Diesel prices

Page 3 of 4  
You right in saying I was misinformed if indeed interest from Treasuries is fully taxable at the Federal level. I didn't know that . .. That's good. Now if we could get Capital Gains taxes
raised we would be getting somewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

it's been proven that lower taxes stimulate investment while higher taxes inhibit investment, in times like this raising taxes would just be another nail in the economies coffin __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, it's sad to see how the misinformed think they have all the solutions. Heav claimed that Exxon splits oil revenues 50/50 with Saudi Arabia - False. That treasuries are tax exempt - false. That treasuries somehow are a big vehicle for transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy - False And most outrageous and inexplicable of all, that the USA today compares to fascist Italy under Mussolini.
And then we're supposed to believe him that raising capital gains taxes is gonna do exactly what? The top 5% of income tax payers currently pay 60% of the total tax burden. What more do people want? And as we know, back in the 70's and 80's, with the top rate at 70%, they only paid 40%. The difference was the economy was stagnant, unemployment was 9%, inflation was 7%, and treasuries yielded 18%. Hmmm, don't remember anybody bitching about treasuries transferring wealth when they were yielding 4X what they are today.
Instead of bitching about how much wealth someone else has, how about going out and creating some of your own?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The long asnd the short of it, gentlemen, is that there is simply no substitute for liquid petroleum products as the basic energy supply for far into the future. Other means of producing energy are economic in certain limited circumastances but are not and never will be universal. Coal is great when you can build the power plant at the mine. Solar is fine on an offshore buoy. Wind is helpful as a backup where the wind blows reliably. Water power can even be cost effective. And so on. But you can't go down to the local filling station and buy a can of sunshine to put in your tank, heat your house or cook your food. Take away the tax incentives and nothing else works, especially alcohol.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, it's very "apparent", i.e. very visible. In GB we pay a lot of tax on petrol and whisky.
DAS
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"JD" < snipped-for-privacy@gstringmail.com> wrote in message
news:3amdnTmVMY9neUzanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

policies, the price of fuel is about the same in any country that is an importer of fuel, the differences in price is because of taxes imposed __________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
No kidding?
DAS
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"jdoe" < snipped-for-privacy@aol.com> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And that's how it always is, very broadly speaking...
DAS
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"Juergen ." < snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi "Gogarty"
Stop complaining about Diesel prices! If you lived in Northern Ireland as I do, then one US gallon (3.785 litres) would cost you (at todays currency rates) $8.68 US Dollars . More than twice what you are paying.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If public transportation was anywhere near as good here as it is on your side of the pond, I wouldn't gripe about diesel prices quite as much.
JD
Danny and Heather wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The U.S. is a lot bigger, geographically, than Ireland too. It's hard to live in the rural parts of the U.S., especially in the larger western states, without driving long distances regularly.
Trader4, what is the explanation, other than greed, that is preventing capital from investing heavily in solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and mass transit? Why this slavish addiction to fossil fuels? That is not a rhetorical question. I suspect you have some inside view insight into those issues.
It seems that if the trillions spent to try and dominate Iraqi oil and the pipeline corridor through the Pashtun areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan had been spent on alternative fuels, alternative vehicles and mass transit we could have made good progress toward moving beyond the oil addiction. No? Why are markets failing to see this?
The greenhouse gas and climate change issues must also be considered. Humanity cannot continue to expand the burning of fossil fuel without serious adverse consequences like reduction of food production and the flooding of coastal cities.
Incidentally, I am a business owner and make my living entirely as a capitalist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that the enviro whackos fight the installation of these things, for example in NJ there was an idea to build a turbine wind farm off shore but the so called environmentalists forced the plan to be can celled.
__________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The basic answer is because most of those alternative energy sources are still more expensive than oil, coal, and natural gas. Here in NJ, you can get a modest size solar system for your house for $50K. The state may chip in $30k of that from a fund generated through a tax they levy on everyone's electric bill. That means for $20K you have a system that should pay for the homeowner's cost in about 8 years. But consider just taking out a mortgage at 7% to pay for that $20K, and that cost would run $1400 a year, which already makes it look a lot different. And if you had to borrow the money and pay the full $50K, as a commercial venture would, you'd go broke.
Wind can be used successfully in SOME locations, but certainly not everywhere. And when you try to use it, guess who shows up to block it? Same environmental extremists that are against everything. That has happened here where there was a proposal to start using them off the coast of NJ. It's still moving ahead, but at a snails pace because of environmental opposition, bitching about the possible effect on fish, birds, the shore view... Same thing happened off Cape Cod. There was also a proposal to build some off Long Island, but faced with opposition and a mediocre prospect of profitability, the company called it quits. Personally, I'd rather have an oil rig 15 miles+ offshore, where you'll never see it rather than a bunch of windmills within sight of the shore.
Ethanol is starting to meet a small % of the demand, but only recently with subsidies and $100 barrel oil does it start to make sense. And I predict before long, you're gonna here bitching about that too, because as more land is devoted to that, along with it comes more run off, more water usage, etc. Plus, it's driven up grain prices substantially, so that you're now paying more for cereal, pasta, beef, eggs, etc.
Mass transit, in general, has always been a loser and heavily subsidized in most cases. Plus it doesn't fit current urban lifestyle. Here in NJ, it's OK for commuting to NYC. But that's only a small percent of the traffic. The rest is going to pick up kids at school, the supermarket, the mall, then a friends house, etc. The train/bus doesn't go there.
IMO, the one thing that is readily available and could be brought online relatively quickly is nuclear. But because of irrational fear, that gets blocked too. Which exposes another environmental extremist hypocrisy. We're supposed to believe that life on the planet is in jeopardy within a few decades from global warming, yet the environmentalists will have no part in using more nuclear. Nuclear isn't perfect, but if France can get 70% of their electric from it, and Japan 40%, it would seem a reasonable alternative to allegedly certain irreparable climate change and death.
We also could be opening up areas like CA and the east coast to offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, etc. Every time there has been a price spike in energy in the last 20 years, that's been blocked by people saying, it's not worth it because it will take 5 years to get any oil. If we'd started even in 2003, we'd have that oil by now. And perhaps even find an elephant size field up there, because no one knows how much oil there really is. Environmentalists won't even allow test drilling to find out for sure.
So, you have rising demand for oil from places like India, where I believe it's gone up 9% a year, meeting worldwide output that is somewhere near peaking. And life goes on....

Been there, done that. In the 70's, the govt did exactly that. They spent billions on alternative energy. One big component was supposed to be shale oil. You know how much energy we got from all those programs? Not one drop. Haven't you seen enough of the incompetence of govt to do most things right? If they can't run a war, which after all should be one of their core competencies, what makes you think they know anything about energy?
But they are doing some of what you suggest anyway. They have subsidized ethanol. That was probably an obvious choice because it pleases the farmers.
The most important thing to drive a alternative solutions is already happening and that's rising prices. If you look around the world, I'm not sure anywhere else is doing much better with economically viable alternative sources on a large scale. Traveling in Europe the biggest difference I see is that gas costs twice or more what it does here and they drive much smaller cars. The trend to smaller cars will happen here over time with the rising energy prices.

I'm not sold on the fact that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming or that it's going to doom us all. Here's a key issue I'd like to see answered. If you look at the neat graphs of CO2 cycles and global temperatures, there have been I think 4 cycles over the last 700,000 years. This is the graph Al Gore uses, among others, and it's widely available. In every one of those cycles, temperature begins to rise a few hundred to about 1500 years BEFORE CO2. Now, to any thinking person, this would seem to be a big issue, no? If CO2 causes the rise, then why doesn't it work the other way around, with CO2 rising first?
There is a professor of ocean science at MIT who has an explanation. And that is that the world's oceans are the vast reservoirs of CO2 on the planet. The earth starts to warm from some other reason, most likely change in the suns output. Over time, this causes CO2 to be released from the oceans, just like CO2 from a warming bottle of soda. The reason it takes hundreds of years for it to happen is because the oceans are so big that it takes time for the temp to change much.
Now, am I sure he's 100% right? No. But I've yet to see any of the global warming proponents offer their explanation to account for the reverse graphs. I heard one imbecile from a major university asked the question and his answer was "Well, it only shows that CO2 isn't responsible for the first few hundred years of temp rise." Also, supposedly, the temp on Mars is currently rising. Do they have humans emitting CO2? In other words, there are lots of legitimate questions, but anyone daring to ask them runs the risk of being run out of town. Or worse, having their funding cut off.
I think there is a very good chance that if you live long enough, you may get to see the temp rise reverse on it's own. There have been many cycles before, long, short, medium. Do a google on global cooling and you'll find articles from the 70's when alleged climate experts were making many of the same alarmist statements about the mini ice age that was upon us. At the time, they said many of the same things you here today, ie how now with computers they can model the climate, etc.
No one can accurately predict the weather more than a few days ahead. These models have equations where someone has to pick the coefficients to put in front of variable X, Y, and Z. It's a lot like economics. PHD's like to right partial differential equations that describe how part of the economy works. The only problem is, no one knows whether the coefficient in front of variable X should be .06 or .08, etc. In the current environment, I think the guys fooling around with climate models have every incentive to come up with models that show global warming. If they don't they get run out of town.

Good for you, that's what drives this economy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader4 wrote:

There is the rather sad point that creating ethanol from corn requires more petroleum than is displaced by the ethanol.
That's why I'm a fan of WVO. It's already been used for its "intended purpose." Reduce, reuse, recycle. ;) Too bad the two Benzes in my driveway use the entire output of three local restaurants (i.e. it's not going to support the entire population).
-tom!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Out of curiousity, how did it go when you approached these restaurants? Did all 3 just say yes or did you have to work through a bunch to find the 3? With the rising prices, I guess I should start considering WVO. I'm just curious how this works with restaurants vs what they are already doing with the oil, how they save it for you, how you pick it up, whether you have to take all their oil, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What car do you have? In my case, my friend is a very good friend of the restaurant owner... so they simply said okay.
It is important that the restaurant continue to have waste oil... because by law, they must have an authorized oil disposal service for proof that their oil are not being dumped into the sewer. However, don't worry about this because they will always have junk oil that is just not worth filtering... Their benefit is that they call for oil disposal alot less often and thus they save money.
In today's climate, restaurant are really hard to make profit as everything has soared: gas, cooking oil, food, meat, electricity and everything else needed to support the restaurant. So please be kind to them and dine at their place more often... they are saving you alot of money on fuel cost. Symbiosis relationship is important more than ever now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Standard Biodiesel in Arlington, WA pays $0.10 to $0.15 a gallon for waste oil. Fortunately they tend to go after places that use a lot of oil leaving the gas station deli mart kind of places still a good source.
Tiger wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Majority of places do not pay anything but charges them for disposal service. Even if they do pay, the rental of the waste oil container and their service to come out and pump out those oil... tend to cost more than what they pay for your oil.
With state law, there is almost no choice... either you live close to one of those biodiesel refinery or you don't... and their cost of new cookng oil is $4.25 cents per gallon or higher... so getting 15 cents back is a joke.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tiger wrote:

It still beat paying to have it taken away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It will not be long until a waste oil heater for the business makes sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.