WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06

[mb]

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

[donheff]

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?

[newguy88]

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

[mathjak107]

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]

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.

[newguy88]

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!!

[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. .

[Zipper]

So what do you shoot mathjak?

Or more important?

WHY do you shoot it??

[newguy88]

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.

[Goonie]

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)

[mathjak107]

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.

[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

[mathjak107]

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.

[sgeeeee]

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.

[CCdaCE]

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

[mathjak107]

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!

[donheff]

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.

[sgeeeee]

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.

[brewer12345]

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.

[FinanceDude]

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.............