|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 11, 2014 9:54:42 GMT
The principal reason why most people around here live about 35 miles from work is the fact that it is about 35 miles to the nearest major city--Nashville--and that is where most of the work is. (Would you really prefer that all these people be forced to make that 70-mile round trip each day--on foot--in the heat or the cold, in the rain or the snow, just so we would not have to be dependent upon oil? Would you wish to declare that only people in major cities really matter; that those residing in small or medium-sized towns may simply have their interests disregarded, cavalierly?) Yes, oil is a "finite" resource; but we should still retrieve just as much of it as possible, until a financially viable alternative comes on the market. (There are, or course, electric cars--and hybrids--although they do not sell especially well. See, for instance, the Chevrolet Volt, which sold just 2,347 units in 2012--the latest year for which I have the available figures. But I am still trying to imagine an automobile's running on "renewables," such as wind or solar power.)
We know why people moved out of the cities and to the suburbs. If gasoline prices rise then several things will happen.
1) People will move back into the cities and live in apartments. 2) The automotive industry will produce affordable commuter cars that achieve 50-100 mpg and people will buy them. 3) More public transportation will be built. 4) Alternative energy sources and transporation will become more cost competitive.
This belief that we are incapable of living without cheap oil forgets the fact that we're Americans and it is nothing more than a technological challenge that we can and would deal with just because we've always been willing to take on and overcome any challenge. If we spend 1/5th of what we do on our military to "steal oil" we could easily overcome the challenge of less oil and higher prices.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 11, 2014 15:58:12 GMT
The principal reason why most people around here live about 35 miles from work is the fact that it is about 35 miles to the nearest major city--Nashville--and that is where most of the work is. (Would you really prefer that all these people be forced to make that 70-mile round trip each day--on foot--in the heat or the cold, in the rain or the snow, just so we would not have to be dependent upon oil? Would you wish to declare that only people in major cities really matter; that those residing in small or medium-sized towns may simply have their interests disregarded, cavalierly?) Yes, oil is a "finite" resource; but we should still retrieve just as much of it as possible, until a financially viable alternative comes on the market. (There are, or course, electric cars--and hybrids--although they do not sell especially well. See, for instance, the Chevrolet Volt, which sold just 2,347 units in 2012--the latest year for which I have the available figures. But I am still trying to imagine an automobile's running on "renewables," such as wind or solar power.)
We know why people moved out of the cities and to the suburbs. If gasoline prices rise then several things will happen.
1) People will move back into the cities and live in apartments. 2) The automotive industry will produce affordable commuter cars that achieve 50-100 mpg and people will buy them. 3) More public transportation will be built. 4) Alternative energy sources and transporation will become more cost competitive.
This belief that we are incapable of living without cheap oil forgets the fact that we're Americans and it is nothing more than a technological challenge that we can and would deal with just because we've always been willing to take on and overcome any challenge. If we spend 1/5th of what we do on our military to "steal oil" we could easily overcome the challenge of less oil and higher prices.
In the first place, the town in which I reside is not a mere "suburb" of Nashville--the nearest major city. (According to the 2010 census, the population of this town was 108,755--up from 68,816 in 2000--and it is probably over 130,000 now, as it is in the fastest-growing county in Tennessee.) And I have no desire whatsoever to move back to Nashville--where I resided for many years--and merely live in an apartment. But apparently you believe that I should be forced, by government policy, to do precisely this. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 13, 2014 10:36:40 GMT
In the first place, the town in which I reside is not a mere "suburb" of Nashville--the nearest major city. (According to the 2010 census, the population of this town was 108,755--up from 68,816 in 2000--and it is probably over 130,000 now, as it is in the fastest-growing county in Tennessee.) And I have no desire whatsoever to move back to Nashville--where I resided for many years--and merely live in an apartment. But apparently you believe that I should be forced, by government policy, to do precisely this.
No, I'm stating you don't have any right to the natural resources of another country and we should not wage wars over those natural resources just so you can live in a small town. How many people have been murdered just so you can live where you choose to live? If you had to point a gun to the head of an Iraqi, or a US soldier, and pull the trigger just so you could live wherever you damn well choose would you do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 13, 2014 17:32:30 GMT
In the first place, the town in which I reside is not a mere "suburb" of Nashville--the nearest major city. (According to the 2010 census, the population of this town was 108,755--up from 68,816 in 2000--and it is probably over 130,000 now, as it is in the fastest-growing county in Tennessee.) And I have no desire whatsoever to move back to Nashville--where I resided for many years--and merely live in an apartment. But apparently you believe that I should be forced, by government policy, to do precisely this.
No, I'm stating you don't have any right to the natural resources of another country and we should not wage wars over those natural resources just so you can live in a small town. How many people have been murdered just so you can live where you choose to live? If you had to point a gun to the head of an Iraqi, or a US soldier, and pull the trigger just so you could live wherever you damn well choose would you do that?
In the first place, I do not regard combat casualties as mere "murder." (Any incidents involving the actual murder of civilians should be dealt with separately.) Since I am now retired, I am not faced with the dilemma of walking 70 miles to and from work or else returning to a major city, just to live in an "apartment," as you suggested. But even before I retired, why would I have wished to do this? The mortgage has been paid off on my condominium since the mid-1990s--long before I retired in 2005--and I pay only the $135 monthly maintenance fee. (It was even less than that in the mid-1990s.) Why do you suppose I would wish to sell the place, and move to an "apartment" in another city, where I could pay, say, $1,000 per month in rent? It looks to me as if your Master Plan is to get rid of all small and medium-sized towns, and herd every American into a metropolis--in an "apartment." Is this pretty close? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 15, 2014 11:45:31 GMT
No, I'm stating you don't have any right to the natural resources of another country and we should not wage wars over those natural resources just so you can live in a small town. How many people have been murdered just so you can live where you choose to live? If you had to point a gun to the head of an Iraqi, or a US soldier, and pull the trigger just so you could live wherever you damn well choose would you do that?
In the first place, I do not regard combat casualties as mere "murder." (Any incidents involving the actual murder of civilians should be dealt with separately.) Since I am now retired, I am not faced with the dilemma of walking 70 miles to and from work or else returning to a major city, just to live in an "apartment," as you suggested. But even before I retired, why would I have wished to do this? The mortgage has been paid off on my condominium since the mid-1990s--long before I retired in 2005--and I pay only the $135 monthly maintenance fee. (It was even less than that in the mid-1990s.) Why do you suppose I would wish to sell the place, and move to an "apartment" in another city, where I could pay, say, $1,000 per month in rent? It looks to me as if your Master Plan is to get rid of all small and medium-sized towns, and herd every American into a metropolis--in an "apartment." Is this pretty close?
When the United States sends it's troops to a nation that has not attacked us it cannot be claimed as "an act of self-defense against an act of aggression." We are committing the "act of aggression" in such cases and we're committing the premeditated killing of the people of that nation. Premeditated killing is a violation of the Right to Life and that is "murder" in the common understanding of murder. The People of a Nation have a Right of Self-Defense but they don't have a Right to go to another country that never attaced them to kill the people of that country.
No, I'm merely stating that we have the technology currently available so that we could live by only using the domestic oil we have and the oil we could peacefully trade for on international markets without having to go to another country to kill their people so we can take their oil from them. We could build cars today that would get 70 mpg if we wanted to and you know it. No, it wouldn't be a gas guzzling SUV but for commuting they would be just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 16, 2014 1:46:52 GMT
In the first place, I do not regard combat casualties as mere "murder." (Any incidents involving the actual murder of civilians should be dealt with separately.) Since I am now retired, I am not faced with the dilemma of walking 70 miles to and from work or else returning to a major city, just to live in an "apartment," as you suggested. But even before I retired, why would I have wished to do this? The mortgage has been paid off on my condominium since the mid-1990s--long before I retired in 2005--and I pay only the $135 monthly maintenance fee. (It was even less than that in the mid-1990s.) Why do you suppose I would wish to sell the place, and move to an "apartment" in another city, where I could pay, say, $1,000 per month in rent? It looks to me as if your Master Plan is to get rid of all small and medium-sized towns, and herd every American into a metropolis--in an "apartment." Is this pretty close?
When the United States sends it's troops to a nation that has not attacked us it cannot be claimed as "an act of self-defense against an act of aggression." We are committing the "act of aggression" in such cases and we're committing the premeditated killing of the people of that nation. Premeditated killing is a violation of the Right to Life and that is "murder" in the common understanding of murder. The People of a Nation have a Right of Self-Defense but they don't have a Right to go to another country that never attaced them to kill the people of that country.
No, I'm merely stating that we have the technology currently available so that we could live by only using the domestic oil we have and the oil we could peacefully trade for on international markets without having to go to another country to kill their people so we can take their oil from them. We could build cars today that would get 70 mpg if we wanted to and you know it. No, it wouldn't be a gas guzzling SUV but for commuting they would be just fine.
I am guessing that any vehicle that could achieve 70 miles per gallon would probably be exceedingly lightweight--and therefore unsafe in an accident. Moreover, it might be quite cramped and uncomfortable. (The miniscule sales of the Chevrolet Volt should be indicative of just how much--or how little--most Americans would be willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the goal of greater MPG.) What "act of aggression" has the US committed in order to secure oil from the Middle East--or anywhere else, for that matter? If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz in a fit of pique, the US Fifth Fleet would doubtless respond; but the closing of the Strait would be an act of aggression by Iran--not by the US. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 16, 2014 16:40:19 GMT
I am guessing that any vehicle that could achieve 70 miles per gallon would probably be exceedingly lightweight--and therefore unsafe in an accident. Moreover, it might be quite cramped and uncomfortable. (The miniscule sales of the Chevrolet Volt should be indicative of just how much--or how little--most Americans would be willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the goal of greater MPG.)
Yes, high mileage vehicles are by necessity smaller and lighter but that doesn't mean they are cramped, uncomfortable, or unsafe. I own a 2012 Fiat 500 and it's a small compact car that has most comfortable seats of any car I've even owned including my Mercedes. It is an exceptionaly commuter car and has paid for itself with gas savings alone. It is safe, comfortable, well engineered with a lot more horsepower than is actually required but it doesn't get 70 mpg. It only gets about 45 mpg hwy but certainly establishes that the feasibility of a 70 mpg car is easily attainable.
The Chevy Volt is a high-performance luxury car that only eccentric millioniares might be interested in.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 16, 2014 16:52:04 GMT
What "act of aggression" has the US committed in order to secure oil from the Middle East--or anywhere else, for that matter? If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz in a fit of pique, the US Fifth Fleet would doubtless respond; but the closing of the Strait would be an act of aggression by Iran--not by the US.
The overthrowing of the democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950's and installing the Shah, a tyrannical dictator, that the US was involved in was involved in was all about oil. The 1991 Gulf War that resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 was all about oil.
The hypothetical closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would not be an act of aggression against the United States and the oil producing countries are not limited to exporting oil through the Straits of Hormuz. It would be a regional problem of no concern to the United States and the United States should not be siding with one tyrannical government against another tyrannical government giving us reason to not become involved at all.
Why so many Americans want to support tyrannical regimes is something I will never understand. Can you explain that?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 16, 2014 23:40:47 GMT
I am guessing that any vehicle that could achieve 70 miles per gallon would probably be exceedingly lightweight--and therefore unsafe in an accident. Moreover, it might be quite cramped and uncomfortable. (The miniscule sales of the Chevrolet Volt should be indicative of just how much--or how little--most Americans would be willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the goal of greater MPG.)
Yes, high mileage vehicles are by necessity smaller and lighter but that doesn't mean they are cramped, uncomfortable, or unsafe. I own a 2012 Fiat 500 and it's a small compact car that has most comfortable seats of any car I've even owned including my Mercedes. It is an exceptionaly commuter car and has paid for itself with gas savings alone. It is safe, comfortable, well engineered with a lot more horsepower than is actually required but it doesn't get 70 mpg. It only gets about 45 mpg hwy but certainly establishes that the feasibility of a 70 mpg car is easily attainable.
The Chevy Volt is a high-performance luxury car that only eccentric millioniares might be interested in.
If the Chevy Volt is geared only to "eccentric millionaires," what alternatives are out there, to your knowledge, that would appeal to Joe Sixpack? If there are some, why are they not selling in impressive numbers? And if there are none, why do you suppose that is, given automakers' desires for large profits? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 16, 2014 23:49:55 GMT
What "act of aggression" has the US committed in order to secure oil from the Middle East--or anywhere else, for that matter? If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz in a fit of pique, the US Fifth Fleet would doubtless respond; but the closing of the Strait would be an act of aggression by Iran--not by the US.
The overthrowing of the democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950's and installing the Shah, a tyrannical dictator, that the US was involved in was involved in was all about oil. The 1991 Gulf War that resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 was all about oil.
The hypothetical closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would not be an act of aggression against the United States and the oil producing countries are not limited to exporting oil through the Straits of Hormuz. It would be a regional problem of no concern to the United States and the United States should not be siding with one tyrannical government against another tyrannical government giving us reason to not become involved at all.
Why so many Americans want to support tyrannical regimes is something I will never understand. Can you explain that?
I simply cannot believe that you think that so-called "Operation Ajax" in Iran in 1954, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were all about America's desire for oil. To declare that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz "would not be an act of aggrression against the United States," and that it should simply be "of no concern to the United States," is simply jaw-dropping! Try telling that to the people who find it difficult to purchase gasoline (remember the gas lines-- twice--from the 1970s?), or who must pay $5 a gallon for it--or both. Yes, the US has sometimes sided with tyrannical regimes. Remember WWII? Stalin--with whom the US sided--was certainly no less of a mass murderer than Hitler was. But sometimes a country must do whatever is in its national interest--even if that is a bit distasteful. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 17, 2014 11:14:54 GMT
Yes, high mileage vehicles are by necessity smaller and lighter but that doesn't mean they are cramped, uncomfortable, or unsafe. I own a 2012 Fiat 500 and it's a small compact car that has most comfortable seats of any car I've even owned including my Mercedes. It is an exceptionaly commuter car and has paid for itself with gas savings alone. It is safe, comfortable, well engineered with a lot more horsepower than is actually required but it doesn't get 70 mpg. It only gets about 45 mpg hwy but certainly establishes that the feasibility of a 70 mpg car is easily attainable.
The Chevy Volt is a high-performance luxury car that only eccentric millioniares might be interested in.
If the Chevy Volt is geared only to "eccentric millionaires," what alternatives are out there, to your knowledge, that would appeal to Joe Sixpack? If there are some, why are they not selling in impressive numbers? And if there are none, why do you suppose that is, given automakers' desires for large profits?
Gasoline still remains relatively inexpensive for those with incomes to purchase new cars. Unless there is a market driving force, such as higher fuel prices, those with above average incomes (i.e. the people that can afford a new car) are not being driven towards more fuel efficient cars. Of course those with lower incomes just get the hand-me-downs from the higher income households. Even with that we're seeing a lot of compact and fuel efficient cars being sold. As I mentioned I purchased a Fiat 500 because of it's exceptionally good fuel economy by today's standards.
Of course the auto industry is addressing more fuel efficient cars.
www.thesupercars.org/top-cars/best-fuel-efficient-cars/
The problem as I see it is that they're not focused enough on low cost fuel efficient cars. They're addressing it from a "primary" car standpoint instead of a secondary low cost alternative to the primary car. For example my Fiat 500 cost about $18,000 but I also have my Mercedes that I use for taking people out to dinner or for vacations because it's more luxurious. The Fiat does pay for itself but what we need are really good fuel efficient cars that sell below $10.000 and that can be done. For a small car my Fiat has many luxuries that could be omitted to reduce the costs considerably.
How about this as a suggestion for the auto manufacturers. An all electric car that only has a 40 mile range and a maximum speed of 45 mph for exclusively for local driving that sells for under $6,000?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 17, 2014 11:30:55 GMT
I simply cannot believe that you think that so-called "Operation Ajax" in Iran in 1954, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were all about America's desire for oil. To declare that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz "would not be an act of aggrression against the United States," and that it should simply be "of no concern to the United States," is simply jaw-dropping! Try telling that to the people who find it difficult to purchase gasoline (remember the gas lines-- twice--from the 1970s?), or who must pay $5 a gallon for it--or both. Yes, the US has sometimes sided with tyrannical regimes. Remember WWII? Stalin--with whom the US sided--was certainly no less of a mass murderer than Hitler was. But sometimes a country must do whatever is in its national interest--even if that is a bit distasteful.
I didn't claim they were "all about oil" but oil was a key part of the reason behind those wars.
As noted Middle East oil producing countries don't need to export oil through the Strait of Hormuz although they prefer to. Saudi Arabia, for example, can easily export oil using the Red Sea. It would be a problem for them if the Straits were closed but wouldn't affect the US all that much as we're much less dependent upon Middle East oil today than we were in the 1970's.
The historical list of the corrupt tyrants the US has supported includes the Shah of Iran, Batista in Cuba, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the House of al Sabah in Kuwait, Mubarak in Egypt, al-Maliki in Iraq, Karzai in Afghanistan, the tyrannical Zionist regime of Netanyahu in Israel and the list goes on and on and on.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 17, 2014 21:15:13 GMT
If the Chevy Volt is geared only to "eccentric millionaires," what alternatives are out there, to your knowledge, that would appeal to Joe Sixpack? If there are some, why are they not selling in impressive numbers? And if there are none, why do you suppose that is, given automakers' desires for large profits?
Gasoline still remains relatively inexpensive for those with incomes to purchase new cars. Unless there is a market driving force, such as higher fuel prices, those with above average incomes (i.e. the people that can afford a new car) are not being driven towards more fuel efficient cars. Of course those with lower incomes just get the hand-me-downs from the higher income households. Even with that we're seeing a lot of compact and fuel efficient cars being sold. As I mentioned I purchased a Fiat 500 because of it's exceptionally good fuel economy by today's standards.
Of course the auto industry is addressing more fuel efficient cars.
www.thesupercars.org/top-cars/best-fuel-efficient-cars/
The problem as I see it is that they're not focused enough on low cost fuel efficient cars. They're addressing it from a "primary" car standpoint instead of a secondary low cost alternative to the primary car. For example my Fiat 500 cost about $18,000 but I also have my Mercedes that I use for taking people out to dinner or for vacations because it's more luxurious. The Fiat does pay for itself but what we need are really good fuel efficient cars that sell below $10.000 and that can be done. For a small car my Fiat has many luxuries that could be omitted to reduce the costs considerably.
How about this as a suggestion for the auto manufacturers. An all electric car that only has a 40 mile range and a maximum speed of 45 mph for exclusively for local driving that sells for under $6,000?
A maximum speed of just 45 miles per hour would be a bit slow for anyone using the interstate (or freeway, as it is termed in some parts of the country). And a 40-mile range would not necessarily eliminate the problem. For instance, the last place I worked previous to my retirement--for about 16 years--was about 20 miles from my house; or a 40-mile round trip. And I used the interstate every day, in getting to and from it. And your $6,000 car--or even one that sells for "below $10,000"--would likely be very lightweight, and therefore relatively unsafe in an accident. Also, not everyone can afford to purchase two cars (one of these a Mercedes, yet). Oh, and it is not just people with "above average incomes" who purchase new cars. I have purchased several new cars within my lifetime--the last vehicle I purchased, however (an SUV), was one year old--and I never earned more than $12 an hour at anytime within my life. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 17, 2014 21:28:04 GMT
I simply cannot believe that you think that so-called "Operation Ajax" in Iran in 1954, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were all about America's desire for oil. To declare that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz "would not be an act of aggrression against the United States," and that it should simply be "of no concern to the United States," is simply jaw-dropping! Try telling that to the people who find it difficult to purchase gasoline (remember the gas lines-- twice--from the 1970s?), or who must pay $5 a gallon for it--or both. Yes, the US has sometimes sided with tyrannical regimes. Remember WWII? Stalin--with whom the US sided--was certainly no less of a mass murderer than Hitler was. But sometimes a country must do whatever is in its national interest--even if that is a bit distasteful.
I didn't claim they were "all about oil" but oil was a key part of the reason behind those wars.
As noted Middle East oil producing countries don't need to export oil through the Strait of Hormuz although they prefer to. Saudi Arabia, for example, can easily export oil using the Red Sea. It would be a problem for them if the Straits were closed but wouldn't affect the US all that much as we're much less dependent upon Middle East oil today than we were in the 1970's.
The historical list of the corrupt tyrants the US has supported includes the Shah of Iran, Batista in Cuba, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, the House of al Sabah in Kuwait, Mubarak in Egypt, al-Maliki in Iraq, Karzai in Afghanistan, the tyrannical Zionist regime of Netanyahu in Israel and the list goes on and on and on.
Whereas I do like Benjamin Netanyahu very much, I do not care at all for the House of Saud. I also did not especially care for Mubarak. (His predecessor, Anwar Sadat--who was assassinated in 1981--was far preferable, in my view.) And do you really suppose that Fidel Castro was an improvement over Fulgencio Batista? Or that the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was better than Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (the last occupant of the Peacock Throne)? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jun 18, 2014 10:49:15 GMT
A maximum speed of just 45 miles per hour would be a bit slow for anyone using the interstate (or freeway, as it is termed in some parts of the country). And a 40-mile range would not necessarily eliminate the problem. For instance, the last place I worked previous to my retirement--for about 16 years--was about 20 miles from my house; or a 40-mile round trip. And I used the interstate every day, in getting to and from it. And your $6,000 car--or even one that sells for "below $10,000"--would likely be very lightweight, and therefore relatively unsafe in an accident. Also, not everyone can afford to purchase two cars (one of these a Mercedes, yet). Oh, and it is not just people with "above average incomes" who purchase new cars. I have purchased several new cars within my lifetime--the last vehicle I purchased, however (an SUV), was one year old--and I never earned more than $12 an hour at anytime within my life.
As I noted the 45 mph/40-mile range related to a secondary vehicle and not a primary vehicle and I'm aware of the fact that not every household can afford two vehicles but then not every household lives 35 miles from work either. For many households where their work is just a few miles away they could use it as a primary vehicle. About 50 million households are retirees and don't even go to work and often 99% of their driving is local. My parents live in Cottonwood AZ and haven't left the city limits in the last 5 years to my knowledge and never will again because they're just too old. No, it's not freeway "legal" but I lived for two years riding a Yamaha 70 motorcycle that downhill could do 50 mph and I learned how to get around without using freeways. Of course if a family with one of these wanted to go on a long distance driving vacation they could rent a car for that purpose.
Just because a car is lightweight does not imply it is unsafe from an engineering standpoint. Why do you keep believing that when you should know better?
Yes, there are exceptions at both ends. I've been in the top 25% income bracket for the last 30 years and I didn't purchase my first new car until 2012. My Mercedes is a rare relatively low mileage 1984 280SE (I just sold my '85 280SL) that I only paid $1,500 for and then invested about $15,000 in repairs to bring it back to near perfect condition. So I'm about $17,000 into a fine luxuary car but it is almost 30 years old (I love old cars).
|
|
