 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Welcome to the New Outside posted by Bruce from DC on June 26, 2000 at 08:01:22:
After days (felt like years) of being severely outside-deprived I feel an urge to say something here. Doesn't matter what, just somethng here and not there.Guess what, someone had already bid on that stinky Rudel book...
And, on gas prices... with the US government playing the major fiddle in the world (I dounbt the Franch government would be paid much attention to if it told the OPEC to reduce the production) how does that affect the rest of the world? Did the prices in Europe, insane as they are already, followed the same route? Did they go up? There the effect should be far softer, with the cost ever further removed from the retail price.
Hi Victor,
i checked a months worth of the Economist. There were a couple of articles; but neither discussed the effect in Europe. Which wouls lead me to think that the increase in Europe prob reflects the increase in the cost of crude. This, compared to the after tax price, would not be much.
This seems to stem from the new reformulated gas rules. I would like to point out that the old CAFE standard would have prevented all this.
anyone know a conservative number to use as a factor to calculate todays price from 1968? I remember paying 29.9 cents for a gallon of regular at the independent station on Rt. 22 in Murrysville, PA.With inflation, I'm estimating today's price would be about $1.65/gallon for leaded 87 octane. Then taking out the lead, and refining a bit more to keep the octane up, and adding the MTBE and detergents, you're up to about what it is now. So really, for most of the Clinton administration, we have been getting the cheapest gas since the Standard Oil price wars.
The price of gas in the US has not gone up at all, it's actually gone down for most of the last 30 years.
this morning I watched Ed Murphy, manager of downstream industries of the American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group, on C span.He said that last summer saw a historical record low of gasoline prices in this country. He said, that adjusted for inflation, gasoline sold for the equivalent of what it was in the 1930's -- during a world-wide economic depression.
Mr. Murphy has been with this organization for thirty years. He says that the reason gasoline prices have increased in the last few months is due to demand exceeding available supply. He says that supplies in the United States are limited because the domestic industry is denied access to exploration and exploitation of suspected large reserves of oil and gas. When asked if current developed resources are operating at capacity he dodged the question, and said we are importing oil because the industry is denied access to large reserves of oil and gas on Federal Land. He said that the price variation among states, which is between 20 and 40 cents per gallon at the pump, is due entirely to state gasoline taxes. He says there is no demand for high-milage cars, but the demand for the largest, most polluting, lowest milage vehicles is high. He said it's a lifestyle thing.
In a speach yesterday, President Clinton said the recent rise in oil prices is due to a supply problem. He said a combination of factors, including pipeline breaks, and low-emissions reformulations that slowed refinery outputs, were responsible for the domestic shortages. He said that the OPEC countries, with the exception of Saudia Arabia, are already producing at their capacity. Clinton said that efficient, low-pollution automobiles are available or can be widely available to consumers in as little as two years. He said that the federal gasoline tax, implimented to correct the deficit in the federal budget, amounts to 17 cents per gallon. He said that it is up to congress to decide if their constituants want this tax to be lifted, and if they can forgo repairs and upgrades to the nation's highways and bridges.
Here are two well-informed people who agree that what we have is a supply problem. Demand exceeds supply, so the price goes up.
So, if Americans are serious about temporary low gas prices, all we have to do is tell our congressmen to start drilling in Alaska, and off of Malibu Beach. And since half of the personal vehicles sold are in the light truck, high-pollution category, we really don't need to fix the potholes and bridges. People can start using the full potential of thier SUV's and drive over/around crumbling roads and ford streams and rivers, just like on TV! Is this a great country or what!
***Here are two well-informed people who agree that what we have is a supply problem. Demand exceeds supply, so the price goes up.No shit. Anyone here ever argued this? Nope. It is 2x2 stuff...
Now, for the important part that you have been avoiding like Dracula avoids light: what *exactly* drove the supply down suddently this spring?
Ask your Mr. Clinton. Hint: that wooden stiff in the corner is responsible too. See some of his speeches this spring where he advocated reducing the supply in order to raise the prices in order to reduce driving...
It is true, that Mr. Gore has exercised more responsibility as Vice President than anyone in the history of that office. And it is also true, that his twenty plus years of foreign affairs experince makes him uniquely qualified for the high office he seeks.But you are investing him with power well beyond what the executive branch is capable of, even if there were a Democraticly controled congress to support such power.
Are you suggesting that the Clinton/Gore administration "engineered" the fire in one of the principle gasoline piplines feeding the midwest from the refineries on the Gulf coast--and that they busted the other pipline, causing an environmental hazard and months of delay while repairs are made?
And cleverly, they did this right at the time when distributors were trying to build up supplies for the summer, when demand reaches a yearly peak. Are you saying that as far back as 1994, when congress ordered the industry to begin plans to reformulate gasoline sold in regions with high ozone pollution, plans that were to be fully in place and on line in the summer of 2000--that Gore, Mr. Environment, stymed those plans--and held the entire petroleum industry at bay?Because that's what the refineries are telling us: "It's too hard!,...we didn't have enough time! to add some ethanol to the gasoline and make it burn cleaner." This is the other reason the industry claims is responsible for the shortage and resulting price increases. This is a weird claim, when one considers that Archer Daniels Midland, one of the largest if not the most powerful sorce of cash in politics, has a headlock on the ethanol business. This is not rocket science: all you have to do is add the ethanol. You don't even have to mix it. It's as easy as pouring a liter of Vodka in the tank before filling up.
Are you saying that Al Gore makes a couple of speaches about consumer responsibility and the entire industry goes into a crisis? What awesome power he has! God forbid he doesn't win the election! In his rage, I bet he makes a speach and causes a world-wide depression.
As I've said above, oil prices last summer hit an historic low. Everyone in the industry agrees that this happened. As a result, OPEC reduced it's production of crude thru the fall and winter, to try and get the price back up. Starting in late summer, refineries change the cracking of crude to decrease the amount of gasoline produced, and increase the amount of fuel/heating oils, then in the early spring, they switch back. The stored reserves at distribution points serve to buffer these seasonal changeovers.
Clinton sent sec. Richardson to talk to OPEC in March of this year, to warn them that the forcast demand for fuel this summer, and the delay between production of crude, refining, and transport to storage facilities and distribution points, meant that they must immediately INCREASE production to capacity. This was confirmed THREE TIMES by Ed Murphy (manager of Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbist group) on a CSPAN interview last week. All of the OPEC countries are now at capacity, except for Saudia Arabia. But remember, the lag time between crude production and reformulated gasoline at the pump is MONTHS!
Most of the refineries in this country are located along the Gulf coast. The gasoline travels through the pipeline at 4 miles an hour. Right at the time when distributors were trying to build-up stockpiles for the summer SUV driving season, TWO major pipelines went off line. If you do the math, you will see that even if the pipelines were repaired immediately, you still have a minimum three week delay before the gasoline begins to appear in Chicago, during which time all the reserves already in Chicago are depleted. This is a simple supply/demand market force at work. I know Rush would love to find a vast left-wing conspiracy fixing the price of gasoline, but Rush knows his followers are idiots, and that's what they want to believe, and he's getting rich feeding it to them. I doubt Rush has the intellectual capacity to understand the process, so he just says "ditto", and nobody has to think any more. Whew! Thank God none of Rush's fans are smart enough to vote.
Personaly, I am in favor of high federal taxes on gasoline. I think the European countries are wise to tax gasoline at 80%. In addition to encouraging responsible driving, and public transportation use, it is an excellent buffer to the whims of OPEC supply variations that cause wide swings in retail gasoline prices in America. Fuel efficient cars have been around since the last gasoline crisis in the early 70's. People on the bottom of the economic pile who were caught with 12 mpg vehicles in the 70's when the first crisis hit don't have an excuse this time around.
And the truckers: who are getting 3 mpg at the 70+ mph speeds they drive now, could drive at a reasonable 55 mph, and gain a 30% reduction of fuel costs alone, not to mention the savings in maintainence costs, or the reduction in accidents.
I just don't believe gasoline pricing is important. Americans don't care about the price, or they wouldn't be buying SUV's as fast as they can be made.
What about public schools? What about universal health care? What about regional planning for housing, business, recreation and industry? What about regional planning for public transportation? How about a sensible energy policy for the nation? What are we going to do with all these old people (people like me--who are getting pretty pissed-off at today's youth!). How are we going to attract a decent world-class conductor to Philadelphia?
But most important, where's my ultra broadband internet access, and my $500 flat-screen HDTV ? I wanna know what that Son-of-a-Bush is going to do about my cheap, mass-market, flat-screen HDTV! Let's get to the issues America really cares about!
I don't give a shit about gasoline. I wish Gore could influence the price of gas, and make it $10/gallon!
C'mon Victor, you don't really care about the price of gas...what you really would like to see more empty roads...think about it. Interstates with nothing but a few high-performace european sports and touring cars.
Wicked!
To learn how one can discuss simple (and complicated) things without calling an opponent an idiot, tune to Rush show five times a week.I know, I know, it is just so easy to become viciously envious of his success. Something one would have to gradually grow out, I guess.
...because it goes to the very substance of the issue - free market vs. government control. Lesseeee
***anyone know a conservative number to use as a factor to calculate todays price from 1968?Doesn't matter at all.
***I remember paying 29.9 cents for a gallon of regular at the independent station on Rt. 22 in Murrysville, PA.
With inflation, I'm estimating today's price would be about $1.65/gallon for leaded 87 octane. Then taking out the lead, and refining a bit more to keep the octane up, and adding the MTBE and detergents, you're up to about what it is now.What the gas (or any commodity) prices would be, if simply adjusted for some mysterious inflation factor, is completelly immaterial. The only way the prices should be established should be through free market mechanisms.
Over the decades, some things have moved faster, some slower than the "inflation".
Is your today's income just that of 1968 adjusted for inflation? I doubt it. I presume today you let the market decide what you take home and what you can charge your customers. So why apply this completely irrelevant factor in other places?
The only thing that matters is what the prices would be today if let to the free market forces. Given the oil glut and large number of suppliers, all competing for the same customers, it is reasonable to presume that the true free market price of gasoline today should be about $1 a gallon, or even less.
So this is the base level from where we should dance.
***So really, for most of the Clinton administration, we have been getting the cheapest gas since the Standard Oil price wars.Let's leave the Standard Oil outside of this, not to obfuscate, it has nothing to do with the subject an hand. Clinton's role, on the other hand is very clear. During this spring he and Gore had decided to jack up the gas prices, so the American public would pay for their fuck-ups in foreign policy area. They forced the oil producers to drop the output. Simple as that. So gasoline prices escalated by perhaps 25 to 30%.
This is as clear case of screwing around with free market forces as any.
I would not have any problem with such jump if it was caused by some free market forces. But to have some idiot decide what the prices "should" be today, based on whatever stupid or selfish ciriteria that he might have at the moment (depending upon wether he was caught today with his pants up or down), adds insult to the injury. Who gave him the brain and the right to decide what a particular commodity "should" cost?
Here in US we are supposed to have free market forces at work. We already have plenty of countries with government controlled prices, so we should keep our freedom here intact.
***The price of gas in the US has not gone up at all, it's actually gone down for most of the last 30 years.Again, completelly immaterial. Most of the time, the price of a controlled commodity is higher than it would have been in a free market. We should be enjoying lower prices, but thank to some inept self-centered politicians, we are paying recond-high ones.
This case is fundamental and goes to the very core of the free market economy. Tinkering with it is never good, and it is too bad this administration was allowed to do so in order to save its collective ass.
When you pay at the pump today, ask youself who is getting your money. The corrupt communist regime of Russia is one major benefactor. Mexico and Iran are getting all the profits they strictly speaking don't deserve. But it is yours, mine, our money.
"...because it goes to the very substance of the issue - free market vs. government control. Lesseeee "> Well you’ve stumped me again Victor. I really do wish I could see your face, because I can’t tell when you’re "funnin’" us. I’m going to choose to believe that you just want to have fun arguing, or that you are having some sport with some of your clueless fans.
I don’t know what you mean by free market. The international oil business sure looks free to me. Fortunately, oil seems to be spread around almost everywhere, and as you say, it’s nothing if not plentiful. The only government control I see is coming from the OPEC nations, and I hope you’re not saying that a sovereign nation shouldn’t be allowed to get together with some other sovereign nations and "fix" the price of a commodity. They are free to do so, last I checked. Nothing illegal here. I think this has been done before, by the Seven Sisters, for example, and DeBeers has been pretty good at it, at least until the Russian diamonds flooded the market beyond what DeBeers could afford to buy-up and horde. Besides, the North American continent is floating on oil. If we don’t like the spot price on the international market, we are free to make our own. And American drivers are free to continue to use as much gas and oil as they can afford, or free to stop their addiction to the automobile and do something else. I’m seeing the "unseen hand" of supply and demand working just fine in the oil business. The demand for gasoline in this country is way beyond practical, and the supply of domestic gasoline is next to nothing, when compared to what we tanker-in from the rest of the world.
I’m trying to think about where in the history of the world there ever has been a "free market". There’s always somebody with a big dream trying to get in and organize a protection racket, and control the price, the availability, and get some "tax revenue". There's all those cool castles along the Rhine valley--"regulating" the free trade along the river...let's now forget the British Navy...and didn't the Pope get in on the act at one time? dividing the world into Portuguese and Spanish explotiation rackets? has it ever been any different? choose your poison.
From what I’m reading in the papers, Russia is about as pure a free market as you can get. The government regulations of commerce seems to be completely ineffective. In fact, isn’t the current head of the Russian state the biggest, badest, most ruthless gangster since Stalin? Their economy is completely free now. Anyone can buy and sell anything at any price, provided they are willing to kill or be killed for the right. I certainly understand your fascination with guns and knives.
What is comes down to is this: who do you want to "regulate" your "free market"? Some slow and stupid but fundamentally democratic government institution, where policy changes can be effected by an organized will of the governed population, to some degree, without bloodshed? Or something like what they have in Iraq? Or something in the middle, like an organization of Big Business, like the Seven Sisters, or Bill Gates? Not much bloodshed that we can see, but not much regulation by anyone that amounts to much, and certainly not much in the way of democratic control, even if you are the majority shareholder , you still have to fight it out with the other sisters, and when the pie gets jucy enough, the Feds are waiting in the wings. OPEC is finally getting a clue to the rules of a game mastered by Europeans many centuries ago.
We’ve been fooling around with price controls and government regulation since the beginning. Oh wait, there was a "free trade" society here in the beginning. I almost forgot, that the pre-Colombian 6 Nations of Eastern North American "Indians" had an extensive free-trade barter network up and running, overseen by a co-operative democratic government of tribes. The early European trappers and traders profited much from this far-ranging network. But then the insatiable demand for beaver hats depleted the resource, and then when the fashion for tall hats died, so did the economy. Then we had the tea, coffee, spice, silk, opium, cotton, slave, rum, sugarcane, tobacco, rubber, cartels and tax wars, wasn’t it something about the tea monopoly/tax/government regulation that was the excuse for some Boston uprising? And then the Whiskey rebellion…heck, then we had timber cartels and, well, you know American history better than most. The end result, after the Standard Oil thing and the unregulated "free market" of securities trading prior to Oct. 1929 pretty much ended the idea that the "unseen hand" of free markets was a stable and safe way to run a country, or a world, for that matter.
Looks like the fishing industry still wants a free market. Looks like they will free market themselves into extinction along with their resource. Hey, it’s a kind of natural selection. Let them eat cake. Those who do not know history, better get a whole lot of big guns and people willing to use them. (send lawyers, guns and money---the halibut’s hit the fan!)
Hey Victor, I know you’re pulling my leg again. But the guys who read your posts don’t get out much. You really are taking shameless advantage of them—sort of like Rush. I don’t mind it, but I keep running into people who wouldn’t have a thought in their heads if Rush or Robertson or Buchanon, or Delay, or Helms, or Drudge, or Brocaw or Jennings or The New York Times didn’t put it there. And that’s ok with me too, but I’m worried that some day they will actually go out and vote. That scares the shit out of me.
***anyone know a conservative number to use as a factor to calculate todays price from 1968?
"Doesn't matter at all. "
> OK, you don’t like my question. I thought it was a cool calculation to do, since it seems to arrive at about the same price over time. No worries.
"Is your today's income just that of 1968 adjusted for inflation? I doubt it. I presume today you let the market decide what you take home and what you can charge your customers. So why apply this completely irrelevant factor in other places? "> Yep. We agree. I’m having this feeling that like me, you are a liberal at heart, bordering on a true communist: ie "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." I think that’s what all our messiah’s were preaching: communism. Some more violent than others, but fundamentally the same idea for a new world order. A democraticaly regualted Capitalism works well for a materialist world economy, but I believe humans will shortly evolve away from collecting "things". The human genome project will accelerate this beyond imagination. Ten years. Hold on to your genes (pants).
To answer your specific question, I made $564 in 1968, working at a hamburger stand, and the last year I worked, 1996, I made $2307 as a laborer removing asbestos from an old building who’s occupants had been laid off when the company moved their operations to Mexico for the cheap labor, low taxes, and lax environmental regulations—free market at work. The most I ever made, looking at my social security tax records, was $32,715, in 1992. Ironically, that was when I worked in the oil/lubricant industry. Also ironically, I did not own a car, or a driver’s license, during the four years I worked for that company, traveling around the US visiting steel mills, from San Francisco to Fairless Hills, Detroit to Burmingham. You really don’t need a car in America. Really. (I "lost" my license due to a bad speeding habit I acquired shortly after I purchased a car that was way too light for its power, and while I was still an active competitive glider pilot, traveling 50,000 miles/year, mostly late at night on empty, rural, limited-access highways—which seems safe, but that’s when it’s easiest for the cops to nail you).
I have been living off the US stock market since I quit that last horrible job. The market decides what I "earn", but I take home about the same amount each year, and re-invest the rest. I’ve saved about 10% of my gross since I started working (1965), and invested it. God, I love this country. But to complete my answer, the "inflation index" does determine how I invest my "emergency fund" of liquid assets (6 months "salary"), because I try to keep it a point or two above this number—you know-- money markets, corporate paper, CD’s—the usual suspects.
"The only thing that matters is what the prices would be today if let to the free market forces. Given the oil glut and large number of suppliers, all competing for the same customers, it is reasonable to presume that the true free market price of gasoline today should be about $1 a gallon, or even less.
So this is the base level from where we should dance. "> The only thing that matters is who has the guns and who is willing to use them to regulate the price of oil. Bush senior has already proven he’s the man. I expect next year Bush junior will do the same. The horror! The horror!
***So really, for most of the Clinton administration, we have been getting the cheapest gas since the Standard Oil price wars.
"Let's leave the Standard Oil outside of this, not to obfuscate, it has nothing to do with the subject an hand."
> I understand why you want to keep anti-trust legislation out of this. We wouldn't have this telephone thing==you know, cell phones, caller ID, cheap rates, if it wasn't for anti-trust regulations, and then there's the mircrosoft thing, but then we wouldn't have OPEC either, would we...hee hee. The Seven Sisters would still be running everything. Literally, everything. Now that's what I call "free market" regulation!
" Clinton's role, on the other hand is very clear. During this spring he and Gore had decided to jack up the gas prices, so the American public would pay for their fuck-ups in foreign policy area. They forced the oil producers to drop the output. Simple as that. So gasoline prices escalated by perhaps 25 to 30%.
This is as clear case of screwing around with free market forces as any.
I would not have any problem with such jump if it was caused by some free market forces. But to have some idiot decide what the prices "should" be today, based on whatever stupid or selfish ciriteria that he might have at the moment (depending upon weather he was caught today with his pants up or down), adds insult to the injury. Who gave him the brain and the right to decide what a particular commodity "should" cost?
Here in US we are supposed to have free market forces at work. We already have plenty of countries with government controlled prices, so we should keep our freedom here intact."
> I think you are giving the Clinton administration more credit than they have earned. I expect congress is to blame for domestic price controls/ regulations, and taxes, to the extent that the individual states don’t control prices with taxes. Personally, I think the Europeans have the right idea with an 80% tax on gasoline, so that we are not swung so wildly by OPEC whims, and people start to realize real freedom by walking more—walking to the bus, walking to the train, walking to the post office. $5 or $6 / gallon gas would change the way we live, I think for the better."Most of the time, the price of a controlled commodity is higher than it would have been in a free market."
> I don't know about most of the time, don't you think it's about even?
"We should be enjoying lower prices, but thank to some inept self-centered politicians, we are paying record-high ones.
This case is fundamental and goes to the very core of the free market economy. Tinkering with it is never good, and it is too bad this administration was allowed to do so in order to save its collective ass.
When you pay at the pump today, ask yourself who is getting your money. The corrupt communist regime of Russia is one major benefactor. Mexico and Iran are getting all the profits they strictly speaking don't deserve. But it is yours, mine, our money."> I have this argument with my wife all the time. She wants to save all her money, and I keep trying to spend all her money. Money isn’t good for anything. It doesn’t even give off much light or heat when you burn it—not like oil anyway. If those nations are willing to pump out all their oil and sell it to us, so we can keep ours in the ground where it belongs, I say, let them do it. Then once they have all our money, let’s try and get them to buy a Mc Donnald’s franchise, or Web TV. Let them build a Four Seasons hotel and clean up the beaches so I can have a nice vacation and visit their ruins. I mean, how many Mercedes can a Sheik own? Hell, I wish they would start buying some HDTV’s so this technology will get off the ground! I’m a big fan of "free trade" Victor, and the people I want to be free with the most is Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Cuba. I want to lend them my money, knowing they will default, and have them buy shit with it—even if it’s not my shit, because I have invested in foreign securities too—I make money coming and going. God, I love this country! Soon they will be buying my shit. Soon, they will have so much shit they can’t build a house big enough to keep it out of the rain, and then they will start buying US Securities, and the DOW will hit 50,000. That’s when I’ll sell, like Joe Kennedy, and buy an oil well. Their Mercedes get louzy gas milage, and their crude oil will be gone in 20 years.
Those Chinese Victor, they can’t wait to get their hands on a VK 50 SE, so they can copy it and flood the world market with "nearly perfect" (who cares how it sounds? My Chinese Rolex gets the same status from my peer group, and still tells the right time twice a day) versions for $199. You don’t really want a "free" market, do you? Like Napster? You are a benificiary of our government's "protection racket", just like everyone else. If it weren't for the lawyers and the laws, how are you going to keep 1.2 billion Chinese from stealing your intellectual property, and selling it in a "free market"?
"...because it goes to the very substance of the issue - free market vs. government control. Lesseeee "
> Well you’ve stumped me again Victor. I really do wish I could see your face, because I can’t tell when you’re "funnin’" us.Well, we are just 25 miles away. Long weekend's coming. Bring a case of cold one. I'll throw something on that rusty grill. I am easy to get. I'll let you fondle my swords.
***I’m going to choose to believe that you just want to have fun arguing, or that you are having some sport with some of your clueless fans.
I hope in all our online arguments there is such factor.
***I don’t know what you mean by free market. The international oil business sure looks free to me. Fortunately, oil seems to be spread around almost everywhere, and as you say, it’s nothing if not plentiful. The only government control I see is coming from the OPEC nations, and I hope you’re not saying that a sovereign nation shouldn’t be allowed to get together with some other sovereign nations and "fix" the price of a commodity. They are free to do so, last I checked. Nothing illegal here.
Agreed.
***I think this has been done before, by the Seven Sisters, for example, and DeBeers has been pretty good at it, at least until the Russian diamonds flooded the market beyond what DeBeers could afford to buy-up and horde. Besides, the North American continent is floating on oil. If we don’t like the spot price on the international market, we are free to make our own. And American drivers are free to continue to use as much gas and oil as they can afford, or free to stop their addiction to the automobile and do something else. I’m seeing the "unseen hand" of supply and demand working just fine in the oil business. The demand for gasoline in this country is way beyond practical, and the supply of domestic gasoline is next to nothing, when compared to what we tanker-in from the rest of the world.
We do bring it in, and for the simple reason that it is far smarter to let the other guys to exhais their resources, at dirt cheap prices, rather that for us to drill and compete with them.
***I am trying to think about where in the history of the world there ever has been a "free market".
You will normally see various shades of gray. However, light gray is better than dark one.
***There’s always somebody with a big dream trying to get in and organize a protection racket, and control the price, the availability, and get some "tax revenue". There's all those cool castles along the Rhine valley--"regulating" the free trade along the river...let's now forget the British Navy...and didn't the Pope get in on the act at one time? dividing the world into Portuguese and Spanish explotiation rackets? has it ever been any different? choose your poison.
***From what I’m reading in the papers, Russia is about as pure a free market as you can get.
Reading wrong papers, Pete! It is far from it. But this is a long and separate discussion in itself. For now please just give my words some weight.
***The government regulations of commerce seems to be completely ineffective. In fact, isn’t the current head of the Russian state the biggest, badest, most ruthless gangster since Stalin? Their economy is completely free now. Anyone can buy and sell anything at any price, provided they are willing to kill or be killed for the right.
That is true, and perhaps we differ on what "free" is. Rule of bandits makes it far from free.
***I certainly understand your fascination with guns and knives.
No knives. Bayonets, swords of various kinds, sabers. Lots of antique guns.
***What is comes down to is this: who do you want to "regulate" your "free market"? Some slow and stupid but fundamentally democratic government institution, where policy changes can be effected by an organized will of the governed population, to some degree, without bloodshed? Or something like what they have in Iraq? Or something in the middle, like an organization of Big Business, like the Seven Sisters, or Bill Gates? Not much bloodshed that we can see, but not much regulation by anyone that amounts to much, and certainly not much in the way of democratic control, even if you are the majority shareholder , you still have to fight it out with the other sisters, and when the pie gets jucy enough, the Feds are waiting in the wings. OPEC is finally getting a clue to the rules of a game mastered by Europeans many centuries ago.
Truth is that we all have different models in our heads. They seldom exist in reality, and mine is perhas just a pipe dream. What we have around us is a mix of several different models. We can only talk about changing the proportion in that mix, not about making it some pure compound.
There is no question that we can not expect some "pure" form of free market, but it is in our power to change the degree of government control.
The US today seems to be freerer than most countries, with your typical European country representing the ones with most regulation. As I said, shades of gray.
***We’ve been fooling around with price controls and government regulation since the beginning. Oh wait, there was a "free trade" society here in the beginning. I almost forgot, that the pre-Colombian 6 Nations of Eastern North American "Indians" had an extensive free-trade barter network up and running, overseen by a co-operative democratic government of tribes. The early European trappers and traders profited much from this far-ranging network. But then the insatiable demand for beaver hats depleted the resource, and then when the fashion for tall hats died, so did the economy. Then we had the tea, coffee, spice, silk, opium, cotton, slave, rum, sugarcane, tobacco, rubber, cartels and tax wars, wasn’t it something about the tea monopoly/tax/government regulation that was the excuse for some Boston uprising? And then the Whiskey rebellion…heck, then we had timber cartels and, well, you know American history better than most.Sorry, I have large holes in that. I am straining to catch up.
***The end result, after the Standard Oil thing and the unregulated "free market" of securities trading prior to Oct. 1929 pretty much ended the idea that the "unseen hand" of free markets was a stable and safe way to run a country, or a world, for that matter.
***Looks like the fishing industry still wants a free market. Looks like they will free market themselves into extinction along with their resource. Hey, it’s a kind of natural selection. Let them eat cake. Those who do not know history, better get a whole lot of big guns and people willing to use them. (send lawyers, guns and money---the halibut’s hit the fan!)
I thought the fishing industry was constantly banging its head against many "other government" regulations. My expertise in this area is limited.
***Hey Victor, I know you’re pulling my leg again. But the guys who read your posts don’t get out much. You really are taking shameless advantage of them—sort of like Rush. I don’t mind it, but I keep running into people who wouldn’t have a thought in their heads if Rush or Robertson or Buchanon, or Delay, or Helms, or Drudge, or Brocaw or Jennings or The New York Times didn’t put it there. And that’s ok with me too, but I’m worried that some day they will actually go out and vote. That scares the shit out of me.
Well, perhaps the main difference between us is that I do believe that most people CAN and DO think. I do get that feeling when I sometimes listen to Rush. Your attitude is more typical of the elitist liberal one - you think you should take care of most people. Let them be, Pete.
***anyone know a conservative number to use as a factor to calculate todays price from 1968?
***"Doesn't matter at all. "
> OK, you don’t like my question. I thought it was a cool calculation to do, since it seems to arrive at about the same price over time. No worries.
***"Is your today's income just that of 1968 adjusted for inflation? I doubt it. I presume today you let the market decide what you take home and what you can charge your customers. So why apply this completely irrelevant factor in other places? "***> Yep. We agree. I’m having this feeling that like me, you are a liberal at heart, bordering on a true communist: ie "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." I think that’s what all our messiah’s were preaching: communism. Some more violent than others, but fundamentally the same idea for a new world order. A democraticaly regualted Capitalism works well for a materialist world economy, but I believe humans will shortly evolve away from collecting "things". The human genome project will accelerate this beyond imagination. Ten years. Hold on to your genes (pants).
Oh, I think we have many more years to worry about. No, I am not a liberal. Used to be, before the revelation. Communist is the worst possible scenario, for it kills any insentive to move your ass.
***To answer your specific question, I made $564 in 1968, working at a hamburger stand, and the last year I worked, 1996, I made $2307 as a laborer removing asbestos from an old building who’s occupants had been laid off when the company moved their operations to Mexico for the cheap labor, low taxes, and lax environmental regulations—free market at work. The most I ever made, looking at my social security tax records, was $32,715, in 1992. Ironically, that was when I worked in the oil/lubricant industry. Also ironically, I did not own a car, or a driver’s license, during the four years I worked for that company, traveling around the US visiting steel mills, from San Francisco to Fairless Hills, Detroit to Burmingham. You really don’t need a car in America. Really. (I "lost" my license due to a bad speeding habit I acquired shortly after I purchased a car that was way too light for its power, and while I was still an active competitive glider pilot, traveling 50,000 miles/year, mostly late at night on empty, rural, limited-access highways—which seems safe, but that’s when it’s easiest for the cops to nail you).
***I have been living off the US stock market since I quit that last horrible job. The market decides what I "earn", but I take home about the same amount each year, and re-invest the rest. I’ve saved about 10% of my gross since I started working (1965), and invested it. God, I love this country. But to complete my answer, the "inflation index" does determine how I invest my "emergency fund" of liquid assets (6 months "salary"), because I try to keep it a point or two above this number—you know-- money markets, corporate paper, CD’s—the usual suspects.
The inflation index is fine for many things, but the point was that a praticular commodity can behave many different ways with respect to it. Take a look at gold. If we were to simply apply the index to its cost, then we would be looking at what? $10000 an oz? Its cost dropped like a brick.
***"The only thing that matters is what the prices would be today if let to the free market forces. Given the oil glut and large number of suppliers, all competing for the same customers, it is reasonable to presume that the true free market price of gasoline today should be about $1 a gallon, or even less.
So this is the base level from where we should dance. "***> The only thing that matters is who has the guns and who is willing to use them to regulate the price of oil. Bush senior has already proven he’s the man. I expect next year Bush junior will do the same. The horror! The horror!
I see no horror in Bush at all. If anything he is not conservative enough. But I don't like his appologetic "compasionate conservative" bullshit. Conservatism by its nature is *fundamentally* compasionate. At least the way *I* perceive and practice it.
***So really, for most of the Clinton administration, we have been getting the cheapest gas since the Standard Oil price wars.
***"Let's leave the Standard Oil outside of this, not to obfuscate, it has nothing to do with the subject an hand."
***> I understand why you want to keep anti-trust legislation out of this. We wouldn't have this telephone thing==you know, cell phones, caller ID, cheap rates, if it wasn't for anti-trust regulations,
I would not be so sure about it. In some counties the telephone industry is nothing but one giant government monopoly, yet they have far better systems. Ours is antiquated by comparrison. Even Russia today has more advanced telephone system in some respects, because they have been getting the latest European stuff. Sort of like the US color TV system - the first, and therefore, the worst in the world.
***and then there's the mircrosoft thing,
I never saw any prblem with Microsoft.
***but then we wouldn't have OPEC either, would we...hee hee. The Seven Sisters would still be running everything. Literally, everything. Now that's what I call "free market" regulation!
The OPEC today is not the OPEC of twenty years ago. Apparently we have more influence over it now.
" Clinton's role, on the other hand is very clear. During this spring he and Gore had decided to jack up the gas prices, so the American public would pay for their fuck-ups in foreign policy area. They forced the oil producers to drop the output. Simple as that. So gasoline prices escalated by perhaps 25 to 30%.
***This is as clear case of screwing around with free market forces as any.
***I would not have any problem with such jump if it was caused by some free market forces. But to have some idiot decide what the prices "should" be today, based on whatever stupid or selfish ciriteria that he might have at the moment (depending upon weather he was caught today with his pants up or down), adds insult to the injury. Who gave him the brain and the right to decide what a particular commodity "should" cost?
***Here in US we are supposed to have free market forces at work. We already have plenty of countries with government controlled prices, so we should keep our freedom here intact."***> I think you are giving the Clinton administration more credit than they have earned. I expect congress is to blame for domestic price controls/ regulations, and taxes, to the extent that the individual states don’t control prices with taxes. Personally, I think the Europeans have the right idea with an 80% tax on gasoline, so that we are not swung so wildly by OPEC whims, and people start to realize real freedom by walking more—walking to the bus, walking to the train, walking to the post office. $5 or $6 / gallon gas would change the way we live, I think for the better.
Well, that's the beauty of this discussion. We can disagree. I see no reason at all to raise the price to that level. I see no problem with the gas being $1. Most of polution doesn't come from cars anyway.
***"Most of the time, the price of a controlled commodity is higher than it would have been in a free market."
***> I don't know about most of the time, don't you think it's about even?
Of course I don't know the exact split. But even in those cases when it is cleaper on paper, it is higher priced in reality. Look at the NY rent control - it hurt the consumers.
***"We should be enjoying lower prices, but thank to some inept self-centered politicians, we are paying record-high ones.
This case is fundamental and goes to the very core of the free market economy. Tinkering with it is never good, and it is too bad this administration was allowed to do so in order to save its collective ass.
When you pay at the pump today, ask yourself who is getting your money. The corrupt communist regime of Russia is one major benefactor. Mexico and Iran are getting all the profits they strictly speaking don't deserve. But it is yours, mine, our money."***> I have this argument with my wife all the time. She wants to save all her money, and I keep trying to spend all her money. Money isn’t good for anything. It doesn’t even give off much light or heat when you burn it—not like oil anyway. If those nations are willing to pump out all their oil and sell it to us, so we can keep ours in the ground where it belongs, I say, let them do it.
Agreed.
***Then once they have all our money, let’s try and get them to buy a Mc Donnald’s franchise, or Web TV. Let them build a Four Seasons hotel and clean up the beaches so I can have a nice vacation and visit their ruins. I mean, how many Mercedes can a Sheik own? Hell, I wish they would start buying some HDTV’s so this technology will get off the ground! I’m a big fan of "free trade" Victor, and the people I want to be free with the most is Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Cuba.
You have to be careful here. What we often do is just throw money at them and let the bastards steal it - we have little brain to do any better. Apparently almost all IMF money is now in some Swiss and US accounts and not where we wanted it. Or shall I say, where we pipe dreamed it. Because we never had any plans.
I don't think we should just become friends with totalitarian guys - no way. THEY should change first, not us. Being tough brings rewards. You may say that Cuban embargo didn't work, I shall respond that it did, because we still have most of the Latin America, Angola, etc. free, and not communist, as it would have become, with Castro getting all that cash from free trade. He probably had done 10% of what he wished to do. And we see him getting meeker with the Soviet union going into shithole, too bad at the same time the "new" Clinton US was already there to play friend with him.
***I want to lend them my money, knowing they will default, and have them buy shit with it—even if it’s not my shit, because I have invested in foreign securities too—I make money coming and going.
Pete, I certainly feel that you lack some fundamental hard-knocks knowledge of what we deal with there. You need to start believing people who have been there, who have seen the commie murderers in action. I know, it all is so far away... but unless you come to some hard realization of how horrible the evil can be, you will continue to be basically a good person dealing with the Devil himself. One has no other future but being destroyed in such confrontation.
When it comes to us and Cuba, Lybia, Iran, it is not about business, it is about destroying the US and the Western way of life. Reducing it all to just business exchanges cover the blood on the floor.
***God, I love this country!
I know you do.
***Soon they will be buying my shit. Soon, they will have so much shit they can’t build a house big enough to keep it out of the rain, and then they will start buying US Securities, and the DOW will hit 50,000. That’s when I’ll sell, like Joe Kennedy, and buy an oil well. Their Mercedes get louzy gas milage, and their crude oil will be gone in 20 years.
In the meantime the new rich Cuba will equip milions with new weapons and you will now have, finally, the "Domino Effect" going full tilt, and not far away, but here. Feeding the Devil is not just risky, it is a DEFINITE way towards self-destruction.
***Those Chinese Victor, they can’t wait to get their hands on a VK 50 SE, so they can copy it and flood the world market with "nearly perfect" (who cares how it sounds? My Chinese Rolex gets the same status from my peer group, and still tells the right time twice a day) versions for $199. You don’t really want a "free" market, do you?Well, that part is already here, free market or not. I don't care if the coppiers are funded by some government or street drugs sale - they do the same thing.
***Like Napster? You are a benificiary of our government's "protection racket", just like everyone else. If it weren't for the lawyers and the laws, how are you going to keep 1.2 billion Chinese from stealing your intellectual property, and selling it in a "free market"?
I doubt our law and lawyers are very efficient in protecting us in that area. It is like fighting ants - you can never get them under control. Look at the limited successes the guys with real big money (the design houses: Ralph Loren, Tommy, etc) have been getting in this war. It is largelly pointless.
At the same time, nothing beats real thing. With all those fake LV bags around, you can't even get to the counter of its company store in Tokyo. Real people want real thing.
There must be a reason why the Chinese don't make fake BMW's, don't you think so?
digesting your POV. problem is, when people hang around the water cooler shooting the breeze, they end up agreeing on everything--everything that matters, if they talk long enough, and listen long enough. Puzzling evidence.
Hi Pete,
What i remember is that Russia formed an alliance with the diamond cartel; for an unspecified payment. I do remember a report of a South African plane landing in Moscow; a whole lot of something was unloaded.
Btw, ever consider coming up the coast? Aside from being cheaper,
it's a nice change of scenery. I had a ball in Nova Scotia a few years ago.
Anyway, if you do, i will try to help in any way i can. New England is full of nooks and crannies, and i have been to a couple of them. There is a little hotel on Cape Cod, in Dennis. I haven't been back there in 20 years, so it may have changed. There is a lake across the street. Had a great little bakery, i used to get muffins fresh from the oven with even fresher cranberries, straight from the oven, every morning. I loved the berries squirting tartly. It's midCape, so everything from Ptown to Beantown is doable. You'd be welcome for a iced tea (or whatever) if you wish, if you make it as far as Maine.
My favorite place in Maine is Baxter State park, but that is really for backpackers. Everybody knows of the famous places like Camden,
but we have these wonderful little islands that can make for a remarkable vacation. I like Isle AuHaut.
My spiritual home is Epping, NH. My sisters live thereabouts, and I'll be up there end of July and end of August to visit. I grew up some in a large and old farmhouse, where John Adams used to play cards with the locals. Epping is the home of three governors, an amazing thing when you see how small the town is. My oldest sister lives in the Governor Prescot mansion, just outside of town. So don't try to convince me to beach vacation in New England. I know all there is to know about 55 degree water in August, when the sand is 135 degrees. I know about the black flies and no-see-'ems, and squeeters than ain't nearly as big as the Jersey ones, but are wicked mean and lightening fast. I know all about cow-tipping and henways, and "tryit", and giving directions: "Well, if I were goin' ta Conway, I wouldn't staat frum heyaaa."Haven't been to New Scotland. My kids are 2.5 and 4. Long car trips are not much fun with them. I'm considering a cottage on the beach at Kitty Hawk, or a condo in Duck. The Gulf stream is close there.
There's lots to see and do in Maine. When the kids are older maybe. I do love New England, but I know lots about it. I'd like to explore the NW. I hear our kind of people live in that part of the world too, and they have good coffee and beer.
Give me some time to read it and think about it. A lunch break, perhaps.There seems to be no question, you can type faster than I can think. Does YOUR thought process run ahead of typing, or it simply reflects what your smart fingers have done on their own?
you have to know how provactive your post was for someone like me, and I love you for opening that worm-can. I wish you could see me laughing.I've been stewing on it overnight, I've had mono for the last few months and the kids have worn me out with these long summer days. I'm looking for a beach haven for a few weeks--know anything for around $3-5000/wk. in Jersey/Delaware? I hate going thru realtors.
But my basic arguement is: free trade is a nice ideal, and I suppose it can work on a small scale, for small markets, for a small time. I suppose it works for selling used high-end on the web. I guess Ebay is a kind of free market, but I haven't seen tankers of crude up for bid---not yet...
The only choice we have over things like oil is who we buy our protection from. We can buy it from organized crime syndicates like the Russian mobs; Brutal Bullies, like Sadam; cartels of sovereign nations, like OPEC; international busnessmen like the Seven Sisters, or democratic bureaucracies like the US Congress. It's a wacky combination of strange bedfellows who determine the spot price of oil. I don't like Clinton any more than the rest of them, but I do admire his guts, and my hat is off to anyone who willingly puts his tits (sorry Hillary) in the political wringer to serve the country, even if their intention is only to serve themselves. Either way, they are entertaining. God bless 'em all.
I've become a multi-millionare since Clinton took office. I lost equity during the 12 years of Regan/Bush. Who gets the credit? Bill Gates?
West Wing is on NBC tonight at 9 pm.
Pete-----I hate to sound like the Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, but why not go for a REAL beach--white sand and palm trees? Airtran Philly to Tampa is $100, it's off-season and all the Canadians are gone (sorry, Nemo!) ,things are cheap, food is fabulous, culture and beauty abound....just bring the SPF 45. Plus, believe it or not, there are large Amish and Mennonite populations here, so you won't get homesick for PA!If you get restless, nothing like a late-night high-speed drive through the 'glades, dodging gators on the road!
Check www.sarasota.com. Cheers, Bill.
Hey, Pete--as one who suffered recurrent mono in my early years, to find it transformed into that mystery plague of the late 80's, Chronic Fatigue Syndome, aka Chronic Epstein - Barr Viral Syndrome, please accept my friendly and well-meant urgings to NOT screw around with this stuff. It can shoot the hell out of your immune system and leave you weak and listless... I strongly advise you to up intake of Vitamin C... Alacer's Emergen-C drink supplements are life-savers, literally. I got to the point where I (lifetime needle-phobic) had to give myself daily B12 shots, and that helped, too. Get the Alacer C- and B-complex tabs (big-ass green jobs) and Emergen-C. They will help a lot...and it sounds as though you can afford it!!Good luck and best wishes, Bill.
yikes! I did not know that. I had Hep B at age 12, don't know how I got it, sharing needles no doubt. Ruined my summer. Then late in my freshman year I contrated a raging, classic case of mono.
I've been puzzling over this illness for two months now, treating for a cold, then alergies, then strep...went to the doctor's three times, which doubled my lifetime visits to doctors. Then one day as I'm dumping a bottle of chloroseptic down my throat, and trying to think if I know where a crack house is in my neighborhood, it occurs to me that having a sore throat for two months that does not respond to antibiotics is a classic symptom of mono. Bingo.I started on mega doses of vitamins, and I'm happy to say, that today, I feel great! Throat is still very sore, but I have my energy back.
More good news, got a call from Kris Jeter today. Jasmine and Suzy have survived the surgery, and are on their way back to me. Kris (Steve McCormack's business partner) says everything went very well, and that I will be stunned and amazed at how good they sound. They are trying to get me to buy some Vans Evers power cords.
More good news, got my Power Plant 300 back from PS Audio. I was correct, both transformers were bad (shakey). I tried the new unit without load and it's quiet. Praise the Lord! The PS Audio service is the best I've ever experienced--better even than the wife's Lexus dealer (although they always give her a new Lexus to drive when they service her car--last one was one of those funky RX300's. Very weird car. I felt like I was driving a stepladder! Waiting for them to give her the GS400...oh baby!).
So I'm in a frenzy of last minute painting of the listening room, and working on some Jon Risch treatments for the sidewalls. The amps should be here next Friday. It's been over three months without the system. No wonder I got sick.
Florida is out. Have sisters in NH and Charlotte, who will probably be comming up to stay with us at the Jersey Shore for a week. It's roughly half way for each of them. Thanks for the tip though. I think the kids would love the train ride South. I'll keep that in mind. My college roomate has a business in Key Largo. Haven't seen him in...oh god, am I that old already?
***The only choice we have over things like oil is who we buy our protection from. We can buy it from organized crime syndicates like the Russian mobs; Brutal Bullies, like Sadam; cartels of sovereign nations, like OPEC; international busnessmen like the Seven Sisters, or democratic bureaucracies like the US Congress. It's a wacky combination of strange bedfellows who determine the spot price of oil. I don't like Clinton any more than the rest of them, but I do admire his guts, and my hat is off to anyone who willingly puts his tits (sorry Hillary) in the political wringer to serve the country, even if their intention is only to serve themselves. Either way, they are entertaining. God bless 'em all.
I could not help but going back to analyzing this paragraph and I find it more and more disturbing.I suspect you would find my analysis amateurish and unwelcome, intrusive and patronizing perhaps, so I shall keep it to myself.
One thing for sure - you are not a liberal.
***you have to know how provactive your post was for someone like me,I suspect I do.
***and I love you for opening that worm-can. I wish you could see me laughing.
Appreciate it.
***I've been stewing on it overnight, I've had mono for the last few months and the kids have worn me out with these long summer days. I'm looking for a beach haven for a few weeks--know anything for around $3-5000/wk. in Jersey/Delaware? I hate going thru realtors.
I am sure you will find somehting for $5000, don't think so for $3.
***But my basic arguement is: free trade is a nice ideal, and I suppose it can work on a small scale, for small markets, for a small time. I suppose it works for selling used high-end on the web. I guess Ebay is a kind of free market, but I haven't seen tankers of crude up for bid---not yet...
***The only choice we have over things like oil is who we buy our protection from. We can buy it from organized crime syndicates like the Russian mobs; Brutal Bullies, like Sadam; cartels of sovereign nations, like OPEC; international busnessmen like the Seven Sisters, or democratic bureaucracies like the US Congress. It's a wacky combination of strange bedfellows who determine the spot price of oil. I don't like Clinton any more than the rest of them, but I do admire his guts, and my hat is off to anyone who willingly puts his tits (sorry Hillary) in the political wringer to serve the country, even if their intention is only to serve themselves.
Can't say that I follow your logic well here.
***Either way, they are entertaining. God bless 'em all.***I've become a multi-millionare since Clinton took office. I lost equity during the 12 years of Regan/Bush.
Didn't like those tax cuts, hah?
***Who gets the credit? Bill Gates?I shall take that credit. Send my just 10%, keep the rest.
West Wing is on NBC tonight at 9 pm.
Hi Victor,
i live in Maine. There are days when the pollution coming from other states is so bad; if no one in the state turned *anything* on, we would still be out of compliance with EPA air standards.
And yet, it is better, much better, actually. Fmr Sen. Mitchell got the Clean Air Act passed, and i didn't think back then it was enough. But it was enough to make a difference. On trips with groups of kids; you used to hear the sound of inhalers regularly, back in the 80's. You hardly ever hear them now.
Anyway, a free market is more an ideal than a realisable goal.
We don't especially want to die, so the rest of you can save a couple of dimes, thank you very much. I would greatly prefer a simple and clear standard, but you get real tired of seeing children sicken.
...between some arbitrary MPG number requirement,......some exhaust gas standards....
AND...
Gasoline prices?There is none.
Make it as clean as you want. Just don't rob the Americans to help some other corrupt government.
The point of this discussion was:
What caused this jump in gasoline prices?
We may have separate discussion of whether it was good or bad, that is fine. But as far as what caused the price increases - it is clear. It was not market, it was Clinton's hand.
If you feel like you have to punish the selfish Americans for driving too much, at least make sure that the money stays where it belongs, where people are who have earned it. Don't use it to extricate yourself from some dirty fuck-up.
Hi,
Any standard that reduces demand, will have a depressing effect on prices.
There is another story here, about pollution, and politics. It is not filled with convienent villians. I think of it as a feedback problem.
Americans got tired tired of rivers that caught on fire, children dying, etc. So we got pollution controls. They then got tired of controls,
so they were relaxed; which brought back some of the pollution related problems. So the people got tired of that, and we got a series of responses to that problem. Because simple limits had been whined about before, we tried emission limits. Here in Maine they lasted about 2 or 3 weeks. You should have heard the whining. So.. about the only thing left to try was the use of chemical additives, like MBTE, to get less pollution.
At each point, this process was driven by the American people. As i said in an earlier post about rising costs, this situation is 100% self inflicted. The government didn't do it, the Arabs didn't do it, and the Oil Companies didn't do it. We, the people, did it.
"so they were relaxed; which brought back some of the pollution related problems"Unless you can be specific I believe you are mistaken. I can't think of any pollution control regulations in any field that have been relaxed.
As far as MTBE, it was pushed through without appropriate knowledge of its potential unintended consequences. Hence we now have marginally improved air quality in very limited areas and a very widespread groundwater problem. Guess which is much, much, much harder and more expensive to clean up? Although I'm an environmental professional, I'm not an expert in air quality, yet based on what I could find out at the time, I told several colleagues that the EPA were foisting unproven technologies on us at great cost with questionable benefits. Please understand that I am completely aware of the benefits of environmetal regulation. The quality of the US environment has improved greatly in the last 30 years. This was achieved at a reasonable cost. Continuing more stringent regulation, however, is like your stereo system - at some point huge amounts of money return only minute, or even negligible, improvements. Given our current technology, I firmly believe that more stringent enforcement of existing regulations will bring larger improvemnts at less cost than increasingly more stringent regs. Of course the bunny huggers and politicians can't/won't aknowledge this. Its easier from a political cost perspective to pass new laws than it is to rigorously enforce the existing ones. this is something I have first hand knowledge in.
As an example of regs out of control: We wanted to reclaim an small abandoned coal mine site. The runoff was acidic in the extreme and killed all fish, etc downstream. The Office of Surface Mines concurred that this was a source of pollution. Unfortunately it had a couple of cattails growing in it. The Corps Of Engineers told me it was a valuable natural resource that had to be preserved. When I pointed out that it was contaminating the watershed, I was told that the cattails were providing treatment of the runoff and if I eliminated the acid wetland there would be nothing to treat the acid wetland runoff. The little fact that there would be no acid runoff that needed to be treated if it were eliminated made no impression. Wetlands are good even if they are polluted and rather than supporting diverse critters is killing them. Also, the wetland was not in a location that was historically correct. It was an abandoned strip mine. Manmade. In the middle warm season native grasslands. For further craziness the COE classifies strip mines as "undisturbed". This is just one of the extreme examples of lunacy in our government today. BTW I got into this field because I love nature and wanted to do something good. If I was starting out today I would have second thoughts. I could go on, but I've probably boared you enough. Later.
Hi,
As i remember, car companies were going to have to meet stringent mileage standards, than it was relaxed to exclude trucks, then it was a fleet standard. If there is anything left of it, it could not be decribed
politely.
About your other comments, it is hard to know where to begin, end, or what to talk of. Nixon passed the Superfund to tie the EPA up in courts.
Then there is the good old COE. They have been on the wrong side of this from day one; and if they ever stopped fighting against enviromental regs, i didn't hear of it. I can only surmise your problem with them derives from that.
As to the politics of all this, it's a mess. everybody wants to point a finger; and apparently nobody wants to act like a grownup. You knowl use words like responsibility, or compromise.
Forgot about CAFE although I always considered it to be more of an energy conservation reg than a pollution control reg per se. I'm unaware of any relaxation of emmision standards.My personal experience with the COE is that they are gung ho envronmental wackos who are out of control. At least where so called wetlands are concerned.
Hey I got another one for ya: A state agency wanted a coal mine to replace a creek and create a "natural system". Ok, a somewhat reasonable request. They said to make sure and put meanders in this "natural system". Still ok. Then they said the meanders in this "natural system" could not erode or they would be fined. ?????? Let's see: naturally functioning meanders that don't erode. Hello!? anybody home? Where do these numbnuts come up with this stuff? A classic case of people with way more power and education than intelligence. Just how do they think meanders form in nature? Argh.
BTW my point with all this is merely that one reason so many people are against more environmetal regs is because the existing ones are being so horribly abused by the current administration. Frankly I used to be a hard assed regulator, but now have almost complete and total sympathy with the regulated community. you really wouldn't believe the nonsensical, contradictory requirements these people have to put up with these days. Its just gotten out of hand. Ultimately what will happen is that there will be a backlash against all environmetal regs, even the ones that are effective and are being implemented in a rational, well thought out manner. This in turn will do more harm to the environment than not implementing new unreasonable and expensive regs. Continually implementing more and more regs is short sighted and ultimately counter productive IMHO.
I was laughing hysterically when the "global warming" thing started. Why? I was being facitious back then ... that when the industry finally met the emmission standards, the "green" people would inevitably find something about the way they did it. I had no idea that I was being prphetic.I keep hearing stuff like ... "Oh my God, they're producing more carbon-dioxide. [D'uh] Why can't they complete the combustion?"
I keep teeling them that carbon-dioxide & water are the byproducts from complete combustion to no avail. In fact, reducing the hydro-carbons, nitrogen-oxide & carbon-monoxide increases the back-pressure reducing efficiency such that much more gas is needed to supply the same net energy which makes even more carbon-dioxide. Then, you stand back & watch their heads spin. That reminds me, the last time I asked a "greenie" a question was at an auto show & after they touted that they knew more than I. I asked whether there was a low-restriction after market catalytic corverter that out performed a stock one. Again, they had no clue what I was talking about.
I also love it when they tout electric vehicles use no gas. Where do they think 80% of electricity comes from? Lightning? Electric cars use roughly 50% more gas than gasoline vehicles (given the amount of electric power plants are gasoline, the efficiency of the turbine, generator, powerlines, batteries & electric motors).
The advantage of centralizing the power production is an economy of scale, we can get all the waste products in one place, and deal with it as we wish.This too will pass. Fuel cell technology already exists that will allow individual homeowners and businesses to generate electric power right in the basement, with a thing the size of their current furnace, that has heat and pure water as by-products. The efficiencies are amazing--miraculous even. No moving parts! Make way for the hydrogen economy.
I think all the world's problems have already been solved. Why worry? Blow-up your TV, and have a homebrew.
Did you hear about the gasoline feul cell? They were experimenting with this for electric cars.Speaking of these vehicles, I wonder why the regenerative braking hasn't really improved yet. I'd think a bank of audio grade caps help tremendously. This is the only real charm I find in electric cars.
Also, about efficiency, has anybody made an energy-recovery device to replace a heat-pump's throttle? I'm sure that would greatly reduce summer power demands.
have some experience with fuel cells and ultra-high performance batteries. Assisted with basic research and development back in 80's and 90's. The technology has been on the shelf for some time--some bugs to work out yet, but nothing techlologicaly difficult. Once again, it's an economy of scale thing. Building one hydrogen fuel cell to power a space station or submarine is no biggie, if you have government cash. Getting North America to dump the power grid is something else, and getting General Motors and MobileExxon to give up the gasoline/internal combustion engine--ha! Never happen. Have you seen them going out of their way to build a car that's impractical? That's not an accident. Take the graphite frame design of an Indy car, put in a hybrid engine, you've got a safer car than Detroit can build that gets 80 mpg. Piece of pie. Easy as cake.Look what happened to Tucker. Got a good idea for a car? Good luck!
Oh--bigest technological hurtle for electric vehicles: they aren't loud when you stomp the "gas". We're gonna have to sample some Lake pipes on old 'Vettes and rig a sound system...
Funny you should say that. Actually, I heard that street tests showed that these cars were dangerously quiet. Many inattentive pedestrians thought they were parked.It reminds me of early racing days where they learned to put additives in the ethanol after EMTs were running into flames that were invisible because it ironicly burned too clean (much like the perfume put into natural gases to warn of leaks).
Have you seen the Sterling engine? Cool concept. Although, I would heave hydrogen as the working fluid for obvious reasons. (I almost was going to work on it back in the mid 80s with MTI when industry was expanding madly around here. I miss those times.)
yep, pure fuels are wicked dangerous. I've seen plenty of alcohol fires in the lab. I remember one of the techs, a smoker (this was when it was still legal) was doing a hot IPA wash in a filtering centrifuge. Not a great idea, because the motor was underneath and had brushes. When I walked in his lab the entire bench was on fire and he was leaning with his back to it, casually smoking."karl, did you realize your entire test is on fire?"
he turns to look, sees nothing...
"pete, I never know when to trust you."
"karl, do you realize that motor has brushes, and brushes make sparks, and the ignition point of hot isopropanol vapors is pretty darn---hey karl, did you know your lab coat is on fire?"
From my anlgle, across the room, I could see the shimmering hot air above the clean-burning fuel, which by now was streaming out of the centrifuge all over the bench, spreading to the floor, with just the faintest wisp of blue or yellow as it picked-up dust and contaminants.Karl never really had the right stuff for lab work. We promoted him to management. The company failed shortly after that. The trick in making a fuel cell work is in the membrane, and the transfer of the protons and electrons. Hydrogen is great at doing this, and lithium...works really, really good at pretending to be hydrogen.
Ever try to put out a lithium fire Mart? Can't do it. Can't be done. I can show you the hole where the lab used to be, but not much else.I could tell some stories about research labs...but you wouldn't believe them. The stereotype of nutty professors, way understated. way, way understated.
Did I tell you I work in one?My fav is about an experienced chemist. This genius spilled some coffee on his polyester slacks. So, what did this doctor do? He cleaned it with acetone.
The worst story was about a tech who was worried about a swage mandrel struck while autofrettaging a cannon tube from the 200ksi contact pressure. So, he removed the hydraulics & looked down the tube to see what was the problem. When this spring unloaded.
How about the safety officer who was amidst denying a tech steel reinforcement on a small window of bullet proof safety glass when a nut blew inside the fatigue test cell while the rig was cycling 100ksi haulic fluid) & headed directly for the no longer existing aforemenrtioned? All survived.
I've got plenty....
Hi Mart,
i love stuff like that. But my technical knowledge is quite limited. So i can't read between the typos like i can with some other stuff. I would really like to know what the heck that was about.
My favorite is about an experienced chemist. This genius spilled some coffee on his polyester slacks. So, what did this doctor do? He cleaned it with acetone (active ingredient in fingernail polish remover).The worst story was about a technician who was worried about a dummy oversized bullet struck while being forced through a smaller cannon tube from the 14,000 atmospheres contact pressure. So, he removed the hydraulics & looked down the tube to see what was the problem when this spring unloaded.
How about the safety officer who was amidst denying a technician some steel reinforcement on a small window of bullet proof safety glass when a nut blew inside the fatigue test cell while the rig was cycling 7,000 atmospheres of pressurized hydraulic fluid) & headed directly for the no longer existing aforementioned? All survived.
tell me what remains confusing.
xx
Missed about 60%.Got the general idea, though: There are idiots everywhere.
Hi Mart,
this tale goes back to the 70's; so dig out some polyester.
American car campanies were having a wee bit of trouble with the new rules.
So... my understanding is the catalytic converter was a compromise. They couldn't make an engine as efficient as the Japanese; so their engines could remain larger and less efficient. They just had to add a converter. At this point in time, the Japanese cars met the requirements without having to resort to converters.
But, who wanted to roll around in a death trap incapable of getting out of itsown way. It's a wonder these were capable to get out of potholes. I've seen most of these cars slow down as they climbed even small hills (30 degree inclines over 200 yards). These cars were notoriously incapable of meeting the 30mph impact tests w/o any crumple zones which were inflicted on domestic cars. Plus, foreign cars met the standards becaus they were underpowered (ie: a traffic hazard). So, the safely powered vehicles were made vastly more ineefficient by the earlier catalytic converters if you remember. 1st rule of thumb was so smash these into resonators & gain 10mpg & 50bhp.
Hi Mart,
I bought a Ford Pinto in 1975. Personally i don't see this as a 'domestic safe' vs 'foreign unsafe' issue. Put a 100K in that rolling molotov cocktail.
As to safety, small cars can be safe. The solution is not only simple; it has been in place in other countries for years. Btw, my wife's Honda Accord EX is the sporty version. It's acceleration is terrific; and it's handling is better than most. And it's a 4 banger.
Which is to say, that if you remove the political element; the policy, and the engineering, to dramatically improve safety and use smaller cars, already exists.
And if we were to do that, there would be less pollution, reduced medical costs (both from direct effects, and indirect like lung diseases), improves the trade balance, reduces dependency on foreign energy, and lower insurance costs. Damn, i've half saved the world and it ain't even 9 AM yet
I've been in a Honda Accord EX it almost yawns when floored. Where or where is that reassuring, pavement-melting, blood-curdling, tire-agonizing scream that has saved my life & limb from traffic hazards in the past? It hardly bolted. All I heard was a chirp. No thrust at all. I don't think I felt even one-G laterally.And, I'd feel safer in a Pinto anyways. Hell, weld a 6"x6" piece of sheet metal to the floor boards behind the differential like my brother did in '74. I seen people walk away from a Pinto accident. Sadly, can't say the same from a Honda.
Hi,
require that basic safety standards be met (which is what i was implying), and those concerns would be answered. If i read you correctly; you are using massive amounts of horsepower to exit a hazardous situation.
What you want to do is stay clear of those situations; it's called Defensive Driving. As we get older (and the reflexes slow); ii becomes the only alternative.
In any case, if you are "melting pavement" i suspect the real reason has zip to do with safety.
Defensive driving works with a moron on the road at one time, not two. Plus, I don't consider anything below 400bhp/400ft-lb massive. I was talking about a mere 250-300 in a 2500-3000lb car.BTW, when did weight start to mean mass? Every HS grad knows its the gravitational force excerted on the mass. Who thought up this absurdity? I suppose the same genius that bastardized "lbs" into "lbm". Thus, recreating the need for "lbf" because "lbs" is now vague. Although, "lbs" is identical to "lbf".
Hi Mart,
i have driven roughly a half a million miles. And my experience reminds me of that old saying about 'old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots'. Defensive driving works, so do coroners.
The power to weight ratio was very handy eons ago at describing
just how hot the original Shelby Cobra was. The average car of the 70's
was a any brand Japanese special sporting 100 hp on 2000lb for a 20 to 1
ratio. That's about middle of the road. Most sports cars are in the teens;
a roughly 3K package with a few hundred horsepower.
The hottest Cobra sported a ratio close to 5 to 1. Ok, so it was closer to 6 to 1 than 5. But just try equaling that with any car you can throw a licence on. Roughly 2500lbs dry, and nearly 500 hp. Mama mia.
Anyway, you seem to be describing a 10 to 1 ratio, which by any reasonable standard is hot.
FWIW, it's what I call able to get out of itsown way. I call 20:1 hot, & 5:1 a lethargic road hazard. Why somebody wants to call a statue a vehicle is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I don't speed more than the next guy (probably less than even you). But if somethings going down, I'm not there anymore.
xxx
Yeah, just was there thanks. I only heard on an A10 like that. I think it was a Discovery "Wings" program where a Warthog was on a wild weisel mission when he said he spotted a juicy target. He knew his wingman no longer had his wing, but that he grew ONE eyebrow & claws. So, as he killed the target a SAM got him. He spun the clogged engine & it indeed ejected the wing shrapnel as designed & it functioned again. Then, he noticed that he could see his landing gear, that remained folded under the structure, which was all that remained of his wing. He indicted that the cockpit was impecable but the flight crew haven't found the seat cushion to date.
Ever thought about starting the Late-Mart show?I could be your frequent guest.
depends ... can I get a BAT VK SACD players ??? [chuckle]
'Specially at Mart. Mart, it's true that anyone who took high school physics knows that weight and mass aren't the same thing; but anybody who got better than a "C" in the course knows that, as long as you're on earth, the difference is not material. On this planet, a kilo of mass is a kilo of weight. If you're on the moon, a kilo of mass is less than a kilo of weight. If you're in geosynchronus orbit a kilo of mass is zero kilos of weight. The only relevance I can see to any of this is that, if you're hauling ass down the luna-2 highway and you wanna stop quick, your brakes have to be just as good as they do here on earth, even though your vehicle weighs less. That's cause its mass is the same in both places. Last time I checked, Luna-2 highway hadn't been built yet. Maybe they had to think about that when they built the "lunar rover" that our astronauts took on one of the later Apollo moon missions; but I doubt it.But the one that really blows my drawers off is the argument that you need the equivalent of a top fuel dragster on the public roads "to get away from trouble." What kind of trouble would that be, Matt? A blue and white car with lots of colored lights flashing on the top that suddenly appears in your rear view mirror? The only trouble I worry about *behind* me is a speeding semi or inter-city bus which I know can't stop in less than 1 kilometer. But, just about anything will out accelerate one of those behemoths. Most of the trouble I worry about on the road is in front of me; and I'm closing the distance on that trouble more quickly than I would like. The answer to that problem is swept braking area, not cubic inches of engine displacement. The second answer to that problem is a car that is not dynamically unstable, i.e. one that you can steer out of trouble without having the car steer you.
I'll be the first to admit that a highly positive delta vee is, literally, a great kick in the pants. But a "safety item" ? Gimme a break. A sub ten second 0-60 time, which works out to about 200 hp in a typical mid-sized car is reasonable. Under 8 seconds is plenty fast. Under 7 seconds is going to get most drivers in more trouble than they can handle before they know what to do about it.
And, unless you have your own private highway (also known as a "racetrack"), you have to think about the other schmucks on the road with you. Most of them don't drive looking constantly in the rearview mirror. So, they may see you hauling ass behind them, but they won't see you long enough to accurately calculate your speed or your delta vee. So, if you're closing their rear at 30 mph (i.e, they're going 70 and you're going 100) or if you're accelerating to 100 mph in about four seconds, you're going to be next to them in the passing lane before they expect you to be there. And that means trouble.
How about the constant male juveniles who're convinced they're "playing pole position". They may've fast reaction times but I've got the experience to detect when their cars are going to brake traction. I've avoided many accidents that way. Then, there's the females juvies that don't believe in lines or traffic signs. I've missed a few more that way as they were appoaching an intersection & we're both unable to stop before hand. You can either not be there by stopping or punching it. It pays to have both options. Survivability goes up an order of magnitude.So I have street gears on my 120mph capable Challenger, what's the problem? I don't need to be able to flee the cops. I've been in afforementioned vehicle as a passenger. I aint driving one. Being able to chirp the tires from acceleration while already doing 120mph, is frighteningly freaky. No thanks. I'm alive & wish to stay that way. Plus, I like 19mpg instead of his 9mpg. Yes, neither Mopar were stock.
Boy, I can't stop. ROTFLMAO!!! This is as good as it ever gets.Thank you, Bruce. I think you have done your host duties for today.
OTOH, I am torn. In my mind, a *CAR* should be able to go twice the speed limit with no problem. ANY speed limit. So forget that mass/weight science, but make sure you have at least the Z-rated things on. When I see a good stretch, I do the double - so see the "Mart's Criteria", or MC. Usually you run out of the highway way too soon.
Thanks again, this is a nice group. Keep it that way.
You're dangerous! I wouldn't recommend MC for you. 2nd childhood, maybe?
You're the host, big guy. Hehe
...you know, the one those clowns love to wear.See ya there! News at nine...
.
Hi Victor,
i was trying to imply an oscillation. When the pollution gets bad; we respond to that. When the new rules take effect; we respond to that. Which leads to more pollution, which leads to new rules....
A metaphor for one of the ironies of democracy.
This gas additive is absolutley frightening.It leaches through soil like DMSO through a headwound. From the reports I have seen it could be the widest spread environmetal disaster ever. There are tanks of this stuff that have leaked and show thousands of feet of migration within months. If we thought lead was bad . . . shit, this could make TMI and love canal seem like scraped knees. If i were you guys, I would get knowlegdable fast about what your local MTBE policy is and find out if you have ground water contamination of MTBE locally. If you have children you need to know.
Paul, wanna good laugh? Read the book just out that describes how we got into this methyltertbutyleather mess. It's all about tetraethyl lead (or "Ethyl" gasoline), General Motors, and Du Pont. Even though lead was a well known poison since the time of the Romans, and every doctor, chemist and researcher who had a say, told General Motors it was downright criminal to make the lead into a volitile, soluable organic compound and spread around the globe, concentrating in population centers I might add, they did it anyway, for 50 years! (still doing it in Mexico, don't go there).This is a funny book. God, did they ever make some cash on that one. One of the best side effects of using TEL as an octane booster (even though ethanol works just as well, is cheaper, renewable, burns clean leaving nothing but CO2 and water) is that it decreases the life of engines by more than half. People believe that the Japanese build great engines that last 300,000 miles. Has nothing to do with engineering. It's the unleaded gas!
I'm telling you, General Motors and Du Pont made a killing on it!
Hi,
Disaster usually implies major loss of life, or at least property.
We have MBTE here in Maine, so i am no stranger to the problem. Good politics makes for bad policy (and vice versa, usually).
So... while this is not good, it will be a while before we know the extent of damage. "The dose makes the poison" is a maxim of pharmacology; sufficiently dilute, there will be no damage. Since this will likely go the way of most automotive pollution control efforts; that should limit, or even eliminate, serious damage.
However, if you have a well ( many in Maine do); it is never a bad idea to have your water checked.
50 ppm can be carcinogenic; it is impossible to filter it; it is hydroscopic and collects in water suplies; it will continue to increase in concentration in water supplies with absolutely no methods existing to remove it; one rollover accident has been shown to contaminate an entire auquifer; and finally, people have their heads in the sand, just as always. You read it here. Of course the folks on this board would rather debate theoretical economic systems than real issues . . .
Hi,
correct me if i'm wrong; but we seem to be debating this enviromental issue. And, as long as we are, there are lots of questions unanswered about MBTE exposure. The possibility exists that this will turn out to be quite serious. But i doubt it; assuming of course that we stop using it soon.
There have been many disasters where you wind up stacking, and burying, in mass graves. Can you give me one dead body?
There have been a number of occasions, concerning substances like Alar, and Fluoride, where people got very excited. But after the shouting stopped; the hard data to back those threats never materialised.
Yes, but there have been an equal number where the bodies just took awhile to find: ddt, organophosphates, lead, selenium, cadmium, radon, etc. While you are correct that the situation isn't yet completely out of hand, its the potential for it that has me concerned. It often take a generation to see the damage from the abject lack of forsight so common in America. Thalidamide was an approved drug, asbestos was a common insulation, lead oxide paint was the first used to whitewash fences (and how American is that?) Heavy metals are elements for God sakes (so they can't be bad, right?)I personally think there is a correlation between Epstein-Barr and environmental chemical exposure. We swim in a veritable soup of organics daily, some that are quite foreign to living things and can't be metabolized. The compounding of the compounds so-to-speak.PTFE is toxic when ingested, how many millions of non-stick pans out there are poisoning people as they flake their coating off? Part of the problem is perception like yours; if I can't physically show you the dead bodies you arent going to sweat it. And why should you, after all the manufacturers, oil companies and federal gov't all have your safety as their first priority. I know its hard to get riled up when you have lived a bit, and have the beauty of Maine around you; but be thankful someone out there is, chicken-little or not.
Hi,
reverse order:
a) Rabble rouse to your hearts content; it's a free country.
b) PFTE- if, and let me repeat that because there is a burden of proof, if
the stuff is getting into our bodies in significant amounts avoid it.
Truth in advertising, i have no problem with teflon ( i mix pure PFTE into bicycle chain degreaser to make my own one step oil-free chain clean/lube) But... my pans are all the regular olf fashioned kind. Cast iron (actually not the kitschy massive ones, the regular kind) frying pans are my favorite.
c) almost certainly there is some synergistic poisoning going on; and i wouldn't mind if we did a bit more reasearch into that.
d) quite true, it could be a slow, but certain, threat. But my assumption is that the we will stop the use of it; and then it's ability to dissipate
becomes an advantage as it dilutes itself to PPB
***I would like to point out that the old CAFE standard would have prevented all this.What is "this" and how would the CAFE have prevented that dreaded thing?
If the primary reason was our government intervention, then how would the CAFE stop it?
Hi Victor,
Cafe was a govt. mandated fuel effeciency standard. It would have slowed down the current tidal wave of SUV's a lot.
...it is just not clear to me how it would have stopped Clinton/Gore from raising the gas prices.
CAFE still exists. It's just that, when it was drafted, it did not include trucks -- or at least subjected them to much easier standards.
That was before the rise in popularity of SUVs and, even minivans. Auto companies phased out the production of station wagons (which were cars under CAFE) and started making SUVs. People bought them initially for the same reason they bought station wagons -- versatility. The 4wd thing was kind of an added bonus. Now they're so widespread (and the source of Detroit's "resurgence" vis-a-vis imported products) that it would be politically unpopular to kill them by subjecting them to car standards.
Hi Bruce,
wasn't there something like a goal that the car companies had to meet?
I believe that's correct. But the "fleet" does not include "light" or heavy trucks. I read an article recently that said that GM loses something like $1000 per car on small cars like the Cavalier. But it sells them so that it can sell more profitable large luxury cars in quantity and maintain the fleet average.
Is there anything you haven't done or aren't into, or are you only limited by time? I'm amazed at the wide variety of posts you are able to jump into and give a well-informed reply.What would you have done had you not gotten into the particular field you're in?
***Is there anything you haven't done or aren't into,Oh, plenty. Endless list.
***or are you only limited by time?
And money. Like most of us.
***What would you have done had you not gotten into the particular field you're in?
I really don't know, Shawn, I seldom ask myself this question. I would love to learn to fly, but that doesn't seem too practical, so I just read the Aviation Week in the bathroom.
I personally love variable geomtry wings. I'm waiting for the XF-23 to adopt F-8 Crusader main wings (like oversided canards) to be useable by the Navy. The vectored thrust w/ variable attitude wings ought to be a dynamic duel.
***I personally love variable geomtry wings. I'm waiting for the XF-23 to adopt F-8 Crusader main wings (like oversided canards) to be useable by the Navy. The vectored thrust w/ variable attitude wings ought to be a dynamic duel.So what do YOU say when all those SU's fly tail-forward, recovering and doing 135 deg AOA? All this with NO fly-by-wire? All this while the best F-16 was doing perhaps 30 degrees? Plus all those all-aspect AA's... I would still not want to be protected by the Russian Air Force, but those things are something, wouldn't you say?
Sorry, can't compete with you on lingo... Don't remember the F-8 all that well.
This is the F-8 Crusader showing its variable attritude main wings to demonstrate how a supersonic delta wing fighter originally can be launched from a carrier. It held a speed record in the late '50s - early '60s (not acknowledging the classified YF-12/SR-71 Blackbird of course).
Are you familiar with the forward swept wings of the X-29 ?
X-31 doing a Herbst maneuver (impact lost in static shot). It has vectored thrust capable of thrusting ~30º from directly aft in any direction up/down/left/right/etc.
Then, there's the supersonic compression-lift bat-wings of the XB-70 Valkyrie experimental bomber
AD-1
on the ATF-16 whose additional fins allowed sideways movement.
and there was another plane that used suction on the top of the wing to eliminate the efficiency-robbing turbulent boundary-layer.
Hi Mart,
the AA are anti-aircraft missiles, i think the Harm9 are the all aspect ones that are so deadly.
***the AA are anti-aircraft missiles,Air-to-Air. When you say anti-aircraft, you usually mean the Surface-to-Air, or SAM, or if used with the numerical designation: SA-2, SA-13, whatever. AA's are carried on aircraft.
***i think the Harm9 are the all aspect ones that are so deadly.
No, Harm is the anti-radiation missile, used by an aircraft to suppress the enemy radar. It is VERY good.
I was specifically referring to the fact that traditionally the Western AA missles had very limited aspect ratio - they could only be launched at a target straight ahead, plus/minus some angle. So the pilot would have to aim the whole aircraft at the target - sometimes not too easy a task. The Russians had that all-aspect model that was guided from the helmet sight and could be launched against the target at any angle - sideways, or even behind. The pilot would look at the target and the plan system would know the position of his head and send the missle in that general direction, then the seeker would acquire the target and complete the attack.
The Russian system, while traditionally-Russian bulky and heavy, worked well enough to prompt the West to start working on our own. The Israelis have developed a very good one, and the Sidewinder was upgraded, I believe. There was a talk about using the Israely system on US planes.
I need to refresh my information - I have neglected it for some time now.
I worked on that missile at Texas Instruments. Our biggest problem (during Gulf War) was people turning off their radar dishes. Caused us to have to re-think our alternate target strategies: What to do when all 5 of your alternates are off-line too?I didn't get the chance to work on the phased-array radar, sadly. That was one hot ticket. I haven't followed it to see how it's doing.
That sounds like another interesting topic. I am sure we would get plenty of VERY interesting entries.So you worked on HARM? Interesting. Electronics?
I worked on some projects that I knew only by their code names. The ones I know for sure were the SA-3 (low altitude), and the SA-7 shoulder launched one. On that last one we (our design leader) figured out the way to counter the flares. For a while, anyway.
The SA-3 was all analogue tube computers. Tube op-amps, that sort of things. I presume it was later redesigned to be all solid state.
The latest AIM9x Sidewinder will finally get all aspect.Thomas
.
I'd like some of that Russian look-down shoot-down radar capability too.Speaking of which, do you know anything about the ground hugging Russian cargo/troop carrier. The wings compressed the air to the ground much like a hydroplane. I don't even recall what it was called. But if we can remove the tail by incorporating western fly by wire technology, it'll be a bitch to track. I think it can obtain a peek altitude of 100'. That's primarily for turning which B-2 mechanisms can be used instead.
Did you hear any more about augmenting our aircraft with diminished function capability? I remember testing being done on a F-15 Eagle to be able to fly home with any one wing shot off. The computers were supposed to diagnose the situation & compensate the flight controls to return the pilot safely home (NOT to continue dog-fighting).
***I'd like some of that Russian look-down shoot-down radar capability too.I am not radar expert, but I believe we have it, and a far better kind than what they do. When it comes to things that require huge amount of processing (synthetic apperture radars, intersept-and-jam-proof communications, agile jamming, etc) the Russians are decades behind.
Generally speaking, the US technology is always ahead (well, in 98% of cases perhaps), but the deployment of particular systems is usually a political decision, not technical, so sometimes our systems are not deployed yet, while they already have it flying. That creates the impression of being behind in technology.
Having seen the inside of the Soviet military machine I know just how obsolete it is.
***Speaking of which, do you know anything about the ground hugging Russian cargo/troop carrier. The wings compressed the air to the ground much like a hydroplane. I don't even recall what it was called. But if we can remove the tail by incorporating western fly by wire technology, it'll be a bitch to track. I think it can obtain a peek altitude of 100'.
I believe you are talking about what is called "ekranoplan". It is designed to operate over water or very flat terrain, and uses the proximity to ground for additional lift. It is extremely efficient as a long haul transport. They have built several and flown them as large troops carriers. The US intelligence used to call them the Caspian Monsters. They are huge.
But again, they need very flat terrain. They would be useful perhaps for trans-Atlantic cargo service.
***That's primarily for turning which B-2 mechanisms can be used instead.As far as I know low observability was not their design objective. Nowdays flying low doesn't guarantee your success with all those down-looking space radars. Unless you are flying a small plane to Red Square.
***Did you hear any more about augmenting our aircraft with diminished function capability? I remember testing being done on a F-15 Eagle to be able to fly home with any one wing shot off. The computers were supposed to diagnose the situation & compensate the flight controls to return the pilot safely home (NOT to continue dog-fighting).
I know we have various augmentation systems, but can not comment on their effectiveness - don't know.
Hi,
somewhere in the Net; there is a picture of a US plane (F15 i think)
with most of a wing gone. The pilot lost the wing, and was able to RTB, and land without serious incident. Engineers have supposedly said that was not possible. Good plane.
there it is!
I can only speculate they implemented the technology to keep the plane stable & balanced enough to land the platform.
...plane doesn't need wings to fly. There are many versions of F-15, but I believe they all have much more than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio. They will typically accelerate straight up.But many other planes will not do that.
Most performance jets don't fly anyway. Not in the classic sense of aerodynamics anyway. I think the only remaining ones are swing wings & there's an ongoing effort to kill the concept.
but AOA I didn't, thanks.
Hi Mart,
sometime download a few flight sim demos. Jane's USAF demo has great graphics, if you have a strong computer. Janes WW2 fighter demo is probably the best demo of all time. I played it a few dozen times before getting the rest of the game. Falcon 4 was originally a $60 game. It routinely goes for $20 now, i found my copy on sale for $10.
One thing about F4, it is a hardcore sim. Which is to say, it has about a 300 page manual (which truthfully i haven't read); and if you want to do more than Instant Action, you have to read it. Someday i will get around to that, really, i wouldn't kid you, i wouldn't let it collect dust
while playing some mindless shooter. maybe tomorrow ;)
I usually get the light or medium sims; more fun, a lot less studying. Wish i had the ambition for the hard core ones. SU27: Flanker is so authentic you need to know a bit of Russian; and Flanker2 appears to be
the best sim made to date.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
