| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2008 11:43:22 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
A year ago we'd spend $300/month on gas - we've cut back some on driving or drive the more economical vehicle and we're approaching $500/month in gasoline bills. |
Seems like you might not be as efficient in your life as you think. Averaged over the last two months we spent $230/month on gas in Washington which is among the states with the most expensive gas (currently $4.29). This is for a family of four with two cars (Subaru Outback, Toyota Corolla). If anything we've driven more because we're moving and have driven down to Eugene (2 hours away) three times in the last two weeks with one of the trips with both cars.
Just pointing out that while you may think you are "average" in consumption or even below average, it may not be true. |
I work from home so in theory I use less gas as I don't commute. Reality may not be the same. I shoot weddings and that requires some driving. I filled up friday - $73. Had a wedding saturday, went to a MLB game sunday (free tickets and first game i've been to in 4 years). We took the van as we had 6 people to carry and the alternative would have been 2 vehicles, so twice the gas, twice the parking,etc. My kids play baseball. T-ball is close, but my son has 'away' games. I live kind of out in the country - 7 to 10 miles to anything, one way. Farther to these games. And with 12 or 14 kids on each team and 3 or 4 games going on at the same time (at each park) that's a lot of gas spent on sports.
I shot a baseball league a few weeks back and the pics needed delivered. I tried to get them to pick them up, but well, lets say I was lied to and had to deliver them. It's nearly an hour one way. I combined trips and hit the grovery store on the way back. I had to return car parts and was doing that on that trip..but the power was out at the place I needed to go...so I have to go back. I have a wedding this saturday and I'm at 1/4 tank again...another $75. That's $150 for one vehicle in 1/2 a month. I only drove my car 7500 miles last year. I suspect it'll be a bit more this year but not a whole lot.
We've got a Jeep wrangler - 165 miles on it since last June 26 (state inspection was done then, mileage written on the windshield sticker. Been trying to sell it for 2 years...no takers even at 1/2 it's value)
My wife was commuting 10 miles one way /day. Got a promotion and the next month told her she'd be driving 3 or 4 days a week to a place 45 miles away. That was over a year ago...who knew that gas prices would do what they've done. She fills up at least once a week. Buses don't run where she needs to go, or when she needs to go. She's out on some 9,000 miles this year alone.
This is the dilemma most of us face. Should my kids play baseball? go to Preshcool (no buses)? Should I find a new job closer to home, or move closer to work? Great time to sell a house...or get a new mortgage so perhaps that's not such a smart idea either.
Then you have groceries...i can walk to the store (in theory..it's 18 miles roundtrip) but the cost of food is rising regardless. Diesel around here is over $5/gallon.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2008 11:50:25 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So I drive this
Ford F150 Super Crew 5.4 liter V8
13mpg and about $400ish per month in gas.
But today I bought this
2008 Kawasaki Versys 649cc parallel twin
65mpg and $40 per month in gas.
It was cheaper for me to park the big truck and get a bike. Like the prof said I would take it in the shorts trading it in and I could not afford another smaller car. Say a prayer for me cuz for the sake of the almighty dollar I am taking on more personal risk but it sure is gonna be fun!!!! :-D
What else can we do but bitch or adapt... |
I can't put carseats for my kids on a bike though...(youngest is 4 1/2...can't legally fit as a passenger on a bike here in PA) Give me a side car and i'd do it in a heartbeat!
I can't help but mention your math doesn't work. Try $80/month in gas. $400/$4 is 100 gallons. 100 gallons at 13 mpg is 1300 miles. 1300 miles at 65 mpg takes 20 gallons of gas, and at $4 that's $80, not $40. Still enough of a savings to pay for the bike and put money back in your pocket.
Biggest risk to you is other drivers not seeing you or getting too frisky and losing it on a curve. There is no such thing as a fender bender on a bike!
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 01:08:35 AM · #28 |
No when you do the math like that yeah but my foot got about 9mpg :-) With the bike I expect to curtail my gas hoggery. :-P
I am going to get a hot pink riding jacket so even the international space station can see me. :-D
ETA: We are paying $4.15 per gallon here in Phoenix.
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 01:13:48. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 01:32:29 AM · #29 |
| As a percentage of your income, what do you spend on Petrol, Fuel or Gas. In our home (in South Africa) my wife and my combined fuel bill as a percentage is 16%. Is that high by other standards? My wife is a breastfeeding consultant and has to travel extensively to go see clients, we have three boys (all in differrent schools) and I travel to see clients in and around town. I would be interrested to see comparrisons from around the world. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 02:51:19 AM · #30 |
Does anybody remember back in '88 when Ross Perot was basically laughed off stage when he suggested we balance our budget with a $0.50 gas tax which would have taken gas up to something like $1.50? Seems like maybe he was onto something.
The American public will only change their behavior as a whole if it affects their wallet. Unfortunately that puts us in a tough position because on one hand I'd like to see $5 gas if it meant we actually implemented some long term change, but on the other hand I realize the first to get hit are those with the lowest income while the Richie Riches can still drive their Hummers with impunity. Maybe the answer is a gas tax which would be refunded in the form of a rebate check for the lowest incomes. The rest of us would have to suck it up and drive less. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 04:03:27 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
But today I bought this
2008 Kawasaki Versys 649cc parallel twin
65mpg and $40 per month in gas.
It was cheaper for me to park the big truck and get a bike. Like the prof said I would take it in the shorts trading it in and I could not afford another smaller car. Say a prayer for me cuz for the sake of the almighty dollar I am taking on more personal risk but it sure is gonna be fun!!!! :-D |
CRAP! If I didn't work from home, I would be all over this gas thing as an excuse a reason to buy a bike! Brilliant move, Erick. I'm thinking with all the rain, I might be able to justify a boat though. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 04:19:16 AM · #32 |
Not my plan, but several ideas I heard recently that I liked the most:
- Dump half of the Strategic Oil Reserves on the market (short term relief)
- START DRILLING and processing coal!! This is more of a long-term / short-erm solution. Long-term cuz it will take 4 or 5 years before we see any gas from these efforts. I would add "screw the environmentalists" but drilling or processing our own oil resources does not have to come at the expense of the environment. ...so I guess I can still say "screw the environmentalists" just don't screw the environment. ;-)
- Build Nuclear Power Plants! I'd rather live with a few three-eyed fish than pay $1500/month to heat my home. :P Kidding - I am confident it can be done safely.
- If we have to increase taxes on gas, mandate the money goes directly toward alternative fuel R&D. Taxing oil company profits would simply dump more money into the government's coffers and would be used for everything except what it is intended for. edit: AND they would just pass the increase on to consumers.
- Come up with some realistic plan and mandate a transition to US energy indpendence AND long term replacement of fossil fuels.
Some things seem like such common sense solutions and yet we are more controlled by hysteria and politics. I realize some of the items above may be vague and you could throw all kinds of "that'll never work" scenarios at some of them, but I would be interested to hear alternative realistic solutions rather than "we're doomed!"
edit again: Oops - I just noticed the thread topic refers to Europe (plus I am not an economist). Sorry for the hijack.
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 04:22:43. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 04:51:02 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by walbland:
As a percentage of your income, what do you spend on Petrol, Fuel or Gas. In our home (in South Africa) my wife and my combined fuel bill as a percentage is 16%. Is that high by other standards? My wife is a breastfeeding consultant and has to travel extensively to go see clients, we have three boys (all in differrent schools) and I travel to see clients in and around town. I would be interrested to see comparrisons from around the world. |
Mine is around 12% and rising. |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 05:50:34 AM · #34 |
6%
edit: filling the car full 3-4 times per month for cca. 1800km per month. nothing.
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 05:53:23.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 07:57:17 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by walbland:
As a percentage of your income, what do you spend on Petrol, Fuel or Gas. In our home (in South Africa) my wife and my combined fuel bill as a percentage is 16%. Is that high by other standards? My wife is a breastfeeding consultant and has to travel extensively to go see clients, we have three boys (all in differrent schools) and I travel to see clients in and around town. I would be interrested to see comparrisons from around the world. |
\
That is a very good question! Let me go look...
Hmm, it's not as bad as I thought. 10% last year and 12% this year. Food is up at 1% too. Paying down our debt seems to be where the extra money is coming from. Healthcare costs are up and the word at my wife's work is to expect a 'significant' increase in their healthcare premiums this year.
A friend of mine is very proud of the fact he buys gas every other month. Yep, every 60 days. He rides the bus to work and does nothing else -no kids, no going out - he just plays video games. Has one of those grocery gas cards so his last fill up (wednesday, before that it was april 3) he paid $2.59/gallon after the discounts.
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 07:59:44.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 08:18:56 AM · #36 |
if you think about war in a sense other than fully military i think the statement is on track.
i see an economic war brweing right now with our goods mainly being imported, a number of fast developing strong foreign economies flexing their muscle, foreign nations bailing out our economic infrastructure, foreign nations buying up our real estate and businesses, foreign investors bailing on the us markets and moving to overseas ones.
the lender always has more power than the borrower.
Originally posted by yakatme:
Otherwise, you sound informed and seem to know what you are talking about. I'm curious as to whether you really believe that we are headed toward world war and if so what is it that really supports your position. |
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 09:29:14 AM · #37 |
I don't know about europe, but we americans have only ourselves to blame for the price of oil. Why?
We had the option of buying American and paying a higher price (usually) for the item. Higher prices due to stiffer environmental rules, higher wages, etc. We chose to buy the cheaper item. Companies responded by trying to make things every cheaper.
This led to having everything made in China or singapore, even mexico. So while there is an additional use of oil to move these goods across the globe instead of across a contient, but the real issue is we're now helping essentially third world economies come into the 21st century - no more mud hut farming for these folks! They have seen the light, literally. They want cars, electricity and all that goes with it and thanks to us, can now afford it. The increased global demand for oil is what is driving up the price.
I am paying $12 for a pair of jeans that 20 years ago cost me $12, but I'm paying 4 times as much for the gas to go shopping. If things were made here I might be paying $16 or $20 for the jeans but gas would be 99c!
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 12:41:36 PM · #38 |
We (the Dutch) found a way to make kerosine and diesel from Algae....
Pretty cheap, verry efficient (50% fuel from 100% algae) CO2 neutral.... It will just take 10-20 years.
The prices at this moment are mostly skyrocketing because of speculation and market position abuse.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 12:45:07 PM · #39 |
I don't see a war coming soon.
Because every country has some stakes in another country. It can be loans, property, companies, foreign deposits etc, etc, too much money going around to risk a war. The only thing that concerns me at this moment is the threath of Israel to bomb Iran without consulting the UN. The backgrounds and results of that are too long to debate about now and DPC is not the right place for that.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 02:06:53 PM · #40 |
1st and foremost- We're doomed!!!!! Wait you didn't want to just hear that.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Not my plan, but several ideas I heard recently that I liked the most:
- Dump half of the Strategic Oil Reserves on the market (short term relief) |
Short term relief, but a questionable tactic given unrest in the middle east. If I remember my history correctly wasn't the SOR created in the 70's when OPEC restricted the flow of oil? Right now with the flow at an acceptable level- although no increase in sight- its not the right time. In fact I'd say the opposite and attempt to increase the SOR. I've heard alot of comments regarding fears of Iran stopping shipments of oil in an attempt to worsen the US economic mess, this won't happen Iran needs the hard currency and would also risk losing its abillity to import gasoline (Irans oil producing capabillity is high, refining capabillities minimal). The greater concern would be a return to the tactic of the 1980's of Iran choking off oil supplies from other nations to the US and Europe. If this happens and the SOR has been cut by attempts to create a short term solution to the price of gas prices could sky rocket. edit- the other question is refining capabillity, I have read a number of articles stating where even if OPEC, or home grown oil production was increased current world wide refining capabillity is at about 80% of maximm so any increase in oil production would likely be offset by an inabillity to refine.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- START DRILLING and processing coal!! This is more of a long-term / short-erm solution. Long-term cuz it will take 4 or 5 years before we see any gas from these efforts. I would add "screw the environmentalists" but drilling or processing our own oil resources does not have to come at the expense of the environment. ...so I guess I can still say "screw the environmentalists" just don't screw the environment. ;-) |
The question is are the costs worth the benefits. As you say this would take 4-5 years to see any results. How far away are alternatives- fuel cells, wide spread solar usage etc...... Would there be greater long term benefits from taking the money that would be used in drilling for oil and processing coal and instead dumping it into cleaner and more sustainable sources.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- Build Nuclear Power Plants! I'd rather live with a few three-eyed fish than pay $1500/month to heat my home. :P Kidding - I am confident it can be done safely. |
I actually have no real problems with Nuclear Power- but where does the waste go?? Again however, this is a plan that would take at least 4-5 years to start to see any returns. Once again, would the money be better put into technologies on the near horizon?
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
- If we have to increase taxes on gas, mandate the money goes directly toward alternative fuel R&D. Taxing oil company profits would simply dump more money into the government's coffers and would be used for everything except what it is intended for. edit: AND they would just pass the increase on to consumers.
- Come up with some realistic plan and mandate a transition to US energy indpendence AND long term replacement of fossil fuels. |
Totally agree on both points. The wholesale abandonment of government spending into alternative fuels in the 1980's have hamstrung this country and left the US dependant on unreliable foreign powers for our energy needs (cough **Venezula** although they would cut their own throat if they decided to cut oil shipments to the US- about 10% of the US total oil supply if I remember correctly). I am not saying we'd be running on solar power and the air would be spotless, but who knows where we could be.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Some things seem like such common sense solutions and yet we are more controlled by hysteria and politics. I realize some of the items above may be vague and you could throw all kinds of "that'll never work" scenarios at some of them, but I would be interested to hear alternative realistic solutions rather than "we're doomed!"
edit again: Oops - I just noticed the thread topic refers to Europe (plus I am not an economist). Sorry for the hijack. |
Fuel cells are much closer than we realize- I know of two houses within 5 miles of me that are heated almost exclusively using 2nd generation fuel cells (Honestly, I don't know what 2nd generation means, thats just what I've read). Also, in my line of work I see lots of subdivisions in California, Arizona etc.. that are just screaming for hundreds of solar cells to fill their roofs. I admit, electrical production would have a minimal impact on Americas oil needs (I think about 8% of US electricity is produced by oil). But its another way to cut the impact on consumers wallets. Just my 2 cents.
edit to add... Art this is not a hijack. Look at it this way, imagine how oil prices would come down if the US could cut its usage in half. Europe could have CHEAP gas.
Message edited by author 2008-06-13 14:17:37.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2008 08:48:55 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does anybody remember back in '88 when Ross Perot was basically laughed |
maybe misquoting, but Perot has beeen prven right on many occasions. Maybe it would be better for the US (and the rest of us) if the US maintains an isolasionist view... the whole america thing is getting old.... |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 08:50:17 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To do the original math using correct stats:
In 2000:
1 barrel oil = $30, 1 Eur=$0.90
Therefore 1 Barrel oil = 33 Euros
In April 2008:
1 barrel oil = $115, 1 Eur=$1.63
Therefore 1 Barrel oil = 71 Euros
Has gas doubled in price since 2000? If so, you can basically blame it on the price of oil... |
i think you got that wrong...in the conversion of dollars to euros |
|
|
|
06/13/2008 09:09:29 PM · #43 |
I wish we could talk about some of the real issues on oil though..... It's not the direct cost of gas that will cause a problem. Despite what the fed says, prices are seriously on the rise... food is going to be problematic due to the use of vast transportation networks - applies from New Zealand anyone?
There is a huge issue coming in some parts of the world for heating... parts of the NE are not survivable without heat and there is still a huge dependence on oil heat.
All obvious - The one that is getting no traction is that oil is used in a lot of products some of which don't have alternative ingredients....
I find it odd that early cars were electric and we are not back there yet.... Shame the technology has come basically nowhere... |
|
|
|
06/14/2008 02:35:30 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To do the original math using correct stats:
In 2000:
1 barrel oil = $30, 1 Eur=$0.90
Therefore 1 Barrel oil = 33 Euros
In April 2008:
1 barrel oil = $115, 1 Eur=$1.63
Therefore 1 Barrel oil = 71 Euros
Has gas doubled in price since 2000? If so, you can basically blame it on the price of oil... |
i think you got that wrong...in the conversion of dollars to euros |
I'm pretty sure I got it right, but you can double check me. In 2000 the dollar was worth more than the Euro, therefore the price of oil in Euros should be higher than in dollars (33 vs. 30, check). In 2008 the Euro is worth more than the dollar, therefore the price of oil in Euros should be lower than in dollars (71 vs 115, check again). I have the prices and stats from historical charts so I think everything works out right. It makes sense too since gas in Europe is roughly double what it was in 2000. |
|
|
|
06/14/2008 08:42:32 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by robs:
I wish we could talk about some of the real issues on oil though..... It's not the direct cost of gas that will cause a problem. Despite what the fed says, prices are seriously on the rise... food is going to be problematic due to the use of vast transportation networks - applies from New Zealand anyone?
There is a huge issue coming in some parts of the world for heating... parts of the NE are not survivable without heat and there is still a huge dependence on oil heat.
All obvious - The one that is getting no traction is that oil is used in a lot of products some of which don't have alternative ingredients....
I find it odd that early cars were electric and we are not back there yet.... Shame the technology has come basically nowhere... |
I was talking with a building contractor about 2 weeks ago and he was told by his supplier to expect 20-50% increase in prices - transportation being part of it, but things like asphault shingles and vinyl siding are made of oil, as are a lot of electrical components (wire sheathing and anything plastic), vinyl windows, which are most windows these days. The housing industry is already slumping - the fewest housing starts since WW2 - and now if the cost to build goes up 20 or 30% (like milk and other food has already done) there will be issues we've not even thought of yet.
I can't see how in the hell the govt says inflation is essentially what it was a year or even 2 ago. I've seen food and gas go way up, as well as postage and UPS shipping, the framing stuff I buy, albums - so far most print prices have been stable but I'm not expecting that to hold much longer.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2008 08:49:53 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I can't see how in the hell the govt says inflation is essentially what it was a year or even 2 ago. I've seen food and gas go way up, as well as postage and UPS shipping, the framing stuff I buy, albums - so far most print prices have been stable but I'm not expecting that to hold much longer. |
It's what's included in the basket of goods - easy really once you remove fuel and other variable stuff then get into the hedonistic adjustments with cheap electronics e.t.c. I would say it's delusional except a lot of gov payments are based off those figures (CPI-U right?) & I think they know exactly what's happening :-/
|
|
|
|
06/14/2008 11:32:01 AM · #47 |
I think we're probably veering off into new thread territory here, so I guess I'll just add a few degrees to the turn.
I am not an economist- but I like to dabble.
I have read some very disturbing articles lately written by economists. The biggest item of concern is that Bernanke believes that by using inflation the government can salvage the housing market and keep banks from losing trillions of dollars, and therefore keep lending insitutions intact. He believes that a combination of flooding the banks with low cost dollars (and as a result devaluing the dollar and creating inflation)- thus keeping them able to maintain their own costs as well as well as keeping money available for lending purposes the banks will soon begin to thrive, having money available for lending at lower interest rates will give the housing market a boost and increase demand, thus creating jobs in the construction field and hopefully kick starting the economy. His plan is basically based upon economic theory from what "should have been done" to avoid the great depression. The entire plan hinges at this point is getting the housing market to flatten out (and hopefully rise again) and keep value in the mortgage backed bonds.
There are obvious flaws in this theory,
(1) inflation is going to kill many small businesses and large parts of the lower middle class (as has been mentioned above, the prices of everything is skyrocketing and many family budgets were stretched thin as they were). The loss of jobs in the small business sector is going to put additional strain on the economy.
(2) Another area of concern is that Bernanke's plan is based on a theory from the 1930's, a time when America was an industrial giant, and it was ultimately the rebirth of the industrial sector that restarted the economy. America is not an industrial giant any longer, anyone that looks at the trade deficit can see that. Simply relying on construction jobs to fuel an economic resurgence is short sighted at best. In addition, many articles I've read have stated the government doesn't understand the depth of the housing crash and its ramifications. There is a glut of unoccupied homes on the market. This glut is not only in older homes but thousands and thousands of new homes. Much of this came as a result of demand not driven by need, but driven by investment. I've seen estimates that as many as a 1/3 of all mortgage defaults are investment properties (most underwritten as primary residences), when properties didn't sell many of the investors walked away. These properties are basically "excess inventory" at this point. There are not people standing in line hoping to get low interest loans to buy these properties. Until the housing glut starts to disappear, the construction field will not bounce back. The other problem is, with inflation the cost of building materials in also increasing, thus pushing up the cost of housing, renting becomes a more viable option than buying.
(3) The economic world that we have been living in was nothing more than a bubble. It was artificially created by housing demand, creating jobs in construction, the construction jobs were able to support the service sector. With the loss of the construction jobs, the bubble burst.
(4) There are no short term solutions. Without a serious reworking of the American economy, including rebuilding the industrial sector, recovery may not be possible.
Sorry about the long rambling post..... I guess I'll call this my $.06.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2008 11:46:07 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by walbland:
As a percentage of your income, what do you spend on Petrol, Fuel or Gas. In our home (in South Africa) my wife and my combined fuel bill as a percentage is 16%. Is that high by other standards? My wife is a breastfeeding consultant and has to travel extensively to go see clients, we have three boys (all in differrent schools) and I travel to see clients in and around town. I would be interrested to see comparrisons from around the world. |
I think everyone has overlooked the real question(or answer) to your post.
Just what the hell does a Breastfeeding consultant do??????
Matt |
|
|
|
06/14/2008 11:50:39 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
Sorry about the long rambling post..... I guess I'll call this my $.06. |
No apology necessary. I'm watching this thread with great interest because my industry, landscape design and installation and tree farms, has been hit hard by this downturn. The downturn started about a year and a half ago for us. I appreciate your analysis and any insight as to what the future will bring, short and long term.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2008 01:34:15 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Just what the hell does a Breastfeeding consultant do?????? |
It's actually a recognized section of the health care industry. For the last couple hundred years breast feeding as fallen into disrepute, basically, and this is a Bad Thing. Consultants work to provide information, education, practical solutions, access to supplies (breast pumps etc) to advance the understanding of breast feeding, which is NOT an automatic thing, somewhat surprisingly.
Back in the day, all this information was passed on from other to daughter, basically, but since fewer and fewer mothers were breast feeding that chain has snapped.
I believe this is a particular problem in third world countries, oddly enough. But I'm sure the consultant herself can do a better job telling us about all this.
R.
|
|
