maybe maybe no but it's not as if his short call at 100 held oil down. also, t boone has been very very active campaigning trying to get the government to realize how much high oil costs this nation. here is a link to his most recent interview on cnbc. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747990771&play=1
Be careful lauding Pickens. The man has motives outside of concerns regarding the future of oil. His wind project is really just a SMALL part of a massive project to drain the Ogallala aquifer (one of the largest and most abused aquifers in the world) in north texas to supply dallas with next to free water. He is doing this by shamelessly abusing Texas' assinine water laws. http://capitolannex.com/2007/09/07/t-boone-pickens-tailor-made-election/ http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4243 Pickens is, of course, just milking a stupid law like any businessman would. But this is not a tax loophole. This is WATER. You know, something that we all kind of have a vested interest in maintaining SUSTAINABLY!!??!
The price of oil doubles as the cost to consumers. The price at the pump is SET by oil companies based on the price of oil. Refer to your nearest gas station on that one. You still have not answered the question how record profits result from increased costs. I agree oil and gas should be regulated. You don't allow monopolies to exist when their business affects the national security of the United States so heavily. If it's good enough for electricity and insurance then it's good enough for big oil as far as I'm concerned. I have real life alternatives to Apple and Google unlike the oil and gas industry. I thought you were this really bright guy who knew everything? You disappoint me. Who killed the electric car Mr. Milkshake man? Oil companies are the Goodfellas of business. You think they don't lobby the government to death and work in conjuction with the auto industry to stop the consumer from taking advantage of alternatives? What happens when a trillion dollar industry with a US President in its pocket faces competition that could make their product obsolete?
Bigtexxx you’ve called me out as not knowing a thing about the oil industry in a previous thread, I’ve just stated where I get my information, regardless of whether my source is good or not my intent was to find out where you get your info (I've never stated I know more than others here)..... I guess it’s not something you want to disclose....
Some things never change. More ownage of our resident economics showboat. That being said... STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
What oil monopoly? If you're calling a competition between mostly large corporations a monopoly, you're on the wrong side of the regulation debate. Regulation is what began pushing the marginal producers out 30 years ago, and killed much of the competition. If you really want more regulation, please prepare for a real monopoly. Electricity is as heavily regulated as it is because it requires an agreement with government to provide its service. It would be virtually impossible to run lines without using eminent domain. The market doesn't really work between the providers and the customers, so governments do the regulating (which is directly analogous to the bargaining between supplier and consumer). Finally, if you are looking for a success of extreme regulation of an industry, you would do well to look away from insurance. Heavy government regulation of insurance began when insurance companies refused to insure unprofitable properties in floodplains, and they haven't stopped since. The amount that regulation and mandate adds to the price of your insurance is oppressive. We would be a significantly richer nation with a more free market approach. Consumers.
I watched the movie. It ignores a lot. I used a contractor who bought Th!nk City Cars for his workers. Road-worthy Electric cars have been available from time to time in the US, and they've never sold significantly except where required by law.
one of my fraternity brothers family owns a decent sized ranch in the NE panhandle and actually held negotiaitions with t. boone regarding the sale of their water rights... in the end, they refused to sell because the did not agree at all with his motivation and planned use. they felt that pickens was out to make a lot of money at the grave expense of many farmers and ranchers in the area.
It's a very serious problem... And there is not much you can do to stop him. Texas water law is based on rule of capture. Pickens can suck as much as he wants (haha - pun intended) no matter how much it ruins every farm, city, or land around him.
Our current roads and infrastructure supports hydrocarbon powered cars, too, so they've got a lot of inertia going against them. If anyone made a purely electric car that could survive on American highways, had reasonable range, and could sell it at prices competitive with hydrocarbon powered cars, it would sell. I think we'll see evidence of that beginning next year with the Chevy Volt.
I just read a rather lengthy article on the volt. I'll believe that when I see it. They have some serious hurdles to overcome. FWIW, it's all about the investment and the marketing. GM is pouring money into the volt, but not a lot of time (thus my worry above). It remains to be seen how they market it.
Why should oil be cheap? Isn't our whole economy based on the free market system? Supply and demand? Why should oil be any different? I would love to have $1/gal gas, but I don't really understand why businesses should accept less when they can make more. From my perspective, the outrage with regards to oil prices has just as much to do with the greed of consumers thinking they are entitled to cheap gas for their Surburban, Tahoe, or F-250 as it does the greed of oil executives. Drop the big car, move in from the suburbs, and stop whining about gas prices. It isn't even that expensive.
I think the battery is the only real missing component. All the other technology is well proven. This is not a free market, if it was why was the electric car killed when there was some demand for it.
This is a common response and I take exception to it. Many people purchased trucks, suvs, vans, etc. at a time when nobody foresaw the oil explosion. It is their car now. For some people it's easy to just ditch your car when you want and get a new, better one, but many it isn't. As for the suburbs comment, it's simply ridiculous. Many people move to the suburbs because the housing is better quality and more affordable. Not to mention that they get better police/fire/emergency services in many cases, reduced crime rates, significantly better education, etc. On top of all that, if all of a sudden the suburbia dwellers flocked back into the city, you'd find a major crunch on your middle to lower income people, particularly the minorities who could find themselves forced out by rising home prices and property taxes. Anyway, I know those are choices they've made, but it's incredibly dickish to criticize people for making choices like that. It isn't like the majority of suburbia dwellers chose to live out there to intentionally use up more gas.
This is also forgetting the fact that many people who live in the suburbs did so long ago. My father bought his house in Klein in 1975. As his career draws to a close, he simply cannot afford to up and buy a house inside the loop. Yeah, he made the choice...33 years ago.
Wouldn't the savings in gas help alleviate some of this strain? If you got a car with 2x the gas mileage of an SUV, you could probably save at least $100 a month in gasoline. It would be possible to get a vehicle with even better gas mileage, thus further alleviating this problem. Uh, it seems pretty obvious to me if I move to a place further from my job that I'm going to be spending more money on gasoline. By default, YES, they did intentionally decide to use up more gas when they decided to live further from the places they go. I'm not going to criticize people if they want to a place where they feel safer, but I'm not going to feel sorry for them when the natural consequences of their decisions later come back to haunt them. You can't convince me that adequate housing, schooling, and municipal services weren't available to these people in a place closer to their jobs. Sure, they might get "better" services in the suburbs...but that doesn't mean there weren't other adequate options that would have provided them with a living situation that used less fuel.
This is what makes me really nervous about the Volt. They are using what basically amounts to a 400 pound cell phone battery. We need H2 fuel cells.
No. I own my truck outright. To get into a more fuel efficient car, I'd have to buy a new one. This entails a new monthly payment, or, a large cash expenditure. It would have to get 100x the gas mileage to make up in monthly gas costs what I'd be paying all over again in car notes. Sure it was a natural extension, but it wasn't one anyone foresaw. Also, the difference between the education system in HISD and the suburbs is so drastic I can not overstate it. Anyway, it isn't about feeling sorry for these people, it's about not acting as if they did something wrong and deserve these gas prices.
