Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

[Peer81]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

Sorry little off-topic,

Am I the only one that gets a little nervous when I look a the dollars exchange history? Within the last year a 30 cents drop and from that 30 cents within the last 1.5 months a 12 cents drop!! The financial injection from last month had no result what so ever. I hope it will be over soon for you guys but at this rate it's inflation big time. I hope not to many people are already at or over there spending limit compared to there income because thing you need on a daily bases could and maybe will get a lot more expensive. Like Tim says wheat and crown are already up and not by a few %.

The way some of us look at it from over here in Europe (sorry to say this) is that the US is spending more and more money every year, money that just isn't there. Its not a question if it goes wrong but when. 4 years ago it was the ever strong dollar against the weak euro. But the last two years the dollar is slowly sliding away. Not to hard so nobody panics on the stock market (with panic the dollar will fall like a stone in water) but the last month its taking up speed at a for me uncomfortable rate. Sorry for this off-topic part but it looks to my like an important part of this problem.

Groeten Peter

[roushstage2]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

Sorry little off-topic,

The way some of us look at it from over here in Europe (sorry to say this) is that the US is spending more and more money every year, money that just isn't there. Its not a question if it goes wrong but when. 4 years ago it was the ever strong dollar against the weak euro. But the last two years the dollar is slowly sliding away. Not to hard so nobody panics on the stock market (with panic the dollar will fall like a stone in water) but the last month its taking up speed at a for me uncomfortable rate. Sorry for this off-topic part but it looks to my like an important part of this problem.

Groeten Peter

From the US POV, you have to consider several factors, one of which is the enormous deficit that is being dug by what is basically open borders and NAFTA which is basically selling out the US. US population is estimated to rise to about 435 million by ~2050 due to immigration (85% of that population rise will be from immigration). As of right now, the US population would only be around 200-225 million if there wasn't mass immigration taking place. The rate of Growth is going up in the US due to immigration as well, and the more young people there are, there will be more debt because it takes quite a bit of money to raise a child, who cannot actually contribute to the economy for ~16 years. Unfortunately, immigration will need to stop or drastically slow down.

Not to mention the illegal immigration problem coming from Mexico. Mexico is the largest contributor of immigrants, of which about 2/3 are illegal. Mexico's population is about 108 million, of which 20-30 million are in the US right now (so you figure about 10-20 million are here illegally). All of that money that is made in this economy, leaves and goes into another. And when you consider the implications in place from NAFTA, Mexico is basically buying products from us using our money.

The US is losing $100,000,000,000 internationally annually due to remittances, with about $20-30 billion to Mexico alone. With that, a $38,000,000,000 trade deficit with just Mexico alone.

CA alone is about ~$15 billion in debt. One year of no remittances just to Mexico would easily pay off the entire state of CA's debt. Figure what $100 billion into the economy could do for the dollar. The stimulus package is a waste of money. Most likely, it will be used to pay off debt, which just means the money will go right to the banks, not the economy; or people will spend it on items made in other countries (China---Wal-Mart), and it will leave the country. All of that money should be used to build infrastructure, which is what this country really needs. Any of you, especially those in CA, know about the traffic congestion. Need more roads, but guess what, no money. If you live in, or have been to Sacramento, CA, you know what I mean. Sacramento is one of the worst places in the US as far as traffic congestion. I believe it is (or almost is) the city with the highest amount of gas wasted in the country from cars sitting in traffic. Nothing goes far with out infrastructure.

I hear people talking about how the government just needs to stay out of it, and all will be fine. Completely wrong. Although, the new military contract really needs to stay in the US with Boeing, not to Airbus overseas. That is military (Government) spending which boosts the economy. If those billions of dollars go overseas, bye bye. If it stays here, there will be more jobs and money in the economy. Boeing is a very, very specialized company and specialization like that needs to stay home, regardless of what country.

You see on the chart, Canada and Mexico are the 2 biggest suppliers of oil to the US. That takes place because of NAFTA, but when you consider what is happening to the dollar, and the rest of the economy in the US and the world, it won't necessarily be cheap.

What will it take for a steady state economy? What will it take to get the market to get back to equilibrium? All of these things are ultimately affecting the dollar [negatively], and unless something is done, the future will be looking mighty grim here.

[HagFan]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

Rarely does government interference with trade and free markets have a positive effect, let alone the desired effect. The market, itself, is very efficient at weeding out bad ideas.

Here's an op-ed by Walter Williams that ran in our paper today. The Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax .

[roushstage2]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

The thing is the when the government makes a move in the market, there are several other factors to go along with it (imports, exports, savings, investments, interest rates, depreciation, consumption, induced taxes, autonomous taxes, inventories, GDP, prices, demand, etc). How those factors react is a part of it. The government is often looked down upon in the market because of a "bad move." The thing is, there are many bad moves everyday, it is just the government's moves are much larger than individuals and companies. The economy has been set up the same way, and the government has always been involved...

Government is needed one way or another. The economy is based upon "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith (who says government involvement is essential) and by John Adams, "The Father of Modern Economy." If I remember correctly, Adams shares the same idea.

[Peer81]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

I think this picture gives the general idea.



Groeten Peter

[benhui86]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

How would that solve anything? Diesel is $0.75 per gallon higher here in Texas than regular 87 octane, and my van currently gets between 14 and 16 MPG.

If anything, buying a diesel will only add to my fuel bill, along with adding a HIGHER vehicle payment..........no thanks

the dodge sprinter gets 25mpg.... so while diesel does cost a bit more.... your using quite less of it....so if you drive your van a lot... like on a daily basis... a dodge sprinter might be a good choice.... you can sell your van and use that as your downpayment....

[HagFan]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

Governments need to be involved in the economy and markets in the sense that a rules committee is involved with a sporting event--as regulators and rule makers. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that goverment be the referee, but I'd settle for that over them being active contestants.

I think we're seeing that self-regulation can at times fail the market, like in the current sub-prime (mortgage) lending debacle. With oil we may be seeing too much regulation, particularly with regard to refinery expansion in the U.S.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

How would that solve anything? Diesel is $0.75 per gallon higher here in Texas than regular 87 octane, and my van currently gets between 14 and 16 MPG.

If anything, buying a diesel will only add to my fuel bill, along with adding a HIGHER vehicle payment..........no thanks

the dodge sprinter gets 25mpg.... so while diesel does cost a bit more.... your using quite less of it....so if you drive your van a lot... like on a daily basis... a dodge sprinter might be a good choice.... you can sell your van and use that as your downpayment....

Like I mentioned in another post, do the math:

Assuming you're getting an average of 15mpg now and paying $3.25/gal for regular 87 octane unleaded, let's use an annual mileage of 15,000. In this scenario you'll use 1,000 gallons of fuel at a total annual cost of $3,250.00

If the Sprinter offers 25mpg and diesel fuel is $0.75 more per gallon then you'd only use 600 gallons of fuel to cover the same 15,000 miles. But your annual fuel cost falls to $2,400.00 which is a savings of $850/year. If you drive less obviously the annual savings is less, if you drive more the savings is greater.

It's a natural reaction to recoil at a $0.75 jump in unit fuel price, and hard to imagine that the increase in fuel economy can overcome it, but as I just pointed out - it can!!!

Now it's up to you to find out what sort of deal you can get on a Sprinter and how that might impact your monthly payments.

[TXShine]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

This would be similar to the Hybrid vs Non-Hybrid money saving debate. And according to what I’ve read most Hybrid-car experts say most people are unlikely to recoup through gas savings that initial extra cost of the Hybrid over the course of an average ownership. IIRC, there was a Motor Trend magazine article that stated you would have to drive a Hybrid at least 100,000 miles just to offset that extra cost.

All that being said, working off of base prices (new) the Sprinter is about $10,000 more than a Chevy or Ford van. Realistically I don’t think that amount would ever be recouped. BWT, recouping the cost of the Hybrid is based off of a $1200.00 to $5000.00 cost increase over it’s Non-Hybrid counterpart. So, that gives some perspective on what it would take to recoup that $10,000. And sure one could argue that they could get the Sprinter cheaper, but that also applies to the Chevy or Ford vans as well.

Mike, in no way am I arguing your hard facts just adding some. As you said, it would be up to the individual to see how it would all work for them.

FWIW, I’ve been looking at getting my wife a new work car \ grocery getter since my daughter has taking over our Camry, that’s the reason I’ve been doing a little reading on Hybrids. Her Yukon is really costing us since her commute is around 25 miles one way and she is constantly running around.
Anyway, a new Honda Civic EX-L Sedan or Civic Si Sedan is at the top of our list at the moment. Anyone have comments about the Civic?
Sorry if I’ve gotten to far off-topic................

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

Mike, in no way am I arguing your hard facts just adding some. As you said, it would be up to the individual to see how it would all work for them.

I completely agree with you on all points!

In so many cases where a car is available as either a Hybrid or conventional powertrain the difference in initial cost taken against what is often a very meager increase in fuel economy is very often difficult to justify unless you drive a lot and keep the car for a very long time.

But when you're talking a 10mpg increase, like we are with the Sprinter and the existing van, it has the potential to make a real difference if the cost of entry is similar.

[roushstage2]

Re: Gas Prices..this thread got me wondering

Governments need to be involved in the economy and markets in the sense that a rules committee is involved with a sporting event--as regulators and rule makers. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that goverment be the referee, but I'd settle for that over them being active contestants.

I think we're seeing that self-regulation can at times fail the market, like in the current sub-prime (mortgage) lending debacle. With oil we may be seeing too much regulation, particularly with regard to refinery expansion in the U.S.

I agree.