 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / March 2008Diesel prices
Living in the city we don't drive all that much. It was maybe a month since I had topped off the tank on Der Klunker (1981 300SD). So yesterday we filled 'er up. $4.14 per gallon! We will be driving a lot less in future. Just decided an open house this coming Sunday is not worth $20 in fuel costs. >Living in the city we don't drive all that much. It was maybe a month >since I had topped off the tank on Der Klunker (1981 300SD). So >yesterday we filled 'er up. $4.14 per gallon! We will be driving a lot >less in future. Just decided an open house this coming Sunday is not >worth $20 in fuel costs. Boy, that's cheap, in the UK it's nearly 3 times that (See http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm for a comparison of US to Europe). Richard See http://www.caravanningnow.co.uk/caravanning/ForSale.htm as I'm selling my caravan and all of my caravanning equipment.  Signature...well, that's all the extracts we have time for. Samantha is collecting the tapes, and putting them away safely with all the other items to go into the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue time capsule. This will be buried deep under Broadcasting House where it might be rediscovered by someone in the future, who will doubtless be delighted by the naivety of the simple humour from a distant, bygone age...when it's dug up in two or three months time... - Humphrey Lyttelton closing comment in I'm sorry I haven't a clue. >>Living in the city we don't drive all that much. It was maybe a month >>since I had topped off the tank on Der Klunker (1981 300SD). So [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm for a >comparison of US to Europe). But we don't live in the UK and we don't drive a car sized to UK fuel prices. Fuel in the UK is not priced to the size of the car!! >>> Living in the city we don't drive all that much. It was maybe a month >>> since I had topped off the tank on Der Klunker (1981 300SD). So [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But we don't live in the UK and we don't drive a car sized to UK fuel > prices. It is not illegal to burn waste motor oil in a commercial facility that produces it. So in the mechanic's shop he is fine. Some of these furnaces that burn it are actually EPA certified to burn cleanly. I don't know how they do that with the heavy metals that are in the oil, but they managed to get them certified. About the only place that it is illegal to use it is in a single family dwelling. Single family dwellings have to be heated by a UL listed device, and UL does not have any testing for waste oil heaters. Bill Econoheat is one of the manufacturers of the EPA certified burners. There are more, but I can't remember who else is in the field. Google if interested. Bill >>> Living in the city we don't drive all that much. It was maybe a month >>> since I had topped off the tank on Der Klunker (1981 300SD). So [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But we don't live in the UK and we don't drive a car sized to UK fuel > prices. None the less we (collectively) drive huge diesel pickups that haven't got a scratch in the bed and and might get used twice a year to tow a boat they can't afford to put fuel in either. The rest of the time we're driving them solo. The Ford Ranger with a 2.5 turbodiesel is made in the USA and YOU CAN'T GET IT HERE. >None the less we (collectively) drive huge diesel pickups that haven't got >a scratch in the bed and and might get used twice a year to tow a boat they >can't afford to put fuel in either. Two years ago, a friend bought a $200,000 motorboat when fuel was less than $2 a gallon. They didn't go out much last year. I wonder if they will sell the boat this year. Or maybe they will just shittle -- run ten miles from the marina, tie up for two or three days, then run home again. Thankfully, ours is a sailboat. We don't use twenty gallons in a season. Somehow I doubt that the fuel price matters that much to someone who has spent 200 000 USD on a boat... DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- >>None the less we (collectively) drive huge diesel pickups that haven't got >>a scratch in the bed and and might get used twice a year to tow a boat [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thankfully, ours is a sailboat. We don't use twenty gallons in a season. > Boy, that's cheap, in the UK it's nearly 3 times that (See > http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm for a > comparison of US to Europe). That's very old figures (August 2005) Here in Germany a typical price today is 1,37 Euro/litre for Diesel and 1,45 Euro/litre for Premium (Super). In UK currency that's 1.04 pounds resp. 1.10 GBP. In US terms that's 5,19 Euro per gallon Diesel and 5,49 Euro per gallon Premium. Based upon the high Euro and the weak US Dollar Germans on vacation in the US would pay Euro 2.70 per gallon Diesel, that's 0.71 Euro per litre. In other words: Fuel in the US today is half of the German price. >> Boy, that's cheap, in the UK it's nearly 3 times that (See >> http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm for a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >In UK currency that's 1.04 pounds resp. 1.10 GBP. Sorry, I realised now that that data was completely out-of-date. The current UK price average according to the AA (http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuel/) is 112.1 pence per litre, so 1 us gallon = 3.78541178 litres = 424.34p per US gallon = $2.12 per gallon at $2=£1 which isn't to bad compared to the price in Kansas of $3.54 per gallon (http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/521206.html) Richard See http://www.caravanningnow.co.uk/caravanning/ForSale.htm as I'm selling my caravan and all of my caravanning equipment. Signature...well, that's all the extracts we have time for. Samantha is collecting the tapes, and putting them away safely with all the other items to go into the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue time capsule. This will be buried deep under Broadcasting House where it might be rediscovered by someone in the future, who will doubtless be delighted by the naivety of the simple humour from a distant, bygone age...when it's dug up in two or three months time... - Humphrey Lyttelton closing comment in I'm sorry I haven't a clue. >> Boy, that's cheap, in the UK it's nearly 3 times that (See >> http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm for a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In other words: Fuel in the US today is half of > the German price. The telling side of the equation is how much of the price is taxes. According to this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax ) you guys in Europe are getting screwed royally by taxation while we apparently pay more to the oil companies. I guess that revolution paid off. Now to do the same to the corporations. JD I bought an older Mercedes (84 300sd) to run biodiesel and WVO(waste veggie oil) in. For that year of car it costs $500 US to convert and the WVO is free from a restaurant that gives it to me. The biodiesel costs the same as diesel at the pump. Plus, I sleep better at night. Jeff >I bought an older Mercedes (84 300sd) to run biodiesel and > WVO(waste veggie oil) in. For that year of car it costs $500 US [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jeff I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep up to $5.69. I'm glad I fixed my new C280 to be 2X fuel efficient, roughly speaking, I spent $1.62/g for the same distance you burn on a $3.40/g or $4/g. > I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep up > to $5.69. I'm glad I fixed my new C280 to be 2X fuel efficient, roughly > speaking, I spent $1.62/g for the same distance you burn on a $3.40/g or > $4/g. You misunderstand me, all of my WVO fuel is free. It doesn't cost me a penny. It is filtered and poured straight into the car. Pure and simple. As long as you live in a mild climate year round you can do it this way. In the winter, where I live, you have to add a little diesel, biodiesel or kerosene to thin the mixture. So, in the winter, the fuel averages about 50 cents a gallon and in the summer it costs ZERO cents a gallon. All the Best, Jeff >> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep >> up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It doesn't cost me a penny. It is filtered and poured > straight into the car. Pure and simple. Wow, this is the first time I heard this. So you don't mix your wasted oil with other ingredient like Methanol and other ingredients? Methanol is expensive $7-$10/g. >>> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep >>> up [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > oil with other ingredient like Methanol and other ingredients? Methanol > is expensive $7-$10/g. One small point; WVO used as a fuel is sometimes still subject to state tax (it is in my state) and they have ticketed and fined people for not paying "road use" or "fuel taxes". YVMV, but I *think* this is true in all 50 US states and probably in Canada. I would imagine that it would also be true elsewhere too. >>>> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep >>>> up [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >(it is in my state) and they have ticketed and fined people for not paying >"road use" or "fuel taxes". please tell me how the tax agents deduced that people were using WVO and that taxes were not paid __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. >>One small point; WVO used as a fuel is sometimes still subject to state tax >>(it is in my state) and they have ticketed and fined people for not paying >>"road use" or "fuel taxes". >> >please tell me how the tax agents deduced that people were using WVO >and that taxes were not paid Easy. If a car drives past that smells like a KFC then check them out. Richard See http://www.caravanningnow.co.uk/caravanning/ForSale.htm as I'm selling my caravan and all of my caravanning equipment. Signature'Well the way I see it, logic is only a way of being ignorant by numbers.' - 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett >>>>> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep >>>>> up [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and that taxes were not paid > __________________________________________ Don't know but if you are interested you could always research it. BTW I stand corrected on Canada. http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/14/north-carolina-man-fined-for-using-veget able-oil-in-his-car/ www.c-5.org/Archives/Other/biodiesel_wvo_production_summary.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_vegetable_oil Taxation of fuel Taxation on SVO/PPO as a road fuel varies from country to country, and it is possible the revenue departments in many countries are even unaware of its use, or feel it insufficiently significant to legislate. Germany offers 0% taxation, resulting in their leading on most developments of the fuel use. However SVO/PPO as a road fuel will be taxed with 0,09 ?/liter on January, the 1st of 2008 in Germany. From thereon it will rise up to 0,45 ?/liter until 2012. There seems to be no clear taxation system in the USA, however given the low rate of fuel taxation, it is unlikely to face anything unfavorable, although charges could vary from state to state. Production of biodiesel in some US regions may require motor fuel taxes to be paid, which are typically used to fund road construction costs.[8] The Government of Canada exempted biodiesel from the federal excise tax on diesel in the March 2003 budget. In Ireland a pilot scheme is currently running (as of April 2006) whereby eight suppliers have been approved to sell SVO/PPO for use as a fuel without the payment of excise duty (Value Added Tax at 21% still applies, SVO from any other source still attracts excise duty at 36.8058 Euro cents per litre plus 21% VAT). Despite its use being common in France, it would appear there has been no legislation to cover this. In the UK, it is legal once duty on the fuel is paid.[9] In the UK, drivers using SVO/PPO have been prosecuted for failure to pay duty to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. The rate of taxation on SVO was originally set at a reduced rate of 27.1p per litre, but in late 2005, HMRC started to enforce the full diesel excise rate of 47.1p per litre. Following a review late 2006,[10] HM Revenue & Customs has announced changes regarding the administration and collection of excise duty of biofuels and other fuel substitutes (Veg Oil). The changes came into effect on June 30, 2007. There is no longer a requirement to register (enter premises) or pay duty on vegetable oil used as road fuel if you 'produce' (use) less than 2500 litres per year.[11] For those producing over this threshold the biodiesel rate now applies. HMRC argued that SVOs/PPOs on the market from small producers did not meet the official definition of "biodiesel" in Section 2AA of The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 (HODA), and consequently was merely a "fuel substitute" chargeable at the normal diesel rate. Such a policy seemed to contradict the UK Government's commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and to many EU directives and had many consequences, including an attempt to make the increase retroactive, with one organization being presented with a £16,000 back tax bill. This change in the rate of excise duty has effectively removed any commercial incentive to use SVO/PPO, regardless of its desirability on environmental grounds; unless waste vegetable oil can be obtained free of charge, the combined price of SVO/PPO and taxation for its use usually exceeds the price of mineral diesel. HMRC's interpretation is being widely challenged by the SVO/PPO industry and the UK pure Plant Oil Association (UKPPOA) has been formed to represent the interests of people using vegetable oil as fuel and to lobby parliament.[12] >>>>>> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep >>>>>> up [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Don't know but if you are interested you could always research it. you made the claim but I need to research it? __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. >>>>>>> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will >>>>>>> creep [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Never argue with an idiot. > They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I will follow the advice in your tag line. >>>> I don't think any one would sleep well at $4.00/g, soon it will creep >>>> up [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > YVMV, but I *think* this is true in all 50 US states and probably in Canada. > I would imagine that it would also be true elsewhere too. It's true in Washington state but since they don't have a mechanism for individuals to voluntarily pay it they don't bother anymore. One case where the cost of bureaucracy benefited the consumer. JD Just mix a bit of diesel with your WVO and they can't tell the difference in smell test. What does it mean to "fix the C289 to be 2X fuel efficient" ? Please let me in on a secret since I am possibly now considering a C280. What year? What experiences in general? >>I bought an older Mercedes (84 300sd) to run biodiesel and >> WVO(waste veggie oil) in. For that year of car it costs $500 US [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > speaking, I spent $1.62/g for the same distance you burn on a $3.40/g or > $4/g. > >> Boy, that's cheap, in the UK it's nearly 3 times that (See > >>http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htmfor a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And I guess rising world demand and the fact that oil went from $20 a barrel to $100 in a relatively short period of time has nothing to do with it? If you want to place blame for high prices, start with the governments that form OPEC, ie Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, etc. And then I'd also blame the environmental extremists that won't allow drilling in many areas of the USA, like offshore, ANWR, etc. The high oil prices are at least in part due to the manipulation of the futures market and manipulation by the big international capitalist oil corporations in cooperation with their OPEC partners. When the Saudis split 50-50 with Exxon, which is what the deal is, do you think Exxon thinks about a kid freezing in an apartment in Chicago, or their billionaire buddies in Saudi Arabia when they make pricing decisions? For example, about a month ago the media here in the U.S. was full of stories for about a day about the record high gasoline inventories which they were arguing would bring the cost of gasoline down by $0.50 U.S. per gallon over the next few months. Then, only a day later, Exxon filed its lawsuit to freeze $12 billion in Venezuelan assets over a dispute over $712 million worth of Exxon property that Venezuelan law expropriated based on historic exploitation of the Venezuelan economy and people by Exxon. Chevron/ Phillips and other big oil companies had reached agreeable terms with Venezuelan oil, but Exxon chose to fight in court. Then the media was full of stories that Chavez threatened to cut of oil supplies to the U.S., which Chavez promptly denied. The denials didn't hit the news for about a week, however, and in the meantime, the futures market bid oil up over $100 per barrel based upon the "uncertainty of supply" because of the comments of Chavez that he actually had not made. Then when the Chavez speech where he denied the comments finally broke through the iron curtain and got in our media, the media started a story that OPEC was probably going to cut its output at its upcoming meeting in May, which conveniently coincided with the futures market decisions, and, again a story that was a pure speculative fabrication, sending oil to its current record levels. Now the money to pay for roads and schools and health care (which, by the way, is the most expensive in the world in the U.S.), has to come from somewhere. There is no free lunch, as the capitalists like to say, so when a citizen in Germany or England pays taxes at the pump, it replaces taxes or other expenditures that have to come from somewhere. In other words, we pay for our low gasoline prices in bumpy roads and collapsing bridges and lack of health care, etc. When we spend money on things using borrowed money at the Federal level that money also has to come from somewhere. It comes from the same people who are not paying their fair share in taxes. That increases the National Debt, which means that more and more of the tax money taken out of the wages of working people goes straight into the bank accounts of the same rich people who have had their taxes cut. Those monies go into their bank accounts in the form of interest payments on the National Debt because, obviously, when the Federal Government has to borrow money because the rich are not paying their fair share, they have to get the money somewhere, and the only place is from people who have money, the rich, so then the rich get back interest payments on the money they should have been paying in taxes in the first place, raising the taxes on you and me and just about everybody else. (Most people are not rich and have no chance of becoming so.) When we pay more at the pump it all goes to Exxon/Mobile and their executives and stockholders so they have more money to lend the Federal Government so we can pay them even more in interest on their money. Wake up people. The common man is getting completely screwed under this system and will continue to get reamed out as long as the current mass ignorance of what is actually happening continues! > The high oil prices are at least in part due to the manipulation of > the futures market and manipulation by the big international > capitalist oil corporations in cooperation with their OPEC partners. > When the Saudis split 50-50 with Exxon, which is what the deal is, So, the Saudis split their oil revenue 50-50 with Exxon? According to whom? Reference please. do > you think Exxon thinks about a kid freezing in an apartment in > Chicago, or their billionaire buddies in Saudi Arabia when they make > pricing decisions? No. Do you think Intel thinks about kids when they decide how much to charge for a CPU chip? Does Kellogs when they decide how to price cereal? Do you when you go to sell a car? Of course not. According to well understood economics, in free markets prices get set by the individual participants to maximize profits. Been going on for hundreds of years and first well documented by Adam Smith in the 1700's. > For example, about a month ago the media here in the U.S. was full of > stories for about a day about the record high gasoline inventories > which they were arguing would bring the cost of gasoline down by $0.50 > U.S. per gallon over the next few months. The gasoline inventories were at 14 month highs, not record highs. Here's one analysts take that I think is a lot closer to reality than all the claims of manipulation: "In many ways the recent rise in gasoline prices reflects the fuel playing a bit of catch-up to oil, which has been above $85 for more than four months, said Ken Medlock a research fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. Based on the historic price relationship between crude oil and gasoline, Medlock said, retail gasoline should be priced closer to $3.63 per gallon if oil remains at $100." That's about where prices are right now. Clearly not that far out of line. And oil is a worldwide commodity, with production relatively fixed and worldwide demand from countries like China and India growing. > Then, only a day later, Exxon filed its lawsuit to freeze $12 billion > in Venezuelan assets over a dispute over $712 million worth of Exxon > property that Venezuelan law expropriated based on historic > exploitation of the Venezuelan economy and people by Exxon. Cool, a two bit communist dictator seizes Exxon assets and they should just roll over. Sounds like your views about "exploitation" fit right in with Chavez. With all the oil Venezuela is pumping, if there is exploitation, it's within their own country. So, Exxon stand up to a commie and you view that as part of some conspiracy to raise oil prices? Chevron/ > Phillips and other big oil companies had reached agreeable terms with > Venezuelan oil, but Exxon chose to fight in court. Then the media was > full of stories that Chavez threatened to cut of oil supplies to the > U.S., which Chavez promptly denied. Yeah, why should anyone doubt Chavez, a guy who won;t allow free elections in his own country? He came to the US and made speeches declaring our president to be the devil. Even the King of Spain had enough of his claptrap at a summit in South America and told Chavez to shut up. Chavez's response was to demand an apology or he would nationalize Spain's assets in Venezuela. Hmmm, sound familiar? The denials didn't hit the news > for about a week, however, and in the meantime, the futures market bid > oil up over $100 per barrel based upon the "uncertainty of supply" > because of the comments of Chavez that he actually had not made. Welcome to how free markets work. Of course they react to news. They reacted when OPEC, which BTW Venezuela is a member of, stated they would not increase production. They reacted when it looked like Venezuela might get into military conflict with Columbia. They react when a refinery catches fire or a hurricane heads for the Gulf of Mexico. > Then when the Chavez speech where he denied the comments finally broke > through the iron curtain and got in our media, the media started a > story that OPEC was probably going to cut its output at its upcoming > meeting in May, which conveniently coincided with the futures market > decisions, and, again a story that was a pure speculative fabrication, > sending oil to its current record levels. The story of possibly reducing the target below that of Q4 was reported by multiple news organizations and was based on OPEC SOURCES. What do you expect reporters to do? BTW, if OPEC wanted to deny the story or increase the quotas, they are free to do so. What is this a worldwide conspiracy? Let's see, it's Exxon, Saudi Arabia, the media which can range from NY Times to Fox news, wall street, .... who else is in on this big conspiracy? > Now the money to pay for roads and schools and health care (which, by > the way, is the most expensive in the world in the U.S.), has to come [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > somewhere. In other words, we pay for our low gasoline prices in > bumpy roads and collapsing bridges and lack of health care, etc. Spoken like a true liberal that see higher taxes as the solution to all of life's problems. > When we spend money on things using borrowed money at the Federal > level that money also has to come from somewhere. It comes from the > same people who are not paying their fair share in taxes. Here in NJ federal and state income taxes top out currently at 44%. Social security taxes take another 13%, split between the employer and employee. We have a 7% sales tax. I pay 10,000 a year in property taxes on a 3200 sq ft house. So, tell us, how much more money do you want to take to fix problems. Want to go back to 70% federal rate, like we had in the 70's and the economy that went with it? That> increases the National Debt, which means that more and more of the tax > money taken out of the wages of working people goes straight into the > bank accounts of the same rich people who have had their taxes cut. Taxes were cut at all levels. It's a blatant lie that they only went to the rich. The top 1% of incomes pay 39% of all the federal income tax. The top 5% pay 60%. Guess how much the bottom 50% paid? A whopping 3%. BTW, in 1980, when the top fed rate was 70%, guess how much of all income tax the top 1% paid? Answer: 19% That's right. With today's rate that is close to half of what it was in 1980, the highest income folks pay twice what they did back then. The class warfare argument that you're making goes like this. Guy A pays 30,000 in income tax. Guy B pays 3,000. So, we give everyone a 10% tax cut. Now, A pays 27,000 and B pays 2,700. Guys like you try to maintain it's unfair, because the cuts are only percentage wise equal, and both guys didn't get a $2700 cut. Try that argument next time your in a store when they have a 10% off sale. But a $10 item and tell them you want the same discount that the guy who pays $100 for something gets. Tell them you should get your item for free. > Those monies go into their bank accounts in the form of interest > payments on the National Debt because, obviously, when the Federal > Government has to borrow money because the rich are not paying their > fair share, The unfairness issue was crushed above. they have to get the money somewhere, and the only place > is from people who have money, the rich, so then the rich get back > interest payments on the money they should have been paying in taxes > in the first place, raising the taxes on you and me and just about > everybody else. (Most people are not rich and have no chance of > becoming so.) As if the "rich" are the only ones investing in US govt securities. US debt is widely held by people across the board, around the world. Bond funds that little investors are in own them. Individuals own them through savings bonds. Institutions around the world own them as do foreign central banks. > When we pay more at the pump it all goes to Exxon/Mobile and their > executives and stockholders so they have more money to lend the > Federal Government so we can pay them even more in interest on their > money. You really do sound like Hugo Chavez. Maybe even worse. The biggest contributor to the cost of oil is crude. Sure Exxon is making money on the oil they produce themselves from wells they paid to drill. But that doesn't equate to the lions share of the money we are paying for gas going into Exxon's pocket. > Wake up people. The common man is getting completely screwed under > this system and will continue to get reamed out as long as the current > mass ignorance of what is actually happening continues! Yep, keep railing against a system you don;t even understand. Try taking an economics course or two. I think your description of your own financial situation indicates that you may want to reconsider which side of the class war you belong on. > I think your description of your own financial situation indicates > that you may want to reconsider which side of the class war you belong > on. I'm not the one engaging in class warfare, so I have no side. I'm also not even sure what your comment above is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting someone living in a 3200 sq ft house in NJ meets your definition of rich? Or are you just so shocked that the people in the top 5% of incomes currently pay 60% of all US federal income tax that you fell off your chair? > So, the Saudis split their oil revenue 50-50 with Exxon? According > to whom? Reference please. Check out the history of ARAMCO. It's a 50/50 split > "In many ways the recent rise in gasoline prices reflects the fuel > playing a bit of catch-up to oil, which has been above $85 for more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fixed and worldwide demand from countries like China and India > growing. > The denials didn't hit the news >> for about a week, however, and in the meantime, the futures market bid [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > when a refinery catches fire or a hurricane heads for the Gulf of > Mexico. Yes they react with astounding efficiency at the chance to raise prices but seldom are so assiduous about passing on savings to consumers. >> Then when the Chavez speech where he denied the comments finally broke >> through the iron curtain and got in our media, the media started a [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > tax. The top 5% pay 60%. Guess how much the bottom 50% paid? A > whopping 3%. Now there's something to be proud of. Look at the numbers a different way; the top 10% control 72% of the wealth leaving 28% for the majority 90%. Now even if you're at the top of that bottom 50% you mentioned that pays only a piddling 3% of the revenue, your income for a family of four is $40,000. Not much left to pay taxes on, is there? And that's at the TOP of that bottom 50%. The way I see it the rich aren't paying proportionately to their wealth > BTW, in 1980, when the top fed rate was 70%, guess how much of all > income tax the top 1% paid? Answer: 19% That's right. With today's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the guy who pays $100 for something gets. Tell them you should get > your item for free. Your argument only works in a flat tax situation > they have to get the money somewhere, and the only place >> is from people who have money, the rich, so then the rich get back [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > them through savings bonds. Institutions around the world own them > as do foreign central banks. Do a little research. I think you'll find that that top 10% is far more heavily invested on a per capita basis. Never mind the idiocy of selling so much debt to the Chinese that they could sink our enonomy with a mass sell off. >> When we pay more at the pump it all goes to Exxon/Mobile and their >> executives and stockholders so they have more money to lend the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But that doesn't equate to the lions share of the money we are paying > for gas going into Exxon's pocket. How else do you explain the absolutely obscene level of profits they reported this year? With an administration so heavily vested in the oil industry don't you think it's a little strange that we can build a Ford Ranger turbodiesel pickup that gets 30mpg in the US that you can't buy on these shores? Who stands to gain the most by high fuel consumption? Both the oil companies and the government would lose billions in revenue if CAFE standards were in place. >> Wake up people. The common man is getting completely screwed under >> this system and will continue to get reamed out as long as the current >> mass ignorance of what is actually happening continues! > > Yep, keep railing against a system you don;t even understand. Try > taking an economics course or two. How about a course in economic history. You might find that wars and revolutions are nearly never about ideology but about money. This from my PhD SIL who teaches economics at Georgetown. JD > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > > > So, the Saudis split their oil revenue 50-50 with Exxon? According > > to whom? Reference please. > > Check out the history of ARAMCO. It's a 50/50 split Maybe you should check it out. Two minutes on Google would have kept you from making an a.s of yourself. Below is the reference. Pay attention to the last line, which states that what was ARAMCO has been 100% owned by the Saudi government since 1980. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco Saudi Aramco's history dates back to May 29, 1933, when the Government of Saudi Arabia signed a concessionary agreement with Standard Oil of California (Socal) allowing them to explore Saudi Arabia for oil. Standard Oil of California passed this concession to a wholly-owned subsidiary called California-Arabian Standard Oil Co. (Casoc). In 1936 with the company having no success at locating oil, the Texas Oil Company purchased a 50% stake of the concession. The company name was changed in 1944 from California-Arabian Standard Oil Company to Arabian American Oil Company (or Aramco). In 1948 Standard Oil of California and the Texas Oil Company were joined as investors by Standard Oil of New Jersey who purchased 30% of the company, and Socony Vacuum who purchased 10% of the company, leaving Standard Oil of California and the Texas Oil Company with equal 30% shares. In 1973 the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% share of Aramco, increased this to 60% by 1974 and finally acquired full control of Aramco by 1980. In November 1988 the company changed its name from Arabian American Oil Company to Saudi Arabian Oil Company (or Saudi Aramco). > > "In many ways the recent rise in gasoline prices reflects the fuel > > playing a bit of catch-up to oil, which has been above $85 for more [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Yes they react with astounding efficiency at the chance to raise prices but > seldom are so assiduous about passing on savings to consumers. Yep, welcome to the real world. Prices in most markets don't come down quite as fast as they can go up. But, over many decades, oil and derivative prices have responded nicely to supply and demand in both directions. The only thing is guys like you don't seem to pay attention when crude goes back down to $12 to $20 dollars a barrel like it did for most of the 80's and 90's. The essential differences then were OPEC, which controls a significant share of the worlds output, couldn't get it's act together and some members were always cheating. And worldwide demand was lower. > >> Then when the Chavez speech where he denied the comments finally broke > >> through the iron curtain and got in our media, the media started a [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > bottom 50%. The way I see it the rich aren't paying proportionately to > their wealth Yes it is something to be proud of, because it shows that contrary to misinformed populist beliefs, the top 5% of income earners are paying 60% of the income tax burden and the tax system is already progressive. Let's take a look at that family of 4 making $40,000. Using the standard deduction, they would be paying $2700 in income tax. That works out to 6.8% of their income. On the other end of the scale, incomes above $330K are paying the top rate of 35%. That sure sounds like a progressive tax system to me. But you're not satisfied, you want it all. Here's two thoughts to ponder. Do you think just maybe most of the people earning higher incomes are there because they made the right choices in life and worked hard? That they paid attention and stayed in school, spent years working on successful careers or started businesses that keep the economy expanding and create jobs? And the second thought is this. Guys like you like to rail on about the family of 4 making $40K, as if it were the same family, forever fixed in time. In reality, in a free economy, people are not static. Many that are that family making $40K in 2008, will be making $75K five years later. Now, I expect the rejoinder to that will be that the economy is SO bad today, that unlike any other time in history, it's impossible to get ahead making the right choices and with hard work. Which of course is nonsense. > > BTW, in 1980, when the top fed rate was 70%, guess how much of all > > income tax the top 1% paid? Answer: 19% That's right. With today's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Your argument only works in a flat tax situation No, it works in any situation where you want to cut taxes. You can either do it by giving a straight percentage cut off the existing taxes that are paid. The guy that pays $30,000 gets a cut of $3,000. The guy that pays $3,000 gets a cut of $300. That gives everyone an equal cut based on the taxes they already pay. If you were cutting a sales tax what would you do? What guys like you want to do is use every opportunity to wage class warfare and try to make the tax system MORE progressive, by fooling around with how the cuts are distributed. And that's because of very different views. The class warfare experts view all the tax money paid in as the govts and that people should be lucky to get any of it back. Guys like me view it as the people's money and if it's gonna be returned, it should be in the same proportion it was paid in. > > they have to get the money somewhere, and the only place > >> is from people who have money, the rich, so then the rich get back [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > much debt to the Chinese that they could sink our enonomy with a mass sell > off. Sure the top 10% is more heavily invested in US govt obligations. So what? They are also more heavily invested in stocks, real estate and other assets. What would make you happy, pass a law preventing higher income people from buying US govt bonds? > >> When we pay more at the pump it all goes to Exxon/Mobile and their > >> executives and stockholders so they have more money to lend the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the oil companies and the government would lose billions in revenue if CAFE > standards were in place. The profits are explained in basic economics. You seem to have a problem with percentages whether applied to taxes or economics. Take a look at any business. Suppose you have a plumber who is quoting a job for a new boiler. The boiler costs him $3000. He adds on his markup and quotes it to the customer at $4000. Labor is another $1000, for a total of $5000. A year later, you call him up for the same boiler on another job. Only now the price of boilers has risen so his cost is now $4000. Is he going to only add a markup of $1000 to this boiler? Or is he going to mark it up by the same 33% that he marked up the other boiler, meaning the boiler cost is now $5330 and the total job $6330.? At the end of the year, his income has increased, just like Exxon's How much per gallon of the $3.60 price of gasoline do you think Exxon's profit amounts to? It's a few nickels. > >> Wake up people. The common man is getting completely screwed under > >> this system and will continue to get reamed out as long as the current [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > JD- Hide quoted text - And what does this have to do with a lack of knowledge about basic economics and fondness for failed socialist ideas? I'm not trying to get into the Exxon is evil/Exxon is just acting as a business in a free market acts argument. I'm not to fond of OPEC right now though. While it may be true that the current cost of fgasoline closely matches the current cost of crude, it is not the case that the current cost of crude matches the current demand and supply secenario. Even with OPEC refusing to raise production, the futures industry can only justify a cost closer to 70 dollar per barrel. Not over a hundred. On another topic, I looked into making my own biodiesel, or converting my car to WVO, and in the state of Maryland I could find no system set up to collect taxes on either fuel. I would not be surprised if I did it and was fined, but the irony of it woudl be that I tried to find out how to pay the tax, and I could not find anyone willing to take my money if I were to make my own biodiesel. In the end I opted not to make it since it involves some nasty chemicals, but I think the state of Maryland is missing out on potential taxes, and I wouldn't be surprised if other states are also. Not that I am aching to pay taxes, but road use taxes do go to maintaining the roads I drive on, and I appreciate it when they put salt on icy roads, or fix potholes. Have a good day, Bill On Mar 10, 10:13 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not trying to get into the Exxon is evil/Exxon is just acting as a > business in a free market acts argument. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > production, the futures industry can only justify a cost closer to 70 > dollar per barrel. Not over a hundred. Here's the twist on that argument. The futures industry doesn't justify the price. The price of futures isn't set in some secret meeting in NYC. It's set by open auction with the entire world free to participate during regular trading hours every day. The particpants include oil producers, oil consumers, and speculators. If any oil producer thinks that $105 a barrel for April crude is high and a great opportunity, they can sell as many April futures contracts as they want. In other words, if there were producers that think the prices above say $90 were too high and unsustainable, the prices wouldn't be that high because there would be heavy selling from oil producers above $100. > On another topic, I looked into making my own biodiesel, or converting > my car to WVO, and in the state of Maryland I could find no system set [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Have a good day, > Bill Interesting question. I would think most states are just ignoring this for now, as it's a very small % of the total fuel usage. Plus, govts are actually subsidizing alternative fuels at various levels, so ignoring the tax, at least for the time being, would seem to make sense. Trader, I am very familiar with that argument, and that is the reason that this seems so strange. Or perhaps more upsettingly, it seems like it might be a paradigm shift to a new paradigm that involves the oil industry simpy charging more per barrel than they used to with the same supply/demand ratio and the same value of the dollar. It's kind of a scary situation. The green awareness in America might drive a shift like this. The last two quarters have seen a decrease in American gas consumption. That hasn't happened in years. So there could feasibly be something to drive that shift. It woudl mean that the projections by the futures people will be low until they adjust. Assuming there is not a total paradigm shift (I don't think that there is.) means that oil should be coming down soon. Analysts have been saying for weeks that oil should be coming down, or that it is unjustifiably high, but it is going up. Even despite the political squabbles amongst oil producing countries, by historical comparison, the amount of oil being pumped out of the ground compared to consumption currently places the value much lower than expected even factoring in the squabbles. The main reason that OPEC sites for not increasing production (or at least the reason that the analysts that I have listened to have cited.) is that demand should be dropping in the coming weeks with the end of the heating season in much of the world since there are more fuel hungry houses to heat in the northern hemisphere than the south. They say there is not reason to ramp up production for a few weeks. That doesn't sound like conspiracy theory to me, or an abuse of their monopoly, it sounds like smart planning. However, back to the argument that you cite, supply and demand is an illusion in this industry. If OPEC wanted to they could easily set an earnings goal and reach it. They could say,"We want to make XX billion dollars this month." and they could do it. They could raise the price to whatever they need to accomplish their goal, and because everyone in the world is dependent on them, they would get the money. People have to drive to work. People have to heat their homes. Companies need to run factories. Ocean liners need to carry goods. Planes need to fly. I'm sure that in your economics courses, you learned all about other factors that drive markets other than supply and demand. There is simply the investor's greed or speculator optimism. I forget the names of the players, but there is a well documented case of two investors that were fiercely competitive and used the same broker. The broker sold each of them a few shares of a fake stock. This stock had no value. It had no company tied to it to produce value. These two fellows bought and sold those shares back and forth to try to attain the most shares they could. The whole time they knew it was a hoax. Psychology has a role in the industry. There are a lot of big egos in the market. Actually I think I may have learned about that case study in psychology rather than economics. But my point is that it is not as simple as supply and demand when you look at the market on a small time scale, but on a larger one it pretty much is. If OPEC were to raise prices ridiculously, in time people would find ways to do with less petroleum products until OPEC couldn't sustain a lofty profit goal. So I predict that prices will fall in the next few months. Maybe not soon since everyone is excited about the new record highs, and those are driving it higher. But a correction is underway. I would be very surprised if a barrel is still over 90 dollars by the end of June. Even with summer travel coming. Just my two cents worth. (That would drive my car to the end of the block.) Have a good weekend, Bill > Here's the twist on that argument. The futures industry doesn't > justify the price. The price of futures isn't set in some secret [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wouldn't be that high because there would be heavy selling from oil > producers above $100. On Mar 14, 9:14 am, "weelli...@gmail.com" <weelli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Trader, > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Have a good weekend, > Bill I agree completely with what you've stated above. I think supply and demand does work in the long run. But I would say what accounts for the current price action is that this time OPEC finally has it's act together. In the past, particularly when we had oil at $12 a barrel, there was widespread cheating by OPEC producers. They routinely exceeded their output quotas. With OPEC, this market isn't like a free market for common items in the USA, where monopolistic behavior is illegal. OPEC is acting as an oligopoly and being the biggest producer, they have a huge factor in setting the price. If speculators are truly the ones propping up the price, then when it finally turns, the fall should be swift and furious. I tend to doubt that though. You'd have to be a real bone head to think oil at $110 has a lot more upside. Especially given that there are signs demand is slowing and the US economy is slowly dramatically and perhaps already in a recession. And if you're looking for a hedge against inflation, there are certainly other physical commodities that would seem to offer a hell of a lot less downside risk at this point. > > Here's the twist on that argument. The futures industry doesn't > > justify the price. The price of futures isn't set in some secret [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - weelliott wrote: > On another topic, I looked into making my own biodiesel, or converting > my car to WVO, and in the state of Maryland I could find no system set > up to collect taxes on either fuel. Creating biodiesel in your backyard emits gasses that are collected in a facility that is dedicated to creating biodiesel. In your back yard, with your water heater modified sufficiently to cook the biodiesel, you will likely just be polluting the environment even worse than if you just drove your car on diesel. WVO, on the other hand, you just filter and pour into the car. In MD winters, you'll probably want to have a block heater and/or mix varying amounts of diesel fuel into it, but a conversion to heat veggie oil with the coolant is not expensive nor difficult to install. In Southern California I can run WVO year-round, although on mornings where it's freezing or below I've got to do a couple of rounds with the glow plugs. My '79 300TD gets 21-22mpg on diesel, and 17-19 on WVO, plus WVO has significantly less power (I'm told it's around 20% less energy, and on the non-turbo engine let's just say that I want to hit hills going at a good clip). The tradeoff is that I get well over 100 miles on a gallon of petroleum, when it's averaged out. ;) And yeah, at $4.15 a gallon, youch. (I understand that folks living in the US commute more than people in Europe. My workplace is 10 miles (16km) from home but I live closer to the office than half of my coworkers. ...and public transport here sucks; it'd take me about three hours (and probably 20 miles each way) on busses to get to my office. -tom! -- Trader4, Exxon no longer owns 50% of Saudi oil, they just do the work on a contract basis and receive 50% of the revenue, which is not as beneficial to them as ownership would be on Wall Street, but it still makes it clear to Exxon that the Saudis mean more to them than American kids in freezing apartments going to bed with a toothache. And, no I did not mean to imply that you were among the ruling class. Clearly you are not. You are fighting their battles for them, however, if I read your post correctly. I am not going to spend the time to get your figures quoted exactly, but at some point in your post you argued that at a lower tax rate the wealthy today pay a higher percentage of total government revenues than they did under the 70% tax rate. Does this then not confirm the gist of my argument, that our society is too top heavy? I think that math indicates that the top 1% or whatever it was has a much higher percentage of total wealth since a lower tax rate now produces relatively more government revenue that a higher tax rate used to. Which is precisely the problem. This intensifies the transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the ruling class, at least in part because of where the interest on the National Debt goes. It is deducted from the paycheck of a Wal-mart worker and deposited into the accounts of Exxon executives and other members of the ruling class. Not just chump change. We are talking about numbers approaching a trillion dollars, per year. "Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy. I still think you need to reevaluate which side of the battle would be in your best interest. > read more » > Trader4, Exxon no longer owns 50% of Saudi oil, they just do the work > on a contract basis and receive 50% of the revenue, which is not as > beneficial to them as ownership would be on Wall Street, but it still > makes it clear to Exxon that the Saudis mean more to them than > American kids in freezing apartments going to bed with a toothache. More outrageous BS, again with no reference. I've provided links that smashed your false claims. You have yet to provide a single link to document your claim that Exxon is getting 50% of the oil revenues of Saudi Arabia. And you can't because it's simply not true. People like to toss around profit numbers without any basis. Like Exxon earned $XXBil last year, that's outrageous! But put it into perspective, and it works out to a few nickles on a gallon of gas. The federal and state govts get many time more in tax revenue on a gallon of gas. How come nobody bitches about that? > And, no I did not mean to imply that you were among the ruling class. > Clearly you are not. You are fighting their battles for them, > however, if I read your post correctly. I'm not fighting battles for anyone because no such "battle" exists. If I see a guy that makes a lot more money than I do, it doesn't bother me in the least. > I am not going to spend the time to get your figures quoted exactly, > but at some point in your post you argued that at a lower tax rate the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not just chump change. We are talking about numbers approaching a > trillion dollars, per year. You have a bizarre way of looking at things. Cutting income taxes from 70%, which they were before Reagan rode into town, generated an economic boom that made this country the envy of the world. The top 1% were paying 19% of total income taxes in 1980. Today with the rate cut in half to 35%, they pay 40%. The class warfare folks would try to have us believe that tax cuts resulted in these people paying less money and govt tax revenues declining. In fact, the opposite is true. And as a direct result, since those tax rates were cut, we've had unprecedented economic growth that has benefited just about everyone in the country. And in the process, govt revenue has gone through the roof. Now, does it bother me that some people do better than others? Not at all. That's been part of any free economic system going back hundreds of years. Should the guys that founded and built Intel, Dell, and Starbucks get the same reward as the guy pumping gas? Of course not. These guys in the top 1% are carrying twice the tax share they did in 1980. And they have created industries that have given good high paying jobs to hundreds of thousands of people. That's good enough for me. And the folks in the bottom 50% of incomes are paying only 3% of the total income tax burden. That is a very progressive income tax. What exactly is YOUR solution? You fail to realize the alternative was what we had in the 70's. In the failed attempt to confiscate the wealth of the rich with a 70% tax rate, the economy was mired in a disaster. The smart folks capable of starting businesses figured out that it didn't make sense to risk money and time if the govt was gonna take almost all of it. So, you had little economic growth, no new jobs, and all the problems that go with it. And if you think Exxon executives are highly invested in US treasuries, as if this is their path to wealth you are mistaken. I'm sure they have some in there portofolios. But people don't get rich heavily invested in Tbonds paying 4%. > "Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution > inevitable." - John F. Kennedy. > > I still think you need to reevaluate which side of the battle would be > in your best interest. I think you need to re-evaluate why you view this as warfare. . You have every opportunity to become part of that top 5% or top 1%. Plenty of immigrants come to this country with nothing at all and can wind up there in a decade or two. And in the process many others wind up better off too. trader4 wrote: > You have a bizarre way of looking at things. Cutting income taxes > from 70%, which they were before Reagan rode into town, generated an > economic boom that made this country the envy of the world. Go go national debt! Need more money, borrow it? From whom? From nobody, just print the damn money! Yay! I love the fact that the Federal Reserve owns the currency, and the US people pay the Federal Reserve to rent the currency from them. Yay capitalism! ...I also find it strange that anyone not in the elite thinks the current distribution of wealth in this country is equitable. But I guess a lot of people look to enormous wealth and hope that one day they'll be there too. That's the only explanation I can think of... -tom! -- > trader4 wrote: > > You have a bizarre way of looking at things. Cutting income taxes [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Go go national debt! Need more money, borrow it? From whom? From > nobody, just print the damn money! Yay! See, here's the problem. Cutting taxes did not produce the national debt. Govt revenue went through the roof in the 80's when taxes were cut. The only problem is govt spending rose even faster, that's what increased the national debt. > I love the fact that the Federal Reserve owns the currency, and the US > people pay the Federal Reserve to rent the currency from them. Yay > capitalism! I guess we should go back to using rice for currency or maybe a pure barter system. Do I dedict a whiff of Ron Paul in the room? > ...I also find it strange that anyone not in the elite thinks the > current distribution of wealth in this country is equitable. But I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -- No, the explanation is that the current capatilistic system combined with freedom, which goes hand in hand, have benefited mankind like no other. All the systems that have tried to re-distribute the wealth have failed miserably. They only succeed in making most of the people equal when they all wind up living in poverty. Look at the classic examples of systems that alleged to make everyone equal, ie the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Totally failed systems and countries and even then, you had what you would call the elite ruling class that lived splendidly well everyone else suffered. I don't covet the wealth of others and think how to take it. I generate my own. On Mar 11, 5:58 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > > Trader4, Exxon no longer owns 50% of Saudi oil, they just do the work > > on a contract basis and receive 50% of the revenue, which is not as [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > - Show quoted text - trader4, your idealization of the American economy is startling given that we are now facing the economic and social disaster that Reagan began in 1980. But I think your tortured sense of social justice is best evidenced by your seeming lack of understanding of the difference between corporate America and our American government. You can thank Reagan and the Republicans for that too. There isn't much to say if you can't figure out the difference between wealth held in private hands with no accountability to anyone (even when that wealth is created with public subsidies or on public lands using public resources) and wealth that is collected and used, ostensibly in the public interest. Granted politics being what it is that ideal is often not met (just look at the catastrophe that is the American occupation of Iraq) but, even when it isn't met at least decision makers are forced to justify how monies are spent and we, the people, have access to the process and evidence of motives. Apparently, you don't like the idea of government of the people, by the people and for the people. Why do you hate America? > On Mar 11, 5:58 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > that we are now facing the economic and social disaster that Reagan > began in 1980. Yep, typical the world is coming to an end, doomsday scenario, that flies in the face of reality. Been hearing it from certain extremists for 3 decades now. I guess it would be better if we still had tax rates of 70% and LESS govt revenue, 18% long term interest rates, 7% inflation, and 9% unemployment which is what existed in 1980. Fortunately, taxes were cut, and the US economy has been the envy of the world for two decades. BTW, welcome to the business cycle. Take an economics course or two and you might learn that the economy ebbs and flows. Expansion is always followed by contraction. It's been that way in free economies since the days of Adam Smith. It's been that way in this country since 1776. It's happened with Republicans in control, it's happened with Democrats in control. But guys like you apparently wake up periodically from a Rip Van Winkle sleep and act surprised. Here;s another fact. Over the last two decades, we've had two of the longest expansion cycles in history. Right now, with you whinning about economic and social disaster, the unemployment rate is at levels economists considered FULL EMPLOYMENT up until recently. If that's so bad, I want more of it. But I think your tortured sense of social justice is > best evidenced by your seeming lack of understanding of the difference > between corporate America and our American government. You can thank > Reagan and the Republicans for that too. I understand the difference. American corporations in general are far better run, more efficient, produce far better results than govt ever could. And I admire corporations for it. BTW, who do you think owns most of these corporations? Try looking at a typical 401K and similar retirement accounts, both public and private. > There isn't much to say if you can't figure out the difference between > wealth held in private hands with no accountability to anyone (even > when that wealth is created with public subsidies or on public lands > using public resources) and wealth that is collected and used, > ostensibly in the public interest. Yes, I can. One system is called capitalism. The other communism. And I know the results the two systems have achieved over the last century. You want to talk about results? Let's talk about the trillions spent over the last 4 decades on the biggest govt program of all, the welfare state. Johnson declared war on poverty and launched it. What has it produced? The poverty rate today is about the same. But you do have inner cities destroyed, families with lots of kids and no father, because that's how you get the most welfare. It got so bad, that finally even Bill Clinton decided it was time to try to put an end to it. Now, if that crap went on in any corporation, they would have been bankrupt in a few short years. Granted politics being what it is > that ideal is often not met (just look at the catastrophe that is the > American occupation of Iraq) but, even when it isn't met at least > decision makers are forced to justify how monies are spent and we, the > people, have access to the process and evidence of motives. Oh, please. Money is flowing out of Washington like a river of crap with no accountability and no control. And far more of it is going down rat holes than ever went down rat holes in the private sector. You have the nerve to bring up Iraq? Seems guys like you are constantly bitching about how so much money was squandered there, not only in direct military spending, but also in billions of aid money that was handed out and unaccounted for. You have everything from that to Hillary stuffing millions in bills for a Woodstock museum, to the Senator from Alaska building a bridge to nowhere. > Apparently, you don't like the idea of government of the people, by > the people and for the people. Why do you hate America?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Govt of the people, by the people and for the people doesn't include class warfare and wealth redistribution just because guys like you think it's groovey. Go read the Constitution and the writings of the founders. And I'm proud of this country and always have been. The whole point about the wealth transfer of the interest on the National Debt is that it is transferring wealth from the have nots to the haves. From the less well off to the wealthy. It's true that a Wal-Mart worker who is heavily invested in U.S. Treasuries is protected from the wealth transfer just as much as a Wall Street trader is if they are invested in Treasuries. But they are not coming from the same starting point. I have failed to mention an important point in my earlier posts. The income from Treasuries is tax free. So when you talk about a government that is not involved in wealth transfer being your ideal, you should be working to eliminate structures, such as the National Debt and the Federal Reserve that transfer wealth from the poor to the well off. What we have now is government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, and that is dangerous, wrong and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It is what Mussolini termed "Fascism." > The whole point about the wealth transfer of the interest on the > National Debt is that it is transferring wealth from the have nots to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from the same starting point. I have failed to mention an important > point in my earlier posts. The income from Treasuries is tax free. Interest from US treasuries is fully taxable at the federal level. So this is another thing you're misinformed on, just like the assertion that Exxon splits oil revenue 50/50 with the Saudis. Treasuury interest is only exempt from state and local taxes. And I don't know what makes you think the rich folks have all their money parked in Tbonds. They have had a pathetic yield for many years. This notion that treasuries is the vehicle for wealth transfer is bizarre. The rich didn't get rich by investing in treasuries. Most of them did it by starting companies that benefit the economy and provide jobs to millions of Americans. That is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. As for the national debt, it's hardly a new thing. As a conservative, I'd like to see it reduced by reducing govt spending. But you can't just look at the national debt as some big boogey man. You have to compare it to reasonable measures, like GDP. If you don't do that, it's like looking at someone who has a $200K mortgage and proclaiming it shockingly high, without referencing what the underlying asset is worth, income, etc. When you compare the national debt as a percentage of GDP, it's now about where it was in the Eisenhower years. And measured against the economy, it's less than many other industrialized countries. > So when you talk about a government that is not involved in wealth > transfer being your ideal, you should be working to eliminate > structures, such as the National Debt and the Federal Reserve that > transfer wealth from the poor to the well off. I'm sorry, but when you start railing against the Federal Reserve, you've joined the kook fringe elements. Every country has a central bank, don't they? Ours happens to be the FED and they've done a pretty damn good job of managing to keep the economy off the shoals for most of the last century. What exactly is your alternative to a central bank? barter? > What we have now is government of the corporation, by the corporation, > for the corporation, and that is dangerous, wrong and not what the > Founding Fathers had in mind. > > It is what Mussolini termed "Fascism." And quite frankly, it's offensive to compare what we have in the USA today to Mussolini. But it does show how misinformed you are of not only economics, but history and where you're coming from. You right in saying I was misinformed if indeed interest from Treasuries is fully taxable at the Federal level. I didn't know that . .. That's good. Now if we could get Capital Gains taxes raised we would be getting somewhere. >You right in saying I was misinformed if indeed interest from >Treasuries is fully taxable at the Federal level. I didn't know >that . .. That's good. Now if we could get Capital Gains taxes >raised we would be getting somewhere. and what would raising capital gains taxes do? it's been proven that lower taxes stimulate investment while higher taxes inhibit investment, in times like this raising taxes would just be another nail in the economies coffin __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. > >You right in saying I was misinformed if indeed interest from > >Treasuries is fully taxable at the Federal level. I didn't know [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Never argue with an idiot. > They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Yeah, it's sad to see how the misinformed think they have all the solutions. Heav claimed that Exxon splits oil revenues 50/50 with Saudi Arabia - False. That treasuries are tax exempt - false. That treasuries somehow are a big vehicle for transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy - False And most outrageous and inexplicable of all, that the USA today compares to fascist Italy under Mussolini. And then we're supposed to believe him that raising capital gains taxes is gonna do exactly what? The top 5% of income tax payers currently pay 60% of the total tax burden. What more do people want? And as we know, back in the 70's and 80's, with the top rate at 70%, they only paid 40%. The difference was the economy was stagnant, unemployment was 9%, inflation was 7%, and treasuries yielded 18%. Hmmm, don't remember anybody bitching about treasuries transferring wealth when they were yielding 4X what they are today. Instead of bitching about how much wealth someone else has, how about going out and creating some of your own? The long asnd the short of it, gentlemen, is that there is simply no substitute for liquid petroleum products as the basic energy supply for far into the future. Other means of producing energy are economic in certain limited circumastances but are not and never will be universal. Coal is great when you can build the power plant at the mine. Solar is fine on an offshore buoy. Wind is helpful as a backup where the wind blows reliably. Water power can even be cost effective. And so on. But you can't go down to the local filling station and buy a can of sunshine to put in your tank, heat your house or cook your food. Take away the tax incentives and nothing else works, especially alcohol. Yes, it's very "apparent", i.e. very visible. In GB we pay a lot of tax on petrol and whisky. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > The telling side of the equation is how much of the price is taxes. > According to this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax ) you guys [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > JD >> Boy, that's cheap, in the UK it's nearly 3 times that (See >> http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm for a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >In other words: Fuel in the US today is half of >the German price. that is because your government uses fuel taxes to fund it's socialist policies, the price of fuel is about the same in any country that is an importer of fuel, the differences in price is because of taxes imposed __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. No kidding? DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > that is because your government uses fuel taxes to fund it's socialist > policies, the price of fuel is about the same in any country that is > an importer of fuel, the differences in price is because of taxes > imposed And that's how it always is, very broadly speaking... DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > In other words: Fuel in the US today is half of > the German price. Hi "Gogarty" Stop complaining about Diesel prices! If you lived in Northern Ireland as I do, then one US gallon (3.785 litres) would cost you (at todays currency rates) $8.68 US Dollars . More than twice what you are paying. > Living in the city we don't drive all that much. It was maybe a month > since I had topped off the tank on Der Klunker (1981 300SD). So > yesterday we filled 'er up. $4.14 per gallon! We will be driving a lot > less in future. Just decided an open house this coming Sunday is not > worth $20 in fuel costs. If public transportation was anywhere near as good here as it is on your side of the pond, I wouldn't gripe about diesel prices quite as much. JD > Hi "Gogarty" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> less in future. Just decided an open house this coming Sunday is not >> worth $20 in fuel costs. The U.S. is a lot bigger, geographically, than Ireland too. It's hard to live in the rural parts of the U.S., especially in the larger western states, without driving long distances regularly. Trader4, what is the explanation, other than greed, that is preventing capital from investing heavily in solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and mass transit? Why this slavish addiction to fossil fuels? That is not a rhetorical question. I suspect you have some inside view insight into those issues. It seems that if the trillions spent to try and dominate Iraqi oil and the pipeline corridor through the Pashtun areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan had been spent on alternative fuels, alternative vehicles and mass transit we could have made good progress toward moving beyond the oil addiction. No? Why are markets failing to see this? The greenhouse gas and climate change issues must also be considered. Humanity cannot continue to expand the burning of fossil fuel without serious adverse consequences like reduction of food production and the flooding of coastal cities. Incidentally, I am a business owner and make my living entirely as a capitalist. >The U.S. is a lot bigger, geographically, than Ireland too. It's hard >to live in the rural parts of the U.S., especially in the larger [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >not a rhetorical question. I suspect you have some inside view >insight into those issues. one big reason things like solar or wind turbines aren't used more is that the enviro whackos fight the installation of these things, for example in NJ there was an idea to build a turbine wind farm off shore but the so called environmentalists forced the plan to be can celled. __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. > The U.S. is a lot bigger, geographically, than Ireland too. It's hard > to live in the rural parts of the U.S., especially in the larger [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not a rhetorical question. I suspect you have some inside view > insight into those issues. The basic answer is because most of those alternative energy sources are still more expensive than oil, coal, and natural gas. Here in NJ, you can get a modest size solar system for your house for $50K. The state may chip in $30k of that from a fund generated through a tax they levy on everyone's electric bill. That means for $20K you have a system that should pay for the homeowner's cost in about 8 years. But consider just taking out a mortgage at 7% to pay for that $20K, and that cost would run $1400 a year, which already makes it look a lot different. And if you had to borrow the money and pay the full $50K, as a commercial venture would, you'd go broke. Wind can be used successfully in SOME locations, but certainly not everywhere. And when you try to use it, guess who shows up to block it? Same environmental extremists that are against everything. That has happened here where there was a proposal to start using them off the coast of NJ. It's still moving ahead, but at a snails pace because of environmental opposition, bitching about the possible effect on fish, birds, the shore view... Same thing happened off Cape Cod. There was also a proposal to build some off Long Island, but faced with opposition and a mediocre prospect of profitability, the company called it quits. Personally, I'd rather have an oil rig 15 miles+ offshore, where you'll never see it rather than a bunch of windmills within sight of the shore. Ethanol is starting to meet a small % of the demand, but only recently with subsidies and $100 barrel oil does it start to make sense. And I predict before long, you're gonna here bitching about that too, because as more land is devoted to that, along with it comes more run off, more water usage, etc. Plus, it's driven up grain prices substantially, so that you're now paying more for cereal, pasta, beef, eggs, etc. Mass transit, in general, has always been a loser and heavily subsidized in most cases. Plus it doesn't fit current urban lifestyle. Here in NJ, it's OK for commuting to NYC. But that's only a small percent of the traffic. The rest is going to pick up kids at school, the supermarket, the mall, then a friends house, etc. The train/bus doesn't go there. IMO, the one thing that is readily available and could be brought online relatively quickly is nuclear. But because of irrational fear, that gets blocked too. Which exposes another environmental extremist hypocrisy. We're supposed to believe that life on the planet is in jeopardy within a few decades from global warming, yet the environmentalists will have no part in using more nuclear. Nuclear isn't perfect, but if France can get 70% of their electric from it, and Japan 40%, it would seem a reasonable alternative to allegedly certain irreparable climate change and death. We also could be opening up areas like CA and the east coast to offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, etc. Every time there has been a price spike in energy in the last 20 years, that's been blocked by people saying, it's not worth it because it will take 5 years to get any oil. If we'd started even in 2003, we'd have that oil by now. And perhaps even find an elephant size field up there, because no one knows how much oil there really is. Environmentalists won't even allow test drilling to find out for sure. So, you have rising demand for oil from places like India, where I believe it's gone up 9% a year, meeting worldwide output that is somewhere near peaking. And life goes on.... > It seems that if the trillions spent to try and dominate Iraqi oil and > the pipeline corridor through the Pashtun areas of Pakistan and > Afghanistan had been spent on alternative fuels, alternative vehicles > and mass transit we could have made good progress toward moving beyond > the oil addiction. No? Why are markets failing to see this? Been there, done that. In the 70's, the govt did exactly that. They spent billions on alternative energy. One big component was supposed to be shale oil. You know how much energy we got from all those programs? Not one drop. Haven't you seen enough of the incompetence of govt to do most things right? If they can't run a war, which after all should be one of their core competencies, what makes you think they know anything about energy? But they are doing some of what you suggest anyway. They have subsidized ethanol. That was probably an obvious choice because it pleases the farmers. The most important thing to drive a alternative solutions is already happening and that's rising prices. If you look around the world, I'm not sure anywhere else is doing much better with economically viable alternative sources on a large scale. Traveling in Europe the biggest difference I see is that gas costs twice or more what it does here and they drive much smaller cars. The trend to smaller cars will happen here over time with the rising energy prices. > The greenhouse gas and climate change issues must also be considered. > Humanity cannot continue to expand the burning of fossil fuel without > serious adverse consequences like reduction of food production and the > flooding of coastal cities. I'm not sold on the fact that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming or that it's going to doom us all. Here's a key issue I'd like to see answered. If you look at the neat graphs of CO2 cycles and global temperatures, there have been I think 4 cycles over the last 700,000 years. This is the graph Al Gore uses, among others, and it's widely available. In every one of those cycles, temperature begins to rise a few hundred to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2. Now, to any thinking person, this would seem to be a big issue, no? If CO2 causes the rise, then why doesn't it work the other way around, with CO2 rising first? There is a professor of ocean science at MIT who has an explanation. And that is that the world's oceans are the vast reservoirs of CO2 on the planet. The earth starts to warm from some other reason, most likely change in the suns output. Over time, this causes CO2 to be released from the oceans, just like CO2 from a warming bottle of soda. The reason it takes hundreds of years for it to happen is because the oceans are so big that it takes time for the temp to change much. Now, am I sure he's 100% right? No. But I've yet to see any of the global warming proponents offer their explanation to account for the reverse graphs. I heard one imbecile from a major university asked the question and his answer was "Well, it only shows that CO2 isn't responsible for the first few hundred years of temp rise." Also, supposedly, the temp on Mars is currently rising. Do they have humans emitting CO2? In other words, there are lots of legitimate questions, but anyone daring to ask them runs the risk of being run out of town. Or worse, having their funding cut off. I think there is a very good chance that if you live long enough, you may get to see the temp rise reverse on it's own. There have been many cycles before, long, short, medium. Do a google on global cooling and you'll find articles from the 70's when alleged climate experts were making many of the same alarmist statements about the mini ice age that was upon us. At the time, they said many of the same things you here today, ie how now with computers they can model the climate, etc. No one can accurately predict the weather more than a few days ahead. These models have equations where someone has to pick the coefficients to put in front of variable X, Y, and Z. It's a lot like economics. PHD's like to right partial differential equations that describe how part of the economy works. The only problem is, no one knows whether the coefficient in front of variable X should be .06 or .08, etc. In the current environment, I think the guys fooling around with climate models have every incentive to come up with models that show global warming. If they don't they get run out of town. > Incidentally, I am a business owner and make my living entirely as a > capitalist. Good for you, that's what drives this economy. trader4 wrote: > Ethanol is starting to meet a small % of the demand, but only recently > with subsidies and $100 barrel oil does it start to make sense. And > I predict before long, you're gonna here bitching about that too There is the rather sad point that creating ethanol from corn requires more petroleum than is displaced by the ethanol. That's why I'm a fan of WVO. It's already been used for its "intended purpose." Reduce, reuse, recycle. ;) Too bad the two Benzes in my driveway use the entire output of three local restaurants (i.e. it's not going to support the entire population). -tom! -- > trader4 wrote: > > Ethanol is starting to meet a small % of the demand, but only recently [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -- Out of curiousity, how did it go when you approached these restaurants? Did all 3 just say yes or did you have to work through a bunch to find the 3? With the rising prices, I guess I should start considering WVO. I'm just curious how this works with restaurants vs what they are already doing with the oil, how they save it for you, how you pick it up, whether you have to take all their oil, etc. What car do you have? In my case, my friend is a very good friend of the restaurant owner... so they simply said okay. It is important that the restaurant continue to have waste oil... because by law, they must have an authorized oil disposal service for proof that their oil are not being dumped into the sewer. However, don't worry about this because they will always have junk oil that is just not worth filtering... Their benefit is that they call for oil disposal alot less often and thus they save money. In today's climate, restaurant are really hard to make profit as everything has soared: gas, cooking oil, food, meat, electricity and everything else needed to support the restaurant. So please be kind to them and dine at their place more often... they are saving you alot of money on fuel cost. Symbiosis relationship is important more than ever now. Standard Biodiesel in Arlington, WA pays $0.10 to $0.15 a gallon for waste oil. Fortunately they tend to go after places that use a lot of oil leaving the gas station deli mart kind of places still a good source. > What car do you have? In my case, my friend is a very good friend of the > restaurant owner... so they simply said okay. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > their place more often... they are saving you alot of money on fuel cost. > Symbiosis relationship is important more than ever now. Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and their service to come out and pump out those oil... tend to cost more than what they pay for your oil. With state law, there is almost no choice... either you live close to one of those biodiesel refinery or you don't... and their cost of new cookng oil is $4.25 cents per gallon or higher... so getting 15 cents back is a joke. > Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal > service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > those biodiesel refinery or you don't... and their cost of new cookng oil is > $4.25 cents per gallon or higher... so getting 15 cents back is a joke. It still beat paying to have it taken away. > Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal > service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > oil is $4.25 cents per gallon or higher... so getting 15 cents back is a > joke. It will not be long until a waste oil heater for the business makes sense. >> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It will not be long until a waste oil heater for the business makes sense. My Datsun mech installed one in his garage to avoid the PITA of disposing it. It's made sense for him for years. JD >>> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >>> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >My Datsun mech installed one in his garage to avoid the PITA of disposing >it. It's made sense for him for years. if he was burning waste motor oil like that, it is illegal to do __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. >>>> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >>>> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > if he was burning waste motor oil like that, it is illegal to do I don't know what to tell you. The heater was specifically designed to burn used motor oil and the county (Snohomish, WA) gave it their blessing. <shrug> JD >>>>> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >>>>> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >JD maybe in W VA it is legal, but in many places it isn't __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. >>>>>> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >>>>>> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> JD > maybe in W VA it is legal, but in many places it isn't Snohomish County is in Washington state, one of the most obsessively "green" places in the country. JD >>>>>>> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >>>>>>> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >JD that could be, but apparently they've missed the boat on this issue __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Yes, I know a Chevy car dealer in my area did that... burns used motor oil. Beside that, it cost a fortune to pay for natural gas to heat their building. >>> Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal >>> service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JD A local mechanic has one about 10 miles from my house. The first time he fires it up every year some one invariably calls the fire department :) I have never seen one used yet for WVO though. trader4 wrote: > > That's why I'm a fan of WVO. It's already been used for its "intended > > purpose." Reduce, reuse, recycle. ;) Too bad the two Benzes in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Out of curiousity, how did it go when you approached these > restaurants? With these three, it was fine beyond the communication challenges. My Spanish is really bad and my Chinese is non-existant, so it took a while to describe what it was that I wanted (non-hydrogenated used vegetable oil). There were a few other places where communication difficulties led to just giving up, but sadly most restaurants around here use (partially) hydrogenated oil which is as bad for the motor in your car as it is for the motor in your chest. Folks in NYC and Baltimore, at least, have the pick since those cities (and probably more) have banned the use of hydrogenated oil in the restaurants. The Chinese place actually had just cancelled his oil pickup because he was disgusted with them wanting to raise the prices to him but still turn around and sell it themselves. I went in only an hour or so after he'd cancelled that service and he said, "I was wondering what I was going to do." The difference between the oil from the three places is noticable. The Chinese has a lot more solid matter in it, but otherwise I use it all. The Mexican must be cooked hotter because it gets somewhat hydrogenated. The Greek is a mishmash of oil, olive and peanut mostly, and is pretty clean overall but the bottom of the barrel always has a huge pile of falafel sludge in it. This burns the hardest (especially in cold weather) but it still works ok. I've started pouring 8oz of Marvel Mystery Oil per tank in, it definitely helps with combustion. Car stinks like french fries, which isn't a problem on the freeway but it always wafts up when I pull up to a light. The MMO helps that, though, by helping the fuel burn more completely. -tom! -- > The difference between the oil from the three places is noticable. > The Chinese has a lot more solid matter in it, but otherwise I use > it all. I tried using oil from a Chinese restaurant once. The car ran fine, but an hour later I had to fill the tank again. Geoff -- "Not only did Barack deny knowing that his scribe was an unpatriotic, imbalanced bigot, but he also said he didn't even know Wright was black until last Monday." -- Doug Giles Anything cost less than $4 is good news. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.