War on Terror

In article ,
Roger wrote:

We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.

we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not really
cheap).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 01:01:36 -0400, Roger
wrote in
::

People went back
to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
building them and why not.

Actually, Detroit began pushing SUVs, because they are classed as
light trucks and do not fall under clean air mandates.

Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra
taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks.
So, now our infrastructure is in serious decline and our resources are
being drained. For this kind of wanking of the common good, I can only
blame the sleazebags that we've put in office over the last 40 years. That
is to say, we can only blame ourselves.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the extra
taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks.

Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the license fees
to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car or truck, the more
you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on weight. When I lived in
Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight and half on value. When I
lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get
commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there,
though.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

"Roger" wrote in message
...
Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

The sad part is we had a really good start on conserving energy.
People were moving to smaller cars, better mileage, learning to
conserve, car pool... and a whole list of things.

We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using. The result was
gas became cheap(relatively speaking) and plentiful.

Ah, Roger...conservation maybe contributed 2% to the price reductions in
fuel prices. Increased production contributed the other 98%.

In 1977, average fuel economy was, what?, 18-20 MPG? Today, even with SUV's
,etc, it's much higher.
http://www.geohive.com (Pew Research data)

People went back
to demanding big cars and trucks so the automakers dutifully started
building them and why not. We wanted them and they make more money on
them. Car pooling was too inconvenient, as were most of the other
methods of conserving and ... here we are and for that we can't blame
the government. Now if, instead of conserving they build subsidized
refineries to increase the output...

What refineries are those? None have been built in the US in something like
20 years.

Then we can blame the
government..

Roger, you're babbling.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger wrote:

We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.

we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
really
cheap).

What would you define "really cheap" as being?

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
So, now our infrastructure is in serious decline and our resources are
being drained. For this kind of wanking of the common good, I can only
blame the sleazebags that we've put in office over the last 40 years. That
is to say, we can only blame ourselves.

"It must be remembered that, in a democracy, the whores are us" -- PJ
O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_


IIRC, in the 1950's it cost $300K per mile to build the interstate highways.

This past year, in a town near here, a quarter mile lane resurfacing project
cost, $2.1 million and took ten months to complete.

The vast majority of taxes that are supposed to go into road construction
and maintenance actually wind up in the general fund. Actual highways
projects are paid for by bond issues or special sales taxes.

Recently, George Patterson posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the
extra taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact
of trucks.

Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the
license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the
car or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based
completely on weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee
was based on weight and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all
trucks (including pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags,
regardless of usage. I don't know how they classify SUVs there,
though.

Good points. I wonder how effective this scaling has been? For example, is
there a different rate for vehicles licensed as "trucks" than for those
rated as "cars" in such states as NJ (which has some of the worst
infrastructure, btw)?

Neil

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.

we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in consumption.
This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased the
supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
really
cheap).

What would you define "really cheap" as being?

Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

We really reduced the amount of fuel we were using.

we did? I thought we merely reduced the rate of increase in
consumption.
This, plus the economic incentive of pumping marginal wells, increased
the
supply so that gas became plentiful and less expensive (but still not
really
cheap).

What would you define "really cheap" as being?

Well, $0.35/gallon would be really cheap. right?

"Cheap" to me means "poor quality"; we could have cheap gas by watering it
down. :~)

$.35 a gallon is what gas was going for in 1971; in todays $$$'s that
something like $3.25.

There's just no pleasing some people!! :~(

Want to calculate how much the price reductions were attrbutable to
conservations reducing demand versus deregulations vastly increasing supply?

(Americans want varying forms of socialism (particularly regarding their
"jobs"), but want to consume an abundance of inexpensive goods like free
market capitalists.)

Yep in Georgia my huge 83 Bronco was registered as "truck" , here in TN. my
big truck is registered as "truck", just costs alot less here due to
Georgia's ad valorem taxes. I don't know if the wannabe SUV's are
registered as trucks or cars however. I got specialty plates this year so I
think they costed all of 50 bucks or so.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:mbGke.3$2b.1@trndny05...
Neil Gould wrote:

Perhaps, except that they get _licensed_ as cars, and thus avoid the
extra
taxable income that (theoretically) helps to offset the impact of trucks.

Perhaps this is true where you live. Many States, however, base the
license fees to some extent on gross weight; that is, the heavier the car
or truck, the more you pay. In New Jersey, the fee is based completely on
weight. When I lived in Georgia, about half of the fee was based on weight
and half on value. When I lived in Tennessee, all trucks (including
pickups and vans) had to get commercial tags, regardless of usage. I don't
know how they classify SUVs there, though.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't
got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.