# Katrina question

Page 4 of 5
• posted on September 6, 2005, 11:21 pm
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:58:52 -0500, Duane Bozarth

Now you're really backpedaling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2005, 7:53 pm

The wholesale price of the two may stay linked, but the _retail_ price is not set on any exchange. What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2005, 3:20 pm
Michael Daly wrote:

What part of the connection between wholesale and retail prices is difficult for you to understand?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2005, 9:52 am

Nothing - you're the one that doesn't get it.
Here's a simple example from the service station up the road - prices in US dollars:
When the price of a barrel was about \$60.00, the pump price was \$0.75/liter. When the price of a barrel hit \$70.85 last week, the pump price was \$1.13/liter.
The wholesale price of a liter was 60.00/159 = \$0.377/liter and more recently 70.85/159 = \$0.446/liter
The cost excluding crude was 0.75-0.38 = \$0.37 earlier and 1.13-0.45 = \$0.68 recently.
The increase in crude price was \$0.07 while the pump rise was \$0.38.
Why should the costs that exclude the cost of crude - not set by any market - rise 84%? The tax portion remains a fixed percentage. The remaining costs of refining etc are largely fixed in the short term.
The extra \$0.31 is partly taxes and mostly gouging by the oil industry.
Get over it.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2005, 12:44 pm
Michael Daly wrote:

As I've pointed out, the two are RELATED, but not ABSOLUTELY fixed with respect to each other. Did you look at the relationship of the pump price to the market prices of gasoline or only crude?
A significant portion of the move in gasoline prices in the last couple of weeks was obviously the loss of production in the Gulf Coast region of the US.
As I've also noted over and over in these threads, there is sufficient shortage of supply and active demand that the markets are responding to speculation and rumor and fear of what might occur as much or more than as they are to real shortages.
It is also possible that there was a certain amount of "rigging" in the short term at the pumps of which you specifically speak.
The point I've been addressing all along is that the basic prices of commodities are set on the mercantile exchanges. Observing trends in these, one will find high correlation (which doesn't mean exactly matching) with retail prices.
I don't know why you have jumped on that with such vehemenence--I've never said and still don't say that there aren't local or other factors, simply pointed out the basics of where price levels are based for those who keep claiming absolute prices are set by the proverbial "they".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2005, 7:05 pm

If we were talking about a couple of pennies, your latest diatribe would be reasonable. However, the price gouging goes _far_ beyond that.
Your posts on the market mechanisms have been grossly out of whack with what folks have been posting in many cases. Yes, the market for wholesale prices is open - the retail prices are not - not even close to reasonable. You have never made any such distinction.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2005, 2:08 pm

Is making money a sin? What is reasonable pricing, selling below cost and maybe you wanna it for free?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 7, 2005, 12:25 am

Their cost goes 5% up and they charge us an extra 30% - you think that's reasonable? If they increased the cost by, say, 7% to cover uncertainty, no one would be complaining. But that's not what's happening.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2005, 9:26 pm
Of course it is reasonable to charge as much as the market will bear! No one asking you to buy? If you can't afford it, take buses, walk or better yet eat less.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 11, 2005, 10:33 am

Surely I believe the oil companies are gouging Americans!
But why? Americans did not decrease gasoline consumption in response to gasoline prices hitting \$2.50 per gallon for regular. Annual national consumption was actually up from a year before then, almost to the extent of a year's population growth! So if the oil companies can have sales grow 1% if gasoline goes from \$1.80 to \$2.50 per gallon in a year, should they not see a profit motive to try for making gasoline cost more than \$3 per gallon?
How much does gasoline have to cost before people decide to commute via Honda Civics or bicycles or mass transit or by foot rather than via SUVs, and drive a Honda Civic or a non-motor vehicle rather than an SUV to the supermarket? Americans beware - whatever most of you are willing to pay for gasoline to avoid such a fate has a fair chance of not being too much more than the lowest gasoline prices we will see in the future!
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 11, 2005, 8:33 am

I drive an '84 CRX that still gets about 40 mpg. Small. Light No airbags. An easy loser in an accident with an SUV. My choice. Could I get 100 mpg on short trips with a small motorcycle?
Nick
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 12, 2005, 9:15 am
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

I have heard mostly bad news on gas mileage of motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, etc... As in with most fairly good cases the sub-car gasoline-powered vehicle has gas mileage only a little better than that of cars that get good gas mileage.
Reasons:
1. Smaller/lighter gasoline powered vehicles often have 2-stroke engines, which are significantly less efficient than the 4-stroke engines used in cars and generally in heavier motorcycles.
2. Most cars have aerodynamic design that is not used to a similar extent for exposed people on smaller/lighter vehicles. At least this one detracts mainly from highway fuel economy and hardly from urban street fuel economy.
3. Smaller, lighter vehicles to some extent lend themselves to less-fuel-economical driving habits. I have seen how a fair amount of people that drive 4-stroke motorcycles drive more like bicycle messengers than car drivers ("cagers") do.
I think that if you get the smallest available 4-stroke motorcycle and drive it as gently as cage drivers usually drive their cages, you would get (MY GUESSTIMATE) about 60 MPG both city and highway, and about 80-90 MPG on country roads cruising at at 40-50 MPH or at whatever speed is hardly outside this range while using a higher gear and having the engine sounding like it is running efficiently. At higher speeds, I see air resistance making motorcycles having fuel economy drop with increasing speed towards only somewhat more than is achievable with better-highway-mileage cars at such higher speeds.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 12, 2005, 7:22 am
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:15:09 +0000 (UTC), in alt.home.repair you wrote:

Some good points. My 750 gets about 45mpg highway. Note that bikes can cost significantly more to operate and maintain. Tires is a big part of the expense. Bike tires are relatively expensIVE.
jd
PS : My apologies for emailing you. Unfortunately I switched newsreaders recently and am having a little trouble.
JD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 11, 2005, 10:22 am

Oh, the oil companies sure appear to be enjoying the loss of capacity to refine crude into gasoline. Same as with that big blackout a couple years ago or whenever that was.
And now that their favored party has both houses of Congress and the White House, nothing has been done to address their complaint that "The Greenies" have instituted roadblocks to building new refineries. So the refinery count dwindles, and the oil companies get to blame "The Greenies" despite the party on the side of the oil companies being in power.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 11, 2005, 3:35 pm

I'd take you seriously, but the same argument about the "Greenies" has been going on for years no matter what party was in office or controlled the houses of Congress. Please don't insult yourself by thinking that there are politicians of any party not in the pockets of big oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 3, 2005, 10:56 pm
wrote:

World oil wnet up \$4 a barrel, or about 6% during the disaster while gas prices went up a 100%
Look at the fraction of the pump price that

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 4, 2005, 1:02 am
Duane Bozarth wrote:

You must be right man, everything is nice and dandy. I wonder what these damn politicians are after?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/19/senate.gasprices.reut /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 4, 2005, 2:08 pm
Dumbo wrote:

Press and political advantage, mostly...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 4, 2005, 5:55 pm
Sacramento Dave wrote:

As LtGen Honore said: "If you've ever had 20,000 people to dinner, you'd know."
First, a natural disaster is the responsibility of the state. The federal government can do nothing, nothing, unless officially requested by the state. The feds COULD nationalize the National Guard, but that requires congressional action and the Congress was on vacation when Katrina hit. The president COULD order the regular army in, but under Posse Comitatus laws, they have, legally, no authority whatsoever.
There's a political calculus afoot, too. The governor of Mississippi declared martial law on Monday. The governor of Louisiana did not do so until Thursday. Even today, the mayor of New Orleans is holding forth from his 26th floor suite at the Hyatt.
Here's the deal: In my city, the average time for the first piece of equipment to arrive at a fire is FOUR MINUTES after the alarm is called in. In a major disaster, a more realistic time frame is four DAYS for significant help to arrive. Consider moving 2 million MREs from a warehouse in Illinois to southern Louisiana. A day to find and load thirty 18-wheelers, two days on the road, a day to unload. It just can't be done faster.
I recall after 9-11, a small town in North Carolina donated a fire truck to the New York fire department to replace some of the equipment lost in the tragedy. It wasn't a super-dooper truck, but it was all the small city could do. The truck was placed in service and, as far as I know, is still doing what it can. Point is, it took a week from the time the idea was broached for this one little truck to arrive in the Big Apple.
I'm in Houston and we're housing some 40,000 refugees. Consider the Astrodome: Events had to be re-scheduled, some 1000 dome employees had to be activated to handle the physical plant, union contracts had to be negotiated, supplies laid in (you try finding 20,000 cots and getting them delivered today), food, water, clothing, medical care, schools, communications, ancillary showers and sanitary facilities, ad infinitum. Then there's the ripple effect throughout the community. The Houston police department cancelled vacations and leaves. Hospitals in the area started their emergency preparedness plans. In just one day, the city's need for Insulin supplies doubled.
The Normanday Invasion took a year to plan and involved HALF as many people (and none of them sick).
No, a response time of a week for significant assistance is reasonable. Regrettable, even fatal to some, but reasonable.

Go for it. Since the Carter oil-crunch in the 70's, there have been at least SEVEN congressional investigations of oil companies. The Congress even passed an "excess profits tax." In all those inquiries there has never been any evidence of wrong-doing unearthed. No collusion, no gouging, no conspiracy. Nothing.
Politicians easily show "leadership" after tragedies. Bah!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 4, 2005, 7:39 pm

The answer is, it's *NOT* taking very long, it's taking about as long as one would expect for a major, large-area disaster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

#### Site Timeline

• Share To

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.