US$ 8.30 a gallon

[Francois_Dumas]

That's what it costs to get riding the BMW or Dad's little Peugeot now. It means less miles for me for a bit.....

[randy]

I wish the US would do the same. Until we "motivate" americans to change thier ways they never will. at 8.00 USD per gallon the US Population would start wanting/paying for mass transit and car pooling, and maybe business would start realizing we do not all "need" to drive to an office every day to sit at a desk and do what we could do at home just as easily.

[terryofperry]

Wow Randy, kinda hard on the less fortunate. I doubt one in twenty workers could do their jobs from home. If 10% to 20 % of the poor's income is going for transportation now, we do not need to double it.

 

Terry

[johnlt]

I paid that much up in the Yukon a couple years ago. $75 to fill my GS Adventure. Only thing that made me feel good was the guy behind me was driving a huge motorhome!!

[Pat Buzzard]

@Randy I fervently hope that does not happen. While you are correct in that it would mandate the use of car pools\mass transit. It would also cripple the economy. Personally I would not be able to afford to work. My job does require my presence. If I did drive to work under those prices I would not even turn a profit. It always amazes me when I see fellow motor enthusiasts say such things. I cannot speak for everyone, but under such prices I doubt very many of us would be able to ride recreationally.

[Roadwolf]

+1

[Dick Rothermel]

Yep, let's have $8.00 a gallon in the US......how about we tap all our oil here????? Offshore, Alaska, ND,SD. We are an oil rich country! Add in the Canada pipeline and there's even more. This country is so screwed up right now it drives me nuts!

[R80RTKen]

I am really hoping that electric motorcycles become a reality. It seems the Electric motors are truly exciting to ride, with good power delivery and serious grunt... While I do hope that the internal combustion engine lives long and thrives on affordable fossil fuel ;-), a real, non-gasoline alternative in the mass market is the future...

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

I wish the US would do the same. Until we "motivate" americans to change thier ways they never will. at 8.00 USD per gallon the US Population would start wanting/paying for mass transit and car pooling, and maybe business would start realizing we do not all "need" to drive to an office every day to sit at a desk and do what we could do at home just as easily.

 

Unfortunately that would also mean that the cost of everything would go up by a similar amount. Everything in this country is shipped by truck. Everything in this country has it's price tied to the cost of fuel. Essentially, the United States would be regionalized so that you can only buy whatever food is produced locally.

 

 

[Bob_Minor]

Yep, let's have $8.00 a gallon in the US......how about we tap all our oil here????? Offshore, Alaska, ND,SD. We are an oil rich country! Add in the Canada pipeline and there's even more. This country is so screwed up right now it drives me nuts!

 

We're saving our oil until everybody else runs out. Might as well use everybody else's first.

[Pat Buzzard]

I am really hoping that electric motorcycles become a reality.

 

In my perfect world... We have many nuke plants generating affordable electricity. I have a nice sport touring bike with every bit as much performance as my R1100RT and am able to recharge it as quickly as I currently refuel it... Unfortunately I'm afraid that that dream is many years away...

[RTJohn]

Makes me glad I have a bike that gets 50 mpg.

[Boffin]

It's why I drive a car that gets 40 mpg (US) and why Europeans love their diesels.

 

Andy

[Richard_D]

Can gas be made available cheaper for those of us who need trucks and trailers in our business ?

[Quinn]

Hard for me to work from home. How many ditches do I need dug in my back yard. And who will pay for me to dig them. Maybe I could dig them in my back yard and have someone in a truck deliver them to where they're needed.

 

----

 

 

[Limecreek]

I wish the US would do the same. Until we "motivate" americans to change thier ways they never will. at 8.00 USD per gallon the US Population would start wanting/paying for mass transit and car pooling, and maybe business would start realizing we do not all "need" to drive to an office every day to sit at a desk and do what we could do at home just as easily.

 

It may come much sooner than you think along with several other dramatic changes that will be very painful for all of us.

[jbr7t]

That would be devastating to public safety (as well as many other things..but this is the one that affects my paycheck). I'm pretty sure you aren't going to see an electric fire truck anytime soon! Plus, all this stuff of electric and battery operated cars and the "green"ness of it is a bunch of hooey. What happens to those batteries when they go bad?? Oh yea, they go into a landfill. How is the electricity made to begin with..Oh yea fossil fuels and nuclear rods. with the amount of draw EVERYTHING electric would put there'd be a powerplant in every neighborhood. ..ok i put my soapbox away, back to the firefighter thing... Not to mention with what we are paid most of us would barely be able to afford the fuel to get to work. And I can't do my job from home.

[tallman]

I wish the US would do the same. Until we "motivate" americans to change thier ways they never will. at 8.00 USD per gallon the US Population would start wanting/paying for mass transit and car pooling, and maybe business would start realizing we do not all "need" to drive to an office every day to sit at a desk and do what we could do at home just as easily.

 

Randy,

Perhaps a disconnect between urban and rural here.

I live in an urban (cough cough) area.

I work in a rural one.

Mass transit?

Unlikely.

One 35 mile stretdch thru a National Forest, so unlikely to run a rail

to an endpoint that has several hundred folks.

Carpool?

Nearest co-worker lives 30 minutes and about 15 miles the other direction.

He drives a Corolla and my Malibu averages just over 30mpg.

Not great, but we're trying.

Work from home?

Unlikely as my students come from an 800 square mile area, more or less.

Would I like to save money/insurance/maintenance/ and sit on a bus/train

most days?

Sure would and did in San Francisco/Boston when living there.

Transportation of public schools students is a huge expense.

One day maybe all instruction will be via computer and the kids never have to leave home to learn.

They'd grow up and work from home.

They could order groceries/clothes/electronics/etc from home via computer.

The only people who woould need to drive would be FedUPsX.

For now I try to support the concept of green/carbon footprinting living

while accepting the reality that to make money I'm going to have to commute.

No easy solution.

Best wishes.

[jviss]

I wish the US would do the same. Until we "motivate" americans to change thier ways they never will. at 8.00 USD per gallon the US Population would start wanting/paying for mass transit and car pooling, and maybe business would start realizing we do not all "need" to drive to an office every day to sit at a desk and do what we could do at home just as easily.

Gee, Randy, and I hope all of your bills and expenses go up, too! What kind of foolishness is it to want the price of a commodity to up? Would you also wish that food prices would go up so people wouldn't be fat? Think of how higher gas prices and higher food prices affect the working poor, who don't have the LUXURY of telecommuting, as you apparently do; you can't pump gas, clean a hotel room, or dig a ditch over the internet!

 

 

[upflying]

I am really hoping that electric motorcycles become a reality. It seems the Electric motors are truly exciting to ride, with good power delivery and serious grunt... While I do hope that the internal combustion engine lives long and thrives on affordable fossil fuel ;-), a real, non-gasoline alternative in the mass market is the future...

I'm looking forward to riding a motorcycle that quits after 25miles.

[moshe_levy]

Interesting discussion.... By now most people here know my position on it. Rather than repeat it, I will merely ask an easy question: When's the last time anyone here witnessed a "market correction" or a correction instituted by Mother Nature as a slow, gradual, and compassionate force? We take charge of the future by reversing dependence on what are, by every definition, limited resources, or we put ourselves at the mercy of the aforementioned corrections. And when they take place - quickly, without much warning, and brutally - we will further be at the mercy of those manufacturing entities and countries who weren't so eager to stick their heads in the sand, as we Americans are so adept at when it comes to this issue.

 

-MKL

[upflying]

Sounds good Moshe. I'm all for $8 gallon US gas as long as we get Euro spec 50 mpg diesels, an excellent and convenient public transportation infrastructure and a nuclear power plant on every corner like France has.

As mentioned, let's drill domestically and become less dependent on foreign oil while we stick our heads in the sand as the Middle East goes to war.

[realshelby]

"Market Correction" I can live with. When demand is lower, supplies are higher, and we are still seeing fuel costs go up....there is something else at play. Diesel fuel used to be cheaper than regular grade gasoline. Recently I noticed it was $.60 per gallon higher. It IS cheaper to refine than gasoline. The Ultra Low Sulphur regulations started the trend but are not the reason for this much change. I found out recently we are exporting enormous amounts of diesel fuel to South America. We are being fleeced by "Big Oil". I'll leave it at that to keep away from a flaming discussion. My wife is in the oil and gas business here in Houston, they don't need subsidies....

[jviss]

Just to provide a littler perspective here, I believe Mr. Dumas, the original poster, resides in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has one of the highest gasoline taxation rates in the world. Approximately 70% of the price of gas is tax. In the U.S. gas taxes vary by state, but together with the federal tax the mean gas tax in the U.S. as of 2009 was about 46¢. Do a little math and you'll find the "market" rate for gasoline in the U.S and Europe is about the same. The price difference is due to taxation.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE EDIT DUE TO POLITICAL COMMENT.

 

 

 

 

[Roadwolf]

In the U.S. gas taxes vary by state, but together with the federal tax the mean gas tax in the U.S. as of 2009 was about 46¢.

 

Which is atrociously too low... it needs to be doubled every couple of years for the next decade... that way the money for highways and byways will be there, which it isn't now.

[moshe_levy]

Do a little math and you'll find the "market" rate for gasoline in the U.S and Europe is about the same. The price difference is due to taxation. This it the price of socialism.

 

I'm glad you put "market" in quotation marks, since "market rate" and "gas" are by all accounts mutually exclusive entities. Some of the price difference is due to taxation, yes. But not all. The US lavishes some $4 billion annually in subsidies to the oil companies - does anyone believe that $4 billion doesn't affect pricing? And what about externalities - those costs not transmitted through market pricing? For example, is the price of the environmental damage caused by oil spills (Remember BP? Anyone read about the recent Shell spill in Nigeria? Should I go on?) reflected at the pump, or does the public (read: our tax dollar, i.e., another subsidy) clean up the mess? For another example, are the costs of the multiple bases and tens of thousands of troops we have stationed in the Middle East reflected in the price per gallon? Most certainly not. There are many other such external costs, not reflected in the price the consumer pays, yet paid for by that same consumer.

 

In fact, I would venture a guess that if the true cost of oil, inclusive of externalities but devoid of the generous corporate welfare were calculated, it would be very close to that $8.30 figure quoted above. But when a true free market calculation price like this comes to bite you in the ass, don't complain. It's just supply, and demand, something sorely lacking in today's woefully artifical pricing.

 

There seems to be a mental fixation with "either / or" in this debate. Some focused only on conservation, and some others only on supply. For the former, conservation can go so far, and as stated above some in rural areas do not have the luxury of public transportation or have jobs which require big trucks. For the latter, the idea that we have enough oil domestically to satisfy our insatiable demand is laughable, pure and simple. There is no report, no scientist, no credible article anywhere that makes that claim - it will move things by a couple of percent, like fighting a fire with a medicine dropper. This isn't a blip vs. the power of one lousy Middle Eastern nation rattling its puny sword and the result on the open market, as when just a few days ago, the Strait of Hormuz were threatened to be closed:

 

 

Do you want to try to make the case that having so much of our economy dependent on swings like this - totally out of your control - is a smart idea?

 

Why is it so difficult for people to wrap their brains around the central, undeniable fact that getting off of this addicition will require an amalgam of conservation and development - demand and supply must be addressed. But in what proportion? Consider this:

 

 

If you don't like the source, you'll find the same basic ratios in publications on the opposite side of the isle as well. Demand is in each individual's hands, much more than supply is. So obviously, that is the place where the individual can stand up and make a real difference.

 

-MKL

 

 

[Skywagon]

Not as complicated as all that...We need less people. I did my part...No children... I wrote a paper about this in college in the 70's kind of as a joke for a communications class...guess I was a little more prophetic than I thought. What would our globe look like with 1/2 the population? What would it look like with no more strip malls or WallyWorlds..

 

Just sayin....for those who really want to lower consumption, lower reproduction - voluntarily of course.

 

 

[BIWOZ]

We're not quite as bad; we're paying as of this morning $5.80US for a US (not Imperial) gallon; 3.8 litres not 4.54 litres.

 

Unlike Europe (but similar to the USA) distances here are vast. Australia is roughly the size of the contiguous states of the US; and my state is one-third of that ... almost four times the size of Texas and when compared to the Netherlands:

 

 

We have (virtually) no rail infrastructure and internal airfares are far from cheap. I can fly to Singapore and back for less than I can fly from home to Broome and back.

 

My point is, we can't afford to pay much more for fuel. Trucking goods across 4000 km of desert from one side of the country to the other is pushing costs through the roof already. People here are reportedly already having to decide whether to buy fuel to get to work or buy food. Petrol station drive-offs are becoming an everyday occurrence. And when a new Toyota Pious [sic] costs up to $45 000 here, people have to keep using their older, less efficient vehicles.

 

I'd like a new turbo-diesel Kia Sportage (4-cylinder, two litre) ...

 

 

... but at $44 000 dollars it ain't gonna happen.

 

As much as I may agree with cleaner and greener (in principle), until there is a viable alternative we are going to face escalating costs which will do absolutely zilch ... we need to be mobile.

[moshe_levy]

David-

 

There is something to what you say, and of course birth rates in first world countries overall is declining by some measures, but my main point what what is, and what is not, under your direct control.

 

Consumption is under your direct control. What car you drive, what house you live in, what furnace heats your house, and what A/C cools it. And so on. Whether we drill for oil is not under my control. How many kids my neighbor has is also not under my control. And so on. So what I am trying to say in a nutshell is, the individual can make tremendous strides in his / her personal life to reduce his overall consumption of limited resources - and by extension, by doing so collectively, we can curb our addiction to the pushers over in the Middle East.

 

-MKL

[Skywagon]

Moshe...I agree with you and trust me...We try hard. I rode the train to work nearly everyday when I had to go in. I have the privledge and the opportunity to work from home....but within our control is population growth. I am not saying no children, but more than two you are contributing to consumption for (pick a life cycle) 70 years or more....far more than if I drove cars that got 2 miles to the gallon...which I don't.

 

My neighbors have 9 children. Thats 11 people consuming... who will begot no telling what....My wife is Polish. When I go to one of her renunions she has 11 uncles and aunts...they each have 3-10 children. That is 100 people produced from 2....

[Francois_Dumas]

The price difference is due to taxation.

 

This is correct. On January 1st we were the most expensive country in the EU, followed closely by Denmark and Italy.

 

This it the price of socialism.

 

This, I am sorry to say, is baloney. We're not a 'socialist country'

[Francois_Dumas]

At least I got an interesting discussion out of my recent scare at the pump !

 

Carry on

[KDeline]

Not as complicated as all that...We need less people. I did my part...No children... I wrote a paper about this in college in the 70's kind of as a joke for a communications class...guess I was a little more prophetic than I thought. What would our globe look like with 1/2 the population? What would it look like with no more strip malls or WallyWorlds..

 

Just sayin....for those who really want to lower consumption, lower reproduction - voluntarily of course.

 

 

 

Totally agree. I did my part to.

[Paul Mihalka]

Not as complicated as all that...We need less people. I did my part...No children... I wrote a paper about this in college in the 70's kind of as a joke for a communications class...guess I was a little more prophetic than I thought. What would our globe look like with 1/2 the population? What would it look like with no more strip malls or WallyWorlds..

 

Just sayin....for those who really want to lower consumption, lower reproduction - voluntarily of course.

 

 

Yes, plagues and wars are not doing their jobs anymore.

 

Francois:

"This, I am sorry to say, is baloney. We're not a 'socialist country' "

 

The concept of what is socialism is very different in the USA than it is in Europe.

 

[BIWOZ]

The price difference is due to taxation.

 

This is correct. On January 1st we were the most expensive country in the EU, followed closely by Denmark and Italy.

 

This it the price of socialism.

 

This, I am sorry to say, is baloney. We're not a 'socialist country'

 

Sorry, mate, but by Australian standards too, you are well and truly a socialist country inasmuch as your social welfare programs (government instigated and run) are bleeding you dry.

 

Mind you ... with our current bloody ALP/Greens government we are not far behind.

[jviss]

In the U.S. gas taxes vary by state, but together with the federal tax the mean gas tax in the U.S. as of 2009 was about 46¢.

 

Which is atrociously too low... it needs to be doubled every couple of years for the next decade... that way the money for highways and byways will be there, which it isn't now.

Gasoline taxes, just like road tolls, disproportionately affect the poor. It's a regressive method of taxation, and immoral, in my opinion.

 

We need less tax; the only way to stem the growth of our out-of-control federal bureaucracy is to starve it.

[jviss]

 

This, I am sorry to say, is baloney. We're not a 'socialist country'

Whether a country is socialist or not is not a binary determination; it is a matter of degree. The Netherlands, while being driven by capitalism, implements a social welfare state. Where else would one receive automatic bank deposits form the government for your child care, or vakantiegeld? On the continuum from libertarianism, or perhaps anarchy, to communism, the Netherlands is decidedly to the socialist end of the spectrum. The 52% income tax rate and the highest gas taxes in the world, among other things, are required to finance this. (Yet, there are huge loopholes that benefit the rich, such as zero capital gains tax, and the fact that many charges for government provided services are based on income, regardless of wealth. So, one can be a mult-millionaire, taking all of his financial benefit in terms of capital gains, and pay less for health insurance than the lowest wage earners. But that's a distraction).

[realshelby]

I think road tax or per gallon fuel tax is one of the most fair taxes we pay.

 

If the politicians had not robbed the highway fund treasury that collects and holds the per gallon fuel tax ( meant for infrastructure upgrades and repairs ) the roads in the United States would be in far better shape than they are now. Politicians cannot stand to see money sitting there waiting to do its job, they want to put it into other programs not related to what the fuel tax was brought about for. Not wanting to be too political, this is done by ALL parties.

[RTJohn]

Morning Francois, one of the key that keeps the price of gasoline/jet/diesel so high is demand. Gasoline sales in California have actually declined recently but the price continues to go up...due to demand...elsewhere. It turns out that the oil companies (including mine) are exporting an increasing amount of their products overseas. It seems the Europeans love our Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and can't get enough of it. South Americans are importing record amounts of finished gasoline. Everyone wants our jet. High demand equals high prices everywhere. They're predicting $5.00 gasoline before summer here in California. Glad I'm on a bike. The answer...we all know the answer...we just don't want to go there.

[wbrissette]

Which is atrociously too low... it needs to be doubled every couple of years for the next decade... that way the money for highways and byways will be there, which it isn't now.

 

Right. At the moment, most states are barely able to fund road repairs on the current tax rate. Instead you have people such as Gov. Rick Perry who simply wants to turn it all over to companies and have toll roads everywhere. I'm all for new roads being built that can be funded via a toll, but I also want the states to look at places like Kentucky which have laws in place that state when a road is paid for, it becomes a non-toll road. But I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

 

Wayne

 

 

[OlGeezer]

I think road tax or per gallon fuel tax is one of the most fair taxes we pay.

 

If the politicians had not robbed the highway fund treasury that collects and holds the per gallon fuel tax ( meant for infrastructure upgrades and repairs ) the roads in the United States would be in far better shape than they are now. Politicians cannot stand to see money sitting there waiting to do its job, they want to put it into other programs not related to what the fuel tax was brought about for. Not wanting to be too political, this is done by ALL parties.

 

I TOTALLY agree! Even if we "gave" the US government more money by taxing gasoline, that would not guarantee our roads would be better. We can no longer trust our politicians, Republican or Democrat. Before we do ANYTHING else, we need to take that credit card away from those irresponsible spenders.

[Mike]

I really don't think jacking up fuel prices by that amount is a good thing. As noted by multiple posters above, not everyone has the same options, nor are most of us willing--or perhaps even able--to shoulder the extra cost burdens that would impose on consumer goods.

 

A while ago I recall reading a number of articles about the wealth of Americans, relative to the rest of the world. While we are not at the top in terms of per capita income, the fact that we live in a country with a highly competitive business environment means that an equivalent amount of currency buys significantly more than most other advanced nations. Introducing a doubling (or more) of the most significant cost of moving goods across a huge nation would certainly impose burdens on a large percentage of Americans.

 

The difficulty in any issue relating to energy usage is striking the right balance. I don't think the imposition of European tax levels would be a good thing here.

[moshe_levy]

Mike, the issue is essentially one of policy balance. If your goal as a legislator is to move the country off of oil, you basically have two levers to pull. The first lever is subsidy / reward - and the second is punitive. The third choice is to do nothing, but this will accomplish nothing also. So essentially there are those who favor the first lever, those who favor the second, those who favor a mix of the two (myself included,) and finally a segment of the population which conveniently doesn't see a need to do anything, and resents the implication that there is a problem in the first place.

 

-MKL

[Mike]

Mike, the issue is essentially one of policy balance. If your goal as a legislator is to move the country off of oil, you basically have two levers to pull. The first lever is subsidy / reward - and the second is punitive. The third choice is to do nothing, but this will accomplish nothing also. So essentially there are those who favor the first lever, those who favor the second, those who favor a mix of the two (myself included,) and finally a segment of the population which conveniently doesn't see a need to do anything, and resents the implication that there is a problem in the first place.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, I wouldn't entirely discount the third lever, that of market forces. I understand that you have less than complete confidence in the mechanisms of the marketplace, but I tend to believe that market forces are more likely to create the best long-term solutions.

 

The problem with regulatory solutions is that they tend to be mired in the approaches that seem appropriate at the time of their conception. If regulatory "fixes" are truly transitory they can help (as in the instance of tax incentives that make new technologies more widely affordable), but there's often an unwillingness by regulators to loosen their grip once it's established.

[Polo]

Moshe, your overall concept is plausible, however you are starting your position from an erroneous assumption: "If your goal as a legislator is to move the country off of oil".

 

I am being cynical, but I would venture to say that 99% of our legislators have "Being reelected" as their main goal, and serving private interests is the surest vehicle to achieve that goal.

 

We are seriously under represented as it is, so to just impose more taxes to curve our consumption, while the taxes that were there were misused, is not much different from giving Johny a candy bar as punishment for having raided the cookie jar.

 

[jviss]

Not as complicated as all that...We need less people. I did my part...No children... I wrote a paper about this in college in the 70's kind of as a joke for a communications class...guess I was a little more prophetic than I thought. What would our globe look like with 1/2 the population? What would it look like with no more strip malls or WallyWorlds..

 

Just sayin....for those who really want to lower consumption, lower reproduction - voluntarily of course.

 

I hesitate to point this out given your personal action, but it is based on a flawed premise: that population growth is fueled by the birth rate. It is not! The reason for the increase in world population is the decline of the death rate, as a result of the availability of antibiotics, immunizations, clean water, increased food production, and modern medicine in general, all of which have contributed to a dramatic decline in infant mortality, death of mothers in childbirth, and longer life expectancy. Further, the population growth rate has been declining since its peak in 1962, and the growth in numbers has been declining since its peak in 1989. So, yes, we are adding people, 'though not as fast as we had been.

[moshe_levy]

Moshe, I wouldn't entirely discount the third lever, that of market forces. I understand that you have less than complete confidence in the mechanisms of the marketplace, but I tend to believe that market forces are more likely to create the best long-term solutions. The problem with regulatory solutions is that they tend to be mired in the approaches that seem appropriate at the time of their conception.

 

I agree 100%, but I will turn that exact argument back on you, and it's equally as powerful. Market decisions are also appropriate at the time of conception, without necessarily any long-term strategic thinking behind them. That's why, for example, at the last major gas shock in late 2007, lots were chock full of traded-in swillers and people were paying $2-5k over MSRP for any Prius they could find. That's one example - there are many. This is why I said market corrections - and Mother Nature - are swift, brutal, and merciless. You can paddle around reacting to them and be at their mercy, or you take the bull by the horns and reduce your exposure to them. I'm in the latter camp.

 

 

My point here is not to advocate taxes. My point here is simply to say, to all but the most apathetic elements in society, there is a problem. Any viable solution that moves us towards a solution should be intellectually debated and considered free from dogmatic, rigid ideological sloganeering. Will it work - will it move us towards the goal? Is it worth the price? Is there another way we haven't thought of, yet?

 

Of course this will not happen because people prefer to let the other guy do the heavy lifting, but until then I urge people to remember that an argument that hits yourself as hard as you're trying to hit the other side is not a very convincing one.

 

-MKL

 

 

[jviss]

Moshe, that's funny. The cost of switching to a Prius versus the savings in fuel costs would hardly pay for the sales tax on the new vehicle, let alone the capital cost, financing costs, and title and registration fees. The real reason for the bump in Prius sales in 2007 was the tax subsidies, and other government-subisdized advantages of hybrid ownership that were in effect. Why were Prius sales down 25% in 2011 from their 2008 high despite the fact that the gas prices were nearly as high?

 

I guess subsidies are O.K. when they are virtuous, according to one's philosophy, to the point they don't bear mentioning?

 

The U.S. is a big country, and it requires automobiles to get around. The Netherlands, for example, is in land area in between Maryland and West Virginia, our 41st and 42nd states by size. We choose, and need, inexpensive gasoline. In many European countries, as in most large U.S. cities, you can manage without a car, so I guess it's fine if driving is reserved for the elite.

[moshe_levy]

John, we are definitely on course here to veer off topic, though I would definitely comment that your overall analysis of sales and their underlying reasons is flawed, to put it mildly. To whit, to say a few hundred $$$ in subsidy on this car had more to do with the sudden, unexpected (and totally unexplained) gas crunch of 2007 is to ignore the obvious - coupled with further making my original point about consumers making "rational" decisions a rare event. Why are sales of Prius down in 2008 vs. 2011? Gee, you think the global sales downturn of ALL vehicles had something to do with it - the period of time when the US market became the world's second largest, behind China - or you think the $500 rebate running out was the be-all-end-all?

 

The comment on subsidies is noted. I have pointed out on this forum, many, many times, that far more heavy vehicles are subsidized to an exponentially higher amount of taxpayer dollars than hybids or EVs. See Section 179 - depreciation deduction. $25,000.00 writeoff on any SUV or truck over 6,000 pounds. Not a peep about that, though. I guess that's OK?

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

All-

 

Sorry, there's a bit of ambiguity re the way I worded the above - my first point to John was essentially that to ignore the effects of the overall automotive market downturn - the worst in many decades - and lay all the blame of lower sales on lack of subidies is folly.

 

Next, I forgot to share an article many of you have no doubt read by now, from today's Financial Times, hardly a source of lefty bias. See http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/af13f09c-405f-11e1-9bce-00144feab49a.html Tell me where you see market forces of supply based on actual supply of commodity in that article with regard to where price is set. You guys let me know when you find it... While you search in vain, remember your demand is something you do control, and nece where the solution you can effect comes into play. That's my point, in a nutshell, right there.

 

-MKL