Got Gas?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

More cryptic posts from the 1stWord.

BTW, it seems to me that if things turn to ____ for China, it can't be very good for us. But, what do I know? I only speak in plain English.

I know....im stilll searching for ways to word it better...........

[RedScare]

As your calculations suggested, current proven reserves would take us about 40 years to fully exhaust. I would submit to you that within 40 years or less, alternative energy technologies may finally be at the point that it becomes economically viable to ween ourselves completely from oil and come out ahead.

If for the sake of argument, however, we were to extrapolate long-term average rates of consumption and discoveries out until the point that all known reserves were depleted, then the last year of full production would be 2087. Granted, I'd expect for consumption to increase at a slightly faster pace in the next decade, but as energy becomes more efficiently used in presently developing nations, I'd also expect for that pace to slow somewhat, even though I'd really not expect it to reverse anytime soon. Eyeballing the data, however, I'd still guestimate right at about 40 years before we'd face that scenario.

Except that 40 years is not very far out to transform our oil based economy. That is why so many are upset that the government is advocating only increased drilling, as opposed to drilling AND conservation of existing resources, as well as research into alternatives sources of energy. As oil prices rise, consumption will decrease, as fewer can afford the trips to the country. However, increasing the gas tax would promote conservation faster, as well as provide revenue for research and mass transit.

I don't think that the Saudis or Iranians would want to mislead the markets into believing that they have more reserves than there actually are because that would have the effect of calming investors, leading to lower oil prices. I can understand a situation where they might intentionally underestimate reserves since they'd benefit from higher prices, what would be their motive to overestimate?

The overestimate, if it occurred, happened when OPEC was forming. Pumping rates were allocated based on each country's percentage of reserves. Suddenly, several OPEC nations "discovered" vast new amounts of reserves, even though no new fields were discovered. Those suspect estimates have never been verified or corrected. In fact, many experts believe Saudi Arabia's fields are showing signs of having passed their "peak", and are in decline.

You know, if there is any political turmoil over the control of oil, I'd almost expect to see China as more of the instigator than we are. I know that there are a lot of people out there that claim that we went to war with Iraq over oil...but we don't seem to be getting any, and that casts serious doubt on those theories. If we were there for oil, we'd be taking it, right? Besides, why would any country want to provoke world oil markets...that'd just make buying oil that much more difficult for that country because the prices would rise; meanwhile, it would have to fight a self-defeating war.

Prior to the war, there was much talk of Iraq financing it's own recovery. The government's belief was that it would be over by now, and production would be double it's pre-war 3 million barrels per day. I believe that the neo-cons' intent was to install a puppet democracy, with Ahmed Chalbi as president, insuring cheap oil for the US. The government underestimated the animosity toward the US. Therefore, Chalbi was not elected, and the Shia gained control (somewhat). The US also underestimated the economic sanctions' effect on the oil infrastructure. I understand that the US could not admit it was trying to obtain a stable oil supply. My anger at the government is that it botched it's SECRET mission, as well as it's PUBLIC one. I may not agree with invading countries for their oil, but I get furious when we decide to do it, but fail due to arrogance and ineptitude.

China, on the other hand, is buying up inventory at high prices, without telling the countries how to run their government. It is a much less intrusive approach.

[tcole]

A quick read for all interested in some of the issues discussed so far on this thread:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/...rgysNextEra.pdf

A longer read for anyone wanting to truly be conversant in hydrocarbon issues:

The Prize by Daniel Yergin

In fact, I would suggest that all Houstonians, for that matter Texans, read this book.

[Subdude]

A quick read for all interested in some of the issues discussed so far on this thread:

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/...rgysNextEra.pdf

A longer read for anyone wanting to truly be conversant in hydrocarbon issues:

The Prize by Daniel Yergin

In fact, I would suggest that all Houstonians, for that matter Texans, read this book.

Just finished that book about a month ago. Yergin, who is president of CERA, makes the argument that predictions of "peak oil" have been made for a hundred years, but supply has always caught up.

[tcole]

but supply has always caught up.

I think you understate Yergin. It is not that supply "catches up" so much as expands beyond previous predictions - almost always by a surprising factor.

[Lowbrow]

I wouldn't put too much faith in the estimates handed down by oil companies or these oil rich countries (read national oil companies). How many times have oil companies had thier hands slapped for over estimating reserves? It almost ruined Shell a few years back when they had to reassess thier reserves. Doing so is no small undertaking. I work for an oil field service company and we continually run into our clients wanting us to use the most optimistic numbers we can come up with. If I can increase the reserves for the business unit, they all get bigger bonuses.

As for the national oil companies, they have the added reason of politics to increase thier estimates. Political clout. From my perspective they can be the hardest companies to work with of all. The amount of bureaucracy is amazing. How many politicians do you think want to drag us through thier offices when we are visiting to do just a little amount of work? No small number, I tell you. Everyone wants a peice of the pie... and some of that clout.

[TJones]

Gas prices have risen 20 cents since you told us they were topping out. When are you going to explain things in real world terms, as opposed to your dream world?

BTW, while you are buying a Suburban in anticipation of the gas price decline, the rest of the US is buying Hondas and Toyotas. Please explain that phenomenon.

Dammit Red, how are you gonna forget Nissan ! I thought you were my friend ?

[Houstonian in Iraq]

I drive a 2000 Saturn LS2 in the states and put in about $26.00 of gas to top it off in about a week. I use to think that was a lot until I came to the UK. I drive a little Honda civic hatchback here in the UK. It cost approximately the equivalent of about $60.00 to fill the tank, usually I go through that in about a week. I'm sure a lot of that is due to taxes but DAMN you won't hear me complain about prices in the States anytime soon. My next car will be a hybrid.

[TheNiche]

Except that 40 years is not very far out to transform our oil based economy.

Isn't it? The rate of technological advancement accelerates at a geometric rate, continually leveraging every invention upon the aggregate of all others before it. Just look at the combustion engine as an example. In only the past five years, average MPG have declined even as performance has improved. And these advancements occurred even as gas prices were relatively low. I don't see why its so unrealistic to expect that given 40 years we couldn't transition to a completely different energy base. At the very least, even barring an increased rate of discoveries, it is entirely probable that energy consumption will be supplimented by renewable sources to the extent that consumption can be brought in line with new discoveries.

government is advocating only increased drilling, as opposed to drilling AND conservation of existing resources

False. The government provides tax incentives to alternative energy programs. I would argue that existing resources need not be legislatively conserved, however--let the market make its own decisions--or face the unintended consequences that will necessarily result.

increasing the gas tax would promote conservation faster, as well as provide revenue for research and mass transit

It'd also hurt the consumer. Let them make their own decisions. There is plenty of market-based incentive for R&D into alternative fuels already...can you imagine the profit that could be had if a company patented an economically-viable source of alternative energy?

I believe that the neo-cons' intent was to install a puppet democracy, with Ahmed Chalbi as president, insuring cheap oil for the US.

I don't think that they would have done that--they would have recognized that such a disruption would have caused a severe hike in energy prices as a result of speculation in the financial markets, adding a massive economic toll to the already expensive military operation. Waging war for oil alone would clearly have been too expensive.

Moreover, the coalition included over 40 other countries. If the U.S. simply took the oil for themselves, it would have been a pretty transparent action and would have aggrivated every other oil-consuming nation (all of them), but would have completely alienated us from our allies that contributed but did not gain from their support of the war. Any such action is inconceivable and would have required stupidity on a level that cannot be fathomed. Instead, the Iraqi oil has to have been sold on the world market at the going price. So an investment (the war) that was primarily funded by the U.S. would have benefited every single oil-consuming nation on the planet only after prices declined from wartime highs, and we'd only end up saving as much money as the difference between prewar oil prices and stabilized postwar oil prices multiplied by whatever percentage of the world's consumption is by the U.S. multiplied again by Iraq's additional contribution to global production (if any). And that's just not enough cost-savings to justify a war and the price destabilization that would accompany it, even under ideal circumstances.

I don't claim to fully understand the justification, myself, but it had to have been more than to obtain cheap oil.

[Houstonian in Iraq]

I have a half ass theory about the ever increasing gas prices. I think that all these oil companies know that their days are numbered. They know that the technology will get cheaper and more widely used soon. Everyone will have a hybrid, electric, biodeisel or hydrogen car and that the days of being so dependent on oil will soon be over. So in anticipation of this they are jacking up prices and making record profits to secure their companies future. That

[RedScare]

I don't think that they would have done that--they would have recognized that such a disruption would have caused a severe hike in energy prices as a result of speculation in the financial markets, adding a massive economic toll to the already expensive military operation. Waging war for oil alone would clearly have been too expensive.

Ahh. Sounds like someone has forgotten the pre-war hype. Remember Wolfowitz said Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. They planned on billing Iraq for the war's cost, and taking it in oil. Cheney said they would welcome us as liberators. They predicted the whole thing would be over in 2 years, with the fighting over in 90 days. So, the unstable market would only last 3 months. Plus, they knew from Gulf War I that the markets would stabilize before the war even ended.

So, they figured a few months of expensive oil in return for 6 million barrels a day of stable oil for decades. It doesn't all have to come to the US. Since we will have troops permanently stationed in Iraq, it will be stable. You do know we are building permanent bases in Iraq now, don't you?

Why would we need permanent bases, if we weren't planning on staying to protect our oil? We haven't left a single country that we've entered in the Middle East, yet.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

Ahh. Sounds like someone has forgotten the pre-war hype. Remember Wolfowitz said Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. They planned on billing Iraq for the war's cost, and taking it in oil. Cheney said they would welcome us as liberators. They predicted the whole thing would be over in 2 years, with the fighting over in 90 days. So, the unstable market would only last 3 months. Plus, they knew from Gulf War I that the markets would stabilize before the war even ended.

So, they figured a few months of expensive oil in return for 6 million barrels a day of stable oil for decades. It doesn't all have to come to the US. Since we will have troops permanently stationed in Iraq, it will be stable. You do know we are building permanent bases in Iraq now, don't you?

Why would we need permanent bases, if we weren't planning on staying to protect our oil? We haven't left a single country that we've entered in the Middle East, yet.

Hush Red, you are a devil!!!!! That damn 85 yr rule REALLY chops my hide!!!!!!!!!!

[TheNiche]

Ahh. Sounds like someone has forgotten the pre-war hype. Remember Wolfowitz said Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. They planned on billing Iraq for the war's cost, and taking it in oil. Cheney said they would welcome us as liberators. They predicted the whole thing would be over in 2 years, with the fighting over in 90 days. So, the unstable market would only last 3 months. Plus, they knew from Gulf War I that the markets would stabilize before the war even ended.

So, they figured a few months of expensive oil in return for 6 million barrels a day of stable oil for decades. It doesn't all have to come to the US. Since we will have troops permanently stationed in Iraq, it will be stable. You do know we are building permanent bases in Iraq now, don't you?

Why would we need permanent bases, if we weren't planning on staying to protect our oil? We haven't left a single country that we've entered in the Middle East, yet.

I recall the hype, but then, I also seem to recall that Wolfowitz does not serve in any governmental capacity and that the Bush administration never (publicly) discussed such a plan as a realistic option. Perhaps there were closed-door meetings, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned as an option by anyone with any authority whatsoever. Hype only counted in the Clinton administration; for better or worse, I think its pretty apparent at this point that Bush will do what Bush will do, regardless of the impact on popularity or the hype generated by talking heads. In any case, your point isn't relevent.

Cheney was more incorrect than he was correct. Some of them welcomed us as liberators, but arguably more than half of them did not or were at best indifferent. This point isn't relevent.

Their predictions were wrong. Even if markets were spooked for only a year, the direct and indirect costs to the American consumer far outweighed the marginal benefits to the United States...I could see how the benefits to the world may have outweighed total costs in this scenario, but once you divide everything up such that we foot the majority of the bill and claim only a minority of the benefit, it just doesn't make sense. At the very best, it would be like a massive subsidy to other nations, while at the very worst, it just wouldn't pay off at all.

Not to mention that if all we were interested in was the oil, we could have lifted the embargo and taken advantage of Saddam's dictatorial stability (and its hard to argue that he did not have a stable political structure) while simultaneously investing several billion dollars in bringing his production to a higher level. In that sense, we could have had our cake and eaten it too. Why spend billions upon billions going to war, billions in higher oil prices, then billions more to maintain the peace, then pay billions yet to upgrade the infrastructure (and repair it when terrorists blow it up), then endure the risk that OPEC may put a tighter quota on oil coming out of the mideast such that all was for nought? All when we could've just paid off Saddam to upgrade and maintain his own infrastructure in a stable political environment?

Again, I don't know what the REAL motive was, but it would have required utter stupidity for this to be the only consideration.

[RedScare]

Again, I don't know what the REAL motive was, but it would have required utter stupidity for this to be the only consideration.

I rest my case.

BTW, Wolfowitz did not serve in the Bush Administration? What planet have you been on?

From Wikipedia:

"Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (born December 22, 1943) is an American academic and political figure. He is currently the President of the World Bank, but may be most famous as a prominent architect of the ambitious foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration known as the Bush Doctrine, a role that has made him a controversial and polarizing figure both within the United States and abroad. His views are often characterized as exemplifying the modern American philosophy of neoconservatism, and he is often seen as a leading proponent of the 2003 Iraq War.

A former aide to Democratic Senator "Scoop" Jackson in the 1970s, Wolfowitz also served in the U.S. Defense Department, as Director of Policy Planning and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the U.S. State Department, as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and as Deputy Secretary of Defense in the Administration of George W. Bush."

[nmainguy]

Again, I don't know what the REAL motive was, but it would have required utter stupidity for this to be the only consideration.

Coupled with incompetence, arrogance, the disregard for human life, unbridaled greed, deliberate deception [lies] and an immature inability to listen to the voices of experience, I would say stupidity is the least of it. It was a war planned long before 9.11. All it took was a popularly unelected president using 9.11 as an excuse to pull it off. Bravo.

[nmm]

Coupled with incompetence, arrogance, the disregard for human life, unbridaled greed, deliberate deception [lies] and an immature inability to listen to the voices of experience, I would say stupidity is the least of it. It was a war planned long before 9.11. All it took was a popularly unelected president using 9.11 as an excuse to pull it off. Bravo.

Your saying things a few Americans already know, and many more who know it somewhere in their hearts but dont accept it openly. Theyd rather keep pretending there were weapons of mass destruction that were never found, Osama is still alive making movies in mountains, and the people of Iraq enjoy being "liberated" from Saddam by having bombs dropped on them from the skies above.

That being said

Everything is recorded, all the lines are tapped, and the internet is filtered for suspicious materials. Not too wise to be making such comments in these times.

[nmainguy]

Everything is recorded, all the lines are tapped, and the internet is filtered for suspicious materials. Not too wise to be making such comments in these times.

...and black choppers are overhead as I speak. I find it to be "not too wise" to NOT speak up when the "leaders" of my country attempt to hold my ass over ther fire. In the end, my ass is expendible in order to insure the future of my kids and family members. The Bushes and Cheneys of the world don't hold my fate in their grimmy little paws. They never will.

"That being said" what is your fear?

[TheNiche]

What planet have you been on?

Again, you are correct. For some reason, my mind went straight to one of the talking heads of the media. Probably Wolf Blitzer.

Well in any case, if it was something that was seriously considered, and it was the only motive, then it was a profoundly short-sighted thought process. Perhaps thats why it hasn't been implemented. Still, I get the sense that there was an ulterior motive aside from oil. It doesn't justify it. I'm not buying the argument that Bush was just wrapping up unfinished business from his father's administration, either. Where's the gain?

I don't know what history will say about the presidency of George W. Bush, but somehow, I'll bet that there is a rationale to his actions. Whether honest or dishonest, well-thought-out or not, it is inconceivable that such grand an effort could be undertaken for so little reason.

I also don't buy stupidity, no matter how many monkey-faced charicatures show up day-after-day in the editorial pages of every newspaper in the country.

[editor]

Ahh. Sounds like someone has forgotten the pre-war hype. Remember Wolfowitz said Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. They planned on billing Iraq for the war's cost, and taking it in oil.

Yep. I remember that.

Cheney said they would welcome us as liberators.

Lots of people said that. Cheney was probably among them. At first they did. Now it seems less evident. The people I talk to over there say the feeling is still widespread that the invasion was a good thing (except in that giant Al-Anbar province), but they're getting impatient with the rebuilding. Naturally, the blame falls to those who are blowing up all the work outsiders are doing (America, Britain, Japan, etc...), but when all you want is water and electricity and schools desperation and fatigue erodes notions of good will.

They predicted the whole thing would be over in 2 years, with the fighting over in 90 days.

Actually, I remember that part differently. I remember cable news skeptics using the word "quagmire" over and over bcause the administration refused (and still does) to put a timeline on it.

So, the unstable market would only last 3 months.

I'm not sure where this figure comes from. It would seem unrealistic considering the fact that the pipelines and other infrastructure would have to be rebuilt.

Plus, they knew from Gulf War I that the markets would stabilize before the war even ended.

So, they figured a few months of expensive oil in return for 6 million barrels a day of stable oil for decades. It doesn't all have to come to the US. Since we will have troops permanently stationed in Iraq, it will be stable. You do know we are building permanent bases in Iraq now, don't you?

You make permanent bases in Iraq sound like a bad thing. Why is this a bad thing? After World War II we built permanent bases in Germany, Japan, and Italy. We have permanent military bases in dozens of countries around the world. Is there some reason we shouldn't have a base in Iraq? Please elaborate.

Why would we need permanent bases, if we weren't planning on staying to protect our oil? We haven't left a single country that we've entered in the Middle East, yet.

We build bases in places where there are logistical reasons (Indian Ocean islands, Greenland, and such) and where there are American interests. You don't think Iraq is going to be an ongoing interest of the United States for the next several decades, if not longer? By your logic, the only reason we have American military bases in England is to protect our vital supply of kippers, or that the U.S. military bases in Iceland are there to protect the free flow of snow to slake the thirst of the big American Sno-Cone companies. But it's simply not true. America builds bases overseas. It's what we do. We've been doing it since the 1800's. I don't see it changing any time soon.

[nmainguy]

...and yet my kippers and SnoCones have dissapeared! Can someone explain THAT to me???

[a little Monday morning humor to close out page 1.]

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

...and black choppers are overhead as I speak. I find it to be "not too wise" to NOT speak up when the "leaders" of my country attempt to hold my ass over ther fire. In the end, my ass is expendible in order to insure the future of my kids and family members. The Bushes and Cheneys of the world don't hold my fate in their grimmy little paws. They never will.

"That being said" what is your fear?

I agree, always challenge leaders when you think theres a problem or something is not right for you. Its your decision, but you may cut the president some slack. Hes more in control than you know, and not all that bad of a guy

[RedScare]

As if on cue, oil futures are predicted to hit record highs, today...with nary a hurricane in sight.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3798366.html

[TheNiche]

As if on cue, oil futures are predicted to hit record highs, today...with nary a hurricane in sight.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3798366.html

Please adjust for inflation and get back to us.

[RedScare]

Please adjust for inflation and get back to us.

Yes, I would agree that today's price is below the inflation adjusted $90 by about 13%, though I did not say inflation in my statement. They don't adjust home runs for the lively balls either.

But, back to gasoline. The all-time high in inflation dollars is $3.11 (post-Katrina hit $3.06). Today, gas is at $2.80, 90% of the all-time high. But, here's the kicker. According to USDOT, 90% of drivers in 1980 drove cars, averaging 24.5 mpg. Now, well over half of all drivers drive light trucks and SUVs, with a 21.5 mpg average, 13% less. For that percentage of the population driving trucks and SUVs, the cost per mile of travel, even when adjusted for inflation, has never been higher, at $.1302 per mile, versus $0.1269. Factor in longer average commutes than in 1980, and it really gets expensive.

[nmainguy]

Yes, I would agree that today's price is below the inflation adjusted $90 by about 13%, though I did not say inflation in my statement. They don't adjust home runs for the lively balls either.

But, back to gasoline. The all-time high in inflation dollars is $3.11 (post-Katrina hit $3.06). Today, gas is at $2.80, 90% of the all-time high. But, here's the kicker. According to USDOT, 90% of drivers in 1980 drove cars, averaging 24.5 mpg. Now, well over half of all drivers drive light trucks and SUVs, with a 21.5 mpg average, 13% less. For that percentage of the population driving trucks and SUVs, the cost per mile of travel, even when adjusted for inflation, has never been higher, at $.1302 per mile, versus $0.1269. Factor in longer average commutes than in 1980, and it really gets expensive.

Redscare once again refutes wordy posters with factual data ergo Red is a commie; Red may be a "librul"; Red among other Haifers may actually be trouble makers! Alert FAKENews!

BTW: Check out Sunday's NYT for an interesting take on home run slicers in Bellaire.

[TheNiche]

Yes, I would agree that today's price is below the inflation adjusted $90 by about 13%, though I did not say inflation in my statement. They don't adjust home runs for the lively balls either.

But, back to gasoline. The all-time high in inflation dollars is $3.11 (post-Katrina hit $3.06). Today, gas is at $2.80, 90% of the all-time high. But, here's the kicker. According to USDOT, 90% of drivers in 1980 drove cars, averaging 24.5 mpg. Now, well over half of all drivers drive light trucks and SUVs, with a 21.5 mpg average, 13% less. For that percentage of the population driving trucks and SUVs, the cost per mile of travel, even when adjusted for inflation, has never been higher, at $.1302 per mile, versus $0.1269. Factor in longer average commutes than in 1980, and it really gets expensive.

Always looking for the grey cloud in every silver lining aren't you?

So let me get this straight...from 1980 to 2006, fuel consumption per mile increased by an average of 3 miles per gallon (or 13.95%); meanwhile Americans transitioned to heavier vehicles that have greater utility to them. In other words, they paid a price for a good of higher quality.

And then, the real cost per mile increased by only a third of a cent per mile (or 2.6%)??? And that is consequential? Did you make a typo?

Meanwhile, Real GDP chained to 2000 dollars increased from $5.16 trillion per year in 1980 to $11.13 trillion per year in 2005 (or 215.70%). In other words, the cost per mile went up slightly, but as a percentage of average household income, each mile traveled had much less of an impact on the average household's budget; the average household today would have to drive nearly 83 times as many miles in order to endure the same level of fuel cost as a percentage of its income as in 1980.

Something isn't right here. My facts are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). Please check yours or explain the miscommunication.

[nmainguy]

Always looking for the grey cloud in every silver lining aren't you?

So let me get this straight...from 1980 to 2006, fuel consumption per mile increased by an average of 3 miles per gallon (or 13.95%); meanwhile Americans transitioned to heavier vehicles that have greater utility to them. In other words, they paid a price for a good of higher quality.

And then, the real cost per mile increased by only a third of a cent per mile (or 2.6%)??? And that is consequential? Did you make a typo?

Meanwhile, Real GDP chained to 2000 dollars increased from $5.16 trillion per year in 1980 to $11.13 trillion per year in 2005 (or 215.70%). In other words, the cost per mile went up slightly, but as a percentage of average household income, each mile traveled had much less of an impact on the average household's budget; the average household today would have to drive nearly 83 times as many miles in order to endure the same level of fuel cost as a percentage of its income as in 1980.

Something isn't right here. My facts are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). Please check yours or explain the miscommunication.

Do you work for the bush Administration?

Always looking for the grey cloud in every silver lining aren't you?

So let me get this straight...from 1980 to 2006, fuel consumption per mile increased by an average of 3 miles per gallon (or 13.95%); meanwhile Americans transitioned to heavier vehicles that have greater utility to them. In other words, they paid a price for a good of higher quality.

And then, the real cost per mile increased by only a third of a cent per mile (or 2.6%)??? And that is consequential? Did you make a typo?

Meanwhile, Real GDP chained to 2000 dollars increased from $5.16 trillion per year in 1980 to $11.13 trillion per year in 2005 (or 215.70%). In other words, the cost per mile went up slightly, but as a percentage of average household income, each mile traveled had much less of an impact on the average household's budget; the average household today would have to drive nearly 83 times as many miles in order to endure the same level of fuel cost as a percentage of its income as in 1980.

Something isn't right here. My facts are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). Please check yours or explain the miscommunication.

[nmainguy]

Always looking for the grey cloud in every silver lining aren't you?

So let me get this straight...from 1980 to 2006, fuel consumption per mile increased by an average of 3 miles per gallon (or 13.95%); meanwhile Americans transitioned to heavier vehicles that have greater utility to them. In other words, they paid a price for a good of higher quality.

And then, the real cost per mile increased by only a third of a cent per mile (or 2.6%)??? And that is consequential? Did you make a typo?

Meanwhile, Real GDP chained to 2000 dollars increased from $5.16 trillion per year in 1980 to $11.13 trillion per year in 2005 (or 215.70%). In other words, the cost per mile went up slightly, but as a percentage of average household income, each mile traveled had much less of an impact on the average household's budget; the average household today would have to drive nearly 83 times as many miles in order to endure the same level of fuel cost as a percentage of its income as in 1980.

Something isn't right here. My facts are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov). Please check yours or explain the miscommunication.

On the other long term hand, the BEA has some great un-politicly altered facts:

The U.S. trade deficit increased 17% in 2005, and 9% in the fourth quarter alone (see Trade Picture, February 10, 2006). Rapidly rising oil prices and imports explained about two-thirds of the increase. But U.S. trade deficits increased with every major area of the world, including China (34%), OPEC (18%), Africa (15%), Europe (15%), Mexico and Canada (13% combined), Latin America (12%), and all Asian countries besides China (5%). Note that the largest increase was with China, from whom the United States does not import oil.

How's that working out with the SUV gas guzzeling crowd? Not well, I suppose and in addition, people like me have to pick up the slack. But I'm not a cut and paste far right wing republican so it doesn't really matter...does it?

[TheNiche]

Do you work for the bush Administration?

Why are you asking me? I thought I was "irrelevant".

Seriously, the answer is no. If you must categorize me politically, then the most fitting description is 'libertarian'...conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. I will admit, however, that I have a bias toward getting economic policy right...so given that many social issues (i.e. medicare, welfare, social security, reparations, etc.) have adverse economic effects, I usually side with conservatives. But as far as abortion, gay/lesbian/minority/women's rights, governmental transparency, the division of church and state, and the preservation of human rights go, I have a liberal perspective, usually because of economic motives that are at the core of it.

Basically , I just want to maximize the health of the economy for self-serving reasons. A strong economy makes it a whole lot easier to accumulate wealth.

[nmainguy]

Why are you asking me? I thought I was "irrelevant".

Seriously, the answer is no. If you must categorize me politically, then the most fitting description is 'libertarian'...conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. I will admit, however, that I have a bias toward getting economic policy right...so given that many social issues (i.e. medicare, welfare, social security, reparations, etc.) have adverse economic effects, I usually side with conservatives. But as far as abortion, gay/lesbian/minority/women's rights, governmental transparency, the division of church and state, and the preservation of human rights go, I have a liberal perspective, usually because of economic motives that are at the core of it.

Basically , I just want to maximize the health of the economy for self-serving reasons. A strong economy makes it a whole lot easier to accumulate wealth.

I accumulated my security in a really suck-ass, oil weak busted economy and still managed to provide my guys with "adverse economic effects" such as SS, health insurance and pensions. I retired at 49 after a 25 year tenure of dedicated work-which I loved. I didn't do it to accummulate wealth on the backs of others. I did it because I was lucky enough to have a job I loved to go to every day and to secure my family's well-being in addition to raising the standard of living of my employees. I can't tell you how fullfilling it is to attend an employee's daughter's high school graduation and know I might have had a small role in it. That girl and others like her is what makes a strong economy-if only some of the more Republican hacks who have built up the largest budget deficit in history would just stand aside and let the grown-ups take the wheel-they may have a real chance

.

BTW: you state

many social issues (i.e. medicare, welfare, social security, reparations, etc.) have adverse economic effects

How so?

Medicare let my grandparents live in their home in the Heights with dignity untill they died.

Welfare brought me my most valued employee.

SS has allowed some of my retired employees to have a modest but independent life.

My grandparents paid a combined amount of over 130 years of taxes.

Yeah, we're going down the toilet.