Re: Life after the oil crash

Chuk Vandergraaf wrote:

"Let's face, rationing is
the only way to distribute scarce resources to all and not to limit their
use by the rich at the expense of the poor."

Does anyone really believe rationing will be avoidable when the supply of petrol becomes far less than demand? No one really wanted rationing or liked it during WWII, but it was the only way to prevent hoarding. If the market is left to itself, the rich will buy up all the petrol. If the poor can't make it to work, the economy collapses.

Don

  From: Tjalle T Vandergraaf<mailto:ttveiv@mts.net>
  To: drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:29 PM
  Subject: RE: Life after the oil crash

  One would think that economic factors would be sufficient but that aint
  necessarily so, at least not in the short run.

  At the spur of the moment, we decided to make a quick trip to the Vancouver,
  BC, area to visit my dad, who is 96. As luck would have it, the gas prices
  shot up from 105.9 ¢/L to 118.9 ¢/L the day we drove out. After we
  returned, we limited our driving as much as reasonably possible (not that we
  take unnecessary trips on principle). Now that the price of gas has dropped
  to 96.9 ¢/L, we all breathe a sigh of relief. Six month ago (or less, we
  were up in arms that the price of gas had gone up from 89.9 ¢/L to 96.9 ¢/L.
  As long as the price goes up slowly enough, we compensate for it by
  clamoring for a cost of living increase. I still think one of the best
  effective ways (other than to ban the manufacturers from building gas
  guzzlers) is to slap a hefty excise tax on them. Another suggestion that I
  have been advocating is to go back to rationing. Let's face, rationing is
  the only way to distribute scarce resources to all and not to limit their
  use by the rich at the expense of the poor. For example, if we assume a
  reasonable amount of driving per individual as 15 000 km (close to 10 000
  miles) and we set a reasonable fuel consumption of 8 L/100 km (35 mpg or 28
  mpmg(miles per minigallon)), each licenced driver could be given coupons
  that would allow him/her to buy 1200 L of gasoline (or diesel fuel) at a
  reasonable base price; anything more would be charged at double or triple
  the base rate with the excess profits going back to the gummint. The base
  price and volume could be changed as required. This approach would give some
  protection to the economically more vulnerable but would also lead to
  increased carpooling and changes to a lifestyle that is less dependent on
  portable fossil fuel. Administrative, this might be a nightmare but think
  of the jobs it would create!

  Chuck

  -----Original Message-----
  From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
  Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
  Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 6:41 PM
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Subject: Re: Life after the oil crash

  Actually I was responding to "But seriously gas-guzzlers
  including 4X4
  should be curtailed." And my question was curtailed by
  whom? George wants
  it to be left up to common sense, but I am too cynical to
  believe that there is enough
  "common sense" out there to do anything to help avoid the
  coming energy crisis.

  I agree that economic factors are more effective than
  legislation. With the rise in gas prices we have already
  seen a drop
  in the sales of SUV's. And a consequence of this is lower
  profits for the automakers.

  I understand the sentiment regarding people buying SUV's
  for seemingly frivolous reasons. It seems so wasteful.
   If anything should be curtailed in my opinion, it should
  be the production and marketing of the "gas guzzler". Let
  the consumer purchase one if they can afford it, and can
  afford the gas to run it.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <ttveiv@mts.net<mailto:ttveiv@mts.net>>
  To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>>; "'Michael Roberts'"
  <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>>; "'Iain Strachan'"
  <igd.strachan@gmail.com<mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>>; "'Glenn Morton'"
  <glenn_morton@yahoo.com<mailto:glenn_morton@yahoo.com>>
  Cc: "'asa'" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
  Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 5:14 PM
  Subject: RE: Life after the oil crash

>I guess it's in evitable that a response like this to Michael's suggestion
> would come.
>
> Note that Michael wrote, "most people here who have 4x4 could just as well
> with a car ..." Note the words "most" and "could."
>
> I sympathize with the writer in that he (she?) is put on the defensive for
> the simple reason of having a large family. Western society has "evolved"
> to the point that anything more than the 2.1 children per family is
> frowned
> upon.
>
> However, in a sense, we are already telling people what they can and what
> they cannot drive. I cannot own/drive a Toyota MR2 Spyder in Canada
> because
> the car is not certified in Canada (I can own and drive one in 15 years
> when
> it is designated as an "antique" and that's why we now see right-hand
> drive
> pre-1990 Toyota MR2's, imported from Japan, here). We are telling people
> that it's OK to drive a Hummer because we allow them to be produced and
> sold.
>
> Society generally does not tell people where they can live but lets
> economic
> factors take care of that. If I choose to live 150 km from my place of
> work, I do so because I like the location where I live, the place where I
> work and I can afford to commute. If the price of gasoline doubles, I may
> have to review the situation and move, change jobs, or successfully ask
> for
> a salary increase to cover my increased commuting costs.
>
> Telling people what they can and cannot do is a bit distasteful and,
> somehow, is more acceptable if we do it in a roundabout way by setting
> economic factors so that the goal is achieved.
>
> Chuck Vandergraaf
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com<mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:41 PM
> To: Michael Roberts; Iain Strachan; Glenn Morton
> Cc: asa
> Subject: Re: Life after the oil crash
>
>>
>> But seriously gas-guzzlers including 4X4 should be
>>curtailed. Most people here who have 4x4 could do just as
>>well with a car which would use 50 to 66% of the fuel.
>>
>
>
>
> But seriously who would decide which people are allowed to
> drive an SUV and who are not?
>
> I have six kids, all but two are still in carseats or
> boosters. I need a vehicle that will carry 8 adults
> essentially. Cars cant carry my family. Most mini vans
> are also too small, I could either put everyone in one gas
> guzzler, or we could split up in two cars whenever the
> entire family needs to go somewhere.
>
> And I am sure that some people require SUV's for other
> legitimate reasons, such as for the towing capacity. They
> may only need to tow something like a camping trailer once
> a year, and the rest of the year they drive around in a
> "gas guzzler" that is not necessary most of the time.
>
> If we are going to tell people what they can and cant
> drive. Why dont we just start telling them how many kids
> they can have, and require them to work within 10 miles of
> where they live, etc, etc, etc. ?
>
Received on Fri Oct 28 00:20:22 2005