gas prices too high or too low?

The Ancient One wrote:
> "Default User" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> ben wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
>>> for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices and if ya think
>>> driving an SUV is unpatriotic?
>>
>>
>> He he. All the talk about gas prices amuse me. When I hired in to the
>> cumpnee in 1981, gas prices were about $1.20 or so, and I made about
>> 1/3 of what I do now. That didn't stop me from buying my 1980 Blazer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Rodenborn
>
> Heh, I remember when gas first hit 50 cents a gallon, man that was
> high. ;-)

Me too. Been there, done that, hated it, and moved on.

Gas prices: too high

Our dependence on fossil fuels: WAY WAY too high

Research & development on cheaper alternative fuels: not high enough

SUV's: They suck. I can see using one *occasionally*. Like if you're
taking a vacation with spouse and three kids, and you have tons of stuff to
haul. But how often does that really happen? For just general day trips,
like going to work each day, and especially if you're driving alone, an SUV
seems like massive overkill. And try pulling out of a parking space in a
small car when all the surrounding vehicles are SUV's. You end up halfway
out in the road already before you can see if anything is coming because
all the damn SUV's are blocking the view. Surely *all* these people don't
need to be driving a freakin' tank. It's ridiculous.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Damn, I hate to feed to OT trolls, but couldn't resist. Long accepted
folk wisdom: If you can't lick them join them!

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:12:55 UTC "Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Gas prices: too high
>
> Our dependence on fossil fuels: WAY WAY too high
>
> Research & development on cheaper alternative fuels: not high enough
>
> SUV's: They suck. I can see using one *occasionally*. Like if you're
> taking a vacation with spouse and three kids, and you have tons of stuff to
> haul. But how often does that really happen? For just general day trips,
> like going to work each day, and especially if you're driving alone, an SUV
> seems like massive overkill. And try pulling out of a parking space in a
> small car when all the surrounding vehicles are SUV's. You end up halfway
> out in the road already before you can see if anything is coming because
> all the damn SUV's are blocking the view. Surely *all* these people don't
> need to be driving a freakin' tank. It's ridiculous.
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


--
Will Honea

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Gas prices: too high
>
> Our dependence on fossil fuels: WAY WAY too high
>
> Research & development on cheaper alternative fuels: not high enough
>
> SUV's: They suck. I can see using one *occasionally*. Like if you're
> taking a vacation with spouse and three kids, and you have tons of stuff to
> haul. But how often does that really happen? For just general day trips,
> like going to work each day, and especially if you're driving alone, an SUV
> seems like massive overkill. And try pulling out of a parking space in a
> small car when all the surrounding vehicles are SUV's. You end up halfway
> out in the road already before you can see if anything is coming because
> all the damn SUV's are blocking the view. Surely *all* these people don't
> need to be driving a freakin' tank. It's ridiculous.
>

People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
you're just talking out of your ass.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

I wan't around around druning ww II, but I have read that in otder to
help the war effort people at home did their share by conservation.

their sacrifice helped divert resources to help the militray - just
think if people then had the same attitude now, what would happen if
people back then said hey I want to drive my SUV and use excess fuel
just so I could haul my fat butt around town instead of conserving gas
for the war effort?????

isn't being patriotic wanting what is best for the national interests,
if gas is a scarce resource that is foreign produced they why drive
something that is not really necessary?

I think it was president kennedy who said, "ask not what your country
can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

by driving an suv that might not be the most efficent vehicle for the
job (and makes this country more at the mercy of OPEC), then that is
what I am trying to say is is unpatriotic.....

masturbation on the other hand (get the pun) is neither unpatriotic or
patriotic because it does not depend upon the resources of a foreign
country.....

I've got to go now and visit the local titty bar and get a lap dance -
that my friend is being patriotic (blowing a wad locally).






"Sgt. Sausage" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> > for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices
>
> Which thoughts exactly?
>
> Relative to the world, I think we're far to low on
> gas prices.
>
> Relative to past domestic prices, taking into
> consideration inflation, I still think we're too low.
>
> On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> current prices to that "ideal" price.
>
> > and if ya think
> > driving an SUV is unpatriotic?
>
> Dumb question.
>
> Is drinking coffee unpatriotic?
>
> Is posting to usenet unpatriotic?
>
> Is masturbation unpatriotic?
>
> Who cares.
>
> > In my own mind its a complicated
> > question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> > the USA are dependent upon foreign oil).
>
> It's a lot more complicated than that. A lot.
>
> > It was a topic that was sort
> > of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> > another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
>
> Everything sucks for *somebody*.
>
> I happen to be in agreement. SUVs have a lot of suckage,
> but definitely not, in particular, because they are "unpatriotic".
>
>
> > http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/are_suvs_unpatriotic.html
> >
> >
> > I just filled up my land cruiser and it took $100+, oh well its my toy
> > and its the only vehicle that can accomplish what I want it to do, so
> > I don't mind paying for the priviliage of driving the darn thing, but
> > with gas prices all over the news and oil prices now just dropping are
> > people going to ignore the recient gas price spike??????
>
>
> The patriotic folks out there have fought and died for
> exactly the freedom to drive an SUV -- suckage or not.

hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
wagons because they are considered trucks....

a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
and safety standards as a passanger car

"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=156,241&sid=241&article=6769

(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....

the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$



xenman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 9 Jun 2004 19:39:58 -0700, [email protected] (ben) wrote:
>
> >Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> >for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices and if ya think
> >driving an SUV is unpatriotic? In my own mind its a complicated
> >question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> >the USA are dependent upon foreign oil). It was a topic that was sort
> >of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> >another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
> >
>
> SUV's are really no different that minivans and station wagons. On
> average they have more cargo carrying capability than sedans and
> as a result they consume more fuel. Some SUV are two wheel drive
> and some minivans and stations wagons are 4WD.
>
> So why does the news media continue to attack SUVs for poor
> fuel economy but ignore minivans and station wagons? Are they
> still going to attack them later this year when they start to have
> gasoline/electric hybrid engines?

if I wasn't such a nice guy, I might think:

1) ya drive a big old SUV to make up for sexual inadequacy,

2) or bet ya were a bully in school because it made ya feel like a big
important person,

3) or bet you are too dumb to make any reasonable intellectual
argument

but since I'm a nice guy and above all the childish name calling, I'll
leave ya with these thoughts...

gore is a typical politician (who lies for political gain, as all
politicans do), FYI I did not vote for him or clinton

second if ya like president bush jr ya have to realize in many
respects he will be considered to be much much much worst than clinton
(by future historians).

just think his moves to tear down the separation of church and state
is akin to what the taliban - this nation was set up so people could
live in a society free of a religious state church, with his
introduction of some ideas of religion (even though they may seem
moral and just), religious arguements tend to say one group is better
than another - look at the taliban their god was suppose to be
just.... I think it was president Lincoln hit the nail on the head
when he said how can the name of god be invoked by both sides (that
was of course during the civil war when both the north and south said
god was on their side)

second republicans (to be fare so are many politicans in democratic
party) are hypocrites, when they say they believe in the free market
system....

just think about their position on the current topic of SUVs, if they
had balls to stand up to corporate interests they could say that SUVs
should be treated just like CARS in the CAFE standards (if the playing
field were level, then the fleet of vehicles produced by the auto
makers would different since they would be taxed on producing
inefficent vehicles - there is a gas guzzler tax on cars that get poor
mileage, then should be one on SUVs), if people need a specific
vehicle for a particular use (like going off road) they would buy it
since they would use it and be willing to pay for it, the free market
would sort out what kind of vehicles get made in this case.

as it stands, auto makers produce lots of SUVs because of the CAFE
standard loophole,

"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=156,241&sid=241&article=6769

then secondly the general public buy into the tough image of SUVs....

http://www.phaster.com/counter-ads/counter-suvs.html


[email protected] (Harry Grogan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (ben) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> > for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices and if ya think
> > driving an SUV is unpatriotic? In my own mind its a complicated
> > question that can effect US national security (the part where we in
> > the USA are dependent upon foreign oil). It was a topic that was sort
> > of covered in the last issue of national geographic so I posted
> > another rant on why I think in general SUVs suck.
>
>
> Just think,Alpha Male Gore said in his book the internal combustion
> engine is more of a threat to mankind than a nuclear weapon.He thought
> gas should be $5 a gallon.As for "SUV's" I'll drive what I damned well
> please.I'll squash your bicycle with my V-10 four wheel drive
> Excursion!!
> >
> >
> > http://www.phaster.com/road_trips/are_suvs_unpatriotic.html
> >
> >
> > I just filled up my land cruiser and it took $100+, oh well its my toy
> > and its the only vehicle that can accomplish what I want it to do, so
> > I don't mind paying for the priviliage of driving the darn thing, but
> > with gas prices all over the news and oil prices now just dropping are
> > people going to ignore the recient gas price spike??????

> People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> you're just talking out of your ass.

Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a lot
of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not, this
country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate whether
it should be or not. Right now, it just is.

Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we were
willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer miles.
Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
thing.

Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about SUV's.
I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them as
often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most of
the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than their
share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I'm not sure what the right price is, because it is a very complicated
issue, for example how does an economist value the harm caused by
pollution (there are some estimates, but it economics is not a hard
science unlike physics, where I can work out a solution and a second
party can confirm my exact calculation).

the national geo article said the real price of gas is about $4.00
bucks plus a gal, and just looking at the illustration I could think
of additional variable that would add to the cost, but I guess it is
as good of a 1st order approximation that one could agree upon.

doing a google search on a paper on the price of gas I found:

http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2000/09/28/

I should let it be know that not too long ago, I met the author of
this paper when he was in town (I get all kinds of journals and
worldwatch happens to be one of them), it was a most of the people
there were egg head types who worked at scripps and UCSD (don't know
why I got an invite but figure what the hey why not go for the food
and drinks).

to tell the truth I don't know that would be a fair and just price, I
just figure that it should be at least where it is now or higher.

as it stands the free market system is not in effect as far as gas
prices are concerned (most of the general public would not be able to
live their current life style if they had to pay the fair cost of gas,
they have grown addicted to oil)

when ya think about it critically the problem is akin to a drug
addiction, at some point we need to kick our national addiction to oil
and I think it would be better if we slowly learn to live within our
means rather than let external forces make changes for us, in
economics there are two sides of the equation supply and demand (I
think it best in the national interest to work on the lowering the
demand).

if it were up to me, I would make it a law that everyone one else pay
that higher price (and adjust it for inflation) the exclude myself
from paying anything for gas (ya know kind of like how congress
excludes itself from many laws it passes, for example I think they
have a separate retirement system, medical system, etc.).




"charliew2" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Sgt. Sausage wrote:
> > "ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Don't know know if the question has been asked before, but humor me
> >> for a bit and share your thoughts on gas prices
> >
> > Which thoughts exactly?
> >
> > Relative to the world, I think we're far to low on
> > gas prices.
> >
> > Relative to past domestic prices, taking into
> > consideration inflation, I still think we're too low.
> >
> > On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> > high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> > to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> > price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> > a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> > to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> > current prices to that "ideal" price.
> >
>
> (cut)
>
> I've seen this type of thinking before, though not expressed so explicitly.
> If you could indulge me a bit, please take a bit of time to think about the
> "ideal" price and try to tell me why that particular price is ideal.

Brian-

Where the heck are you living that gas was $1.20 in '81? I started driving
in '87 and I clearly remember paying around 87 cents per gallon then.

-Dave

"Default User" <[email protected]> wrote in message
<snip>
> He he. All the talk about gas prices amuse me. When I hired in to the
> cumpnee in 1981, gas prices were about $1.20 or so, and I made about 1/3
> of what I do now. That didn't stop me from buying my 1980 Blazer.
> Brian Rodenborn

>>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
>>you're just talking out of your ass.

Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
transportation is about three mile away.

If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to drive.

Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
they don't NEED to drive?

r

Ron Tipton
Dragonhome.org

I hate to tell ya but minivans are also considered trucks. Ever
ridden in a Ford Aerostar or a Chevy Astro? Definitely a truck.

SUV and station wagons are alike because they are both not
sedans, they are both more utilitarian than sedans, they both
have an enclosed cargo area accessible from the passenger
area. They both come in 2WD and 4WD, althought most SUVs
are either 2WD or 4WD, while some station wagons are only
2WD and other station wagons are only 4WD. On average
SUVs are larger than station wagons, but not always.

So is a PT Cruiser an SUV? Is it a station wagon? Is it a truck?
It looks like a delivery truck from a few generations in the past.


On 12 Jun 2004 20:10:00 -0700, [email protected] (ben) wrote:

>hate to tell ya but SUVs are different than minivans and station
>wagons because they are considered trucks....
>
>a truck by def of the federal gov. does not have too meet the same gas
>and safety standards as a passanger car
>
>"being classified as a light truck has its advantages. Trucks must
>post a CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) of 20.7 miles per gallon
>(with a very modest boost to 22.2 mpg by 2007), while that figure is
>27.5 mpg for passenger cars; and until now light trucks have been
>given breaks on tighter new air pollution regulations, although they
>will soon be held to the same emissions standards as cars."
>
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=156,241&sid=241&article=6769
>
>(which is why auto makers like classifying SUVs as trucks).....
>
>the bottome line in a capitalist culture is all about $$$$$$$$$
>
>
>

"charliew2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sgt. Sausage wrote:
> > "ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[snip]

> >
> > On the other hand, in general, I think they're too
> > high -- but only because I'm a consumer seeking
> > to reduce my expenses. I've no idea what the "ideal"
> > price of a gallon is in the U.S, but I'd like to think it's
> > a helluva lot lower than we're paying now and I'd like
> > to think we actually have a chance of reducing the
> > current prices to that "ideal" price.
> >
>
> (cut)
>
> I've seen this type of thinking before, though not expressed so
explicitly.
> If you could indulge me a bit, please take a bit of time to think about
the
> "ideal" price and try to tell me why that particular price is ideal.


Which part? The part about it being cheaper was just
me being a greedy consumer. I want everything. I want
it now, and I want it cheap. Ideally, everything I want
to consume would be free, but that's not gonna
happen! <grin>

For me, the true "ideal" price would involve a lot of
factors -- hence the above "I've no idea" -- these factors
involve things I'm not up to speed on.

The "ideal" price, for me, would be ... umm ... something
along the lines of "Everyone who wanted to cosume it could
afford it, and everyone who wanted to produce it could make
a reasonable profit".

But, that's really a vague concept. What exactly is "could
afford it" -- at what cost (not just at the pump $$$)?
What exactly is a "reasonable profit" ?

Whether or not such things actually have an answer or if
there is such a thing as an "ideal price" is a question I really
can't answer.

The more I think about it, the more I think the concept
of an "ideal price" is really just a Bunch-O-Hogwash. Please
ignore my previous post about "ideal" price.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
> practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
> supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a lot
> of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not, this

Bull****.

> country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
> vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate whether
> it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>
> Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we were
> willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer miles.
> Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
> thing.
>

Again, bull****, conservation did not bring down gas prices in the 70s,
nor will it now.

> Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about SUV's.
> I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them as

It's not necessary. If you want to be told what to drive I hear Cuba is
shooting less ex-patriots these days.

> often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most of
> the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than their
> share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
> there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
> I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
> doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>

Do you, yet?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Subject: Re: gas prices too high or too low?
> From: Ron Tipton <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, sci.environment
>
>
> >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> >>you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> transportation is about three mile away.
>
>

Your city's lack of proper transportation is not my problem. Perhaps if
you voted for the right people you would have better luck getting
around. This lame excuse does not put you on the short list for "NEED
to drive". The truth is you WANT to drive.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Get a motorcycle - most get more then 50 mpg or more great for short
trips
wouldn't work to good for Ron though. I'm just as guilty at my house
we
have 2 cars (MR2 86, Accord 95) 1 Truck ( GMC K1500 98 ) 1 Van (
Quest 01 ). I ride my street bike to work or the MR2 because of the
price of gas. The Quest takes about 15 gal @ 2.30 ( LA County,
Califorina ) which would be about 34$, the Truck would would set me
back over 60$. The MR2 gets about 30 mpg if I stay
out of the red line I normal get 26 mpg. I have no idea what the
Accord gets because I never drive it ( her car ). The Truck gets about
12 mpg and the Van will get 21 mpg on the open highway buy about 15
to as low as 12 depending
if I have a Van full of Wife kids and stuff with the air blowing.

My hole point after reading most of the post to this thread is that
yes I beleive that gas is toooo high but there ain't **** I can do
about it! I need my Truck to hall my stuff around (Toyota nor Nissan
doesn't make a Truck with enough balls or room) and the Van for when
the wife and kids. I still have my 1986 MR2 from my single days
because it's fun to drive and It's payed for and the most important it
is reliable.

The bottom line is Michael has all these gas powered vehicals at his
house and he's going to have to pay it! But I have been riding my
motorcyle a lot more these days!!

Michael B's 2$ worth






Ron Tipton <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> >>you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> transportation is about three mile away.
>
> If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
> I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
> live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
> these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to drive.
>
> Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
> with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
> they
don't NEED to drive?
>
> r
>
> Ron Tipton
> Dragonhome.org

dcbryan wrote:
>
> Brian-
>
> Where the heck are you living that gas was $1.20 in '81? I started driving
> in '87 and I clearly remember paying around 87 cents per gallon then.

St. Louis. Actually some of the cheapest average gas prices around.

1981 was a much different year than 1987. At the time, many gas stations
used the old style pumps with rotating mechanical numbers. Those could
represent prices over 99.9c a gallon, so they had to set the price to
half of what it actually was, then double the amount you paid.

Here's a link to an historical chart of gas prices:


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/FAQ.shtml#History


Note the local peak in the early 1980's. It was an interesting time,
inflation and interest rates were very high. My loan on the Blazer was
at 20.8% interest. Fixed mortage rates were around 14%, which was close
to the inflation rate.




Brian Rodenborn

Michael, you may have vehicles that use alot of gas, they are for specific
reasons. At least you do have an economical car that you drive every day.
If you were driving the Van every day, that would be a different story.
Does anyone see the difference?


"Michael B. Williams" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Get a motorcycle - most get more then 50 mpg or more great for short
> trips
> wouldn't work to good for Ron though. I'm just as guilty at my house
> we
> have 2 cars (MR2 86, Accord 95) 1 Truck ( GMC K1500 98 ) 1 Van (
> Quest 01 ). I ride my street bike to work or the MR2 because of the
> price of gas. The Quest takes about 15 gal @ 2.30 ( LA County,
> Califorina ) which would be about 34$, the Truck would would set me
> back over 60$. The MR2 gets about 30 mpg if I stay
> out of the red line I normal get 26 mpg. I have no idea what the
> Accord gets because I never drive it ( her car ). The Truck gets about
> 12 mpg and the Van will get 21 mpg on the open highway buy about 15
> to as low as 12 depending
> if I have a Van full of Wife kids and stuff with the air blowing.
>
> My hole point after reading most of the post to this thread is that
> yes I beleive that gas is toooo high but there ain't **** I can do
> about it! I need my Truck to hall my stuff around (Toyota nor Nissan
> doesn't make a Truck with enough balls or room) and the Van for when
> the wife and kids. I still have my 1986 MR2 from my single days
> because it's fun to drive and It's payed for and the most important it
> is reliable.
>
> The bottom line is Michael has all these gas powered vehicals at his
> house and he's going to have to pay it! But I have been riding my
> motorcyle a lot more these days!!
>
> Michael B's 2$ worth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron Tipton <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > >>you're just talking out of your ass.
> >
> > Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> > be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> > more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> > well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> > transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> > a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> > transportation is about three mile away.
> >
> > If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
> > I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
> > live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
> > these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to
drive.
> >
> > Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
> > with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
> > they
> don't NEED to drive?
> >
> > r
> >
> > Ron Tipton
> > Dragonhome.org

Dave,

You're right! Why? Today's America has to be top of the line EVERYTHING.
A new $15,000 car comes out, no one wants it. A new $40,000 vehicle comes
out, everyone wants it. They have to have the newest and bestest thing
around, no matter what the consequence. We have become a self satisfying,
"beat the Jones" society. The future to most people is tomorrow, next week,
next month. Certainly not 10 years down the road.

Like the one guys says, I want it, I can do it and I will do it. People
today don't know what united means, much less the work conservation!!

Have a great day.


"Dave Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> > you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Well actually, in our society today, where a horse-and-buggy is simply not
> practical in most areas, and very few people have the luxury of living
> within walking distance of their employment or recreation or even basic
> supplies like groceries, and public transportation is not feasible for a
lot
> of folks--- most people *do* need to drive. Whether we like it or not,
this
> country's social, family, and work lifestyles are centered around personal
> vehicles. But that issue wasn't my point. I'm not going to debate
whether
> it should be or not. Right now, it just is.
>
> Conservation is the key word. Back in the late 1970s / early 1980s, we
were
> willing to conserve on gas. Cars became smaller, people drove fewer
miles.
> Now, it seems, we're not willing to conserve at all. That's not a good
> thing.
>
> Saying that people don't need to be driving at all, even if that *is*
> accepted as truth, doesn't explain or even comment to my remark about
SUV's.
> I still don't understand why it's necessary to purchase (and drive) them
as
> often as people do, when a smaller gas-saving car would do just fine most
of
> the time. SUV's are gas hogs, and as such, they're worse for the
> environment, much worse for the pocketbook, and they take up more than
their
> share of parking spaces and road space than a smaller car would do. If
> there's a particular reason you disagree with that, it's cool with me, and
> I'd like to hear it. But non-sequitor comments about driving in general
> doesn't really enter into the debate, you know?
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

What kind of vehicle to you drive then? An SUV or perhaps a modest 4
cylinder?


"Ron Tipton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >>People don't NEED to be driving at all, so unless you have a bus pass
> >>you're just talking out of your ass.
>
> Hummmm, speak for yourself. I suppose it may be that you don't NEED to
> be driving. But I do. I'm disabled and cannot ride a bike or ever walk
> more than around 1/4 mile without a rest. I also don't deal with heat
> well. I live in a city (Knoxville, Tennessee) with very poor public
> transportation and long hot summers. The nearest place to buy food is
> a mile or so away, my work is seven miles away and the nearest public
> transportation is about three mile away.
>
> If I don't NEED to drive, explain to me how I get work, buy food, etc.
> I suppose you could pass laws greatly limiting where folks like me can
> live/work etc, or lock us up somewhere or just kill us, but lacking
> these draconian measures I think that some of us do indeed NEED to drive.
>
> Of course, I didn't mention all of the people who live in rural areas
> with no public transprotation. How do you suggest they get around if
> they don't NEED to drive?
>
> r
>
> Ron Tipton
> Dragonhome.org
>