Re: [Amc-list] $3.00Gal. Gas? = Get my Butt out of Dodge City=

["Armand Eshleman" <aje1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know Frank I kind of like Mitsubodge, and Chrysubishi doesn't sound
so bad either. Rofl.

Armand


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Swygert, Francis G MSgt 436 CES/CECM" <Francis.Swygert3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Amc-list] $3.00Gal. Gas? = Get my Butt out of Dodge City=


Oh it will likely be $4/gal (national average) by the peak in the summer.
Seems the oil companies (who have us by the b***s, or v****a -- not to leave
the ladies out) count on summer for their biggest profits. The oil companies
"raise prices in an effort to reduce demand" -- right when everyone gets
their vacation time and such. So all this does in reality is increase
profits. It does curb some driving, but since we all do a lot more in the
summer, the higher prices does nothing for the consumer -- unless they have
investments in oil companies. I suppose if fuel use went uncurbed by higher
prices we might run into shortages -- they can only make it so fast. A
little curbing due to higher prices is better than none?

I saw a report on TV (forget the channel) about the fuel problem in the US.
It's mainly due to refinery capacity. There are no new ones, and the old
ones have occasional break-downs. Anything that effects refining effects the
fuel supply. The oil companies say that they can't (or won't) build new ones
because of environmental regulations. Yet when a CA billionaire offered to
build one a couple years ago, and even found a location, it was made clear
he'd have nothing to refine. Who's looking out for who here? As long as a
few big companies control the flow of crude, no one else can get in on the
ball game.

It's the Harley-Davidson business model. You have a popular product, so
don't slate the demand. Instead, keep the demand up by only making so much.
Make as much as wanted and prices will go down. Well, it's sort of like
that -- only everyone has to have fuel to get back and forth to work, etc.

The only way to possibly "fix" the "problem" is for the government to step
in. But it's not as simple as regulating prices (which IMHO needs to be
done -- it's not like there's a big price break on heating oil to offset the
summer gasoline prices). Consumption would have to be regulated also.
Otherwise as long as there is relatively cheap gas demand will continue to
rise, and Americans will continue to buy huge gas guzzling vehicles for no
good reason. I'm talking about the soccer mom driving the Navigator to tool
the kids around, not the guy who needs a large vehicle to tow his
camper/horse/race car/show car trailer. If you're towing 2-3 times a month
it's hard to justify another "second" vehicle to run around in. That's
understandable. But how many people buy a lot more truck than they need?

The way I see it, these things need to happen:

1. Price regulation. The bastards won't do it themselves, so let the
government -- like Nixon did following the 70s shortages and were in place
through 1981. It's being done in Canada now -- 
http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/Promos/fuel_prices/index-e.asp. Also check
www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/gas_prices_regulation.html. This site
contends that price controls led to shortages -- easy to see how, I referred
to such a phenomena above. That prices are used to control usage does make
some sense, but big price hikes in anticipation of possible problems

2. Institute stricter controls on SUVs and ALL vehicles primarily intended
to serve passenger duty, regardless of configuration. Pickup trucks have
different emission and safety regulations, yet 80% or more (being
conservative...) are ONLY used to haul butts around, and the occasional
garbage trip (but don't scratch the inside of my bed!!). Americans like big
powerful vehicles, and when cars of that nature started drying up they went
to trucks. Prices of trucks went up, and that's why Ford, GM, and Chrysler
are pushing them -- cost to build didn't go up proportionately with prices,
profits on the less restricted vehicles sure did though! Now look what mess
those guys are in... Passenger car standards need to apply to all 3/4 ton
capacity (maybe even 1 ton -- the expedition was built specifically to be
over a certain GVW so it would be exempt from even more restrictions!) and
under vehicles since that's the primary use for most of them.

That will hurt people with a legitimate use for a truck, I know. Sorry guys,
but you're a vast minority. Only businesses who can claim a legitimate
need/use should get any kind of exemptions, and that could be a tax break.
Heavily taxing is another way to get things back in line to what they were
in the 70s (proportion of passenger vehicles vs. SUVs/trucks). The SUV has
pretty much taken the place of the station wagon, and the cross-over types
should be exempt. But for those who just claim "I need the room" there are
more conservative solutions, as much as most of you hate the idea of a mini
van...

I know that doesn't address occasional towing needs. But that opens up a
nice rental niche market. A friend of mine used to rent a local U-haul truck
to move his big cabin cruiser. He only took it out of the water for winter
storage and occasionally for maintenance. So the 2-4 times he needed to pull
it out he rented a big U-haul truck. That's overkill, but he couldn't rent a
heavy duty pickup anywhere. If one or more of the rental companies filled
in, you could rent a 3/4 ton dually diesel pickup reasonably for a few days
for your towing needs much cheaper than owning one year round. You would
have to plan your trips, but that's a minor inconvenience. In truth only the
one-way rentals are kind of expensive now. I rented a U-haul truck and
trailer one-way from GA to MS when I bought my current Rambler. Rode my
motorcycle up, put it in back of U-haul, towed car back. The rental would
have been cheaper had I picked up and returned the truck and trailer at the
same place, but once I added the cost of fuel...

3. Enforce/tighten CAFÉ standards. I don't particularly like them either,
but US car companies just are not going to be innovative unless they have
to. They're going to whine and moan and lobby congress to make things easy
and more profitable for them, even if it costs them their existence and
market share -- as it ultimately has. The US companies have rested on their
truck profits and let foreign companies infiltrate and virtually own the
passenger car segment. They just haven't kept up, and far worse, haven't
really tried.

4. GM has continually stated they weren't working much on hybrids because
they were concentrating on alternate fuels -- specifically hydrogen fuel
cell technology. Well, until gasoline prices and (and vehicle regulation?)
get in the $5/gal range, alternate technology just doesn't make economic
sense. For alcohol, biodiesel (the most promising in the short term), and
hydrogen to replace or supplement gasoline on a large scale will require
massive infrastructure changes and additions (transporting, storage, and
distributing). That's a major economic impact -- the changes will have to be
paid for in sales of the fuel. It will take decades to gradually increase
the use of renewable fuels in place of hydrocarbon fuels. At least we're on
the right track by requiring all gasoline to contain at least 10% alcohol -- 
that's a good first step with minimal impact (not no impact -- that's
impossible!). Brazil uses almost 100% alcohol for regular passenger
transportation, but it took them decades and lots of government support to
get that way (they started in the 70s).

You have to start somewhere, and I think we're on the right track. In 5-6
years the US will probably be at the price level where it will be
economically feasible to produce and sell alternate fuels if the rate of
consumption stays the same (or at the current growth rate). But Toyota or
Hyundai will most likely introduce mass production capable vehicles using
that technology before any US company. But by then it might be a "Toyolet"
of "Fozda".... maybe a Chyundai or Fyundai? ( I just can't blend Mitsubishi
and Chrylser or Dodge into something with a reasonable sound to it!!).


I know this long post will tick some people (especially big SUV/Truck
lovers) off, but this is the way I see things going. I can't paint a
reasonable picture with lots of big vehicles on the road -- it just doesn't
make sense to me in the long term.
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/07 5:43
PM

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list