eltejano1 wrote: Hi, "rather be travlin" from Tyler - right up the road! More famous as the home of former Houston Oiler Earl Cambell than for roses.
Awhile back, I suggested that an oil crash like '84 might be a good thing - but I was shot down and proved wrong. Tell Topflite you are praying for a crash and see what he says.
Jack
Jack
Actually Jack a reasonable drop to somewhere between 60 to 80 per barrel would be sufficient to continue the development of other sources and forms of energy. It wouldn't set back energy policies like it did in 83/84. It would however, get rid of a significant number of speculators and their financial backers. I would argue that supply and demand definitely justifies the 60 to 80 range, anything above that is being pushed by pure speculation.
10-4, Topflite. That's exactly what I had in mind. The news report I referred to was about excessive inflation due to speculators, not the oil companies.
Quote: Government has to do some things - like basic research and development on new technologies.
WRONG! Government "research" is largely a waste of money, they haven't a clue what is useful and what is not. Again, look at ethanol, what a boondoggle.
Government needs to get OUT OF THE WAY, the private sector will go to the technologies that are the most promising because of the PROFIT MOTIVE, the time tested road to succes.
The place where government has a role to play, and is FAILING at that role, is maintaining the competitive marketplace. Clinton allowed a bunch of major mergers that has resulted in the oil industry as being largely cartelized. Government needs to break up these companies so that competition returns. They'll take care of the rest.
TV: Mint 1972 Ford F-250 XLT
TT: 1969 19' Excel; entertains 6, feeds 4, sleeps 2 You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.
I don't carry because I have to, I carry because I get to. I like new things-
- when they're 40 years old! My pictures
Dick - Looks like it's all over here. We've said everything we have to say. Thanks again for all your extra work in monitoring a very difficult thread. It helped all of us deal with this terrible blow to our rv'ing pastime.
Diesel fuel price dropped at my local Smith's station from $4.869 to $4.759 today. That is the last one around here to do it but they all have now.
Frank
Quote: Government has to do some things - like basic research and development on new technologies.
WRONG! Government "research" is largely a waste of money, they haven't a clue what is useful and what is not. Again, look at ethanol, what a boondoggle.
Government needs to get OUT OF THE WAY, the private sector will go to the technologies that are the most promising because of the PROFIT MOTIVE, the time tested road to succes.
The place where government has a role to play, and is FAILING at that role, is maintaining the competitive marketplace. Clinton allowed a bunch of major mergers that has resulted in the oil industry as being largely cartelized. Government needs to break up these companies so that competition returns. They'll take care of the rest.
Did the same person who wrote the first two paragraphs on R&D also write the last paragraph about "cartelized" oil industry? Amazing contradiction. How is the government which is so incompetent, corrupt, and wasteful when it comes to R&D (about which I happen to agree) able to usefully decide how to organize oil companies? That's about as useful and sensible as a windfall profits tax. What "cartel"???
07 Rev 40E Happily and guiltlessly maximizing my carbon footprint
eltejano1 wrote: Dick - Looks like it's all over here. We've said everything we have to say. Thanks again for all your extra work in monitoring a very difficult thread. It helped all of us deal with this terrible blow to our rv'ing pastime.
Jack
Wait, Jack, you're not quitting, are you?! This argument is too much fun.
Take many grains of salt with what you see on TV or read in the big media. There is a whole lot of propaganda hogwash being put forth, from the global warming "crisis" to disappearing oil. The common denominator is that these people think petroleum products are deadly to the environment and want them to become even more scarce and costly.
Common sense says that the era of cheaply extracted oil using primitive technology may be about over, but the situation has no resemblance to a fuel tank suddenly running dry. There is enough potential petroleum out there to keep the world going a long time. It will just gradually become more expensive to get at, but the expense will be mitigated by improved technology--developed by private industry.
Think of all the technologies hyped over the last 80 years that were supposed to make the gasoline-powered piston engine obsolete, many of which landed government funded R&D support. Well, as we all know, the piston engine just got better and better and stayed well ahead of all these wonderful alternatives, and did so without government help.
The difference between private industry R&D and government R&D is that the first is aimed at practical economic results benefiting consumers, while the second is aimed at keeping politicians in office and growing bureaucratic empires.
YC 1 wrote: Since we have nuclear ships why are we not building hundreds of them and placing them around the nation in remote areas ? I realize they need cooling water etc., but having many small plants would spread out our power system and the shut down of one or two would not be a major outage. When was the last time we had a nuclear ship issue. Placing one of those reactors deep under the ground would provide a great deal of protection.
Mostly because civilian workers won't stand for the training, security, control, and low pay mandated by Admiral Hyman J Rickover's ''Nuclear Navy'' to maintain the reactors and power generation systems.
Hi Slowlane (How 'bout a name - Bob, George - anything but Sue)
No, I won't be leaving; now that the conversation seems to have found a new life. It looked like we were all through over the weekend - maybe because everyone is doing this at work on company time.
I'll try to get my thoughts together and post something coherent on this govt/private question. I see merit in what you are saying, but I am admittedly ambivalent on the issue. Maybe it's not an either/or deal. Maybe some R&D from both govt and industry is the way to go. I think you are too cynical regarding govt. Without FDR's economic revolution, and subsequent Democrat administrations who built upon it, I could not have lived the happy, prosperous life I have. After WWII, this country achieved the greatest prosperity for the greatest number in the history of the world - and that could not have happened without the active role of govt. The union-busting and deregulation of the eighties was a setback for American workers, but the economy was strong enough for us to survive it intact. I see a situation developing now, however, with gasoline and heating oil that will require the govt step-in agressively and take charge of the whole mess.
It is government's responsibilty to assure that the people have access to basic needs - a roof over their head, medical care, electricity, food, schooling for their children. FDR eastablished that concept as a fundamental part of American democracy. Whether gasoline fits that category is arguable, but I suspect that it does. In which case govt must make sure that working people have sufficient fuel, at affordable prices, to heat their homes, cook ther meals, go to work, the doctor and the store. I expect the Feds, at the very least, to meet that responsibility with whatever action it takes - rationing, price controls - even flat-out nationalization of the industry if that's the only way.
I do not consider my elected representatives to be motivated by greed or empire-building. I believe they have my interest at heart. They have not let me down in the past. When the chips are down, they have always come through for us and I believe they will again.
stevenicoldeactivate wrote: ...I don't know, maybe it's because I'm a Mathematics geek to a minor degree, or maybe it's because I used to play to stock market "trading" game, or maybe it's just like the oil companies, the politicians, and the so-called experts, I don't know anything except how to speculate.
Using Fibonacci's Golden Mean to forecast price movement, the price per barrel will have it's ups-and-downs; however, it will always trend upward so long as there is demand. This means that sooner-or-later, the price at the pump will grow beyond $10 a gallon; some people think this is coming sooner rather than later; if so, so what!
It's been a life-long dream of mine to have a truck camper that I can go anywhere in. Sure, the old one I have isn't a deluxe RV, but it has heat, a fridge, and a toilet; enough stuff where we can survive in adequate style.
We average between 13.5-15.0 MPG. Say we only got 12 MPG, even if fuel cost $10/gallon, we can travel to a lot of nice places 100 miles or closer to home, round trip for less than $200; expensive, but still doable for a middle class couple; that is, about the same price as a good dinner and a live performance.
Keep on the road, we are! It's worth every penny!
you bet! think of all the used trucks for sale? good buys @ 10 bucks a gallon!this is not russia they will not bankrupt us.
Offline
