Democrats vote NO to lower gas prices, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 01:05 AM by harvib
reply to post by jamie83





So if it's not low supply what is it?


It's the appearance of low supply.



If it's not a partisan issue, what is it?


The game is fixed. You are watching a dog and pony show.


I still haven't heard an explanation that makes sense regarding why we shouldn't drill offshore.


Drill away!


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 01:18 AM by harvib
reply to post by passenger





Alternative energy is like that. It probably will come around some day, but it doesn’t suffice now. It would be great if some genius invented a flux-capacitor tomorrow and we could all start running our cars on coffee grounds and banana peels - and someday it might happen


My friend, we can walk in space, land on a planet, we can explore the deepest parts of the ocean, but we can't figure out how to survive without oil. You can buy electric cars, the technology is here.



reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 09:04 AM by jamie83
Originally posted by harvib
reply to
post by jamie83





So if it's not low supply what is it?


It's the appearance of low supply.



I'm missing the distinction you're trying to make here. In economic terms, the supply is the quantity that's offered for sale everyday. The demand is the quantity the people want to purchase.

So it makes no sense to frame this in terms of the "appearance" of low supply. The supply is what it is -the amount of oil that's for sale on the market. How can the "real" supply be different that what "appears" to be the supply?


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 09:11 AM by llpoolej
Originally posted by sos37


That's what I'm afraid of. As much as I love this country, I have to admit that I'm stunned by how many full-sized trucks and SUVs I still see on the roads nowadays with only single occupants and no business signs.


There are a few reasons why this is

1) The SUV's aren't worth CRAP anymore. I would say the vast majority are either severely upside down in them, or, don't want to basically give them away. How much gas can you buy for what you will lose? A 2007 Yukon XL Denali, or a 2007 top of the line Escalade, is worth about 21k now. They sold for +60k a year ago. How much gas will 40k buy you? Not worth losing that.

I have a 03 Yukon XL denali, that I bought at rough book(wholesale) a year ago. I am only about 5k upside down, but, 5k buys a lot of gas. Not to mention I still need a vehicle that will seat 7 people and carry two 36" dog crates plus large photography equipment and luggage. There are no signs on my vehicle and when I drive down the road, it will look like I am alone(tinted windows in the rear) even if I have kids and dogs with me.

2) small cars are expensive right now. Trading in that SUV isn't worth losing your butt and paying a premium. Again, how much gas can you buy with that loss?

3) People's needs for a vehicle aren't apparent on the outside. Assuming is never a good thing to do. You have no idea WHY someone is driving the vehicle they are. Would you trade in a car that you were going to lose 10's of thousands on? Or, have paid off free and clear and lose 10's of thousands on?

Many people are buying cheap run around cars for daily driving and keeping their large vehicles. Many dealers just *won't* trade for trucks/suv's now. Seriously. They will not take them in at all. They can't sell them, so, they don't want them


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 11:33 AM by sos37
reply to post by llpoolej



Those are good points that make plenty of sense. So what your saying, assuming that gas prices are staying as high as they are, is what we are seeing is a transition period. We do know that sales of large trucks and SUVs are dropping off like crazy. As time goes on and the gas sucking trucks and SUVs that people already own become unreliable they won't replace them with the same unless they need them for logistical needs. Makes sense. We really won't see emissions reductions from higher fuel prices for another decade or so, depending on the reliability of the vehicles in question.


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 01:25 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by dervishmadwhirler
I believe you just hit on the real conspiracy.

My use of a resource is not a sin or a crime. Your use of a resource is not a sin or a crime. The real problem is not people's use of resources, but the concept that people must be extremely careful to not overuse a resource.

We live on an awesome planet. We have resources in such abundance that it is unlikely we will ever run out of them. I have a garden that will provide me with food forever. I plant seeds, spend a little time and effort to make sure the weeds and grass don't overgrow them, and each tiny seed becomes days worth of food for my family. I save a few of the new seeds and plant them next year, and the cycle begins again.

I use lumber to build my house. That lumber comes from trees which grow naturally. Each tree drops seeds in abundance each year, each of which grows into a new tree if not trampled. There will never be a shortage of trees this way, as new ones grow to replace those which are used.

I burn gasoline in my pickup to get from place to place. that gasoline is never destroyed; it is converted into CO2 and H2O. The trees and garden use the CO2 and H2O to grow and give off O2 which I can then breathe. The plants die and return the carbon to the soil and geologic processes convert it into more oil which can be made into gasoline. A slow process, this, but we still have as much known oil as we have ever had. We just don't use it.

Pollution does not exist far from the cities. My water is clean and pure. I am surrounded by trees and grass and berries and fruits and vegetables. I have deer I can hunt for food, and any time of the day you can stand outside and hear a cow lowing or a chicken clucking. My water comes from a well which has never run dry and does not need clorine or flouride to make it 'safe'. No shortage of anything. Abundance of everything.

Pollution only exists when mankind bands together in cities so tightly as to make it impossible for nature to clean itself as fast as it is being soiled. It will catch up if we allow it, but we seem adamant about our need to have everything delivered to us in a truck and everything covered in rock (concrete). That's why I don't buy the stories about how we are destroying the planet. We're destroying small concentrated population centers only. And it is those in the population centers who are screaming the loudest about how everyone else has to do 'their part'.

I do my part. On my 90 acres, we allow a few deer to be taken each year, and those are eaten. I have a standing agreement with the taxidermists that should anyone be hunting for sport and not want the meat, I will take it and pay the fee. Just call me and tell me when it will be ready and how much money to bring. I leave my mountain alone, save for the occasional walks through it to sooth a savage spirit. That ability alone is priceless to me.

None of the things I do affects you in any way. If I eat more than is necessary to survive, what is it to you? I grew it, not you. If I drive a pickup truck, so I can buy material to build a house or a shed or a fence, what is it to you? I pay for the gas, you don't. If I smoke a cigarette, what is it to you? The lungs inhaling it are mine, not yours.

But instead we have bought into this concept of watching our neighbors, because they might do something that would affect us. We cower because someone driving a Hummer is using too much gasoline and should be driving a Prism. We become oppressed because someone is living in a house that is too large for them. We get angry because someone is eating too much food.

We want to control others. But we never will. We will eventually allow ourselves to be controlled by those who have force-fed us this socialized lifestyle. And what is really scary is that we will happily accept this control, because it means that those evil overusers will be punished. Well, at least until we become seen as the overusers. People tend to see things different when they become the target.

In the end, it will become one long struggle for freedom, marked with blood and death and terror. And someday, should the world last, we will achieve that freedom, although at a terrible cost. Then, slowly but surely, we will again be fed the lies and agendas that will send us happily back into slavery.

And in the meantime, we will continue to berate those who speak the truth, as morons, as uninformed, as unenlightened.

Feel free to call me a moron, uninformed, or unenlightened. I know you want to.

TheRedneck


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 05:39 PM by harvib
reply to post by jamie83






I'm missing the distinction you're trying to make here. In economic terms, the supply is the quantity that's offered for sale everyday. The demand is the quantity the people want to purchase.

So it makes no sense to frame this in terms of the "appearance" of low supply. The supply is what it is -the amount of oil that's for sale on the market. How can the "real" supply be different that what "appears" to be the supply?


The distinction is that the actual supply may not matter. In other words if you want to inflate the price of something make it appear that there is a shortage. "Order now supplies won't last..."

I'm not necessarily against drilling but in my humble opinion it is not the solution. It is an another issue for us all to debate on and when prices continue to rise people will believe it's because the republicains conceded to the democrats or the enviromentalist, etc.... It's a diversion.

People need to stop being distracted by these nonsensical solutions and start thinking for themselves. We need to demand excellencefrom those that represent us, instead of excepting these half ass attempts at appeasing the masses while continuing to price gouge. Just because we are told something is a solution dosn't mean we have accept it as the only solution.


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 06:10 PM by harvib
reply to post by RRconservative






The huge thing I want to add is Democrats won't let us drill 50 miles offshore of Florida, but it is perfectly OK for China to drill their. They have been doing it for 2 years.


Why do you think that is?


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 06:20 PM by obamafan14
reply to post by jamie83



Well one reason is that any oil drilled in Anwar, or the ocean will not be ready to use for at least 10 years. How will that drilling affect us now. The second is the massive damage drilling will do to the envoirnment. Third if we continue drilling we will only delay the use of alternative energy. Alternative energy will not only be cleaner but ultimately cheaper and will boost the American economy. I believe we are right on the cusp of energy revolution. Schwarzenneger is building solar panels in the calfornia desert. brazil makes gas from sugar. For 700 dollars you can run an old diesel on fast food grease. I think democrats are trying to use the price of oil to push new alternative energy technology


reply posted on 12-6-2008 @ 06:23 PM by RRconservative
Originally posted by obamafan14
reply to
post by jamie83



Well one reason is that any oil drilled in Anwar, or the ocean will not be ready to use for at least 10 years.


I am so glad you brought that up. Bill Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWAR 10 YEARS AGO! It would have been nice to have that million barrels a day instead of importing a million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. I hope people don't use that same excuse in another 10 years.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^