With Our Already High Fuel Prices This Is Really Going To Hit The Pocketbook

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does trust really matter though?
Isn't it accuracy that matters when we're considering who's right and who's wrong - and not an authors ability to present themselves as 'trustworthy'?
Accuracy absolutely matters, so when sources present opposing data and/or conclusions, a closer look is completely appropriate. One of the things that was brought up for closer examination was a given source's potential motivation for drawing a conclusion. I "trust" the conclusions of the more nuanced studies which look at how the generation source of electricity used to charge a battery affects a vehicle's lifetime emissions (amongst many other variables) more than the other standalone paper which did not examine such a range of real-life circusmstances. It just so happens that considering potential motivations of the authors also backs up my reasonable conclusion.
 
Just to add: The previously posted graph that allegedly demonstrates a very long time until an electric car vehicle's lifetime emissions are exceeded by those from a diesel vehicle came from VW's data and compared only a VW diesel Golf to a VW e-golf. In real life, there are many other vehicles, battery systems, power grids, etc. than what is presented by that single graph from 2019.
 
Just to add: The previously posted graph that allegedly demonstrates a very long time until an electric car vehicle's lifetime emissions are exceeded by those from a diesel vehicle came from VW's data and compared only a VW diesel Golf to a VW e-golf. In real life, there are many other vehicles, battery systems, power grids, etc. than what is presented by that single graph from 2019.
Also, VW's "clean diesel" emissions data is somewhat suspect!

 
My skepticism stems from 20+ years as an enterprise-level strategy consultant helping businesses, non-profits and government entities develop and execute strategies for (what they deemed important) their strategic success. One of the truisms of strategic (vice tactical) thinking is this quote: “ The best way to predict the future is to invent it." Alan Kay The corollary to that is another strategic truism: “Bad Predictions are common”: Although there are dozens of lists of historically bad predictions about the future on the net, this one is pretty comprehensive:

http://crazy-frankenstein.com/top-80-bad-predictions-about-the-future.html

So how does this influence the way I think? I am not only skeptical of the doomsday predictions by climate warriors all of whom have a vested interest in the here and now $$$, but am seriously skeptical of all the tactical solutions they adhere to. Worthwhile and successful tactics stem from having a clearly defined comprehensive future that everyone agrees on. In the case of dealing with climate change (a process that has gone on for eons), the future should be laid out in cultural, economic, biological, political and environment terms in a manner that everyone can clearly understand what future we are trying to achieve. That really hasn’t been done and every time someone points out an adverse consequence of some climate tactic, they are ridiculed as climate change deniers. Right now we seem to be fine with destroying economies, living in a culture where “do as I say, not as I do” by elites is OK and authoritarian economic and social policies/corruption are seemly the norm.

I reserve my right to be skeptical after 74.5 years on this planet.
So I take it that you give greater credence to the sources that you cite than to those sources cited by others, even if that is not precisely what you said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS
So I take it that you give greater credence to the sources that you cite than to those sources cited by others, even if that is not precisely what you said.
I am always skeptical of both sides. It just seems logical however to always try and present opposing or conflicting views to one-sided discussions.
 
Last edited:
The current inflation rate is impacting many if not all of us. Many retirees are living on a fixed income; similar to living paycheck to paycheck. It sucks!

Millennials need to understand that this is not unique to their generation. Many of us older types have been through it before. In 1982 inflation was almost 15% (almost twice as high as current rate). Mortgages had a rate of 18%+. Gasoline prices went up 35% in the early 1980's. The price of gas in 1982, adjusted for inflation, is almost $4.25. Close to today's price. The entire decade of the 1980's was higher inflation. Yet we survived - sorta.

It is a shame that many people feel that they will never be able to retire. But the longest bull market in history from 2008 through the pandemic was a time to help build the nest egg. To not take advantage of that was a missed opportunity. But opportunities still exist. Right now Series I Savings Bonds are paying 9.62% (for the next 6 months). They have a base rate and the total rate is tied to inflation. I would of been leaping for joy if I could of gotten 9%+ on my investments. With the markets down 20%+ a return of that high and be so low risk, an opportunity not to be missed IMHO. Put a little bit in each month and start building that nest egg...

Now back to irregular but much anticipated (unfortunately) news fights...
In 1973 the US went through a gas shortage/price hike generated by OPEC so intense that gas lines to the pumps stretched for blocks, customers were limited to ten gallons, prices vaulted from fifty cents a gallon to over a dollar a gallon, and the national speed limit was reduced from 65mph to 55mph.
The primary cause of that particular shortage? President Nixon had imposed a price cap on oil barrel prices in 1971, which caused US oil producers to shut down domestic production over the next two years due to insufficient margins, doubling our demand for foreign oil, which OPEC responded to by reducing their production while raising their per barrel cost.
The situation only moderated when Nixon removed the domestic cap price and offered tax incentives to the domestic oil producers to ramp pumping back up on an accelerated basis, a move OPEC met by increasing their own production and lowering their prices, not willing to lose a drop of market share.
OPEC has been raking us over at every chance they get since they were formed in 1960. And whatever the gas pump price is each day, it does not include the 81 Billion in taxpayer dollars the US spends each year protecting our 'national interest' in oil producing countries around the world, or the American blood spilt doing so.
And what did OPEC recently do? Cut back production and raised prices just as the Russian oil embargo took hold, going right back to their 73' playbook, which has been rolled out regularly at every global opportunity, regardless of who is the US president or who holds congress at the time.
OPEC has all the leverage and will continue to do so as long as our political construct remains focused on our social divisions, instead of moving our country forward with a new model emphasizing domestic energy production that includes oil, gas, wind, solar, tidal and nuclear. Energy independence first, providing a reduction in costs to the average American while keeping our dollars at home, and then we can focus on how to make it more 'green' later.
 
Last edited:
I am always skeptical of both sides. It just seems logical however to alway try and present opposing or conflicting views to one-sided discussions.
It's always good to look at other perspectives and new data. If however, the perspective is backed up by garbage data, I never want to be the guy spreading it. I never want to be the guy spreading bullshit data. We see plenty of that out there. It's remarkable how many will call other people on garbage data and then use their own. Just because there is an alternate perspective does not mean that it has equal weight. It's usually easy to figure out too, but we'd rather win an argument than learn something most of the time.

It's probably best to not think in terms of opposing or conflicting views, in my opinion. I don't even care too much for "views" or "beliefs" per se. People playing the contrarian and cherry picking data is something that I find beyond frustrating. Most issues are not black and white or binary in nature. perspectives need not be opposing or conflicting. We've all been trained by the news shows where people just argue for the sake of argument. I sure wish we had a few more David Brooks' and a whole lot less Carville or Carlson in our discourse. I disagree with Brooks a lot but he is at least humble as well as principled and he makes me think rather than feel.

A good example is the VW data that was presented here. Why would one use just one vehicle, especially one as scarce as a VW diesel? It's clearly an attempt to make it a discussion where there is one answer or another. It's presented in a binary form in a world filled with spectrums. It also seems to miss the point that electricity is a local/ regional market. One could make the case that, climate change wise, a car that is electric is far more helpful if bought and run in WA where we have 74% of our electricity coming from hydro. The same car in Delaware would be powered indirectly from natural gas (94%). If in Kentucky, it would likely be powered by coal. Getting back to the subject at hand, that would lend some backing to increasing gas prices here, through taxes. It is market manipulation but all of the energy sector is subject to government manipulation.

More rambling thoughts from the NW of the NW. Go Pats.
 
For those of you that have retired or those who have 401K’s what’s your opinion of the last two years. If it’s going bye - bye you can’t buy an EV or gas…or food etc. So take your charts and graphs and go home.
 
@SurfnFish - thank you for the background and perspective on where we are today. In 1973-74 I was working at Champion Car Wash in Bham while going to WWSC. Remember those lines well...
 
Back to the original OP’s point.

The price of gas really hasn’t changed much when compared to something we all do (or would like to do). I started driving in SoCal in ‘66. The lowest gas price I remember was .24.9 cents/gal. In 1972, I took my first float trip on the Yellowstone guided by Parks Fly Shop. Although my monthly take home pay at the time was approximately $60, I was able to spurge on a $25, full day float because my grand mother gifted it to me. At the time we were in Great Falls and gas was 31.9 cents/gal. The drive to Gardiner was about 3 hours and we were very conscience of gas prices. In Gardiner, gas was .39.9 cents/gal —outrageous. Looking back 40 cents a gallon was just 1/64 or 1.5% the price of a full day float. Fast forward to 2022. Gas at $4.00 a gallon and a recent full day float on the Yellowstone was $600. Just about .65% the price of the float. Today, making a 6 figure retirement income for as long as I breath, the price of gas is still within reason compared to those cherished float trips. Indeed however, increasing energy costs do drive up the cost of just about everything we do—essential and non-essential.
 
I'm not sure who the "we" is you refer to, in Washington (state) the minimum wage has increased yearly since 2017, from WA DLI:

"Initiative 1433, approved by Washington voters in 2016, requires a statewide minimum wage of $11.00 in 2017, $11.50 in 2018, $12.00 in 2019, and $13.50 in 2020. In 2022, the minimum wage in Washington is $14.49 per hour." The minium wage is scheduled to increase to $15.74/hour next year.

Would I want to try and exist on minimum wage? No! I don't think the minium wage program was truly intended to be career wage.

It seems the inflation rate that @Old406Kid has shown is lower than than what I'm seeing in our monthly food budget.
Oregon followed the same flawed logic…
Politicians are truly a bunch of morons!!

But hey…they got theirs and some of y’all voted them in there to do so.

‘Nuff said 🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️🤦🏼‍♂️
 
Last edited:
The Manhattan Institute does not appear to be a neutral source. Wilkipedia says The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a conservative American think tank focused on domestic policy and urban affairs, These data have a look of being cherry picked to make a point. I question your source.
Neither is Volkswagen. Although they are producing EVs at this time, it was not long ago they demonstrated the level of dishonesty they were capable of to sell diesel cars in America.
 
For those of you that have retired or those who have 401K’s what’s your opinion of the last two years. If it’s going bye - bye you can’t buy an EV or gas…or food etc. So take your charts and graphs and go home.

For those depending on 401k savings now or who planned to in the next 1-5 years, your investments should have been protected. If it has gone bye - bye that’s on you. It was not all that long ago that we had to learn this lesson.

This is investing 101. Not rocket science. If you have taken more of a hit than you can absorb to be able to meet your “reasonable” financial goals, you have a bad…or at least unreasonable plan in place.
 
For those depending on 401k savings now or who planned to in the next 1-5 years, your investments should have been protected. If it has gone bye - bye that’s on you. It was not all that long ago that we had to learn this lesson.

This is investing 101. Not rocket science. If you have taken more of a hit than you can absorb to be able to meet your “reasonable” financial goals, you have a bad…or at least unreasonable plan in place.
It is not real until you cash out. No one lost a penny. I am amazed how many people don't understand this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top