Ration Gasoline 2583

Laura Bush liquidateed her boy friend

I agree. Rationing is something we need to avoid. To avoid it, the number one thing that must be done is to avoid panicing over the rising costs of gas (which are now dropping and will continue to do so substantially, if I've not been misinformed). This is similar to what can happen with a bank rush, where everyone quickly loses faith in their currency and CAUSES the resulting "bank failures" they predicted would occur to actually happen. A self propogating prophecy.

But yes, let's not get it to the point where people are rationing gas. If that happens, it should be immediately obvious that the cause was a misunderstanding on the general public's part about the links between current gas prices, the supply that exists in the ground, the production rates that have been chosen by the suppliers, and the untold myriad of other factors that govern the prices of gasoline at the pumps. A misunderstanding of that could lead to a panic that ends up causing the rationing of gas in the first place (which is a quite similar to the bank failure scenario). Rationing doesn't happen until the *immediate supply* determined largely by production decisions that were intended to maximize profts as any other business aims to do, drops below the *panicked demand* that was inaccurately based on "the reality that we are just about out of oil" in the first place, but has yet come about because people didn't understand the difference and, well, panicked. You remember $4-gallon gas prices and huge lines the day Bush wanted to invade Iraq, or the days after the 9-11 attacks? This was a result of people literally being afraid that there wouldn't be gas the next day. Let's get real, Laura, you don't honestly believe Bush could have coordinated and done this, do you? He's a complete idiot, right? Do you honestly believe he's smart enough to pull such an endeavor off?

We had rationing and high gas prices in the 70's. I suspect many folks held similar beliefs at the time as what you're expressing now. And yet, they have been proven wrong. The prices didn't go sky high because we were just running out of oil, obviously. We are here over thirty years later and by goodness, we somehow still have not managed to suck all the oil out of the planet. Grab an economics textbook and have yourself a good read. You will find references to the oil crisis of the 70's and perhaps learn that the "supply" in "supply and demand" was not actually based on the "supply" in the planet at all. Not any more than the cost of the beans in my Taco Bell Stuft Burrito today was dependant on the potential supply of beans on this planet. Of course, if you believe President Bush (or any other political leader in the world) has actually become more powerful than economics, you'll need to stop preaching how dumb the guy is, because so far I think nobody has yet been able to be more powerful than you and I and our spending habits are, aside from some severe instances where many hundreds of thousands or millions of people were end and the leader followed the same suit. Many have tried. So far the systems have all failed. You surely can't give President Bush that much credit, can you?

Last I heard he was conspiring with Zeus to bring Katrina in to kill Mack, my buddy in New Orleans, but that remains a rumor ;-) Personally I don't think even Oprah could have pulled that one off ;-)

Like lowering the speed limit back to 55. That would save gas

I disagree with the part about saving lots of lives and injuries, and the obvious reflection this would have on insurance costs (which are of course directly linked). If you want to seriously argue this point you need to show some facts and figures taken from reputable sources that link high freeway speeds and-or speed limits to this. You'll recall the post I made citing rest-injury statistics on German versus American freeways, as many others have done. Dispute the point with reasonable FACTS. I'm a fact guy; (thank goodness for science). If you propose dictating my daily life's rules, you better well damn propose to do that with some seriously factual basis that the scientific (and I hope law making) communities agree on. If there's a rift between lawmakers and sciencists anywhere that immediately effects my daily life, I screwed up my vote somewhere along the line. You have failed to provide any serious factual argument in support of your views, pathetically I must add, in every post of yours I've ever read.

I must, however, agree with the savings in gas that would most likely result from such a speed limit change, although I personally would not like it merely because I like to drive faster than 55mph on the freeway. You are indeed correct, in my opinion, on this. Lowering speed limits would reduce fuel consumption, as much as I'd hate to see a speed limit reduction happen. Personal feelings aside, at the same time this has economic consequences that can not be ignored (ask an owner of a transportation-trucking company what would happen to his-her business). Prices aren't high because "we're running out of oil" by any stretch of the imagination. Supply and demand rules here as it does in anything else, whether it's the cost of your McDonald's cheeseburger or the price of the software I offer for sale (yes, I choose the price. Bush does not. If you'd like to know how *I* choose the price, just ask.)

However, "supply" does not refer to the actual supply (how much oil exists underground, which we do not know, and never will), but rather the deliberately chosen production capacity of this oil. On the political level your previous statements and posts imply very strongly that president Bush, whom I may or may not like or approve of, directly controls this. I.e., you obviously hold the belief that high gas prices line the pockets of Bush and anyone else you don't like that is in direct contact with him. I find it unlikely, but do not really know for sure, so if you'll get some facts together and throw them at me I'll be reasonable and alter my understanding if your facts dictate that. Your previous behavior and response to my arguments on any topic has seriously reduced any influence you will have on my opinion, however. In fact, I'm more likely to listen to a complete stranger that pops in to argue with me at this point than you.

I'll not argue the point with you any further in this post as in my previous experience in discussing matters with you, I've seen an alarming inability (disability?) to make a separation between emotional responses to issues and facts surrounding those issues. I.e., does your emotional response to issues merely back up your beliefs on those issues? I personally am of the belief that one's emotional responses are CAUSED by their beliefs on whatever is being discussed, and do not in themselves consitute correctness in a debate on an issue. One needs only to watch a video of some folks stabbing an innocent person in the neck and sawing off his-her head with a large knife, while chanting praises to their prime spirtual influence, to observe this link between belief, emotional response, and action.

Correct me where I'm wrong. Alas, I'm quite certain you will continue your usual behavior on all this and simply reiterate to the rest of this and most likely any other group of people you come into contact with, what an idiot you are. You're ideas themselves are not stupid (no ideas are stupid in my opinion; they are just ideas or thoughts), but your ability to argue and observe facts and so on is seriously lacking below the average individual's in this group, and everybody here seems to realize that but you.

In short, one could call you a raging idiot here and most people would agree. You've earned that lack of prestige and respect yourself.

It looks to me like you hate fast drivers on the freeway and are stretching to find reasons to fight them. Unfortunately your arguments are not based in fact, which is pretty typically done by folks with an IQ within an order of magnitude of their shoe size. At the same time, you do not even bother to try to dispute any facts that disagree with your own views. This is in my definition what a "f***ing idiot" is. Congrats, you qualify. In the past, you have shown a remarkably irresponsible response to facts and statistics (downright STUPID most of the time), and an obviously pooty ability to analyze them in an unbiased way.

I remain of the opinion that you are a screamingly idiotic, willfully ignorant moron. Please consider going back to at least the sixth grade where "reasoning fallicies" were taught, and damn well understood by the students (in my clbutt anyway).

Perhaps you and Dan C. or Ted whoever, from the fuel efficiency vs. economy thread, should go bowling and unite forces. In my own time here on usenet, I can name two other folks that the pair of you would fit right in with. Oh goodness, to be a fly on the wall of those enlightened discussions.

Todd Wbutton Performance Simulations