[Lear35A]

I realize there's a VERY frequent poster to this forum that will be most distressed at this picture from this evening's fill-up. Maybe 10 bucks or so per gallon would be much more climatically preferable. Now the other 99.9% of us are somewhat pleased things are moving in this direction. ?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

I'm thinking 454 Big Block (oops, did I say that out loud?)...



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

All of you kids get off my lawn !! I remember gas being somewhere between 29 cents to 31 cents a gallon when my parents bought me my first car in 1971...though I wasn't old enough to drive it ( legally ) until a couple of years later . Ahh, the good ole days of 396s and 427s, and 440s, and 454s, etc.

Nostalgia.. Sigh, it brings a tear to my eye.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Lear35A]

Actually my memory goes back that far. When a senior at USC, 1969 - 1970, there were frequent gas wars in LA. Many intersections literally had a gas station at each of the four corners. During good wars a gallon could be had for $0.199. And an attendant filled if for you. And there was often a giveaway like a coffee mug. It took very little cash to fill my MGB. Sigh.



Oh, and it didn't have any stinken ethanol in it either.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

while i still wish it were a LOT more expensive, it is a good indicator that the economic direction is positive, and things are going well.



now, if we could just convince the idiots that the pipeline they want to build would be better used transporting water from the ares that have too much to the areas that don't have enough, we'd be in good shape.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Chris Vais]

Sunoco 260 $0.17 a gallon at the exchange gas station in 1970, and that was the 104 octane stuff to boot.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

I find it must more interesting to follow the OPEC cartel who seem to not believe in the American shale revolution and its effects on the price of oil. Perhaps an economic weapon will convince those in the Middle East whose tenuous grip on their economies is diminishing that there is a good reason to be friendly with the U.S.!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[netopyer]

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:2509]

$7,41 for the gallon here <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/sad.png" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Lear35A]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1416890775' post='163936']

now, if we could just convince the idiots that the pipeline they want to build would be better used transporting water from the ares that have too much to the areas that don't have enough, we'd be in good shape.

[/quote]

I'm not following why they are "idiots." Those that want to build the pipeline are doing so only because someone at the other end will pay them for doing so. Same rational as to why a sound engineer would design a studio, no?

A water pipeline would be done in a heartbeat, if the price of transporting that water in the pipeline could/would be paid by the recipients of the water. That's how a market based system works. But you know that.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

At the beginning of the year...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

just because somebody is willing to pay for something does not make it smart for somebody to do it. murder for hire pays very well too. that pipeline will be a huge ecological problem.



by the way, i have talked more than a few people out of building a studio, and that is a part of how i made my living. similarly i have talked people out of buying things for their 968 that i sell. just because you can, it does not mean that you should. money isn't everything, and in fact should be the last consideration for anyone on anything.



a market based system is the problem. history has proven that it is doomed to fail. water is a resource that should be regulated and provided by the government. following that, there should be a pipeline to transport it from where there is too much to where there is too little. the floods on the east coast, and the droughts on the west coast will have a much farther reaching impact on our economy than any oil that could be pumped around. but nobody wants to do anything about that, because there is no money in it. again, energy and water should not be for profit.



gas prices dropping like this is a very bad thing for any hopes of getting off of oil. it really needs to be cost prohibitive for many. there are much better alternatives, but as long as gas is cheap, nobody will choose them. it may not make any difference now though. studies now are beginning to indicate that it is already too late, and that there are people already born today who will see the catastrophic results of what man has done to the planet.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

There is little debate ( actually to my knowledge there is none..) that lack of water resources in multiple regions of the world, not just in our fair state lol, will soon rise to the top of the critical issues we'll need to address on a global basis. Pipelines, desalination, and similar solutions are all expensive, but as flash said, money should be the least of any considerations when something as vital as that is at stake. And it should be the government(s) that must divert money from so much other unnecessary spending and waste toward investment in an infrastructure which will support proper and adequate allocation of water. The adverse economic and consequently human impact of doing nothing or too little too late would be widespread and catastrophic.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

[quote name='ds968' timestamp='1416931110' post='163948']

There is little debate ( actually to my knowledge there is none..) that lack of water resources in multiple regions of the world, not just in our fair state lol, will soon rise to the top of the critical issues we'll need to address on a global basis. Pipelines, desalination, and similar solutions are all expensive, but as flash said, money should be the least of any considerations when something as vital as that is at stake. And it should be the government(s) that must divert money from so much other unnecessary spending and waste toward investment in an infrastructure which will support proper and adequate allocation of water. The adverse economic and consequently human impact of doing nothing or too little too late would be widespread and catastrophic.

[/quote]



Roughly 12% of my portfolio is in Water Stocks...JMHO



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Lear35A]

Here is why we will never agree. The argument that the "government" should do this or the "government" should do that is hollow. What you call "government" is either bureaucrats or politicians. And every last one of them is a human being. And every last one of them has biases, prejudices, preferences, a political bent, certain life experiences, a gender, an age, a race and and and. Their decisions and actions reflect all these things. Get the idea? Some of them may agree with you more than others, but that in and of itself does not make them righteous, omniscient, benevolent, or somehow better.



A market based system is not perfect for sure. However history clearly shows that civilizations where the government controlled everything were pretty sad affairs. East Germany comes to mind, an ecological disaster if there ever was one.



And to catch the water theme for government control watch "Chinatown" again. Great movie.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Actually we don't disagre that much ..I certainly don't think that government and their inept bureaucrats / politicians should control and dictate policy on " everything " , but there are some segments where a universal and well regulated practice is essential . This is one of those domains . IMO .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

silvercab - would you call those "liquid assets"?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

Those are in my wine cellar <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/wink.png" class="smilie" alt="" />



Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

How liquid are they?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[WJH]

Okay, I have to ask. Why would the Keystone pipeline be an ecological disaster, but building a large (and it would be large) line to carry water would not?



Also, who would pay for said water pipeline. I know, I know, the government. I guess that would be me?



You can read for yourself the environmental impact that the NRDC believes these water pipelines would have.



http://www.nrdc.org/...nes-project.asp



I almost forgot, if you believe in global warming you have to consider the energy usage to pump said water. That too is mentioned in the full report.



Yep, no free lunch. If you want to live in a socialist utopia, settle somewhere that has plenty of water.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

I can't remember the last Thanksgiving we got 10" of snow. I bet skiers like global warming.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.