Bend over, you're getting screwed at the pump again.

Of course it's only a matter of time before we'll have to substitute for petrochemicals. As has already been pointed out, oil reserves are not self-replinishing and will not last forever. The demand for alternative fuel cars is, apparently, already acute. One of the major business stories for the past couple of days has reported that demand for the new Toyota hybrid car, which uses a combination of gasoline and ethanol (as I understand it) is so unexpectedly high that some people who have ordered 2004 models may have to wait until 2005 to get them.

Merry, Please be a little reasonable.

Compute the cost of pump gasoline in relation to the minimum wage.

When I bought my first car and worked for minimum wage as a dishwasher whilst in high school I could buy less than two gallons of gas for my hours work.

Now that minimum wage job pays a bit over three gallons per hour and about one third of that is in taxes.

Failure of the body politic to understand the most basic economic facts is IMO one of the most severe problems facing the world today.

Nobody HAS to buy gasoline period. It's a luxury which allows more luxuries and if it's too expensive you don't have to buy any. But to call something overpriced when its one of a few things that has actually decreased in price over the last forty years is showing a certain ignorance of economic reality.

Perhaps you would find it edifying to compute the price of gasoline in other real terms.

How many gallons per hour does the President of the US earn?
The average teacher?
The average truck driver?
The average lawyer?
The average public assistance recipent? Figure a forty hour week for them. They don't necessarily commute.
Your congressperson?
Your doctor?

What were their relative positions in say 1960?

I may further note that if you still feel that you are being screwed petroleum jelly is a byproduct of gasoline manufacture. Buy some. Use it. It's still quite reasonably priced also.

aka, I think you're addressing the wrong person. I completely agree with you that gasoline in the USA is a real bargain and that there is no cause for complaint. Pls read my posts again.

I just paid $1.69 per gallon, and not complaining. If you lived in Ireland or England you'd be paying around $7.00 per gallon. And, that's nothing new, it's been that way for years.

Merry, You are absolutely correct, I got mixed up somewhere and thought of it this AM but due to life interfering I wasn't able to immediately correct my misteak. I suspect that you know who should have read it. :wink:

Just heard on the news, the national average could go as high as $2.50 by summer.

Also, for those that live in other countries that say we should shut up because our gas is cheap in comparison. Well your country isn't as dependant on the automobile as the US. I have co-workers that have to drive 100 miles round trip per day. That adds up!!!

When 35 to 60% of your average income goes to housing and the electric and phone companies are trying to get a bigger cut, it doesn't leave much left for gas.

To the person that said Americans think we deserve cheap gas? Yes we should because we buy the biggest majority of it. We should get that bulk discount!

We have not developed mass transit seemingly at all and I cannot understand how that can be, the concatenation of forces that made that not happen, though I can conjecture. That leaves us, of course, ever so fuel vulnerable. Need I mention possible implications?

We really do need to develop alternative fuels and alternative methods of transportation. I don't think Americans will ever ababdon the car as it's preferred method of getting around, we do need to spend some of that money on developing alternative fuels.

Also, as far as mas transit goes, for a long time I've thought they should focus on developing high speed rail systems between major cities that are relatively close together. That would be so good for commerce.

For example, it takes 3 hours to drive between Portland and Seattle, add a couple hours to that during rush hour. So there's no living in Portland and working in Seattle. A high speed rail could cut that trip down to an hour and people could live and work in both cities. Eliminating a lot of the automobile traffic between the two cities and paying for it's self over and over again in the boom in commerce that it would bring.

There are a lot of major cities in the US that are close together that could take advantage of high speed rail. Not to mention all of the little towns that are in between that these rails would pass through. Things like this would be so good for America, why aren't any politicians focusing on it? Why? Because they are spending all of their time passing anti-spam legislation...

Heck, we did it in the 40's and 50's when we spent billions developing Americas interstate highway system. Why not do it again with high speed rail?

I totally agree rover.

Some attempts at initiating viable mass rapid transit systems in the past were actually sabotaged by car manufacturers and by gasoline refiners. One of the PBS stations in Southern Cal did a longish report on how and why the streetcar system in Los Angeles went under back in the 1930s. This was about two or three years ago. They made a strong case for the fact that that the streetcars were doing a brisk and valuable service until the auto manufacturers launched a vigorous P.r. campaign to discredit the viability of the notion. On a smaller scale, something like this probably still goes on. Ford and Exxon want us drive more and depend on other transport less.

If your quality time is worth so little to you that you feel you can work in Seattle and live in Portland then I feel that the government has no reason to help with the time and money wasting commute.

Life is just to short to spend wasting time in that manner. Every single person has just twenty four hours in a day, and I don't feel thats it's up to the taxpayer to subsidize uneconomic use of the time allotted to you.

In Wash. DC the buses and subways are full of people who are forced by archaic zoning laws to live in the S.E. section of town and then go to work in the much wealthier N.W. This problem could be addressed much more economically by building working class neighborhoods intermixed with the upper class ones. The mass transit is merely subsidizing the upper classes (economically) so they do not have to pay their maids and governess very much. Nor do they have to provide school space for a whole bunch of children from socially and economically distressed families.
(read that as Poor,Black,Mexican,and Immigrant if you want to know the real reasons)

Any way, IMO, subsidized mass transit and inexpensive personal transportation have merely allowed our politicians to avoid addressing the basic problem which is that workers and their jobs are seldom in close proximity to each other. A quick band aid is mass transit. Rebuilding our neighborhoods to be more people friendly seems to require more forethought than we normally require from our politicians, although it would solve the problem for all time and benefit humans much more in the long run than subsidized transportation ever will.

Subsidies always cause distortions, which always result in inefficiencies, which always require more government, which always requires more subsidies.
I think that is an ABSOLUTE.

Merry, I'd go along with your conspiracy theories more if General Motors didn't also manufacture busses and locomotives.

That's an interesting point of view there. Now let me tell you how it really is. The unemployment rate in the Portland area is the highest in the country right now. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind spending an hour on a high speed rail to commute to another city for work. If they don't spend that hour commuting a further distance they will probably spend two hours commuting across town sitting on a parkinglot of a freeway.

It's attitudes like yours that keeps us in the dark ages. Someone has to pay for progress and when it comes to mas transit it's only right that it's the tax payers that pay.

But I guess you'd rather see our cities gridlocked and it's residents closed off to outside opportunities.

These are my thoughts on the subject of gas prices at the pump. Clinton added an additional tax on gas at the pump, if you guys didn't forget. No one even noticed only because the price of gas was so low. Have you noticed this additional tax out of your wallet now, since gas prices went up?

The American people knowingly bought huge SUVs and large engine cars known not to be thrifty with gas usage, but we bought them anyway. Why complain now? I don't see too much that ever stopped people from buying a gas guzzling SUV, did it? How popular are they and were they for several years now? I drive a gas sipping Nissan Sentra and love the car!

I remember the transition from the American 8 cylinder car to Japanese imports, that crushed the US auto industry. So did their overpaid wages through union. I am not anti-union, but these auto workers were a bad apple in the bunch who made all union labor look bad. The big American cars were great. US manufactures weren't so great making smaller engines. Remember the Pinto that exploded in a rear end accident? The Japs took the market with solid cars, which the US market didn't offer.

Inflation of price occurred with everything. I am still shocked by the price I pay for toilet paper, which has literally doubled. The price for gas at the pump never really changed too much from the late 70's or why would people, by the masses, be opting for gas guzzlers?

The price at the pump has remained well below inflation prices of even toilet paper. For quite a few years, gas appeared cheap to us. Americans responded by buying huge SUVs by the drove. Sorry if you think the gas price sucks. I think it was a poor decision to buy a gas guzzler in the first place.

My very first car was a 4 wheel drive SUV. It didn't even have carpet! I know how much I paid for tires on that thing, which was a lot. I don't feel too sorry for people that drive expensive to maintain vehicles at all. They knowingly bought a gas guzzler and have the nerve to complain when the price goes up!

Sorry, but the price has been well below inflation since the late 70's! It is a matter of personal choice. Buy a gas sipper, like I did. Buy a huge SUV and whine about the cost. Give me a break!

Rover,

It is not progress to run rail cars or superhighways all over the countryside in a politically popular, but futile, attempt to make politicians look like they are doing something.

The quality of life availiable in a mega-city and the environmental problems that go along with forcing (economically) people to live in a crowded, dirty, and unsafe environment is IMO not good for people generally.

No, I wouldn't rather see the cities "gridlocked". I would like to have a politician acknowledge that the problems of excessive size are practically insurmountable and have them (the politicians) present policies that would disperse them a bit. It would also decrease the amount of transportation required, relieve some pollution problems, and allow more quality time (time not required for basic employment)

Mass transit only excerbates the basic problem of overcrowding. It allows managers, factory operators, and government bureaucracies to place their jobs where the products are cheapest (or pork barrelled the most) and count on the taxpayers to build the roads and bridges so that there will be enough warm bodies at the location so that operations can be profitable.

For instance, If it was uneconomic for you to commute to Seattle then you wouldn't do it. Then the manufacturer would be forced to move the jobs a little closer to employees. This would tend to decentralize the cities or the manufacturing which would probably be a good thing.

Whoever you are working for in Seattle must pay enough to compensate you for the time spent commuting. By subsidizing your commute the taxpayer is enabling your employer to pay you less than he would have to otherwise. This causes distortions in the local economies. All of them.

Seattle suffers from crowding, pollution, traffic problems and others. Portland suffers by exporting the job which you would otherwise take closer to home to Seattle thus reducing Portlands tax base and abilities to attract industries (jobs).

Southern California already takes much of the water that naturally belongs to the people or taxpayers of other reigions. The subsidized water makes it difficult to profitably grow alfalfa, lettuce, and many truck crops elsewhere in the country. The pouring of water into the Imperial Valley at taxpayer expense has driven vegetable farming, grass farming (hay and alfalfa pellets primarily), and Dairy Farms out of most of Appalachia, and is raising difficulties in your high desert let alone Wisconsin, Florida,and most of the deep south. The higher market value of real estate with subsidized water takes investment funds away from other places which could possibly be developed except for the economic distortions caused by subsidized water.

Subsidies, whether for mass transit, manufacturing, or irrigation projects, ALWAYS cause distortions, which ALWAYS result in inefficiencies, which ALWAYS requires more government supervision, which ALWAYS requires more subsidies, which ALWAYS results in a lowered quality of life for humans.

You realize that the words "Portland" and "Seattle" are being used for illustration only (poetic license) I have no idea of what their particular problems are but I am fairly well convinced that subsidized transit won't help their citizens. It will help only their professional politicians (bureaucratic managers).

(There are very few times when a discussion of economics can use the word "always". I am pleased to be able to here.

Merry

I think that you may be interested in this link.

www.neg-micon.com


Worth browsing, M

Thanx for the link, akaMech. Interesting. When I was living out in the woods in New Hampshire I looked into wind power as an alternative to running an internal combustion generator. It's a temptingly beautiful idea but wasn't really feasible for my needs. For one thing, in order for it to work, you need a fairly constant wind. In a dead calm you're sunk.

Merry

I live fairly near the "Mountaineer" wind farm. I have been out to visit it several times and spent some more time finding out more about it.

I was quite impressed with its promise. It was quite a place to take our out of town visitors.

Malarky, mass transit is substidized because millions of people can not afford the luxury of a car, or in some cases a parking space. Millions of people are forced to live in crowded, dirty, and unsafe environment because they are not paid a decent wage or they prefer the diversity a city offers. Transit makes sense economically on every level, personal vehicles don't as a rule.

Celi, Sorry it's not malarky, it's reality. I may be excesively cynical but I am afraid thats only my naive hopes for humanity.

Consider the political power available to the consortorium that built the "Sears Tower" (an office building in Chicago)or The Empire State Building. (an office building in New York City)

Now consider the political power available to the twenty or thirty thousand persons who were displaced by such an "accomplishment".

Consider who benefits from a building like that in an already crowded part of the world.

Consider who would benefit if the building was placed on a midwestern farm somewhere.

Consider how often you read in the national news about the mayor of New York City.

Consider how often you read in the same papers about the mayor of Cheyenne.

Consider the traffic jams in NYC, Wash DC, San Francisco. There are no places for the workers to live, hence they must commute to live.

Why would you think that most of the worlds major office buildings are located in the parts of the world least inaccessible to the category of citizens that I mentioned earlier.

Since the inputs and the products of the employees of the Sears Tower, the Empire State Building, and the Trans America building are only intelligence, why do you think that they are located in seaports?



Now, Who do you think that subsidized transit benefits the most

The Poor, The Black, The Disenfranchised, The Hopeless,the Worker?

Or the Politicians, The Bureaucracy, The Wealthy, The Employer,The Criminal?

I have oft been accused of being,philosophically, a naive realist. I am. Thats the way I see it. The workers (as taxpayers and producers) are subsidizing those who live on Park Avenue or Grosse Pointe. This may be the best way to do things, but IMO we should be aware that subsidized transportation mainly benefits those of us who wouldn't be caught dead on a city bus or a subway train. Thats why they tend to be dirty,smelly, unsafe, and inconvienient.