(02-01-2010 11:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 11:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Ok, you have a degree in law. I have a degree in business. I'm telling you what it WILL do, and that is kill the economy. Less jobs, promotions, and raises are always a side-effect of policies like that. Will it recover? Well, only if the rest of the market prevails and increases as well. ....but it will take a long time. Increases like that don't happen overnight. We didn't go from .5 cent cokes to 1.20 cokes overnight. It took 40 years. You willing to put people out of work for 40 years? If not, what's going to take up the slack when companies that rely on petrol, which there are thousands, have to start laying off?
I don't get this about your "Libertarianism".

Let's take your coke example. Let's say we're still selling coke for a nickel but it costs a dollar to make it. Is it really good for the economy to keep selling it for a nickel, or should we let the cost go up to the $1.00+?
There are arguments both ways, but keeping it at a nickel will certainly lead to misallocated resources which will harm the economy in the long run. If you always look for short term gratification, then you'll keep the price at a nickel, but in the end that will screw you. That's where we are with oil. We keep the price artificially low with tax breaks, and that leaves us extremely vulnerable to OPEC.

Doesn't cost 7+ dollars to make a gallon of gas, Owl, using your analogy.

If you go all-in with costs, it probably is around $4/gallon, which is the range I'm talking about. But a lot of the real costs aren't reflected. So we overconsume. Which makes us vulnerable to OPEC. If we were paying $1,000/year more for gasoline, but getting $1,000/year back in other tax savings, we'd be in the same place, so no devastating impact on economy. And we'd find ways to use less, meaning less money to OPEC, less money to Putin, less money to al-Qaeda, less money to Chavez.

(02-01-2010 11:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you go all-in with costs, it probably is around $4/gallon, which is the range I'm talking about. But a lot of the real costs aren't reflected. So we overconsume. Which makes us vulnerable to OPEC. If we were paying $1,000/year more for gasoline, but getting $1,000/year back in other tax savings, we'd be in the same place, so no devastating impact on economy. And we'd find ways to use less, meaning less money to OPEC, less money to Putin, less money to al-Qaeda, less money to Chavez.

Our economy is used to the prices we pay for gas now. You raise them 2 dollars overnight, you'll see this economy come to a slow pace. It's happened before and no, we didn't "just get used to it". People lost their jobs over that ****.

Owl, economies aren't as dynamic as you think. They're all running on a thread. People ***** about Exxon's billion dollar profits, but they're one dynamic away from a billion dollar loss. Wonder where the haters of Exxon will be then?

You cannot drastically change the dynamics of an economy overnight and expect all the factors in said economy to follow suit and remain static. They will change, sir. Good God, will they change. .....and people will lose their livelihoods and jobs.

BTW, why won't you post on my FB page about the question I asked about law school, since you did add my ass?

(02-01-2010 11:48 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 11:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If you go all-in with costs, it probably is around $4/gallon, which is the range I'm talking about. But a lot of the real costs aren't reflected. So we overconsume. Which makes us vulnerable to OPEC. If we were paying $1,000/year more for gasoline, but getting $1,000/year back in other tax savings, we'd be in the same place, so no devastating impact on economy. And we'd find ways to use less, meaning less money to OPEC, less money to Putin, less money to al-Qaeda, less money to Chavez.

Our economy is used to the prices we pay for gas now. You raise them 2 dollars overnight, you'll see this economy come to a slow pace. It's happened before and no, we didn't "just get used to it". People lost their jobs over that ****.
Owl, economies aren't as dynamic as you think. They're all running on a thread. People ***** about Exxon's billion dollar profits, but they're one dynamic away from a billion dollar loss. Wonder where the haters of Exxon will be then?
You cannot drastically change the dynamics of an economy overnight and expect all the factors in said economy to follow suit and remain static. They will change, sir. Good God, will they change. .....and people will lose their livelihoods and jobs.

But that's my point. You could phase this in, bump it a quarter a year until you got there, and people could absorb it. Right now it's underpriced so people overconsume, then we have a hiccup like last year and it jumps a couple of bucks overnight and people do get hurt.

Like I say, we're way underpaying now. Whether people like it or not, that's true. Adjusted for inflation, it's cheaper than in the 50s, and it's a lot harder to find oil now than then. We are in a situation that cannot be maintained long term. Do we want to work our way out in an orderly progression that we can control, or wait until it bites us in the @$$ again, like has happened many times before? Exxon makes the same profit either way, by the way.

I'm not thinking you understand the dynamics of an economy, Owl.

(02-01-2010 11:50 PM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, why won't you post on my FB page about the question I asked about law school, since you did add my ass?

I thought you excluded me. OK I posted a couple now. You should go for it.

(02-02-2010 12:08 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm not thinking you understand the dynamics of an economy, Owl.

No I do understand. My undergrad was economics and my masters was accounting. I agree that your concerns are legitimate.

What I'm trying to explain is how bad things get if we don't do something. What people outside the industry don't understand is how bad the situation is right now.

We are not running out of oil. But we are running out of cheap oil. If we stay this dependent, we're going to get priced out one day. And it's going to come in one fell swoop that destroys the economy. If we have to sacrifice a little now to prevent that' it's a good move. Trust me, it really is.

(02-02-2010 12:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We are not running out of oil. But we are running out of cheap oil. If we stay this dependent, we're going to get priced out one day. And it's going to come in one fell swoop that destroys the economy. If we have to sacrifice a little now to prevent that' it's a good move. Trust me, it really is.

So, do we ignore the global market? Make it a national commodity and drill for our own? Flood the market? What do you think the answer is?

Oil isn't cheap, but I don't think we're running out of cheap oil. The "reason" you think that is we're running our economy into the ground and it's devaluing our dollar. This isn't an "oil" issue, this is a "dumb***" issue. I.e. the dumbasses the dumbmasses put into office. We HAVE oil here, but we not exploiting our resources due to idiots like some of our certain resident morons.

(02-02-2010 12:32 AM)Rebel Wrote:  So, do we ignore the global market? Make it a national commodity and drill for our own? Flood the market? What do you think the answer is?
Oil isn't cheap, but I don't think we're running out of cheap oil. The "reason" you think that is we're running our economy into the ground and it's devaluing our dollar. This isn't an "oil" issue, this is a "dumb***" issue. I.e. the dumbasses the dumbmasses put into office. We HAVE oil here, but we not exploiting our resources due to idiots like some of our certain resident morons.

You're onto something there.

But here's a problem with all the "alternatives" stuff. There are alternatives for "energy." What there aren't are any alternatives for "oil." So all the stuff Obama is pushing will reduce the amount of, say, coal we burn. But it won't reduce the amount of oil we use. And we'll be producing less domestically as old wells decline and new ones are not drilled. So the Obama energy "plan" will have us importing more oil in 2015 than we do today. I don't think that's the right way to go.

There are only two real alternatives to gasoline today:
1. Ethanol (corn ethanol sucks, but sugar cane ethanol rocks)
2. Electric cars (if we have enough generating and transmission capacity to recharge everybody's car, which we don't right now, and if we can develop batteries with long enough lives to make it viable)

Everything else is just kidding ourselves. Maybe 10 years, maybe 25, maybe 50, maybe never. But not now.

So the only things we can do:
1. Drill here, drill now (we'll find more than studies suggest, but it will be more expensive than they suggest, too)
2. Get electrics on the road (backed up by necessary infrastructure)
3. Cut deals with Latin America to bring in sugar cane ethanol
4. Tax oil up close to a real price, in stages and revenue-neutral (or nearly so) to start to work demand down

(02-01-2010 12:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I want to know where the New York to Chicago high speed rail that went through Cleveland went to. Who in the hell wants to o to Cincin nasti. I would love to know the backstory on that one. Probably Columbus got a hold of the plans and wanted the rail to go through them. That Ohio rail is the dumbest thing I see. Link Cleveland to New York and Chicago.

It will over time. THis is just the beginning. They will connect in the future. I am actually surprised that there is nothing to/from Atlanta but I think in the future there will probably a connection to Charlotte and in time connect to the Tampa/Orlando line. It is a process. In the end, it should be a nationwide system-like the highways.

(02-01-2010 12:47 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 12:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Than number is an estimate so you know it is going to be worse than than that. Ohio isn't Europe or the East Coast.

They lose money too!

See, it's all one big friggin' myth that passenger rail makes sense. Maybe, maybe in Japan have they pulled it off (after writing off pensions to the gov't). But nowhere else.

NOWHERE.

China is building one.

(02-01-2010 12:50 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 12:42 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 12:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I want to know where the New York to Chicago high speed rail that went through Cleveland went to. Who in the hell wants to o to Cincin nasti. I would love to know the backstory on that one. Probably Columbus got a hold of the plans and wanted the rail to go through them. That Ohio rail is the dumbest thing I see. Link Cleveland to New York and Chicago.

Who in the hell wants to go to Columbus or Cleveland? (for business yeah I go but that is it). I would much rather go to Louisville, Lexington, and Chicago.

1. Louisville=dirty
2. Chicago=loserville
3. I know this b/c I've been to all of these cities, AND I DIDN'T NEED A TRAIN!

We have roads that we paid for! Use them, and stop taking billions to waste on this crap.

You aren't really bright are you?

(02-01-2010 03:13 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  If Amtrak loses money every year what makes them think people will use an even more expensive method?

Well, it will be faster, smarter(ie. connect population centers) and cheaper than building more airports/runways and new roads and adding lanes.

(02-01-2010 03:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'd like to think it could be of use since the highways seem to get more and more congested every year. And when they get expanded with additional lanes, that also requires bumping people out of their houses and other property, just like adding train tracks.

But I don't see how you can make money off of it. I've heard that Amtrak near Chicago is really slow due to having to wait for freight trains. I don't know from personal experience though. If there was a fast train across the continent maybe I would do that instead of flying, especially if its scenic.

The problem is your point of view. They likely won't make money on it. Do highways make money(with the exception of a few toll roads)? Are we making a profit on building airports? Does Metra make money? No. But it sure has a large number of riders that would add countless cars to the roads without it-thus costing as much if not more to build/ expand roads. Having said all that, I have heard that it might be possible for a private company to be profitable as long as the infrastructure is there(much like airports and airlines).

(02-01-2010 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that even after they spend all this money what they will have is crap systems.
If we had the equivalent of a Shinkansen or TGV or Eurostar, Americans would ride it. I would think that for business travel in the northeast corridor, there would be a high demand.
The reason nobody uses the "high speed trains" running in that corridor today is because they are crap. To extrapolate that into a conclusion that people wouldn't ride good trains is a mistake.
The really good high-speed trains are almost as far removed from what we call "high speed trains" as space travel is from hitchhiking.

Nobody rides Acela(sp?)? You do know that that route makes a profit, right? If nobody rides it, that couldn't happen? I do agree with you that it should be REAL highspeed trains.

(02-01-2010 06:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 04:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that even after they spend all this money what they will have is crap systems.
If we had the equivalent of a Shinkansen or TGF or Eurostar, Americans would ride it. I would think that for business travel in the northeast corridor, there would be a high demand.
The reason nobody uses the "high speed trains" running in that corridor today is because they are crap. To extrapolate that into a conclusion that people wouldn't ride good trains is a mistake.
The really good high-speed trains are almost as far removed from what we call "high speed trains" as space travel is from hitchhiking.

I see your point..but..I really think Americans are CAR people and just will never really take to riding the rails. We just like the freedom of being able to travel without constrictions. Having to be constrained by schedules and having to find other modes of transportation AFTER we have reached a destination is just too much for most of us to deal with...I know I have NO intention of using such a system.

You can say the same thing about airports.

(02-01-2010 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 11:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Ok, you have a degree in law. I have a degree in business. I'm telling you what it WILL do, and that is kill the economy. Less jobs, promotions, and raises are always a side-effect of policies like that. Will it recover? Well, only if the rest of the market prevails and increases as well. ....but it will take a long time. Increases like that don't happen overnight. We didn't go from .5 cent cokes to 1.20 cokes overnight. It took 40 years. You willing to put people out of work for 40 years? If not, what's going to take up the slack when companies that rely on petrol, which there are thousands, have to start laying off?
I don't get this about your "Libertarianism".

Let's take your coke example. Let's say we're still selling coke for a nickel but it costs a dollar to make it. Is it really good for the economy to keep selling it for a nickel, or should we let the cost go up to the $1.00+?

There are arguments both ways, but keeping it at a nickel will certainly lead to misallocated resources which will harm the economy in the long run. If you always look for short term gratification, then you'll keep the price at a nickel, but in the end that will screw you. That's where we are with oil. We keep the price artificially low with tax breaks, and that leaves us extremely vulnerable to OPEC.

This is essentially what I have been saying too. Alternate energy and alternate transportation is kept uncompetitive due to gas prices being artificially low due to the fact that not all costs are priced in. We don't have billions of dollars in military power protecting our supply of solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

(02-02-2010 12:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2010 11:16 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Ok, you have a degree in law. I have a degree in business. I'm telling you what it WILL do, and that is kill the economy. Less jobs, promotions, and raises are always a side-effect of policies like that. Will it recover? Well, only if the rest of the market prevails and increases as well. ....but it will take a long time. Increases like that don't happen overnight. We didn't go from .5 cent cokes to 1.20 cokes overnight. It took 40 years. You willing to put people out of work for 40 years? If not, what's going to take up the slack when companies that rely on petrol, which there are thousands, have to start laying off?
I don't get this about your "Libertarianism".

Let's take your coke example. Let's say we're still selling coke for a nickel but it costs a dollar to make it. Is it really good for the economy to keep selling it for a nickel, or should we let the cost go up to the $1.00+?

There are arguments both ways, but keeping it at a nickel will certainly lead to misallocated resources which will harm the economy in the long run. If you always look for short term gratification, then you'll keep the price at a nickel, but in the end that will screw you. That's where we are with oil. We keep the price artificially low with tax breaks, and that leaves us extremely vulnerable to OPEC.

This is essentially what I have been saying too. Alternate energy and alternate transportation is kept uncompetitive due to gas prices being artificially low due to the fact that not all costs are priced in. We don't have billions of dollars in military power protecting our supply of solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

How can you say they the price is "artificially low", when the oil companies are making record profits. I think you have a reality bias.

(02-02-2010 12:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  How can you say they the price is "artificially low", when the oil companies are making record profits. I think you have a reality bias.

Energy companies don't include military and diplomatic expenditures of the federal government in their bottom line. There are more complicated economic factors that others can explain, but the foreign policy issue is a glaring example of hidden costs.

(02-02-2010 12:49 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 12:43 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  How can you say they the price is "artificially low", when the oil companies are making record profits. I think you have a reality bias.

Energy companies don't include military and diplomatic expenditures of the federal government in their bottom line. There are more complicated economic factors that others can explain, but the foreign policy issue is a glaring example of hidden costs.

You imply all of us should include the hidden cost of our security in our bottom line. Realty check.