OPEC endorses cutting output
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
umh... I just did the math and...
1 U.S. Gallon = 3.785 liters
3 USD = 2.435 EUR
-> 2.435 EUR / 3.785 liters = 0.634 EUR / liter
that's not cheap! that's practically free from our point of view!
and the car I use, consumes around 5.0 liters per 100 kms on the road, which translates to ~47 mpg! and we are talking 5 door regular gasoline running car here.
1 U.S. Gallon = 3.785 liters
3 USD = 2.435 EUR
-> 2.435 EUR / 3.785 liters = 0.634 EUR / liter
that's not cheap! that's practically free from our point of view!
and the car I use, consumes around 5.0 liters per 100 kms on the road, which translates to ~47 mpg! and we are talking 5 door regular gasoline running car here.
Yep. You guys buy economical cars because gas is expensive.
In the US, it isn't expensive, so we don't.
The government mandating fuel economy will not cause us to want more economical cars, period. Higher gas prices will.
But, higher gas prices stifle our economy because we're more reliant on trucking than you are (because our gas is so cheap and our country is too spread out to have as well developed rail system as you do).
Its a bit of a quandry.
In the US, it isn't expensive, so we don't.
The government mandating fuel economy will not cause us to want more economical cars, period. Higher gas prices will.
But, higher gas prices stifle our economy because we're more reliant on trucking than you are (because our gas is so cheap and our country is too spread out to have as well developed rail system as you do).
Its a bit of a quandry.
No, exactly what has happened will continue to happen.Natoma said:RussSchultz said:
Who cares about want? Heh. Provide it overwhelmingly to the marketplace with little to no loss in "power" and people will buy it.
Cars get "about" the same gas mileage, and the engine power grows...because thats what people want. Its a free market economy and the suppliers provide what people want.
14 years ago, the honda civic got 30city/35hwy and had 92 horsepower.
Now it has 127hp, and gets 31/38.
The gas mileage hasn't improved by much of anything, but the power has gone up by nearly 40%. Why? Because thats what people want.
Same thing with the accord. Was 23/29 and 130 hp. Now 24/33, 160hp. If you go with the 6cyl that is the top of the line, its 21/30 and 240hp!
Overall, people don't want to buy a the same car with better gas mileage, they want a nicer car that gets the same gas mileage.
Though, granted, there is a demand for the new hybrids that outstrips supply, but its more of a social statement than economics.
And your "who cars what people want, give them what I want them to have" sounds an awful lot like a command economy. Something that went out with the reds.
Just as the public didn't want seatbelts and airbags (among other "useless" technologies), government mandated higher environmental standards for mileage would be sucked up just as well and become, well, standard. Our economy functions a lot like that whenever you have governmentally regulated standards. But hey, I guess it did go out with the reds.
Why do you think the auto industry is fighting against these things? Because people aren't buying what the government is mandating.Natoma said:
The auto industry fought against seatbelts. They fought against air bags. They fought against the original CAFE standard in the 70s. They fought against catalytic converters. They fought against...... Well you get the idea.
The auto industry cries doom and gloom about everything. No surprise there.
The auto industry cries doom and gloom about everything. No surprise there.
RussSchultz: well, U.S. had most spreaded out train network on early 1900's... it just cripled down. and I actually still don't understand why... during the existance of road and train transpotation, trains have almost always been more powerful and more capable deliver much much more goods in cheaper price than any truck company can get.
I know that in early 1900's there was some really big price wars in rails of U.S. between biggest rival companies, but was it only reason why trains started dropping on the state they are now?
and as a notice, mixed delivery routes are most used at least in here. for example Logs coming from woods to Pulp mill usually take 2 to 3 different transpotation methods (road, train and sometimes even nowadays log/timber floating via water routes.)
Another thing here that makes the difference is the weather conditions. during winter it is not unusual if we hit -35 Celsius and it can stay over a week there. cars with big engines and high mileages will hit the record low mpgs (or extra high l / 100km if you prefer european system) and starting 5.0 liter gasoline engine in that temperature is a real pain. (engine warmer needs to be bigger, which again eats more energy which raises electricity bill and so on...)
I know that in early 1900's there was some really big price wars in rails of U.S. between biggest rival companies, but was it only reason why trains started dropping on the state they are now?
and as a notice, mixed delivery routes are most used at least in here. for example Logs coming from woods to Pulp mill usually take 2 to 3 different transpotation methods (road, train and sometimes even nowadays log/timber floating via water routes.)
Another thing here that makes the difference is the weather conditions. during winter it is not unusual if we hit -35 Celsius and it can stay over a week there. cars with big engines and high mileages will hit the record low mpgs (or extra high l / 100km if you prefer european system) and starting 5.0 liter gasoline engine in that temperature is a real pain. (engine warmer needs to be bigger, which again eats more energy which raises electricity bill and so on...)
The US is just too big, landwise, and sparsely populated to support efficient use of rail to reach all inhabited portions of the US.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Natoma said:
Of course, because if people won't pay extra for it, they're stuck with the cost. Nothing wrong with that.
Though I wouldn't talk about gloom and doom...that is of course the entire principle upon which you want higher MPG standards forced on the industry, correct?
If the polictal parties that want gasoline to be "conserved" had any balls, they would simply tax gasoline up to the prices of $5 gallon. That will get people to demand higher MPG out of ther autos, which will pressure the car makers to up MPG, as it will be a significant selling point.. Of course, people won't vote for that...look at the headlines today about "high gas prices."
Instead, they try and pass the "buck" to the auto industry. Better to make the corporations out to be "evil" than themselves, right?
http://www.aar.org/AboutTheIndustry/AboutTheIndustry.asp
Rail shipping isn't dead, it just needs a large amount of truck shipping to get to the final destination.
Rail shipping isn't dead, it just needs a large amount of truck shipping to get to the final destination.
Silent_One
Newcomer
No. During the early 1960's planes and trucking began to erode the industry. For eaxmple:
http://publications.ohiohistory.org...amp;volume=101&newtitle=Volume 101 Page 5
It can also be argued that the Government's regulated the industry in the late 1800's through the ICC through anti trust laws stifled growth. If I remember correctly de-regulation durning the 1970"s came far too late. By then the RR could no longer compete, and were effectivly crippled by then anyways. Conrail and Amtrack have be government subsidized since then.