Only the rich will drive everyday

FloggingSully · 05-12-2008, 04:37 PM

"Highways get used..... Trains dont.

And dont try to say "If you build it, they will come." We HAD them. We like cars better. For all sorts of reasons.

Luckily there are still a few rational politicians left who know we can throw all the money in the world at trains here America, but AMERICANS JUST DONT WANT THEM. Get over it!"

-Highways get used because they are usually more convenient than trains, they are more convenient because trains don't exist most places. Have you ever met someone who lived in an area with good public transit (Boston, DC, NY, Chicago) and prefered commuting by car instead of train?

-We had them, we liked cars better because we didn't have the same congestion problems and cas was really cheap, as gas get's more expensive more people will want to ride public transit. My girlfriend rides a bus and a train to work everyday and says that they're getting more and more crowded everyday, so apparently some people want public transit. And there are plenty of people (myself included) who would love to have an option of riding public transit to work every day.

-Hopefully we'll have enough "rational politicians" to realize that people want public transit, if we invested as much money in public transit as we do in roads/highways we'd be about as worried about $4/gallon gas as the Europeans.

Tight-Waist · 05-12-2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"Highways get used..... Trains dont.

And dont try to say "If you build it, they will come." We HAD them. We like cars better. For all sorts of reasons.

Luckily there are still a few rational politicians left who know we can throw all the money in the world at trains here America, but AMERICANS JUST DONT WANT THEM. Get over it!"

-Highways get used because they are usually more convenient than trains, they are more convenient because trains don't exist most places. Have you ever met someone who lived in an area with good public transit (Boston, DC, NY, Chicago) and prefered commuting by car instead of train?
Well Sully, by the traffic present on I-95 ALONE it appears that most people vote with their pocketbooks and their cars. And they are STILL choosing the automobile. Never forget we HAD rail dominance once before and it died for a reason. It was SLOOOOOOWWWWW.

-We had them, we liked cars better because we didn't have the same congestion problems and cas was really cheap, as gas get's more expensive more people will want to ride public transit. My girlfriend rides a bus and a train to work everyday and says that they're getting more and more crowded everyday, so apparently some people want public transit. And there are plenty of people (myself included) who would love to have an option of riding public transit to work every day.

I wouldnt doubt that some are making that choice in the very crowded cities. But that is only a small segment of the working public. In addition to time, Americans LOVE their privacy. They want to listen to their radio stations, drive at their pace and stop when they want. But the fact remains,... If you build it, they still wont come... as Amtrack proved. Even high gas prices wont change the vast majority of American habit.

-Hopefully we'll have enough "rational politicians" to realize that people want public transit, if we invested as much money in public transit as we do in roads/highways we'd be about as worried about $4/gallon gas as the Europeans.
If they wanted it Sully, the train between OKC and Dallas wouldnt be deserted and I DO mean deserted. I dont want to waste $billions if not $trillions to findout what America has been saying for over 70 years. They LOVE their car and the FREEDOM that it brings.

Like I said, if this was Europe, it might fly, but this most definately isnt Europe.

FloggingSully · 05-12-2008, 05:30 PM

"Well Sully, by the traffic present on I-95 ALONE it appears that most people vote with their pocketbooks and their cars. And they are STILL choosing the automobile. Never forget we HAD rail dominance once before and it died for a reason. It was SLOOOOOOWWWWW."

-I used to commute on I-95 during the summer when I was in high school, my dad did it for years, had there been a public transit option we both would have jumped at it. A 20 mile drive took between 90 minutes and 2 hours (how slow is rail again?). My brother currently commutes into Boston everyday by train, he does so because it's faster, cheaper, and more convenient. I bet if you asked 100 of those people commuting in stop and go traffic along I-95 everyday if they'd rather take the subway to their jobs and I'd bet 90 of them would say yes.

"I wouldnt doubt that some are making that choice in the very crowded cities. But that is only a small segment of the working public. In addition to time, Americans LOVE their privacy. They want to listen to their radio stations, drive at their pace and stop when they want. But the fact remains,... If you build it, they still wont come... as Amtrack proved. Even high gas prices wont change the vast majority of American habit."

-It's only a small percentage because only a small percentage are serviced by public transit. Look at prices for appartments close to public transit compared to ones further away, you'd be surprised at how much people are willing to pay to have access to public transit.
-I agree people like their own radio stations/music, but there's this great new invention called an "Ipod" which allows people to keep listening to their own music while on the bus train. I also agree that people would like to drive at their own pace, but you obviously haven't ever been on 95 during rush hour because I'd bet my last dollar that no one wants to drive that slow.
-And high gas prices will change American's habits, public transit ridership is up (and would continue to go up if service was expanded) and gas comsumption is down. As everyone who's taken economics can tell you, as the price of a good or service goes up the demand for cheaper alternatives will also increase. We're seeing that now and I couldn't be happier.

"If they wanted it Sully, the train between OKC and Dallas wouldnt be deserted and I DO mean deserted. I dont want to waste $billions if not $trillions to findout what America has been saying for over 70 years. They LOVE their car and the FREEDOM that it brings. "

-You're probably right, but I'd argue that things would be very different if there were good subway systems in OKC and Dallas, of course no one would take a train to a city where they can't get around without a car. But if they could get around at their destination without a car things would be different.
-People have been choseing cars for 70 years because cars were cheap and because we spend trillions of dollars making car travel more convenient than other forms of travel. As oil continues to go up in price, and as we (hopefully) increase the availablity and convenience of public transit, more and more people will chose that option (which has been shown in peoples responce to recent gas price increases).

skipster · 05-13-2008, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"I merely pointed out that Brazil uses cane sugar athanol for motor vehicle fuel, not oil. If disparities in wealth were indiccative of a bad nation or economy, as matclone implies, we can see that using alternative fuels won't change income distribution."

-You stated that grassoline wasn't economically viable, if Brazil is only using grassoline and their economcy isn't going down the tubes then I think it makes a decent argument that grassoline is actually economically viable (at least in Brazil). Just because there is income disparities in Brazil (as there are in every country) doesn't prove that alternative fuels won't change income distribution. Does anyone know what kind of trend exists in the income gap in Brazil? Just because the income disparity exists doesn't mean that it isn't getting smaller or that any factor in the economy isn't having an effect on income disparity.

"When we talk about industry shaping consumer demand, some of you are saying that individuals have no capability of making decisions on their own and are required to buy whatever is advertised to them."

-Who is saying that?

"I am saying that people will make up their own minds, regardless of advertising."

-No, you said "Industry can't shape consumer demand" which is false, industry spends tons of money on advertising because it can shape consumer demand. They can't force anyone to buy anything, but then definitley can and do shape demand.

OK, we're having trouble communicating here. Matclone used large income disparity to say that a country and its economy were in bad shape. I just threw out there that changing to alternative fuels won't change that. But, if we want to see what happens during and after that change, all we have to do is look at Brazil. Their entire nation nearly went bankrupt during the switch and now they are using more of a food crop for fuel than they are using for food, so they must import something they grow in higher quantities than anyone else!

But, thank you for telling us that income disparity is not an economic problem. WAY too many people think it is.

Who is saying people will buy whatever is advertised to them?? You and matclone, among others!! Understand that for industry to shape demand, the consumer would have to have absolutely no say in what he buys. Perhaps you have never run a business before. When you run a business, you are constantly looking for what the consumer wants -- you are conducting market studies and surveys to find what they want -- this is called marketing. You find what people want and you find ways to tell them they can buy it from you. No one has a "make up things and try to convince people to buy them" department. That would present overwhelming risk. Industry is amazingly reactive -- a lot of people don't understand that.

arm-spin · 05-13-2008, 11:21 AM

I read an article a while back that suggested that the U.S. government should run another "Manhattan Project"... get all the best and brightest minds in science together in one place, with the goal of creating new technologies that run without oil or gas... would decease dependance on the Middle East and hopefully help the environment as well. I don't remember who wrote it, but I thought it was a good idea, especially if gas prices keep skyrocketing.

Tight-Waist · 05-13-2008, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by arm-spin

I read an article a while back that suggested that the U.S. government should run another "Manhattan Project"... get all the best and brightest minds in science together in one place, with the goal of creating new technologies that run without oil or gas... would decease dependance on the Middle East and hopefully help the environment as well. I don't remember who wrote it, but I thought it was a good idea, especially if gas prices keep skyrocketing.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that we need to drill in ANWR and offshore.

FloggingSully · 05-13-2008, 12:25 PM

"OK, we're having trouble communicating here. Matclone used large income disparity to say that a country and its economy were in bad shape. I just threw out there that changing to alternative fuels won't change that"
-No, you threw out that Brazil's switch to biofuels wasn't economically feasible, since the country is using mostly biofuels and their economy is improving, I think it stands to reason that biofuels are economically feasible in brazil.

"But, if we want to see what happens during and after that change, all we have to do is look at Brazil. Their entire nation nearly went bankrupt during the switch and now they are using more of a food crop for fuel than they are using for food, so they must import something they grow in higher quantities than anyone else!"
-The country lost money during the switch, but what has happened since than? Brazil's economy is increasing, they have very little dependence on foreign oil, are getting the vast majority of their electric power is from sustainable/renewable sources? Basically they have accomplished a most of the energy goals the US is still trying to reach.
-Brazil's biofuels are based on sugar (not corn like in the US). Sugar may be considered a food crop, but it certainly isn't a staple food, I haven't heard of anyone starving or getting malnurished because they could no longer afford to buy sugar.

"But, thank you for telling us that income disparity is not an economic problem. WAY too many people think it is"
-Show me where I said income disparity isn't an economic problem. You said that Brazil's energy policy wasn't economically feasible because they have huge income disparity, I said that income disparity is only useful in determining the success of a policy if you look at a trend in income disparity. Looking at a snapshot of an economic indicator isn't going to tell you anything about the effectivness of any policy.

"Who is saying people will buy whatever is advertised to them?? You and matclone, among others!!"
-Again, show me where I said anything of the sort.

"Understand that for industry to shape demand, the consumer would have to have absolutely no say in what he buys."
-That is simply false, people can buy whatever they want, but industry can influence what people want to buy, if industry couldn't they wouldn't bother to advertise their products.

"You find what people want and you find ways to tell them they can buy it from you."
-Which increases demand for the product. Read an intro to econ text book, demand increases as people become aware of a product and it becomes more available. If you make people aware of a product, and make it readily available you will increase the demand for that good.

arm-spin · 05-13-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that we need to drill in ANWR and offshore.

Not quite what I'm suggesting; that would be getting oil from a different source, not developing alternate energy sources.

FloggingSully · 05-13-2008, 12:30 PM

"It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that we need to drill in ANWR and offshore."

-Do the math TW, we can get (at most) 1 million gallons/day from ANWR, the US uses 20 million per day, if the US makes up half the demand for oil worldwide then worldwide demand would be 40 million barrels/day (40 is a conservative estimate, someone quoted 80-something in another thread). So drilling in ANWR could increase world supply by at most 2.5%, since oil is has inelastic demand the price decrease from a 2.5% increase in supply would be less than 2.5%. 2.5% of 4 dollars/gallon is 10 cents, in other words, drilling in ANWR would result in a less (probably much less) than 10 cent decrease in the price of gas.

Tight-Waist · 05-13-2008, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that we need to drill in ANWR and offshore."

-Do the math TW, we can get (at most) 1 million gallons/day from ANWR, the US uses 20 million per day, if the US makes up half the demand for oil worldwide then worldwide demand would be 40 million barrels/day (40 is a conservative estimate, someone quoted 80-something in another thread). So drilling in ANWR could increase world supply by at most 2.5%, since oil is has inelastic demand the price decrease from a 2.5% increase in supply would be less than 2.5%. 2.5% of 4 dollars/gallon is 10 cents, in other words, drilling in ANWR would result in a less (probably much less) than 10 cent decrease in the price of gas.

First of all, I didnt limit that to JUST AWNR. I included ALL offshore areas as well.
Second of all, I'd take a 10% cut in energy costs ANYDAY! And if you think it doesnt make any difference, then lets just ADD 10% and see how you like that!

The point about ANWR especially is the reasons for NOT drilling there are just incredibly narrow-minded borderering on fallacious. The area impacted is about the size of an average metropolitan airport while AWNR itself is roughly the size of Delaware. That area itself is promoted as a pristine forrested paradise when infact it is barren tundra with nothing growing higher than your kneecap. Frankly I cant think of a BETTER place to plant a drilling platform!

Only the rich will drive everyday

Politics & Religion