I hope this dosn't happen, make the beast with two backs no
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/with-gas-prices.html (http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/with-gas-prices.html)
(http://blog.wired.com/cars/images/2008/05/21/speed_limit.jpg)
"Connecticut adopted the nation's first vehicular speed limit 107 years ago - setting the maximum speed at 12 in the city and 15 in the country - and people have been ignoring them ever since"
i think people will always speed... no matter what the speed limit ;)
Quote from: DuCaTiNi on July 10, 2008, 07:11:15 AM
"Connecticut adopted the nation's first vehicular speed limit 107 years ago - setting the maximum speed at 12 in the city and 15 in the country - and people have been ignoring them ever since"
i think people will always speed... no matter what the speed limit ;)
Thats true. I know I do everyday. Here in Nor Cal there pretty lax on freeway. I have heard they allow 11 miles over.
http://www.youtube.com/v/DMxWAD8kYvg&hl=en&fs=1
Wow Bicks..... helllooooooooo '80's flash back!
Quote from: WannaDucBad on July 10, 2008, 08:03:12 AM
Wow Bicks..... helllooooooooo '80's flash back!
Ahh, the '80's... Good times, Good times. :)
Quote from: S4ROB on July 10, 2008, 07:15:57 AM
Thats true. I know I do everyday. Here in Nor Cal there pretty lax on freeway. I have heard they allow 11 miles over.
Really depends where and when, I got a speeding ticket for going 75 on 280 (the bay area's "Autobahn"). :P
However, I have been going 85 (with the flow of traffic) and had plenty of CHP pass me, no lights on. [leo]
but, i can't drive 55.
if i do i'm fairly certain i would get plowed into by some asshat on the phone and eating breakfast on their way to work.
Quote from: KnightofNi on July 10, 2008, 09:21:28 AM
but, i can't drive 55.
if i do i'm fairly certain i would get plowed into by some asshat on the phone and eating breakfast on their way to work.
Stay in the left lane. Seems there was a rule change that I didn't pick up on - Now, even though the old signs are still up - "Slower traffic stay right", "Left lane minimum speed 55", "Keep right except to pass" - the new left lane speed limit is 35.
Quote from: Bick on July 10, 2008, 09:30:51 AM
Stay in the left lane. Seems there was a rule change that I didn't pick up on - Now, even though the old signs are still up - "Slower traffic stay right", "Left lane minimum speed 55", "Keep right except to pass" - the new left lane speed limit is 35.
yeah, is there a national movement for lane squatting ? ive noticed slow movers just sitting in the left lane a lot in recent months.
Quote from: oldschoollion on July 10, 2008, 10:24:04 AM
yeah, is there a national movement for lane squatting ? ive noticed slow movers just sitting in the left lane a lot in recent months.
i think it uses more gas to change lanes.
it's stupid. make the speed limit whatever they like, the whole point is revenue.
if they really didn't want you to drive faster than 65, then all cars would be hard-wired to top out at 65. period. think about it. except for a few places where the limit is 70 or 75, it is 65 everywhere else and it would cost about $30 to put a governor on your car to prevent it going over 65.
they want you to speed.
the whole point is revenue.
lower the speed limit to 55 = more revenue.
just remembered this. shows higher speeds can be a good thing for congestion relief. ive seen the proof locally (i wont say how fast it was going, but there was no congestion in a peak travel time [thumbsup] ).
http://www.campusmoviefest.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/IdeaFlow.woa/wa/showAMovie?movieID=978
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 10, 2008, 11:00:12 AM
it's stupid. make the speed limit whatever they like, the whole point is revenue.
if they really didn't want you to drive faster than 65, then all cars would be hard-wired to top out at 65. period. think about it. except for a few places where the limit is 70 or 75, it is 65 everywhere else and it would cost about $30 to put a governor on your car to prevent it going over 65.
they want you to speed.
the whole point is revenue.
lower the speed limit to 55 = more revenue.
+1, have you seen the debt we're in? Gotta pay them bills somehow.
For safety reasons and an attemt at congestion relief, Denver recently RAISED the speed limit on I-25 through part of the city.
http://www.dot.state.co.us/communications/news/DM20080425-1.htm
Quote from: Bick on July 10, 2008, 01:57:46 PM
For safety reasons and an attemt at congestion relief, Denver recently RAISED the speed limit on I-25 through part of the city.
http://www.dot.state.co.us/communications/news/DM20080425-1.htm
what an interesting admission!
Don't you know that 90% of the statistics are made up 50% of the time. For every crappy stat one gives, there's 75% ( ;) ) more that could oppose it. I swear 95% of the time, the rambling of stats drives me nuts.
If 100% of the scientists could give the same answer, I'll believe it, until then I'll just use my own common sense, well 50% of the time.
;D
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1749/reasonableandprudentqx2.png)
^
Yeah, like that will happen anytime soon [laugh]
A guy can dream, can't he?
Quote from: x136 on July 10, 2008, 04:18:39 PM
(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1749/reasonableandprudentqx2.png)
Is that Old Montana? $5 "Misuse of Natural Resource" penalty for exceeding the federal limits?
According to The Wikipedia, it was like that in Montana not only before the federal speed limit law went into effect, but for a few years after it was repealed, until some jackass ruined it for everyone.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 10, 2008, 11:00:12 AM
it's stupid. make the speed limit whatever they like, the whole point is revenue.
if they really didn't want you to drive faster than 65, then all cars would be hard-wired to top out at 65. period. think about it. except for a few places where the limit is 70 or 75, it is 65 everywhere else and it would cost about $30 to put a governor on your car to prevent it going over 65.
they want you to speed.
the whole point is revenue.
lower the speed limit to 55 = more revenue.
The Department of Energy doesn't collect money from speeding tickets last I checked. Sorry, there isn't a conspiracy behind every government program/law. This is just another political "idea" to try to solve a problem (fuel prices) the wrong way.
Quote from: Bick on July 10, 2008, 09:56:03 PM
Is that Old Montana? $5 "Misuse of Natural Resource" penalty for exceeding the federal limits?
Yup, I drove thru Montana when those signs were up. Do you know that the top speed of a 93 Dodge W250 w 5.9 cummins is 88 mph ( unlimted speed limit and I can't even do a buck..... doh [bang])
How bout this ?
National speed limit for trucks ( all trucks ) is 60 mph.
Detroit has been abusing the " light truck " loophole for years.
Any truck that has a computer is electronicly limited to 60 mph.
What to buy a Tahoe or Explorer, 60 mph top speed.
I think there should be two speed limits on most roads with a higher one for motorcycles. When I become Dictator I plan on instituting that, along with making some roads motorcycle only. No more getting stuck behind a motorhome on your favorite curvy road.
Quote from: sno_duc on July 10, 2008, 10:27:18 PM
Yup, I drove thru Montana when those signs were up.
I remember those days too....WY/MT border to Billings (approx. 100 miles) in 1 hour 5 minutes with a stop for gas. ;D It was like being on the Autobahn again.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 10, 2008, 11:00:12 AMexcept for a few places where the limit is 70 or 75, it is 65 everywhere else and it would cost about $30 to put a governor on your car to prevent it going over 65.
There are a lot of places where the limit is higher than 65. In most western states (WY, MT, SD, CO, ID, etc.) it's 75 on the interstates. On some stretches in TX it's 80mph.
Lots of interstates here seem to be 60-70 once you're outside the urban areas ~
JM
Been on some 75MPH roads in Florida too.
Quote from: hbliam on July 10, 2008, 10:21:22 PM
The Department of Energy doesn't collect money from speeding tickets last I checked. Sorry, there isn't a conspiracy behind every government program/law. This is just another political "idea" to try to solve a problem (fuel prices) the wrong way.
Who said anything about the DoE?
When you figure out what you're talking about or to whom you're replying, let us know.
And yes, when the
National Highway Designation Act was passed, many states refused to change their speed limits despite popular support, studies showing it was safe, and various other pressures -- why ? because of revenue.
State revenue.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961967
Quote from: sno_duc on July 10, 2008, 10:27:18 PM
Yup, I drove thru Montana when those signs were up. Do you know that the top speed of a 93 Dodge W250 w 5.9 cummins is 88 mph ( unlimted speed limit and I can't even do a buck..... doh [bang])
How bout this ?
National speed limit for trucks ( all trucks ) is 60 mph.
Detroit has been abusing the " light truck " loophole for years.
Any truck that has a computer is electronicly limited to 60 mph.
What to buy a Tahoe or Explorer, 60 mph top speed.
F- that! A pick-up isn't the same as a "truck", ask any truck driver. What's your beef with trucks anyway, and how are you going to include SUV's too. So you can only go over 60 if you drive an Accord? >:( I need a middle finger smiley.
(http://www.rogerwendell.com/images/australiatwo/australia_no_speed_limit.jpg)
Quote from: WannaDucBad on July 11, 2008, 07:54:00 AM
F- that! A pick-up isn't the same as a "truck", ask any truck driver. What's your beef with trucks anyway, and how are you going to include SUV's too. So you can only go over 60 if you drive an Accord? >:( I need a middle finger smiley.
Go to any shopping mall in any major city and check out the parking lot.
We are all
going to get(ting) raked over the coals so some moron can haul 3 sacks of groceries and couple of kids in a 3-4 ton SUV ( light truck in Fed speak )
I've worked enough construction jobs to have a pretty good idea what a light truck is and how to
use abuse one.
3/4 of what Detroit has conviced the Feds are " light trucks" aren't, they're just abusing the light truck loophole to get around CAFE mileage requirements.
And yes I still own the 93 Dodge 3/4 ton, drive it about 1,000 miles a year, always loaded at least one way.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on July 11, 2008, 07:54:00 AM
F- that! A pick-up isn't the same as a "truck", ask any truck driver. What's your beef with trucks anyway, and how are you going to include SUV's too. So you can only go over 60 if you drive an Accord? >:( I need a middle finger smiley.
i agree -- we should distinguish between the 18-wheeler types and the "air haulers".. as long as the latter are 1-ton or less.
Quote from: sno_duc on July 11, 2008, 08:39:05 AM
Go to any shopping mall in any major city and check out the parking lot.
We are all going to get(ting) raked over the coals so some moron can haul 3 sacks of groceries and couple of kids in a 3-4 ton SUV ( light truck in Fed speak )
I've worked enough construction jobs to have a pretty good idea what a light truck is and how to use abuse one.
3/4 of what Detroit has conviced the Feds are " light trucks" aren't, they're just abusing the light truck loophole to get around CAFE mileage requirements.
And yes I still own the 93 Dodge 3/4 ton, drive it about 1,000 miles a year, always loaded at least one way.
i agree with the sentiment to some extent. especially with the smaller trucks, i.e. under 1 ton, there is no reason for a separate category.
that being said, bigger trucks for non-commercial use can have a "gas guzzler" tax added to satisfy the CAFE requirements.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 11, 2008, 06:21:55 AM
Who said anything about the DoE?
When you figure out what you're talking about or to whom you're replying, let us know.
Step 1: Maybe try reading the original article.
Step 2: Put the tin foil hat back on.
Quote from: hbliam on July 11, 2008, 11:54:00 AM
Step 1: Maybe try reading the original article.
Step 2: Put the tin foil hat back on.
you replied to me, and i was not talking about the DoE.. the original article may have mentioned it for other reasons, but that had nothing to do with my post.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 11, 2008, 12:03:29 PM
you replied to me, and i was not talking about the DoE.. the original article may have mentioned it for other reasons, but that had nothing to do with my post.
The DOE are the ones saying it saves money. Other groups are trying to get congress to reinstate the 55 limit. No States are pushing this idea on their own to produce revenue. That was my point. I've never been told to write more tickets to increase revenue.
Quote from: hbliam on July 11, 2008, 12:07:19 PM
The DOE are the ones saying it saves money. Other groups are trying to get congress to reinstate the 55 limit. No States are pushing this idea on their own to produce revenue. That was my point. I've never been told to write more tickets to increase revenue.
I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about other pressures on the feds to reinstate the national speed limit act again, namely states who will get another windfall of revenue from it.
Your agency may not need to press cops to write tickets. Plenty of cities/counties around the country use citations as a source of "alternative tax" revenue and structure speed traps and speed sign changes to enhance their revenue.
my hat is titantium
Quote from: sno_duc on July 11, 2008, 08:39:05 AM
Go to any shopping mall in any major city and check out the parking lot.
We are all going to get(ting) raked over the coals so some moron can haul 3 sacks of groceries and couple of kids in a 3-4 ton SUV ( light truck in Fed speak )
I've worked enough construction jobs to have a pretty good idea what a light truck is and how to use abuse one.
3/4 of what Detroit has conviced the Feds are " light trucks" aren't, they're just abusing the light truck loophole to get around CAFE mileage requirements.
And yes I still own the 93 Dodge 3/4 ton, drive it about 1,000 miles a year, always loaded at least one way.
The people driving those trucks and SUV's are paying for the privellege of doing so. Your gas prices are not going up so much in response to people driving trucks and SUVs. Grab a WSJ, watch to see what market forces are the biggest influences on you fuel prices.
1) Weak dollar, regulating SUV's won't effect that.
2) Global demand, inparticularly China. They are stockpiling HUGE amounts of fuel in anticipation of essentially gaining an entire city for the duration of the summer Olmpics.
3) and then the spectulators of course keep buying ahead and keeping the price high.
Those are the main causes of the fuel prices, limiting trucks and SUV's to 60mph would have very limited impact. You're really talking pennies. Now to the individuals driving them it would save them money, but that is their personal pocketbook. Them driving slower isn't gonna save YOU anything you'd notice.
THere is no abuse of any loop holes until you start looking at trucks like the International or F650, less than that it's just a dang pick-up. It may haul a gooseneck but it's not anywhere near the tonnage of a "truck".
I don't have a problem with an honest to god pick-up.
I've owned one for the last thirty years. They're are very useful.
What I have a problem with is the way the auto industry in general and Detroit in particular has gamed the rules to get around the CAFE standards.
For your reading enjoyment http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/03May/RS20298.pdf
If it walks like a duck and quacks it's a duck. If it's painted red, makes glorious sounds and puts an ear to ear grin on the riders face it's a Duc.
A lot of vehicles classed as " light trucks" would be absolutely useless for doing any real work. Try hauling a 1/2 yard of gravel in your Subaru, or a cord of oak.
Yes I'm painfuly aware that crude oil is a gobal commodity. The fact that we import well over half of what we use makes us very vulnerable.
Ah!!!! Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, importing such a large percentage sucks balls. We do need to develope our own oil, AND alternative fuels. In the mean time though I do believe in a free market. Many of these vanity trucks will be replaced by more sensible transportation. Remember how the beautiful GTOs and Chevelles were selling for nothing at the end of the 70's. Same thing will happen again, no need to involve gov. in the equation.
Quote from: WannaDucBad on July 11, 2008, 04:38:21 PM
Ah!!!! Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, importing such a large percentage sucks balls. We do need to develope our own oil, AND alternative fuels. In the mean time though I do believe in a free market. Many of these vanity trucks will be replaced by more sensible transportation. Remember how the beautiful GTOs and Chevelles were selling for nothing at the end of the 70's. Same thing will happen again, no need to involve gov. in the equation.
And thus I shall have that new Shelby GT500 I lust after..... ;D
Why don't we start looking and drilling for oil? I am sick and tired of depending on other countries (Saudi Arabia) for fuel.
I heard today, Barack Obama said, "In fact, if we started drilling today, we wouldn't see a drop of oil for seven years, and even then it would have little if any impact on prices."
Thats not what America is about. It is about doing things that no other country can do.
Building the Suez Canal might take to long and cost to much. But we did it.
I think we have a bunch of idots running this country and it has to change.
Quote from: S4ROB on July 11, 2008, 05:33:58 PM
I think we have a bunch of idots running this country and it has to change.
We have a winner!!!!
Quote from: Speedbag on July 11, 2008, 05:33:08 PM
And thus I shall have that new Shelby GT500 I lust after..... ;D
I have a regular ol' '07 Mustang GT -- not a 500, I realize, but here's the story:
Got a stupid $85 "waste of finite resources" ticket in Snowflake, AZ, headed to Santa Fe. I was lucky, as the officer radard me at 74 in a
just went from 65 to 55 zone. I spent the rest of the trip (to Santa Fe & back to Phoenix) using my cruise control and strictly obeying speed limits. Cruise is the only way to do that, I'm pretty sure. Anyway, I got
30.1 MPG out of the V8, and wrung 425 miles out of a single tank!
So, go get your GT500
and feel good about saving the planet while reducing our dependence on foreign oil (and solar)!
By the way, I'm not voting for lower speed limits -- just making myself feel OK about driving a V8, which is becoming just about as socially acceptable as BBQing kittens.
Just don't ask about my in-town mileage.
[bacon]
I just don't like the "We can't do it" attitude. Never did.
Just look what the Floundering Fathers have done here at the DMF ;D
Quote from: Speedbag on July 11, 2008, 05:46:16 PM
We have a winner!!!!
Do you think we can talk him into running for office ??
Quote from: S4ROB on July 11, 2008, 05:33:58 PM
Why don't we start looking and drilling for oil? I am sick and tired of depending on other countries (Saudi Arabia) for fuel.
I heard today, Barack Obama said, "In fact, if we started drilling today, we wouldn't see a drop of oil for seven years, and even then it would have little if any impact on prices."
Thats not what America is about. It is about doing things that no other country can do.
Building the Suez Canal might take to long and cost to much. But we did it.
I think we have a bunch of idots running this country and it has to change.
We didn't build the Suez Canal.
Quote from: hbliam on July 11, 2008, 07:40:54 PM
We didn't build the Suez Canal.
True dat, the French did and then tried the same in Panama. Failed in Panama. [bang] Then we went down and got it done. 8)
Quote from: hbliam on July 11, 2008, 07:40:54 PM
We didn't build the Suez Canal.
I was just testing you guys ;D
We Should own it I think
Quote from: sno_duc on July 11, 2008, 06:50:31 PM
Do you think we can talk him into running for office ??
Who, me? [evil]
I'm game. We better start campaigning one of these days though. Speedbag for President. ;D
Oil dependence?
Alberta tar sands, Alaskan oil reserves, Oil Shale shelf in the midwest, offshore oil drilling in the Atlantic (maybe Pacific too, I'm not sure what's out there). But wait a minute, all those sources are highly opposed by environmental groups. Whoops, we have to knuckle under and keep buying from elsewhere. Or get on the E85 boondoggle-wagon because are eyes are blinded by the green glare.
Lower = Better fuel economy 100% of the time?
Bzzzt, wrong. It's entirely dependent on the vehicle. Generally most passenger cars are geared to get optimum fuel economy around 60-65mph, sometimes as high as 70 mph (up here in Canerduh the limits are 110 kmh [70] and many cruise at 120-130 [75-80]. From my own anecdotal experience the difference between 60mph/100kmh and 75/120 is not negative, it's almost exactly the same if not better in some cars. Going slower has little if any effect. Aerodynamics, gearing and torque in relation to gearing makes all the difference and you cannot generalize to the point of imposing arbitrary limits.
My bike gets a solid 50-55mpg (Imperial gallon, that's 40-45mpg to you Americans) at 100-110 mph. I've done that, steady, on a full tank of gas (under closed conditions of course). That's the same, if not better, than I get at 60mph. See my point? I'm not using myself as the rule, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the argument.
Speed is not the main factor
In fuel economy, that is. Rather, aerodynamics, vehicle weight, condition of the motor and driveline, tire pressure, air filter condition, and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL driving style. You can stay under 55 all damn day but if you have a lead foot getting there, passing cars, or do any city driving then there is no benefit, in any vehicle. The only benefit would be if we all drove on the highway at a set speed 100% of the time - without passing, always in top gear, and without cruise control using only our feet to modulate speed very carefully (cruise control isn't optimal for fuel economy because it tends to overcompensate for gradients and doesn't let the engine coast as much). In other words, hippie commie pipedream utopia.
I'm done ranting. F*** ignorant neo-hippie greenhead Goreloving bastards ruining things for the rest of us.
They just went and lowered a bunch of the local speed limits around here, in the name of fuel economy, but what it won't show is that now when the local air base lets out the stop and go traffic at 35 will be worse than at 45. The end result I'm sure of will be more wasted gas waiting at stop and go traffic.
They also lowered them, so people can use their new electric golf carts to cruise through town. 25 mph max is good for local 35 mph roads. :-\
One accident and fatality in those death traps, and game over in them.
Fixed it for ya
Quote from: WannaDucBad on July 11, 2008, 02:57:42 PM
The people driving those trucks and SUV's are paying for the privellege of doing so. Your gas prices are not going up so much in response to people driving trucks and SUVs. Grab a WSJ, watch to see what market forces are the biggest influences on you fuel prices.
1)George Bush
2) Weak dollar, regulating SUV's won't effect that.
3) Global demand, inparticularly China. They are stockpiling HUGE amounts of fuel in anticipation of essentially gaining an entire city for the duration of the summer Olmpics.
4) and then the spectulators of course keep buying ahead and keeping the price high.
Those are the main causes of the fuel prices, limiting trucks and SUV's to 60mph would have very limited impact. You're really talking pennies. Now to the individuals driving them it would save them money, but that is their personal pocketbook. Them driving slower isn't gonna save YOU anything you'd notice.
THere is no abuse of any loop holes until you start looking at trucks like the International or F650, less than that it's just a dang pick-up. It may haul a gooseneck but it's not anywhere near the tonnage of a "truck".
Quote from: bdfinally on July 13, 2008, 08:38:34 PM
Fixed it for ya
so George Bush is responsible for inflated oil prices in France and all the rest of the world? Wow. Now that's influence.
http://libcom.org/news/70000-spanish-truckers-strike-blockade-border-with-france-09062008
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/france-oil-prices-french-truckers-protest-gas-prices/1331674897
Well if you don't consider his policies to be destabilizing in the Middle East, if you think his general disdain for any kind of coherent energy conservation policy is stinking brillant and the lack of interest to at least investigate speculation in energy markets is a ballzy and principled, then no he's not to blame.
I think, he's an oil man sitting in the grand poohbahs seat, in a country that consumes 25% of all the worlds energy, so yes I think what we do here does affect what people all over are paying...color me jaded.
I quote Jamie Kitman from the August issue of Automobile magazine:
"George W. Bush: Friend, if you were hoping that the US government might turn a blind eye to profit and plunder in the oil game, this is your special time. An oil man and the son of oil men, the forty-third president is probably the last guy who'd stand in the way of other oil men exercising their God-given right to squeeze cash out of customers. But as second-term lame ducks who have gutted most federal regulatory agencies, Mr. Bush's outfit couldn't put the brakes on a runaway cheeseburger, much less the oil industry's extreme pricing policies - and that's assuming it wanted to, which it doesn't. Far from signaling a cool-down lap, the Bush team celebrates its final year in office by inviting the oil boys to put the hammer down and ride the wall one last time following seven go-go years on the free-market superspeedway. If that means consumers take it up the injector pump, so be it."
anyone know what kind of Ferrari Sammy is driving in the video?
I think it is a 512i.
pregnant doging about gas prices is ridiculous. Welcome to America, by a house closer to work and get a different car. Oh yeah, and shut the make the beast with two backs up about it. If you aren't going to do one of those two things, then you have no room to talk.
I lived in the sticks and had an SUV. Got too expensive and I got a MINI and moved 6 miles away from work. Still pay far less in gas. And I can take more pleasure trips.
My anger at SUV's isn't that some one has them and "they're raising oil prices for the rest of us", its that they are the ones pregnant doging about it, but haven't put a for sale sign in the their kid carrier. If you use your SUV for something, by all means complain away construction industry worker or some other job that requires it. If you carry some kids or even worse just yourself in it. Just STFU. You have nothing to complain about. Awww man. I can no longer afford this LUXURY of having too big of a vehicle. Life goes on.
Quote from: bdfinally on July 18, 2008, 07:11:59 PM
I think, he's an oil man sitting in the grand poohbahs seat, in a country that consumes 25% of all the worlds energy, so yes I think what we do here does affect what people all over are paying...color me jaded.
I think the fact (if it is true) that we consume 25% of the worlds energy is irrelevant.
What percentage of the world's wealth do we generate? What percentage of high-tech development is here? .. of manufacturing?
Last I checked, the US was the world leader in intellectual property registrations. People even come to the US to register patents rather than in their home country.
People come from around the world to go to business and medical school here in the USA. Some countries
don't even have business or medical schools!
This country consumes energy? Big deal. We produce immense amounts of useful output, products and intellectual capital. We produce more doctors than all of Europe and Asia combined. Our developments have spurred industries in every sector.
25%? That's a piffle.
so what do you guys think of the fact that we import tons of oil, etc. etc....
but we're still exporting 18.something percent of the oil that is produced domestically.
I'm looking for somewhere on the web to verify this....I just heard it on NPR
edit*** I just looked it up on the DoE website. we produce along the lines of 5.1 million barrels a day, and export about 1.3 million.
Quote from: Le Pirate on July 22, 2008, 09:37:42 AM
so what do you guys think of the fact that we import tons of oil, etc. etc....
but we're still exporting 18.something percent of the oil that is produced domestically.
I'm looking for somewhere on the web to verify this....I just heard it on NPR
edit*** I just looked it up on the DoE website. we produce along the lines of 5.1 million barrels a day, and export about 1.3 million.
Well, now that's just silly. :-\
On a somewhat related note, I just learned that a mining outfit near me exports tons of sand. To the middle east. To fill depleted oil wells. :)
Quote from: Speedbag on July 22, 2008, 06:55:23 PM
Well, now that's just silly. :-\
On a somewhat related note, I just learned that a mining outfit near me exports tons of sand. To the middle east. To fill depleted oil wells. :)
[laugh]
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 21, 2008, 04:08:50 PM
I think the fact (if it is true) that we consume 25% of the worlds energy is irrelevant.
What percentage of the world's wealth do we generate? What percentage of high-tech development is here? .. of manufacturing?
Last I checked, the US was the world leader in intellectual property registrations. People even come to the US to register patents rather than in their home country.
People come from around the world to go to business and medical school here in the USA. Some countries don't even have business or medical schools!
This country consumes energy? Big deal. We produce immense amounts of useful output, products and intellectual capital. We produce more doctors than all of Europe and Asia combined. Our developments have spurred industries in every sector.
25%? That's a piffle.
Not sure how you meandered into this area from a discussion about driving 55, but I'll be your huckleberry...
From what I remember our biggest exports are weapons, culture and cardboard to China so they can ship Tivo's back to us in nice packaging. If you look around lately our shiny new service economy of the future is in the crapper and the bad news just keeps rolling down the hill...my bank lost 8.9 billion this quarter and laid 6400 people off this morning. Maybe they can go to medical school, 'cause business has failed them.
I'm proud to say we live in the greatest country the world has ever seen, but we do stupid ass shit in epic doses. So to answer your question, North America had 34% of the wealth in the world in 2000, do you think we have more or less now?
Quote from: bdfinally on July 22, 2008, 09:03:22 PM
under Bush?
Uh-oh. Political discussion outside the Politics sub-board. Now what do we do?
valid point...fixed it
Quote from: bdfinally on July 22, 2008, 09:03:22 PM
Not sure how you meandered into this area from a discussion about driving 55, but I'll be your huckleberry...
From what I remember our biggest exports are weapons, culture and cardboard to China so they can ship Tivo's back to us in nice packaging. If you look around lately our shiny new service economy of the future is in the crapper and the bad news just keeps rolling down the hill...my bank lost 8.9 billion this quarter and laid 6400 people off this morning. Maybe they can go to medical school, 'cause business has failed them.
I'm proud to say we live in the greatest country the world has ever seen, but we do stupid ass shit in epic doses. So to answer your question, North America had 34% of the wealth in the world in 2000, do you think we have more or less now?
You're absolutely right that the US has lost a great deal of value in GDP and dollar-power in the last few years, but that doesn't change the fact that the US economy is massive -- currently far bigger than China's and they will take years to come close. China is mostly rural and the half-dozen cities which are modern are home to no more than 50 million people.
And yes, things are "in the crapper" but that is a relative comment. Americans have had a full belly for so long that things like $4 gasoline and cutting back on non-necessities is seen as "being in the crapper." Unemployment in the US hasn't spiked significantly (still at 5.5%). The highest in the last 10 years was in June 03 at 6.3%
Maybe things are more expensive and maybe we won't be flying on our vacations as much and maybe we won't be buying those Xboxes as fast, but something tells me that if almost 95% of the workforce is working, there isn't as big of a problem as people want to think there is.
Maybe you're too young to remember but unemployment in the early 80s was as high as 11% (according to the dept of labor website). Gas was just as expensive, relative to income and inflation. The speed limits were 55 but it sure didn't help anything. In fact, it was widely reported that the increase to 65 actually helped the economy, as well as the fact that cars were more efficient and safer, so the 55 mph was irrelevant.
In the crapper? I doubt it. The stock market is as much mental as it is physical. When people get scared (for any reason) they hide their money under the mattress.
I just need to look at the fact that people are still buying Xboxes to know they really aren't hurting that much. They might be buying fewer, but if things were really bad, they wouldn't buy ANY.
Raise the speed limit to 155.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 21, 2008, 04:08:50 PM
Last I checked, the US was the world leader in intellectual property registrations. People even come to the US to register patents rather than in their home country.
People come from around the world to go to business and medical school here in the USA. Some countries don't even have business or medical schools!
I think these points are less and less relevant now....even less so to this discussion, but none the less:
Intellectual property rights mean little in a world where one of the most booming economies (China) doesn't give a thought to them [laugh]
and...
I live in a city out in the middle of no where texas. Oil IS the economy around here, and most people are good ole boys...roughnecks....ranch workers....etc. I was looking for a new Primary Care Provider (for my shitty blue cross blue shield insurance plan...but thats a whole other pregnant dog session) and guess where 75 percent of the doctors were educated? about 15% in mexico....and the other 60%? INDIA.
I think the US is loosing it's grip on the global powerhouse front. I mean, we still are probably "the" big power in the world...but I don't expect that to last forever. We're being caught up to.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 23, 2008, 06:28:34 AM
In fact, it was widely reported that the increase to 65 actually helped the economy, as well as the fact that cars were more efficient and safer, so the 55 mph was irrelevant.
I think about it this way:
Maybe I can save 5% on mpg because I drive 55 instead of 80, so my 30 mpg car can now get 33 mpg. At $5/gallon and around 10,000 miles/year, I've saved about $79. Yay.
At the same time, I've just spent an extra 42 hours driving in my car at the lower speed, so my savings are $1.40 / hr. The last time I looked at my paycheck I was making a bit more than that.
If I do the same analysis assuming I actually drive the speed limit, so the difference is between 55 mph and 65 mph, the savings do jump to a whopping $2.84 / hr.
Now consider the average American driver:
* average income per hr = $24.10
* average miles driven per year ~ 12,000 miles
* average mpg = 17 mpg
Plug these numbers in and the savings are $5/hr, 5x lower than the average hourly pay. So it is NOT AT ALL cost effective to reduce the speed limit, unless our goal is to cripple the productivity of the American worker.
Quote from: ducsix on July 23, 2008, 08:45:23 AM
I think about it this way:
Maybe I can save 5% on mpg because I drive 55 instead of 80, so my 30 mpg car can now get 33 mpg. At $5/gallon and around 10,000 miles/year, I've saved about $79. Yay.
At the same time, I've just spent an extra 42 hours driving in my car at the lower speed, so my savings are $1.40 / hr. The last time I looked at my paycheck I was making a bit more than that.
If I do the same analysis assuming I actually drive the speed limit, so the difference is between 55 mph and 65 mph, the savings do jump to a whopping $2.84 / hr.
Now consider the average American driver:
* average income per hr = $24.10
* average miles driven per year ~ 12,000 miles
* average mpg = 17 mpg
Plug these numbers in and the savings are $5/hr, 5x lower than the average hourly pay. So it is NOT AT ALL cost effective to reduce the speed limit, unless our goal is to cripple the productivity of the American worker.
looks like good numbers to me
Quote from: Le Pirate on July 23, 2008, 07:34:26 AM
I think these points are less and less relevant now....even less so to this discussion, but none the less:
Intellectual property rights mean little in a world where one of the most booming economies (China) doesn't give a thought to them [laugh]
yes and no. The WTO and WIPO have given China a deadline for cleaning up their act with regard to IP. Even the IMF got involved saying China is abusing their privileges as a developing economy and will impose sanctions on them.
The BIG problem is espionage. Unfortunately, we probably have hundreds if not thousands of sleeper-type individuals who have citizenship now and plan to use their positions in science and government to spy. There was a great article on China's intelligence and spying recently -- they use the Kremlin model, which is repeated small attacks, starting people at the base and working them up. So a 20 year old college student is sent over, gets citizenship, marries, etc, but all the while he is a planted spy working to get clearance.
Quote
and...
I live in a city out in the middle of no where texas. Oil IS the economy around here, and most people are good ole boys...roughnecks....ranch workers....etc. I was looking for a new Primary Care Provider (for my shitty blue cross blue shield insurance plan...but thats a whole other pregnant dog session) and guess where 75 percent of the doctors were educated? about 15% in mexico....and the other 60%? INDIA.
I think the US is loosing it's grip on the global powerhouse front. I mean, we still are probably "the" big power in the world...but I don't expect that to last forever. We're being caught up to.
The foreign-physician phenomena is not just in rural areas. The problem is that domestic-trained physicians go for high-dollar posts (which is why an endocrinologist gets about 200k in New York City, but in Jackson Mississippi, he or she would get about 400k/year (with a 5 year commitment of course). There are so many underserved areas in the USA because people go where the money is and foreign grads are the only ppl they can hire. You see the same thing in inner-city metropolitan hospitals (i.e. NYC's Metropolitan hospital).
They are coming here because of the salaries. There is a limited number of medical school grads every year because the med schools limit the number of admissions and thus, keep salaries inflated. Problem is, again, the free market means these docs will go where the money is, and not to Bunghole, TX, where they are needed.
Some of the foreign grads are ok, but the ones I have met -- God help you. The fact is, if you want a top notch surgeon, there is a reason people fly to the US and not to India.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on July 23, 2008, 06:28:34 AM
You're absolutely right that the US has lost a great deal of value in GDP and dollar-power in the last few years, but that doesn't change the fact that the US economy is massive -- currently far bigger than China's and they will take years to come close. China is mostly rural and the half-dozen cities which are modern are home to no more than 50 million people.
And yes, things are "in the crapper" but that is a relative comment. Americans have had a full belly for so long that things like $4 gasoline and cutting back on non-necessities is seen as "being in the crapper." Unemployment in the US hasn't spiked significantly (still at 5.5%). The highest in the last 10 years was in June 03 at 6.3%
Maybe things are more expensive and maybe we won't be flying on our vacations as much and maybe we won't be buying those Xboxes as fast, but something tells me that if almost 95% of the workforce is working, there isn't as big of a problem as people want to think there is.
Maybe you're too young to remember but unemployment in the early 80s was as high as 11% (according to the dept of labor website). Gas was just as expensive, relative to income and inflation. The speed limits were 55 but it sure didn't help anything. In fact, it was widely reported that the increase to 65 actually helped the economy, as well as the fact that cars were more efficient and safer, so the 55 mph was irrelevant.
In the crapper? I doubt it. The stock market is as much mental as it is physical. When people get scared (for any reason) they hide their money under the mattress.
I just need to look at the fact that people are still buying Xboxes to know they really aren't hurting that much. They might be buying fewer, but if things were really bad, they wouldn't buy ANY.
Raise the speed limit to 155.
I graduated from college in '81, so yeah I remember.
(http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Gasoline-Price.png)
I don't know about the xboxes, but I know the bottom has fallen out for cars & housing, two of the things that do drive our manufacturing base. After listening for a year that we've hit rock bottom my optimism is shot. The time to formulate plans and changes isn't after the shit has hit you in the kisser, but when you catch a whiff of it.
Anyway, the cost of driving for me is probably less than for most. My commute is 2 miles, my grocery store and drugstore are 1 mile, drycleaners around the corner, 15 restaurants within a 5 minute walk, doctor and dentist within 5 blocks. I have a feeling that if gas prices stay this high we might see the slowing or end of suburban sprawl.
Quote from: ducsix on July 23, 2008, 08:45:23 AM
I think about it this way:
Maybe I can save 5% on mpg because I drive 55 instead of 80, so my 30 mpg car can now get 33 mpg. At $5/gallon and around 10,000 miles/year, I've saved about $79. Yay.
At the same time, I've just spent an extra 42 hours driving in my car at the lower speed, so my savings are $1.40 / hr. The last time I looked at my paycheck I was making a bit more than that.
If I do the same analysis assuming I actually drive the speed limit, so the difference is between 55 mph and 65 mph, the savings do jump to a whopping $2.84 / hr.
Now consider the average American driver:
* average income per hr = $24.10
* average miles driven per year ~ 12,000 miles
* average mpg = 17 mpg
Plug these numbers in and the savings are $5/hr, 5x lower than the average hourly pay. So it is NOT AT ALL cost effective to reduce the speed limit, unless our goal is to cripple the productivity of the American worker.
Exactly! When I got my "Waste of finite resources" ticket for going 65 (actually it was 74-ish) in a 55, I almost contested it on 2 grounds:
1) My car gets the same mileage at 65 as it does at 55.
2) The truly finite resource is time.
Thus, I was actually
saving a finite resource.
But, since the jurisdiction is about 120 miles away and the ticket was only $85+0 points, by going to court and contesting it, I would have actually become guilty of the offense I was pleading not guilty to. Foiled again!