George E Cawthon wrote:
We don't have to buy it at all, it is just a choice.

A recent news programs indicated that Brazil would be free of
petroleum dependency within one year using their engineered sugar cane
to produce alcohol (they have been working on it for years). Cars can
be switched from an alcohol/gas mixture (currently required for cars)
to straight alcohol. They said their alcohol could compete
economically at any gasoline price over $2.50 per gallon.


For all *practical* purposes, it is not a choice. We have to work, our
jobs are more often than not way past walking distance, public
transportation is scarce in most of the country, etc. That's just
scratching the surface. Unless of course you want to suggest we just lay
down and starve to death by choice.

My point was about today, not ten years from now. There are all kinds of
technologies out there that will *one day* be useful, but in the U.S.,
today, none of these are ready for widespread market, or at least not
cheaper than oil. Since people are driven by the concept of "What's in
it for me", you would find people abandoning oil in a heartbeat for
something cheaper/better. Brazil may have something, but here in the
U.S. you would have to have it in place and sell it at least as cheaply
as gas for it to fly. Ya think that's gonna happen? Don't care what it
sells for in Brazil, when it hits here, (if it ever does) it'll probably
be a buck higher than gas, or will bring on a double whammy of bringing
gas prices up because some government idiot mandates it to be added to
gas. And that doesn't even solve the problem of replacing diesel.
Biodiesel is still not commercially practical. If you want to run it
exclusively, you will fork out a mountain of cash to convert your truck,
and even more for maintenance.

George wrote:
You need to read up on a seventy-year experiment in command economy in a
country with natural resources of all sorts so abundant they still haven't
been properly cataloged - which couldn't heat water for a shower, if there
_were_ a shower, for the "sheeple".

Be careful of what you wish for.


If you are referring to socialist/communist societies, that is not at
all what I was getting at, George, nor is it what I wish for at all.
What I was lamenting was the fact that we have a system in which free
markets are a very good thing, but that some products that have gone
beyond just being a luxury into being a necessity, have fostered such
greed by the companies, that they have entered into collusion to force
artificially usury-high prices on the public. I have no qualm at all
with making a good honest profit, after all that is precisely what a
business is in business to generate and rightly so. But if there were no
shady deals going on I believe completely that we would not have had
much if any higher price on any fuels due to the relatively small hike
in price per barrel recently, and none at all during Katrina. There was
simply no shortage here. Maybe in the Gulf region, but not here. Here in
the Northeast during the Katrina aftermath, our fuel prices were going
up daily, and even sometimes several times per day. Yet if you find out
where our Northeastern oil supplies come from it would not be from the
Gulf region. California's gas prices were even more out of control - do
you think they get gas from the Gulf? NO. It was usury, pure and simple,
to take advantage of Americans during a crisis. They did it again during
both Gulf (that *other* gulf) wars. Sorta makes that economic terrorism,
doesn't it?

So what my point was about our "sheeple" here, and in Europe, was that
few are willing to do anything at all to force - through the
marketplace, and through our government prosecuting the crimes that are
committed according to Federal law, like with the Windfall Profits Tax
Act which was enacted to prevent or punish for this very thing. That
ain't socialism. Its just common sense and it protects the country, the
economy, and us - the sheeple.

I apologize if I may be imprecise in my ability to get my argument
across clearly, been running on little sleep for the last week.

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:49:00 -0400, Sailaway wrote:

George wrote:
You need to read up on a seventy-year experiment in command economy in a
country with natural resources of all sorts so abundant they still haven't
been properly cataloged - which couldn't heat water for a shower, if there
_were_ a shower, for the "sheeple".

Be careful of what you wish for.


If you are referring to socialist/communist societies, that is not at
all what I was getting at, George, nor is it what I wish for at all.
What I was lamenting was the fact that we have a system in which free
markets are a very good thing, but that some products that have gone
beyond just being a luxury into being a necessity, have fostered such
greed by the companies, that they have entered into collusion to force
artificially usury-high prices on the public. I have no qualm at all
.... snip

So what my point was about our "sheeple" here, and in Europe, was that
few are willing to do anything at all to force - through the
marketplace, and through our government prosecuting the crimes that are
committed according to Federal law, like with the Windfall Profits Tax
Act which was enacted to prevent or punish for this very thing. That
ain't socialism. Its just common sense and it protects the country, the
economy, and us - the sheeple.

I apologize if I may be imprecise in my ability to get my argument
across clearly, been running on little sleep for the last week.

Before you lay this all at the feet of the "greedy" oil companies, you
need to lay some of that blame on the so-called sheeple who are ready to
jump at every whim of the environmental whackos, the NIMBY crowd, and other
anti-growth, anti-capitalism crowd who have been responsible for assuring
that no new refineries have been built in this country in the past 30
years, who are assuring that it is so costly and expensive to explore and
drill for new oil, and who are shutting out entire oil fields for
development. That same crowd is responsible in large part high prices due
to the seasonal "cafe" blends of gasoline required by each and every large
municipality and region. Which means that just because there is plenty of
gas in one region, because of those blending requirements, it can't be
shipped to a different region that has had its supply disrupted because a
refinery has had to be shut down since the gas in region A doesn't meet the
blend requirements of region B. Monopolies are bad, but effectively
throttling growth via legislative and judicial fiat is just as bad and
causes equivalent upsets.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Sailaway wrote:
George E Cawthon wrote:
We don't have to buy it at all, it is just a choice.

A recent news programs indicated that Brazil would be free of
petroleum dependency within one year using their engineered sugar cane
to produce alcohol (they have been working on it for years). Cars can
be switched from an alcohol/gas mixture (currently required for cars)
to straight alcohol. They said their alcohol could compete
economically at any gasoline price over $2.50 per gallon.


For all *practical* purposes, it is not a choice. We have to work, our
jobs are more often than not way past walking distance, public
transportation is scarce in most of the country, etc. That's just
scratching the surface. Unless of course you want to suggest we just lay
down and starve to death by choice.

Then say the only practical choice is to buy it,
don't say you have to buy it.

My point was about today, not ten years from now. There are all kinds of
technologies out there that will *one day* be useful, but in the U.S.,
today, none of these are ready for widespread market, or at least not
cheaper than oil. Since people are driven by the concept of "What's in
it for me", you would find people abandoning oil in a heartbeat for
something cheaper/better. Brazil may have something, but here in the
U.S. you would have to have it in place and sell it at least as cheaply
as gas for it to fly. Ya think that's gonna happen? Don't care what it
sells for in Brazil, when it hits here, (if it ever does) it'll probably
be a buck higher than gas, or will bring on a double whammy of bringing
gas prices up because some government idiot mandates it to be added to
gas. And that doesn't even solve the problem of replacing diesel.
Biodiesel is still not commercially practical. If you want to run it
exclusively, you will fork out a mountain of cash to convert your truck,
and even more for maintenance.

My discussion of Brazil was just for information.
And it isn't that Brazil MAY have something,
they DO have a program, have been working on it
for years, and will fully implement it by the end
of this year. If Brazil can become independent of
gasoline, we sure as hell can reduce our oil
consumption. Alcohol production may not be the
solution in the U.S. but standing around wringing
your hands sure as hell isn't the solution.

"Sailaway" wrote in message
...
So what my point was about our "sheeple" here, and in Europe, was that few
are willing to do anything at all to force - through the marketplace, and
through our government prosecuting the crimes that are committed according
to Federal law, like with the Windfall Profits Tax Act which was enacted
to prevent or punish for this very thing. That ain't socialism. Its just
common sense and it protects the country, the economy, and us - the
sheeple.

I apologize if I may be imprecise in my ability to get my argument across
clearly, been running on little sleep for the last week.

Once again I see you use the word force. Force is not freedom. Be careful
what you wish for.

You see, in socialist economies it's not so much that there is no way to
succeed (windfall profits?) that holds good people back, as it is that no
one can fail. That's what makes a sheep, the protection of the shepherd,
the dog and the fold, all of which confine, though they may comfort.

Mark and Juanita wrote:
Before you lay this all at the feet of the "greedy" oil companies, you
need to lay some of that blame on the so-called sheeple who are ready to
jump at every whim of the environmental whackos, the NIMBY crowd, and
other anti-growth, anti-capitalism crowd who have been responsible for
assuring that no new refineries have been built in this country in the
past 30 years, who are assuring that it is so costly and expensive to
explore and drill for new oil, and who are shutting out entire oil
fields for development. That same crowd is responsible in large part
high prices due to the seasonal "cafe" blends of gasoline required by
each and every large municipality and region. Which means that just
because there is plenty of gas in one region, because of those
blending requirements, it can't be shipped to a different region that
has had its supply disrupted because a refinery has had to be shut down
since the gas in region A doesn't meet the blend requirements of region
B. Monopolies are bad, but effectively throttling growth via
legislative and judicial fiat is just as bad and causes equivalent upsets.


Actually, that is a part of what I was getting at. If people don't
actively do something to stop all the whacko's as well as the
price-gouging companies then we end up in the same boat, just by 2
different paths. But that is still no excuse for oil companies to take
advantage of the public through price-gouging, period. Bureaucrats and
politicians can be reigned-in through strong grass-roots response. But
the only way to stop and oil company is to either not buy that one
company's products, or get the government to apply the law as written to
stop them from breaking it. We can't actually get anywhere by singling
out one company, because they have been working in collusion to force
artificially high prices across the board, and which also means they
have broken several Federal laws. This in effect makes them (all the oil
companies who are participating) a monopoly, and should be regulated as
such, just as the Feds/states, etc. regulate the power companies. If
they didn't regulate the power companies, it wouldn't be long before
only the rich could afford to have electricity. Any time a company can
drastically reduce costs, and at the same increase profit by raising
prices, it will most likely do that. The oil companies have no incentive
to flood the market with fuel, because that would represent a large
increase in manufacturing and related costs, and would result in lower
prices per unit sold. What is the incentive? Instead, they raise fears
about so-called "shortages" and drastically raise prices. You may
remember that after a gas station purchased a truckload of fuel just
before Katrina and priced the gas at the pump accordingly, then
immediately after learning about the storm the same fuel he just paid
for was suddenly priced higher at the pump, and just kept going up. If
it an independant station we can boycott that station (as I do now). But
when all the stations do it, including the company-owned ones (the
independents usually just follow along, cause they can) then we have a
problem.
If you don't agree with Federal law, then you can write your
congressman to get it changed. I happen to agree with that one law I
referenced, just as I agree with the original purpose for unions. Unlike
what most unions have done recently, when unions were originally formed
in this country it was because the workers were being unfairly taken
advantage of. There was no protection for them when all they wanted was
a fair deal. And now we have Federal laws that protect people's right to
have union protection. Here I am talking about the same thing, just a
fair price for a necessary utility.

So I am not at all talking about throttling growth. Exxon had a ten
billion dollar profit in just one quarter - three months, of last year.
Yes, you read it right, ten Billion (I believe they had an even larger
quarter than that since). That was net profit, not gross - is that
throttling growth? Did they use that profit to open new refineries?
Nope! The shareholders got some, and the rest (and quite a large chunk)
went to the people who run it. And trust me, I have no problem with
people getting wealthy. I DO have a problem with people breaking the law
to get wealthy, and hurting us at the same time. The law was enacted to
protect us from manopoly-like behavior, and the resulting illicitly
gained excess profits.

Oil companies have been in no hurry to open new refineries because they
have been busy raising prices instead to get profit. They understand
that they can make more pure-profit by charging more per-unit without
the expense of manufacturing and selling more units at a lower price
per-unit. The Feds have been pushing the oil companies for years to open
new ones. But as long as they keep feeding them huge taxpayer dollar
subsidies and almost total tax relief, they aren't gonna change.

I did cover something in a previous post about the price of fuels being
affected by idiotic government mandates like additives. And yes, I could
rant on about all the rest of the whacko's out there, (which most people
aren't aware that New Jersey has nearly as many as California and DC)
but that is still not the problem, its the whacko's in our governments
that we need to deal with, and unfortunately, there are too many
European-thinking individuals in our country for us to really have much
chance of changing anything.
And my point about the sheeple in Europe was that they seem have a
much larger pain threshold than us. They seem to actually *want* their pain.

Rant mode off, I'm through with this thread.

George Cawthon Wrote:
Snip
If Brazil can become independent of gasoline, we sure as hell can reduce
our oil consumption. Alcohol production may not be the solution in the
U.S. but standing around wringing your hands sure as hell isn't the
solution.

I agree. But until more people are aware that they *can* make a
difference, and are also willing to do so, then there will be no
difference. My self-appointed job in this life is to educate people that
they can make a dent.

FWIW, I'd switch to Alcohol or any other fuel if my diesel would run it.
And BTW, I do write my elected rep's frequently and am active in trying
to get others to stay active in making positive changes in our
governments. Hand wringing is just a sideline.

George wrote:
Once again I see you use the word force. Force is not freedom. Be
careful
what you wish for.

You see, in socialist economies it's not so much that there is no way
to succeed (windfall profits?) that holds good people back, as it is
that no one can fail. That's what makes a sheep, the protection of
the shepherd, the dog and the fold, all of which confine, though they
may comfort.

Once again I'll agree with you, but it was a poor choice of a word. I do
not mean force as in make them comply through *actual* force when I was
referencing using the marketplace. I meant getting together in some way
that changes the dynamics of that marketplace in our favor, such that
the result would be the oil companies would not try to take advantage of
us without resulting in lower or stagnant profits or unrecoverable
higher costs for them. This is not socialism, any more than unions are
socialism. It is our right to change the marketplace.

On the other hand, governments exist to protect its people. And to do
that they enact laws. And when the law is broken, the government has the
obligation to apply the appropriate jurisprudence. Once again, this is
not socialism. In the case of which we have been discussing, several
laws were broken. Windfall profits, in this case, refers to
illegally-obtained excess profit garnered by breaking the law. And they
did that during a time of crisis, that's just plain un-American. (well,
ok, maybe todays *new* America might like it - greed, corruption, etc.)

Whew! And I thought I was finished with this thread...