Re: Life after the oil crash

Glenn Morton wrote:

"The problem with ANY scheme of assuming a proper amount for an average person to consume is that it always skewers the other guy but never the guy who thinks the scheme up."

I was very young during WWII, but I'm certain the amounts allotted under rationing varied according to job and situation. E.g., families with 10 kids got more sugar that families with none, and drivers with long commutes got more gas than those with short commutes. The administration of it couldn't possibly have been "fair" to everyone, but it was better than the alternatives. One expects when petroleum demand permanently exceeds supply that lifestyles will change and people will live closer to work. Under properly structured gas rationing they'd all be given incentives to move closer.

I chose to live close, but over those 23 years it was more to have a good 5-mile bike commute for exercise than to save gas. But even then Chevron gave substantial rewards to those of us who used less of its product in getting to work! Free bikes plus $50 per month, for example. This wasn't purely out of the goodness of the company's heart; they were trying hard to avoid fines from air quality regulators.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Glenn Morton<mailto:glenn_morton@yahoo.com>
  To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:23 PM
  Subject: Re: Life after the oil crash

> -----Original Message-----

> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>

> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>] On Behalf Of Tjalle T Vandergraaf

> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 8:29 AM

  . 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.

  Having, in the very middle of my career been a salesman, I can tell you that that is a tax on salesmen and women who have to drive a whole lot. I think it is a great tax because now I am not a saleman but they might have a slightly different view. The problem with ANY scheme of assuming a proper amount for an average person to consume is that it always skewers the other guy but never the guy who thinks the scheme up.

  If someone told me that I am only allowed 50,000 miles of air travel a year, I wouldn't see my family very much and wouldn't be able to do my job. I wouldn't like that limit. But if the ticket prices go up, I am free then to figure out what I am willing to forgo in order to travel more than that.

  glenn
  http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http://farechase.yahoo.com/>
Received on Fri Oct 28 01:47:51 2005