Drop in driving is steepest on record

[RunInRed 16,492]

Any one else want to predict that we will soon see a sharp decline in gas prices? There's a lesson to be learned here...

(CNN) -- At a time when gas prices are at an all-time high, Americans have curtailed their driving at a historic rate.

The Department of Transportation said figures from March show the steepest decrease in driving ever recorded.

Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less -- that's 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT's Federal Highway Administration said Monday, calling it "the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history." Records have been kept since 1942.

According to AAA, for the first time since 2002, Americans said they were planning to drive less over the Memorial Day weekend than they did the year before.

Tracy and Adam Crews posted on iReport that their annual Memorial Day weekend has traditionally involved camping and fishing.

"Well, due to the continual rise in gas, we felt our only recourse was to nix the idea this year and stay home" in Jacksonville, Florida, they wrote.

Instead, the couple said they "decided to camp out in the backyard. We set the tent up, just finished installing our above ground pool, and cleaned up the grill. ... We have ourselves a campsite! It's been a blast!"

Nakeisha Easterwood of Smyrna, Georgia, said with gas prices on the rise, she sometimes catches rides with friends, and doesn't drive into town more than once a day. "It's crazy," she said.

According to AAA, the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to a record $3.936. That compares with an average price per gallon of $3.23 last Memorial Day.

"With it being near $4 a gallon, you definitely have to drive slower and pick and choose when you're going to do it," said Steve Kahn of Roswell, Georgia, at a Memorial Day festival in Atlanta.

Some Americans have turned to public transportation. Ridership increased by 2.1 percent in 2007, in part because of rising gas prices, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transportation in 2007, the highest level in 50 years, the group said.

The Energy Information Administration says gas consumption for the first three months of 2008 is estimated to be down about 0.6 percent from the same time period in 2007.

For the summer season, gas consumption is expected to be down 0.4 percent from last year.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/26/gas.driving/index.html

[otterinbham 0]

The market's invisible hand strikes again.

The loneliest place on the planet right now is a Hummer dealership. Suddenly, I'm seeing a couple of Smart Cars toodling around my neighborhood (Sorry. Not for me. Three kids). Carpooling is suddenly in vogue. Personally, I've made a game of how long I can go on a tank of gas. Now I'm up to two weeks.

It also doesn't hurt to know that OPEC countries have been hiring tankers to simply sit out in the Persian Gulf with their excess inventory as they ride the current price surge. In short, the bottom on the commodity market will drop out. It's just a question of when.

[LegalEagle 22]

I'm proud as always (not for the first time in my life) of American citizens. They are doing their part to fight Big Oil. It may be forced upon them, but they are doing the right thing. Now we must wait 9 months to see the effect on the population.

[autigeremt 6,716]

The fall could be minimal due to the increase in oil consumption in China and India. We no longer require the same market share as we did in the past. I suspect to see it drop some, but not like we used to see it.

[otterinbham 0]

The fall could be minimal due to the increase in oil consumption in China and India. We no longer require the same market share as we did in the past. I suspect to see it drop some, but not like we used to see it.

See, I don't buy that.

In one sense, you're right. We'll never see $1 gas again.

However, that being said, this huge spike in commodity prices over the past 18 months is not being driven by the Chinese and the Indians. It's being driven by commodity traders who keep bidding the price up to higher and higher levels. After all, there has been no triple-digit increase in consumption from either country in the past two years. Not even a double-digit increase.

Instead, I would offer that this is a craze on par with the Dutch Tulip Craze, the South Seas Bubble, the Internet Boom, and the Housing Boom. At some point, somebody's going to stick a pin in the bubble--most likely in the form of lowered demand by worldwide drivers--and we'll watch a dramatic fade.

[Justin5 20]

The fall could be minimal due to the increase in oil consumption in China and India. We no longer require the same market share as we did in the past. I suspect to see it drop some, but not like we used to see it.

See, I don't buy that.

In one sense, you're right. We'll never see $1 gas again.

However, that being said, this huge spike in commodity prices over the past 18 months is not being driven by the Chinese and the Indians. It's being driven by commodity traders who keep bidding the price up to higher and higher levels. After all, there has been no triple-digit increase in consumption from either country in the past two years. Not even a double-digit increase.

Instead, I would offer that this is a craze on par with the Dutch Tulip Craze, the South Seas Bubble, the Internet Boom, and the Housing Boom. At some point, somebody's going to stick a pin in the bubble--most likely in the form of lowered demand by worldwide drivers--and we'll watch a dramatic fade.

+1. Spot on.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Article is about a week old but related...

Ford to cut truck, SUV production

Ailing automaker drops goal of being profitable by 2009

DETROIT - Fast-rising gas prices claimed their latest victim yesterday: Ford Motor Co., which dropped its goal of becoming profitable by 2009 and said it would cut production of trucks and sport utility vehicles through the rest of this year.

The announcements were a warning shot to the rest of the beleaguered U.S. auto industry, which is facing its worst sales in more than a decade.

Ford didn't rule out layoffs or plant closures as it retrenches in a slumping industry, saying it would release more details about its cost-cutting efforts in July. Ford cut its forecast for U.S. light vehicle sales this year to between 14.7 million and 15.1 million, down from 17 million as recently as 2005. If sales drop as low as 14.7 million, it would be the slowest year for U.S. vehicle sales since 1993, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank.

Ford said it would cut North American production by 15 percent in the second quarter, 15 percent to 20 percent in the third quarter and 2 percent to 8 percent in the fourth quarter. The cuts would primarily affect pickups and sport utility vehicles.

Detroit has relied on pickups and SUVs since their popularity soared in the 1990s, but as much as the automakers have downshifted on those big vehicles in recent years, they hasn't been able to wean themselves fast enough. As gas prices have escalated in recent months, the market has migrated further to cars.

"This is the most dramatic shift I've seen in 30 years," Ford sales analyst George Pipas said. "Small cars are going through the roof. We can't find the ceiling with small cars, and we can't find the floor with big trucks."

Production cuts such as those announced by Ford hurt automakers' revenues because the companies book vehicles as sold when they leave the factory.

"We all would like the basic business environment to not have deteriorated, but clearly the most important thing we can do for the long-term success of the Ford Motor Co. is deal with this reality," Ford President and Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally said yesterday.

Mulally said the company expects a longer and slower recovery than it did several weeks ago and won't immediately set a new profitability target. Ford predicts gas prices will be in the $3.75 to $4.25 range for the remainder of the year.

It was a stunning turnaround from last month, when Ford posted a surprise first-quarter profit of $100 million and billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian announced plans to buy up to 20 million shares of Ford stock because of his confidence in the company's direction. Ford said yesterday that its board voted to remain neutral on Kerkorian's offer.

Ford shares fell 64 cents, or 8.2 percent, to $7.16 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange yesterday.

Still, some analysts cheered Ford's actions, saying the company was adequately responding to the challenging market.

"Ford has been very cautious on production already, and I think they want to prevent inventories from building up at the dealers," said Burnham Securities auto analyst David Healy.

General Motors Corp. cut its forecast for U.S. sales last month and has said it would cut second-quarter production in North America by 5 percent.

Chrysler LLC quietly cut North American production by 16 percent in the first four months of this year, spokesman Ed Saenz said. Toyota Motor Corp. and Nissan Motor Co. said they also have cut North American production to meet lower demand.

Ford said it would increase production of cars and crossovers through additional shifts and overtime.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-b...,0,759977.story

[RunInRed 16,492]

Any one considering a hybrid?

Hybrid or not: Birmingham residents weigh the pros and cons of going green on the highways

Tuesday, May 27, 2008LISA OSBURNNews staff writer

Buy a hybrid now or buy a hybrid later? That is the question Andrew Krebbs keeps asking himself.

"I'm on the fence," said the Homewood resident, who owns a small 2-year-old SUV. "I have quite a bit left on the car loan, and I am considering taking a loss. What happens when we go up two more dollars (a gallon) on gas? Dealers are not going to buy back an SUV. Why would they buy back a car they can't sell? Do I take a loss now, or wait until we are all trying to get out of these vehicles at the same time and nobody wants them."

Krebbs is not alone in his quandary. Plenty of people are weighing whether to pay the premium cost for a hybrid vehicle. Some are primarily concerned about driving a more environmentally friendly car, while others are looking to save money at the pump.

Some hybrids can recoup their premium price tags in as little as 18 months to three years, according to an analysis by Edmunds.com, a consumer automotive research site. But others, particularly hybrid SUVs, are harder to justify even as gasoline reaches $4 a gallon, sometimes taking a decade to pay off.

"There are so many different types of hybrids," said Jessica Caldwell, an analyst for Edmunds.com. "And there are so many factors that calculate to the overall fuel economy of a vehicle. It really comes down to what you drive now versus what you want to get. Not all hybrids are going to get you a Prius fuel economy."

If someone is already in the market for a car, then yes, some hybrids would be cost effective, she said. But a person wanting to trade in an already fuel-efficient vehicle probably won't save money in the long run, she said.

Edmunds recently released a report looking at 13 hybrids, ranging from the Prius to a Lexus SUV, and compared them to their non-hybrid counterparts.

Based on $4-a-gallon gas and driving 15,000 miles a year, the Toyota Camry, Chevy Malibu, Nissan Altima, Prius and Civic hybrids would make up the cost difference between their cheaper non-hybrid counterparts within five years. The Camry owner would break even in 1.4 years. But other hybrids such as the Toyota Highlander would take more than 10 years to recoup the higher cost.

Driving habits should be another consideration in the hybrid, non-hybrid debate. If someone puts a lot of miles on a vehicle, then a hybrid would repay its higher sticker price much faster, Caldwell said. If the car is on the highways more than city roads, that also will factor into fuel efficiency. Several hybrids, such as the Toyota Camry and Chevy Malibu, have near the same highway mileage as their cheaper, non-hybrid counterparts, according to Edmunds. But those models also are two of the fastest to recoup their premium costs.

Industry experts suggest drivers do their homework before buying any vehicle. Several automakers plan to release new hybrid models in the next two years, and technology is ever-changing. Caldwell also said she expects the availability of hybrids and other fuel-alternative vehicles to only grow in the coming years.

In Birmingham, people are still waiting weeks for a new hybrid Honda Civic and much longer for a new Toyota Prius, with dealers reluctant to even estimate how long an order will take.

The Prius has become a blessing and a curse for Gordon Stewart, general manager and owner of Hoover Toyota. He could sell the car to 100 customers a month if supply met demand, he said. But it doesn't.

"We have a waiting list of 15, and what is funny, those are presold at sticker price," he said. "They are giving us nonrefundable deposits and we really have no idea when we will ultimately be able to fulfill that order. It is a very wonderful position to be in, although very frustrating."

Stewart has instructed his salespeople to stop estimating when a customer will receive their Prius, saying it could be months for people already on the waiting list. And if a customer requests a specific color, like red, he said "We train our salespeople not to laugh out loud, but sometimes it is really hard. We just grin and say, `Yes ma'am, we will try to get you a red one.'"

Stewart said some people get lucky. Dealers are able to negotiate with other dealerships at times to get a car, and some customers walk on the lot the second a used Prius goes for sale. But several potential Prius buyers end up opting for another fuel-efficient car because of the wait, Stewart said.

Birmingham's Jeremy McCoy didn't have to wait for his Prius because he ordered it in 2006, before demand was so great.

"I'm in the real estate business so I drive all day every day," he said. "I knew gas prices were going up. For my business, it was going to kill me."

McCoy gets a lot of questions about his hybrid from people considering the car, and he always recommends it. "If I was only driving flat surface city streets, I would probably get 80 to 90 miles per gallon."

Greg Garrison, Internet director at Tameron Honda in Hoover, said many people who walk on the lot wanting a Civic hybrid will leave with a regular Civic. And after doing the math, Garrison understands their decision, especially as federal tax incentives for hybrids are phased out.

"The hybrids don't make sense if you are doing it to save money," Garrison said. "For the premium you pay for the car, you are still paying out more each month than you are saving in gas."

But if a customer is doing it for the environment: "The hybrids are excellent vehicles in terms of decreasing levels of pollution," he said. "What comes out of the tailpipe is one step removed from zero."

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/inde....xml&coll=2

[otterinbham 0]

I wouldn't mind a hybrid. I just really don't invest too much of my personality in a car. To me, it's a shiny metal box that takes me from place to place, not a reflection of my personality.

To be sure, I like being in a cool car as much as the next person. But the last thing I'm going to do is pay through the nose for something made in Germany or Sweden.

Our last car purchase? A Ford Freestyle. We really wanted the Mazda 9, but the Freestyle was 10K less, had 0% financing for four years, and had a good Consumer Reports rating. After all, Mrs. Otter drives it 3 miles to work and back. 18 months later, she still has yet to cross the 10,000 mile mark.

[otterinbham 0]

In fact, just to add a little more flour to the gravy, so to speak, here's a great column by the London Times' Anatole Kaletsky, an indispensable "go to" for economic matters:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle3980797.ece

They're wrong about oil, by George

Rip up your textbooks, the doubling of oil prices has little to do with China's appetite

Anatole Kaletsky

Just as the credit crunch seemed to be passing, at least in the US, another and much more ominous financial crisis has broken out. The escalation of oil prices, which this week reached a previously unthinkable $130 a barrel (with predictions of $150 and $200 soon to come), threatens to do far more damage to the world economy than the credit crunch.

Instead of just causing a brief recession, the oil and commodity boom threatens a prolonged period of global “stagflation”, the lethal combination of high inflation and economic stagnation last seen in the world economy in the 1970s and early 1980s. This would be a disaster far more momentous than the repossession of a few million homes or collapse of a couple of banks.

Commodity inflation is far more lethal than a credit crunch for two reasons. It prevents central banks in advanced economies from cutting interest rates to keep their economies growing. Even worse, it encourages the governments of developing countries to turn their backs on global markets, resorting instead to price controls, trade restrictions and currency manipulations to protect their citizens from the rising costs of energy and food. For both these reasons, the boom in oil and commodity prices, if it lasts much longer, could reverse the globalisation process that has delivered 20 years of almost uninterrupted growth to America and Europe and rescued billions of people from extreme poverty in China, India, Brazil and many other countries.

That is the bad news. The good news is that the world is not as impotent as is often suggested in the face of this danger, since soaring commodity prices are not the ineluctable outcome of some fateful conjuncture of global economic forces, but rather the product of a typical financial boom-bust cycle, which could be deflated - especially with some help from sensible political action - as quickly as it built up.

The present commodity and oil boom shows all the classic symptoms of a financial bubble, such as Japan in the 1980s, technology stocks in the 1990s and, most recently, housing and mortgages in the US. But surely, you will say, this commodity boom is different? Surely it is driven by profound and lasting changes in global supply and demand: China's insatiable appetite for food and energy, geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East, the peaking of global oil reserves, droughts caused by global warming and so on. All these fundamental points are perfectly valid, but they tell us nothing about whether the oil price will soon jump to $200, stay at $130 or fall back to $60 next month.

To see that these “fundamentals” are all irrelevant, we have merely to ask which of them has changed in the past nine months. The answer is none. The oil markets didn't suddenly discover China's oil demand nine months ago so this cannot explain the doubling of prices since last August. In fact, China's “insatiable” demand growth has decelerated. In 2004 it was consuming an extra 0.9 million barrels a day; in 2007 it was consuming just an extra 0.3 mbd. In the same period global demand growth has slowed from 3.6 mbd to 0.7 mbd. As a result, the increase in global demand growth is now well below last year's increase of 0.8 mbd in non-Opec production, according to Mike Rothman, of ISI, a leading New York consulting group.

Why, then, are commodity prices still rising? The first point to note is that many no longer are. Rice, wheat and pork are 20 to 30 per cent cheaper than they were two months ago, when financial pundits identified Asian and African food riots as the first symptoms of a commodity “super-cycle” that would drive prices much higher. And the price of industrial commodities such as lead, zinc and nickel, supposedly in short supply a year ago, has now dropped by 40 to 60 per cent. In fact, most major commodity indices would already be in a downtrend were it not for the dominance of oil.

But oil is the commodity that really matters and surely the latest jump in prices proves that demand really does exceed supply? Not at all. In the late stages of financial bubbles, it is quite normal for prices to become completely detached from economic fundamentals. House prices in Florida and Spain kept rising even after property developers built far more homes than they could possibly sell. The same thing happened in credit markets: mortgage securities kept rising even while banks created “special purpose vehicles” to acquire vast “inventories” of bonds for which there were no genuine buyers - and dozens of similar examples can be cited from the bubbles in internet stocks and Japan. Similarly, the International Gold Council reported this week that gold demand for commercial uses and investment fell 17 per cent in January, just as the gold price surged through $1,000 for the first time.

Now consider the situation today in oil markets: the Gulf, according to Mr Rothman, is crammed with supertankers chartered by oil-producing governments to hold the inventories of oil they are pumping but cannot sell. That physical oil is in excess supply at today's prices does not mean that producers are somehow cheating by storing their oil in tankers or keeping it in the ground. All it suggests is that there are few buyers for physical oil cargoes at today's prices, but there are plenty of buyers for pieces of paper linked to the price of oil next month and next year. This situation is exactly analogous to the bubble in credit markets a year ago, where nobody wanted to buy sub-prime mortgage bonds, but there was plenty of demand for “financial derivatives” that allowed investors to bet on the future value of these bonds.

In short, the standard economic assumption that supply and demand drive prices is only a starting point for understanding financial markets. In boom-bust cycles, the textbook theory is not just slightly inaccurate but totally wrong. This is the main argument made by George Soros in his fascinating book on the credit crunch, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets, launched at an LSE lecture last night. In this book Mr Soros explains how financial bubbles always start with some genuine economic transformation - the invention of the internet, the deregulation of credit or the rise of China as a commodity consumer.

He could have added the Netherlands' emergence as a financial centre triggering Tulipmania or Britain's global dominance as a naval power before the South Sea Bubble of 1720. The trouble is that these initial perceptions of a new paradigm tell us nothing about how far financial prices will adjust in response - will Chinese demand drive oil prices to $50 or $100 or $1,000?

Instead they can create a self-fulfilling momentum of rising prices and an inbuilt bias in the way that investors interpret the world. The resulting misconceptions drive market prices to a “far from equilibrium position” that bears almost no relation to the balance of underlying supply and demand.

The people who tell you that commodity prices today are driven by “economic fundamentals” are the same ones who said that house prices in Britain were rising because of land shortages. The amazing thing is that just months after losing hundreds of billions in the housing and mortgage bubbles, investors and governments around the world have reverted to the discredited fallacy that financial markets always reflect economic reality, instead of the boom-bust cycles and misconceptions that George Soros's book vividly describes.

[RunInRed 16,492]

The cost/benefit analysis of these vehicles is interesting. Most don't seem to make financial sense, even with the higher gas prices - yet demand is through the roof as the article detailed. Interesting.

[AURaptor 1,126]

I'm proud as always (not for the first time in my life) of American citizens. They are doing their part to fight Big Oil. It may be forced upon them, but they are doing the right thing. Now we must wait 9 months to see the effect on the population.

You act as if 'big oil' is the enemy here. It isn't . When are you going to see that ?

[Justin5 20]

I'm proud as always (not for the first time in my life) of American citizens. They are doing their part to fight Big Oil. It may be forced upon them, but they are doing the right thing. Now we must wait 9 months to see the effect on the population.

You act as if 'big oil' is the enemy here. It isn't . When are you going to see that ?

They could easily use some of those record profits to drill in land they own here. they choose not to. 3/4 of the land that big oil owns isnt being used to drill.

that would increase supply. (and lower costs)

before anyone begs to drill in alaska they need to remember this.

[Tigermike 3,055]

I'm proud as always (not for the first time in my life) of American citizens. They are doing their part to fight Big Oil. It may be forced upon them, but they are doing the right thing. Now we must wait 9 months to see the effect on the population.

You act as if 'big oil' is the enemy here. It isn't . When are you going to see that ?

They could easily use some of those record profits to drill in land they own here. they choose not to. 3/4 of the land that big oil owns isnt being used to drill.

that would increase supply. (and lower costs)

before anyone begs to drill in alaska they need to remember this.

Just because "big oil" owns the leases on land does not mean there is oil or gas there. Just because "big oil" actually owns the land does not mean there is oil or gas there. Should they just drill just to be drilling? Would that make you happy? Do you have any idea what it cost to drill a well? To drill a field? To bring in a field? To build the pipeline? To build the refineries?

[otterinbham 0]

Okay. Back to the topic, please.

Oil prices are high because of commodity insanity. It's a bubble and everybody knows it's a bubble. Traders keep bidding it up in hopes to make a quick buck before the whole shebang goes kablooey.

Then we're back down to about $70 a gallon. And some poor schmucks will take the bait and file back into the Hummer dealerships.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Okay. Back to the topic, please.

Oil prices are high because of commodity insanity. It's a bubble and everybody knows it's a bubble. Traders keep bidding it up in hopes to make a quick buck before the whole shebang goes kablooey.

Then we're back down to about $70 a gallon. And some poor schmucks will take the bait and file back into the Hummer dealerships.

In fact just this weekend I read an article where George Soros was saying it was a bubble. And when the bubble burst who will be the losers and winners? Consumers will be the winners but will we be force fed BS that we should feel sorry for all those who were caught with $$$$$ left on the table at the high end?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Speaking of oil, I watched There Will Be Blood last night. Thought it was o.k., but not what it had been built up to be.

[otterinbham 0]

Speaking of oil, I watched There Will Be Blood last night. Thought it was o.k., but not what it had been built up to be.

Daniel Day Lewis has rescued many a mediocre movie, especially Gangs of New York.

[autigeremt 6,716]

I'm proud as always (not for the first time in my life) of American citizens. They are doing their part to fight Big Oil. It may be forced upon them, but they are doing the right thing. Now we must wait 9 months to see the effect on the population.

You act as if 'big oil' is the enemy here. It isn't . When are you going to see that ?

They could easily use some of those record profits to drill in land they own here. they choose not to. 3/4 of the land that big oil owns isnt being used to drill.

that would increase supply. (and lower costs)

before anyone begs to drill in alaska they need to remember this.

It may be, and I am talking opinion, because I am smart enough to say "I'm no expert", but the lack of refineries AND the lack of ability to drill due to environmental legislation prove to be a possible combo as to why we are not using our own resources to fuel the oil market here in the U.S. I also contend that members of both the GOP and the DEM have their own "special interests" in the commodities market. Just a thought.

[LegalEagle 22]

Well, lets turn it around:

Big Oil is our friend.

Analyze that.

On buying a fuel efficient car:

Right now small cars and hybrids are selling at or above sticker. Large SUVs are half off, including trade-ins. My thoughts are that within 3 years there will be a much greater choice of fuel efficient models - perhaps a glut of them. If I had an SUV, I'd figure out the cost of gas for another 2 - 3 years and try to limit mileage and stick it out until then. You can expect better fuel efficiency, lower new car price and higher trade-in value.

Otter, I hope you meant $70 per barrel, not per gallon! YIKES.

[CCTAU 3,349]

Well, lets turn it around:

Big Oil is our friend.

Analyze that.

Big oil is a business. They make the same profit margin they have been making for 20 years. Businesses are not always our friend. Unfortunately for big oil, the commodity brokers have driven the price of oil up, increasing the price of their product.

[WarEagle007 1]

What Americans need to realize is there is no quick fix to this issue. We're a society of now, faster, immediately. A society of the quick fix, because that's the way it has always been for the generations alive today, the world continues to move faster and America has always been the leader, we don't know anything else. The point is, perhaps our lack of foresight for growth is finally catching up to us and there is no quick fix, there is no way to beat the curve. Best estimates are that building a new oil infrastructure could take 10 years before we reap the benefits.

We've been so caught up in exploring the possibilities of new energy sources that we didn't take the time to make sure we were set for the near future. In most cases, forward thinking is a great thing, it is the reason we've been a world leader for so long, but now it is catching back up to us. I fear we're stuck in this for the foreseeable future.

[Auburn85 432]

Okay. Back to the topic, please.

Oil prices are high because of commodity insanity. It's a bubble and everybody knows it's a bubble. Traders keep bidding it up in hopes to make a quick buck before the whole shebang goes kablooey.

Then we're back down to about $70 a gallon. And some poor schmucks will take the bait and file back into the Hummer dealerships.

All of this I do see happening, but do you have a timeline as to when? Could we see this taking shape in 2010 or is this too soon?

[Auburn85 432]

What Americans need to realize is there is no quick fix to this issue. We're a society of now, faster, immediately. A society of the quick fix, because that's the way it has always been for the generations alive today, the world continues to move faster and America has always been the leader, we don't know anything else. The point is, perhaps our lack of foresight for growth is finally catching up to us and there is no quick fix, there is no way to beat the curve. Best estimates are that building a new oil infrastructure could take 10 years before we reap the benefits.

We've been so caught up in exploring the possibilities of new energy sources that we didn't take the time to make sure we were set for the near future. In most cases, forward thinking is a great thing, it is the reason we've been a world leader for so long, but now it is catching back up to us. I fear we're stuck in this for the foreseeable future.

I whole heartedly agree with this post.

Alot now expect instant gratification. We live for the current moment. We have to have it NOW.

We see these extremes in the housing market. We go from record home sales one year to quickly going to lowest home sales in several years.

Look at the stock market. We're seeing more trading days of gains over 200-300 points and 200-300 point losses. We shot up to 13k fairly fast. Then, we dipped below 12k. Recently, we've been hovering around 13k again. Al of this has gone on within the last 10-12 months.

No matter what someone thinks about these presidential candidates, gas prices will not dramatically fall after the first Tuesday in November or in late January.

Oh, and don't forget hurricane season starts June 1st. That day itself should be enough for speculators to push up the price of a barrel $.50-$.80.

And just think of the speculation if a hurricane or tropical storm develops in or enters the gulf of mexico...

[LegalEagle 22]

What Americans need to realize is there is no quick fix to this issue. We're a society of now, faster, immediately. A society of the quick fix, because that's the way it has always been for the generations alive today, the world continues to move faster and America has always been the leader, we don't know anything else. The point is, perhaps our lack of foresight for growth is finally catching up to us and there is no quick fix, there is no way to beat the curve. Best estimates are that building a new oil infrastructure could take 10 years before we reap the benefits.

We've been so caught up in exploring the possibilities of new energy sources that we didn't take the time to make sure we were set for the near future. In most cases, forward thinking is a great thing, it is the reason we've been a world leader for so long, but now it is catching back up to us. I fear we're stuck in this for the foreseeable future.

I whole heartedly agree with this post.

Alot now expect instant gratification. We live for the current moment. We have to have it NOW.

We see these extremes in the housing market. We go from record home sales one year to quickly going to lowest home sales in several years.

Look at the stock market. We're seeing more trading days of gains over 200-300 points and 200-300 point losses. We shot up to 13k fairly fast. Then, we dipped below 12k. Recently, we've been hovering around 13k again. Al of this has gone on within the last 10-12 months.

No matter what someone thinks about these presidential candidates, gas prices will not dramatically fall after the first Tuesday in November or in late January.

Oh, and don't forget hurricane season starts June 1st. That day itself should be enough for speculators to push up the price of a barrel $.50-$.80.

And just think of the speculation if a hurricane or tropical storm develops in or enters the gulf of mexico...

Remember that whinny, cry baby, global warming guy - something "Gore." Remember years ago when he wanted to tax gasoline so that it would be $3 or so a gallon to make alternative energy sources economically viable. He wanted to do this so we would not be caught in a fuel crisis. I wonder where we'd be if we'd done as he proposed? Paying more didn't seem like much of a plan, but it would have had us in much better shape now.