34
   

Let GM go Bankrupt

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 01:29 am
@roger,
Same here... and the times I've driven 4 speeds; I missed having 5th gear.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 06:20 am
@hamburger,
Quote:
if we had to pay what europeans have to pay for cars (and gas) , we'd scream bloody murder !


But you could have the best national health service in the world in compensation.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 09:36 am
@spendius,
Quote:
But you could have the best national health service in the world in compensation.

And a modern rail system that is fast enough that many fewer people would want to drive or fly thus allowing us to send fewer hundreds of billions of dollars to the middle east......maybe allow us to care less about the problems o the middle east and resist the temptation to invade and occupy countries there.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 09:50 am
@hawkeye10,
amen! When will we learn - if ever?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 09:53 am
@hawkeye10,
It sounds a good deal but the distances you have to travel are much greater in some places than others. From an economic point of view the wide open spaces are a disadvantage.

It would require a massive change.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 09:54 am
@spendius,
"Massive" is an under-statement.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 10:31 am
@spendius,
With High Speed rail any journey of 500 miles or less works as a day trip, and 1000 miles works as a overnight. The "wide open spaces" argument fails when you realize that the majority of Americans live east of the Mississippi and that most city pairs in the east would work well for HSR.

If we priced gas for autos and trucks with a $2+ a gallon tax, and then put that money into rail, we could move the majority of passenger miles to rail. GM should be making cars that are primarily little city cars, with 40MPG at a minimum. We are running out of time to make the move to modern intercity transit, this latest gas price spike, as well as the $2 trillion plus that we have invested in Iraq (both the war, and the follow on lifetime care that will be required to make whole the soldiers injured in the conflict) should motivate us to get off of our asses and get moving.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 10:38 am
@hawkeye10,
I don't think we are necessarily running out of time to create intercity transit systems. Yes, it'll cost more, but many cities such as Athens, Beijing, and other big metro cities have or are developing them today. The long-term payoff would be humongous!
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 10:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
running out of time...as in time to avert disaster when fuel is either very expensive of unobtainable. With a electric driven intercity rail (and commuter rail as well) we will sip fuel as compared to now, and have the flexibility to switch fuel used by simply changing the electric generating plants.
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 10:57 am
This is what I hear Mr. Obama talking about. He wants to hold people accountable, CEO's, teachers, parents, and build a better product, whether that's a car or a kid. He wants to eliminate the hundreds of ways that this country wastes money by putting it all to better use. Rebuilding the infrastructure, creating jobs. How many workers would laying a brand new railroad system call for? And if our money isn't tied up in fighting TWO wars, maybe they can be offered a decent wage?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 10:57 am
@hawkeye10,
hawk wrote :

Quote:
If we priced gas for autos and trucks with a $2+ a gallon tax


in germany gasoline is currently selling for the LOW price of euro 1.15 a liter - that would be close to $5 a gallon .
while i certainly agree with you in principle , any politician/government proposing such a price would have a hard time getting elected imo .

some 25 years ago when gasoline was still sold by the imperial gallon in canada , the conservative government of the day proposed a sensible "fuel saver tax" of FIVE CENTS (!) a gallon - they were turfed out at the next election - and conservatives didn't get re-elected for some years .
of course , we are now paying for it = short-term gain for long-term pain !


i still doubt that the majority of north-americans would go for "manual transmission" cars . not many people that i know , have asked for "manual" in their new cars .
many north-american tourists complain loudly when their european rental car turns out to be a "manual " .
is driving a stick-shift even taught as a basic in driving schools ?
hbg


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 11:07 am
@hawkeye10,
Oil will be available for many years to come; even at much higher prices. As somebody has pointed out, Europeans have been paying over $5/gallon for many years - even decades - while Americans complained about $3/gallon gas.

Most countries on this planet have always paid more for gas - even in third world countries.

Our government has always advocated for the increase in car use to keep our auto industry in business; even as they built gas-guzzlers that is uncommon in most countries.

It's about our government and public who can demand more public transit systems whether inter-city or intra-city. It's a matter of government will and funding.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 11:07 am
@hamburger,
Quote:
is driving a stick-shift even taught as a basic in driving schools

no
Quote:
in germany gasoline is currently selling for the LOW price of euro 1.15 a liter - that would be close to $5 a gallon .
while i certainly agree with you in principle , any politician/government proposing such a price would have a hard time getting elected imo


speaking historically you are correct, politicians have learned the hard way not to look out for the long term interest of the country and society more than the citizens are prepared to do. Here is the thing though, we have yet to see what the effects of the current pain caused by irresponsibility (the economic crisis) will be. It might be that grown-up responsibility will again become acceptable in America.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 11:19 am
@cicerone imposter,
crude and gas will be bought and sold around the world, but that does not mean that americans will be able to buy it, at any price. It must have escaped your notice that energy suppliers are already planning for a day when energy is no longer sold on the open market to the highest bidder, but instead is sold to "friends". When there is no longer enough to go around human nature is to see that friends get before anyone else does. america is not well liked.

This impacts us even now. American oil companies are sitting on loads of cash doing nothing, they would love to invest in new crude production, but most of the most promising fields are in countries that don't want to do business with america. The American oil companies are frozen out, their bids are not even accepted, no amount of money matters. This is why they are so hot to trot to drill off of California and in Anwar.
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 11:40 am
@hawkeye10,
hawk wrote :

Quote:
American oil companies are sitting on loads of cash doing nothing, they would love to invest in new crude production, but most of the most promising fields are in countries that don't want to do business with america.


american investment money is most welcome in canada . you probably know that most oil exploration companies don't worry about "borders" . american and canadian oil exploration and drilling companies work all around the world - and in both the U.S. and canada .
at current prices , oil exploration in western canada has pretty well come to a standstill .
hbg

http://www.medicinehatnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48009

Quote:
Oil and gas drilling is forecast to take a big hit in Alberta next year, but southeast Alberta should be spared the worst of it.

“There’s plenty of opportunity for growth and development in our region as well as with the neighbouring region in southwest Saskatchewan,” Harold Wilson, executive director of the Economic Development Alliance (EDA) of Southeast Alberta, told the News Friday.

“We need to look at the whole picture for the area, not just our immediate region, and tap into that potential prosperity.”

The Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC) announced Thursday that fewer wells would be drilled in the province in 2009.

Nationally, it’s expected that drilling will decline across Canada by 10 per cent to 16,750 wells, down from an originally expected tally of 17,400.


but ... oil price to rebound ?

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wrcommodities28/BNStory/SpecialEvents2/home

Quote:
November 28, 2008 at 7:57 AM EST

Oil prices have become so oversold that they will stifle investment in new production and eventually lead prices back up near $100 (U.S.) a barrel, said Bank of Nova Scotia commodities expert Patricia Mohr. However, it may take a couple of years to get there.

In an interview yesterday, Ms. Mohr predicted the price of crude would hover in the current $50-a-barrel area "for the next six months," as the slowing global economy keeps a lid on demand. However, she said that with tight credit conditions and a lack of government funding likely to result in slowing production from cash-strapped Russia, and with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to consider output cuts as early as its meeting this weekend, a slowdown in supplies should support oil prices in the second half of next year.

More importantly, she said, prices in the $50 range make many investments for development of key new oil sources uneconomic - meaning the prospects for significant increases in oil production will be put on hold as long as prices remain relatively low. The resulting slowdown in capital spending on new production, she said, would leave the market looking undersupplied once the global economy recovers, something she believes could begin in the second half of 2009.

"That's going to set the stage for a strong [price] rebound," she said - predicting that average prices could top $95 a barrel in the 2011-13 period.


so keep sending "drilling" money to alberta ; they'll welcome it - as long as you don't expect a quick profit .
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 12:25 pm
@hawkeye10,
Most countries trading in the world marketplace doesn't give one hoot to who they like or dislike; it's who can pay or buy. It depends 100% on supply and demand.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 12:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Bullshit, look at what happened with the global rice market this year. You are not paying attention to the current reality.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 12:47 pm
@hamburger,
Quote:
American investment money is most welcome in Canada


American and Canada a close friends and trading partners, so much so that our economies are very interconnected. You are not disputing my point. Besides, so far as I know canada has lots of gas but little crude...I am not sure that American oil companies have much interest in canada.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 12:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
Not bullshit; it's still supply and demand. If there is a short supply of rice, more countries will grow rice to meet demand. If there's an over-supply of rice, it usually means less production and/or drop in price.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 01:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
what happened when rice became percieved to be in short supply was that countries supplying rice with no notice passed laws than made it illegal to export rice, or placed rigid controls on export. Companies with valid contracts to supply rice did not supply rice because they would have been in violation of the law to do so, and because the government made it impossible to ship the rice.

Or look at what Russia did with energy, Russian firms had valid contract to supply energy to western Europe, and with little notice the Russian government shut down the transport of the energy.

The marketplace, private enterprise, operates only with the consent of the government. This consent can be withdrawn at any time, and historically is when government believes that it is in the national interest to do so. We know for a fact that until a new energy source is discovered (a new type of energy) that energy will increasingly become scarce. As it does so Governments will increasingly shut down or otherwise impose their will upon the marketplace. It is not always in a supplying countries interest to get the best price for what they have to sell, it is sometimes in their interest to keep what they have for themselves, or to keep it for their friends and allies.

Your argument that more will be produced thus this problem will not happen is idiotic. we know that there is a finite supply of crude in the ground, and we also know that any meaningfull increase in effort to extract crude takes years if not decades. The marketplace will not sell regulate to prevent scarcity.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let GM go Bankrupt
  3. » Page 16
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 11:59:29