Gas Rage In Staten Island

Why is the Toyota Camry one of the most frequently-stolen cars?

'Cause it's the most frequently sold car, and thus there is a huge market
for parting them out into spares (plus, a huge pool to choose from). Ease
of disposal of stolen cars isn't even linear with amount sold, it seems
more like exponential, because chopping them up has such a lot smaller
chance of being jailed than selling them whole -- and yet, parting out a
Ferrari Enzo is not all that profitable. So, even compensating for sales
figures Camrys get stolen more often. You also hear that thieves nowadays,
with sophisticated anti-theft everywhere, tend to specialise in one brand,
type, or even model year. If you only steal 2002-2004 Toyota Camrys, you
can get *really good* at doing it.


Jasper
 
What are you, some kind of idiot? If Mark's a communist, then we need more
of 'em in the US!

Have you ever heard of the word 'sarcasm'? Look it up sometime.


Jasper
 
Exactly. OPEC's been saying the same thing for a long time - they can
increase production but it won't help anything.

I hope those who criticized GWB for filling up the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve are having second thoughts at least (though I doubt it...).

The SPR isn't gonna do dick. It's mostly crude, and that's not the
bottleneck. There aren't enough refineries to satisfy demand. You can up
refinery capacity elsewhere, but it's gonna take weeks at best for those
tankers to arrive -- and they don't have a port to dock in anymore,
either.

Jasper
 
Mark said:
You're probably gonna see some DEEP discounts on the whale-size SUVs
(though they'll probably make it up by increasing the price of the
econoboxes).

Hopefully this "crisis" will last long enough to make a real
difference in people's attitude about what constitutes "reasonable
transportation". Maybe some of 'em will actually figure out that
bikes are a good option?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Since the Feds didn't do anything to 'force' conservation, via CAFE
standards, the market will do it for them. I feel no pity for the 'big
three', everytime I see a 'gotta have a Hemi' commercial...and fat
america bought into it with both feet.
 
wafflycat said:
That would be a good outcome, but if the general populous on your side of
the pond is anything like the general populous over here; it won't. When we
had the fuel blockades a few years ago, there were *serious* fuel shortages.
Cycling was wonderful - as the number of cars on the roads decreased
*noticably* as people really did limit their motoring. As soon as the
blockades stopped - back to normal...

This morning I filled the car with diesel. Price 94.9p/litre. If my
mathematics is correct, this equates to £4.32 per UK gallon, or £3.58per US
gallon, which is roughly $6.55 a US gallon and this is normal price over
here. People are not noticeably using their cars any less as fuel prices go
up - people cut back in other areas first, I think. The filling station
forecourt was just as full as normal on a Friday morning.

Cheers, helen s

As was pointed out by Mike J...high prices won't curtail driving but
scarcity of fuel will..and that's next.
 
Skip said:
So, how do you get around without a car since I'm sure you don't want
to be identified as a fat American who has been set up by the car and
oil industry?

I ride me bike...'gad ZOOKS'...I live 3 miles from where I work, My
wife works 5 miles away. I drive once per week(to see may massage
therapist, broken back, hit by a BIG FOOKIN TRUCK, while riding), I
have cars that get 30mpg...

Don't 'gotta have a hemi'...
 
Bob said:
I'll tell that to Art who worked on my kids' bikes. He got along pretty
well on his artificial leg since Korea, but lately he's needed to put his
fat wheelchair into his fat SUV and drive his fat ass around visiting
nursing homes as a volunteer feeder.

Art would probably love to meet you, he swings a mean softball bat.

Yer an idiot Bob. Art isn't the typical fat-assed american I was
talking about and you know it. Am I supposed to say it's OK for Art to
have a big SUV, sure it is...maybe you own one too, and drive with yer
cell phone surgically attached to your ear...
 
As was pointed out by Mike J...high prices won't curtail driving but
scarcity of fuel will..and that's next.

That's actually logically inconsistent. Scarcity of fuel only curtails
driving by the mechanism of making price higher. The situation is in flux
right now, but a week or two from now, the demand will be fairly stable
and the supply will also be stable at a lower level than before. You're
unlikely to see "no fuel at any price" situations, since, hello! There is
still fuel. Just less of it.

Jasper
 
Bob the Cow wrote:

Yer an idiot Bob. Art isn't the typical fat-assed american I was
talking about and you know it. Am I supposed to say it's OK for Art to
have a big SUV, sure it is...maybe you own one too, and drive with yer
cell phone surgically attached to your ear...

Even so, Art would be a lot better off fuelwise and spacewise with a
minivan than with his SUV.

Jasper
 
Well IMHO what needs to happen is that the world needs to start weening
itself off fossil fuels altogether. France gets 75 to 80% of their
electricity from nuclear. And as far as I know they have never had an
accident. Are the French better that the Americans?

Ken
 
Nope but in USA the Nimby's are voiced better.
Great Britain is planning to built 8 super Nuclear plants big enough to
supply entire country.
So they are no longer depending on foreign oil for electricity.
Nuclear technologies has improved way beyond the 1970's and can now be
used 100% safe.
 
At one time the US operated about 150 more small nuclear power plants than
now, none with an 'accident'. Damn NIMBYs
 
Jasper said:
Have you ever heard of the word 'sarcasm'? Look it up sometime.

The correct Usenet term is "SARCAMS" -- how many times do I have to point
this out?!?

Bill "my tubless tires are a tad low" S.
 
Skip said:
Reducing consumption won't do anything to lower the price of gas, just
the opposite. If the oil companies sell less gas they make less
profit so they will raise the price to make up the difference.

If there were only one oil company, sure. But a competitive market
economy doesn't work that way. No-one can force the consumer to give
him the same profits he made last year. Why? Imagine that Shell raises
their prices by 10c/gal in order make more money. Well, Citgo don't and
consumers flock to them, and Shell makes even less. So Shell lower
their price.

Only collusion can keep prices artificially high. I do worry that we
have fewer oil companies than before--they quite probably qualify as an
oligopoly these days, and that can have collusion-like effects.
 
Only collusion can keep prices artificially high. I do worry that we
have fewer oil companies than before--they quite probably qualify as an
oligopoly these days, and that can have collusion-like effects.

Collusion-'like'? Dude, the gas stations were until recent EU mandates one
of the industries that had a government-supported pricing cartel over
here. It doesn't even have to be a spoken agreement, it's nowadays just
that gas stations sell their gas for "n cent less than Shell!", where n is
0 for selfservice highway stations and up to 10 for off-brand,
off-highway, pure self-service (including paying) stations.

Jasper
 
Robert Uhl said:
Only collusion can keep prices artificially high. I do worry that we
have fewer oil companies than before--they quite probably qualify as an
oligopoly these days, and that can have collusion-like effects.
The other sorta amazing thing that gets lost is that oil companies
have an amazingly steady profit margin. Oil at $25 or $60 a barrell
and they still make in the 6-8% range. So their profits obviously go
up, but not because of gouging. If that was so, then the margins
would be more volitile.

--
I didn't - in spite of ample warnings by sociologists
from large Eastern Universities - foresee the need to have
27" flat-screen television sets available to every family in the
New Orleans city limits as soon as the electricity went out.
That one WAS my bad.
--Richard Galen at www.mullings.com
 
Nuclear is good, however, the only thing I have against it is the
tranporting of the used fuel to the proposed Yucca mountain storage
facility(sp?)

Ken
 
Collusion and ignorance. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common
sense. 'common sense' buys Stupidly Useful Vehicles.
 
Have there been any significant transportation accidents? Or you mean the
Yucca Mountain itself - then you're a NIMBY Luddite.
 
No not the mountain itself, I think that is a great way / place to
store the stuff, my concern is the tranporting of the spent fuel.

Ken
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
14,921
Messages
70,518
Members
8,524
Latest member
TLamb

Latest Threads

Back
Top