Records everywhere!

[jgriff]

Oh, Congress. Always behind the times. It's too late for a quick fix, and it's astounding how many people think they're going to have $2/gallon regular by Christmas if we *started drilling now!*

Anouncing that we are going to start drilling on the coasts and in Alaska would probably slightly drop the price of oil immediatley. It's not going to get us $2 a gallon gas but it's a step in the right direction.

Many Democrats are suggesting a windfall profits tax on the oil companies which will raise gas prices immediatley.

[jfre81]

Anouncing that we are going to start drilling on the coasts and in Alaska would probably slightly drop the price of oil immediatley. It's not going to get us $2 a gallon gas but it's a step in the right direction.

Many Democrats are suggesting a windfall profits tax on the oil companies which will raise gas prices immediatley.

Well here's the deal - I think people are kidding themselves. We can drill all we want but we are never going to be "independent" of foreign oil without significantly cutting consumption. We are dependent by choice. We could have cars with the fuel efficiency of European cars that are affordable for people, we could have more public transit and we could walk or ride bicycles to get around more. But most would rather circle the Wal-Mart parking lot like a vulture in their SUVs looking for a front-row parking spot because they couldn't be bothered to walk across the parking lot. Then they're the ones bitching the most about gas prices and being dependent on foreign oil.

Besides, who cares where it comes from? Burn all their oil first. We're already dependent on China for manufacturing, India for customer service and Mexico/Latin America for cheap labor, so what difference does it make if our oil comes from somewhere else too?

If you think you'd pay $2/gallon if we used only what came out of US soil/waters, I want some of what you're smoking. Meanwhile, look at how $4/gallon has got at least half the people talking about real solutions, expanding transit and living closer to work. Call it "unsprawling" if you will. I think this is the future, and that there's no use in fighting it.

And thanks Red

[Subdude]

So, our strength is our technological might, yet the Big 3 cannot design a vehicle that achieves fuel economy that the Japanese auotmakers already achieve? The reason the Big 3 are nearly bankrupt now is because of our lost lead in science and technology.

The Japanese manufacturers have been able to achieve overall higher fleet mileage, but they have still played the same game of making each generation of autos more fat and bloated than the last. After all, the Nissan Armada and Lexus LX570 are hardly paragons of trim efficiency. If the Big 3, or anyone else, want the technological secret to fuel economy I can pass it along for free: make cars smaller and lighter so they can use smaller engines. There, we're done.

I'm not really blaming the manufacturers; I realize they were only responding to market demand. Fine. But that said, I am getting just a tad tired of people who insisted on having gigundi land barges whining night and day about high gas prices.

[TJones]

I've also noticed that some of Honda's 'hybrids' aren't that much better in the MPG department. What gives. How is Toyota able to crank out such high MPG over the rest of the car makers?

How are they able to do that ? I will tell you my knowledge thirsty friend. They cut the crap out of the horsepower so that you can barely get out of your own way. You are forced to drive in a broom closet, and God forbid you get hit by an SUV in it. Now you can get yo'self a nice corolla, a little more room, a little more horsepower, but thats only in the 30's for MPG.

You can also get a Tahoe Hybrid but that is still only 20 to 22 if you are lucky.

[Subdude]

Well here's the deal - I think people are kidding themselves. We can drill all we want but we are never going to be "independent" of foreign oil without significantly cutting consumption. We are dependent by choice. We could have cars with the fuel efficiency of European cars that are affordable for people, we could have more public transit and we could walk or ride bicycles to get around more. But most would rather circle the Wal-Mart parking lot like a vulture in their SUVs looking for a front-row parking spot because they couldn't be bothered to walk across the parking lot. Then they're the ones bitching the most about gas prices and being dependent on foreign oil.

Besides, who cares where it comes from? Burn all their oil first. We're already dependent on China for manufacturing, India for customer service and Mexico/Latin America for cheap labor, so what difference does it make if our oil comes from somewhere else too?

If you think you'd pay $2/gallon if we used only what came out of US soil/waters, I want some of what you're smoking. Meanwhile, look at how $4/gallon has got at least half the people talking about real solutions, expanding transit and living closer to work. Call it "unsprawling" if you will. I think this is the future, and that there's no use in fighting it.

And thanks Red

Amen brother, amen.

That's what bothers me about this noise about arctic drilling and windfall profit taxes and blaming the situation on evil speculators that have all of a sudden jointly decided to drive up the price of oil. All of it is just looking for simplistic feel-good solutions and scapegoats to blame. At some point we are going to have to learn to deal with unpleasant realities like adults, not self-involved teenagers. That is going to mean unpleasant choices sometimes, like driving cheese wedge cars or whatnot. Believe me, life goes on.

[TJones]

As soon as we tap into N.Dakota we will should be pretty independent, at least enough for our gas to go back down in the $2s.

[RedScare]

As soon as we tap into N.Dakota we will should be pretty independent, at least enough for our gas to go back down in the $2s.

You do realize that the only way to become "independent" would be to nationalize the oil supply, right? Congress would have to legislate that no US oil may be exported in order to decouple US oil from the world market. Is that your suggested solution?

[RedScare]

Just curious if anyone has noticed that most of the proposed solutions to the energy crisis parallel the government's strategy in the 'War On Drugs'. Rather than attempting to lessen the US appetite for narcotics through education and treatment and counseling of abusers...a far less expensive approach...the government throws money at the growing countries and law enforcement in a lame attempt to wipe out the drug supply. And, it never works. Drugs are cheaper now than they have ever been.

Likewise, rather than attempt to limit US oil consumption through more efficient vehicles, improved and expanded public transit and other fuel efficient programs, the government attempts to drill its way out of the crisis, increasing supply instead of lessening demand. Like the 'War On Drugs', it fails miserably, but doesn't require US citizens to alter their lifestyle.

It is worth noting that the US is the leading consumer of both oil and illegal narcotics.

[TJones]

There is a problem with Americans and oil consumption. We like to go FAST ! Big horsepower, be it in a car a truck a boat, a plane. We like our toys. I recently purchased a Toyota for the wife 2 days ago. Drove it for a week first to make sure she and I liked it, but ultimately bought it. I bought it One, because I absolutely STOLE it, and "B", because we definately NEED the room for our 2 children and my big fat butt, but at least I was gonna try to do a little better with fuel economy as far as SUVs go. Been getting 19 or so thus far. That's better than the 16 I used to get with my previous Expeditions. Didn't I say pretty independent, not completely independent of foreign oil.

So, your answer is NO, I don't want Govt. to Nationalize it, I just want some drilling to get started before it's too late.

[houstonmacbro]

As soon as we tap into N.Dakota we will should be pretty independent, at least enough for our gas to go back down in the $2s.

C'mon now ... do you REALLY think we'll ever get back to $2 a gallon gasoline.

That's like wishing we'd get back to ... back to ... a $5 steak and potatoes dinner.

[houstonmacbro]

There is a problem with Americans and oil consumption. We like to go FAST ! Big horsepower, be it in a car a truck a boat, a plane. We like our toys. I recently purchased a Toyota for the wife 2 days ago. Drove it for a week first to make sure she and I liked it, but ultimately bought it. I bought it One, because I absolutely STOLE it, and "B", because we definately NEED the room for our 2 children and my big fat butt, but at least I was gonna try to do a little better with fuel economy as far as SUVs go. Been getting 19 or so thus far. That's better than the 16 I used to get with my previous Expeditions. Didn't I say pretty independent, not completely independent of foreign oil.

So, your answer is NO, I don't want Govt. to Nationalize it, I just want some drilling to get started before it's too late.

I'd like drilling to get started too ... so once and for all this debate over how we'll be energy independent because of it, will end once and for all.

[RedScare]

I'd like drilling to get started too ... so once and for all this debate over how we'll be energy independent because of it, will end once and for all.

That's a GREAT idea. In fact, I know where 70 million acres of oil rich territory is waiting for a drill bit as we speak.

[houstonmacbro]

That's a GREAT idea. In fact, I know where 70 million acres of oil rich territory is waiting for a drill bit as we speak.

Honestly, I would vote for this just to help end the debate. Even though I don't believe for a second it is going to bring down prices OR increase supply.

IF the Saudis have so much oil (which they CLAIM they do) then why aren't they pumping more?

[musicman]

IF the Saudis have so much oil (which they CLAIM they do) then why aren't they pumping more?

why should THEY be pumping more?

[TheNiche]

Perhaps Detroit suffers from a rather severe case of 'thick skull syndrome'? Some advance reports on vehicle sales for June suggest that the GM and Ford numbers may be nothing short of cataclysmic. They are saying GM may enter bankruptcy before they get their electric car out.

I am not a big fan of bailing out greedy corporate execs, but in this case, I think saving a few million manufacturing jobs warrants it. Rather than give prizes for batteries, Congress should look into encouraging the production of highly fuel efficient vehicles....more than the limited time stuff they do now. They could pay for it by dumping the tax break for buying Hummers and Suburbans.

Just so you're aware, if GM goes bankrupt, that doesn't mean that all their plants and their suppliers' close shop. Even in a worst-case scenario in which it were an irrecoverable bankruptcy where everything about GM dissappeared, its assets would just be sold off to some other firm that didn't have to deal with pensions. Realistically, though, I think that neither party in Congress will want to alienate so many elderly people living on GM pensions in rust belt swing states by allowing GM to go bankrupt. They'll prop it up one way or another.

I don't know about research for battery technology, per se, as I'm not an automotive engineer, but I do think that sponsoring highly targeted basic research in particular kinds of technology has merit because the benefit could transcend any single industry. For instance, a breakthrough in battery technology might also be applied to laptop computers and cell phones. But to provide an incentive or mandate for low-mileage vehicles seems like overkill. Consumers are already abandoning trucks and SUVs and moving toward more cost-effective vehicles; it seems like the incentive is there and as though realistic solutions basically are already available with it just being a tradeoff between spaciousness and performance and economy.

[TJones]

Eh, the Govt. would bail out ANY of the Big 3 right now.

[TheNiche]

As soon as we tap into N.Dakota we will should be pretty independent, at least enough for our gas to go back down in the $2s.

Adding supply from only N. Dakota in the context of a global market for crude oil isn't going to cut the price of gasoline (the refined product) in half.

But at the same time, if our government were to decisively opt to promote more drilling in areas that are currently off-limits, just the promise of having access to more domestic supplies in the future would cause the price of oil to decline slightly on account of the promise of future supply, a strengthening of the dollar, and that the oil would be produced in a place with less political/war/terrorism risk. Even still, we're talking about very very small price adjustments.

There is a viable national security argument to committing to more domestic drilling, and it goes along the same lines as agricultural subsidies to ensure that we don't have to import food from unfriendly or unstable countries in a time of emergency. But it doesn't seem like that's one that is being picked up on by politicians. They seem to think that if we produce as much oil as we use, suddenly we're decoupled from the global market and the price reverts to what it had been five years ago, and that's just absurd.

[crunchtastic]

Eh, the Govt. would bail out ANY of the Big 3 right now.

There's a fair amount of chatter out there that at the very least, GM could be delisted from the NYSE by the beginning of '09. Which could be the first step to bailout/restructure.

It is indeed unfortunate that the death of US auto manufacturing will be attributed to pensions and health insurance benefits.

[Subdude]

There's a fair amount of chatter out there that at the very least, GM could be delisted from the NYSE by the beginning of '09. Which could be the first step to bailout/restructure.

It is indeed unfortunate that the death of US auto manufacturing will be attributed to pensions and health insurance benefits.

A GM bankruptcy would not be the death of US auto manufacturing, not by a long shot. If anything, manufacturers are looking at increasing production in America due to the cheap currency and good labor base.

[TJones]

Niche, did you know there is about 430 billion barrells, estimated to be in N.Dakota. Saudi Arabia has only ever had 382 billion estimated. The worm would definately turn my friend.

[TJones]

There's a fair amount of chatter out there that at the very least, GM could be delisted from the NYSE by the beginning of '09. Which could be the first step to bailout/restructure.

It is indeed unfortunate that the death of US auto manufacturing will be attributed to pensions and health insurance benefits.

Thank the Lord for the Union Label, HUH ?

[BryanS]

A GM bankruptcy would not be the death of US auto manufacturing, not by a long shot. If anything, manufacturers are looking at increasing production in America due to the cheap currency and good labor base.

Absolutely agree. In fact, a bankruptcy would a be good thing. Why? Just like it is a "good thing" for the airlines - it is an easy way out to wipe the balance sheet clean (at the cost of screwing shareholders, creditors - but who cares about them anyway), get rid of all the old labor contracts, and restructure the whole the business to be more competitive. It's the American way.

Thank the Lord for the Union Label, HUH ?

Just remember... It was the unions that gave us a 40-hr workweek and Sundays off! I will concede, however, that are problems with legacy union contracts...

[TheNiche]

Just remember... It was the unions that gave us a 40-hr workweek and Sundays off! I will concede, however, that are problems with legacy union contracts...

Gave? Us?

When I was working for wages in college, a 40-hour workweek was limiting. My employer needed more of my time and I needed more money, but having to pay time-and-a-half for overtime was too expensive for them. As far as I'm concerned, the Union kind of attitude TOOK from ME when I was a student and needed it most.

Incidentally, I'm at the office right now (it's Sunday). I've probably worked in excess of 65 hours this last week. And I'm salaried. So I'm going to distance myself from your use of that dirty little two-letter pronoun.

[RedScare]

Gave? Us?

When I was working for wages in college, a 40-hour workweek was limiting. My employer needed more of my time and I needed more money, but having to pay time-and-a-half for overtime was too expensive for them. As far as I'm concerned, the Union kind of attitude TOOK from ME when I was a student and needed it most.

Incidentally, I'm at the office right now (it's Sunday). I've probably worked in excess of 65 hours this last week. And I'm salaried. So I'm going to distance myself from your use of that dirty little two-letter pronoun.

Are you also upset that the unions prevented you from working in sweatshops at age 6?

Woo Hoo! Look at us working 14 hours a day making moneeeeey! Aren't you jealous, Niche? Woo Hoo!

[TheNiche]

Are you also upset that the unions prevented you from working in sweatshops at age 6?

Woo Hoo! Look at us working 14 hours a day making moneeeeey! Aren't you jealous, Niche? Woo Hoo!

For a very poor family in southeast Asia, that extra income may be well worth it. Who am I to judge what makes sense for somebody else's household, especially if it is the difference between eating every day or every other day? Now, if workplace conditions are so unreasonable that kids are routinely dying or being crippled at work, that's another matter...but I see nothing inherently wrong with child labor whether within a household or at a place of business.

It wasn't that long ago that children were used for labor on family farms here in the United States, and farms aren't exactly a pinnacle of safety or comfort, either. Heck, all of my mom's siblings helped out on my grandfather's shrimp boat. The social attitude that children ought to have everything provided for them without a care in the world is a recent one that came about as real wages rose and starvation was totally eliminated. It is a luxury that we take entirely for granted.

[RedScare]

Yeah. Lucky bastards, getting to engage in the character building experience of working long hours for little pay. Meanwhile, I am over here in the States, being FORCED to accept overtime pay for working this weekend. I tried to refuse it, but they wouldn't let me. Maybe I'll donate the proceeds to a fund for auto executives forced to work without bonuses this year.

[westguy]

Well it would be much better if those kids were in school.

[TheNiche]

Well it would be much better if those kids were in school.

It would be, yes. But circumstances dicate optimal outcomes that are at times far from ideal, and this holds true whether we're talking about Burma or the United States.

[TheNiche]

Yeah. Lucky bastards, getting to engage in the character building experience of working long hours for little pay. Meanwhile, I am over here in the States, being FORCED to accept overtime pay for working this weekend. I tried to refuse it, but they wouldn't let me. Maybe I'll donate the proceeds to a fund for auto executives forced to work without bonuses this year.

I didn't say anything about character-building. In fact, that mindset is entirely counter to what I was getting at...but I sense that you realize this and are trying to dodge my argument.

My point was, very simply, that when low-income households need to satisfy basic human needs for subsistence-level food and shelter, I don't begrudge them utilizing any means of income that they have. And I support the moral relativism line of thought with precedents from the United States that were fairly recent in our history and that were socially acceptable in the context of the era in which they took place. It's basically about cultural relativism.

[crunchtastic]

Gave? Us?

When I was working for wages in college, a 40-hour workweek was limiting. My employer needed more of my time and I needed more money, but having to pay time-and-a-half for overtime was too expensive for them. As far as I'm concerned, the Union kind of attitude TOOK from ME when I was a student and needed it most.

Incidentally, I'm at the office right now (it's Sunday). I've probably worked in excess of 65 hours this last week. And I'm salaried. So I'm going to distance myself from your use of that dirty little two-letter pronoun.

Niche I'm dissapointed in your lack of creativity. Hating on union attitudes because you needed more money in school? Tsk. Seeking to work more hours for a wage? Double tsk. One finds a more creative way to make money on the side, preferrably making maximum dollars for minimum effort, like any self-respecting college student. I paid the bills and plenty more with minimal effort, while providing a valuable service for language-challenged, frat-boy business majors. And it damn sure didn't take 40 hours of my time each week.

I do truly hope your zeal pays off, but I also hope you won't be bitterly disapointed in the event you find yourself 15 or 20 years down the road and not fabulously wealthy, despite having worked 60, 70, and 80 hour weeks to make someone else rich.