as possible to reduce the long-term "shock" factor. In effect, he is attempting to decrease the price elasticity of oil in the United States. I have no facts whatsoever to back that up, but I want to explore it further.
I think that is probably a very good assessment of the situation. I did hear on the radio a minute ago that Pickens thinks we need to switch to natural gas as the primary fuel if we are to become energy independent. Is NG his dog in the race?
T. Boone has said within the last couple of years that he's making far more speculating and trading energy than he ever did producing it.
When T. Boone starts talking about oil or gas markets, he's got the kind of clout Greenspan does when he lets out a fart. I promise you, anything that man says at this point is self-serving. (no pun with the KU basketball coach intended).
Self-serving, LOL :)
I cannot understand the chart that shows only about 30% compounded inflation over the 1940-2007 area. I cannot understand who would publish such a facts. In 1940 gold was pegged at $20 now over $900 and the currency was issued by government and fed banks in silver certificates now it is only a mass production of a paper promise. Politically we encourage inflation as it decreases the wealth of the poor and increased the wealth of the rich.
In the postwar area one had to pay 20% down in cash on credit purchases if I remember correctly.
I have a check lying on the desk for natural gas production. The wellhead price that was paid in the 40's and in today's wellhead market, is many times the 30% compounded inflation rate of the chart. In our wobbling economy one must admit that all barters of exchange equalize themselves and are relative to each other.
A three wheel car was developed in a friend's machine shop. It was electric driven with a small Honda engine that drove a standby generator to recharge the batteries if they failed away from home base. Senators looked at its performance and said "we will look into it." The last time I saw it it was suspended from the ceiling of a building.
First, I appreciate your effort in making your post easier for everyone else to read.
Second, inflation on several commodity items is up way more than the average. Inflation is the value of currency as a whole, so for the increase in Gold there is an offsetting decrease computer equipment, and so on. The NET result is a fairly low rate of inflation (not sure if that chart is compounding by period or not).
The data from the chart appears accurate by all other sources:
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx
http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp (really clear on this one).
With diesel fuel now over $4.00 per gallon, we have not yet seen the end of what transportation costs will do to inflationary pressures on consumer goods.
One of our pipe vendors advised us yesterday that global demand for steel is about to create an allotment system and pecking order which is only going to drive prices on many manufactured items even higher.
I'm not trying to paint all doom and gloom, but for saying high gas prices are good is somewhat glib. Sure it will get people to think about their consumption but it's not good for everyone and will disproportionately hurt the poor and working class. It's also going to have a noticeable impact on travel and tourism this summer.
Don't apologize for reporting doom and gloom if it's the truth.
T. Boone was quoted in this morning's World as natural gas being at $14.00 per mcf by this summer and potentially at $20.00 per mcf next winter. FYI- spot market price is around $10.50 right now. Add rougly $2.00 to get your final delivered cost.
I can't see any reason for this other than energy traders escalating the prices by buying and selling to each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
With diesel fuel now over $4.00 per gallon, we have not yet seen the end of what transportation costs will do to inflationary pressures on consumer goods.
One of our pipe vendors advised us yesterday that global demand for steel is about to create an allotment system and pecking order which is only going to drive prices on many manufactured items even higher.
I'm not trying to paint all doom and gloom, but for saying high gas prices are good is somewhat glib. Sure it will get people to think about their consumption but it's not good for everyone and will disproportionately hurt the poor and working class. It's also going to have a noticeable impact on travel and tourism this summer.
This isn't the first time (post WWII) that our country has suffered through shortages, rising prices, and even allotments. Each time we survived and found better ways to do so. Really, it wasn't that long ago that I got my first job out of college directly created by the Fed's insistence that oil companies fairly distribute gasoline to jobbers and retail stations. My job was to monitor allocations of fuels and report such to the FEO.
Meanwhile full service retail stations that had gasl were refusing to sell gasoline to all but their best, recognizable customers. Long lines and fights ensued. But we made it ok and cars got smaller, more efficient and standards for mileage were established. Each of the other staple type manufacturers saw an opportunity as well and sugar, coffee and flour suddenly shot up in price. Even water was allocated due to shortages. Thus, the 70's was a difficult time for most of the country fiscally. That decade culminated with outrageous stagflation, worldwide political turmoil and even the monster volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helen's. We had a war we were getting out of too that had enabled a tremendous influx of drugs to metropolitan areas.
No party or congress was able to stop this stuff either. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Carter. And I don't give Reagan much credit either (sorry Conan). It was just one hell of a decade that ran its course as we adjusted to new realities. But somehow we did okay and even prospered. I got a good job, bought a Corvette, my first house and my first child. Tulsa really didn't feel anything till '82. In fact someone noted here that the inflation adjusted price of gasoline only recently matched the price in 1973. So similar to today that it is uncanny.
quote:
waterboy said
I got a good job, bought a Corvette, my first house and my first child
How much was your first child. [:P]
Higher prices leads to greater efficiency. It's the American way.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
waterboy said
I got a good job, bought a Corvette, my first house and my first child
How much was your first child. [:P]
Higher prices leads to greater efficiency. It's the American way.
He was the most expensive one. The down payment wasn't much, but the operating costs were staggering. Damn steep learning curve.[;)] Odd that his first job is in the oil industry and he seems destined to face the same kind of decade at the same age I did.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
T. Boone was quoted in this morning's World as natural gas being at $14.00 per mcf by this summer and potentially at $20.00 per mcf next winter. FYI- spot market price is around $10.50 right now. Add rougly $2.00 to get your final delivered cost.
I can't see any reason for this other than energy traders escalating the prices by buying and selling to each other.
Is he talking about the removing the policy that curtailed the out-of-state shipment of natural gas. Lets see the reason was that in selling natural gas to other states users it would lower the gas cost to our local users.
Does any one remember when the gas in the Osage production fields was a useless by product where one could tap the well with a line and use free gas. The yard lights were ½ inch pipe gas flares that burned 24 hour each day.
Then in the 40's we developed filters and gathered drip gasoline without lead. So came the feds because there was no way to tax the drip gas.
The capping of the free gas shut down many whiskey stills in that area. Another group of industrialist lost their jobs and DUI was very near unheard of .
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Why doesn't the government just keep a royalty interest? It would amount to a lot more than a meager 1.8 billion dollars.
Most governments claim the mineral right below the surface and the airspace above the lands. Our political system maintain the airspace is their domain but the government controlled bureaucracy, after claiming the surface rights belonging to the Native Americans and giving or selling them to favored elites, now exploit the citizens of what should have belong as part of the citizens domain thus controling subsurface caches of which they had a victors right to claim.
It has taken us a century to reach in our republic democracy where the Romans made it less than 50 years before corruption and favoritism caused internal strife and it divided them in conflicting groups.
I noticed the Phillips 66 at 71st and Lewis closed down last week. They always charged a few cents more for gas there. Is this a sign of things to come, closing down under performing or un-profitable stations with gas prices increasing?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
With diesel fuel now over $4.00 per gallon, we have not yet seen the end of what transportation costs will do to inflationary pressures on consumer goods.
One of our pipe vendors advised us yesterday that global demand for steel is about to create an allotment system and pecking order which is only going to drive prices on many manufactured items even higher.
I'm not trying to paint all doom and gloom, but for saying high gas prices are good is somewhat glib. Sure it will get people to think about their consumption but it's not good for everyone and will disproportionately hurt the poor and working class. It's also going to have a noticeable impact on travel and tourism this summer.
This isn't the first time (post WWII) that our country has suffered through shortages, rising prices, and even allotments. Each time we survived and found better ways to do so. Really, it wasn't that long ago that I got my first job out of college directly created by the Fed's insistence that oil companies fairly distribute gasoline to jobbers and retail stations. My job was to monitor allocations of fuels and report such to the FEO.
Meanwhile full service retail stations that had gasl were refusing to sell gasoline to all but their best, recognizable customers. Long lines and fights ensued. But we made it ok and cars got smaller, more efficient and standards for mileage were established. Each of the other staple type manufacturers saw an opportunity as well and sugar, coffee and flour suddenly shot up in price. Even water was allocated due to shortages. Thus, the 70's was a difficult time for most of the country fiscally. That decade culminated with outrageous stagflation, worldwide political turmoil and even the monster volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helen's. We had a war we were getting out of too that had enabled a tremendous influx of drugs to metropolitan areas.
No party or congress was able to stop this stuff either. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Carter. And I don't give Reagan much credit either (sorry Conan). It was just one hell of a decade that ran its course as we adjusted to new realities. But somehow we did okay and even prospered. I got a good job, bought a Corvette, my first house and my first child. Tulsa really didn't feel anything till '82. In fact someone noted here that the inflation adjusted price of gasoline only recently matched the price in 1973. So similar to today that it is uncanny.
I certainly can't argue with your experiences.
One difference we have now vs. the mid-70's is increased global demand on diminishing resources. Consolidation of various metal and energy companies has left fewer and fewer competitors. Unions managed to break the back of the U.S. steel industry. I've been told by a vendor that there are only three hot roll steel mills left in the U.S.
There's been a reputed steel shortage since late 2004. Gasoline has now doubled in price since that time, the price of a barrel of oil has just about tripled. It's been a lot to absorb in little over three years. I noticed gas has gone up, yet again, to $3.49 today.
It's still not crimping my lifestyle, though I do tend to plan out my trips around town much more efficiently to minimize waste.
CF Quoted : Second, inflation on several commodity items is up way more than the average. Inflation is the value of currency as a whole, so for the increase in Gold there is an offsetting decrease computer equipment, and so on. The NET result is a fairly low rate of inflation (not sure if that chart is compounding by period or not)
.
Since having lived through the 40's to the present (as a buyer) I have been unable to recall any item that has not inflated a
100% or more during that period just quoted. Is it possible for you to cite what items we buy and use today that does not have the 100% -+ inflation status?
The chart would have to be compounded as to the inflation rate if figured from zero of the given year it, would have include the additional increase from the previous year.
I understand that it is compounding, but it wouldn't seem like you could do it from the chart by period (compounding would be linear, 'averaging' inflation over a decade would be inaccurate). I understand your comments, but I accept the challenge of figuring out what was cheaper back then - one item that is as cheap today as it was in the 1940's: a Tootsie Roll.
Also:
* a calculator has been reduced in price by a factor of several million percent. Costing tens of millions in the 1940's for the government to build, and being handed out for free today.
* Silk is cheaper today, with the availability of synthetic replacements
* Color camera's . [1940's price $35-55, available today for $6 with a Dora the Explorer logo even]
* Portable Radio's
And I'll think of more! [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by bmuscotty
I noticed the Phillips 66 at 71st and Lewis closed down last week. They always charged a few cents more for gas there. Is this a sign of things to come, closing down under performing or un-profitable stations with gas prices increasing?
It's another Moody's.....from gasoline to jewels. Oh the irony.
Obscene: Shell profits up 25 percent on record high oil prices http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iftQ-7-T9grM4N1CDCNwSxyYla7Q
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Since having lived through the 40's to the present (as a buyer) I have been unable to recall any item that has not inflated a
100% or more during that period just quoted. Is it possible for you to cite what items we buy and use today that does not have the 100% -+ inflation status?
Even if you factor in a low inflation rate of 3 percent per year, prices in general WILL double in price in 60-plus years.
Yet, in my lifetime, I can definitely think of things that have become far cheaper as time wore on. Remember when videotape players were thousands of dollars? Now you can get them for less than $100. Remember the days of $500 DVD players? Those days are long gone. My first computer was $1,300 -- a basic desktop model. Now you can spend $500 for a desktop, and it will perform far better than its predecessor.
This last Saturday in rearranging the garage a person picked up a VCR that I had paid over $500 for and weighs about 5 times the ones on the market today, Why has the price been reduced? Simple, World trade of which we are falling behind in.
Several years ago I was associated with a group that one had worked with Kaiser industries and had developed a TV that was 4 inches thick that could be hung on the wall, Kaiser claimed part ownership and demanded $50 thousands dollars for an interested person to look at their interest. As a go between I arranged for the $50 thousand interest money. The person putting up the money said "OK you can take the sample and data to Japan and see how much it will take to produce it." I said no way
Remember this is the little country that hiked the price of scrap steel in the 30' and destroyed our Navy at Pearl Harbor and the Battle Midway with a navy made from our scrap.
In the 30' China built steel smelters and rolling mills in their small cities. They have driven the price of scrap steel up to where a crushed car will bring $150. Scrap copper purchases to make the items quoted hover around $1 a pound to make the items with cheap labor on today's market. Even our penny is reaching the point where in today barter of exchange we must to look for other cheaper metals to produce the copper coins.
When we compare the reduction of prices in articles imported from China and other countries in the mid-east we are trying to compare a mustard seed to a watermelon. Even with the reduced prices we are not paying for them in the world trade as the deficit is at 250 billion each year. (divide that with our population)
The story on the calculators is a long story with a short ending. Texas instrument took their contribution to calculators to Japan.
Like Faustus we are selling our souls to the devil but we gonna have a new arena.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Obscene: Shell profits up 25 percent on record high oil prices http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iftQ-7-T9grM4N1CDCNwSxyYla7Q
No one has denied they are making money, the point is - so what?
Why do you want the government to destroy anything that is successful? People or companies, for some reason you are dead set on taking things away from people who have them. I don't understand it.
Lets see government is reducing the interest rate on CD's another ¼ cent which increases the borrowing power of the wealthy and reduces the retirement value of the working poor that saved for retirement.
There is some good news as seems unemployment has been reduced. The wet backs that were taking those job our working poor didn't want, so they returned to their homelands because of pending legislation. One could believe that those jobs the working poor didn't want to where now they are taking them.
It is hard to out figure any government not excluding Tulsa's. I understand that a company is renting out floor space in their building and renting prime replacement space in our new glass cube building (called city hall) at a reduction of 80% of value. Now if they bought the $75 some million dollars in tax exempted revenue bonds and collecting the interest, how much will the taxpayers pay out in the next 10 years for them to occupy the chosen prime space ? It would seem there is not a cash cow involved but a hold herd of them grazing on the city coffers downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Lets see government is reducing the interest rate on CD's another ¼ cent which increases the borrowing power of the wealthy and reduces the retirement value of the working poor that saved for retirement.
There is some good news as seems unemployment has been reduced. The wet backs that were taking those job our working poor didn't want, so they returned to their homelands because of pending legislation. One could believe that those jobs the working poor didn't want to where now they are taking them.
It is hard to out figure any government not excluding Tulsa's. I understand that a company is renting out floor space in their building and renting prime replacement space in our new glass cube building (called city hall) at a reduction of 80% of value. Now if they bought the $75 some million dollars in tax exempted revenue bonds and collecting the interest, how much will the taxpayers pay out in the next 10 years for them to occupy the chosen prime space ? It would seem there is not a cash cow involved but a hold herd of them grazing on the city coffers downtown.
Dont forget to factor in the 12 mill or so it would have taken to refurbish and repair the old city hall and other buildings.
Artist:
Lets see with a $1 dollar calculator (made in China) and the presumption that a no bid restoring estimate of the old city hall, where less that possibility 1% of the taxpayers has ever entered, it would have saved maybe a hundred million dollars.
Imagine a taxpayer that is required to go to city hall looking for the city employees who are mingling among private business employees. Then city employees would be easy to find in the coffee shops as private business make their employees account for all their time or it's a pink slip for them.
You would have the same problem with out-of-towners trying to decipher who is a city employee or who is a private employee. Of course the mayor is entitled to the choice office available but would it have been cheaper to have rented her an office on the top floor of one of the high-rises. The typical city employees chief reason for employment is the pension, health insurance, above average pay and unsupervised duties.
Does one wonder why this type of government has failed in countries we have installed it in?
It doesn't even take a calculator to count on ones fingers that the total cost of the farce will exceed over one hundred million dollars to impress who?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Artist:
Lets see with a $1 dollar calculator (made in China) and the presumption that a no bid restoring estimate of the old city hall, where less that possibility 1% of the taxpayers has ever entered, it would have saved maybe a hundred million dollars.
Imagine a taxpayer that is required to go to city hall looking for the city employees who are mingling among private business employees. Then city employees would be easy to find in the coffee shops as private business make their employees account for all their time or it's a pink slip for them.
You would have the same problem with out-of-towners trying to decipher who is a city employee or who is a private employee. Of course the mayor is entitled to the choice office available but would it have been cheaper to have rented her an office on the top floor of one of the high-rises. The typical city employees chief reason for employment is the pension, health insurance, above average pay and unsupervised duties.
Does one wonder why this type of government has failed in countries we have installed it in?
It doesn't even take a calculator to count on ones fingers that the total cost of the farce will exceed over one hundred million dollars to impress who?
Looking for city employees?...
This may come as a shock to you, but there is this thing called an office,"look it up in google if you must". Then there is this other quite nifty concept called an appointment.
Oh, then there is this other notion of "meetings". You would be amazed at how many meetings happen with this government stuff. I have been to a lot of them for all kinds of different reasons and one thing I remember most was how incredibly inefficient and time wasting it was for people to have to drive from one building to the next, find parking, etc. for various meetings. Often people have several meetings in a day. I remember going to meetings in the Water Works building, then Hartford Building then City Hall and then at each meeting someone rushing in a bit late after having been at a previous meeting in a different building or having to rush off and drive to yet another meeting way off somewhere else. It was stupid, talk about a waste of time and money. All of those places needed to be in the same building (and every place I mentioned and others now will be). Thaaaank goodness.
Shadows just hates city workers.
I say we double his water bill and stop picking up his trash. The policeman will write him a ticket and the fireman will spray water on him.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Shadows just hates city workers.
I say we double his water bill and stop picking up his trash. The policeman will write him a ticket and the fireman will spray water on him.
Did it ever occur that these people in city hall are not city workers but are employees of the city taxpayers to take care of the working poor's business in today's society. Instead of them supporting the working poor they believe they are there to be supported by the working poor.
Artist: I am aware of the numbers of persons who attended meetings. I have attended meeting where the total number attending could be counted on one's fingers including the news reporters. The meeting on Friday afternoon were very short ones if you could find one.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You're right FOTD, I over reacted to your post. I have edited my post accordingly.
Instead of a retroactive tax on success, increase the cost of access to publicly owned assets. They want new leases in the Gulf and are getting them at record bid prices. Raking in billions for the fed.
Open up bidding to all who come off the coast of the #1 and #3 users of oil: Florida and California. The revenue for the states would be huge, the revenue for the fed equally. Oil prices would fall. The profits made on those fields get double taxed (at the wellhead and as a profit) and we create JOBS.
Same with Alaska. Open it up to bidding. By the time the field is developed we won't need a new pipeline because the Alaska pipeline will not be operate at capacity anyway.
THEN, take that money we receive in venture profits (selling un-utilized federal assets) and use it for alternative energy. Stream line nuclear power initiatives to provide a safe and viable alternative. Provide inducement prices and grants for viable alternative energy projects. You want a viable electric car?
Award a Federal Contract to buy 10,000 Federal Vehicles per year for the first 5 years for the first manufacturer who offers a vehicle that is:
1) Entirely Electric
2) 120 miles range (3 times the daily average)
3) Over night recharging
4) Meets federal safety standards
5) 70 MPH minimum top speed
Gear the contract so it must be manufactured in the USA. $40,000 per vehicle for the first year. $38, 36, 34, and finally $32,000 in the 5th year. At the end of year 5 the winning patents expire and are public domain (the winning company should have leg up on the competition AND would have had a nice payoff anyway).
That would bring the price into the realm of reality for many people and hopefully funding the research and providing the demand for the start up.
That's $1.8 Billion over 5 years. The government gets something, spurs industry, and encourages research in a direction we desire. Inducement prizes work, with the buying power of the Fed as an inducement the American people get something for the money both as a purchase AND the result.
Those are the initiatives I would like to see. Not taxing private interests because of success and other policies that just punish the status quo instead of inducing people to change it.
Yesterdays WSJ "Ahead of the Tape" column had an interesting take on an oil fix : HIGHER TAXES
10 cents ayear increase for 10 years on a gallon of gas to help offset the hurt to the working class. At $10 a gallon world wide, our taxes on consumption are far too low. Less demand for oil needs to be the driver for policy changes.
"Raising the tax would fight pollution and congestion, ease the federal budget deficit, add
urgency to the search forviable fossil fuel alternatives, and help reduce US addiction to foreign oil."..."Unfortunately, it doesn't win elections"....Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You're right FOTD, I over reacted to your post. I have edited my post accordingly.
Instead of a retroactive tax on success, increase the cost of access to publicly owned assets. They want new leases in the Gulf and are getting them at record bid prices. Raking in billions for the fed.
Open up bidding to all who come off the coast of the #1 and #3 users of oil: Florida and California. The revenue for the states would be huge, the revenue for the fed equally. Oil prices would fall. The profits made on those fields get double taxed (at the wellhead and as a profit) and we create JOBS.
Same with Alaska. Open it up to bidding. By the time the field is developed we won't need a new pipeline because the Alaska pipeline will not be operate at capacity anyway.
THEN, take that money we receive in venture profits (selling un-utilized federal assets) and use it for alternative energy. Stream line nuclear power initiatives to provide a safe and viable alternative. Provide inducement prices and grants for viable alternative energy projects. You want a viable electric car?
Award a Federal Contract to buy 10,000 Federal Vehicles per year for the first 5 years for the first manufacturer who offers a vehicle that is:
1) Entirely Electric
2) 120 miles range (3 times the daily average)
3) Over night recharging
4) Meets federal safety standards
5) 70 MPH minimum top speed
Gear the contract so it must be manufactured in the USA. $40,000 per vehicle for the first year. $38, 36, 34, and finally $32,000 in the 5th year. At the end of year 5 the winning patents expire and are public domain (the winning company should have leg up on the competition AND would have had a nice payoff anyway).
That would bring the price into the realm of reality for many people and hopefully funding the research and providing the demand for the start up.
That's $1.8 Billion over 5 years. The government gets something, spurs industry, and encourages research in a direction we desire. Inducement prizes work, with the buying power of the Fed as an inducement the American people get something for the money both as a purchase AND the result.
Those are the initiatives I would like to see. Not taxing private interests because of success and other policies that just punish the status quo instead of inducing people to change it.
Yesterdays WSJ "Ahead of the Tape" column had an interesting take on an oil fix : HIGHER TAXES
10 cents ayear increase for 10 years on a gallon of gas to help offset the hurt to the working class. At $10 a gallon world wide, our taxes on consumption are far too low. Less demand for oil needs to be the driver for policy changes.
"Raising the tax would fight pollution and congestion, ease the federal budget deficit, add
urgency to the search forviable fossil fuel alternatives, and help reduce US addiction to foreign oil."..."Unfortunately, it doesn't win elections"....Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw
Liberals are so funny! We can apply this philosophy to everything and it is equally hilarious!
We could reduce cancer by taxing it! I think a cancer tax would reduce the number of people who smoke and choose not to use sun-screen on the golf course!
If we increased taxes on people who contract cancer by 10% for every year that they have cancer we could pay for more cancer research and encourage future generations not to engage in carcinogenic activities.
We could put an end to teen pregnancy by instituting a baby tax for everyone that is under 18. Have a baby and lose 10% of your income for every year under the age of 18 you are.
We could also put an end to other social ills with:
Homeless tax.
DUI tax.
Fat tax (oh! wait! California already proposed it).
and my personal favorite: Mean tax (if you are mean to me, the government takes away your shoes!)
News Flash: Wild taxation causes problems, it doesn't solve them. We have an example of how this works, it's called California.
This oil mess is all because the democrats and enviromental wackos who won't let us drill in Alaska or off shore in the Gulf. We have over 100 BILLION barrels right here at home and would not need to import a single drop of oil. Opening up drilling in Alaska will also make many new jobs. There is no oil shortage it's all a political game. They just found a huge oil suppy in North Dakota but we can't drill for it. Another even bigger oil reserve was found off the coast of Rio near South America, that is said to have over 40 Billions Barrels of oil... The oil is here and it's all over the globe but it's being used to play games. Any alternative form of fuel will likely be used to play games by greedy folks. The power grid could not even handle everyone plugging in their electric cars every night, and electric companies can pull an "ENRON" and jack up electric rates making electric cars too expensive to drive.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
This oil mess is all because the democrats and enviromental wackos who won't let us drill in Alaska or off shore in the Gulf. We have over 100 BILLION barrels right here at home and would not need to import a single drop of oil. Opening up drilling in Alaska will also make many new jobs. There is no oil shortage it's all a political game. They just found a huge oil suppy in North Dakota but we can't drill for it. Another even bigger oil reserve was found off the coast of Rio near South America, that is said to have over 40 Billions Barrels of oil... The oil is here and it's all over the globe but it's being used to play games. Any alternative form of fuel will likely be used to play games by greedy folks. The power grid could not even handle everyone plugging in their electric cars every night, and electric companies can pull an "ENRON" and jack up electric rates making electric cars too expensive to drive.
Its not so much that the price of oil has gone up, its that the dollar has gone down. Also increased demand from developing countries is having a large influence.
Oil is priced globally. If the dollar falls and is, for example, half what it was a year ago... If I go on one of my shopping trips to Paris and want to buy something there, to me, its twice as much as it was. The price hasnt changed, my dollar is worth less. If I want to import that object from Paris, the price didnt change, the falling dollar makes it cost more.
Americans are actually using less gas than they were. Refining capacity is up. Indeed there is plenty of oil, more oil than there was, more reserves, less use in the US... The dollar has fallen in value. Add to that others in the world now have more money thus they want to buy oil and that jacks the price up as well. Even if we were to become entirely self sufficient with our own oil production and became oil exporters... the price would still increase as global demand increases.
If the US currently produces about 7million barrels a day ( http://www.cfaia.com/faq_oil.cfm ) and is somehow able to even double that capacity using the reserves in Alaska and the Gulf, it still wont do any good. It would take time to get that oil coming out of the ground and refining capacity up, yet China alone is increasing its demand by around 1million barrels per year.
Even if the US became a net Oil exporter, the continued growth in developing countries would push up oil prices.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/11/iea-cuts-global-oil-demand-growth-forecast-by-most-in-7-years/
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
This oil mess is all because the democrats and enviromental wackos who won't let us drill in Alaska or off shore in the Gulf. We have over 100 BILLION barrels right here at home and would not need to import a single drop of oil. Opening up drilling in Alaska will also make many new jobs. There is no oil shortage it's all a political game. They just found a huge oil suppy in North Dakota but we can't drill for it. Another even bigger oil reserve was found off the coast of Rio near South America, that is said to have over 40 Billions Barrels of oil... The oil is here and it's all over the globe but it's being used to play games. Any alternative form of fuel will likely be used to play games by greedy folks. The power grid could not even handle everyone plugging in their electric cars every night, and electric companies can pull an "ENRON" and jack up electric rates making electric cars too expensive to drive.
Its not so much that the price of oil has gone up, its that the dollar has gone down. Also increased demand from developing countries is having a large influence.
Oil is priced globally. If the dollar falls and is, for example, half what it was a year ago... If I go on one of my shopping trips to Paris and want to buy something there, to me, its twice as much as it was. The price hasnt changed, my dollar is worth less. If I want to import that object from Paris, the price didnt change, the falling dollar makes it cost more.
Americans are actually using less gas than they were. Refining capacity is up. Indeed there is plenty of oil, more oil than there was, more reserves, less use in the US... The dollar has fallen in value. Add to that others in the world now have more money thus they want to buy oil and that jacks the price up as well. Even if we were to become entirely self sufficient with our own oil production and became oil exporters... the price would still increase as global demand increases.
If the US currently produces about 7million barrels a day ( http://www.cfaia.com/faq_oil.cfm ) and is somehow able to even double that capacity using the reserves in Alaska and the Gulf, it still wont do any good. It would take time to get that oil coming out of the ground and refining capacity up, yet China alone is increasing its demand by around 1million barrels per year.
Even if the US became a net Oil exporter, the continued growth in developing countries would push up oil prices.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/11/iea-cuts-global-oil-demand-growth-forecast-by-most-in-7-years/
Those are good points A. Add to that complicated formula the possibility that US oil companies don't really want to do the refining. They didn't really try too hard to build new refineries under a sympathetic administration like Bush/Cheney. And if they did there isn't a large qualified labor pool to run them. Its not Dems and environmentalists Sauerkraut. They were satisfied to expand current refineries as was done in Tulsa. They are primarily drillers, wholesalers, traders and marketers. Refining is too dirty, dangerous and difficult. Let Mexico and the Saudis do that stuff. They are energy companies now.
While we havent added new refineries, they have been expanding the ones we have "example of that right here in Tulsa". In essence over the last decade they have added the equivalent of about a new refinery a year. Matter of fact, last I heard some refineries were actually cutting back capacity. All the stations, storage tanks, etc are full. Again, there is plenty of oil. No shortages and lines of cars backed up waiting or anything like that. If they were to refine even more... what are they going to do with it here? Americans are using less and we have expanded refining capacity.
I hear alot about a big push to get electric cars going. I don't think they are thinking this stuff thru. Putting millions of electric cars on the power grid every day will overload the system and pollute the air from the power plants. The electric rates are not cheap. Another thing that I don't understand about electric cars is how will the heater in electric cars work- and they need a heater to defrost the windows in winter, electric resistance coils will be hard on the battery and burn it down faster plus cold weather is hard on batteries. (Electric cars can't get heat the way current cars do since they have no coolant). Then what about A/C in the summer? Can a electric car motor run while spinning a A/C compressor- that will drain alot from the battery. That stuff needs to be worked out.
Technicalities, technicalities, technicalities has stopped the inventoried aspirations that date back to the stone age. Some may remember PSO bought some electric cars for their meter readers but they wound up in the junk yards a short time later.
With the development of the permit magnet in the electric motor field it greatly reduced the electric consumption in the rotation. The Rail Roads developed an Iron battery that was more efficient than the lead acid ones in use today. And there are the lead/jel batteries that are an improvement.
As we have only a small part of the worlds population we demand 25% of the oil usage thus we have a problem. In some of the undeveloped countries they in the past used charcoal to drive their buses. Then coal can be liquefied and used in our present engines.
Then also since China is buying the gas guzzlers that were once our status quo they surely have a glut of Rickshaws for sale. That will fit into our economy where the rich ride and the poor pull him along in the Rickshaw. Part of that has been happening for a long time.
The total story is we have stuck our nose in the age old traditions of the mid-east and attacked a country with less than 2.5 times the area of Oklahoma, who has the oil we need but also an unlimited amount explosives that have cost over 4,000 of our youth's lives.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I hear alot about a big push to get electric cars going. I don't think they are thinking this stuff thru. Putting millions of electric cars on the power grid every day will overload the system and pollute the air from the power plants. The electric rates are not cheap. Another thing that I don't understand about electric cars is how will the heater in electric cars work- and they need a heater to defrost the windows in winter, electric resistance coils will be hard on the battery and burn it down faster plus cold weather is hard on batteries. (Electric cars can't get heat the way current cars do since they have no coolant). Then what about A/C in the summer? Can a electric car motor run while spinning a A/C compressor- that will drain alot from the battery. That stuff needs to be worked out.
It has been. Technology is not so much the problem as you might think. Batteries are not the same as the 12volt in your Suv. And the motors are not the old heavy motors you might be familiar with. I have been reading alot lately about these cars and the applications to other vehicles as well. We are way behind Europe and specifically Germany and England where I assure you it gets cold. They have found solutions to all of them. Electric motors generate heat. Lots of heat. In fact the dissipation of that heat has been a real stumbling block for most applications. Your home a/c also runs off of electricity rather than an engine driven compressor.
I have seen electric motor boats pulling skiers on German lakes. Whereas gasoline is derivative of oil, electricity may come from many different sources that are not polluting. Imagine getting fueled up next to a river charging station in 5minutes or at a hydrogen conversion station. Have faith, its happening.
I have some links if you would like.
You know,,, scooters are starting to sound like a lot more fun lol. Would have to be a secondary vehicle for me especially. Get enough strange looks stuffing my scaffolding into my Murano. Cant imagine the looks I would get hauling scaffolding around on a scooter [:P] Could hang a gallon of paint off each handlebar though. [8D] Little basket on the front full of quarts, paint brushes sticking out my back pockets... could work.
Artist: With the citizens of Tulsa hiring 16 persons for each square mile of the city they should be able to cover the city on bicycles instead of scooters. Then too they would not have to work out in a gym.