2
   

Why Do Higher Gas Prices Anger You?

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 11:19 am
Dys
dyslexia wrote:
the sport-utility market has become more of a woman's market than ever before. In fact, the rapid growth of truck and SUV sales in the U.S is due in large part to the increased number of women purchasing SUV's.


I've read some research that women buy the SUVs because they think they and their families will be safer in them. This increased after 9/11 and the Iraq war.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 11:32 am
Thomas wrote:
Multiplication, division, and modern arithmetics in general were invented in Arabia in the 8th century. We're supposed to believe that with all the advancement in mathematics for some reason we just can't come up with anything better than the 8th century. Bullsh*t. There is a reason why these advancements have not been used.
Math is not an invention it's a law.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 11:35 am
Amigo
Amigo wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Multiplication, division, and modern arithmetics in general were invented in Arabia in the 8th century. We're supposed to believe that with all the advancement in mathematics for some reason we just can't come up with anything better than the 8th century. Bullsh*t. There is a reason why these advancements have not been used.
Math is not an invention it's a law.


Not until the invention of zero.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 11:48 am
Thomas you said

"If we were having this discussion in the stone age, everything about that logic could be applied to stones. Stones are a finite resource, and people are using it to build houses. Ergo, stones will run out one day, the only question is when. And that's horrible because stones, remember, aren't just another commodity: They are the very foundation that the Stone Age civilization is built on! We have every reason to believe that thoughts like this would have sounded just as compelling to our elders 20000 years ago as the "running out of oil" thought sounds to you know."


I think you are wrong on two counts, first stones were never consumed. Second (although I like the analogy to foundation stone) stone age "civilisation" was actually built on muscle power and their primitive machines (levers rollers etc) to translate that power into useful work. It was not actually built on stones!

David Friedman may know something about the futures market but he never mentions oil in the context of thermodynamics or geology. I think he's one of those "flat earth economists" as Dr Colin Campbell describes them.

You said

"We have been "running out of" materials for centuries. Every time this happened, the scarcity of whatever we were running out of raised its price, and self-interest took it from there. This time might be different, but it would be a historical first if it was."

If oil was just a resource like any other I might agree, but its not. Oil is energy and energy is not a material.

Unless you were refering to e=mc2 Smile
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 12:13 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Its like flashy watches. How much better is the time from a £6000 rolex?

We have imo to return to appreciation of function as opposed to fashion.


I don't think there ever has been a time in which human vanity and the desire for art, embellishment, and distinction have not been strong, dominant factors in the behavior of individuals and the societies they create. Moreover the generally transient cases of austerity and culturally imposed "simplicity" , when they do occur, are usually accpmpanied by organized cruelty and oppression.

There is nothing to which we can return in this area. I'll take the Rolex.

There are, of course, a few exceptions - notably the Amish people of southern Pennsylvania - and others. Tourists are captivated (and non Amish locals enraged) by the sight of their black horse drawn carriages moving slowly down the highways. A closer examination does reveal a certain simplicity ion their lives. However it also shows that their rejection of comfort and decoration is highly selective, focusing mostly on visible modern conveniences. Most are quite prosperous, shrewd businessmen and lead very comfortable lives,
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 02:38 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Its like flashy watches. How much better is the time from a £6000 rolex?

We have imo to return to appreciation of function as opposed to fashion.


I don't think there ever has been a time in which human vanity and the desire for art, embellishment, and distinction have not been strong, dominant factors in the behavior of individuals and the societies they create. Moreover the generally transient cases of austerity and culturally imposed "simplicity" , when they do occur, are usually accpmpanied by organized cruelty and oppression.

There is nothing to which we can return in this area. I'll take the Rolex.

There are, of course, a few exceptions - notably the Amish people of southern Pennsylvania - and others. Tourists are captivated (and non Amish locals enraged) by the sight of their black horse drawn carriages moving slowly down the highways. A closer examination does reveal a certain simplicity ion their lives. However it also shows that their rejection of comfort and decoration is highly selective, focusing mostly on visible modern conveniences. Most are quite prosperous, shrewd businessmen and lead very comfortable lives,


seems to me that the Amish get the best of both worlds. Compliance with their own austere standards, yet quite willing to take advantage of modernity should necessity dictate. Is that why local non Amish are enraged, or is it the traffic queues ? Smile
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 02:44 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
I think you are wrong on two counts, first stones were never consumed. Second (although I like the analogy to foundation stone) stone age "civilisation" was actually built on muscle power and their primitive machines (levers rollers etc) to translate that power into useful work. It was not actually built on stones!

If you invest stones into buildings or a hand-axes (which eventually decay and break) that's no different than consumption for the purposes of our discussion. As for stone age civilization being build on muscles not stones, the point of my parody was to illustrate is how foolish the idea is that there is this one central resource that the civilization is built in. Stones are just another commodity -- and so is oil. When we expect both to become too expensive in the forseeable future, the vendor's self interest will make sure to raise their prices, causing the buyer's self-interest to look for something else. No do-gooders need intervene.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
David Friedman may know something about the futures market but he never mentions oil in the context of thermodynamics or geology. I think he's one of those "flat earth economists" as Dr Colin Campbell describes them.

No. I agree Friedman's politics is somewhat nutty; he is an anarcho-capitalist who thinks that all government functions should eventually be privatized. But his economics are perfectly conventional here: He is simply summing up Harold Hotelling: The economics of depleteable Resources. Journal of Political Economy (1931), which remains the standard economic treatise on the subject. It has aged considerably better than the confident predictions of doom that were peddled about oil in 1931. Hard as it is to believe, "the context of thermodynamics or geology" is nearly irrelevant to our discussion. The question, 'will we run out of oil?', is not whether the supply of oil is geologically finite -- which it is. It is whether the supply of oil will fall short of demand. This it won't, because rising prices will decrease demand, and it won't do it apruptly because under profit maximization, the price of oil will rise with the interest rate until it gets too expensive for us.

Steve wrote:
If oil was just a resource like any other I might agree, but its not. Oil is energy and energy is not a material.

Clever semantics I admit, but you're wrong: Oil is just another material from which we can extract energy. If it gets too expensive we'll simply extract our energy from some other material.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 02:49 pm
Anybody have a million bucks? Toyota or Honda developed a hydrogen car that doesn't use gasoline. Wink
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:01 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

seems to me that the Amish get the best of both worlds. Compliance with their own austere standards, yet quite willing to take advantage of modernity should necessity dictate. Is that why local non Amish are enraged, or is it the traffic queues ? Smile


I think it's just the traffic queues. The Amish are distant, a bit skeptical of "the English" as they style all of us, but smart, hard working, canny people.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:01 pm
Thomas wrote:
Oil is just another material from which we can extract energy. If it gets too expensive we'll simply extract our energy from some other material.


such as....?

nothing on the planet comes close to oil and gas for heat energy content, except one thing with its own particular problems, and thats uranium.

"Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isnt like tv news is it? Here's what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on".

Kurt Vonnegut 2004
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:06 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The Amish are distant, a bit skeptical of "the English" as they style all of us..


Thats perfectly understandable. I would be too. Smile

Where do they hail from?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:08 pm
We're one of the lucky ones where $4/gallon gas prices won't change our lifestyle. However, I only drive about 5,000 miles/year.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:09 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Anybody have a million bucks? Toyota or Honda developed a hydrogen car that doesn't use gasoline. Wink


Such a vehicle would be relatively easy to design and build. Processes for the safe and reliable storage, distribution and delivery of the hydrogen would be the greater challenge ( a 5% concentration of hydrogen in air is an explosive mixture.)

However it wouldn't be quite accurate to say that a hydrogen car "doesn't use gasoline" in that - as Old Europe pointed out - the least costly and, from an energy perspective, wasteful process for producing the free hydrogen is stripping it from petroleum-derived gases or liquids.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:16 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
The Amish are distant, a bit skeptical of "the English" as they style all of us..


Thats perfectly understandable. I would be too. Smile

Where do they hail from?


You would???? Smile - a good one!

Mostly Germany (and Holland) - they arrived here in the early 19th century. The largest concentration is in Lancaster county Pennsylvania, in the southeastern part of the state (directly north of Baltimore) - beautiful rolling hills and rich agricultural land with well-tended and productive farms. Urban development is sadly a threat to the region, which looks a bit like the Lake District in England. Other, less severe, groups, including the Mennonites were prominent in the rural areas of the Mid Atlantic states from New York to North Carolina, however, many have abandoned their former identities. Too bad.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:24 pm
thanks late(ish) here must conserve energy turn off light and turn in !
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2005 03:34 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Oil is just another material from which we can extract energy. If it gets too expensive we'll simply extract our energy from some other material.


such as....?

I don't know. If you read Jevons' The Coal question (1865), you will notice that he says the same thing about coal. Based on this argument, they could have predicted that coal might not become scarcer after all. But they could not have answered the question "such as ...?" with "oil gas, and uranium"; in retrospect, it doesn't seem like a fair question to ask Jevons' hypothetical contemporary. Today, this is exactly my opinion of your request.

The best answer I can offer you is that I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. You pick any energy source x and any date y that is at least one year in the future. I'd prefer something like three years to minimize distortions by speculation and such. After you've made your picks, I'll bet you that the inflation-adjusted price of resource x at date y will be lower than it now is. Do we have a bet? Are you willing to put your money were your mouth is too? Before you answer, fairness compels me to point out that this is a re-run of a famous bet of the 1980s that turned out radically different than your side expected.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 03:56 am
Look who's already beginning to adapt.

Today's New York Times wrote:
THERE'S nothing like an energy squeeze to buoy the spirits of Internet merchants.

Online shopping sites, already on a roll, are getting help from the high price of gasoline, which is prompting untold numbers of consumers to boot up their PC's instead of driving their S.U.V.'s to the mall.

And while oil prices have fallen from their summer peak, prices at the pump remain at more than $3 a gallon in much of the country, with tight supplies likely to keep them high through the holiday season.

"There's going to be a lot of talk about Christmas shopping being hammered because of higher fuel prices, but we're saying, 'On the contrary,' " said Shmuel Gniwisch, chief executive of the online jewelry store Ice.com. "Our sales will increase."

Read the whole New York Times story
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 06:59 am
Good posts Thomas thanks

Fascinating book by Jevrons. Was he wrong to raise concerns about dependency on a finite resource? What would his reaction have been if you (in Victorian England) had said to him

"Don't worry Jevrons old boy. We know the Navy and the entire British Empire runs on coal. But something will come along to replace it when its all gone, you wait and see."

his reaction might have been "You are talking about the future of the Empire as if it was just a matter of good luck, I take it more seriously than you"

Thomas you gave an honest answer to my question

such as...?

I dont know either. If I did know, or if you knew, or if we were in partnership together and knew, we would instantly acquire such wealth as to make Bill Gates....well you know where I'm coming from Smile



.............................................................

Regarding betting ...Interesting I will come back to you on that.

However one minor point. Please dont classify me as just part of the environmentalist lobby. ["your side lost"]. I'm not a tree hugger. I like trees dont get me wrong, but in a purely functional and indeed platonic sense.

.............................................................


I want to make a couple of points

First I maintain strongly that oil is energy and therefore not just a resource like any other.
As the price of oil increases less favourable oil deposits become economic. Further increases might spur investment in the latest extraction technology to squeeze out as much recoverable oil as possible. But it seems obvious to me that no matter the price, you cant keep pumping oil for ever. At first the oil gushes. Then there is a steady flow, then it has to be pumped out. At some stage you put as much energy down the well as is liberated by the oil you have extracted. Energy return on energy invested is unity. The well is dead, regardless of the price of oil, and regardless of how much oil is still left.

Second there seems to be a great deal of confusion about glib phrases such as "the oil is running out". I hope I've never said that.

It gets people's attention but its misleading. Its not like we have gone a long way in the car and completely forgotten to watch the fuel gauge, only to find the 'empty' warning light flashing and no filling station nearby.

To continue the car analogy, its more like we have started a long car journey and got used to going pretty quickly. Indeed we are so used to going quickly that its a real bummer when we have to slow down. (Sometimes we had to whilst we had arguments with passengers who insisted on starting wars etc, or because there was dispute among the various drivers. This car has several steering wheels]. The terrain is reasonably flat and we keep an even speed by using the accelerator (gas) pedal as normal. The fuel gauge shows we have a lot of petrol left (not full obviously but certainly not empty). Then a funny thing happens. We find we want to give the engine a bit more power and ....nothing. We are going flat out. What had seemed like a flatish road was actually the beginning of an uphill. The demand for fuel from the engine had been steadily increasing, and we had been pressing the accelerator pedal harder without noticing it. We cant supply any more fuel to the engine..what happens? we start to slow down, which gets everybody very annoyed.

Its not a good analogy but it illustrates what I mean to a point. Peak oil is not about running out of oil. Its about the ability of all the oil wells in the world to satisfy world oil demand. We are currently using oil 3 times faster than we are finding it. (And have been for quite a while). At the moment oil production is about 80mbpd. With the industrialisation of China and India, it is forcast to reach 120mbpd within 20 years. Can we just turn on the taps more? Many people believe we are already at or approaching the condition of Peak Oil, when for the first time, oil production fails to meet demand. Do we say to the Chinese and the Indians they cannot use oil like we do now?

There are of course many other sources of energy. But nothing compares to oil, especially for transport. We're hooked on it!

Of course there will be a solution. But I dont think its going to come from wonder fuel resource X as yet undiscovered. It will come from radically altering the energy mix (oil will still be a major component). The difficulty is imo over the next 10-20 years as we have to get used to radical changes in the way we like.

It seems like the US response is to buy time and make the transition to the new economy as comfortable as possible by use of their military to secure oil resources.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:09 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
However one minor point. Please dont classify me as just part of the environmentalist lobby. ["your side lost"]. I'm not a tree hugger. I like trees dont get me wrong, but in a purely functional and indeed platonic sense.

I see. But who can be expected to sacrifice rhetorical effect to reality? Certainly not me.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2005 07:16 am
ok think we understand each other Smile

Still thinking about the bet. How much are yu prepared to lose?
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:57:52