Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (17231)	4/27/2006 9:14:34 AM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541348

The rationing will happen by price rather than fixed allocations. It could play out in such an orderly manner if the crunch comes gradually enough. I fear that this won't be the case. I was around for the 1973 gas crisis, and there simply wasn't enough to go around. This is the situation I actually anticipate, and I should have named it "gas shortages". The interesting question is James Kunstler's views about how the modern suburbs are completely unprepared for that reality. This argues for it not being an "orderly" market driven process. Will there be enough discretionary driving that elimination of that alone will suffice ? Again, I think the risk is very high that this won't be the case. It'll probably start with periods of gas shortages which may end after some period, etc...

To: Dale Baker who wrote (17231)	4/27/2006 10:08:10 AM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 541348

I see real doom and gloom for young professional commuters. Yes, they might have to forgo their daily Starbucks and/or bottled water. :-( The problem: A $.50 increase in gasoline for a 15,000 miles per year commuter equates to a plus of $469 in fuel cost, assuming 16 mpg. $1.00 equals a $938 annual increase. I use 16 mpg for the benefit of any lurking media types or others on this thread who simply can't stand the SUV. ;-) A medium size coffee ($1.65) purchased at Starbucks for 300 of 360 days a year costs $495. A liberally enhanced coffee ($3.30) equates to $990. :-$ The solution: (1) Demand that your state and federal politicians lower or eliminate a portion of the tax on gasoline to benefit the consumer (read commuter). (2) Insist that they don their "taxing creativity hat" and establish a tax on "luxury liquids" such as Starbucks et al coffee and bottled water. It's just another american addiction, like alcohol and cigars. <g> (3) Require that each EXXON etc. have a Starbucks and bottled water store on site. (This would open a whole new opportunity to call coffee "unleaded".) In this way, the 'guvmint' would not have to give up their daily "cut" of the Dallas commuter's gas purchase. Meanwhile the poor and under privileged would get a price break on gasoline. Only the affluent would be buying designer coffee and bottle water. <g> Seriously, the gas price needs to rise much higher before the feds will commit to any actions which are truly effective and durable. High enough where the general public will shout down the extremists of the environmental lobby. #!%$&

To: Dale Baker who wrote (17231)	4/27/2006 11:21:51 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 541348

In DC metro area, people are already starting to use the mass transit system in record numbers. But at least we have mass transit. All they have to do is add cars and add busses. And we have HOV lanes, so the commuters can slug. As you know, slugging is ad hoc carpooling, where you catch a ride at the park-and-ride with whoever is up next. Any city that already has a terrible traffic problem will already have solutions in place, and traffic will actually improve because people will switch from one passenger per vehicle to multiple passengers per vehicle.