"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in
news:u5oeh1tgctje85ad5nsc3cnfj016d08hha@4ax.com:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:58:30 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in
news:bskeh1t3v0q5cecvs62e9art85gbsgvgsg@4ax.com:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:57:15 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet atheist@home
(atheist@home.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

I started driving in 1973, and I specifically remember driving out

of

a station that had gas for .46 per gallon, and looking for cheaper
gas, just before the shortages hit. According to the website, gas
should now be 2.03. We're getting fleeced.

I think better than half the cost is federal taxes.
I actually remember 26 and 29 cent gas, five cent cokes, three
cent candy bars <That could be opened by a kid without the Jaws of
Life> But you know what?
<Now bear with me for a bit>
The house I own is a decent sized two story brick, has a central

vac,

central heat and air, microwave, double ovens, hardwood and
carpet, twenty-five year roof, two car garage, automatic garage
door opener, five tvs, cable, cable modem, cds, dvds, I have
cordless phones, <Well, one anyway, my grand daughter has
misplaced the second one> with caller id and a built in phone
directory, a cell phone, a GPS

in

my car, a vehicle that should be good for at least two-hundred
thousand miles, and a multitude of other things that once only the
very wealthy could own <If they existed>
I buy microwavable roast beef that's as good as anything home

cooked,

microwavable mashed potatoes that are the same and several other
things that allow me to prepare a really good meal in twenty
minutes or so.
All this for a guy who lived in places without running water or
electricity, grew up eating rabbit and squirrel when he was a kid

and

is in no way "wealthy."
All in all frankly, I think we get much more for our money than we

did

fifty or maybe even twenty years ago.
Really.

One thing we have a lot more of these days is people. Which does
two things. It makes for more mass production, and it makes for
more competition in the marketplace. Ten years ago I bought a 35"
picture tube TV for $2500. Last month I bought one for $300. And
the one I bought last month has a built-in VCR and DVD. Amazing.
You're right,

I

have more ***** than my parents ever had, and my wife doesn't even

work.

I paid $1100.00 for my first vcr and camera which just about needed
a forklift to haul around.
And I keep buying unneccesary toys.
I've got a digital watch which maybe cost fifty bucks that
automatically sets the time from a military beacon.
There are watches now that have digital cameras.
I remember in the fifties a new "magical" product would come out and
people would say "What will they think of next?"
Nobody says that anymore.
I love to look at the ads in old magazines from the thirties on
advertising the latest scientific marvels.
It's an eye opener.

I still think we're getting fleeced on the price of gas, though.

I agree.

We can thank the treehuggers and the NIMBY's for that. If we had had
sufficient excess refinery capacity we wouldn't be subject to the
price shock from having a few plants go offline.

That's true to an extent.
The Saudi's complained a few years ago that they were getting blamed
for something that was not their fault.
One of the problems that increases price according to them was the
difference in standards for gasoline across America.
Calfornia for instance requires different things than say New York
State.
They also correctly explained that it isn't their fault that we refuse
to build new refineries or open new wells.
The radical enviornmentalist movement is like most radical political
movements.
They depend on lies, inflated rhetoric and scare tactics to get what
they want.
And real and trustworthy enviornmentalists simply can't get any press
because their news isn't always bad.
Pretty sad eh?
That b.s can have such an effect on everybody.

Bush said that he has suspended the rule about regional blends at least
until Sept 15, when the "winter blends" are supposed to come online. I
wonder just how much difference that makes. The economies of scale could
be quite significant.

I understand that there were eight refineries affected by the flooding.
I can just imagine the perverse result if we get by without them. The
treehuggers will insist that we didn't need them after all and they'll
obstruct construction even more.

"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in
news:u5oeh1tgctje85ad5nsc3cnfj016d08hha@4ax.com:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:58:30 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in
news:bskeh1t3v0q5cecvs62e9art85gbsgvgsg@4ax.com:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:57:15 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet atheist@home
(atheist@home.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

All in all frankly, I think we get much more for our money than we

did

fifty or maybe even twenty years ago.
Really.

One thing we have a lot more of these days is people. Which does
two things. It makes for more mass production, and it makes for
more competition in the marketplace. Ten years ago I bought a 35"
picture tube TV for $2500. Last month I bought one for $300. And
the one I bought last month has a built-in VCR and DVD. Amazing.
You're right,

I

have more ***** than my parents ever had, and my wife doesn't even

work.

I paid $1100.00 for my first vcr and camera which just about needed
a forklift to haul around.
And I keep buying unneccesary toys.
I've got a digital watch which maybe cost fifty bucks that
automatically sets the time from a military beacon.
There are watches now that have digital cameras.
I remember in the fifties a new "magical" product would come out and
people would say "What will they think of next?"
Nobody says that anymore.
I love to look at the ads in old magazines from the thirties on
advertising the latest scientific marvels.
It's an eye opener.

I still think we're getting fleeced on the price of gas, though.

I agree.

We can thank the treehuggers and the NIMBY's for that. If we had had
sufficient excess refinery capacity we wouldn't be subject to the
price shock from having a few plants go offline.

That's true to an extent.
The Saudi's complained a few years ago that they were getting blamed
for something that was not their fault.
One of the problems that increases price according to them was the
difference in standards for gasoline across America.
Calfornia for instance requires different things than say New York
State.
They also correctly explained that it isn't their fault that we refuse
to build new refineries or open new wells.
The radical enviornmentalist movement is like most radical political
movements.
They depend on lies, inflated rhetoric and scare tactics to get what
they want.
And real and trustworthy enviornmentalists simply can't get any press
because their news isn't always bad.
Pretty sad eh?
That b.s can have such an effect on everybody.

Bush said that he has suspended the rule about regional blends at least
until Sept 15, when the "winter blends" are supposed to come online. I
wonder just how much difference that makes. The economies of scale could
be quite significant.

I understand that there were eight refineries affected by the flooding.
I can just imagine the perverse result if we get by without them. The
treehuggers will insist that we didn't need them after all and they'll
obstruct construction even more.

atheist@home wrote:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:58:30 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in
news:bskeh1t3v0q5cecvs62e9art85gbsgvgsg@4ax.com:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:57:15 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet atheist@home
(atheist@home.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

I started driving in 1973, and I specifically remember driving out

of

a station that had gas for .46 per gallon, and looking for cheaper
gas, just before the shortages hit. According to the website, gas
should now be 2.03. We're getting fleeced.

I think better than half the cost is federal taxes.
I actually remember 26 and 29 cent gas, five cent cokes, three cent
candy bars <That could be opened by a kid without the Jaws of Life>
But you know what?
<Now bear with me for a bit>
The house I own is a decent sized two story brick, has a central

vac,

central heat and air, microwave, double ovens, hardwood and carpet,
twenty-five year roof, two car garage, automatic garage door opener,
five tvs, cable, cable modem, cds, dvds, I have cordless phones,
<Well, one anyway, my grand daughter has misplaced the second one>
with caller id and a built in phone directory, a cell phone, a GPS

in

my car, a vehicle that should be good for at least two-hundred
thousand miles, and a multitude of other things that once only the
very wealthy could own <If they existed>
I buy microwavable roast beef that's as good as anything home

cooked,

microwavable mashed potatoes that are the same and several other
things that allow me to prepare a really good meal in twenty minutes
or so.
All this for a guy who lived in places without running water or
electricity, grew up eating rabbit and squirrel when he was a kid

and

is in no way "wealthy."
All in all frankly, I think we get much more for our money than we

did

fifty or maybe even twenty years ago.
Really.

One thing we have a lot more of these days is people. Which does two
things. It makes for more mass production, and it makes for more
competition in the marketplace. Ten years ago I bought a 35" picture
tube TV for $2500. Last month I bought one for $300. And the one I
bought last month has a built-in VCR and DVD. Amazing. You're right,

I

have more ***** than my parents ever had, and my wife doesn't even

work.

I paid $1100.00 for my first vcr and camera which just about needed a
forklift to haul around.
And I keep buying unneccesary toys.
I've got a digital watch which maybe cost fifty bucks that
automatically sets the time from a military beacon.
There are watches now that have digital cameras.
I remember in the fifties a new "magical" product would come out and
people would say "What will they think of next?"
Nobody says that anymore.
I love to look at the ads in old magazines from the thirties on
advertising the latest scientific marvels.
It's an eye opener.

I still think we're getting fleeced on the price of gas, though.

I agree.

We can thank the treehuggers and the NIMBY's for that. If we had had
sufficient excess refinery capacity we wouldn't be subject to the price
shock from having a few plants go offline.

That's true to an extent.
The Saudi's complained a few years ago that they were getting blamed
for something that was not their fault.
One of the problems that increases price according to them was the
difference in standards for gasoline across America.
Calfornia for instance requires different things than say New York
State.
They also correctly explained that it isn't their fault that we refuse
to build new refineries or open new wells.
The radical enviornmentalist movement is like most radical political
movements.
They depend on lies, inflated rhetoric and scare tactics to get what
they want.
And real and trustworthy enviornmentalists simply can't get any press
because their news isn't always bad.
Pretty sad eh?
That b.s can have such an effect on everybody.

Judging by your other posts here, you don't seem to be an unreasonable
guy, so I'll ask you to consider something -- Just how much political
clout do you think eviromentalists have? They go up against the
richest and most powerful people on earth, in a country that is run
legislatively, executively and increasingly judicially by conservatives
that are the bosom buddies of the enegry producers. They only assets
environmentalists have are the empirical data and the pile of
scientific experts who interpret it. Do you really think that if they
were acting on false assumptions or bad data, they'd last very long?
Do you really think that they have some magical power to hoodwink and
sway public opinion? Do you really think that they, alone, have brought
the oil companies to their knees?

I don't. I think that as the petroleum business consolidated the
remaining producers realized that they could ensure higher profits by
limiting production and restraining the amount of refined products.
New refineries could be built, but why build when you can save the
capital investment and enjoy high profits from reduced supply? If there
were more producers in the market, competition might force the
construction of new or more efficient refineries but when an oligapoly
pervils, contrived shortages make all the players rich.