# Gas should be around $70 per gallon.



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise. 

But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen. 

$3.39 $3.49 $3.59 $3.69 $3.79 $3.89 $3.99 

We will reach $69.99 within 14 years.


----------



## pomegranite112 (May 14, 2017)

Would be nice but it wont happen overnight. I agree with you. There are alternatives and I am against gasoline cars for people that just want to commute or go from 1 place to the next. We have so much real estate up in the air that we don't take advantage of.

If you flipped the switch overnight, you'll have major i mean MAJOR problems within the economy.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

pomegranite112 said:


> Would be nice but it wont happen overnight. I agree with you. There are alternatives and I am against gasoline cars for people that just want to commute or go from 1 place to the next. We have so much real estate up in the air that we don't take advantage of.
> 
> If you flipped the switch overnight, you'll have major i mean MAJOR problems within the economy.


Definately NOT overnight... Mass violence, societal collapse etc. Imagine if back in the day when people used to eat actual food, if overnight it was replaced with Cheez-its, Twinkies, kool-aid, "Wonder" bread, pressurized cheese in a can, etc. People never would have went for it. They would have tasted the difference.

Look at society. Think about it. We're making such a mess, but not everyone and we don't have to simply by being alive. Sociopathic corporations are the worst. The individual seldom does what is best if it's the least bit inconvenient.


----------



## travelhacker (Oct 30, 2017)

What you are describing has been discussed many times by economists. A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things. For example, if organic food was cheaper than pesticide riddled food, everyone would switch to organics and the pesticide farmers would switch to growing organics and eventually no one would grow or buy anything but organic. 

If we made electric cars cheaper than gas powered cars, no one except a crazy few would buy gas cars. Its a simple formula.


----------



## pomegranite112 (May 14, 2017)

Gas cars will still be around. Some people like our sports cars. We like to hear the engine roar. Although for the other 99%, gas cars should not be a thing


----------



## travelhacker (Oct 30, 2017)

pomegranite112 said:


> Gas cars will still be around. Some people like our sports cars. We like to hear the engine roar. Although for the other 99%, gas cars should not be a thing


Yes, totally agree. Gas cars will be here for a while until its impossible to buy gas from a service station. The norm will be electric charging.


----------



## Jcposeidon (Oct 3, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


Id still drive my big v8 truck and use all my toys like 4weeler and boats. If gas went up that high prices of everything would go up. You need gas to transport goods like the high quality food you want.


----------



## crookedhalo (Mar 15, 2016)

E85? Any engine with a knock sensor (anything built after 1996) can run it. I get to keep my full size sedan and feel good about burning a renewable


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


Health expenses would be reduced? When it costs ten times as much to ship your medicine because everyone has to use electric cars to do it, health expenses would be higher. People working out? Seems doubtful... they'd be riding segways around if it was too expensive to drive. They'd be cutting out expensive fruits and veggies from their diets because the price of fruits and veggies would skyrocket. People would replace such expensive foods in their diet with high fructose corn syrup mainly.

Unless you live in the heart of a big city, there is hardly any place in 2 miles anyway. Where I live I need to drive about 10 miles to get just about anywhere important. About half of the country lives out in suburban or rural areas. You would see a shift from the suburbs back to the cities and cramped living. Rural folks too poor for electric cars and too far from charging stations would probably come up with creative ways to get around like wood burning trucks, using diesel engines with vegetable oil, etc.... none of which is great for the air quality.

Air quality improved? Maybe in city centers... overall we'd just burn lots of coal instead of gas. The leftists hate nuclear power and solar costs too much. Maybe locally your air quality would improve a little bit, but the powerplants would be on overdrive converting lots of coal into electricity to run the Teslas for the rich people who could still afford to drive and for the electric powered big trucks and coal powered trains that would be used to fill in the gap when gasoline was mandated by law to cost $69 a gallon. The cost of coal would also go up.

The only thing that would come from increased gas prices is increased costs of living for everyone.


----------



## rman954 (May 31, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Health expenses would be reduced? When it costs ten times as much to ship your medicine because everyone has to use electric cars to do it, health expenses would be higher. People working out? Seems doubtful... they'd be riding segways around if it was too expensive to drive. They'd be cutting out expensive fruits and veggies from their diets because the price of fruits and veggies would skyrocket. People would replace such expensive foods in their diet with high fructose corn syrup mainly.
> 
> Unless you live in the heart of a big city, there is hardly any place in 2 miles anyway. Where I live I need to drive about 10 miles to get just about anywhere important. About half of the country lives out in suburban or rural areas. You would see a shift from the suburbs back to the cities and cramped living. Rural folks too poor for electric cars and too far from charging stations would probably come up with creative ways to get around like wood burning trucks, using diesel engines with vegetable oil, etc.... none of which is great for the air quality.
> 
> ...


Liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone on the planet lives in a big city like they do.


----------



## swingset (Feb 26, 2017)

Awesome idea! The costs of goods and services would soar out of control, energy and transportation would sky rocket. The working poor, the dependent, the fixed-income elderly would be instantly cast into life-threatening poverty, and the productive people would be lucky to afford food, let alone help anyone out of that condition, the rich would probably be ok if the mobs of starving and angry people didn't kill them all first.

It would be a wonderfully simple and elegant society killer, this $70/gas you imagine.

This kind of Utopia isn't even that hard to imagine, just look at the Ukraine after the Bolcheviks came to town. Paradise! *by paradise, I mean mass starvation and death.



travelhacker said:


> What you are describing has been discussed many times by economists. A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things. For example, if organic food was cheaper than pesticide riddled food, everyone would switch to organics and the pesticide farmers would switch to growing organics and eventually no one would grow or buy anything but organic.
> 
> If we made electric cars cheaper than gas powered cars, no one except a crazy few would buy gas cars. Its a simple formula.


It's true, economists, really stupid ones with no experience in the real world, have advocated things like this. It's a simple formula, that doesn't work.

Price controls just lead to shortages and misery.

If mass farming and pesticide/GMOs' are taxed out of viability, you'd get a lot less food....and press vastly more ground into less productive farming techniques, making food prices soar and people in developing nations starve to death.

But, yeah, other than that.

BTW, organic doesn't mean pesticide free or healthier. In fact, it can often be the opposite.


----------



## nickd8775 (Jul 12, 2015)

Gas should be $12 a gallon and cars should be free. That way, you pay the true cost of driving as you fill up.


----------



## pomegranite112 (May 14, 2017)

nickd8775 said:


> Gas should be $12 a gallon and cars should be free. That way, you pay the true cost of driving as you fill up.


Thats too high unless your paying 30% interest


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Jcposeidon said:


> Id still drive my big v8 truck and use all my toys like 4weeler and boats. If gas went up that high prices of everything would go up. You need gas to transport goods like the high quality food you want.


I am well aware of that. We can also have more locally sourced foods, products and services. That's kinda the point. We're eating apples from six thousand miles away. Food sits in warehouses for weeks and months... filled with toxic preservatives, waxes, wastes from other industries added. The whole thing is insanely wasteful. Gardens are a simple solution. Neighborhood gardens, people knowing their neighbors again, community. Accountability. It goes hand-in-hand. Artificially cheap gas has allowed urban sprawl to totally undermine community and sensible logistics.. The stupidity of infinite growth models in finite systems...

This may come as a surprise, but I voted in the above pole for $4,900. Glad to see a full third of our population here agrees! I'm not saying you can't drive your truck around, I just want to know your ride-sharing secrets that would allow you to afford to


----------



## Seahawk3 (Oct 5, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


you apparently have never lived somewhere cold or off the beaten path. I live in both those areas. to bike or walk everyday would be near impossible and more likely dangerous


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

nickd8775 said:


> Gas should be $12 a gallon and cars should be free. That way, you pay the true cost of driving as you fill up.


the "true cost"... I know that's a thing in the monetary analysis by the experts, but I also offer that the REAL true cost should be mathematically calculated to assess the effects and damage. Do this on a per-gallon basis. Assess the effects all the way from the politics to the wars to the spreading of freedom and freeing the savages from all that extra oil... to the refining, production, distribution... air and water pollution, corresponding medical costs. It's a lot more than twelve bucks on a per gallon basis. Compare that to a bicycle. Yes, the rubber tires may be oil based, but uses a lot less. It uses a fifth as many calories per mile compared to even walking. So many things to consider.



Seahawk3 said:


> you apparently have never lived somewhere cold or off the beaten path. I live in both those areas. to bike or walk everyday would be near impossible and more likely dangerous


I'm in sunny california. I have however lived all over the country. Grew up on the east coast, running and biking in the snow and ice for many months out of the year. So it's not so much that I lack the experience only that I chose to do it anyway even though it wasn't the most convenient. That was cold. How about the warmth? I was in arizona a half decade+. Biked 400-500 miles a week, every week for six years. 90-112 degrees. Realize if you think that sounds impossible that the world record for most miles biked in 24 hours is around 339 miles... if you're visiting the year 1879. Now it's between 557 miles for a regular old bike and 757 miles for an aerodynamic recumbent bike. That's a single day. My point is this: people say, "It's ridiculous to think that everyone can just go out and bike 5 miles." I think it's ridiculous to think that your everyday person can't do even seven tenths of one percent of that.

Meanwhile we got a third the human race that can't even see they're nuts.


----------



## Jcposeidon (Oct 3, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> I am well aware of that. We can also have more locally sourced foods, products and services. That's kinda the point. We're eating apples from six thousand miles away. Food sits in warehouses for weeks and months... filled with toxic preservatives, waxes, wastes from other industries added. The whole thing is insanely wasteful. Gardens are a simple solution. Neighborhood gardens, people knowing their neighbors again, community. Accountability. It goes hand-in-hand. Artificially cheap gas has allowed urban sprawl to totally undermine community and sensible logistics.. The stupidity of infinite growth models in finite systems...
> 
> This may come as a surprise, but I voted in the above pole for $4,900. Glad to see a full third of our population here agrees! I'm not saying you can't drive your truck around, I just want to know your ride-sharing secrets that would allow you to afford to


And what about the areas that cant produce such products with extreme climate we just say tough luck? I didnt say i would still do rideshare either although the pay would increase also there wpuld still be a demand for it. Everything would increase in prices and people would probably get let go from companies that couldnt afford those prices. Now we have an even bigger homeless problem. Price for gas has gone up and in my area jumped big time with the storms what did people do bought more gas and did more ride sharing. Prices has continued to climb but the gas powered vehicle has yet to disappear.



Bob fox said:


> the "true cost"... I know that's a thing in the monetary analysis by the experts, but I also offer that the REAL true cost should be mathematically calculated to assess the effects and damage. Do this on a per-gallon basis. Assess the effects all the way from the politics to the wars to the spreading of freedom and freeing the savages from all that extra oil... to the refining, production, distribution... air and water pollution, corresponding medical costs. It's a lot more than twelve bucks on a per gallon basis. Compare that to a bicycle. Yes, the rubber tires may be oil based, but uses a lot less. It uses a fifth as many calories per mile compared to even walking. So many things to consider.
> 
> I'm in sunny california. I have however lived all over the country. Grew up on the east coast, running and biking in the snow and ice for many months out of the year. So it's not so much that I lack the experience only that I chose to do it anyway even though it wasn't the most convenient. That was cold. How about the warmth? I was in arizona a half decade+. Biked 400-500 miles a week, every week for six years. 90-112 degrees. Realize if you think that sounds impossible that the world record for most miles biked in 24 hours is around 339 miles... if you're visiting the year 1879. Now it's between 557 miles for a regular old bike and 757 miles for an aerodynamic recumbent bike. That's a single day. My point is this: people say, "It's ridiculous to think that everyone can just go out and bike 5 miles." I think it's ridiculous to think that your everyday person can't do even seven tenths of one percent of that.
> 
> Meanwhile we got a third the human race that can't even see they're nuts.


What about those of us who were disabled from their work. Im a disabled vet who sure as hell cant ride a bike out the driveway so am i just up shit creek?


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

You know.. about this starving to death thing.. In the USA and other very obese countries, people are being fed to death. Literally. Cut an animals' food supply in half, it lives twice as long. Holds true for every animal every tested. Life extension foundation found that every calorie in excess of what it takes to meet the minimum requirements for nutrition has a corresponding 30 secs less of longevity. This has do to transcription errors during cell replication. Fasting cleans up cellular debris and lessens the biological age (measurable via biomarkers). What we're doing in this society is the opposite. E pluribus, unum. Name of the game. People are over-fed and undernourished with artificially cheap food from thousands of miles away. 

Not everyone is within 2 miles of a grocery store. Of course. But It's about 81% of the US that lives urban. What we should do is a combination of efforts. Gardens. Bikes. Carpooling. Companies being allowed to only produce what is 100% biodegradable. Cradle-to-Cradle design by architect William Macdonough. Full circle mindedness. Begin with the end in mind.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

crookedhalo said:


> E85? Any engine with a knock sensor (anything built after 1996) can run it.


I guess that rules out my 1957 DeSoto Adventurer.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Jcposeidon said:


> And what about the areas that cant produce such products with extreme climate we just say tough luck? I didnt say i would still do rideshare either although the pay would increase also there wpuld still be a demand for it. Everything would increase in prices and people would probably get let go from companies that couldnt afford those prices. Now we have an even bigger homeless problem. Price for gas has gone up and in my area jumped big time with the storms what did people do bought more gas and did more ride sharing. Prices has continued to climb but the gas powered vehicle has yet to disappear.
> 
> What about those of us who were disabled from their work. Im a disabled vet who sure as hell cant ride a bike out the driveway so am i just up shit creek?


Not at all. I think we should as a society look after each other. The vast majority of people can ride a bike for instance. So for them that would be a good thing to do. I do not know you but I'm sure you have talents. I'm also sure that exhaust from vehicles isn't helping you either. Perhaps you uber and are an awesome car-pooler. Sounds like a win to me! Let's say gas is $5/gallon. And now most people are carpooling. On a passenger mile basis there would be more people going places even cheaper and faster. A 3% reduction of number of cars on the road corresponds to a 10% reduction in transit times. It is a nonlinear relationship.

What we have here in SF I noticed is a lot of very self-important people in such a rush to get to their fancy shmancy managerial meetings that you have 80,000 too important to share people sitting in traffic next to each other (sharing each inch of the street instead) and everyone is doing 6 mph average. But WAIT! that's after spending time ORDERING a ride (2min). waiting for the driver(4min). getting in the right car haha(1min)! funny times we live in. All said and done it took 27 minutes to complete two miles. It's almost negligible the 6 minutes of work it took these important people to make the $12 for the ride. Add that in though, we got 33 minutes to do two miles... Add in the tax dollars for the roads... the 5 AM trip to the gym to walk on the treadmill.

I digress, sorry Pseidon. I feel you, dude. We have quite a situation on our hands. I'm looking at this from a few angles pertaining to the health of the environment as a priority but also it not having to be at the expense of the individual. Automation is probably the biggest killer of jobs. Gas prices high or not. What I'm proposing is that we use the extra $0.10 per gallon per week (numbers are flexible. this is a loose, hypothetical model for conversation) to subsidize things other than killing the earth, and grandchildren and communities. Let's put that money into small businesses that offer actual solutions to the mess we have made instead of making a bunch of garbage. Like if you build furniture out of reclaimed wood, I'll distribute it with my pedicab. Goods and services may get more expensive if we continue to do just what we've done. I got a pedicab. Others do also. Have you looked at the crap we buy? Packaging that takes up 2/3 of a products volume due to selfish marketing? Imagine one eighteen wheel truck instead of three! I'm suggesting the highly advanced technological design of Pringles (r).



Jcposeidon said:


> And what about the areas that cant produce such products with extreme climate we just say tough luck? I didnt say i would still do rideshare either although the pay would increase also there wpuld still be a demand for it. Everything would increase in prices and people would probably get let go from companies that couldnt afford those prices. Now we have an even bigger homeless problem. Price for gas has gone up and in my area jumped big time with the storms what did people do bought more gas and did more ride sharing. Prices has continued to climb but the gas powered vehicle has yet to disappear.
> 
> What about those of us who were disabled from their work. Im a disabled vet who sure as hell cant ride a bike out the driveway so am i just up shit creek?


Part of the problem is that we've created cities in the dumbest way possible. I.E. Phoenix. Cheap gas can only bring you so far. Hundreds of Millions of people can be without water worldwide in only a few hours if infrastructure crumbles. Did you know that in all the supermarket in the USA we have such a "lean inventory" that there is only 3 day food supply? The prep people call this "nine meals from anarchy" That might be the flick I saw on you tube.. its like 45min. Peek it. MESSAAAAAAGEEEE!!!!! Cheap gas won't provide security. It's just a lube in a very delicate system. I'm saying it makes a lot more sense to take care of what little lube we have less, aggressively build sustainable alternatives and have a better quality of life in and after the process.



swingset said:


> Awesome idea! The costs of goods and services would soar out of control, energy and transportation would sky rocket. The working poor, the dependent, the fixed-income elderly would be instantly cast into life-threatening poverty, and the productive people would be lucky to afford food, let alone help anyone out of that condition, the rich would probably be ok if the mobs of starving and angry people didn't kill them all first.
> 
> It would be a wonderfully simple and elegant society killer, this $70/gas you imagine.
> 
> ...


opposite how? i ask sincerely


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

rman954 said:


> Liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone on the planet lives in a big city like they do.


On top of this, they tend to have a worldview in which their actions have no side effects or unintended consequences. That's why so many of them think that gun control[1] is a good idea.

[1] or whatever the euphamism of the day is.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Gun control is a horrible idea. I'm in SF. You'd think I'm a liberal but not so much. I believe in being liberal in the sense that you should live as you please, do your thing, up until the point you interfere with someone else doing their thing... or destroying the water, air, and land for a trillion other creatures doing their thing. Not in a city? Maybe use the country then. Create an eco-village. ic.org great resource. So gas is getting expensive. But if you're not in SF you're not paying $3,800/mo for rent. $300 for parking near where your sleep. I lived in an eco-village in the middle of the desert for 2.5 years. It is amazing what people can accomplish when they work together and aren't eating puppy food out of someone else's hand. So what's more important? Independence or convenience of being a domesticated kitten slave, surviving at the whim of the oil companies?



Fargle said:


> On top of this, they tend to have a worldview in which their actions have no side effects or unintended consequences. That's why so many of them think that gun control[1] is a good idea.
> 
> [1] or whatever the euphamism of the day is.


In what world do we live in that a billion people can drive in circles with artificially cheap gas? In the flammable frackin' tap world dystopia? Because that's pretty ugly. Cancer clusters. What world have we made with GMO corn as far as the eye can see and dudes driving pickup trucks with a beer in their hand on the way back to the meth lab.. quite a world we got.

Just my $0.10 increase ....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516589/


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

swingset said:


> If mass farming and pesticide/GMOs' are taxed out of viability, you'd get a lot less food....and press vastly more ground into less productive farming techniques, making food prices soar and people in developing nations starve to death.
> 
> ...BTW, organic doesn't mean pesticide free or healthier. In fact, it can often be the opposite.


Exactly.

Hey, I was in a Safeway the other day and in the organic food isle there was some of that lovely copper-and-arsenic-laced pink salt from the Himalayans with a label assuring that it was Non GMO.

Non GMO Salt.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


I got a better idea. ELECTRIC CARS.



swingset said:


> BTW, organic doesn't mean pesticide free or healthier. In fact, it can often be the opposite.


Organic foods:

1. are not grown from monocultured farming. That can only mean organic food is more nutritious (despite what they say, imho)
2. from organic farms do use pesticides, but the pesticides cannot be synthetic. That's a plus, however, some of them, admittedly are pretty bad, but what one can do is make sure the produce is grown from smaller local farms, better chance of less harmful techniques, I'm told. 
3. Cannot contain GMOs for certification. I believe that is a good thing, I don't trust the "studies" proving them safe.

This from:
http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/12/the-truth-about-organic-farming/

"That said, those who do eat organic can take to heart that _many smaller farms use few to no pesticides, and overall, organic foods do usually contain lower levels of pesticides than conventional foods."
_
Thus confirming #2 above.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I got a better idea. ELECTRIC CARS.


you mean externalizing the cost to the environment unless the whole thing is solar wind etc.. Did you know that if even like 2% of the cars out there weere electric the whole US would shut down? The ENTIRE electricity grid for the US amounts to about 5% of the energy used to power cars. There are 260 million + cars, i.e. gasoline generators running in the US. I'm not saying we can't make it happen. But know the situation. TESLA needs to make a bicycle better than BIONX>

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...rs-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx

I wonder who voted 4 per gallon


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Bob fox said:


> you mean externalizing the cost to the environment unless the whole thing is solar wind etc.. Did you know that if even like 2% of the cars out there weere electric the whole US would shut down? The ENTIRE electricity grid for the US amounts to about 5% of the energy used to power cars. There are 260 million + cars, i.e. gasoline generators running in the US. I'm not saying we can't make it happen. But know the situation. TESLA needs to make a bicycle better than BIONX>
> 
> https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...rs-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx
> 
> I wonder who voted 4 per gallon


Well, I'm hoping the electric car will improve in time. Yes, lithium is a finite resource and the US has none, so they will have to find something else. What I do like about it is one moving part -- no camshaft, no pistons, rods, lifters, magnetos, crankshafts, fuel pumps, timing chains, exhaust issues, and NO TRANSMISSION and it's thousands of parts.

One moving part, an armature, that's pretty much it. NO HEADACHES ( will very few, anyway ).

I like that.


----------



## swingset (Feb 26, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> Organic foods:
> 
> 1. are not grown from monocultured farming. That can only mean organic food is more nutritious (despite what they say, imho)
> 2. from organic farms do use pesticides, but the pesticides cannot be synthetic. That's a plus, however, some of them, admittedly are pretty bad, but what one can do is make sure the produce is grown from smaller local farms, better chance of less harmful techniques, I'm told.
> 3. Cannot contain GMOs for certification. I believe that is a good thing, I don't trust the "studies" proving them safe.


That's all complete nonsense. Anti-science nonsense, too.

Feelings, nothing more than feeeeeeeeelings.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Well, I'm hoping the electric car will improve in time. Yes, lithium is a finite resource and the US has none, so they will have to find something else. What I do like about it is one moving part -- no camshaft, no pistons, rods, lifters, magnetos, crankshafts, fuel pumps, timing chains, exhaust issues, and NO TRANSMISSION and it's thousands of parts.
> 
> One moving part, an armature, that's pretty much it. NO HEADACHES ( will very few, anyway ).
> 
> I like that.


I hope EVs improve also. And I'm sure they will. I'm hoping we power them by solar. I have a friend who made a solar powered bicycle. went about 60 miles. bunch of old car batteries under where he sat and a solar panel roof.

http://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Solar power and electric cars will come down in price... Do you know what will help them come down in price the fastest? A vibrant economy. 

Banning gas to try and make cleaner techs come faster seems to me like shooting oneself in the foot.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Blatherskite said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Hey, I was in a Safeway the other day and in the organic food isle there was some of that lovely copper-and-arsenic-laced pink salt from the Himalayans with a label assuring that it was Non GMO.
> 
> Non GMO Salt.


Oh there's definitely greenwashing. But I like co-ops and farmers markets... supporting all those farmers that have to deliver their hard-earned food to the cities and deal with people like me who want higher gas prices. What I would like is for the farmer, after working 12-16 hours a day, to rickshaw in the food. Now I use a pedicab. Recently I put a BIONX electric assist motor on it. Yes, it relies on electricity, but because it, myself, my bike and six people riding only weigh 1400 lbs, it uses way, way less electricity... AND I'm pedaling the whole time. SO it's less than 1/10th the amount.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> I wonder who voted 4 per gallon


Probably an Uber driver who drives part time and is a public employee whose benefits are provided from gasoline taxes. If it was $70/gal not much tax is collected because not much gas is bought. If it was $1 per gal the tax wouldn't be high enough to pay the benefits.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Solar power and electric cars will come down in price... Do you know what will help them come down in price the fastest? A vibrant economy.
> 
> Banning gas to try and make cleaner techs come faster seems to me like shooting oneself in the foot.


I'm not sure I believe you. Historically, when gas prices were higher, people bought more prius. Lower prices saw an increase in hummer sales.



Trafficat said:


> Probably an Uber driver who drives part time and is a public employee whose benefits are provided from gasoline taxes.


haha. That was funny.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> I'm not sure I believe you. Historically, when gas prices were higher, people bought more prius. Lower prices saw an increase in hummer sales.


One doesn't just need to sell Priuses... they also need to build infrastructure and conduct costly research. A Prius still runs on gas. At $70 a gallon even a Prius is too expensive to run. At Tesla model S prices, most people would just stop driving. That means the whole economy shudders and research into alternative energy will shudder too.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> I am well aware of that. We can also have more locally sourced foods, products and services. That's kinda the point. We're eating apples from six thousand miles away. Food sits in warehouses for weeks and months... filled with toxic preservatives, waxes, wastes from other industries added. The whole thing is insanely wasteful. Gardens are a simple solution. Neighborhood gardens, people knowing their neighbors again, community. Accountability. It goes hand-in-hand. Artificially cheap gas has allowed urban sprawl to totally undermine community and sensible logistics.. The stupidity of infinite growth models in finite systems...
> 
> This may come as a surprise, but I voted in the above pole for $4,900. Glad to see a full third of our population here agrees! I'm not saying you can't drive your truck around, I just want to know your ride-sharing secrets that would allow you to afford to


Oh, I see you're in San Francisco! Utopia, where food can be grown nearby and everyone can afford it, including the homeless!!!

Gasoline in America isn't artificially cheap. It's driven by market forces. Except in California, where it's rendered artificially expensive by usurious taxes.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

I'm suggesting a slow and consistent increase of 10 cents per week. Nothing over night. Can we agree that gas will consistently get more expensive in the next few years? What would happen if gas costed One cent more each week? Certainly we could adapt.

Most def subsidized.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

$1 in 10 weeks would be overnight, and would be a crippling shock to the economy.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> One doesn't just need to sell Priuses... they also need to build infrastructure and conduct costly research. A Prius still runs on gas. At $70 a gallon even a Prius is too expensive to run. At Tesla model S prices, most people would just stop driving. That means the whole economy shudders and research into alternative energy will shudder too.


Point taken. It's not that this concept is completely foreign to me, but it is a valid point. See? This is why it's important to have these discussions.



PrestonT said:


> $1 in 10 weeks would be overnight, and would be a crippling shock to the economy.


Actually, overnight is 24 hours. That's why I use numbers... so we're on the same page. Thus the next question.. how about One cent per week.. I'm paying $3.50 per gallon here.. and I drive 45 hours/wk and run two other businesses here... Doing well. Had zero people in my life give me an small loans of a million dollars or whatever. I've lived homeless when I had to in order to put myself in a better situation. SF economy doesn't seem crippled. We pay 8.75% sales tax. Roads are getting paid.

.... Wait a minute.. how about http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/

How about the economies that have $4-$6 / gallon gas like netherlands, denmark, germany.. ? They seem alive and well compared kuwait egypt etc.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> I'm suggesting a slow and consistent increase of 10 cents per week. Nothing over night. Can we agree that gas will consistently get more expensive in the next few years? What would happen if gas costed One cent more each week? Certainly we could adapt.
> 
> Most def subsidized.
> 
> http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/


Government subsidy should be eliminated, that much I agree with. Eliminating the subsidies would cause an increase in the cost of gasoline but it wouldn't reach outrageous levels.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

Anyone advocating for higher priced ANYTHING is a mental midget.

Let the free market determine prices. That's the ONLY fair method, the ONLY right way.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

Cary Grant said:


> Anyone advocating for higher priced ANYTHING is a mental midget.
> 
> Let the free market determine prices. That's the ONLY fair method, the ONLY right way.


I'd agree except we're poisoning ourselves and each other and contributing to instability by driving in circles like idiots for joy riding. A lot of driving isn't for necessities but completely unnecessary.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

swingset said:


> That's all complete nonsense. Anti-science nonsense, too.
> 
> Feelings, nothing more than feeeeeeeeelings.


"Science" said the same thing about antibiotics, and what do we have now? Superbugs.

Science said, for years, that fat is bad for you, cholesterol is the enemy, and lately they are changing their tune.

Tobacco companies spent millions on many studies and not one of them found a link between cancer and tobacco.

Science says that vaccines will protect you, but history is replete with outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.

When I point to hundreds of testimonials of parents of vaccine injured children, science shouts "correlation is not causation", but when I ask for proof that vaccines are effective what do they give as proof? Disease decline stats, i.e., correlation data.(which, by the way, are misleading ).

History is also replete with authoritative disasters. If you think by merely tossing around the term "science" you are automatically and irrefutably correct, you are anything but. I'm not anti-science, I'm pro wisdom, which includes smart science. Science is a neutral thing, like a car, you can use it responsibly or irresponsibly.

Appeals to authority is a specious argument ( it is also one of the items on the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit ) and I often hear, Most scientists ( also indicating that it takes intelligence to become a scientist) say....blah blah, and then believe that blah blah is automatically correct.

Not necessarily.

It's not about intelligence or science, per se, it's about wisdom.

If you don't think science can be unwise, talk to the creators of the atom bomb.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


Sell me a new tesla for 1/4 of a price of what it is today and I'm in


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon


Lol. UberX per mile will still be at $0.85 and minimum wage at $8/hour. So What ? You will be helping your community moving.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Thank God none of you morons have any real say.


----------



## swingset (Feb 26, 2017)

Oscar Levant said:


> "Science" said....
> 
> <snipped paranoia about your unjustified fears of food, even tho the food you aren't afraid of is just as genetically modified (in a less controlled way than GMO's)>









dirtylee said:


> Thank God none of you morons have any real say.


Best comment of the thread.

Every day I respect Uber more for keeping some of these people occupied chasing surges rather than running for office or influencing any real change in society.


----------



## Strange Fruit (Aug 10, 2016)

1...........2..............3



_*All the nuclear bombs at once! everyone say goodnight.*_​


Ahhh, relief. No more madness. Maybe the cetaceans will be sentient in a million years and create water weapons to do the whole thing over again, in a watery way.​


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

How about this. I get you want your pickup truck to make you feel like a real man and maybe the other equipment down there isn't... uh.. in V-8 the way it used to be. Maybe I can offer a slightly better proposal. How about all us tree-huggin, clean air - lovin' California people get the One Cent per week increase in gas prices? Every wednesday.

How about for just the top ten worst?

https://qz.com/963089/california-is...ties-in-america-where-air-pollution-is-worst/


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

travelhacker said:


> What you are describing has been discussed many times by economists. A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things. For example, if organic food was cheaper than pesticide riddled food, everyone would switch to organics and the pesticide farmers would switch to growing organics and eventually no one would grow or buy anything but organic.
> 
> If we made electric cars cheaper than gas powered cars, no one except a crazy few would buy gas cars. Its a simple formula.


"Organic" = plantation-farmed by heavy preferably manual slave labor

Its a snobby terminology for intentionally forsaking nearly all technological advancement and industrialization and paying for an unproductive, inefficient, labor-intensive crop...just cuz we can.

And cuz we prefer our stuff to be produced by Manuel Sanchez...not John Deere.

If the world went "organic", billions would literally starve to death or die in the ensuing chaos and violence.

PS you want organic, head to North Korea or South Sudan. Almost all their sparse crops are utterly "organic".


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

half the people in the US now using either an electric or a hybrid and somehow gas is still $3 a gallon, that's because there is no competition anymore

in the early 2000's gas was $1 a gallon and then they allowed all the gas companies to merge and instead of 15 gas companies there are basically 4 and clearly they all collude together to keep gas above $3 a gallon even with most people using electric now...you see them all the time on the roads


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

If the world went organic and we stopped being utterly wasteful (with our land and water and other resources used for factory farms to make meat), we could easily produce organic food. It's a myth that GMOs produce more food or that they re food at all.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> Solar power and electric cars will come down in price... Do you know what will help them come down in price the fastest? A vibrant economy.


These are becoming more affordable slowly. 
Want an example in the same sense? LED lighting. About ten years ago, LED lightbulbs were in the $25-30 range if not pricier. Now they have eaten away the CFL's market share as prices went down to near-CFL par.

...

The Chevrolet Bolt may be the most promising EV yet. It claims it can go twice the range of the Nissan Leaf.

Bolt, not Volt. Dunno the details on the Volt. (The ad from GM did not offer a comparison, naturally)


----------



## nomad_driver (May 11, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> I'm suggesting a slow and consistent increase of 10 cents per week. Nothing over night. Can we agree that gas will consistently get more expensive in the next few years? What would happen if gas costed One cent more each week? Certainly we could adapt.
> 
> Most def subsidized.
> 
> http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/


No we can not agree that gas will consistently get more expensive.

But we can agree that gas should not be subsidized. The price of gas should be decided by the free market.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

nomad_driver said:


> No we can not agree that gas will consistently get more expensive.
> 
> But we can agree that gas should not be subsidized. The price of gas should be decided by the free market.


If we had an easily available unlimited supply, maybe. We're not talking tomatoes that we can grow. There's less gas left and it is more costly, financially and economically to attain it. There are undeniably a lot of other drawbacks to burning gas. Environmental, social, health-wise. Political effects, too, one might imagine. It isn't analogous to other goods and services. Do you see these issues now making it not simply a function (gas prices) of the free market?

Also, all the social unrest that would follow a 30-day $5.00 increase on gas could possibly happen to a lesser extent if we run out in 20 years. If the price per gallon was then adjusted to increase a cent per week, that might stretch it out to 25 years, thereby lessening the intensity of violence.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

Dirtylee was spot on correct. Thank God these non-thinkers, statists, and statheists never get any real power.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

OP, where did you find an all electric UberBLACK?

I average 43mpg on my Select ride....how about your UberBLACK...what's your mpg on that?

Insert something about _glass houses_ here...


----------



## swingset (Feb 26, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> If the world went organic and we stopped being utterly wasteful (with our land and water and other resources used for factory farms to make meat), we could easily produce organic food. It's a myth that GMOs produce more food or that they re food at all.


Aside from being completely, factually, empirically wrong about literally everything you just said, you make a great point.


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

It's a known fact we can run vehicles on water so I guess free.


----------



## DeplorableDonald (Feb 16, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> How about the economies that have $4-$6 / gallon gas like netherlands, denmark, germany.. ? They seem alive and well compared kuwait egypt etc.


I shouldn't feed the troll because I think this is all done for someone's bored amusement but here goes.

My skin crawls when I hear it said "Europe has much higher gas prices" and all that tripe. They have much better mass transit systems than we do If I wanted to live in goddamn Europe, I'd be there now.

Some European women don't take care of "down there" very well. I suppose we should emulate that too?

Gas is here for the foreseeable future, like it or not. When they can fly a 747 from here to Australia on an electric motor I'll be impressed.

Also where does the lunacy stop? Will it get to the ridiculously sublime where I don't take a step because I might crush an insect under the weight of my foot?


----------



## nomad_driver (May 11, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> If we had an easily available unlimited supply, maybe. We're not talking tomatoes that we can grow. There's less gas left and it is more costly, financially and economically to attain it. There are undeniably a lot of other drawbacks to burning gas. Environmental, social, health-wise. Political effects, too, one might imagine. It isn't analogous to other goods and services. Do you see these issues now making it not simply a function (gas prices) of the free market?
> 
> Also, all the social unrest that would follow a 30-day $5.00 increase on gas could possibly happen to a lesser extent if we run out in 20 years. If the price per gallon was then adjusted to increase a cent per week, that might stretch it out to 25 years, thereby lessening the intensity of violence.


I don't believe in climate change as liberals present it because the "science" as they call it which is undeniable has always turned out to be wrong. Al Gore sounds more like some Baptist preacher who says the bible has told him when the world will end.

I don't even know how to address you hypothetical 30 day $5 increase on gas and "social unrest" but I'll say this. In Atlanta we had gas jump up significantly because of the hurricane in Houston. At the station I pump at most it went from 2.15 to 2.75 for about two months. There were even some stations in Atlanta that ran out of gas, but strangely no one was trying to kill each other. In reality nobody liked it, some people complained, but people managed well enough. Perhaps Atlantans are more resilient than San Franciscans.



Brian G. said:


> It's a known fact we can run vehicles on water so I guess free.


Steam power is so 19th century, but everyone starts dressing up in the steam punk style I would be down.


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

nomad_driver said:


> I don't believe in climate change as liberals present it because the "science" as they call it which is undeniable has always turned out to be wrong. Al Gore sounds more like some Baptist preacher who says the bible has told him when the world will end.
> 
> I don't even know how to address you hypothetical 30 day $5 increase on gas and "social unrest" but I'll say this. In Atlanta we had gas jump up significantly because of the hurricane in Houston. At the station I pump at most it went from 2.15 to 2.75 for about two months. There were even some stations in Atlanta that ran out of gas, but strangely no one was trying to kill each other. In reality nobody liked it, some people complained, but people managed well enough. Perhaps Atlantans are more resilient than San Franciscans.
> 
> Steam power is so 19th century, but everyone starts dressing up in the steam punk style I would be down.


Wasn't talking about the 1800's but ok haha.


----------



## Squirming Like A Toad (Apr 7, 2016)

Gas taxes. A great way to tax the people who can't afford to live near where they work.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

swingset said:


> Aside from being completely, factually, empirically wrong about literally everything you just said, you make a great point.


Are you familiar with the immense wastefulness of factory farms?

How is that incorrect.


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

These folks are doing well with less waste.


----------



## travelhacker (Oct 30, 2017)

Adieu said:


> "Organic" = plantation-farmed by heavy preferably manual slave labor
> 
> Its a snobby terminology for intentionally forsaking nearly all technological advancement and industrialization and paying for an unproductive, inefficient, labor-intensive crop...just cuz we can.
> 
> ...


My buddy has an organic farm, ites pesticide free and he has lots of John Deere equipment,


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Electric vehicles are not what most people think they are when it comes to scalability.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Inconvenient-Truth-About-Electric-Vehicles.html


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Squirming Like A Toad said:


> Gas taxes. A great way to tax the people who can't afford to live near where they work.


Seems reasonable, tax those who use the roads the most.


----------



## Tihstae (Jan 31, 2017)

How does this dumb of a troll become a featured thread? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


There are always alternatives.
French fry grease Diesel.
Run in a V.W. TDI -50 mpg.

Build a still and make alchohol fuel that i can drink.

Hot tap a pipeline that i know has condensate in it . . .

Bunch of v8 ford CNG natural gas and dual fuel trucks for sale at auctions right now.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it.


Cigarettes should be $70 a pack. People would smoke less.

Food should be $70 an ounce. Obesity would be a thing of the past.

Bourbon should be.... nah, leave that one alone.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

pomegranite112 said:


> Gas cars will still be around. Some people like our sports cars. We like to hear the engine roar. Although for the other 99%, gas cars should not be a thing


0-100 m.p.h. 0.8 seconds.
11,000 H.P. V-8.
Ever feel one go by you 50 feet away at over 300 m.p.h. ?
The explosions from the cylinders will KNOCK the air out of your lungs

Electric cars are nice.
They will Never compare.



Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


The " Power Grid "is already outdated and over burdened.
Why do you think the Feds. Pushed C.F.L. lighting and banned 100 watt bulbs ?

I run 6 watt L.E.D. bulbs throughout my house.

Lets go electric & cause rolling national blackouts !

Ummmm . . . NO !

I run my house so energy efficient, if i went solar, i would be selling power to the grid every month !
4 bedroom house never went over 900 kilowatts in past 14 months on monthly bill. 98 degree humid summers.
Still running an old 130 watt t.v. replace with 28 watt flatscreen and save another 100 watts an hour.


----------



## Tom Harding (Sep 26, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I guess that rules out my 1957 DeSoto Adventurer.


Or my 1957 Chrysler Saratoga.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Cigarettes should be $70 a pack. People would smoke less.
> 
> Food should be $70 an ounce. Obesity would be a thing of the past.
> 
> Bourbon should be.... nah, leave that one alone.


And Internet should be $70/GB ........


----------



## pomegranite112 (May 14, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Cigarettes should be $70 a pack. People would smoke less.
> 
> Food should be $70 an ounce. Obesity would be a thing of the past.
> 
> Bourbon should be.... nah, leave that one alone.


Food being 70 dollars will create starvation lol. Maybe higher taxes on fast food?


----------



## Leo. (Dec 27, 2015)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


Great bait


----------



## Johnny Driver (Apr 30, 2017)

The only way gasoline will go away and be replaced by other fuel alternatives is for the big oil companies to divest in oil producing and invest in those alternatives otherwise it will be a long time before we see gasoline going the way of the dinosaur.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

pomegranite112 said:


> Food being 70 dollars will create starvation lol. Maybe higher taxes on fast food?


'Organic food' should be heavily taxed because it is the food for the Ugly rich.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

rembrandt said:


> 'Organic food' should be heavily taxed because it is the food for the Ugly rich.


I will grow my own food.
And tobacco.
TAX AND CHEMICAL FREE



travelhacker said:


> My buddy has an organic farm, ites pesticide free and he has lots of John Deere equipment,


John Deere.
Nothing runs like a Deere !
I actually worked for them a while in manufacturing.


----------



## freddieman (Oct 24, 2016)

travelhacker said:


> What you are describing has been discussed many times by economists. A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things. For example, if organic food was cheaper than pesticide riddled food, everyone would switch to organics and the pesticide farmers would switch to growing organics and eventually no one would grow or buy anything but organic.
> 
> If we made electric cars cheaper than gas powered cars, no one except a crazy few would buy gas cars. Its a simple formula.


Organic costs more to produce. Are u going to buy partly eaten organic foods by pests? Pesticide....what does it do?


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Cigarettes should be $70 a pack. People would smoke less.
> 
> Food should be $70 an ounce. Obesity would be a thing of the past.
> 
> Bourbon should be.... nah, leave that one alone.


The problem here is that there are too many people who are ignorant of basic economics to realize you're joking. I hope the regulars here understand this.


----------



## Kembolicous (May 31, 2016)

Electric car would be nice. But if everyone has an electric car, and gas power is no more, what happens then? The increase in electric usage would be off the charts. Imagine every car in the state charging at once. California wants to eliminate all gas and diesel enginein the next few years. Once again, California leads the way in insanity.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

OP, what is your MPG on the car you use for UberBLACK?


----------



## Hawkdallas (Feb 16, 2017)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


Your not thinking about people with health problems. That have physical problems. And they are just people trying to get to work and raise their families. Not everybody has the time or the ability to ride a bike or jog or walk everywhere they go. Until there is something to replace oil we have to keep using this system. And I don't want to hear batteries solar or any of that crap. I'm trying to refrain myself from just calling you another dumb liberal that has these grandiose ideas that would never work in the real world. Besides my argument against it this is America we like our SUVs we like our trucks we like our big lawn mowers. Not to mention it would ruin our economy.



Bob fox said:


> you mean externalizing the cost to the environment unless the whole thing is solar wind etc.. Did you know that if even like 2% of the cars out there weere electric the whole US would shut down? The ENTIRE electricity grid for the US amounts to about 5% of the energy used to power cars. There are 260 million + cars, i.e. gasoline generators running in the US. I'm not saying we can't make it happen. But know the situation. TESLA needs to make a bicycle better than BIONX>
> 
> https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...rs-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx
> 
> I wonder who voted 4 per gallon


Yes again these liberals live in a fantasy world where they think they plug their devices into the wall in Magic electricity just pours out of them LOL the same liberals that want electric cars and have their iPhone stuck to their face all day want to get rid of coal and nuclear energy. Not understanding that we kind of need that too, you know, power the country hahaha


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

I am thinking of people with health problems. They can get an extra allowance. But 90% arent the exception to the rule.

"In america we like burning lotsa gas in out bog trucks"... are YOU thinking of people w health probs? Emphysema, asthma, heart disease, obesity, depression?

Thinking we can have $2 gas and drive in circles for fun while our grandchildren pay for it seems like a horrible fantasy.



UberLaLa said:


> OP, what is your MPG on the car you use for UberBLACK?


Between 40 & 60.



UberLaLa said:


> Electric vehicles are not what most people think they are when it comes to scalability.
> 
> https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Inconvenient-Truth-About-Electric-Vehicles.html


I brought this up earlier in the post.. most people have no clue that electricity doesn't come from a magic land somewhere. The "zero emissions" tags on teslas and buses are horrible. What they mean is that it's not in my backyard... electricity loss is like 50% from production to where it's used varying of course how far away it goes. People have no idea that the entire energy grid for electricity for the United States is like 5% of the power needed for all our cars right now.

I have concerns.


----------



## Lando74 (Nov 23, 2014)

Is this what you people in San Francisco do when you're bored? Fantasize about price gouging everyone into a Prius? Every third car in SF is already a Prius. You're all freaking nuts in California.

[QUOTE="I believe in being liberal in the sense that you should live as you please, do your thing, up until the point you interfere with someone else doing their thing... or destroying the water, air, and land for a trillion other creatures doing their thing. 
[/QUOTE]

Being a liberal is the antithesis of living as you please. It's impossible to live your life - no matter how hard you try - without interfering with any of those things. Being a liberal is a never-ending odyssey attempting to create a utopia, claiming to celebrate diversity & tolerance yet cannot tolerate opposing views.


----------



## UberSchmuber (Mar 2, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something.


Aren't we the clever little social engineer?









"Everybody owning hybrids causes more harm than good: although emission levels are down, people who drive hybrids emit "smug", and South Park now has the second-highest levels in the country, after San Francisco."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!


----------



## TBone (Jan 19, 2015)

With $70 gas that would mean $50 a mile for Uber and minimum wages would have to e near $50 an hour. 
Also, the black market for stolen gas would be huuuuge, tremendous, bigly


----------



## canyon (Dec 22, 2015)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


Yea ok and also there is gold at the end of the rainbow. You liberals kill me with the nonsense that spills out of those holes you call mouths.....


----------



## Homie G (Oct 19, 2017)

Hey $70 a gal. gas would work out great for me. Would shorten the time I need to figure out this driving deal actually is costing ME $ to do anyways. Especially in Detroit at base X rate of.60 per mile. What a joke. But there is probably a conspiracy going on here with rising gas prices. I'm not sure if Tuber is publicly traded or not. If it is They are teaming up with Big Petros to raise prices and shorting the daylights out of their own company to get EVERYONE to quit and then laughing even harder to the bank then they already do. But I shouldn't be giving them any ideas..


----------



## Rat (Mar 6, 2016)

travelhacker said:


> What you are describing has been discussed many times by economists. A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things. For example, if organic food was cheaper than pesticide riddled food, everyone would switch to organics and the pesticide farmers would switch to growing organics and eventually no one would grow or buy anything but organic.
> 
> If we made electric cars cheaper than gas powered cars, no one except a crazy few would buy gas cars. Its a simple formula.


If we switched to all organically, half the population would starve. Modern fertilizers and pesticides have increased per acre yields 6-fold


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

The reason why gas cats are still a thing is because it only takes about a minute to fill up the tank and it takes hours to recharge an EV. If recharging could be done as quickly you'd see all gas stations switch to recharging stations


----------



## garyk (Jan 22, 2016)

travelhacker said:


> What you are describing has been discussed many times by economists. A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things. For example, if organic food was cheaper than pesticide riddled food, everyone would switch to organics and the pesticide farmers would switch to growing organics and eventually no one would grow or buy anything but organic.
> 
> If we made electric cars cheaper than gas powered cars, no one except a crazy few would buy gas cars. Its a simple formula.


Your example is a bad one because pesticide-free food is more expensive because pesticide food is more plentiful. There's got to be a balance somewhere.


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Although thinking about the environment is a great idea, I can tell you that oil is a business, and a global business at that. Now trying to force people to be environmentally friendly can also have a backlash on business. I'll give you an example out here in California ( mainly southern) we instituted a plastic shopping bag ban. Plastic bags that were originally given to you are now 10 cents a bag. You can purchase a reusable grocery bag and they run from $1.50 to $5.00 per bag. The result is less trash on the streets, and I'm sure that the bags that would make their way down the over spill ways to the ocean are not choking as much otters, and dolphins and whatever else anymore. The other thing though are that there are people that grumble, and verbally complain, sometimes that this was forced on them, and it's unfair etc etc. However now that all the major grocery stores and most gas stations do this at least in my city, grumble all you want, if you want a bag its 10 cents period have a nice day. However it's plastic bags, not something expensive like a car.

The internal combustion engine being the polluting furnace that it is, has become a comfort to some, and a status symbol to some others. I see some truck lovers who modify their pickups and raise them like 4 feet up with huge tires, some put big exhaust stacks sticking up in the air like a tractor trailer. Then we have sports car enthusiasts, who lower their cars, and put racing exhaust on their cars, and turbos, etc etc. Then you have people who buy a car because it is a status symbol. A great example of that is a Mercedes, or BMW, maybe an Infiniti. If you're really rich, maybe a Bently, or A Ferrari. Because that kind of car co$t$ alot of money, and the people who have the money to buy them like showing off their expensive car. Girls like the Ferrari, Porsche, Corvette, not the Prius. Such is pop culture in a capitalist society such as ours in the USA.

Maybe find a way to make green sexy, because it's all about sales, and numbers. Businesses spend alot of time and money researching what sells and what doesn't, then they make commercials, and billboards. Then the masses see the billboards and think things like ," If I drink that whiskey I'll be a bad ass," or" Those expensive brand name clothes will get me the girl I want." etc etc. When the reality of it is, if you drink that whiskey you're probably going to become an alcoholic, and push people away from you ,( because they can't stand you when you're drunk) and you may end up in a 12 step program years later trying to piece your life back together. Or if you buy those clothes, it will put you deeper in debt, and you'll have to pay off those credit cards so you'll have to drive more hours for Uber, and spend less time with your girl, or out clubbing.

I still know way too may people who love their cars, they love hearing the roar of the exhaust. The whine of a supercharger, and think little, if nothing at all of the harm that it does to the atmosphere. To be quite honest with you as much as I like a Toyota Prius, I sit behind them in traffic and stare at the 175/65/ 15 tires and think things like. " I'd roll that little go cart on it's side with the way I drive." Yes it's a great little car, but it's not a Camaro, or Mustang, or a Charger. It appeals to a different group of consumers, who are not the majority, and you can't force environmental responsibility on a free country. So find a better way to sell it, if you want to save the planet.

I also want to add after re-reading the original post nuclear energy is not "clean" energy. In case you are unaware of how the process works. The uranium rods are cooled with WATER, and the water and spent uranium rods have to be stored somewhere when they reach their service lives. Like a mountain in the USA, and other places away from large populated areas. Not to mention that they have to vent radioactive steam into the atmosphere to relieve pressure etc etc.


----------



## GasHealthTimeCosts (Jul 24, 2017)

Hey Genius....

Ever thought of raising the rates for riders? So the riders can maybe walk a block or two instead of calling an Uber?

All electric cars could have been around 20 years ago or even more but this country is corrupt by corporations and big oil. 

The same way drivers are too desperate to turn of their apps to make it surge, people are too desperate and ignorant to protest against the greedy politicians and corporations.


----------



## GlenGreezy (Sep 21, 2015)

Electric cars are HORRIBLE for the environment. 

Like absolutely terrible.


----------



## Null (Oct 6, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> "Science" said the same thing about antibiotics, and what do we have now? Superbugs.
> 
> Science said, for years, that fat is bad for you, cholesterol is the enemy, and lately they are changing their tune.
> 
> ...


So much dribble here I don't think Costco has enough tissues to clean it all up.

Most of the warnings about fats were for Saturated Fats. They still warn against excess of those. "Fat" isn't some single thing, there are different kinds and things you eat can have varying ratios of different kinds. Also, they cautioned that saturated fats, etc. are a RISK FACTOR for disease, not a determinant. Start here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0018272/

None of the tobacco industry commissioned studies EVER found a unfavorable result to Tobacco use? Really? 2 second google search, from 1998 http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/23/business/fi-42051 and a more recent one from WHO http://www.who.int/tobacco/resources/publications/Tobacco Industry Interference-FINAL.pdf. - Your assertion is inaccurate. Tobacco industry sponsored studies have NUMEROUSLY found negative results. However, the research was not corrupted by the scientists or the scientific community, but by the industry.

History is replete with resurgence of what diseases in what communities? What were the vectors for those? https://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/index.html - A lot of resurgence of preventable diseases has been attributed to change in perceptions on vaccines causing people to not get them, not that vaccines don't work. Individuals vaccinated against a disease SIGNIFICANTLY less likely be afflicted.

Hundreds of testimonials? That's your ammo against thousands and thousands of peer reviewed research dealing with epidemiology? Clearly you haven't a clue how vaccines are developed and tested. There are correlational methods and experimental methods. When DEVELOPING medicines, experimental methods are used. For example, you take animals, inject them with vaccine then expose to the live virus once the immune response is complete. You take another group and inject a placebo (the control). A properly functioning vaccine will show a significant difference between the experimental group and the control. There are also factors that can be observed and quantified such as increase in antibodies that attack a specific antigen, these can be refined and examined in lab environments. Just because a vaccine doesn't prevent 100% of infections doesn't mean it's not scientifically proven to work.

But if you want to throw anecdotes and testimonials in the mix.... I've received regular vaccinations since I was born. I get the flu shot ever year. I got the Hep A vaccine. I'm not autistic, I don't have excess heavy metals, overall in excellent health. You realize there are millions more people who are just like me than cite vaccines as causing problems for them/children right?

Yes, when looking at large populations, you use correlational methods to measure and inspect the impact of the proliferation of a medicine. However, that doesn't mean the efficacy is based purely on correlative methods.

The Atom bomb was a actually very wise. You realize more people would have died had had the atom bomb not been invented right? More than died in the initial explosions and effect of nuclear fallout after the fact. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ - The US was ready and willing to unleash non-nuclear holocaust on more cities. The atom bomb's primary effect was not destructive but psychological. Traditional armaments are just as terrifying nuclear arms. You need more traditional warheads by weight to get an equivalent amount of energy as a nuclear warhead, but you can get there. But if you kill 200,000 people with 5 tons of nuclear warhead(s) or 50 tons of traditional explosives the result is the same, 200,000 dead people and a leveled city.

I realized you've drank way too much Kool-aid and so beyond reason with your convictions to be swayed by anything I've said. So, my response here is much less to persuade you and more so as a protest against unfettered scientific illiteracy, such that those on the fence have rational counterpoint.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

I think gas should be $100/gallon except for public transportation company costs. This way 99% of the population would be stuck on buses. We could all watch through the greasy windows as the ultra wealthy drive their luxury cars on now-empty streets. It would be great for the nation and really join us together. Living in the suburbs I'd love to have to bike everywhere, even in the winter. Those 12 mile trips to kids' practice on the tandem bike in February would be great fun. And if I don't want to bike I could just take three buses instead, now turning a 25 min drive into a 90 minute adventure. What's not to love!



GlenGreezy said:


> Electric cars are HORRIBLE for the environment.
> 
> Like absolutely terrible.


They aren't. They just aren't as good as a lot of people think due to the source of the energy in many cases from coal, etc.


----------



## GlenGreezy (Sep 21, 2015)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> I think gas should be $100/gallon except for public transportation company costs. This way 99% of the population would be stuck on buses. We could all watch through the greasy windows as the ultra wealthy drive their luxury cars on now-empty streets. It would be great for the nation and really join us together. Living in the suburbs I'd love to have to bike everywhere, even in the winter. Those 12 mile trips to kids' practice on the tandem bike in February would be great fun. And if I don't want to bike I could just take three buses instead, now turning a 25 min drive into a 90 minute adventure. What's not to love!
> 
> They aren't. They just aren't as good as a lot of people think due to the source of the energy in many cases from coal, etc.


No. The energy to make them is higher than an I.C.E. The recycling is terrible. The chemicals involved are bad. It's all bad.


----------



## Kembolicous (May 31, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> I guess that rules out my 1957 DeSoto Adventurer.


Love a DeSoto! Dream of a late 50's, 2-Dr, 392 and torqueflite! Oh yeah !


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Kembolicous said:


> Love a DeSoto! Dream of a late 50's, 2-Dr, 392 and torqueflite!


345/345-dual points and automatic.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

crookedhalo said:


> E85? Any engine with a knock sensor (anything built after 1996) can run it. I get to keep my full size sedan and feel good about burning a renewable


E85 is 105 octane. It let's me make wicked power without spending 15 bucks a gallon on race fuel.



Jcposeidon said:


> Id still drive my big v8 truck and use all my toys like 4weeler and boats. If gas went up that high prices of everything would go up. You need gas to transport goods like the high quality food you want.


Biodiesel works just as well for the purpose of transportation. We don't "need" gasoline. We CHOOSE to use it because it's the easy way out and our "masters" generate billions by keeping us believing it's our only choice.


----------



## Autofahrer (Oct 25, 2017)

$70 per gallon is insanity. Do not agree. Issue is the pay we make is not inline with costs of driving, especially gasoline when the cost goes
up we should be justly compensated. I just drove 48.5 miles one way today with a time of 90 minutes. I process of issue with uber on the pay 
I received. Was not fait because it wasn't calculated correctly.


----------



## NachonCheeze (Sep 8, 2015)

Thanks for deciding what the rest of us should or should not consider "important". Maybe we could drop the amount of gas consumption by culling the herd...any volunteers??


----------



## swingset (Feb 26, 2017)

NachonCheeze said:


> Thanks for deciding what the rest of us should or should not consider "important". Maybe we could drop the amount of gas consumption by culling the herd...any volunteers??


Good point. If you're serious about the planet and overpopulation, suicide is the way to show people you mean it. That's a lot of carbon and landfill space you just cleared up, don't linger around ruining Gaia, folks.

Show us how committed to your own words you are.


----------



## Robert finnly (Jul 1, 2017)

2 would be very fair


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou (Oct 13, 2015)

Bob fox said:


> Gas should be around $70 per gallon. We would use less of it. We would buy prius and possibly even disappear completely up our own a55. We would bike trips that are two miles or less... and that would become 5 miles or less. Fewer needless cars on the road on the way to the gym... you know, to walk on a treadmill and ride a state-of-the-art bicycle that plugs into the wall.. that's powered by "clean" nuclear energy. Health expenses would be reduced. Air quality improved. But instead, people lack long-term thinking and always want the shortcuts, the easy way. Thus the increase in expense comes hidden in our societies. The food quality is reduced. People become less bright with lower quality water. Fatness increases by design until we choose otherwise.
> 
> But explain to me otherwise what would happen. Certainly you can teach me something. What if each week gas was increased by 10 cents per gallon? Because I would love to see that happen.
> 
> ...


If gas is $70 a gallon, your bag of chips at Walmart won't be $2.97 it'll be $29.97 so good luck with your theory.

I'm a liberal I'm all for green energy and eliminating oil as our main form of automobile power but then again once I floor my hellcat with TC off I love that it's only $2.59 a gallon.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Null said:


> So much dribble here I don't think Costco has enough tissues to clean it all up.
> 
> Most of the warnings about fats were for Saturated Fats. They still warn against excess of those. "Fat" isn't some single thing, there are different kinds and things you eat can have varying ratios of different kinds. Also, they cautioned that saturated fats, etc. are a RISK FACTOR for disease, not a determinant. Start here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0018272/
> 
> ...


First off, I never said I was "anti-vaxx", my concern is that kids today are receiving too many vaccinations too frequently.
I had a bunch of vaccinations in my life, but never as many as kids today are receiving. If there were a diptheria epidemic, I would get the vaccine.

There are tons of empirical evidence about the fact we are over vaccinating our children. Many studies are not worth spit due to "healthy user bias" done in the studies, meaning they exclude less than healthy subjects in the studies when they are included in the application of the vaccines, which means the results of the studies are biased heavily in favor of the vaccines but are, in fact, not as safe in application. Go on YouTube, and you'll find hundreds of testimonials of parents of vaccine injured children. There has been over $3 billion awarded to vaccine injured under the National Child Vaccine Injury Act. And the very fact the act exists begs the question: why does it exist? Answer that one. Well, so happens I do have the answer, and it's not the one they tell you. I'll save it for another comment.

I note that the medical establishment has a mentality about vaccines that they are "the greatest advance in health science" and as such, they have too much invested in them, egos, reputations, etc., such that they would NEVER allow a study to reveal that we are over vaccinating kids. They will never do a study on the long term cummulative effect on all of these vaccines, In column A, you have vaccine preventable diseases on the decline or vanished, but many in column B, we have other chronic illnesses, conditions, asthma, austism, which are growing exponentially with kids.

In fact, kids today are much sicker, overall, than when I was a child in the 50s. I point this out and all I'm told is that "there are no studies linking all these vaccines to these conditions", naturally, it really can't be done, can it? At some point, one has to use their frickin brain and just watch what is happening. Oh, they will rationalize it, "diet" "sugary foods" "GMOs' etc. I'd say it's all these things, but the medical community will never admit vaccines just might be playing a role in the decline of children's health, in addition to all of these things.

As for the bomb, there is nothing wise about the bomb, and to argue something that is patently obvious is silly. Arguments that "fewer people died because of the bomb" is a stupid argument. All it takes are some bad actors to get a hold of the bomb, and earth can kiss its ass goodbye. such as the taliban taking over pakistan, such as North Korea acquiring ICBMs ( and they are going to, by the way, there is no way to stop them ) and eventually, Iran will have them, the treaty will end, and then what? No argument for the bomb counters the fact that some bad people getting a hold of a few of them is inevitable. That's your idea of wisdom? I think not.

As for outbreaks in highly vaxxed populations, here's but a few a cursory search made:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202865
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5507a2.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1861205
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S559.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1884314
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3618578
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000476.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

I've got a lot more links, if you like.

My argument wasn't supposed to be about vaccines, but if you want to go there, I will, I have documents, if printed, would go from the floor to the ceiling in your average gymnasium, that do not put vaccines in a good light, of vaccinations at least how they are currently administered by the vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC. They do good, but the way we are over vaccinating kids, they are doing more harm, in the long run, than good. I've been studying this subject for years after I received a crap load of vaccines in the navy, 35 years ago, and was made severely ill. I recovered, but it made me look more closely at the subject.

My view is if one must vaccinate, wait until the child is at least 2 years of age ( thats they way they did it when I was a kid ), and no multi-doses, separate the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and no vaccines for diseases for which thee isn't a serious threat of injury or death ( you'll have to dig deeper than the hype, and there is a lot of hype, in order to find the truth). Also, I have a friend whose daughter went into anaphylactic shock immediately following teh Gardasil vaccine, and two weeks later, she is experiencing seizures, and she is 20 years of age. Gardasil has some alarming stats regarding girls injured, and there is absolutely no evidence they prevent cancer. Girls can do just as well with the pap smear. My point is, why vaccinate if there is a less intrusive alternative?

My point was just because you toss around the word "science" it doesn't automatically make you right. There's good, and bad, science, and like i said, its about wisdom, not science. I think that's a valid point.

Also, in debates, I've often noted that those who feel the need to use a technique I call posturing, (has many variants, i.e., puffery, belittling the opponent, ad hominens, etc ) are usually made by people who have a weak argument,, either that or a small penis.


----------



## LA_Native (Apr 17, 2017)

travelhacker said:


> A tax of bad things forces people to reconsider the bad things in favor of good things.


When SJW are unable to outlaw things they don't like others doing (e.g. drinking alcohol) they try to force their morality onto others by imposing additional costs (taxes) or restrictions, in an attempt to protect us from ourselves.

_"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."_
-Henry David Thoreau


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

LA_Native said:


> When SJW are unable to outlaw things they don't like others doing (e.g. drinking alcohol) they try to force their morality onto others by imposing additional costs (taxes) or restrictions, in an attempt to protect us from ourselves.
> 
> _"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."_
> -Henry David Thoreau


Clean water isn't a moral issue. Having clean air to breathe isn't a personal ethics. We all need it it's purely objective. So far as a bag of chips costing $30. Well maybe you from Walmart it would be more expensive. And it probably should be. Why should we artificially keep prices low to destroy the ecology and small businesses? If gas cost more your local bakery would end up making more local food. And you could even travel there by foot and by car to get it. And you would have cleaner air to breathe. But yes I suppose it is less convenient for people to actually pay for the materials are using rather than externalizing the cost on to further away ecosystems and lessening the quality of life for a grandchildren.

Here's a good example of a problem with short-term versus long-term thinking.






Keeping gas artificially cheap and externalizing costing environment is short-term thinking. An increase in the price of gas by let's say $0.01 per week consistently is an example of long-term thinking. Are you telling me that you cannot improve your life and businesses cannot do business more efficiently at least to the order of being able to handle a one penny increase per week in gas? Because that's just sad. And if you can't then I really don't think you have what it takes to make it as a business.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Bob fox said:


> Clean water isn't a moral issue. Having clean air to breathe isn't a personal ethics. We all need it it's purely objective. So far as a bag of chips costing $30. Well maybe you from Walmart it would be more expensive. And it probably should be. Why should we artificially keep prices low to destroy the ecology and small businesses? If gas cost more your local bakery would end up making more local food. And you could even travel there by foot and by car to get it. And you would have cleaner air to breathe. But yes I suppose it is less convenient for people to actually pay for the materials are using rather than externalizing the cost on to further away ecosystems and lessening the quality of life for a grandchildren.
> 
> Here's a good example of a problem with short-term versus long-term thinking.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity how are we keeping gas artificially cheap?


----------



## Bob fox (May 18, 2016)

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=..._occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=

https://www.citylab.com/transportat...ans-dont-pay-the-true-cost-of-driving/384200/

https://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/true-cost-fossil-fuels.html
^^^ "
Mining, transporting, and burning oil, gas, and coal also inflicts major damage to the environment and public health-and we pick up the tab. A 2009 report from the National Research Council showed that fossil fuels impose $120 billion of annual costs on the public every year. Air pollution takes a massive toll on public health-it causes respiratory problems, widespread illness and death, and leads to a huge number of missed work days. The prognosis from a Harvard study, the first to analyze the full life-cycle impact of coal, is even bleaker.

That report's lead author, the late Dr. Paul Epstein, told me in an interview that "Between the land disturbance, the mountaintop removal, the processing ... and the combustion, we estimate that this is costing the American public somewhere between a third to half a trillion dollars in health costs and deaths."

Yes, that's 'trillion' with a 'T'. Every year."


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

That is one of the things that I see different health care is not a public debt that is a personal debt.


----------



## JSKanno (Nov 11, 2017)

I have a GasBuddy app tells you how much gas is and where you can go to get it. It has a list of all gas stations near by. It's a good source of information.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

pomegranite112 said:


> Gas cars will still be around. Some people like our sports cars. We like to hear the engine roar. Although for the other 99%, gas cars should not be a thing


I can distill my own fuel.

Might be harder to do using G.M.O. CORN!


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Cableguynoe said:


> ...Bourbon should be.... nah, leave that one alone.


Yo I feel you bro. Leave my f'ing bourbon alone. After 3 years of the Gig Economy & Uberin', inexpensive hooch and nearly free porn are literally all I have left.

OT. If we raised the price of internet porn to $70 a gig, what would happen?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> OT. If we raised the price of internet porn to $70 a gig, what would happen?


productivity would skyrocket.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd (Aug 17, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> productivity would skyrocket.


Would it though? Cause I see a LOT of people watching cat videos, fbooking and crushing candy. When they're out in public anyway.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> Would it though? Cause I see a LOT of people watching cat videos, fbooking and crushing candy. When they're out in public anyway.


I would gladly watch the carving up of the guy who wants to raise gas prices.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> "Science" said the same thing about antibiotics, and what do we have now? Superbugs.
> 
> Science said, for years, that fat is bad for you, cholesterol is the enemy, and lately they are changing their tune.
> 
> ...


Science is a process. The process works.
1. Make observations.
2. Form a question.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Conduct an experiment.
5. Analyze the data and draw a conclusion.
6. Repeat, if necessary.

Science is right. Science is good. Wisdom is the collection of scientific research. One cannot have wisdom without science.

Nuclear energy was a giant leap forward in science. Unfortunately, we entrusted the use of that science to politicians, not scientists. Politicians rarely have a grasp of the sciences. Politicians want approval from a scientifically illiterate electorate. Superstitions and myths carry greater weight than scientific theories in this country and most of the world.

As a trained and (sometimes) working economist, I can say that changing the value of a vital commodity can have disastrous effects. About 10 years ago, we had a decline in the value of a vital commodity in this country. Some say the economy was close to a collapse. Millions lost their job and/or their house. Unemployment was rampant. The stock market tumbled. The once powerful General Motors had to be bailed out. And this was with a price decline. A massive increase in a vital commodity would be worse, causing runaway inflation, unemployment rates at record levels, homelessness, starvation, crime, insurrections, etc. If our country attempted to increase gas prices unilaterally, we may become a Canadian or Mexican territory. Venezuela would look good in comparison.


----------



## rembrandt (Jul 3, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Science is a process. The process works.


That is correct. Science can and will always correct itself through the scientific process. On the other hand , religions and dogmas never change even though they are proved wrong. Demand and supply (legal and illigal both) dictate the price of anything including human being. For the same reason, a banned substance like cocaine does not cost a million dollar per ounce. Before attacking gasoline, one should try to raise the price of narcotics and see how impossible that truly is.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Science is a process. The process works.
> 1. Make observations.
> 2. Form a question.
> 3. Form a hypothesis.
> ...


Look, there's an old saying, garbage in, garbage out. Now, that's an oversimplification, but more sophisticated and not as obvious variations of that can and do exist whereupon one might argue science. But, if that is happening, and I believe it is happening, particularly in the application of vaccines ( I believe kids are being over vaccinated ) tossing around the term science doesn't automatically mean you win the argument. Again, science, without wisdom, is not worth much. Sometimes science is wise, sometimes it's not.

The problem with economics, it can't be put in a petri dish and viewed with a microscope. There are different schools of economics and they don't agree on what reality is, and/or the correct policies that should be adopted. I believe economics, though pretending to be a science, is more of an art (just like "political science" is an oxymoron ). There are the keynesians, and of late, Friedman et al and the Austrian/Chicago schools, and even now there is a fringe group espousing "MMT, Modern Monetary Theory". I'm a Keynesian guy, myself.

As for nuclear energy, I've got one word for you: Fukushima. That's Japanese for "we're f-u-c-ked".


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Look, there's an old saying, garbage in, garbage out. Now, that's an oversimplification, but more sophisticated and not as obvious variations of that can and do exist whereupon one might argue science. But, if that is happening, and I believe it is happening, particularly in the application of vaccines ( I believe kids are being over vaccinated ) tossing around the term science doesn't automatically mean you win the argument. Again, science, without wisdom, is not worth much. Sometimes science is wise, sometimes it's not.
> 
> The problem with economics, it can't be put in a petri dish and viewed with a microscope. There are different schools of economics and they don't agree on what reality is, and/or the correct policies that should be adopted. I believe economics, though pretending to be a science, is more of an art (just like "political science" is an oxymoron ). There are the keynesians, and of late, Friedman et al and the Austrian/Chicago schools, and even now there is a fringe group espousing "MMT, Modern Monetary Theory". I'm a Keynesian guy, myself.
> 
> As for nuclear energy, I've got one word for you: Fukushima. That's Japanese for "we're f-u-c-ked".


You're a bit of a contradiction. On one hand, you'll trust a central authority to manage the economy, a pseudo-science. But you won't trust a central authority to manage health. Biology is a pure science. Answers are much more clear cut than economics. Keynesians have got us trillions of dollars in debt. A truly free market will best allocate resources for maximum productivity. Maximum productivity will maximize profits.

Again, science isn't wrong. The misapplication of science is wrong. Science would have told the builders that the area was subject to tsunamis. Science would have been able to determine the risk factors. While scientists may be consulted, they usually don't make the final decisions.

Science tells us there are faults in the west/southwest. Science also tells us how to build structures that will withstand most quakes. That's the proper application of science. You can use the science that tells you a big quake will only happen once every 50 years and build cheap structures. That's the misapplication of science.

I only have a simple understanding of the vaccine issue. I'm fairly sure science would tell us that no substance is 100% safe. I know there is something to learn about everything. I'm also fairly sure the data indicates that most vaccines are generally safe with mostly mild side effects. Some won't accept it, tho. Others think the world is flat. All the data in the world won't convince some of them to change their idea that they believe is right.

Back on topic, Hayek (and I) would say hands off the gasoline market. Remove existing taxes and regulations that don't effect safety.


----------



## MyOwnUber (Oct 12, 2017)

This poll asking us what gas prices should be actually makes NO SENSE. With few exceptions, gas prices should be dictated by supply and demand. Once you start assigning prices to consumables willy-nilly, you create shortages, rationing, and other such distortions in the market place. If you think otherwise, then you are guilty of imposing YOUR values on the consumer public, and you are actually against freedom. Any alternative to fossil fuels will inevitably have negative consequences. Even the manufacturing of solar cells produces pollution. THAT'S THE SCIENCE. If you impose your values of so-called "clean technology" from the top down, you are making decisions for others and stripping others of freedom to choose. Humans beings naturally operate in their own best interest. They may not always be rational, but they seek their own well-being first. Any economic theory that denies this is just pie-in-the-sky b.s.


----------

