Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-15-2006, 10:01 PM   #61
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 899
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nords
OK, guys, I'll go digging (so to speak). I'm sure there's enough weasel words on the subject to prove that we're all correct.

I will grant you that gas costs/energy costs as a percent of income/GDP declined from the 70s up until recently. That is because oil was so cheap for so long. That is also why imports increased so much.

MB
__________________

__________________
mb is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-16-2006, 06:25 AM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,099
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Nords. It isn't just a comparison of gross national product with total cost of oil. The absolute amount and the source of supply are huge issues. We are heavily dependant on areas of the world where we are hated. We could have ramped up gas taxes to push ourselves more towards energy independance over the last 30 years. It seems like a security issue, not just a simple dollars and cents question.

In terms of impact on the economy, f we raised the gas tax we could (theoretically) lower some other tax. An imagine, if we had substantially reduced our dependance on the mideast maybe Bush & Co wouldn't have invaded Iraq and we would currently be saving hundreds of billions.

A final note: I heard on the news last night that 80% of Americans favor imposing requirements on auto makers for increased fuel efficiency. Wouldn't a gas tax make that happen through the market by changing the demand instead of trying to change the supply?
__________________

__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-16-2006, 03:54 PM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

the real problem is that you MUST buy gasoline to get to work. There are really no alternatives in many suburban areas of the country. Look at Vegas, the desert southwest, denver, atlanta gwinitt county the areas of Northern NJ Chicago all the 40 50 mile commutes. IN CARS! Now the Stupid american who still buys the SUV or the 6 cyl vehicle is well dumb as you know what. Gasoline is gonna hit 4 dollars a gallon next summer, just wait and see. Yes the scum in the middle east hate us and we still buy the oil it is a national security issue. BUT the OIL COMPANIES are the most POWERFUL companies in america, And we have a dummie in the white house who is still in bed with the SAUDI royals!!

Sorry I am sick of the policies of our country. I waited on those gasoline lines back in the 70s I have ALWAYS owned a 4 cyl vehicle for 35 years always drive a small car, Oh guess what when the children were still in the house THEY FIT JUST FINE IN THE BACK OF THE HONDA CIVIC and their stuff FIT IN THE TRUNK! Trips if it did not fit IT DID NOT GO WITH US!!!

American parents and their I NEED THE SUV OR MINIVAN BECAUSE OF THE KIDZ STUFF! $hit what a bunch of moronic parents. Do they know 15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDIS on 9/11
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 11:26 AM   #64
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,923
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

i just saw an article that said opec owns 105 billion right now in us treasuries. man am i glad i gave them all those gas profits so they can buy our treasuries. i hate to see our interest rates if they didnt buy them.

see using gas is a good thing
__________________
mathjak107 is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 11:29 AM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,923
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

who ever thought 33 years ago when we were on all those gas lines that by today almost nothing changed. geesh in 33 years i thought we would be like the jetsons.
__________________
mathjak107 is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 12:50 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
who ever thought 33 years ago when we were on all those gas lines that by today almost nothing changed. geesh in 33 years i thought we would be like the jetsons.
The real problem is the people who DIDN'T wait on those gas lines, the ones who were not born yet or were too young to remember. They think its their god given right to drive wasteful suvs and sit on lines to buy a biscuit at bojangles!!
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 02:51 PM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,923
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

some suv's are more efficiant than some cars so you cant generalize. i love and need mine being an avid hunter and camper but its a smaller bmw x3. what i find dis-tasteful is all these soccor moms with one kid and a quart of milk in a navigator or suburbon. .
__________________
mathjak107 is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 04:31 PM   #68
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 802
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

So what do you shoot mathjak?

Or more important?

WHY do you shoot it??
__________________
Zipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 07:10 PM   #69
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
some suv's are more efficiant than some cars so you cant generalize. i love and need mine being an avid hunter and camper but its a smaller bmw x3. what i find dis-tasteful is all these soccor moms with one kid and a quart of milk in a navigator or suburbon. .
I need mine. Uh what did people do 20 years ago??

Come on a BMW?? Please you are rationalizing.

You LIKE THE 3!! Which is fine but the vehicle should get 40mpg!! Or better.
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-17-2006, 08:06 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Goonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North-Central Illinois
Posts: 3,181
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

When I FIRE (in a very short time!) I'll be able to live comfortably on about 25% of my current net income.....the only major exception to that will be for vacationing, which will probably boost that percentage to about 30-35%...ocassionally!

As for cost of gas....I can walk from one end of town to the other in a matter of about 1 hour (leisurely walk...NOT brisk), or I can bike it in about 20 minutes (if I obey the traffic signals). If it's cold/rainy/snowy/etc, I'll wait till the weather co-operates. Plus, I'm going to be picking up a scoot in the spring, that will go a zillion miles on a fill-up....well, OK, maybe not QUITE a zillion, but at least a bunch!!!

If our thoughtful politicians decide to dig deeper into my pockets while they're picking them, I may activate my 'alternative retirement plan'....and go 'ex-pat' to Mexico or Costa Rica!! VIVA!!! 8)
__________________
Goonie is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-18-2006, 01:57 AM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,923
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy888
I need mine. Uh what did people do 20 years ago??

Come on a BMW?? Please you are rationalizing.

You LIKE THE 3!! Which is fine but the vehicle should get 40mpg!! Or better.
years ago there were station wagons , except for a few models they are long gone.
__________________
mathjak107 is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-18-2006, 05:39 AM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,099
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

There is no reason why we can't develop SUVs that get 40mpg. There has simply been no incentive to do so since gas is cheap. Our enemies have seduced us with cheap fire water
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-18-2006, 05:18 PM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,923
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

ill drive anything that suits my lifestyle, give me an suv that gets 40 miles to the gallon, dosnt depreciate many times faster than a conventional car because thousands in batteries will be needed as well as parts that are difficult to get or obsoleted in very short times and ill consider it.
__________________
mathjak107 is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-18-2006, 09:34 PM   #74
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff
There is no reason why we can't develop SUVs that get 40mpg. There has simply been no incentive to do so since gas is cheap. Our enemies have seduced us with cheap fire water
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-18-2006, 10:19 PM   #75
Full time employment: Posting here.
CCdaCE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 887
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgeeeee
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

Safety = weight? Haven't you ever seen one roll over? ... which SUVs tend to do alot, apparently.

Maybe a little less weight, or center of gravity adjustment, or SOMETHING, and then they'd be safer because they'd rollover less.

-CC
__________________
"There's those thinkin' more or less, less is more, but if less is more, how you keepin' score?
It means for every point you make, your level drops. Kinda like you're startin' from the top..." "Society" - Eddie Vedder
CCdaCE is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-19-2006, 02:47 AM   #76
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,923
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

so far hybrids are a poor choice. technology that obsoletes even the previous model years design. to much of a premium in price in most cases, batteries that cost thousands, its almost like buying a car you know will need a transmission job in it. depreciation thats rediculous because the technology is changing so fast.

long waits for parts and poorly trained mechanics

my insurance company even charges more for the hybrid version because if the batteries are damaged in a crash they are brutal to replace.

so far disposing of the old batteries are a problem as few recycling companies can handle these.

no thanks , ill take my conventional vehicle right now!
__________________
mathjak107 is online now   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-19-2006, 07:02 AM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,099
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgeeeee
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.

Smaller vehicles would be more efficient still but we could certainly make a 40MPG SUV. We ultimately will.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-19-2006, 08:57 AM   #78
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa
Posts: 3,588
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCdaCE
Safety = weight? Haven't you ever seen one roll over? ... which SUVs tend to do alot, apparently.

Maybe a little less weight, or center of gravity adjustment, or SOMETHING, and then they'd be safer because they'd rollover less.

-CC
The actual safety records are pretty clear. Some vehicles have higher rollover rates than others because of design, but rollovers are still only one type of accident and do not dominate safety statistics. The correlation is not perfect . . . but the relationship between vehicle weight and safety is very strong.
__________________
sgeeeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-19-2006, 11:36 AM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
brewer12345's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,890
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgeeeee
The actual safety records are pretty clear. Some vehicles have higher rollover rates than others because of design, but rollovers are still only one type of accident and do not dominate safety statistics. The correlation is not perfect . . . but the relationship between vehicle weight and safety is very strong.
Yup. My days of driving a 2500# econobox are over. It doesn't have to be luxurious, but if it isn't well over 3000#, I am not interested.
__________________
"Neither my companion or I carry firearms on our persons. We depend on the goodwill of our fellow man and the forbearance of reptiles."


- English Bob
brewer12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
Old 12-19-2006, 11:47 AM   #80
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgeeeee
To first order, gas mileage is inversely proportional to vehicle weight.

Unfortunately, to first order, safety is directly proportional to vehicle weight.
Yes, and no. The internal combustion engine is by design pretty inefficient. I think it's only about 33% efficient. If they sold furnaces that were 33% efficient, the public would scream bloody murder. Fact is, as long as gasoline is realtively cheap, and the oil companies and auto makers are in bed together, there will be no real change.

Hybrid technology is a band-aid measure. The average hybrid costs $5-6000 more, which can buy a heck of a lot of gas, so you don't get breakeven for 7 years or more............. :P

Find a way to get Suburbans to get 30 mpg on the highway, and you've got something. Have midsize cars and smaller get 40-50 mpg and you got something...............none of which will appear anytime soon.............
__________________

__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vanguard Adding More Target Retirement Funds Lusitan FIRE and Money 23 03-21-2006 06:17 PM
I thought I'd post a Picture of my Wife naked..... TromboneAl Life after FIRE 13 10-19-2005 09:14 AM
Great American Retirement Quiz sgeeeee Life after FIRE 0 01-05-2005 12:11 PM
Tax Policy Promotes "Early" Retirement REWahoo FIRE and Money 10 12-19-2004 07:25 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:03 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.