If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   California requires their own special seasonal blends of gas that aren't the same as what the rest of the country uses, then complains about how high their gas prices are. Oh, and it doesn't help when the local refineries crap out   (nytimes.com) divider line 192
    More: Dumbass, Southern California, gas prices, high taxes, refineries, valero, gasoline, Valero Energy  
•       •       •

7409 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Oct 2012 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-07 08:16:25 PM

Trocadero: jtown: HempHead: Mithiwithi: Minimum: The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up kept Prop 13 from totally screwing things up in the 70's.

What exactly did Jerry Brown screw up in the 70's, anyway?

Ahhhh, yes, Prop 13, allowing Warren Buffet to only pay $300/yr in property taxes for his mansion in Laguna Beach while the state goes broke. 

[www.instablogsimages.com image 585x389]

You realize that Prop 13 helps the non-wealthy far more than the wealthy, right? If Buffet had to pay $300,000/year in property tax on his mansion, he wouldn't even notice. If my grandpa had to pay "adjusted" taxes on his property/home that he bought/built in the early 60s, it would have consumed about 50% of his combined pension and social security income at the peak of the market. Just because he happened to build his house in an area that became very popular after he arrived and helped build it up. How on earth would that have been fair?

If you want people to put down roots and build a community, you can't punish them for creating a community where other people want to live. The increased property values and increased tax base are a direct result of the people who arrived first who created a desirable environment.

Except they extended it to commercial property owned by non-human corporate entities. Yes, it helped out seniors and other fixed income folks immensely, but the unintended side effects have screwed over almost everyone else. There's a reason many towns refuse to zone for housing, which causes scarcity, which raises prices up the wazoo...


You realize that landlords often times pass their property tax bills onto their tenants? If Prop 13 weren't around, tenant's rents would have jumped at least 50% between 2002 and 2008, never mind standard rent increases. That's a formula for disaster for tenants.
 
2012-10-07 08:19:03 PM

xl5150: o5iiawah: $150/week is about $7.500/yr.

Thats a trip to Oktoberfest for 4 days with about $4000 leftover. If you dont want yours, can I has?


I don't think anyone making $7-something an hour will be taking any trips to Oktoberfest. That was precisely my point. For people who make plenty of money, that extra $150 a week is discretionary. For people who are low-wage earners, it's not going to raise them above the level they currently are.


It can if applied smartly. In the real world, we sometimes experience $500-$1,000 setbacks. broken tooth, blown tires, oops phone bill, you name it. What is a nuisance for some who set money aside can be a disaster for a low income earner if they dont have any money in reserve to deal with rainy days. Is $150/wk going to bring someone from poverty into the country club? No, but it gives them breathing room for when life throws curveballs. As long as they arent pissing the money away on booze and lotto tickets, that breathing room can make all the difference between stroking a check and going to a payday lender or pawn shop with the lawnmower.
 
2012-10-07 08:32:35 PM

Fart_Machine: phamwaa: Minimum: Pray 4 Mojo: This just in:

California sucks.

That is all.

Living in SoCal.

All I can say is:

This is news?

Our governor is nicknamed Moonbeam. The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up in the 70's.
Looking to move out of here as soon as it is practical.

As someone who escaped in '99, I'm rooting for you.

/GET OUT

Well bye.


Geez, too lazy to post the pic? Typical Cal-ee-for-nee-an.

/Also, thirteen years too late
//Ya, bye to you too
 
2012-10-07 08:58:18 PM
So basically, the 3.8 million people who live in the greater LA area dictate how much the 38,000,000 in the rest of the state pay for gas. Wait a minute... thats 1% and 99% !! Where have I heard this before?
The only pictures I've ever seen of smog in California have been of the LA basin. The smog in LA forced Cali legislature to force the refineries to make special blends to reduce the smog; special blends = higher prices, old refineries = breakdowns = higher prices, therefore LA smog = higher gas $$
I say make the 1%ers pay their fair share!!
Side note, in 2010 I paid $4.85 a gallon in Bridgeport, CA a one horse town in the Eastern Sierras during a hiking trip, no smog there. Seems very unfair.
 
2012-10-07 09:05:49 PM

vpb: Even though the rolling blackouts were caused by a price fixing scheme by private power generators and electricity isn't generated using with oil.


Look, to get electricity, you have to do something to cause generators to spin. Sometimes its burning shiat, sometimes it is using a water fall, and maybe someday we can put two molecules together can make the turbines spin that way. The point is, if you switch from gas to electric it is still very likely to use non renewable resources to propel itself. And that fuel will change to reflect market demands.
 
2012-10-07 09:11:24 PM
kyrg: So basically, the 3.8 million people who live in the greater LA area dictate how much the 38,000,000 in the rest of the state pay for gas. Wait a minute... thats 1% and 99% !! Where have I heard this before?.

The population of LA city itself is 3.8 million. Throw in the rest of the metro area around LA and you're closer to 13 million.

Carry on.
 
2012-10-07 09:26:22 PM

kyrg: The only pictures I've ever seen of smog in California have been of the LA basin.


Well... that's certainly proof isn't it.

FYI... the worst air in the country is in the CA Central Valley.
 
2012-10-07 09:45:22 PM

kyrg: So basically, the 3.8 million people who live in the greater LA area dictate how much the 38,000,000 in the rest of the state pay for gas. Wait a minute... thats 1% and 99% !! Where have I heard this before?
The only pictures I've ever seen of smog in California have been of the LA basin. The smog in LA forced Cali legislature to force the refineries to make special blends to reduce the smog; special blends = higher prices, old refineries = breakdowns = higher prices, therefore LA smog = higher gas $$
I say make the 1%ers pay their fair share!!
Side note, in 2010 I paid $4.85 a gallon in Bridgeport, CA a one horse town in the Eastern Sierras during a hiking trip, no smog there. Seems very unfair.


I've been camping near Bridgeport since the 80s and it has always had higher gas prices, probably due to there not being any other gas stations that close and that it's a bear to get in there in the winter. Thus I always top off in Minden when I go camping every year.

And the smog isn't just an LA thing, really a valley everywhere deal. I can remember looking down the hill along I80 toward Scaramento and you couldn't see anything but grey slop.especially in the summer. It's still pretty bad when it gets hot, but it has improved.
 
2012-10-07 09:50:20 PM

vpb: Lots of places have oxygenated gas during part of the year.


My gas is oxygenated by Kenne Bell...
 
2012-10-07 09:50:53 PM

phamwaa: Fart_Machine: phamwaa: Minimum: Pray 4 Mojo: This just in:

California sucks.

That is all.

Living in SoCal.

All I can say is:

This is news?

Our governor is nicknamed Moonbeam. The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up in the 70's.
Looking to move out of here as soon as it is practical.

As someone who escaped in '99, I'm rooting for you.

/GET OUT

Well bye.

Geez, too lazy to post the pic? Typical Cal-ee-for-nee-an.

/Also, thirteen years too late
//Ya, bye to you too


I'm posting from a phone doofus.
 
2012-10-07 10:04:34 PM

wildcardjack: I'm trying to separate my income from location so I can take the advice of Tom Waits, which is to spend some time in New York, but leave before it makes you hard, and some time in LA, but leave before it makes you soft.


That was San Francisco that makes you soft. LA just makes you pretentious.
 
2012-10-07 10:08:30 PM

wildcardjack: I'm trying to separate my income from location so I can take the advice of Tom Waits, which is to spend some time in New York, but leave before it makes you hard, and some time in LA, but leave before it makes you soft.


Wasn't that actually a line from Baz Luhrmann's "Sunscreen"?


"Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard.

Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft."
 
2012-10-07 10:10:20 PM

kyrg: So basically, the 3.8 million people who live in the greater LA area dictate how much the 38,000,000 in the rest of the state pay for gas. Wait a minute... thats 1% and 99% !!


Noooooo, that's 10% and 90%.

And as was said before, the LA metro area's population is 13 million. So that's about 1/3 and 2/3rds
 
2012-10-07 10:16:55 PM

jtown: HempHead: Mithiwithi: Minimum: The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up kept Prop 13 from totally screwing things up in the 70's.

What exactly did Jerry Brown screw up in the 70's, anyway?

Ahhhh, yes, Prop 13, allowing Warren Buffet to only pay $300/yr in property taxes for his mansion in Laguna Beach while the state goes broke. 

[www.instablogsimages.com image 585x389]

You realize that Prop 13 helps the non-wealthy far more than the wealthy, right? If Buffet had to pay $300,000/year in property tax on his mansion, he wouldn't even notice. If my grandpa had to pay "adjusted" taxes on his property/home that he bought/built in the early 60s, it would have consumed about 50% of his combined pension and social security income at the peak of the market. Just because he happened to build his house in an area that became very popular after he arrived and helped build it up. How on earth would that have been fair?

If you want people to put down roots and build a community, you can't punish them for creating a community where other people want to live. The increased property values and increased tax base are a direct result of the people who arrived first who created a desirable environment.



I got mine - screw the rest of you. I love that mentality in older people.
 
2012-10-07 10:21:38 PM

ScottRiqui: wildcardjack: I'm trying to separate my income from location so I can take the advice of Tom Waits, which is to spend some time in New York, but leave before it makes you hard, and some time in LA, but leave before it makes you soft.

Wasn't that actually a line from Baz Luhrmann's "Sunscreen"?


"Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard.

Live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft."


Now I have to listen to Tom Waits until I find the reference. See if it's before or after Sunscreen.
 
2012-10-07 10:25:56 PM

OneCrazyIvan: Trocadero: jtown: HempHead: Mithiwithi: Minimum: The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up kept Prop 13 from totally screwing things up in the 70's.

What exactly did Jerry Brown screw up in the 70's, anyway?

Ahhhh, yes, Prop 13, allowing Warren Buffet to only pay $300/yr in property taxes for his mansion in Laguna Beach while the state goes broke. 

[www.instablogsimages.com image 585x389]

You realize that Prop 13 helps the non-wealthy far more than the wealthy, right? If Buffet had to pay $300,000/year in property tax on his mansion, he wouldn't even notice. If my grandpa had to pay "adjusted" taxes on his property/home that he bought/built in the early 60s, it would have consumed about 50% of his combined pension and social security income at the peak of the market. Just because he happened to build his house in an area that became very popular after he arrived and helped build it up. How on earth would that have been fair?

If you want people to put down roots and build a community, you can't punish them for creating a community where other people want to live. The increased property values and increased tax base are a direct result of the people who arrived first who created a desirable environment.

Except they extended it to commercial property owned by non-human corporate entities. Yes, it helped out seniors and other fixed income folks immensely, but the unintended side effects have screwed over almost everyone else. There's a reason many towns refuse to zone for housing, which causes scarcity, which raises prices up the wazoo...

You realize that landlords often times pass their property tax bills onto their tenants? If Prop 13 weren't around, tenant's rents would have jumped at least 50% between 2002 and 2008, never mind standard rent increases. That's a formula for disaster for tenants.


But even though one 12.5-acre piece of Google's property was assessed last year for $65.5 million, much of the neighboring land is still taxed on values virtually unchanged from what they were three decades ago, when a nearby golf course and Shoreline Amphitheater had yet to be built and the area still served as San Francisco's garbage dump.

While that portion of Google's land is taxed at a rate of approximately 35 cents per  square foot, the land under Intuit's corporate campus, which is just around the corner, has an estimated property tax burden of 3 cents per square foot. Meantime, tax rates on land under recently purchased neighboring single-family homes ranged from $1 to $1.25 per square foot, according to a Bay Citizen examination of assessments on 2010 home sales in Mounts...


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/california-property-taxes-can-va r y-wildly-in-silicon-valley.html?pagewanted=all

.
 
2012-10-07 10:53:01 PM

xl5150: 12349876: On a weekly basis it's 290 vs. 440. That's a 50% difference. Think of how your life would be changed with a 50% pay raise. All of our lives would be changed drastically. Even Mitt Romney's.

My point is that there's not much difference between a pittance and a slightly larger pittance. An extra $150 a week? What can you really do with that? And that comes out to $7500 a year, which is less than I spent on our last weekend trip to Santa Barbara.

You're right, it is more. But my point, which is that it's not a significant amount of money, is also right. I mean, I could offer you a penny and then DOUBLE the offer. Wow! A 100% improvement! Would you be so excited about that too?


Well, for some of us, $150 can be the groceries for a family of six for a week, so that makes a pretty big damned difference at minimum wage! If your looking at, if I fill my gas tank to go to work, will my kids have supper on Thursday, that's all the difference in the world.
 
2012-10-07 10:54:07 PM

steamingpile: Did you ever stop to think that it may be due to factories being cleaner and nothing to do with car emissions? I know what has been preached to you for over two decades but they could be wrong.


Other sources have been cleaned up as well. But really, most of it was cars.

xl5150: The population of LA city itself is 3.8 million. Throw in the rest of the metro area around LA and you're closer to 13 million.


Add the San Francisco Bay Area and that's another 7 million, that's 2/3rds the state population right there.

Offhand it seems from reading the papers most of the whining about California gas prices is from out of state.
 
2012-10-07 11:42:44 PM

iheartscotch:

But, I digress; I know 81 thousand barrels doesn't sound like much; but other things get made out of crude besides gasoline. Shrinking the supply of crude oil processed increases the price of all related products; I don't know if you missed that day in macro economics, but I didn't.

/ shrink supply = higher price


can you explain why the elasticity of gasoline is how you are describing it? is there evidence that this is really the case? is it better to produce 100 kbd to sell at $4/gal or 200 kbd to sell at $3/gal? I guess in your case you believe that going from 100 to 200 kbd would more than cut price in half?

The reality behind this is not some ill intention of the refiners to limit supply and raise prices, but at the same time, sell less product by virtue of just making less. I have some experience in the refining industry and what I've seen is that most refineries are trying to run as much crude oil as they can. Reliability issues are just as painful for the producers as they are for the customers at the pump. If you aren't running the refinery, you aren't reaping any benefits of the increase in prices if you aren't selling anything.

You also may want to look into the profit margins in the refining side of the industry. Its very hard to survive as a solely refining based company, and this tends to be why you see closures, and why no one is pushing too hard to build grassroots refineries. Sunoco comes to mind as an example of a company that has been closing plants down on the east coast - because they just aren't making money. If you look at those huge integrated oil companies who make obscene profits, you will find that only very small fraction of that profit comes from the refining sector of the business. I'd say anywhere from 75-90% of their money is made on producing and selling the crude oil itself, not refining it.
 
2012-10-07 11:46:24 PM
REP. CLIFF STEARNS, R-Fla.: Last September you made a statement that somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe, which at the time exceeded $8 a gallon. As Secretary of Energy, will you speak for or against any measures that would raise the price of gasoline?
SEC. CHU: As Secretary of Energy, I think especially now in today's economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. And so we are looking forward to reducing the price of transportation in the American family. And this is done by encouraging fuel-efficient cars; this is done by developing alternative forms of fuel like biofuels that can lead to a separate source, an independent source of transportation fuel.
REP. STEARNS: But you can't honestly believe that you want the American people to pay for gasoline at the prices, the level in Europe?
SEC. CHU: No, we don't.
REP. STEARNS: No. But somehow, your statement, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," doesn't that sound a little bit silly in retrospect for you to say that?
SEC. CHU: Yes.
 
2012-10-07 11:58:41 PM
All a matter of perspective... Last week I had a package to collect south of the border. I made sure to cross the border while on reserve and fill-up just before crossing back into Canada in order to take full advantage of the cheap $3.89/gal diesel in the US. Diesel in my town costs $1.37/litre ($5.13/US gal), but that's still way cheaper than regular unleaded at $1.47/L or $5.51/gal

USians get little sympathy from the rest of the world when it comes to complaining about the price of gas.
 
2012-10-08 12:03:53 AM

Minimum: Pray 4 Mojo: This just in:

California sucks.

That is all.

Living in SoCal.

All I can say is:

This is news?

Our governor is nicknamed Moonbeam. The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up in the 70's.
Looking to move out of here as soon as it is practical.


Well... bye.
 
2012-10-08 12:38:49 AM

mrtremere: I drive a Chevy Volt and I'm getting a kick out of these comments.
$32 was TOTAL fuel cost for the MONTH and I drove 1700 miles.

250 MPG Baby!!!


In the summer I ride a $150 motorcycle which gets over 80MPG and I'm getting a kick out of the $40k extra you spent. How many years will you have to drive it before you actually start saving money? Better yet, how many years will you have to drive your Volt before you start saving money over my $3000, 34MPG 1960s sports car? And how much will it cost to replace your battery pack when it fails after 7-10 years?

Since 5 years is a good average length of time to own a car (and a good average length of ownership without any major repair costs) I did some of the math for you. Over five years your Volt will cost $8,360/mo, my motorcycle will cost $1,110/mo, and my car will cost $3,247/mo. Since the battery packs look like they'll last between 7 and 10 years we can look at that, too. At the 7 year mark the monthly costs will average out to: Volt - $6,074/mo ($7,217 with battery replacement), bike - $1,101/mo, my car - $3,068/mo. At ten years: Volt - $4,360/mo ($5,160 with battery), bike - $1,095/mo, car - $2,940/mo. And those costs don't take into account the $8000+ cost of battery replacement.

So just keep "tooling" along in your hybrid, getting a kick out of how much money you're, uh... saving.

/False economy seems awesome if you can't think.
//Answer: 16 years with static gas prices and no battery replacements, or 7 years if gas rises steadily to $15/gal (average of ~$9.25) and you don't have to replace the battery by then. Resale would help both of our numbers since my car's value will go up, likely leading to a negative effective purchase price, and your purchase cost will go down by however much you can get for a used Volt. But that assumes that someone will want to pay anything for a boring car which needs dealer support to service and has worn-out, expensive batteries. If only it were legal to buy a 70MPG, $23000 VW Polo diesel in the USA ($4,425/mo after 7 years, and no batteries to replace)
///Tool
 
2012-10-08 12:43:51 AM

LibertyHiller: Minimum: Pray 4 Mojo: This just in:

California sucks.

That is all.

Living in SoCal.

All I can say is:

This is news?

Our governor is nicknamed Moonbeam. The idiots in this state re elected him after he screwed things up in the 70's.
Looking to move out of here as soon as it is practical.

Well... bye.


I'm still in CA most of the time... in fact... I'm sitting in South SF right now.

I just chose to pay taxes, register my vehicles, vote and get my mail elsewhere.

The savings are tremendous! (5 figures easy)

Unfortunately... I can't outsource the hordes of people and traffic. So even though it's cheaper now... it still sucks here.
 
2012-10-08 12:59:29 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: I just chose to pay taxes, register my vehicles, vote and get my mail elsewhere.

The savings are tremendous! (5 figures easy)


Ah, a freeloader. You live in the state but don't contribute to its upkeep.

How bootstrappy.
 
2012-10-08 01:39:04 AM
Taoist Jedi: Well, for some of us, $150 can be the groceries for a family of six for a week, so that makes a pretty big damned difference at minimum wage! If your looking at, if I fill my gas tank to go to work, will my kids have supper on Thursday, that's all the difference in the world.

Christ, why the hell are you having four kids if you only make minimum wage? What is it about poor people always squirting out kids they can't afford in the first place, and then pointing at those of us who actually plan things out and work hard to do well and claim that we're the bad guys and it's our fault they're poor? If you only make minimum wage and you have a family of six and filling your gas tank will keep your family from eating, then you need to be starved off because you're too dumb to live. I have zero empathy for someone who makes minimum wage and decides that they want to go ahead and have a family of six. That's your bad decision and you can deal with the consequences.

My tax dollars at work in the form of Earned Income Credit.....
 
2012-10-08 02:24:34 AM

xl5150: Christ, why the hell are you having four kids if you only make minimum wage? What is it about poor people always squirting out kids they can't afford in the first place, and then pointing at those of us who actually plan things out and work hard to do well and claim that we're the bad guys and it's our fault they're poor? If you only make minimum wage and you have a family of six and filling your gas tank will keep your family from eating, then you need to be starved off because you're too dumb to live. I have zero empathy for someone who makes minimum wage and decides that they want to go ahead and have a family of six. That's your bad decision and you can deal with the consequences.

My tax dollars at work in the form of Earned Income Credit.....


DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
 
2012-10-08 02:27:15 AM
Lee Jackson Beauregard: DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

Not by a long shot. If planned parenthood gives abortions to poor people, then I'm all in favor of it. My only lament would be that they can't make abortions mandatory for poor people or else force sterilization on them in some way.
 
2012-10-08 04:25:59 AM

vpb: Lots of places have oxygenated gas during part of the year.


True, except: 1) California was a net oil exporter until 1999, so pipelines are generally designed to ship east than west; 2) California has something like 17 different blend formulas.
 
2012-10-08 08:54:21 AM
Go green, fark the poor
 
2012-10-08 10:35:29 AM

Mikey1969: steamingpile: L.D. Ablo: This, along with other changes, dramatically improved the smog problem in LA.

As a kid, we had smog days at school where we weren't allowed out for PE or recess. You could see the smog hanging in the air. It was awful.

There's still a bit of smog, but it's much better today.

Did you ever stop to think that it may be due to factories being cleaner and nothing to do with car emissions? I know what has been preached to you for over two decades but they could be wrong.

OR(Get this...), it could be BOTH! Yep, car emission requirements sure could have contributed to less smog along with cleaner factories. I know it doesn't fit anybody's Farkgenda™ to have both answers be right, but I can guarantee you that while cleaner factories have helped contribute to less smog, there is no way that you can convince me that having cars burn less fuel, thereby putting less pollutants in the atmosphere isn't helping as well.


ooh... I want in on this...

I bet it's outsourcing manufacturing that solved that California smog problem. Don't believe me? Look at all of the smog where the manufacturers went to... China.

/sweep the problem under the rug, problem solved.
//thanks China for being our rug.
 
2012-10-08 11:06:12 AM

badLogic: It cracks me up how people hate on California, I think it is mostly jealousy.


Envy =/= Jeealousy. They are envious.
 
2012-10-08 11:12:59 AM

Mr. Ekshun: mrtremere: I drive a Chevy Volt and I'm getting a kick out of these comments.
$32 was TOTAL fuel cost for the MONTH and I drove 1700 miles.

250 MPG Baby!!!

In the summer I ride a $150 motorcycle which gets over 80MPG and I'm getting a kick out of the $40k extra you spent. How many years will you have to drive it before you actually start saving money? Better yet, how many years will you have to drive your Volt before you start saving money over my $3000, 34MPG 1960s sports car? And how much will it cost to replace your battery pack when it fails after 7-10 years?

Since 5 years is a good average length of time to own a car (and a good average length of ownership without any major repair costs) I did some of the math for you. Over five years your Volt will cost $8,360/mo, my motorcycle will cost $1,110/mo, and my car will cost $3,247/mo. Since the battery packs look like they'll last between 7 and 10 years we can look at that, too. At the 7 year mark the monthly costs will average out to: Volt - $6,074/mo ($7,217 with battery replacement), bike - $1,101/mo, my car - $3,068/mo. At ten years: Volt - $4,360/mo ($5,160 with battery), bike - $1,095/mo, car - $2,940/mo. And those costs don't take into account the $8000+ cost of battery replacement.

So just keep "tooling" along in your hybrid, getting a kick out of how much money you're, uh... saving.

/False economy seems awesome if you can't think.
//Answer: 16 years with static gas prices and no battery replacements, or 7 years if gas rises steadily to $15/gal (average of ~$9.25) and you don't have to replace the battery by then. Resale would help both of our numbers since my car's value will go up, likely leading to a negative effective purchase price, and your purchase cost will go down by however much you can get for a used Volt. But that assumes that someone will want to pay anything for a boring car which needs dealer support to service and has worn-out, expensive batteries. If only it were legal to buy a 70MPG, ...


I'm curious, what do you ride ? no bike I've ever owned did 80mpg, and that includes a couple of 100s (though they were two-strokes)

Your math may apply to your specific circumstances, but for the majority of road users ownership of a Volt (which is not a hybrid, btw) should be compared with ownership of a regular 4-door sedan, then it starts making a lot of sense. You also fail to include the environmental cost of a grossly polluting 60s sports car, nice as that car may be. If we all drove one, the air would be unbreathable. And if those sports cars were British, we would be driving on a road surface that was permanently lubed with all sorts of fluids meant to be on the inside of an engine, but which the Brits never discovered the means to keep there. If that were the case, you couldn't use your 80mpg bike.

Finally, you can't buy a Lupo, diesel or otherwise, for a couple of reasons:

First, North Americans are not willing to buy expensive small cars.

Second, North Americans outside Quebec don't like diesels.

Third, the diesel Lupo does not meet US emissions regulations, though it does meet European regulations. This last point is an unintended consequence of the Tokyo accord: European governments pointedly chose to favour diesels with subsidized fuel and ad hoc emissions standards which permit higher levels of carcinogenic particulates, in order to lower their use of fossil fuels so as to meet their goals under the Tokyo protocol. In other words, they have traded higher carcinogens for lower greenhouse gases. Cleaning up diesel emissions in order to meet US standards requires particulate filters and urea injection, which raises the purchase price and operating costs...

Fourth, and final point, as stated in the previous point, in most member states of the EU, diesel is a heavily subsidized fuel. In the US and Canada, where it is not subsidized, diesel costs close to the same as unleaded, and sometimes more, making it impossible for most owners to recoup the additional purchase cost of a diesel over a gasoline-powered car.

/Still love my BlueTec
 
2012-10-08 11:14:44 AM

Honest Bender: badLogic: It cracks me up how people hate on California, I think it is mostly jealousy.

Envy =/= Jeealousy. They are envious.


I stand corrected. I could not imagine living any where other then Sonoma County, even though I don't really care for wine. I recall reading a few years back that Sonoma has the most moderate weather in the country. Not to hot in the summer and not freezing in the winter.
 
2012-10-08 12:57:01 PM

xl5150: -5/10


I have felt a great disturbance in the force, as if hundreds of ignore lists suddenly went *PLONK*, and another lousy troll was silenced.
 
2012-10-08 01:45:26 PM

aerojockey: Yep, we're paying for the ability to see more than half a mile and not breathe in carbon particles all day, and it's worth the price. (That is, it's worth the price differential relative to other states.)


Actually you're paying for there being absolutely no excess refining capacity in the state. Four refineries have shut down in the past 20 years, none have been built, and the ones that exist are at full-out capacity. That means even a minor disruption in a single refinery can result in drastic price increases. The Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) will have its first Cap and Trade auction in November and the costs from that are going to be passed on to fuel consumers. When the heavier California Air Resources Board (CARB) regs kick in in 2015, you'll see more refineries shut down rather than upgrade to meet the new regs. You can expect gas prices to shoot up a lot from all of this. Add to that the price increases in electricity and natural gas that are coming due to CARB and GWSA, and it's going to get a lot pricier to live in Cally, and the state economy is going to get hit big time. And most of that will be due to attempts to control carbon emissions to fight global war ... uh, climate change, not "pollution". Yay, we saved the world .01 degrees of warming at the cost of our jobs and dying of heat prostration because we can't afford to run our air conditioners.
 
2012-10-08 03:44:09 PM
capt.hollister:I'm curious, what do you ride ? no bike I've ever owned did 80mpg, and that includes a couple of 100s (though they were two-strokes)

Your math may apply to your specific circumstances, but for the majority of road users ownership of a Volt (which is not a hybrid, btw) should be compared with ownership of a regular 4-door sedan, then it starts making a lot of sense. You also fail to include the environmental cost of a grossly polluting 60s sports car, nice as that car may be. If we all drove one, the air would be unbreathable. And if those sports cars were British, we would be driving on a road surface that was permanently lubed with all sorts of fluids meant to be on the inside of an engine, but which the Brits never discovered the means to keep there. If that were the case, you couldn't use your 80mpg bike.

Finally, you can't buy a Lupo, diesel or otherwise, for a couple of reasons:

First, North Americans are not willing to buy expensive small cars.

Second, North Americans outside Quebec don't like diesels.

Third, the diesel Lupo does not meet US emissions regulations, though it does meet European regulations. This last point is an unintended consequence of the Tokyo accord: European governments pointedly chose to favour diesels with subsidized fuel and ad hoc emissions standards which permit higher levels of carcinogenic particulates, in order to lower their use of fossil fuels so as to meet their goals under the Tokyo protocol. In other words, they have traded higher carcinogens for lower greenhouse gases. Cleaning up diesel emissions in order to meet US standards requires particulate filters and urea injection, which raises the purchase price and operating costs...

Fourth, and final point, as stated in the previous point, in most member states of the EU, diesel is a heavily subsidized fuel. In the US and Canada, where it is not subsidized, diesel costs close to the same as unleaded, and sometimes more, making it impossible for most owners to recoup the additional purchase cost of a diesel over a gasoline-powered car.

/Still love my BlueTec


I had another wall of text all prepared but decided to spare the huddled masses of Fark and emailed it to you instead.
 
2012-10-08 04:06:40 PM

badLogic: Honest Bender: badLogic: It cracks me up how people hate on California, I think it is mostly jealousy.

Envy =/= Jeealousy. They are envious.

I stand corrected. I could not imagine living any where other then Sonoma County, even though I don't really care for wine. I recall reading a few years back that Sonoma has the most moderate weather in the country. Not to hot in the summer and not freezing in the winter.


Are people still posting here?

It's not envy... or jealousy. Odds that are good that I lived in CA longer then either of you... 34 years as a resident... and still work in CA about 90% of my year. I know from experience. It sucks... and it sucks hard.
 
2012-10-08 04:49:51 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: badLogic: Honest Bender: badLogic: It cracks me up how people hate on California, I think it is mostly jealousy.

Envy =/= Jeealousy. They are envious.

I stand corrected. I could not imagine living any where other then Sonoma County, even though I don't really care for wine. I recall reading a few years back that Sonoma has the most moderate weather in the country. Not to hot in the summer and not freezing in the winter.

Are people still posting here?

It's not envy... or jealousy. Odds that are good that I lived in CA longer then either of you... 34 years as a resident... and still work in CA about 90% of my year. I know from experience. It sucks... and it sucks hard.


Well do this 48 year resident, and the state, a favor then and move the fark out and don't come back, As I recall, you're the freeloader that does everything he can to avoid paying his fair share in maintaining the infrastructure here.
 
2012-10-08 04:54:02 PM

Pray 4 Mojo:
It's not envy... or jealousy. Odds that are good that I lived in CA longer then either of you... 34 years as a resident... and still work in CA about 90% of my year. I know from experience. It sucks... and it sucks hard.


Yet you're still here taking in all the suck and not contributing.

You sound like a Real American[tm].
 
2012-10-08 05:13:17 PM

lohphat: Pray 4 Mojo:
It's not envy... or jealousy. Odds that are good that I lived in CA longer then either of you... 34 years as a resident... and still work in CA about 90% of my year. I know from experience. It sucks... and it sucks hard.

Yet you're still here taking in all the suck and not contributing.

You sound like a Real American[tm].


Most likely a bootstrappy Job Creator[tm].
 
2012-10-08 08:44:14 PM

badLogic: Pray 4 Mojo: badLogic: Honest Bender: badLogic: It cracks me up how people hate on California, I think it is mostly jealousy.

Envy =/= Jeealousy. They are envious.

I stand corrected. I could not imagine living any where other then Sonoma County, even though I don't really care for wine. I recall reading a few years back that Sonoma has the most moderate weather in the country. Not to hot in the summer and not freezing in the winter.

Are people still posting here?

It's not envy... or jealousy. Odds that are good that I lived in CA longer then either of you... 34 years as a resident... and still work in CA about 90% of my year. I know from experience. It sucks... and it sucks hard.

Well do this 48 year resident, and the state, a favor then and move the fark out and don't come back, As I recall, you're the freeloader that does everything he can to avoid paying his fair share in maintaining the infrastructure here.


Ha ha... u mad bro?

I did move out... and won't ever move back. However... I travel for my job... so I go where they send me. I can refuse assignments in CA I guess... but that's not a smart thing to be doing right now. Two of our main clients are building heavily in CA right now... hopefully I'll be out of here next year.

I pay about 50 cents a gallon and about 8% of my local purchases to the support of the State (and local governments). Considering my lifestyle while traveling... that's not a small amount. And considering that the end result of my months of "free-loading" is somewhere between 100-500 new job openings... I wouldn't call it "free loading". Not that I'm a "job creator" or anything... I don;t own these companies... just saying... considering the balance sheet of my "free loading" vs some actual CA resident's "free loading"... I think you'd be better off with more people like me than them.

Also... I do apologize for assuming/guessing that you were a recent transplant to CA... not sure where I got that from.
 
Displayed 42 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report