Patterico's Pontifications

7/3/2008

McCain’s Winning Electoral Strategy Flows Through French Experience

Filed under: 2008 Election — WLS @ 1:34 pm



Posted by WLS:

With gasoline at $5 a gallon, and a huge chunck of the US economy run by transportation needs that depend on oil, a potential winning  issue for McCain in November may be an full-throated call for the development of nuclear power nationwide to generate electricity.  This is both an economic issue and a national security issue, and McCain should pound Obama with it unrelentingly.

The Democrats have NO ANSWER for current gasoline prices.  Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices — presumably due to the environmental benefits — though he would have liked to have seen them go up more gradually.   Well, thanks for that.

Obama has no answer on the topic of nuclear energy — and it is one he has tied himself in knots over simply because of his desire to be all things to all people.  In October of last year — while the underdog to Clinton in the Dem. primary, Obama made his position clear and unequivocal in pandering to the left-wing environmentalists — “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

But in May of this year, after becoming the front-runner and likely Dem nominee, Obama began a subtle shift when he said in an appearance on Meet the Press that expansion of nuclear power might be possible if issues of safety and storage are solved: 

“Until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe– that they have solved the storage problem, because I’m opposed to Yucca Mountain and just dumping storage in one state in Nevada…and until nuclear industry can show they can provide clean safe energy without enormous subsidies from the U.S. government, I don’t think that’s the best option.”

It was the OPEC embargo in 1973 that shocked the French public into the reality of its need to find a way to liberate itself from near total dependence on foreign oil.  France has no oil resources and little useable coal.  When the Civaux nuclear power plants came on line in 1999, France had 58 working nuclear plants, generating nearly 80% of her electricity.  

Electrical generation accounts for only 4% of oil consumed in the US.  The US uses about 20 million barrels a day overall — 7.3 billion barrels a year — meaning about 300 million barrels a year are used to create electricity. 

Since 1995, nuclear energy has produced approximately 20% of  the electrial power generated annually in the US, while coal fired power plants have produced about 50%.    Doubling or even tripling the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power would eliminate the use of oil for that purpose, and dramatically reduce the amount of coal used for that purpose.   It would also provide a pathway to replacing gasoline powered engines with hybrids or all-electric vehicles as battery technology improves — again reducing the demand for oil.

And it would reduce the usage of ethanol, taking pressure off food prices that has resulted from the ethanol mandates.

The way a nuclear program can be successful with a minimum of legal wrangling is to follow the French model.  The French  purchased American Pressurized Water Reactor designs by Westinghouse. Sticking to just one design meant the 58 plants were much cheaper to build. Moreover, management of safety issues was much easier: the lessons from any incident at one plant could be quickly learned by managers of the other plants. 

The federal government could select the one best design and mandate that all future facilities be built according to that single design, while at the same time indemnifying the designers from liability. 

The waste issue would remain to be solved, but dealing with it is no different in kind than dealing with the environmental consequences of oil or coal. 

Drilling more now would likely have an immediate impact on  world oil prices simply because as it would be a signal to world-wide consumers that the US — the single largest consumer — is serious about addressing its own energy needs without going into the world marketplace for more and more supply.  McCain has a winning position on that issue assuming his campaign can translate it into the campaign. 

But, putting ourselves on a glide-path to permanent reduction in oil usage is the “B” side to that same record.  Taking steps to keep prices down into the forseeable future requires a reduction in domestic demand for oil.  Reducing demand doesn’t have to mean doing without and crippling the economy as favored by the Democrat approach. 

179 Responses to “McCain’s Winning Electoral Strategy Flows Through French Experience”

  1. After FOUR MORE MONTHS of high gasoline prices Obama’s ‘plan’ is going to look pretty pathetic to the average voter.

    Icy Truth (f5c7ef)

  2. “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”

    Really?

    I had no idea. Got a link or are just making shite up. Again.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  3. “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”

    It is kind of refreshing, though, if true. High prices, per se, are not a problem–it’s the reasons for the high prices that are the problem. I wish more politicians would stay out of the market.

    Of course, government interference is partially to blame for the high prices—so Obama is saying he is fine with that interference, which isn’t so refreshing.

    pwilson (d63e2b)

  4. Thanks Justin — that’s exactly the video I was referring to.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  5. “He stated yesterday that the reason for our anger is the rapid increase in prices, not the prices themselves. Obama claimed that Americans would have accepted a “gradual adjustment” to the current cost:”

    Becomes “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”

    You guys are completely full of shite. Many would call you liars.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  6. nuclear power may help solve the energy problems and it may be a ‘better’ choice than the alternatives, but it is not the foundation of a winning presidential campaign. voters only care that a candidate has a plan for bringing down gas prices, they’re not going to delve into the particulars of those plans. and since obama most definitely will have a plan, that’s all he’ll need to deflect whatever mccain puts forward.

    stevesturm (8f0fbc)

  7. Insightful, WLS. IMO, McCain should take three gut issues – energy, Iraq/terrorism, and taxes — and hit them day after day.

    The rest will fall into place.

    vnjagvet (d3d48a)

  8. No problem. Just as soon as we invade Iran, they will be welcoming us with flowers and gas will be cheap again. Just like the Iraq war, which Rupert Murdoch said would bring us $20 barrel oil. A Humvee in every pot! GO DUMBYA!

    Pontificoot (17c6d7)

  9. harp won’t believe it, though. One big, big problem with nuclear power is that our reservoir of nuclear engineers is almost dry. Nobody has been going into that field for years, except the Navy officers who go to nuclear subs and that’s not a big pool. The lack of long term focus in the political class is the greatest weakness we have in our democratic form of government. I was an engineer 50 years ago and, even then, people were opting out because of the boom and bust nature of the field. The nuclear engineering field had been moribund for years and it will take a lot to get back up to speed.

    Maybe we could recycle some lawyers.

    Nah.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  10. Mike K., we are toxic but not radioactive. No joy there.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. First we have this gem:

    “I had no idea. Got a link or are just making shite up. Again.”

    Which was promptly followed by video proof of the statement in question. Which was followed by:

    “You guys are completely full of shite. Many would call you liars.”

    This type of illogical reasoning is proof positive of Harpy’s line of thinking – when evidence is presented, pretend it doesn’t exist or claim said evidence is somehow displaying other ideas not understandable in plain English.

    Always remember – Harpy knows that “The truth is OUT THERE!”

    “…would have accepted a “gradual adjustment” to the current cost:”

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  12. Dmac,

    Did you even listen to the goddam clip?

    “…Americans would have accepted a “gradual adjustment” to the current cost:”

    “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”

    You are either a complete nitwit or are a liar trying to smear Obama. Probably both.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  13. ok jharp — lets put his exact words in print and we’ll see who is lying:

    “I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage.

    Q: So, could the oil prices help us?

    A: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment … If we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers.”

    So, who is the lying sack of shite — you or me?

    Obama would have preferred a more gradual increase — he doesn’t have a problem with the increase itself, only its pace.

    Further, he wants to help people “adjust” to the “new circumstances” — in other words, he has no interest in bringing down the price of gasoline.

    You want to keep this up?

    WLS (68fd1f)

  14. Harpie, is your only response to challenges to your worldly knowledge only to lob insults? It speaks of a great insecurity, you apparently get so frustrated that you resort to Tourette’s Syndrome – like outbursts of rage and incoherence, shaking your tiny fists at the screen and spewing spittle at the same time.

    Don’t you have a huge McMansion somewhere, Harpy? With a ginormous yard? You also allegedly have a business that’s apparently expert in helping clientele rapidly depreciate their auto fleets? Or is it something to do with the foreign exchange rate of commerce? Do your alleged “clients” have any idea on how you choose to interact with the world on a daily basis? No doubt they’d be quite interested in your vernacular and manners.

    Say, aren’t you running out of “bullets” for your firearms? Maybe it’s best not to stock up for awhile – that trigger finger is obviously quite spastic right now.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  15. I read the long, LONG response between harpster & those who think he is capable of rational thought on another thread (the one where he over and over again refused to read facts & then kept asking for facts).

    Why you people waste your time on him is beyond me. He doesn’t discuss things as an adult. He discusses them as a petulant child who’s discovered he can get a reaction by simply being contrarian.

    Ignore him. Soon he’ll go back to Puffington Host.

    steve miller (724340)

  16. “Maybe we can recycle some lawyers”

    NO THANK YOU!!! (I’m a nuclear engineer who has stuck to it the last 30 years)

    The energy problem is not just gasoline, for which nuclear has no solution at this time (give us 20 years.)

    Yesterday’s natural gas price was $13.50 while 5 years ago it was $3.00. This will affect one’s summer electric bill as well as next winter’s heating bill. Nuclear can help with both of these consumer items as new nukes can substitute for a big chunk of gas use in the US.

    There are 33 new reactor applications in the queue so McCain’s goal of 45 by 2020 is reachable.

    Joseph Somsel (e5cbf5)

  17. We could put Patterico to good use so might make exceptions.

    You guys know how to type?

    Joseph Somsel (e5cbf5)

  18. “He discusses them as a petulant child…”

    I actually think he is a child – about twelve years old, at least by the logical faculties displayed.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  19. ok jharp — lets put his exact words in print and we’ll see who is lying:

    “I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage.

    Q: So, could the oil prices help us?

    A: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment … If we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers.”

    Have you completely lost it. He said he would have preferred a gradual increase. I would have too.

    So, who is the lying sack of shite — you or me?

    You.

    “Obama would have preferred a more gradual increase”

    Obamas words.

    “he doesn’t have a problem with the increase itself, only its pace.”

    Your words.

    See the difference.

    Further, he wants to help people “adjust” to the “new circumstances”

    And what is wrong with that?

    “— in other words, he has no interest in bringing down the price of gasoline.”

    No, not in other words. IN YOUR WORDS!

    See the difference.

    You want to keep this up?

    Sure. Bring. It. On.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  20. jharp – part of an adult discourse is to draw conclusions from the words used by others.

    You know what my understanding of Obama’s comments are.

    What is your understanding?

    Does Obama want to bring gas prices down? What words has he used that make you think that?

    Does Obama think high gas prices are a bad thing? What words has he used that make you think that?

    WLS (68fd1f)

  21. Someone here is a complete maroon who has festered at the nether regions of Urkel too long and caused less oxygen to flow to his brain.
    What a shame when even the cheese-eating surrender monkeys are on board big with nuclear energy and yet the left wing environmental loons here bring up the same tired canards. Even with all the SAFE nuclear energy providing the frogs with electrical energy uses, they still pay what we would deem outrageous prices at the pump. I’ve heard $10 a gallon around gay Paree. Gott have those high taxes to support the state drones and the welfare state. Take the price of oil in England and Norway. Why, with the North Sea oil so near, are their prices so high?? Of course they have to support that failing wait-in-line-for- ages socialized medicine. And who supplies the defense umbrella for much of Europe so that they can do without decent defense forces?
    I have to admit JHarp is one of the most mendacious contributors I’ve seen on conservative blogs. I suppose he avoids the echo chambers of Kos, Huff, DU etc. because they won’t argue with him. But the thing is an effort to make a decent polemical exercise is just wasted on his ilk since he won’t accept what is right in front of his lyin’ eyes. Such insighful people would be far better served returning to Greenwald for additional intellectual sodomy.

    madmax333 (28e282)

  22. All right I’ll bite.

    “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”

    I conclude that this is a lie and you are a liar.

    “You know what my understanding of Obama’s comments are.”

    “What is your understanding?”

    That he’d have preferred a gradual increase instead of a rapid one. Kind of like exactly what he said.

    “Does Obama want to bring gas prices down?”

    I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    Does Obama think high gas prices are a bad thing?

    I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  23. #23:
    you can “guess” all you want, but you’d still be wrong.

    HTH!

    redc1c4 (5c9f54)

  24. I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    Got a link, or are you just making shite up again?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  25. “Sure. Bring. It. On.”

    Your. Mother. Is. Calling. You. From. Upstairs. She. Needs. You. To. Clean. Out. The. Litter. Box. The. Cats. Are. Getting. Nervous.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  26. “Does Obama want to bring gas prices down?”

    I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    Does Obama think high gas prices are a bad thing?

    I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    Comment by jharp — 7/3/2008 @ 3:47 pm

    jharp – What’s his plan?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  27. Joseph Somsel,

    Since you’re a Nuclear Engineer, maybe you can confirm or deny something for me.

    WLS comments that the waste issue still needs to be resolved. It is my understanding that the europeans and japanese first take old fuel rods and store them in water for around 15-20 years to burn off some of the shoter half-life waste, then they reprocess approx 95% of the fuel rods back into new fuel rods. Leaving less than 5% of the fuel rods as actual waste to be dealt with.

    Is this a correct portrayal of their process?

    Thanks!

    Kenny (76922b)

  28. “the cheese-eating surrender monkeys”

    – madmax333

    What’ve you got against cheese, gramps?

    Or is this one of those Get-Off-My-Lawn-Yeh-Dern-Kids moments?

    Leviticus (1daf74)

  29. Also, with more nuclear reactors generating clean electrical energy, converting many of the people who use heating oil to electricity to heat their homes will also cut down on the oil our nation consumes.

    Kenny (76922b)

  30. But…but…what’s his PLAN?

    Here ya go….

    Barack Obama’s Plan
    Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

    * Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
    * Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

    Invest in a Clean Energy Future

    * Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
    * Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
    * Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
    * Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
    * Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
    * Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
    * Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

    Support Next Generation Biofuels

    * Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
    * Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
    * Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
    * Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

    Set America on Path to Oil Independence

    Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

    * Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.

    Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

    * Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He’ll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
    * Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
    * Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

    Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

    * Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
    * Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

    Pontificoot (40ad11)

  31. jharp – What’s [Obama’s] plan?

    To TAX our way out! he’s going to raise gasoline taxes, windfall profits taxes, environmental impact fees, and a dozen different sorts of taxes on income and investments.

    (Hey, the money to come up with the $350 billion per year – about an extra billion dollars per day – in new spending has to come from somewhere!)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  32. #29 Leviticus – google french military victories. I think the cheese-eating slur originated with Lucianne Goldberg’s son Jonah at National Review. Kind of funny though just how so many European governments are turning right and yet the media here salivates at prospect of failed socialism- higher taxes, more government controls, shitty socialized medicine et al. I’m sure Baracky would love to have us fork out that $850 Billion to help poor Africa and the henchmen like Mugabe pad their Swiss Bank accounts. Or seek reparations for the historical mistreated Black population here. I’m sure OJ, Michelle and the various Jacksons would approve and accept and his harridan wife might finally afford fresh fruit and even some expensive wine for their wine cellar and plenty of heated waters for their fancy two jets shower.

    madmax333 (28e282)

  33. Kenny,

    That’s part of the story. For a full account, read my article entitled “How Harry Reid Can Save Us $80 Billion and Fuel $1 Trillion of Electricity.”

    http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108

    Since publication, this plan of recycle and nuclear “burnup” of the worst waste has quietly become federal and international policy. We are still working Yucca Mountain to the tune of $250 million a year, mostly because the money ($500 million) is still rolling in from a tax on nuclear electricity. The balance goes to a “nuclear waste trust fund” where the cash is spent as part of the general Treasury funds.

    Joseph Somsel (e5cbf5)

  34. Ponti, HOW is he going to do any of those things? Just trying to set goals doesn’t change the underlying reality.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  35. #32 Harp can google story about Obama’s policies necessarily raising the deficit to 1 TRILLION annually. Indeed a recession might demand it. Seems counterintuitive to raise all those taxes though. His INCREASED “Fairness” capital gains rates would actually decrease tax revenues, but that doesn’t seem to matter to him.

    Want to bet that interference by the feds in oil industry results in rationing and higher prices?

    madmax333 (28e282)

  36. Coot – None of that shit helps lower the price of energy any time soon or put fresh fruit on the table for Mrs. Grievance’s kids. What’s he going to do for us today!!!! From listening to him – nothing. He just wants us to suck it up. So I call jharp a liar.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  37. “Ponti, HOW is he going to do any of those things? Just trying to set goals doesn’t change the underlying reality.”

    Drum – Maybe he’s going to use that National Volunteer Security Force that’s stronger than the military that he was talking about yesterday, you know, because the military just isn’t enough.

    I wonder if he’s going to have them wear brown shirts or black shirts. Jack boots or something else.

    Decisions, decisions.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  38. “Ponti, HOW is he going to do any of those things?

    Exactly how every other President has effected policy since the birth of our country.

    Through the legislative process.

    My God, you truly are the dimwitted one.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  39. Actually, “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” to describe the French was a phrase coined by Homer on “The Simpsons.”

    LYT (b67340)

  40. Through the legislative process.

    Great. Pass a law that says all gasoline will henceforth be sold for not more than $1.50. See how well that works for you.

    I’ll bet that it will have the immediate effect of creating a new gray market for gasoline sold “off the books” (at even higher prices than they are now, because of the extra risk of arrest and prosecution), and shutting down every gas station in the country.

    That’s just for starters.

    Tell us more about how you’re going to legislate your way to cheaper gasoline.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  41. Justin,

    Off-Topic, sorry, but: Outta curiosity, any reason you didn’t allow comments on the prev post (re Gavin Newsom running for Gov)?

    ras (fc54bb)

  42. Through the legislative process.

    Great. Pass a law that says all gasoline will henceforth be sold for not more than $1.50. See how well that works for you.

    I’ll bet that it will have the immediate effect of creating a new gray market for gasoline sold “off the books” (at even higher prices than they are now, because of the extra risk of arrest and prosecution), and shutting down every gas station in the country.

    That’s just for starters.

    Tell us more about how you’re going to legislate your way to cheaper gasoline.

    You are a stupid, stupid man who needs to learn to think before you post.

    Try this one.

    Force, yes force, the automakers through legislation to sell more fuel efficient cars.

    Get the idea?

    jharp (00ec6a)

  43. Justin — somewhere in your commands you have accidentally blocked comments from being made. Its happened on several of your more recent postings. I’m not sure how to fix it but you should look around at your settings.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  44. jharp — I’m certain the automakers would be glad to sell a whole fleet of cars that got 100 mpg if they thought there was a market for such cars.

    Two things work against that — people don’t want to buy them, and the main way you make cars more fuel efficient is by making them smaller and lighter, which makes them less safe in an accident.

    So, is it your view that Obama’s plan is to pass legislation that forces everyone to drive a Ford Focus?

    In other words, he doesn’t intend to bring gas prices down, he just wants to make cars more fuel efficient so people can spend less money on expensive gas?

    WLS (68fd1f)

  45. Laws to ctl the gas prices have been tried, many times in many places. They always cost more than they deliver.

    BTW, here in Canada we tried a national energy pgm some years back, complete w/our very own state-run oilco. Wow, the state owns the oil co; now we’ll see the prices plummet, right?

    Nope. PetroCan, as it was known, charged exactly the same as did all other oilco’s, and at the same rates relative to the rest of the world as always. I.E., no diff, excepting perhaps they weren’t as good at turning a profit while they did it.

    The govt, many years later, sold it off for what they could get, to BP, if memory serves.

    ras (fc54bb)

  46. Force, yes force, the automakers through legislation to sell more fuel efficient cars.

    And what will happen when they can’t meet your mandated goals – cut their production? Fine them heavily? Move the goals back (accomplishing absolutely nothing with your magic legislation)?

    Still waiting for you to show how you can legislate control of Supply and Demand.

    Just saying “Pass a law” doesn’t accomplish shit. (Look at all the laws on the books now, and an entire field of the economy whose sole purpose is to argue all of the varying opinions as to what simple language such as “shall not be infringed” really means.)

    Which means you are either ignorant of reality or making shit up. Again. Or both.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  47. Joseph Somsel,

    #34. Thank you for the excellent link.

    Actinide burners, a very interesting idea. I’ve bookmarked that link for further study.

    Kenny (76922b)

  48. harpy – why stop there? Force them to quit making SUV’s. Force them to sell cars for les than it costs to build them. Force them? Just go ahead an run their company for them. Nationalize that like the Dems that suggested nationalizing the oil industry. He is certainly not an Indiana boy, unless he lives down in Bloomington, which would explain much.

    Big Brown (5f0e11)

  49. jharpo marxist wrote: “Does Obama want to bring gas prices down?”

    I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    “Does Obama think high gas prices are a bad thing?”

    I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.

    “I’d guess…” Mm-Hmm.

    I conclude that you realize that he DIDN’T say he would like to bring gas prices down, that you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

    But you, harpy, are the perfect illustration of the typical Obamaniac. You ignore the fact that he leaves gaping holes in his occasionally eloquent statements, and when people point them out, you fill in the blanks with what you want to believe he means.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  50. Drum,

    When you find yourself in a hole the frist thing to do is stop digging.

    Force, yes force, the automakers through legislation to sell more fuel efficient cars.

    “And what will happen when they can’t meet your mandated goals – cut their production? Fine them heavily?

    You tell me dumbass. What do you do when you pass laws and people ignore them? Fine them? I’m OK with that. Not allow them to sell gas guzzlers? I’m OK with that. Cut their production? Not OK with that.

    “Still waiting for you to show how you can legislate control of Supply and Demand.”
    By enacting laws that cut demand i.e. more fuel efficient cars. Just as we have done for the past twenty years. Not well enough albeit but we’ve had an oilman in office for the past seven and an oil friendly GOP congress since 94.

    Just saying “Pass a law” doesn’t accomplish shit.

    No shit, brain surgeon. You have to actually pass the law.

    Comment by Drumwaster — 7/3/2008 @ 4:56 pm

    Please think before you post. It is getting tiresome responding to your idiocy.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  51. Smithlee,

    You trying to top Drumwater for the most idiotic posts.

    “I conclude that you realize that he DIDN’T say he would like to bring gas prices down”

    So, in a minute and 30 second “Hot Air” clip Obama didn’t say he would like to bring gas prices down means “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”.

    Yet he has published for the entire world to see an energy policy intended to do just that.

    You, friend, are an idiot.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  52. WLS wrote: So, is it your view that Obama’s plan is to pass legislation that forces everyone to drive a Ford Focus?

    Focus? I think you mean Fiesta.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  53. I say we pass a law banning teh stooopid and teh krazy, or at least tax the holy hell out of it. harpy first.

    JD (5f0e11)

  54. Fine them? I’m OK with that. Not allow them to sell gas guzzlers? I’m OK with that.

    Meanwhile, people are still paying ever-increasing prices for gasoline, and your much vaunted legislation has FAILED. Meanwhile you have driven two car companies out of business with those heavy fines, and thousands of people are out of work.

    Keep those unintended consequences coming, and show us some more of the Obama “tax and legislate our way out of high prices” plan…

    You have to actually pass the law.

    Which doesn’t accomplish shit. Are you old enough to remember all the laws controlling gas prices back in the 70s? How well did those work? “Odd and even days”, gas rationing in ’73, lines around the block, 3-gallon limits, and the national malaise.

    Guess they just didn’t know which laws to pass, eh?

    an oil friendly GOP congress since 94.

    Actually, we have had a GOP House up until two years ago. When did this price spike start? Winter, 2006, wasn’t it? I posted a link that showed that gas prices have almost doubled under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    DOUBLED in two years, and your candidate has said that he only worries about how FAST the prices increased, not the fact of the increase itself.

    And you deliberately ignore it all.

    “There are none so blind…”, etc.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  55. harpy – It is not a difficult concept to understand. His only problem was the rate of increase, not the increase itself.

    FWIW, your idea of small fuel efficient cars will increase highway fatalities, and will increase the average severity of accidents involving injuries, as well as increasing the number or roadway injuries. Why do you want to hurt people for your socialist utopia?

    JD (5f0e11)

  56. Force, yes force, the automakers through legislation to sell more fuel efficient cars.

    Scratch a lefty, find a fascist.

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  57. And it was Groundskeeper Willie who used the “cheese eating surrender monkey” line.

    I used to send wav file of it to my in-laws in Scotland.

    Ah, the wonder that is wikipedia:

    “The phrase was first popularized in the Simpsons episode “‘Round Springfield” (first aired on April 30, 1995).[2] Groundskeeper Willie, the school janitor, an unkempt immigrant from Scotland, is teaching French due to budget cuts, dressed in a striped jumper and a beret. He greets the class with (in heavy Scots accent) “Bonjourrrrrrrrr, yah cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys!” ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

    N. O'Brain (9056e2)

  58. Drumwater,

    Please. Your stupid is wearing me out.

    “Meanwhile, people are still paying ever-increasing prices for gasoline, and your much vaunted legislation has FAILED.”

    I hasn’t been enough quite obviously but please check before posting your stupidity how fuel standards, laws enacted by Congress, have dramatically risen over the years.

    “Meanwhile you have driven two car companies out of business with those heavy fines, and thousands of people are out of work.”

    Really Honda and Toyota seem to be doing just fine. You know, the guys selling fuel efficient cars.

    You are an idiot.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  59. “harpy – It is not a difficult concept to understand. His only problem was the rate of increase, not the increase itself.”

    His only mention in the minute and a half “Hot Air” clip was the rate of increase.

    He has posted on his web site his plan to lower energy costs.

    But noooo. In a minute and 30 second clip on “hot Air” he didn’t say it so he must want high gas prices.

    Are you really that friggin dumb that you can’t see that.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  60. jharpo marxist wrote: So, in a minute and 30 second “Hot Air” clip Obama didn’t say he would like to bring gas prices down means “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”.

    You’re not paying attention.

    I was not addressing what Obama said in the clip, which I didn’t watch; I was addressing the questions YOU chose to answer. You took on the questions “Does Obama want to bring gas prices down?” and “Does Obama think high gas prices are a bad thing?”

    Your answer to both questions, verbatim:

    “I’d guess he does just as most Americans do.”

    Hmmm…what does the word “guess” mean in English, J?

    transitive verb
    1 : to form an opinion of from little or no evidence
    2 : believe, suppose

    3 : to arrive at a correct conclusion about by conjecture, chance, or intuition

    But now you write:

    Yet he has published for the entire world to see an energy policy intended to do just that.

    OK. Let’s see what BHO’s spokesmouth Jason Grumet said about his alleged plan to lower gas prices on the June 18th edition of PBS’Online NewsHour:

    Changing gas prices now

    JEFFREY BROWN: Jason Grumet, stay in the near term for a moment. Does Senator Obama think that anything can be done to affect oil and gas prices or do Americans now have to get used to these high levels?

    JASON GRUMET: Well, until we fundamentally grapple with our oil dependence and we make more efficient choices in our economy and come up with alternatives, we are going to be struggling with a system that’s out of our control.

    In the near term, there’s really one thing that we can focus on, and that is to address the speculation in the oil markets. Senator Obama has sponsored legislation to get the CFTC to take a harder look at what…

    JEFFREY BROWN: That’s the commodities…

    JASON GRUMET: Commodity Futures Trading Commission. He has supported legislative efforts that would try to address that kind of speculation.

    But short of trying to address people profiteering during the suffering, we have to have a much more honest conversation — and I think — I guess Doug and I may have different views of honesty — you know, telling the American people, as Senator McCain did in his speech that you ran, that we have to assure affordable fuel by increasing domestic production is not having an honest conversation with the American people.

    We do not have the resources in this country to assure fuel prices through domestic production. We have 3 percent of the globe’s energy resources. We simply do not have the ability to turn the crank here and make ourselves safe and secure.

    And it’s that kind of return to those failed policies that we think is misdirecting the American people from the real conversation we need to have, and that’s about investing in efficiency and investing in alternatives.

    I’m sorry, I must have missed the part about lowering gas prices. Maybe his flack didn’t get the memo either.

    Well, Husseinfeld’s been kinda shaky on harmonizing his various spoken and published messages lately. Ask your buddy Greenwald about that.

    L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf)

  61. The “Nuclear Engineer” requirement isn’t as crucial as portrayed. The main skills a nuclear engineer would have that aren’t replicated outside of the field are the _design_ of nuclear plants. Safety aspects, integrety aspects, and designing maintenance schedules. “This beam should be replaced due to radiation exposure every five years, etc.”

    Both Chemical and Mechanical Engineers are fairly heavy overlaps on a swath of the other skills. Chemical Engineering deals with (physically) hot reactors, cooling towers, high pressure noxious fluids, piping fiascos and the like all the time. Mechanical Engineers have the edge in the structural or power generation sections. (Edging into Electrical…)

    The actual ‘core’ of the plant – the piece that has high and medium levels of radiation – that would be an area that would need the specific skills of a Nuclear Engineer. But that’s not on the same scale as the bulk of the plant. The ‘core’ design could be essentially locked (as France did). When you aren’t designing new things, you get mostly machinists, mechanics, and technicians with only a small cadre of engineers.

    Al (b624ac)

  62. how fuel standards, laws enacted by Congress, have dramatically risen over the years.

    And yet these pixie-dust-filled laws haven’t managed to bring down gas prices by so much as a single penny, have they? Not only have they not lowered gas prices, they have made people less safe by forcing people to buy cars that were “unsafe at any speed”.

    Really Honda and Toyota seem to be doing just fine. You know, the guys selling fuel efficient cars.

    And their success has not driven down gas prices by so much as a single yen, has it?

    And you forget all of the smaller auto companies that went out of business because of the higher standards they simply couldn’t meet. Detroit is still suffering from the economic devastation that those laws created.

    So far, you have failed to show a single solution. (Let me rephrase: you have failed to show a single solution that hasn’t already been repeatedly tried, only to fail every single time.)

    Show us the Hopey Changitude Obama has promised, not the SSDD he is shoveling.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  63. So far, everyone I have read, talked or listened to who says, “we are going to invade Iran,” are leftists. The conservatives I talk to to haven’t nearly the blood lust.

    The oil crisis thing is nothing new. In the 70’s we went through the same thing when the Muslim countries attacked Israel in what is called the Yom Kippur War. Sky high oil, planning for our children’s future and even talk of ethanol in the tank was all the rage. As soon as the investments were in place OPEC started pumping more oil and the oil prices came down. Investors lost millions on ethanol plants. Every politician since, including Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton could have developed a comprehensive energy policy, but all we got was a failed comprehensive immigration plan. If ANWAR was developed in 2002 oil wouldn’t be at $145 today. Far too much government time and energy is wasted on trivial pursuits while the real important issues get buried, until there is another crisis.

    In 1973 my father said, “If you think oil is expensive now, just wait until the Chinese and the Indians start driving cars.” All the politicians can do now is blame each other, which really doesn’t get us closer to a solution.

    tyree (8971e1)

  64. Smithee,

    You stupid person.

    Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

    * Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies.

    Naw. This won’t affect the price of gas. Stuff like reducing demand.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  65. Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

    No, it won’t. He will simply drive up prices and lower supply. He won’t be able to touch demand one iota, since more than half of the increase in global demand is due to events beyond our shores.

    Whoever is keeping the list, add “supply and demand”.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  66. So the point of this thread is that John McCain’s ace in the hole in this election is nuclear power? That’s totally retarded. John McCain will probably die well before we’d see a new nuclear plant brought on-line if we started building them yesterday.

    I even like the idea of using more nuclear energy. But most people don’t, and that’s not a viable energy policy when new plants are at least a decade away, and it wouldn’t have any effect on the immediate gas price crisis anyway.

    WLS, you should join his campaign staff with excellent advice like this!

    Levi (74ca1f)

  67. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers

    paid for by taxes on the “rich” (read: anyone who is trying to buy one of those fancy Ford Fiestas or Honda Accords); since the demand on those will be going up, so will the price.

    And gas prices will keep going up, up, up. Almost “progressive”…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  68. and it wouldn’t have any effect on the immediate gas price crisis anyway.

    Hey, that’s okay, we can just pass a law! That’ll fix everything right up.

    Practicing hard for those Special Olympics, eh?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  69. “Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent…”

    “Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years…”

    OBAMA WILLLLLLLL, OBAMA WILLLLLL! (cue the Leni Reifenstal biopic, replete with grainy images of Obama commanding the seas to part on cue).

    Harpy, when you’re done wiping the spittle off your screen, please tell us what economy has ever prospered by a command – and – control model. How about Nixon’s price controls? Nope, utter disaster. Carter’s policies? Sorry, try again.

    Come now, surely you can produce one salient example that your Dear Leader can follow? Perhaps the nutbag in NK? Or maybe Castro? We wait, as always, with baited breath.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  70. Smithee — they all look the same from the driver’s seat of my HUMMER.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  71. “Stuff like reducing demand.”

    I really do think he’s currently in the 6th Grade, especially with vernacular of this form.

    Dmac (ea35f7)

  72. harpy – You are perfect illustration of why your party has only had two presidents in the past forty years. You are stupid, your party leaders are stupid, and if your politicians told people what they really thought nobody would vote for them.

    daleyrocks (1cc55d)

  73. Drum – This is why they love Baracky. They just put their own version of reality over his words and then claim such lunacy as Baracky will lower gas prices even when his own words show that his only concern was the rate of increase, not the increase itself.

    JD (5f0e11)

  74. I just want to be sure I’m hearing you retards clearly.

    Raising the mileage standards and reducing consumption is not going to reduce demand thus reducing the price for gasoline.

    Is that what you’re saying?

    jharp (00ec6a)

  75. Raising the mileage standards and reducing consumption is not going to reduce demand thus reducing the price for gasoline.

    Is that what you’re saying?

    You’re contradicting yourself in this sentence. Let’s see if you can figure out where…

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  76. No, I can’t. Brain surgeon.

    If you don’t understand what I mean please ask. I’ll be happy to clear it up for you.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  77. I just want to be sure I’m hearing you retards clearly.

    Raising the mileage standards and reducing consumption is not going to reduce demand thus reducing the price for gasoline.

    Is that what you’re saying?

    Comment by jharp — 7/3/2008 @ 6:21 pm
    RSS feed for comments on this post.

    “I’m going to turn this country into Bangladesh even if it kills her.” That’s what I hear Barack Damn-I-Hate-Bowling-And-America-Too Obama saying.

    nk (16accd)

  78. harpy — how many cars does the government build every year?

    Detroit has to build the car you want, and then the public has to buy the car you want.

    Legislation doesn’t make either happen.

    WLS (68fd1f)

  79. If you don’t understand what I mean please ask. I’ll be happy to clear it up for you.

    I HAVE asked. “Can you figure out where you contradicted yourself?”

    Your response: “No, I can’t.”

    Anything else is a waste of time until you get past this point.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  80. My 6 year old was acting 6 earlier, and arguing about when she should go to bed. She constructed far better arguments than harpy, managed to do so without lying, and in general, she acted more rational and mature in the midst of a tantrum.

    JD (5f0e11)

  81. harpy — how many cars does the government build every year?

    Detroit has to build the car you want, and then the public has to buy the car you want.

    Legislation doesn’t make either happen.

    Comment by WLS — 7/3/2008 @ 6:30 pm

    The government doesn’t build any cars but I’m sure you knew that.

    Neither does the city of Detroit.

    Honda, Toyota, GM, Chrysler among others build lots of em.

    An legislation doesn’t make it happen either.

    So what is your point?

    That “Obama is already on record as saying he has no problem with the high prices”.

    You, friend, are a liar and post lies.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  82. An legislation doesn’t make it happen either.

    So what is your point?

    Your so-called “solution” of “let’s create more legislation” is as big a failure as YOU are. That is the point.

    So where’s your boy’s solution? You have just admitted that what you just suggested doesn’t work (and you were quite apathetic about that failure of your plan).

    What else you got? Class warfare? Higher taxes? Bigger government?

    “If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it’s big enough to take away everything you have.”

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  83. So raising the fuel standards in 1985 didn’t help to reduce our oil consumption?

    You are an embarrassment to all Americans.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  84. John McCain will probably die well before we’d see a new nuclear plant brought on-line if we started building them yesterday.

    In Canada, we have two new ones under construction right now, expected to be completed in 10 years. Been a long time for us, as for you, since the last ones, but you gotta start somewhere:

    Jun 16, 2008

    TORONTO — Ontario’s Liberal government will build Canada’s first new nuclear reactors in 15 years alongside the existing Darlington nuclear plant east of Toronto in hopes of generating additional electricity by July 2018, the province’s energy minister announced Monday.

    You’re gonna put your coat on eventually; only question is how long you wanna shiver first.

    ras (fc54bb)

  85. i think congress should pass legislation against crime, that would lower the crime rate.

    this message approved by jharp

    chas (12a229)

  86. jharp sees the trees but not the forest and would do well to read some history books re the fate of command-and-control economies that have come before.

    jharp,

    The best distributed systems consistently outperform the best centralized ones, and usually by a wide margin. Your brain itself is an example of such a distributed system, as is a free market, as is federalism.

    As is the Internet, too. Ever wonder why the French spent gazillions on MiniTel and it went nowhere (smarts centralized into the network), whereas the Internet (dumb network, smart decentralized out to the endpoints) became a phenom? Wonder no more.

    ras (fc54bb)

  87. So raising the fuel standards in 1985 didn’t help to reduce our oil consumption?

    Nope. Not a drop. Reagan allowed the free market to run the oil market in 1981, and prices plummeted as new supplies began production. (This was especially noticeable in the Permian Basin of West Texas and SE New Mexico.) By 1986, prices had dropped to just over half the pre-1980 levels.

    That was when oil demand (because of the lower prices) actually went UP. Any claims of a decrease in demand were because of alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear power plants, NOT legislation. (You build more nuclear plants, the energy generation industry would need less oil to produce the same amount of energy. But that doesn’t change the overall increase.)

    It was also swamped by people buying bigger cars, as more wealth filtered through the economy (since all those petro dollars stayed home for the first time in a decade).

    Supplies were through the roof, prices plummeted. Additional energy sources were created, and not a single law had to be passed to make any of it happen. In fact, it was the removal of existing regulations that created those conditions.

    So you are deliberately posting untrue information. IOW, you are lying. You are obviously unpatriotic and an embarrassment to your litter.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  88. “As is the Internet, too. Ever wonder why the French spent gazillions on MiniTel and it went nowhere (smarts centralized into the network), whereas the Internet (dumb network, smart decentralized out to the endpoints) became a phenom?”

    Good one, ras.

    Since MiniTel failed there is no reason to increase fuel economy standards.

    The stupid just keeps coming around here and there are so many of you.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  89. “So raising the fuel standards in 1985 didn’t help to reduce our oil consumption?”

    Nope. Not a drop.

    Good one. Sell cars that get higher miles per gallon and no effect on consumption.

    Please. Put the bong away.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  90. So tell us how legislation you claim was written in 1985 would affect consumption the moment Reagan deregulated the energy industries?

    Consumption went UP. Lower prices and increased supplies will do that.

    (Even Spicoli could take you on simple shit like this.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  91. This is also an environmental issue. As lame as electric and hydrogen cars are, some like them. Today their energy comes from centralized coal and gas fired generators. Enough nukes could make electric and hydrogen cars competitive and nearly pollution free.

    WLS:
    This is both an economic issue and a national security issue, and McCain should pound Obama with it unrelentingly.

    Wesson (785f2a)

  92. jharp,

    Minitel’s failure – along with the failures and underperformance of so many other top-heavy approaches throughout history – says that a command and control approach will not get the results you want, a result empirically demonstrated across divers places and times.

    Note, for ex, that the Kyoto signatories – all of whom signed on to its command/ctl approach – have not reduced their targeted emissions as much as the other countries, the ones who refused to sign on because they did not want to play c&c against their own people.

    You cannot fight the wind, you must learn to tack.

    ras (fc54bb)

  93. p.s. jharp,

    Did you know that being overly literal is an early sign of a schizophrenic breakdown?

    My MiniTel comment was by way of simile and metaphor, to be viewed as illustrating an abstract principle. Take a pill, then ponder why you are so emotionally determined to dictate a solution rather than catalyze one.

    ras (fc54bb)

  94. For McCain to show true leadership on this, he must demand the exact-copy model. All 40 new nukes must be the exact same design, the design proven in real life tests for decades. The whole system where every utility gets to lobby for a nuke plant with a custom design the way golf courses bid for an exclusive Jack Nicholas design is ridiculous.

    Wesson (785f2a)

  95. I wouldn’t mind if the outsides of those things were spruced up a bit (maybe regional themes, maybe corporate advertising, like on the Goodyear blimp), but you’re right, as far as the working parts designs go, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  96. “So tell us how legislation you claim was written in 1985 would affect consumption the moment Reagan deregulated the energy industries?”

    Consumption went UP. Lower prices and increased supplies will do that.

    Comment by Drumwaster — 7/3/2008 @ 7:41 pm

    You continue to amaze me with your stupid remarks.

    You do understand that consumption could have gone up but by not as much as it would have without increased mileage standards.

    “would affect consumption the moment Reagan deregulated the energy industries?”

    Really, what in the hell are you talking about?

    I guess my best answer is it wouldn’t be right at that moment. Like you’d have to have some people actually buy the better mileage cars and use them.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  97. I’ve noticed that NHTSA’s conclusion that CAFE mileage standards cost hundreds of deaths is another fact that jharp is allergic to.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  98. Actually that was a typo, I should have said thousands of deaths.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  99. Really, what in the hell are you talking about?

    The history your parents slept through.

    You do understand that consumption could have gone up

    Gee, ya think? And wouldn’t that be the same consumption you were just arguing had gone down?

    You don’t even know which side of the argument you’re supposed to be on, do you?

    To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, “A liberal is someone who can’t change his mind, but won’t change the subject.”

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  100. You are a liar and dishonest.

    You quote me as “You do understand that consumption could have gone up”

    Gee, ya think? And wouldn’t that be the same consumption you were just arguing had gone down?

    When this is what I posted.

    “You do understand that consumption could have gone up but by not as much as it would have without increased mileage standards.”

    jharp (00ec6a)

  101. Just how many people does jharp want to kill for marginally less gas consumption?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  102. You do understand that consumption could have gone up but by not as much as it would have without increased mileage standards.

    Perhaps, but you have no way of proving it.

    Since you made this claim, it’s up to you to prove it.

    Steverino (1dda08)

  103. Lemme expound a bit on the last comment:

    We don’t know what consumption would have done without the increased mileage standards. Further, we can’t know it. All we know is that consumption didn’t go down.

    Anything jharp has to say about consumption after the increased standards is simply a wild-assed guess.

    Steverino (1dda08)

  104. “You do understand that consumption could have gone up but by not as much as it would have without increased mileage standards.”

    First, remember what I said about the word “but”. (And not the one you pull your arguments out of.)

    Second, you have explicitly admitted that consumption went UP, after your earlier claim that your pixie-dust legislation made consumption go DOWN.

    You have two choices: either admit that you haven’t a clue about what you are talking about, or that you were lying. (I’ll explain, s-l-o-w-l-y: One of these things is a lie, because they can’t both be true.)

    Third, you’re trying to claim, utterly without evidence, that consumption would have been HIGHER than it was without your leprechaun-authored legislation, and there is no way for you to know that. There is especially no way for you to prove such a claim without any evidence at all, and given your proven lie on this subject, you completely lose all credibility on the subject, so you should really quit while you’re that far behind.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  105. Ignoring jharp completely, I have a totally different question.

    WLS, you say that only 4% of oil consumption in the U.S. goes into electrical generation. (I presume the vast majority of it goes into gasoline, for powering vehicles). What are your sources for that number, and how accurate are they?

    Assuming, now, that that figure is accurate — why would this be a winning issue for McCain? Let’s assume that switching out oil plants for nuclear produced a 4% reduction in total demand, without new demand springing up, and that that led to a 4% reduction in prices. (In reality, of course, it would be a *lot* more complex than that, with many other factors potentially coming into play — but it would surprise me if the price of gas dropped significantly more than 4%). A 4% reduction in $4.00/gal gas would be $0.16/gal. I’ve seen gas prices go up that much in just one month. (And at least once, in just a single week). If a Presidential candidate were to say “My plan will reduce gas prices by sixteen cents per gallon over the next ten years, so you should vote for me,” he’d be laughed off the stage.

    Now, I’m all in favor of seeing more nuclear plants in the States. I’d love to see us replace some of our coal plants with nuclear, too — nuclear’s a whole lot cleaner than coal. (But that’s a different rant). My question is: if only 4% of our current oil consumption goes to electricity, why would nuclear power make any significant difference in the price of gasoline?

    Robin Munn (143b72)

  106. Robin Munn,

    Beldar recently discussed a related issue in this post: “Why committing now to begin drilling ASAP will indeed affect the oil price now”.

    I think that a realistic expectation that new or expanded energy sources will become available – whether they are oil, nuclear, or renewables – would have the same effect.

    DRJ (a0ba79)

  107. why would nuclear power make any significant difference in the price of gasoline?

    I can guarantee that NOT doing anything won’t make a significant change in the price, either, and any Presidential candidate who says, in essence, “I am not so much concerned with the increase in price as the speed with which it increased” should be publicly shamed to the point where he and anyone still admitting to support him should be tarred and feathered and ridden across the border on a rail.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  108. OK, I’ve now read (well, skimmed) the WSJ article that Beldar linked to, and I can follow the argument. For the price adjustment to work, investors would have to trust that the replace-oil-plants-with-nuclear program was going to proceed and not get hung up in an uncooperative Congress, but that’s possible. (Not likely, in my opinion, unless Republicans win back a lot of their lost seats: given the current behavior of most Democratic Congressmen, I don’t see a Democrat-controlled Congress cooperating much, or at all, with a Republican President in 2009-2012).

    However, I still think it won’t be as good a political issue as WLS implies in his post, for precisely the reasons of my initial reaction. “A 4% reduction in supply? How is that going to help?” I may have been mistaken in my initial reaction, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people had that same reaction. And it would make a great talking point for Obama to play up — “Senator McCain’s plan would spend millions of dollars, and for what? A 4% reduction in our demand for oil. I don’t know if Senator McCain is aware, but the price of gas has gone up by 80% in the past (month, quarter, whatever). And he proposes reducing demand by a whole 4%. Well, *my* plan would …”

    But thanks for the info, DRJ, it was helpful.

    Robin Munn (143b72)

  109. In my second paragraph above, I meant “a 4% reduction in demand“, not in supply, of course.

    Robin Munn (143b72)

  110. Robin Munn,

    You’re welcome. Your gut reaction makes sense, but I’ve lived and worked in the oil patch all of my adult life and I’ve seen many booms and busts. Oil is a commodity and small changes can have a big effect on commodity prices, especially vital commodities. In my experience, the mere announcement of a potential new supply source can have a significant ripple effect on prices because commodity pricing is driven by speculators and forecasting.

    Did you ever see the Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd movie Trading Places, and the scenes about orange juice futures? It’s like that.

    DRJ (a0ba79)

  111. Lemme expound a bit on the last comment:

    We don’t know what consumption would have done without the increased mileage standards. Further, we can’t know it. All we know is that consumption didn’t go down.

    Anything jharp has to say about consumption after the increased standards is simply a wild-assed guess.

    Comment by Steverino — 7/3/2008 @ 9:08 pm
    #

    “You do understand that consumption could have gone up but by not as much as it would have without increased mileage standards.”

    First, remember what I said about the word “but”. (And not the one you pull your arguments out of.)

    Second, you have explicitly admitted that consumption went UP, after your earlier claim that your pixie-dust legislation made consumption go DOWN.

    You have two choices: either admit that you haven’t a clue about what you are talking about, or that you were lying. (I’ll explain, s-l-o-w-l-y: One of these things is a lie, because they can’t both be true.)

    Third, you’re trying to claim, utterly without evidence, that consumption would have been HIGHER than it was without your leprechaun-authored legislation, and there is no way for you to know that. There is especially no way for you to prove such a claim without any evidence at all, and given your proven lie on this subject, you completely lose all credibility on the subject, so you should really quit while you’re that far behind.

    Comment by Drumwaster — 7/3/2008 @ 9:21 pm

    You two can’t really be that fucking stupid. I know it’s a joke but I’ll go along regardless.

    You two nitwits are positing that by replacing 10 mile per gallon vehicles with 25 mile per gallon vehicles multiplied by millions of Americans driving those vehicles everyday does not impact consumption.

    Even if, as my post claimed, it caused consumption to increase at a lesser rate.

    Bizzarro world we’re living in.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  112. “Senator McCain’s plan would spend millions of dollars, and for what? A 4% reduction in our demand for oil.”

    We know that the ‘Demand Curve’ for oil is steep. Retail prices are approaching ‘tripled’, yet total consumption still increases. It isn’t completely ineleastic – people are reducing and changing patterns somewhat – but it is flipping steep.

    We also know the ‘Supply Curve’ is steep. Actual output isn’t tracking anywhere near the growth rates of prices or consumption. Admittedly, the vast majority of the actual oil production is nationalized. OPEC et al. may well be failing to produce to boost the prices of the oil they are producing. They actually own the oil in the ground, supply constraints boost the value of the actual oil – not the markup on drilling, pumping, shipping, refining and selling the oil. But it really doesn’t matter to us whether there just isn’t any more oil production or the Saudi’s are hoarding it. Both of those make the Supply Curve steeper.

    When you have both a steep Supply Curve and a steep Demand Curve, even miniscule changes in either Supply or Demand can shift price wildly. We’ve seen it happen for _reduced_ supply for a long, long list of things. Hurricanes, fire-at-refinery, pipeline shut for two days, even tanker delays.

    The best part, if you believe it’s really the fault of speculators, is that a strong push of this type causes the market itself to completely hose the people we want hosed – the nasty speculators. They’re essentially betting “The price will be much, much higher in the not-to-distant-future!”

    Al (b624ac)

  113. Looks like a couple of retards here didn’t get the memo from McCain on his energy policy.

    McCain on fuel efficiency standards.

    “Fuel efficiency standards can play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil and improving the nation’s air quality, and the production of more fuel-efficient cars may also help the America’s automobile manufacturing industry to compete more successfully both at home and abroad. Energy diversity and fuel efficiency can and should be improved. As President I will work with Congress and all stakeholders to see that achievable and appropriate standards are put into place that will optimize advances in technology, protect auto safety, meet family needs and consumer demands, promote the nation’s energy security, and help our industry compete in a global economy.”

    Stupid and blindly supporting the GOP is no way to go through life.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  114. Robin — the point of dramatically increasing nukes is to dramatically increase the amount of electricity generated at a significantly reduced cost. This would make electric and hybrid cars more attractive because it would cost so much less to operate them than the cost of gasoline. Driving down the consumption of gasoline would drive down the price of oil.

    But, at the outset the combination of both more drilling and more nukes would take the US out of the worldwide marketplace for oil to some degree, thereby reducing demand on the spot market which would also reduce the price.

    wls (1cdbde)

  115. A few nights ago, I was watching a discussion on CNN of all places (Not Fox) about the increases in Oil Prices, Drilling in our Off Shore Fields, ANWAR, the Coal Tar and Shale Oil Deposits out West and Liquification of Coal.

    During the portion on Drilling off shore, a Democratic Strategist with a smirky smile pronounced in a self satisfied manner that drilling off shore would not lower the price at the pumps but would only increase the profits of

    BIG OIL

    I have been thinking

    Do I want my hard earned money to increase the profits of some Filthy Capitalistic Greedy Big Oil Compay?

    H&*L NO!

    I want MY hard earned money to

    increase the profits of some Greedy Dictatorship,

    Fund Totalitaran Oppression,

    Islamofacism,

    and Interntational Terrorism BY GOD!!!!

    Just think

    Without the valiant efforts of some in Congress to stem the tide
    towards Energy Independence for the US

    My Hard Earned Money might actually go to

    Create Jobs for Americans

    Reduce the National Trade Deficit

    Increase US Tax Revenues

    Elimiate our need for MidEast Oil

    and lighten the load for Working Families?

    Now we just can’t have that can we?

    So if YOU do not want your hard earned money to
    end up in the coffers of some American Big Oil Company

    Rather than in the Hands of those who

    Truly Hate us, Desire to Destroy Our Way of Life
    and see All of Us Dead?

    Then you have only ONE choice.

    This November march right into that voting booth and

    Pull the D is for “Death to America!” Lever!!!!!!!!!!

    Dan Kauffman (b31cae)

  116. You two nitwits are positing that by replacing 10 mile per gallon vehicles with 25 mile per gallon vehicles multiplied by millions of Americans driving those vehicles everyday does not impact consumption.

    Even if, as my post claimed, it caused consumption to increase at a lesser rate.

    I’m not claiming any such thing. What I’m saying is that you don’t know what the rate of consumption would have done absent the new standards: it might have gone up at a higher rate, it might have stayed the same, it might have gone down. You just don’t know it, and you can’t possibly know it.

    What we do know is that the rate didn’t go down after the standards passed, and that’s all we know. Everything else is conjecture.

    Further, the change wasn’t “millions of Americans going from 10 mph to 25” as you claim. The large switch was in the latter half of the 1970s.

    It’s really funny watching you (a) misstate every “fact” you have, (b) lie about what you have already said, (c) deliberately misframe your oppenents’ arguments, and (d) call everyone who disagrees with you stupid. You’re just Levi with a slightly less offensive vocabulary.

    Steverino (1dda08)

  117. Wondering where that “only 4% of electricity is generated using oil” number came from?

    I would have thought Fla. was fairly typical as far as the electric power thing. Maybe they use hydroelectric out west to some extent, but regulators just approved two Florida Power and Light requests for fuel costs increases totaling 16%. So 1000 kilowatts (or slightly less than avg. residential customer uses) will rise in August from $102.63 to $110.77 and then in January increase to $118.42.

    As if that were not sufficient, in addition to fuel costs, another $2.51 will be tacked on for nuclear plant costs to take it up to $120.93 in January. And then in June, have to help pay for new natural gas generator in Loxahatchee to bring price to $122.32.

    I’d like to see what changes are facilitated in other states. And what happens to everyone’s costs if oil prices continue to climb. My heating costs in winter are negligible, but surely those of you in the north must feel the pain using any kind of energy for heating.

    Drill offshore now, open up ANWR or are the limousine liberals/environmental whackjobs happier if we feel more pain as more Indians with a dot and Chinese start driving?

    I’ve noticed neighbors with Hummers and Corvettes have added small motorcycles to the mix. And so car and truck sales are way down. How does that impact Michigan automakers’ employees? More unemployment for sure? That evil Bush preventing Pelosi and Reid from helping the American people. Bwwaaahhh.

    Happy Independence Day, except we have to try to stay dependent on OPEC?

    madmax333 (e17a7a)

  118. Stevie,

    So I guess you’re against MCCain’s energy policy of increasing mileage standards.

    After all, we don’t know if it reduces demand or not.

    God are you dumb.

    McCain on fuel efficiency standards.

    “Fuel efficiency standards can play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil… …and fuel efficiency can and should be improved. As President I will work with Congress and all stakeholders to see that achievable and appropriate standards are put into place”

    jharp (00ec6a)

  119. If everyone drove a Prius the world will be a better place, and if harpy had its way, it would force you to drive their pieces of shit.

    harpy – Why do you want people to die?

    JD (a6d772)

  120. GM and Ford don’t need a law to tell them people aren’t buying their gas guzzlers this quarter. American gas guzzlers aren’t even the major reason worldwide oil prices are so high. The worldwide economy has had tremendous growth in recent years.

    Wesson (b23bc4)

  121. You two nitwits are positing that by replacing 10 mile per gallon vehicles with 25 mile per gallon vehicles multiplied by millions of Americans driving those vehicles everyday does not impact consumption.

    That screeching sound you hear is the dragging of goalposts after harpo has his ass handed to him in thin slices.

    Let’s review the record, to see exactly what was said, shall we?

    jharp, comment #65: “Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.”

    I pointed out the flaw in your claim in the very next comment. (Reducing the supply doesn’t reduce demand so much as a dram – it actually increases, using the ages-old principle of “you’re not thirsty until the well runs dry”.)

    jh (#85): “So raising the fuel standards in 1985 didn’t help to reduce our oil consumption?”

    Me: “Not a drop. Demand actually went UP, due to lowered prices and a glut in the world supply.”

    jh (#97): “You do understand that consumption could have gone up but by not as much as it would have without increased mileage standards.”

    (Flip-flopping more than his hero.)

    So, harpie, tell us the difference between your assertion (without evidence, as usual, obtaining the data directly from the Institute of Pulling Stuff Out Of Your Ass) that consumption went down and your admission that consumption actually went UP.

    Because one of them is a lie, and the fact that you have seamlessly shifted arguments without a beat doesn’t mean that the rest of us didn’t notice.

    No one here has claimed that adjusting the rate at which vehicles consume gasoline doesn’t affect overall consumption but that is like a few people in India going on a diet while the population continues to explode.

    Overall consumption INCREASES, even if a few people are using less.

    Second, you are being deliberately dishonest in trying to claim that those updated standards had anything to do with it.

    People didn’t buy those cars because the legislation forced them to do so – they did so because it made economic sense for them to ride around in cars made of aluminum foil and plastic.

    However, those people died at a faster rate in highway crashes because those newer cars are not as safe as the older cars.

    I would continue, but I have already shown you to be a fool and a liar, not to mention someone who doesn’t even know which side of the argument you are supposed to be defending.

    So, I have a simple question for you: did consumption go DOWN, or did it go UP?

    Are you deliberately lying when you assert things that are not true (even after the truth is pointed out), or is it that you are so stupid that you cannot tell the difference?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  122. Fuel efficiency standards can play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil…

    “Reducing our dependence on foreign oil” +/+ “reducing consumption”.

    Why do you deliberately assert things you know are not true?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  123. “Reducing our dependence on foreign oil” =/= “reducing consumption”.

    PIMF.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  124. Harpster? Making things up? I’m SHOCKED.

    steve miller (724340)

  125. “So, I have a simple question for you: did consumption go DOWN, or did it go UP?”

    I don’t know. I took your word for it that it went up.

    However, more fuel efficient cars help to reduce demand.

    That’s my point. And both McCain and Obama agree.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  126. However, more fuel efficient cars help to reduce demand.

    But they DIDN’T reduce demand. Don’t you get that?

    You are mistaking the second derivative for the first.

    (Speaking of which, to whomever is keeping the list, add “calculus”.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  127. Drumwaster,

    Even Al Gore couldn’t make an Internet big enough for that list.

    steve miller (724340)

  128. McCain on fuel efficiency standards.

    “Fuel efficiency standards can play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil… …fuel efficiency can and should be improved. As President I will work with Congress and all stakeholders to see that achievable and appropriate standards are put into place

    jharp (00ec6a)

  129. In harpy’s world, an increase in consumption leads to a decrease in demand?

    JD (a6d772)

  130. Drum,

    You have lost your mind.

    More fuel efficient cars use less fuel.

    Using less fuel is a reduction in demand. A reduction in demand decreases our dependence on foriegn oil.

    Yes, if there are more cars on the road demand can still increase. However, if the additional cars on the road get more miles per gallon the increase in demand will not be as great.

    Thus more fuel efficient cars help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

    Does that sink in.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  131. Fuel efficiency standards can play a significant role in reducing our dependence on foreign oil…

    I spanked you on this a little while ago, but I see it didn’t stick.

    “dependence on foreign oil” DOES NOT EQUAL “demand”. Not even accidentally. Reducing the amount of gas we buy from other nations does NOT reduce the amount of oil we demand.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  132. Using less fuel is a reduction in demand.

    No. (Can’t you get ANYTHING right?)

    Using less fuel is a reduce in (personal) CONSUMPTION.

    Consumption does not equal demand. Consumption equals use of SUPPLY. The demand is always higher than the actual consumption, since there will be some people who demand a thing but cannot afford to pay for that thing. They demand it but cannot consume it. Geddit?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  133. Drum – There is not an ounce of good faith between Levi and harpy.

    JD (a6d772)

  134. Using less fuel is a reduce in (personal) CONSUMPTION.

    No shit. Brilliant.

    “Consumption does not equal demand.”

    If you consume less you will demand less. That is the point.

    “They demand it but cannot consume it.”

    I assume you mean they want it but cannot afford it or choose not to afford it.

    Demand is a function of price and if the price is too high some demand will disappear.

    Like you like to go boating but choose not to because of high fuel prices. This is what as known as a reduction in demand.

    Stricter fuel mileage standards reduce demand.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  135. Stricter fuel mileage standards reduce demand.

    No, it doesn’t. It reduces consumption.

    steve miller (724340)

  136. If you consume less you will demand less.

    Tell that to a person who is starving to death.

    He will DEMAND more than there actually is, and his CONSUMPTION is limited to the available SUPPLY.

    Demand routinely outstrips supply, and rationing occurs either through price changes or through other means.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  137. Pretty soon we’ll have the harpster saying that when HE uses the word “demand” he really means “consumption.”

    steve miller (724340)

  138. Re the 4% number — I got that off an industry website, but I can’t find the same site right now. Frankly there are dozens of them if you google around for things like “electric generation oil percentage”.

    And, in looking at some of the other sites, it looks like the 4% number was from 2005. Starting in 2006 the use of oil for electrical generation began to fall – likely as a result of increasing costs. It looks like the use of natural gas in electric generation has doubled since 1995, and has gone up about 30% since 2001.

    This site has a good breakdown of the generation of electricity from various sources going back to 1995.

    wls (1cdbde)

  139. The link didn’t come out in my last post. Not sure why, but I’m using a Mac for the first time, and it doesn’t seem to cut and paste links the same way my Dell did.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

    wls (1cdbde)

  140. Like you like to go boating but choose not to because of high fuel prices. This is what as known as a reduction in demand.

    No, that is what is known as a “substitution”.

    If the cost of greens fees at your local golf course causes you to decide to change to stamp collecting, then philately is a “substitute” for golfing, even though the two are completely different in every detail.

    But the demand wasn’t affected (he still wanted to golf, but thanks to Congress driving up the price through increased property taxes on such luxury items as golf courses), only the consumption.

    Demand is a function of price and if the price is too high some demand will disappear.

    No. CONSUMPTION is a value of price and if the price is too high some CONSUMPTION will disappear (to be substituted with something else.

    According to you, if Congress writes a law outlawing the purchase of oil-related products, that will eliminate demand.

    That is as correct as the remainder of your lies, because they will have only affected CONSUMPTION, not DEMAND.

    How did all those laws outlawing drugs work? How about the 18th Amendment? That was an Amendment to the Constitution – the Law Of The Land – so it should have completely eliminated all demand for alcohol, right? C’mon, keep digging. OInce you’re finished, I promise to backfill for you, and I’ll even throw in some plastic flowers.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  141. Like you like to go boating but choose not to because of high fuel prices. This is what as known as a reduction in demand.

    No, that is what is known as a “substitution”.

    You are a friggin retard.

    If the cost of greens fees at your local golf course causes you to decide to change to stamp collecting, then philately is a “substitute” for golfing, even though the two are completely different in every detail.

    The demand for golf has lessened. Somehow you have come up with the idea that since you’d still like to play golf that the demand is still there. It isn’t AT THAT PRICE. If the price were to come down the demand very well might recover.

    Where’d you go to school son?

    And have ever, like, taken a course in economics?

    jharp (00ec6a)

  142. Stricter fuel mileage standards reduce demand.

    No, it doesn’t. It reduces consumption.

    Reduced consumption reduces demand.

    You guys are ridiculous. I assume you’re joking.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  143. The demand for golf has lessened.

    Not at all. Those golfers still want to golf, but they cannot. Their consumption has shifted, but the demand has not abated one iota. Neither a jot nor a tittle.

    Somehow you have come up with the idea that since you’d still like to play golf that the demand is still there.

    Well, duh! What does “demand” mean, other than “I’d still like to do that”? (Whatever “that” might be, whether buying gasoline or playing gold, as long as someone wants to do whatever it is, there is a demand for it, even if those people cannot actually do that thing. Almost always that limitation of consumption is because of higher prices (occasionally it will be because of government interference), but the demand is still there.

    Let’s try another example: beach front housing. The demand for having a house on the beach is VERY high, and the physical reality is such that there simply isn’t enough to go around.

    The government could legislate its little heart out by saying that owning beach front property is a “natural right”, but the fact remains that there just isn’t enough to go around. Rationing must take place somehow. In a free market economy, that rationing takes place through prices. That will limit the consumption greatly, because not everyone can afford multi-million dollar mansions, but that does not affect the demand in the slightest.

    If free market forces cannot be allowed to control prices and ration the supply, then rationing must take place in some other fashion: random lottery, government patronage, political purity, somehow.

    But none of that affects the demand for beach front housing, only the consumption thereof.

    D’ya get it NOW, gumdrop?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  144. Stricter fuel standards reduce demand?

    Not on this planet. As the vehicles get smaller, to meet the standards, they start making more trips, to move the goods. Or people start buying bigger vehicles to fit the goods into them, even though they’re less efficient than a medium sized vehicle that isn’t made any more. And as we put more and more hardware onto the car to clean up the emissions, we add weight to the car, making it less efficient. It’s a complex and complicated system you oversimplify with “stricter fuel standards reduce demand.”

    htom (412a17)

  145. I was this close to praising about the length of this rolling and roiling argument over demand vs consumption, but then I read this on the BBC website this morning:

    Separately, the Food and Agricultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation have decided – after seven years of debate – what qualifies as a proper tomato.

    So, hell, take a coffee break guys, you still have six years and 363 days before you have to draw a conclusion on this crucial matter. And did they ever come up with an answer for how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? I kinda got distracted after a century or two.

    allan (e71c12)

  146. The demand for golf has lessened.

    “Not at all. Those golfers still want to golf, but they cannot. Their consumption has shifted, but the demand has not abated one iota. Neither a jot nor a tittle.”

    Yes it has has nimrod. Remember you have taken up stamp collecting. You are not consuming golf AT THAT PRICE. Thus, at that price your demand for golf has dried up. If the golf course wants you back they will have to lower the price thus incresing the demand.

    Somehow you have come up with the idea that since you’d still like to play golf that the demand is still there.

    Well, duh! What does “demand” mean, other than “I’d still like to do that”

    Now listen closely. Demand fluctuates based on the price. At the higher price you do not consume golf.

    And where did you go to school?

    I want to make dam sure I don’t send my kids to the same place.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  147. harpo – Does a low flow toilet, analagous to a higher mileage car, reduce your need for flushing capacity when you take big dump?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  148. harpo – Does a low flow toilet, analagous to a higher mileage car, reduce your need for flushing capacity when you take big dump?

    If I understand you correctly I’d say not. Though it does reduce the water usage your need for flushing capacity is what it is.

    And I suppose if you had a double flusher with the low flow that would have been a single flusher without, could mean less water usage without the low flow.

    I guess it all depends on how big the dump is, and how much flushing capacity is needed.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  149. Enforced, reduced consumption does not reduce demand.

    I don’t know how to break it to ya, but the laws of economics work even in the backwaters of Indiana’s golf courses.

    steve miller (724340)

  150. You are not consuming golf AT THAT PRICE.

    Because AT THAT PRICE, it reduces the CONSUMPTION, and does nothing to the underlying DEMAND.

    Being forced to settle for starvation doesn’t mean that the demand for food has lessened.

    Demand fluctuates based on the price. At the higher price you do not consume golf.

    You’re still conflating demand and consumption. This is false. Repeating this inaccuracy after having been informed of the inaccuracy is a LIE.

    Just because there is one less golfer and one more stamp collector does not mean that the demand has lessened. If the price went back down, the consumer would be able to fulfill that demand again.

    Changes the price only changes the number of people who can afford what you are offering, not the number of people who would want it, whether it’s gasoline, lemonade or snow skis in Riyadh.

    Salesmen know that in order to create consumption of a product or service, they have to create a demand for it. But there will ALWAYS be people want the commodity (DEMAND) but won’t be able to afford the commodity (CONSUMPTION). The goal of a free market economy is to have consumption equal the amount of commodity available (SUPPLY).

    Consumption is always less than demand.
    Prices will be stable when consumption exactly equals supply.
    If consumption exceeds supply, prices rise.
    If supply exceeds consumption, prices fall.

    Those are the basics of a free market. Anything a government does to interfere will always distort prices higher and drive supplies lower.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  151. Try this one, you uneducated fool.

    I buy a honda civic that is mandated by the government to get 35 miles per gallon.

    I retire my Mercedes (10 miles per gallon) that can no longer be sold as it doesn’t meet minimum fuels standards.

    I drive 12,000 miles per year.

    My demand for gasoline has gone from 1,200 gallons annually to 342 gallons annually.

    My demand for gas is lower. Higher fuel standards reduce demand you friggin nitwit.

    You are a stupid, stupid man.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  152. “Enforced, reduced consumption does not reduce demand.”

    Yes, it does. Fool.

    See above.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  153. Sometimes words are synonyms, such as “stupid” and “dolt.”

    Sometimes they are not synonyms, but related, such as “demand” and “consumption.”

    Increasing or decreasing consumption does not mean demand is reduced. It can more often mean that the price is too high or supply too low.

    Katrina of blessed memory witnessed a situation where there were people stranded on housetops because there weren’t enough helicopters. I doubt the people floating in the waves were simply reducing their demand. They were unable to consume their rescue because there weren’t enough helicopters.

    steve miller (724340)

  154. Shocked! Harpster is reduced to name-calling!

    Next he will come out with ill-chosen words.

    I’m devastated. All my clever arguments rebutted by an ad hominem.

    Who knew it was that easy?

    steve miller (724340)

  155. “Increasing or decreasing consumption does not mean demand is reduced.”

    In the case of oil, with a pretty inelastic demand, it does.

    I buy a honda civic that is mandated by the government to get 35 miles per gallon.

    I retire my Mercedes (10 miles per gallon) that can no longer be sold as it doesn’t meet minimum fuels standards.

    I drive 12,000 miles per year.

    My demand for gasoline has gone from 1,200 gallons annually to 342 gallons annually.

    My demand for gas is lower. Higher fuel standards reduce demand

    You’re coming around a little.

    “Increasing or decreasing consumption COULD not mean demand is reduced.”

    Off hand I don’t know what though.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  156. Reducing consumption does not reduce demand.

    steve miller (724340)

  157. steve miller and drumwater,

    You seem quite uneducated in economics.

    Where’d you two go to school?

    I’ve got two kids I’m ready to send to college and want to avoid the folks who taught you two.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  158. I thought you were all about “evidence.” What evidence is there that reducing consumption artificially through government fiat reduces demand?

    The plural of anecdote is not data, by the way.

    steve miller (724340)

  159. Where’d you two go to school?

    I learned from Thomas Sowell. You?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  160. Reducing consumption does not reduce demand.

    So I just point out how higher fuels standards reduce my consuption for gasoline by 800 odd gallons.

    Thus there will 800 gallons less in demand as I don’t need the gas.

    There is no way you passed any economics class.

    You’re both dropouts. Aren’t you?

    jharp (00ec6a)

  161. What evidence is there that reducing consumption artificially through government fiat reduces demand?

    I buy a honda civic that is mandated by the government to get 35 miles per gallon.

    I retire my Mercedes (10 miles per gallon) that can no longer be sold as it doesn’t meet minimum fuels standards.

    I drive 12,000 miles per year.

    My demand for gasoline has gone from 1,200 gallons annually to 342 gallons annually.

    My demand for gas is lower. Higher fuel standards reduce demand

    jharp (00ec6a)

  162. “I learned from Thomas Sowell.”

    Don’t know of such a place though I do know who Thomas Sewell is. I guess I was right. You’re a dropout.

    “You?”

    The Ohio State University.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  163. Thus there will 800 gallons less in demand as I don’t need the gas.

    Once again, the plural of anecdote is not data. And just because you reduce your personal concumption does not affect the hundreds of millions of other people who will be making different choices.

    Just because you are on a (government-imposed) diet doesn’t affect the famine going on in Africa. Even less would it affect the people who are not you who are using more gasoline.

    Where is your economics degree from? What year? Who taught you?

    Be specific, since you are claiming superiority over the “dropouts”.

    Or are you just a liar?

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  164. “I learned from Thomas Sowell.”

    Don’t know of such a place

    Living in that other dimension as you do, I’m not surprised.

    though I do know who Thomas Sewell is. I guess I was right. You’re a dropout.

    I know who Halie Selassie is, too. I guess I was right. You’re a liar.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  165. Thus there will 800 gallons less in demand as I don’t need the gas.

    “And just because you reduce your personal concumption does not affect the hundreds of millions of other people who will be making different choices.”

    This is the part that gets tricky for the mentally challenged.

    If it is mandated by the federal goverment those hundreds of millions will be making similar choices and the gas hogs will no longer be for sale.

    “Just because you are on a (government-imposed) diet doesn’t affect the famine going on in Africa.”

    Put the pipe down. This is ridiculously absurd. And has nothing to do with the demand for oil.

    “Even less would it affect the people who are not you who are using more gasoline.”

    The idea behind higher fuel standards is they apply to everyone.

    Where is your economics degree from? What year? Who taught you?

    The Ohio State University. And my degree is in accounting though I did study economics for two years.

    Be specific, since you are claiming superiority over the “dropouts”.

    I’m not “superior”. It’s just I know something where you know nothing.

    Or are you just a liar?

    No. I might be a lot of things but a liar is not one of them. I take great pride in being honest.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  166. I take great pride in being honest.

    You wouldn’t know ‘honest’ if it run up your leg, crawled up your front and pissed up your nose.

    I’ve proven that you are a liar over and over again, not to mention a fool and a poltroon. (That last word means “coward”, since you aren’t smart enough to have a multi-syllabic vocabulary.)

    And my degree is in accounting though I did study economics for two years.

    That’s like saying “I can add and subtract, so I can become a psychiatrist.”

    You’re a liar. You claim to have studied economics, yet can’t tell the difference between demand and consumption. That is the equivalent of claiming to have studied medicine for two years, yet not be able to tell the difference between “boy” and “girl”.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  167. I’m out for the night.

    And Drumwater and steve miller it does not pleasure me pointing out your stupidity. I would really like for you to learn and make informed decisions. The whole country will be better off for it.

    Please open your mind and listen and learn and evaluate.

    Senator McCain is proposing increasing fuel standards for God’s sake.

    No one disputes that it reduces dependence on foreign oil. No one except you two.

    Anyways have a nice holiday and I’ll see you around.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  168. No one disputes that it reduces dependence on foreign oil.

    What you have said is that it will reduce DEMAND. We have proved that it will only reduce CONSUMPTION. There is always a gap between DEMAND and CONSUMPTION, with the margin determined by the price that is set.

    You are now lying to avoid having to admit that you got caught with your pants down. Again.

    You are a liar.

    Pathetic.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  169. jharp, you’ve throughly confounded consumption and demand; they are different.

    Consumption is how much you use.

    Demand is how much you want.

    You can have a high demand for a product and a low consumption (and vice versa.)

    Because you’ve sold your gas-guzzler has not decreased your demand for transportation; that has (presumably) remained constant. Your consumption of gas to meet your demand has declined. But that is because you changed cars, not because of the fuel standards. You decided to change cars, the fuel standards did not change your car.

    htom (412a17)

  170. “Because you’ve sold your gas-guzzler has not decreased your demand for transportation”

    Please take the time to think about your remark,

    It illustrates my point quite well.

    It very well might not decrease my demand for transportation. It might or might not.

    But it will take less fuel for me take care of my transportation needs.

    “But that is because you changed cars, not because of the fuel standards.”

    No, the reason I changed cars is because I needed a new one.

    ‘You decided to change cars”

    Only out of necessity.

    “the fuel standards did not change your car”

    Yes, they did. And that is exactly the point. I was forced to buy a more fuel efficient car because that is what the federal government has mandated.

    I hope this helps.

    jharp (00ec6a)

  171. I take great pride in being honest.

    Coffee-spewer on that one. Woot! Woot!

    JD (a6d772)

  172. Reducing Consumption Reduces Demand.

    It’s that simple.

    We just overturn economics because Harpster says so.

    steve miller (724340)

  173. I was forced to buy a more fuel efficient car because that is what the federal government has mandated.

    Can you point us to the law that forces you to buy a more fuel efficient car, please? It must identify you specifically.

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  174. #166 Guess I have to revise my opinion of THE Ohio State University’s educational standards. I studied economics at THE Jesuit school Villanova University and apparently the priests know more about teaching economics and even English than do those tenured liberal professors smoking their ganja from THE OSU. I do hope you learned your lesson about supply/demand/consumption from drumwaster. While you’re at it try to learn the difference between proper usage of they’re, there and their. Hoosiers should also be more tolerant of those with whom they disagree during polemical exercises. Bless you my child.

    madmax333 (5f1d8d)

  175. I see jharp still hasn’t dealt with the fact that CAFE standards have killed thousands of people.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  176. I see jharp still hasn’t dealt with the fact that CAFE standards have killed thousands of people.

    Were you seriously expecting him to?

    Paul (0ea0cf)

  177. Nope, I was not.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  178. More fuel efficient cars use less fuel.

    Using less fuel is a reduction in demand

    You obviously do not understand people, more efficient cars does not necessarily reduce demand it just means they can drive more on the same amount of money. 😉

    Dan Kauffman (b31cae)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1513 secs.