ForumGarden

HERE'S all you need to know to understand that Americans are getting screwed at the gas pump.

Fact 1: The inventory of crude oil in the U.S. right now is 8 percent larger than it was this same week last year. And that's the biggest amount of crude on hand since the middle of 2002.

Fact 2: That the 8 percent increase doesn't include all the oil purchased by Washington and put into the emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 685 million barrels. That's up from 650 million barrels last year and 599 million in '03.

Fact 3: There is 7.5 percent more gasoline in stock right now in this country than during the same week last year. And you'd have to go back to this same week in 1999 to find more gasoline inventory ” when the average price at the pump was only $1.01 a gallon.

Fact 4: Including everything made of oil, there is 4.9 percent more supply this year than when Spring began in 2004. And there's about 10 percent more of all petroleum products in stock today than when the Iraqi war began.

And, finally, Fact 5: American consumers are being conned by speculators ” and a media that doesn't ask enough tough questions ” into thinking there is some sort of supply problem.

Now here's my No.1 Prediction: If the greedy bottom-feeders who are causing prices to rise end up being responsible for damaging the U.S. economy there will be as much hell to pay on Wall Street as there was when the stock market bubble destroyed people's dreams.

Crude oil prices were down nearly $4 a barrel over the past two days because the goon speculators are starting to lose their grip on the market.

Source: http://www.nypost.com/business/22624.htm

CVX wrote: HERE'S all you need to know to understand that Americans are getting screwed at the gas pump.

Fact 1: The inventory of crude oil in the U.S. right now is 8 percent larger than it was this same week last year. And that's the biggest amount of crude on hand since the middle of 2002.

Fact 2: That the 8 percent increase doesn't include all the oil purchased by Washington and put into the emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 685 million barrels. That's up from 650 million barrels last year and 599 million in '03.

Fact 3: There is 7.5 percent more gasoline in stock right now in this country than during the same week last year. And you'd have to go back to this same week in 1999 to find more gasoline inventory ” when the average price at the pump was only $1.01 a gallon.

Fact 4: Including everything made of oil, there is 4.9 percent more supply this year than when Spring began in 2004. And there's about 10 percent more of all petroleum products in stock today than when the Iraqi war began.

And, finally, Fact 5: American consumers are being conned by speculators ” and a media that doesn't ask enough tough questions ” into thinking there is some sort of supply problem.

Now here's my No.1 Prediction: If the greedy bottom-feeders who are causing prices to rise end up being responsible for damaging the U.S. economy there will be as much hell to pay on Wall Street as there was when the stock market bubble destroyed people's dreams.

Crude oil prices were down nearly $4 a barrel over the past two days because the goon speculators are starting to lose their grip on the market.

Source: http://www.nypost.com/business/22624.htm


So whats your point?

We have a larger supply of oil than last year (see attachment) so what!!!!!!

How much was OPEC charging last year? How much are they bending us over the BARREL (pun intended) this year????

NEXT YEAR? The next? on and on........

On March 7, 2005, the U.S. average pump price for regular gasoline was $2.00 per gallon, up 7.1 cents from the previous week and up about 9.0 cents per gallon from one month ago. Recently, gasoline prices have been rising in response to late winter rising crude oil prices and high rates of refinery utilization. Despite relatively high absolute levels for gasoline inventories, days’ cover (beginning inventories divided by demand per day) for gasoline has generally been declining (on a year-over-year basis) for over 2 years, suggesting increasing short-term tightness for gasoline markets. Pump prices for regular gasoline are expected to average about $2.10 per gallon during the 2005 driving season (April through September), up 20 cents from the same period in 2004. Sustained domestic growth in gasoline demand, both seasonal and year-over-year, is expected to increase average monthly prices to about $2.15 per gallon by spring.

[IMG]

Attached files

I'd be curious to know what our UK friends are spending for oil.

How much have your costs gone up (or have they)?

In Canada we ar supplying America with oil but we are paying $4 - $5 dollars a gallon. What's your beef? We live on the most advanced, civilized continent in the world. Contrary to popular belief (by some) God did not come down last week and create this technology and civilization. If anyone should be griping it should be us. Get a grip.

Hawke wrote: I'd be curious to know what our UK friends are spending for oil.

How much have your costs gone up (or have they)?




Gas prices could be worse

Europeans pay more

By Kevin Roy

March 15, 2005 ” The cost of gas may be higher in Chicago than the national average-- but how does it compare worldwide?

The national average for a gallon of gasoline is $2.05. In Chicago, it averages $2.13 a gallon. Despite the hike, Chicagoans are still paying less per gallon than most other people around the world.

"I have to fill up quite a bit and it gets pretty pricey. I drive an SUV," said Sherri Turk, motorist.

"They're too high in the city, they're too high right now," said Vonzell White, motorist.

In the last year, the average gas prices in Chicago have shot up from $1.77/gallon to $2.13/gallon. Even with the hike, gas prices are low compared to what drivers in Europe are paying:

# London, England: $7.03 per gallon

# Germany, Norway and Denmark: All over $5 a gallon.

# Italy: $4.88 a gallon.

"That's outrageous. We're getting it cheap then," said White.

"I didn't know that. I guess I'd want to know why," said Jason Volpe, motorist.

Europeans pay enormous gas taxes. While we pay about 60 to 65 cents a gallon in state and federal taxes in the Chicago area, Europeans pay three, four, or five times that, according to Phil Flynn, an oil analyst.

"Sometimes the cost of a liter of gasoline might be 39-cents, but the taxes are like $1.50," said Flynn, Alaron Trading Corp.

On the flipside, gas in oil-rich Venezuela is only 14-cents a gallon. It's just five-cents in Baghdad, and $1.43 in Moscow.

So while gas prices could be better, it could also be a lot worse.

"Makes me feel a little bit better about what I'm paying," said Turk.

In exchange for the high gas prices, Europeans get universal health care. Also, the U.S.'s gas prices have been rising faster than Europe recently because the dollar is weak compared to the euro, which is at an all-time high.

Last Updated: Mar 16, 2005

Historical Gas Prices*

Year

Price Per Gallon

1950

$1.91

1955

$1.85

1960

$1.79

1965

$1.68

1970

$1.59

1975

$1.80

1980

$2.59

1985

$1.90

1990

$1.51

1995

$1.28

2001

$1.66

2002

$1.31

2003

$1.52

2004

$1.79

*Prices adjusted for inflation

Source: U.S. DOE

How Gas Prices Work

http://money.howstuffworks.com/gas-price.htm/printable

Very interesting. I'm one that whined and screamed when gas prices spiked recently. Living on a border is advantageous as gas in Missouri is 10cents cheaper than higher taxed Kansas. Right now it's $2.08 in MO and $2.20 in KS. We have been spoiled rotten and I'm one of them. Though I drive a low end new Ford with a little 4cyl I have learned to abort unnecessary driving and repeat trips. We still pay less than the rest of the world and as the world's biggest polluter we should pay more.

David813 wrote: We still pay less than the rest of the world
demonstrably false. see the post immediately before yours.





and as the world's biggest polluter we should pay more.
'world's biggest polluter' is a canard. in terms of human generated pollution, we are the largest polluter currently - though our pollution has been declining steadily thanks to improved technologies and efficiencies. china on the other hand, will soon surpass the US as the worst polluter. india has some of the most foul air pollution on earth. a great many other highly populous countries have absolutely terrible air pollution, due to a lack of any pollution controls on vehicles. per capita, australian citizens generate 27% more greenhouse gases than US citizens. and on and on.



but the biggest polluter on earth is in fact - and by a margin so gargantuan it dwarfs all the pollution humans create combined - nature.

anastrophe wrote: demonstrably false. see the post immediately before yours.





'world's biggest polluter' is a canard. in terms of human generated pollution, we are the largest polluter currently - though our pollution has been declining steadily thanks to improved technologies and efficiencies. china on the other hand, will soon surpass the US as the worst polluter. india has some of the most foul air pollution on earth. a great many other highly populous countries have absolutely terrible air pollution, due to a lack of any pollution controls on vehicles. per capita, australian citizens generate 27% more greenhouse gases than US citizens. and on and on.



but the biggest polluter on earth is in fact - and by a margin so gargantuan it dwarfs all the pollution humans create combined - nature.
Where do you see a country with gas prices lower than those in the U.S?? There are more motor vehicles per capita in the US than anywhere else on Earth. Clean air and water regulations have been steadily gutted by Reagan, Old Bush, to a lesser degree Clinton and of course the New Bush. True China and India have few pollution controls but that is where we are heading as well. If it's good for bidness it's good enough! Correct about Nature being a vicious polluter. Remember the Earth fart in Cameroon that killed hundreds? Volcanoes can cause the temp to drop globally and red tides, etc. pollute marine areas. I say nationalize the energy industry to unlock the chains that have kept new sources of energy under wraps.

I just saw socialist Venezuela has cheap gas. And US soldiers get cheap gas to wage war in Iraq.

$1.43 per gallon for the average Russian is like $6 to us. Not Cheap. Russia is a 3rd world country now.

David813 wrote: Where do you see a country with gas prices lower than those in the U.S?? There are more motor vehicles per capita in the US than anywhere else on Earth. Clean air and water regulations have been steadily gutted by Reagan, Old Bush, to a lesser degree Clinton and of course the New Bush. yeah. i guess that's why air quality is better now than it's ever been in the U.S.. I guess that's why air pollution levels have fallen steadily, year after year, for the last twenty years. yeah. all makes sense.





True China and India have few pollution controls but that is where we are heading as well. If it's good for bidness it's good enough!
not even in your wildest, most paranoid dreams.





Correct about Nature being a vicious polluter. Remember the Earth fart in Cameroon that killed hundreds? Volcanoes can cause the temp to drop globally and red tides, etc. pollute marine areas. I say nationalize the energy industry to unlock the chains that have kept new sources of energy under wraps.
yes. more government control. bigger, more powerful and controlling government is always better. the government only has our best interests at heart. so giving government control of the energy industry can only be good. same for health care. same for the housing industry. see, once the government controls everything, then everything will be free. no more poverty, cuz the government will just clothe, feed, house, and provide every amenity we need.

anastrophe wrote: yeah. i guess that's why air quality is better now than it's ever been in the U.S..
correction - better now than it's ever been in the last fifty years. obviously, it's not as good as back in say 1790.

Let's look at three important points and an editorial at the end:

A. World oil prices are the same for every country that cannot meet their internal demands. This week it was hovering around $53.00 per barrel.

B. The prices paid by Europeans are artificial and inflated due to their government's socialist policies. Many European nations tax gasoline as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. In addition, political policies restrict the number of refineries, refinery output, and thus supply. This drives up prices.

To state that the price of petrol in Europe reflects reality and the state of the world oil market is crazy.

C. Free market nations have prices closer to reality. No, I do not consider most of Europe to be in a free market state regarding petroleum products. This is a commodity that is regulated, controlled, and taxed heavily by the government.

Nation City Price in USD Regular/Gallon

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48

Norway Oslo $6.27

Italy Milan $5.96

Denmark Copenhagen $5.93

Belgium Brussels $5.91

Sweden Stockholm $5.80

United Kingdom London $5.79

Germany Frankfurt $5.57

France Paris $5.54

Portugal Lisbon $5.35

Hungary Budapest $4.94

Luxembourg $4.82

Croatia Zagreb $4.81

Ireland Dublin $4.78

Switzerland Geneva $4.74

Spain Madrid $4.55

Japan Tokyo $4.24

Czech Republic Prague $4.19

Romania Bucharest $4.09

Andorra $4.08

Estonia Tallinn $3.62

Bulgaria Sofia $3.52

Brazil Brasilia $3.12

Cuba Havana $3.03

Taiwan Taipei $2.84

Lebanon Beirut $2.63

South Africa Johannesburg $2.62

Nicaragua Managua $2.61

Panama Panama City $2.19

Russia Moscow $2.10

Puerto Rico San Juan $1.74

Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91

Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78

Egypt Cairo $0.65

Nigeria Lagos $0.38

Venezuela Caracas $0.12

Iran $.0.09

Editorial:

Many Europeans constantly complain about the US's cheap prices and our need to share in their misery. Sorry, Charlie. This is our competitive edge. This is why we make so much noise about staying competitive and keeping prices low.

I think most Europeans forget that they would still be using typewriters and licking stamps to mail messages if it were not for the United States funding, developing, and expanding the little thing known as the Internet. Projects such as this take time, money, and ENERGY. Research and Development takes energy. Production takes energy. How can you fault a country for using more energy than another when it is contributing most of the technology that you are staring at now?

Now let's look at a few more critical items that the World enjoys due to America's competitive market sensibilities:


The Telegraph

The Electric Light Bulb

The Typewriter

The Typesetting Machine

The Xerox

The Vacuum Tube

The Transistor

The Air Conditioner

The Analog Computer

The Integrated Circuit (Think of your CPU)

The Telephone

The Refrigerator and Freezer

The Phonograph (Record player)

The first Electric Power Station

Motion picture projector


I'll stop there.

I'm sure some of you will attack this post. Please do so as I review the latest breakthroughs in Science and Technology being pioneered by American scientists.

Oh, and for those of you who say some of the great scientists of the early 20th Century came from Europe, I would agree and thank you for them. I hope you realize that all of their practical work and realization of actual products (Fermi for example) did not occur until they came to the United States. Even Marconi recognized the competitive and protective nature of America and that is why he patented his wireless telegraph here in 1887.

posted by cvx

Editorial:

Many Europeans constantly complain about the US's cheap prices and our need to share in their misery. Sorry, Charlie. This is our competitive edge. This is why we make so much noise about staying competitive and keeping prices low.


Got that wrong, it's viewed as being incredibly short sighted, oil is a finite resource that will run out some day, some of that much vaunted american ingenuity might be diverted to developing alternatives were it not for the hold the oil industry has on your political system. Afetr all you've just gone to war for the sake of the stuff.

The prices paid by Europeans are artificial and inflated due to their government's socialist policies. Many European nations tax gasoline as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. In addition, political policies restrict the number of refineries, refinery output, and thus supply. This drives up prices.

To state that the price of petrol in Europe reflects reality and the state of the world oil market is crazy.

C. Free market nations have prices closer to reality. No, I do not consider most of Europe to be in a free market state regarding petroleum products. This is a commodity that is regulated, controlled, and taxed heavily by the government.


Got that right, europeans time after time keep voting for governments that do these things. We have a free market we just happen to think letting companies do what they want is a recipe for disaster. Unchecked capitalism is as bad as unchecked socialism.

Adam Smith, he of Wealth of Nations fame and the so called father of free market capitalism would not have recognised or approved of rampant capitalism as many would have it today.



I think most Europeans forget that they would still be using typewriters and licking stamps to mail messages if it were not for the United States funding, developing, and expanding the little thing known as the Internet. Projects such as this take time, money, and ENERGY. Research and Development takes energy. Production takes energy. How can you fault a country for using more energy than another when it is contributing most of the technology that you are staring at now?




Not at all it's just irritating the number of americans that believe everything was invented by an american.

Oh, and for those of you who say some of the great scientists of the early 20th Century came from Europe, I would agree and thank you for them. I hope you realize that all of their practical work and realization of actual products (Fermi for example) did not occur until they came to the United States. Even Marconi recognized the competitive and protective nature of America and that is why he patented his wireless telegraph here in 1887.


Marconi had to patent it there as america did not recognise the legitimacy of european patents. They couldn't otherwise they wouldn't be able to pinch the ideas.

I'm sure some of you will attack this post. Please do so as I review the latest breakthroughs in Science and Technology being pioneered by American scientists.


Wasn't going to as you seem to take this personally but can't resist. Can you come up with anything that is wholly due to american inventiveness?

The Telegraph http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1594-1850.htm

The Electric Light Bulb

The Typewriter http://www.ladytypewriter.co.uk/typewriter-timeline.htm (ok might have to concede that one)

The Typesetting Machine

The Xerox

The Vacuum Tube (OK edison was american)

The Transistor (can't remember fairly sure it wasn't american)

The Air Conditioner (who needs them, we just open the window)

The Analog Computer (charles babbage-see also Jacquard)

The Integrated Circuit (Think of your CPU)

The Telephone (Alexander Bell was not american)

The Refrigerator and Freezer

The Phonograph (Record player)

The first Electric Power Station

Motion picture projector (lumiere brothers paris)

It's getting late and I can't be bothered spending the time. But when you put the fuel in your refined by a process discovered elsewhere, get in the car with the engine invented elsewhere, running on tyres invented elsewhere, on a tarmacced road whose surface was devised elsewhere get home and turn on your TV which was invented in a different country just be glad we still talk to you and that us europeans are so clever. Because when the oil runs out and you don't have the ingenuity to come up with alternatives because your education is underfunded and your industry preserved their markets at all costs you might want to buy the technology to run your industry from us if we decide to sell it to you again.

Actually even in europe ebverything is interconnected, ideas and science are perhaps the only true international currency.

I know as an American you think your country is wonderful, and so it is, but speaking as a native of a country on the other side of the pond on the arse end of Europe you don't really expect us to agree with you do you? Stop feeling so insecure about yourselves.

You should worry about the oil supply and start thinking about alternatives preferable before there is no alternative but to stop using it.

Once china strarts using oil in increasing quantities life could get quite interesting. WW3 over oil?

gmc wrote: posted by cvx





Got that wrong, it's viewed as being incredibly short sighted, oil is a finite resource that will run out some day, some of that much vaunted american ingenuity might be diverted to developing alternatives were it not for the hold the oil industry has on your political system. Afetr all you've just gone to war for the sake of the stuff.

oh, bollocks, bollocks, and more bollocks. that's a load, and you know it. the fact is, we were and are getting only a tiny fraction of our oil from iraq. if we wanted to have a war to secure oil, we'd take over saudi arabia, our largest source outside the US, eh wot?



the US oil industry has no more hold on our political system than it does in yours.



and you cry about how we should put our ingenuity into developing alternatives - how about your own little island, that's sucking the oil out of the north sea by the gigabarrel? sorry, i've heard nothing about brilliant new alternative energy developments coming from the UK, while here, there's massive effort ongoing, and significant alternative energy already in use.







Marconi had to patent it there as america did not recognise the legitimacy of european patents. They couldn't otherwise they wouldn't be able to pinch the ideas.unlike others, it matters little to me where something was invented. the pioneers who come up with the first of a great idea, usually wind up on the dustbin of history - other than the interesting footnote about how they figured it out.



America *perfects* what we, and others elsewhere, invent - and then we go on to even greater realms from the core invention. grand the the UK invented radar. we perfected it, and took it places nobody ever considered possible. same with the jet engine, etc.





Because when the oil runs out and you don't have the ingenuity to come up with alternatives because your education is underfunded and your industry preserved their markets at all costs you might want to buy the technology to run your industry from us if we decide to sell it to you again.

my goodness you're a dreary fellow. hey - you cry whenever i bring up british gun crime stats - 'don't compare us to you' - i'd recommend the same in this regard. the UK is not a hotbed of alternative energy invention. the technology is being invented here. when you run out of oil, you'll run out of oil - and buy the alternative energy technology from us.



You should worry about the oil supply and start thinking about alternatives preferable before there is no alternative but to stop using it.how many miles per gallon (litre) does a typical british-made vehicle get? i'll bet you a pound that even with our 'guzzling' SUV's, we have better fuel mileage than you folks. hey, i might lose the bet - i'm guessing! but i'm willing to put my money where my pie-hole is.

I agree anostrophe. Americans are superior when it comes to exploiting things that have been discovered and made to bend to the will of those that want to exploit the uses. In America money moves around to grow whereas in many other countries the money is put into the bank accounts of those that own the rights to such ideas purchased through their governments. The only growth in these other countries is the stagnation of people being able to freely build their ideas into their fortunes.

kensloft wrote: I agree anostrophe. Americans are superior when it comes to exploiting things that have been discovered and made to bend to the will of those that want to exploit the uses. In America money moves around to grow whereas in many other countries the money is put into the bank accounts of those that own the rights to such ideas purchased through their governments. The only growth in these other countries is the stagnation of people being able to freely build their ideas into their fortunes.
i have to admit, i cannot precisely discern the point you're trying to make. is it that we're 'bad' for taking new ideas and making them better? it's really not clear to me. on the other hand, there's a whole 'underclass' of corporations in this country that generate revenue by suing other companies over claims of patent infringement, on the flimsiest of terms. for example, the formerly respectable Santa Cruz Operations - SCO - an early UNIX developer - sued IBM claiming IBM gave UNIX code, allegedly owned by SCO, to the linux community, thus illegally giving away their intellectual property. it's a load of horse apples, but they've persisted, hoping to intimidate other, small companies that use linux into paying license fees. totally unethical.

posted by anastrophe

and you cry about how we should put our ingenuity into developing alternatives - how about your own little island, that's sucking the oil out of the north sea by the gigabarrel? sorry, i've heard nothing about brilliant new alternative energy developments coming from the UK, while here, there's massive effort ongoing, and significant alternative energy already in use.


Couldn't agree with you more. North sea gas is about to run out we are already building refineries to import the stuff from Russia, When Maggie Thatcher was busy shutting down the coal industry and switching all our power station to gas, even then it was being pointed out that the gas would only last about twenty years or so. Guess what it is now twenty years later and we have a problem electrcity and gas prices are starting to rise and we have left ourselves with no alternatives. The money should have gone in to research instead we had idiots running the country that thought we could become a service economy-servicing what? Our politicians just live for getting back in to power and don't think much beyond that if at all.

postedby anastrophe

oh, bollocks, bollocks, and more bollocks. that's a load, and you know it. the fact is, we were and are getting only a tiny fraction of our oil from iraq. if we wanted to have a war to secure oil, we'd take over saudi arabia, our largest source outside the US, eh wot?


very true but it does represent a lot of oil for the future, you don't need to take over saudi arabia you've been keeping them in power for decades even to the extent of pretending there is no connection to 911. Can't depend on Saudi to keep bailing you out and the chances of Russia helping are pretty remote so you need the middle east. Looks like Venezuala might be a problem. What will you do if they nationalise their oil? Looks like they are going to open up Alaska and the antarctic for oil eploration, inevitable at some point I think.

posted by anastrophe

my goodness you're a dreary fellow. hey - you cry whenever i bring up british gun crime stats - 'don't compare us to you' - i'd recommend the same in this regard. the UK is not a hotbed of alternative energy invention. the technology is being invented here. when you run out of oil, you'll run out of oil - and buy the alternative energy technology from us.


Or from clever europeans whichever gets there first. We have plenty of clever scientists but they tend to go abroad to get decent salaries, that is one of the problems we have. Science and engineering are undervalued, our schools tend to point people to academic subjects rather than practical ones. No one ever said we were perfect

posted by anastrophe

how many miles per gallon (litre) does a typical british-made vehicle get? i'll bet you a pound that even with our 'guzzling' SUV's, we have better fuel mileage than you folks. hey, i might lose the bet - i'm guessing! but i'm willing to put my money where my pie-hole is.


Using the good old UK gallon as opposed to the US one,(how did that one happen) the average family car gets about 35-40 to the gallon, Most SUV's are diesel they get around 30. Small family car around 45 to the gallon, small diesels 60-70 for thr newer ones, family size diesel between 40-50 to the gallon. Of course you do get the V6 SUV''s but if you can affors them in the first place fuel economy at 10 mpg is probably not a concern. SUV's are pretty expensive here. We don't have the wide open spaces like you do, in cities they are an irritation most never go off road.

Personally I am giving serious thought to a motor bike, I am fed up sitting in traffic jams. Push bike is not viable for work or I would use that. I love driving but a lot of the time the fun has gone out of it.

Average family car costs around £40 to fill up about four or five times the cost in the US. Most of it goes on the tax, more like 85% than 75%. It's supposed to encourage people to use the car less, bit difficult when there very little real alternative for most people. Bit more cautious now about raising fuel prices, last time there was a tax hike it coincided with a rise in oil prices, the resulting protests almost shut the country down.

posted by kensloft

I agree anostrophe. Americans are superior when it comes to exploiting things that have been discovered and made to bend to the will of those that want to exploit the uses.


Very true, good job others are good at discovering things for you though.

anastrophe wrote: i have to admit, i cannot precisely discern the point you're trying to make. is it that we're 'bad' for taking new ideas and making them better? it's really not clear to me. on the other hand, there's a whole 'underclass' of corporations in this country that generate revenue by suing other companies over claims of patent infringement, on the flimsiest of terms. for example, the formerly respectable Santa Cruz Operations - SCO - an early UNIX developer - sued IBM claiming IBM gave UNIX code, allegedly owned by SCO, to the linux community, thus illegally giving away their intellectual property. it's a load of horse apples, but they've persisted, hoping to intimidate other, small companies that use linux into paying license fees. totally unethical.
America is good at developing what is at hand.

This is all I got to say about that........

along-for-the-ride wrote: This is all I got to say about that........


Go for the smart cars. Hybrids. Walk. Bicycle. Get healthy. Statistics are proving that people living in the suburbs are prone to being overweight and unhealthy because they use their cars to go everywhere and do not get out of them.

Scrat wrote: Yeah right.

Hybrids are taking off a little but really, how many Americans are going to walk or ride a bike. Many live so far from work it's not practical. I know that some people here in the Seattle area have 100 mile commutes.
I suppose it is like everything else. Once they discover that they are at risk the mind ususally tells the person that it is 'do what is right or die'. The 'or die' is a wake up call to those that watch their friends dying from diseases that could have been stopped had they listened.

It is also a matter of realizing that they are part of the problem. Being part of the problem means that they are being unpatriotic. Feeling like it has nothing to do with them or their lifestyles also means that once they see and realize that they are risking death it gives them the will to overcome their dependency on their lifestyle.

Walking to the stores that are in the neighborhood means that there is that much less pollution and hence more physical activity. It is something that is done in stages. As you become healthier the more incentive that you have to be healthy, then the health will be a matter of course and not a matter of being forced to do something that you don't want to do.

Time is what is at issue. Don't think about time and you will have none left. Think about time and you will think about being healthy. Do or die is the message.

I would adjust my daily rythym/routine if public transportation were taken seriously here in Kansas City. This city is a sprawling giant suburb (one of the biggest city limits in the U.S.) with a central downtown that only the poor live in. (Like me!) Other than wealthy yuppie lofts in some old rehabbed warehouses, no one lives Downtown. During the day that's where everyone is. The world assumes all humanity is on 1st shift; 8am-5pm roughly. Those people have access to a sliver of service that runs out of Downtown to the flourishing suburbs. On a late shift? Forget it! All bus service stops at the end of rushhour. Need transportation to the city from the suburbs after 6pm? Nope. A skeleton crew weekend/holiday schedule weakens the situation further. We had light rail on the ballot a couple years ago and it was soundly defeated as "Touristy frou-frou." A term not often used in these parts! We need light rail but unlike many Eastern cities with developed and livable downtown areas, KC is designed for the automobile. Our old streetcar lines were ripped up and thrown away by automakers in the 1950's.

David813 wrote: I would adjust my daily rythym/routine if public transportation were taken seriously here in Kansas City. This city is a sprawling giant suburb (one of the biggest city limits in the U.S.) with a central downtown that only the poor live in. (Like me!) Other than wealthy yuppie lofts in some old rehabbed warehouses, no one lives Downtown. During the day that's where everyone is. The world assumes all humanity is on 1st shift; 8am-5pm roughly. Those people have access to a sliver of service that runs out of Downtown to the flourishing suburbs. On a late shift? Forget it! All bus service stops at the end of rushhour. Need transportation to the city from the suburbs after 6pm? Nope. A skeleton crew weekend/holiday schedule weakens the situation further. We had light rail on the ballot a couple years ago and it was soundly defeated as "Touristy frou-frou." A term not often used in these parts! We need light rail but unlike many Eastern cities with developed and livable downtown areas, KC is designed for the automobile. Our old streetcar lines were ripped up and thrown away by automakers in the 1950's.
Most cities in North America fell into that trap of cheap vehicles in the fifties. Now these same transit systems can't afford the once afffordable transportation. Toronto is one of the few cities in North America that did not buy into the myth. It still has its streetcars and the buses are causing the deficits because they have to be replaced every twenty years or so whereas the streetcars can last 50 years. The idea that there would be a continual source of non-renewable resources is beginning to be seen for the fantasy that it is. The guys that own the cars have their means of transportation so if you are too poor to afford it then it sucks to be you. They don't care until it hits home and they have to start hiking the 100 mile commute to work and home. See how fast they'll be clamouring for better public transportation then.

Petty minded, greedy people are the bane of a civilized society. They are the bane because they truly believe that it is the other guy's fault and not their own. Sort of half wish that I could be there to watch them trudging to and from work without public transportation or cars. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.

Definately a different set of challenges there Scrat. But from what I've heard Seattle is a vital city with far superior public transit than KC has. Your vibrant downtown is INHABITED by people that don't live under bridges! That means a better system of getting people around. This area is stuck in the cesspool of conservatism which is why KC has been stalled as a city for 30 years now. With a metro pop. of 2million the suburbs are booming. Suburbs 40miles from downtown. Soaring gas prices and the expected Republican built economic downturn will be the only ingredients that could bring down the car in KC.

kensloft wrote: Most cities in North America fell into that trap of cheap vehicles in the fifties. Now these same transit systems can't afford the once afffordable transportation. Toronto is one of the few cities in North America that did not buy into the myth. It still has its streetcars and the buses are causing the deficits because they have to be replaced every twenty years or so whereas the streetcars can last 50 years. The idea that there would be a continual source of non-renewable resources is beginning to be seen for the fantasy that it is. The guys that own the cars have their means of transportation so if you are too poor to afford it then it sucks to be you. They don't care until it hits home and they have to start hiking the 100 mile commute to work and home. See how fast they'll be clamouring for better public transportation then.

Petty minded, greedy people are the bane of a civilized society. They are the bane because they truly believe that it is the other guy's fault and not their own. Sort of half wish that I could be there to watch them trudging to and from work without public transportation or cars. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
Places just like Toronto are the cities that are thriving because of an energetic spirit and the wisdom to think a bit before ripping up the past. KC's old streetcar system was the 3rd largest in the country in the early 50's. By '59 every track was gone. I wish we could get the message here. I'd rather be in Toronto!

Scrat wrote: You should see the mess here in Seattle. At least in Kansas city it is flat.

Here in Seattle you have the sound to the west and the Cascade foothills to the east, two very big geological barriers. You have to build your transit system in a strip about 50 miles wide along with everything else, airports, railroads and huge bridges over parts of the sound or over very large lakes.

All along this N to S corridor the Glaciers saw fit to pile up small mountains that either must be tunneled through, around or over with streams and rivers in between. On top of that there are numerous active faults in the area making large structures vulnerable to quakes. I don't know one road here that is sraight for more than a couple of miles.

We are putting in a light rail system now. Just starting. It should be done in 2075 at a cost of around 100 billion dollars. Of course we could have a large earthquake between then and now and it would all be destroyed.

People need to bite the bullet, especially here. Lose the cars and get on the bus.


People need to go to the alternatives that are becoming quickly available to mainstream America. You can't do away with the mechanized world that we live in today. The tools and toys that were available to Fred Flinstone et al just don't cut it. More emphasis should and is being put into the development of alternative means. Keep pushing the politicians into making the right decisions. They can be replaced whereas mechanization can't. The time for recriminations is not at hand. Wait until things are ok before you start kicking butt for greed. If everybody worked in an office building then you may be right but the builders and workers need their mechanized means of getting their tools to where they are needed.

posted by kensloft

Go for the smart cars. Hybrids. Walk. Bicycle. Get healthy. Statistics are proving that people living in the suburbs are prone to being overweight and unhealthy because they use their cars to go everywhere and do not get out of them.


Don't know about the states or canada for that matter, but on the UK smart cars are marketed as a fashion item, they are very expensice for what they are. I can get a new 1litre/1.2 litre petrol car for under £7,000, smart cars are £10,000 £11,000 abd not much more economical if at all. Diesels are sold at a premium, price differential new is £500-£1,000 less for the equivalent petroll. Thinks to our tax system (won't go in to details) I can get a petrol car heavily discounted £2,000 £3,000 less after a year or even just a few months. Diesels are not discounted the same way. Come resale you do not recover the differential, if you're lucky you moght get £500 or so more than the petrol. Given that it costs £3,000 or so more in the first place the depreciation makes it uneconomic. I love diesels and would buy one from choice but ecoinomically I can't justify it, having been stung a couple of times I'm wary. The market is changing and the car companies are really pushing dieaels now but it willbe some time before prices cpme down.

Hybrids are also incredibly expensive, since depreciation is the biggest cost in I am not going to spend £17,000 buying a hybrid to lose half the cost as soon as I drive out the door. I do a high mileage each year, believe me at 100,000 mile plus a diesel is worth little more than a petrol one second hand, there is usually so much needing repalaced it's better to just buy new.

I do bicycle (mountain biking before it bacame trendy) but for work it is impractical, scooter I don't know. I live next to the fourth or fifth most congested city in europe, believe me if I could not use my car on a daily basis I would, driving in traffic is not my idea of fun, the novelty wore off a long time ago. train is ok if you are going to the centre and don't need to get about. London was great for public transport. This is becoming a major politiocal issue here. In Edinburgh they came pretty close to imposing road tolls but most residents voted against it, the local council use parking tariffs as a hidden tax

gmc wrote: posted by kensloft



Don't know about the states or canada for that matter, but on the UK smart cars are marketed as a fashion item, they are very expensice for what they are. I can get a new 1litre/1.2 litre petrol car for under £7,000, smart cars are £10,000 £11,000 abd not much more economical if at all. Diesels are sold at a premium, price differential new is £500-£1,000 less for the equivalent petroll. Thinks to our tax system (won't go in to details) I can get a petrol car heavily discounted £2,000 £3,000 less after a year or even just a few months. Diesels are not discounted the same way. Come resale you do not recover the differential, if you're lucky you moght get £500 or so more than the petrol. Given that it costs £3,000 or so more in the first place the depreciation makes it uneconomic. I love diesels and would buy one from choice but ecoinomically I can't justify it, having been stung a couple of times I'm wary. The market is changing and the car companies are really pushing dieaels now but it willbe some time before prices cpme down.



Hybrids are also incredibly expensive, since depreciation is the biggest cost in I am not going to spend £17,000 buying a hybrid to lose half the cost as soon as I drive out the door. I do a high mileage each year, believe me at 100,000 mile plus a diesel is worth little more than a petrol one second hand, there is usually so much needing repalaced it's better to just buy new.

I do bicycle (mountain biking before it bacame trendy) but for work it is impractical, scooter I don't know. I live next to the fourth or fifth most congested city in europe, believe me if I could not use my car on a daily basis I would, driving in traffic is not my idea of fun, the novelty wore off a long time ago. train is ok if you are going to the centre and don't need to get about. London was great for public transport. This is becoming a major politiocal issue here. In Edinburgh they came pretty close to imposing road tolls but most residents voted against it, the local council use parking tariffs as a hidden tax


The whole point of the exercise is to cut down on fuel costs. Cut down on fuel consumption. Cutting down on the size of the vehicle also means more room on the road.

Travelling behind one the other day up a hill revealed that it wasn't like following a volks up a hill.

posted by kensloft

Travelling behind one the other day up a hill revealed that it wasn't like following a volks up a hill.


Travelling behind what?

gmc wrote: posted by kensloft



Travelling behind what?


A smart car

$1.43 per gallon for the average Russian is like $6 to us. Not Cheap. Russia is a 3rd world country now.



NO .. The usa is viewed as a third world country, the dollar is almost worthless on the world markets .. :wah:

Odd, that. The dollar buys half a pound in England. I'd give an American tourist £10 for $20, so they had change in the local currency, without feeling robbed.

A litre of Ai-92 averaged 18.73 roubles at Moscow gasoline stations this month. The dollar is 25 roubles. I make that around $3.15 a gallon. I've no idea where zareba's numbers come from.

Scrat;664836 wrote: I think that Londons "tube" is said to be the best in the world though I have never used it. Moscows Metro is well designed and very effiecient and I am quite sure can easily rival any other in the world.I've used both, each is a marvel, efficient and practical. London's a pokey warren by comparison, but a bigger warren and far more exciting to play with. Moscow is a triumph, bits of it could double as an art gallery styled by the set designer of Metropolis.