CiaranAnnrach wrote:I can find little evidence to support either side. There's the documentary "Who killed the electric car", which blames oil companies in part for the failure of the EV1, but I'm loathe to trust documentaries completely - they usually like to leave out inconvenient facts that don't support the message they are selling. So if you have something you can point me at to support your assertions one way or the other, I'd appreciate it.

Do your own research, man. I can't be arsed.

But electric cars aren't dead. They hit a dead end. The path they were following was too expensive, the material needed was too rare for mass production, and it was not efficient enough. Not by a long shot. I truely believe that following the current hybrid technology will lead to (a) batteries that will reliably last 1000 miles per charge or (b) hybrids that get 200 miles per gallon and be affordable for everyone. How far away are they? I got no clue. the problem with the batteries is that they use some pretty nasty ingredients and are hard to get to without strip mining.

To replace Gasoline, you need:

1. High energy density.
2. A lot of it.
3. A way to get to the resource easily.
4. A fething plan.

Melissia wrote:Not really, they're good enough for the every day drive to and from work, which is where you see most cars used.

Actually, it's where you see cars used most of the time, which is very different.

I dont' want to own two cars, one for my daily commute, and one to drive to another city.

And you wouldn't necessarily have to, because the tech for batteries is getting better, especially combined with things such as using the energy from breaking to recharge the batteries.

You realize, of course, that hybrid cars are only a temporary solution that's slightly putting the problem off for a few more years.

kronk wrote:
Do your own research, man. I can't be arsed.

I'd have assumed that by saying "I can find little evidence" would indicate that I am, in fact, doing some of my own research. However if you are unwilling to back up your own assertions with links or facts, then I am forced to take everything you've said with a grain of salt and a dose of skepticism. Most of what you say does make sense, but forgive me if I don't blindly accept your words as truth and fact.

Melissia wrote: putting the problem off for a few more years.

Elaborate?

You're proposing that the world will run out of oil in 10 years?

CiaranAnnrach wrote: Most of what you say does make sense, but forgive me if I don't blindly accept your words as truth and fact.

Meh. It's the internet. That's pretty much a given.

kronk wrote:You're proposing that the world will run out of oil in 10 years?

You think that the availability of oil will be the same in ten years?

Even with its one child per family policy, China's usage of oil is growing exponentially, nevermind countries in South America, East Asia, and Africa. Everyone wants a piece of that modernization pie. And there's only so much oil to drill for, and the amount gets smaller every year as it's all used up.

Melissia wrote:And you wouldn't necessarily have to, because the tech for batteries is getting better, especially combined with things such as using the energy from breaking to recharge the batteries.

You realize, of course, that hybrid cars are only a temporary solution that's slightly putting the problem off for a few more years.

Except the tech for batteries isn't getting better very quickly, for reasons pointed out. Simply put, evolution wont' result in long range batteries. It's simply not there. It'll take (another) great leap in battery tech for reliable 300 mile range cars.

There are upper limits to tech. You can't build a steam engine that's as lightweight and reliable as a diesel. Can't be done. Similarly, modern lithium ion batteries are limited.

And those batteries are being researched for use in everytying, not just cars. Phones, iPods, and laptops all use that tech. There is plenty of money going into that research.

Polonius wrote:There are upper limits to tech.

We haven't gotten even CLOSE to reaching them.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:There are upper limits to tech.

We haven't gotten even CLOSE to reaching them.

Please don't selectively quote me so that I say something sweeping that you can easily rebut.

Every form of technology has upper limits, based on physical laws. Even a tripling of lithium ion battery effeciency won't dramatically increase the liklihood of electric cars, and that's approaching the maximum theoretical limit for the materials involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Research

There might be an electric car, but it will be due to a completely new battery, not the slow progress we're making. Even Lithium Ion batteries aren't that old. They were only used in pacemakers a few decades ago.

It will be new tech that makes mass market, general purpose electric cars possible. Not the refinment of current tech.

kronk wrote:The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Forgive the caps please:

STOP. DRIVING. HUMMERS.

Thx.

Henners91 wrote:

kronk wrote:The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Forgive the caps please:

STOP. DRIVING. HUMMERS.

Thx.

To the rest of the world: Suck it!

(I drive a Prius and get 45-50mpg)

Henners91 wrote:

kronk wrote:The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Forgive the caps please:

STOP. DRIVING. HUMMERS.

Thx.

Well, Hummers aren't made anymore, so go us, I suppose.

Interesting, the US uses less oil per capita than Canada. Thought three times what the UK uses. It's possible that larger countries (area wise) might use more fuel...

kronk wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

kronk wrote:The US alone consumes 21 million barrels per day.

Can you supply that much fuel from this source economically?

Forgive the caps please:

STOP. DRIVING. HUMMERS.

Thx.

To the rest of the world: Suck it!

(I drive a Prius and get 45-50mpg)

I drive a 92' Toyota Starlet, and I get 43, the Prius is a big joke.

Polonius wrote:
There are upper limits to tech. You can't build a steam engine that's as lightweight and reliable as a diesel. Can't be done.

Except at high altitudes, where steam engines continue to out perform diesel. (much to the astonishment of several South American rail industries) Steam outperforms diesel at altitude due to the way the two engines work. Diesel has a fixed horsepower. Steam gains power as atmospheric pressure drops. Further, Wilcox & Babcock produced a steam engine that was and is more reliable then diesel more than 70 years ago with their 'non-explosive boiler'. The real problem isn't the weight of the engine, it's the weight of fuel. A steam engine isn't as fuel efficient as a diesel engine, and requires refueling more often.

As far as pipelines/etc go: why would you need them? Human gak is everywhere. As long as you can get a culture of the bacteria growing, you could do this yourself in your garage off your septic tank and table scraps.

I actually like the idea of gasoline powered generators powering electric cars. Basically what the Hybrid cars do. Only it would be a lot better if they weren't so expensive, and looked a whole lot better.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Polonius wrote:
There are upper limits to tech. You can't build a steam engine that's as lightweight and reliable as a diesel. Can't be done.

Except at high altitudes, where steam engines continue to out perform diesel. (much to the astonishment of several South American rail industries) Steam outperforms diesel at altitude due to the way the two engines work. Diesel has a fixed horsepower. Steam gains power as atmospheric pressure drops. Further, Wilcox & Babcock produced a steam engine that was and is more reliable then diesel more than 70 years ago with their 'non-explosive boiler'. The real problem isn't the weight of the engine, it's the weight of fuel. A steam engine isn't as fuel efficient as a diesel engine, and requires refueling more often.

My use of reliable was overly broad. Steam requires more maintenance than diesel. Steam has lots of applications, it's just that there are things it can't do that other tech can.

You're example actually really nails my point: you can make steam optimal for certain areas, and guess what? It's used there. Eventually electric will get there, for at least niche applications.

Polonius wrote:Every form of technology has upper limits, based on physical laws.

... which we don't yet completely understand.

As for "selective quoting", when the basis of your post is debatable, the rest, which is derived from the basis, is debatable for the same reasons.

Polonius wrote:

It's possible that larger countries (area wise) might use more fuel...

Shocking revelation there, I drive 6 miles (one way) a day to go to school. There's basically nothing where I live that could be called pubic transportation.

There's an awful lot of "having our cake and eating it" on this thread too. I wonder what the BTU's of this bacteria are and how much of it would need to be produced in order to even dent our oil production. Stop demanding products be made of plastic and then oil prices will go through the floor.

We should also remember that over half of every barrel of oil used here in the US is not used for fuel. Petroleum based products are everywhere around us. The very basic compounds in petroleum are the foundation blocks of medicines and useful chemicals in our lives. Let's stop pretending that oil usage will disappear with some miracle bacteria or algae.

Minerals required for battery production are abundant, but getting them is the hardest part. The quantities needed to replace and retrofit all of the vehicles in the western wold is almost unfeasible. It involves either strip mining (not good), normal quarry mining (scars up the Earth and leads to destabilization of the topography of where the mine is) or deep crust mining (like what happens/ed in Chile & South Africa).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Every form of technology has upper limits, based on physical laws.

... which we don't yet completely understand.

As for "selective quoting", when the basis of your post is debatable, the rest, which is derived from the basis, is debatable for the same reasons.

Physics and Chemistry are pretty stable fields of study, Lithium, Nickel & Cadmium have a limited life for retaining energy before they turn into a useless (for retaining electricity at least) isotope.

There's a reason batteries have hit a wall, it's called the Law of the Conservation of Energy. These batteries can only do so much before they become paper weights. Throwing them away leads to aquifers becoming contaminated with pretty nasty chemicals and heavy minerals. Furthermore, the batteries need a charge from somewhere in order to be useful, and the vast majority of our electricity is not made from wind & solar it comes from coal.

If wind & solar were viable they'd have already been done in a large scale.

One question.

What happened to the fuel cells that were supposed to be running our computer and cell phone batteries by now? Over the years, I've read articles like these:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49717
Computer fuel cells that ran on methanol and could run a laptop for 10 hours. 2002

http://www.pcworld.com/article/115549/samsung_readies_portable_fuel_cell.html
Methanol based fuel cell. 2004

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060913100455.htm
Hydrogen-gas generator fuel cell. 2006

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/42284.pdf
2007
Heck, even the US govt did a study and said hydrogen fuel-cell cars were not only feasible but would require less development of infrastructure than any other option. (no drain on the electric grid and able to put fuel stations at already existing CNG and propane facilities).

So. Where are they? The automobile industry blames lack of infrastructure. What? some of them run on water. Heck, I'm sure my garden hose can reach the fuel tank on a car.

Oh wait, the energy industry (read big oil) got involved and now there's a different sort of hydrogen fuel that includes something from oil. Yeah.

GM is tackling the problem in a partnership in Hawaii with The Gas Co. The utility plans to tap into its 1,000-mile utility pipeline system, separate the hydrogen from the synthetic natural gas and sell the hydrogen to refueling nations in Hawaii. The cost to add hydrogen fueling equipment is expected to be $300,000 to $500,000 per pump.

What happened to the water based systems that George Bush Sr. spent billions in developing? Not a word.

To extract the hydrogen from the water you need to electrolyse it, this requires energy and provides you with hydrogen and oxygen. In the engine itself hydrogen is combined with oxygen to form water, the energy acquired from combusting two atoms of hydrogen to form one water molecule is precisely the same amount of energy require to split one water molecule into two hydrogen atoms. This is of course presuming that the operation occurs at 100% efficiency.

In short, you need huge electrolysis stations to create the hydrogen needed to fuel the cars and that station requires electricity that has to come from somewhere else...

corpsesarefun wrote:To extract the hydrogen from the water you need to electrolyse it, this requires energy and provides you with hydrogen and oxygen. In the engine itself hydrogen is combined with oxygen to form water, the energy acquired from combusting two atoms of hydrogen to form one water molecule is precisely the same amount of energy require to split one water molecule into two hydrogen atoms. This is of course presuming that the operation occurs at 100% efficiency.

In short, you need huge electrolysis stations to create the hydrogen needed to fuel the cars and that station requires electricity that has to come from somewhere else...

Yeah, that's why the petroleum industry got involved once they found out it was easier to separate hydrogen from natural gas...

agnosto wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:To extract the hydrogen from the water you need to electrolyse it, this requires energy and provides you with hydrogen and oxygen. In the engine itself hydrogen is combined with oxygen to form water, the energy acquired from combusting two atoms of hydrogen to form one water molecule is precisely the same amount of energy require to split one water molecule into two hydrogen atoms. This is of course presuming that the operation occurs at 100% efficiency.

In short, you need huge electrolysis stations to create the hydrogen needed to fuel the cars and that station requires electricity that has to come from somewhere else...

Yeah, that's why the petroleum industry got involved once they found out it was easier to separate hydrogen from natural gas...

Exactly, electrolysis of water is just not an effective way to acquire hydrogen unless you use a secondary resource to power it such as solar, hydroelectric or geothermal power.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Every form of technology has upper limits, based on physical laws.

... which we don't yet completely understand.

I know I don't really understand the law of thermodynamics, but I can assure you, there are people that do.

As for "selective quoting", when the basis of your post is debatable, the rest, which is derived from the basis, is debatable for the same reasons.

If you want to score cheap points, that's your perogative. I was making a different point than you addressed, and given that you selectively replied to that part, I think it shows that you were doing so deliberating. Tech in general has vast limits we can't possibly understand. But to argue that specific fields or uses of technology can all be improved endlessly is simply demonstrably false.

There's simply an upperlimit to the number of ions per unit of Lithium. that's fairly basic chemistry.

There's a reason we can't build cars that get 1,000 miles to the gallon. It's not lack of effeciency, it's simply conservation of energy.

I would thank every god in the heavens if there was a way to stop leaving such a big carbon footprint that it makes the grand canyon look like a bit of hair...

Still doesn't explain why we don't have cars available; the same trucks that deliver CNG could be delivering Hydrogen...

Reformers would be a good alternative as they would allow service stations to produce their own supply of hydrogen on-site.

My point is, it's possible and with gas prices being what they are now, even more economically feasible than 10 years ago.

agnosto wrote:Still doesn't explain why we don't have cars available; the same trucks that deliver CNG could be delivering Hydrogen...

Reformers would be a good alternative as they would allow service stations to produce their own supply of hydrogen on-site.

My point is, it's possible and with gas prices being what they are now, even more economically feasible than 10 years ago.

Getting the hydrogen in the first place is the main issue.

Separate it from natural gas, remove it from water both of which methods could potentially produce copious amounts of hydrogen.

One mole of water (~18ml) turns into 33.6 liters of oxyhydrogen gas. Thus you get about 1860 liters of oxyhydrogen for each liter of water, and correspondingly one liter of oxyhydrogen turns into 1/1860 = 0.53 milliliters of water.

You don't even need to transport it, service stations could produce their own; or you could make it at home. Here's a site that has the plans to make a very very small machine that makes oxyhydrogen gas:
http://www.umpquaenergy.com/hydrogengenerator/homemade-hydrogen-generator.html

agnosto wrote:http://www.umpquaenergy.com/hydrogengenerator/homemade-hydrogen-generator.html

He's using sciency-sounding words that don't have any actual meaning, or uses them to illustrate irrelevant points.

"The produced oxyhydrogen gas is a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen (2 parts vol.) and oxygen (1 part vol.) and can be combusted in vacuum."

It's like reading mattyrm writing about a British TV show. I'm sure the words are in English, but hell if half of them make sense to me.

Polonius wrote:I know I don't really understand the law of thermodynamics, but I can assure you, there are people that do.

We as a species, across all of our brightest and most learned minds, do not completely understand the laws of physics and how they can be applied.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I know I don't really understand the law of thermodynamics, but I can assure you, there are people that do.

We as a species, across all of our brightest and most learned minds, do not completely understand the laws of physics and how they can be applied.

Do you really think developments in quantum mechanics or string theory are going to allow us to build a better steam engine?

You do realize that our understanding of macro-level phsyics hasn't changed substantiall in over a century, right?

Polonius wrote:You do realize that our understanding of macro-level phsyics hasn't changed substantiall in over a century, right?

Yes it has. New understandings of gravity/microgravity, metallurgical concepts, nuclear concepts, etc have been found out quite frequently over the last century.

Nevermind the immense strides we've made in chemistry and biology, or the research done on the physics of the body (which is effecting quite a few health and safety related industries, even defense industries).

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:You do realize that our understanding of macro-level phsyics hasn't changed substantiall in over a century, right?

Yes it has. New understandings of gravity/microgravity, metallurgical concepts, nuclear concepts, etc have been found out quite frequently over the last century.

Nevermind the immense strides we've made in chemistry and biology, or the research done on the physics of the body (which is effecting quite a few health and safety related industries, even defense industries).

I'm not sure you understand what macro-level physics is, because the only thing you listed that's close to that is gravity. We understand why it works slightly (very) better than a hundred years ago, but the mechanics really haven't changed. Nothing else you listed is part of classical mechanics.

Again, my question (which you seemed to dodge) is this: do you think there will be new discoveries that allow us to build better steam engines?

Polonius wrote: do you think there will be new discoveries that allow us to build better steam engines?

Does magic count? Because Steampunk has come up with some pretty sweet stuff.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure you understand what macro-level physics is

I'm not sure you do. Macrophysics is a rarely used term for "the study of that which can be directly observed."

And yes, we HAVE advanced macrophysics, quite a bit in fact.

Our understanding of the physics of a female body (which is definitely observable, perhaps too much so for certain people) for example has vastly improved even over merely the past five years, as industries such as defense (body armor is being developed for women, using a mixture of physics and biology to provide the best protection, coverage, and comfort) have benefited from.

Our understanding of gravity and microgravity has increased through space exploration.

Our understanding of climate-based physics has vastly improved, as well as our understanding of the natural disasters that are both a cause of and caused by these physics.

Our understanding of the physics of light (again, observable) has improved as well.


As for utterly irrelevant and rather inane question about steam engines? Sure, but that doesn't mean that they'll use it. It has advantages in certain areas and disadvantages in others. The gasoline-based system's disadvantage, for example, is that it takes tremendous amounts of time and/or energy to make gasoline, so we're effectively running on a very limited quantity, and as we use more and more and more-- and we are, as a species-- it will eventually slow down, dry up... and effectively run out.

It's inevitable, it WILL happen. The only question isn't if, but when.

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote: do you think there will be new discoveries that allow us to build better steam engines?

Does magic count? Because Steampunk has come up with some pretty sweet stuff.

lol. I'm a big fan of Thomas Kuhn, as well as gould, so I like to apply the theory of Punctuated equilibrium to science and tech as well.

It's an evolution/revolution dichotomy. We shouldn't hope for our current tech to evolve to meet future needs, but rather look to revolutionary new tech that will emerge. Look at atomic power or space flight: both evolved far less than people imagined 50 years ago. Now look at medicine or communication: vast leaps beyond their wildest dreams.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure you understand what macro-level physics is

I'm not sure you do. Macrophysics is a rarely used term for "the study of that which can be directly observed."

Yeah, my bad. I meant classical mechanics. We certainly know more, but most of the time because we care enough to study it (kinesthetics of female bodies just wasn't very relevant 100 years ago to scientists) or becasue we have the tools to do (climate modelling requires computers).

The steam engine question isn't inane. It's showing that advances won't improve our existing tech, but will develope new tech. We won't go back and make better steam engines (at least on a widespread basis) because there are simply better options.

It's relevant to the original discussion of the tech level of electric cars, because there's no research that will cause current battery tech to evolve to be really worthwhile. OTOH, you can't stop the research that will lead to the actual electric car, because it'll be new and revolutionary.

Polonius wrote:...It's an evolution/revolution dichotomy. We shouldn't hope for our current tech to evolve to meet future needs, but rather look to revolutionary new tech that will emerge. Look at atomic power or space flight: both evolved far less than people imagined 50 years ago. Now look at medicine or communication: vast leaps beyond their wildest dreams.

I would venture to say the reason why Medicine/Communication has made vast leaps over Atmoic Power/Space Flight is readly available consumers to puchase products thus interest in investment. If we had focused the amount of time and money that we have for Communication into Space Flight, I think we would already be half way to Mars if not already there.

While I think our current understandings of certain Physical Laws which limits us in the energy department, there is essentially an infinite other discoveries to be discovered which anyone of them could lead to better efficiencies of our tech.

Zyllos wrote:

Polonius wrote:...It's an evolution/revolution dichotomy. We shouldn't hope for our current tech to evolve to meet future needs, but rather look to revolutionary new tech that will emerge. Look at atomic power or space flight: both evolved far less than people imagined 50 years ago. Now look at medicine or communication: vast leaps beyond their wildest dreams.

I would venture to say the reason why Medicine/Communication has made vast leaps over Atmoic Power/Space Flight is readly available consumers to puchase products thus interest in investment. If we had focused the amount of time and money that we have for Communication into Space Flight, I think we would already be half way to Mars if not already there.

While I think our current understandings of certain Physical Laws which limits us in the energy department, there is essentially an infinite other discoveries to be discovered which anyone of them could lead to better efficiencies of our tech.

The drive of consumer spending is important, but there's only spending because there are advanced worth buying. Space flight is simply way more limited than we thought. We never really built a bette rocket than Robert Goddard did 80 years ago.

The transistor, antibiotics, and plastics were developments that enabled amazing new products and advances. They were discoveries of completley new ways to do things.

Polonius wrote:The drive of consumer spending is important, but there's only spending because there are advanced worth buying. Space flight is simply way more limited than we thought. We never really built a bette rocket than Robert Goddard did 80 years ago.

The transistor, antibiotics, and plastics were developments that enabled amazing new products and advances. They were discoveries of completley new ways to do things.

Plastics and transistors are great examples of past discoveries and how profound their effects are to our lives. Future breakthroughs will also have the same effect. Honestly, a lot of stuff that has been discovered lately really will not effect our lives until 10, 20, or 50 years down the road. The issues are that a lot of our problems we face today really need to be solved immediately, which usually place new discoveries at odds with safety and security of the consumers of those technologies.

Zyllos wrote:

Polonius wrote:The drive of consumer spending is important, but there's only spending because there are advanced worth buying. Space flight is simply way more limited than we thought. We never really built a bette rocket than Robert Goddard did 80 years ago.

The transistor, antibiotics, and plastics were developments that enabled amazing new products and advances. They were discoveries of completley new ways to do things.

Plastics and transistors are great examples of past discoveries and how profound their effects are to our lives. Future breakthroughs will also have the same effect. Honestly, a lot of stuff that has been discovered lately really will not effect our lives until 10, 20, or 50 years down the road. The issues are that a lot of our problems we face today really need to be solved immediately, which usually place new discoveries at odds with safety and security of the consumers of those technologies.

Yeah, antibiotics didn't balance our humors, and transistors aren't tiny mechanical switches. The next car probably won't be batteries as we know them.

Aren't farts flammable? can't someone make an engine to run on people-gas? That would be great, a bucket of KFC would get me to california & back...

Meh, hair is flammable, as are most clothes.

My hair is very flammable, put fire within a foot radius of it and it will go up.

Old news. This idea in particular has been around for 2-3 years. I Remember my brother reading the journals. This is just probably a more efficient bacteria.

Like the theories about an all powerful automotive/oil industry. If hydrogen (storage, the fuel cells arent the problem folks!) technolology was at a level good enough to be in everyones cars guess where they would have been installed 10 years ago?

Polonius wrote:
Do you really think developments in quantum mechanics or string theory are going to allow us to build a better steam engine?

You do realize that our understanding of macro-level phsyics hasn't changed substantiall in over a century, right?

Since 'substantially' is a very broad and subjective term, sure it hasn't, depending on your definition. And, actually, nuclear physics, chemistry, advanced metallurgy, and advances in material and mechanical engineering have allowed us to build a better steam engine, though most people don't think of them as such.

After all, nuclear power is a form of steam engine, though most people don't realize it.


However, on the point about optimization: incorrect. The steam engine will consistently outperform either electric or diesel in it's horsepower class at altitude. Again, it's how the thing works. A steam locomotive rated for 5000 horsepower can pull a much greater load then a similar 5000 horsepower diesel or electric system at altitude, as it's effective horsepower climbs the higher it goes. Chile found this out hte hard way when they swapped out a aging steam engine for a deisel and the diesel got stuck as it could not climb the same incline as it's steam predecessor. They found that it took almost half again as much horsepower, and so the fuel savings of 25% became a loss of 25%, plus the cost of a third engine.

Anyone remember Stan Meyer?

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Wolfun wrote:The problem with replacing gas is - most of the gas companies won't stand for it. They make too much of a profit. Like someone else said, I can see them buying this and putting a stop to it almost immediately.

Either that or the oil companies will start buying out s**t, which is interesting considering they've been feeding us theirs for years.

Ever wonder why the Evil Oil Companies, if they could make a bigger profit off of a non-petroleum based fuel alternative than they do with petroleum based products, don't go ahead and expand?

Those companies spend a fortune each year in exploration and research. If there was a real economically sound alternative, they would be all over it.

Yeah, I gotta agree with everyone here saying that there's no secret, super tricky conspiracy of oil companies holding back sustainable energy. Truth is that bringing new tech to market that can come close to making the price and effectivenss of oil is really, really difficult.

The answer isn't to pretend we could solve this easily if only it wasn't for those dastardly oil companies. The answer is to realise that we need to spend a lot of money on research and development, and will still have to accept paying a lot more for energy than we're used to.

Polonius wrote:Interesting, the US uses less oil per capita than Canada. Thought three times what the UK uses. It's possible that larger countries (area wise) might use more fuel...

I think oil use figures, like carbon emissions, are more to do with the presence of industry and resource extraction than anything else. Countries with relatively little of either, like the UK, tend to look very good. While even countries that have put decent resources into renewable enery and improving energy efficiency look terrible in oil per capita and emissions per capita, if they have serious amount of industry or resource extraction.

It's a problem, because the country that builds stuff and provides resources in blamed, not the country that ends up using the product. We need better metrics for measuring each country's contribution to sustainability, but I'd be buggered if I know what it is.

I wonder what ever happened to Smart Cars and Seg Ways

Anyways as long as I get better fuel to miles ratio, I dont care too much

Although I read too many books, I think one told me that all the bovines or cud chewers in the world out pollute the world's transportation system 2 times over or something and that carbon dioxide is a really crappy greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

CptJake wrote:Ever wonder why the Evil Oil Companies, if they could make a bigger profit off of a non-petroleum based fuel alternative than they do with petroleum based products, don't go ahead and expand?

Those companies spend a fortune each year in exploration and research. If there was a real economically sound alternative, they would be all over it.

The oil companies also have the money to squash anything that could be efficient before it hits the market. Ever wonder why we get ethanol from corn when there are much more efficient ways to get it? Because the Corn Growers Union (or whatever it is called) is flush with cash and ties to oil companies.

mattyboy22 wrote:

CptJake wrote:Ever wonder why the Evil Oil Companies, if they could make a bigger profit off of a non-petroleum based fuel alternative than they do with petroleum based products, don't go ahead and expand?

Those companies spend a fortune each year in exploration and research. If there was a real economically sound alternative, they would be all over it.

The oil companies also have the money to squash anything that could be efficient before it hits the market. Ever wonder why we get ethanol from corn when there are much more efficient ways to get it? Because the Corn Growers Union (or whatever it is called) is flush with cash and ties to oil companies.

I've heard rumors much darker. Assassinations and -

*Conspiracy theorist comments redacted by the Holy Inquisition*

As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

kenshin620 wrote:Although I read too many books, I think one told me that all the bovines or cud chewers in the world out pollute the world's transportation system 2 times over or something and that carbon dioxide is a really crappy greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

Cows produce an immense amount of emissions, and it is a serious problem, far more than cars (which are actually relatively clean burning). The issue with cars is the increasing scarcity of oil. In terms of carbon emissions, the massive number of cows we now keep will definitely have to come into consideration at one time or another, and their farts limited in some way. Hopefully a technological solution is available (there is research being done into the bacteria in kangaroo stomachs, because despite having a very similar diet to cows kangaroos don't fart).


As to the water and carbon dioxide thing... that's basically a load of nonsense that the anti-climate change folk have been selling us for quite a while now. They're right that that there's more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but they're absolutely ridiculous when they pretend that the only measure. It's a bit like saying not to worry about the lead in the water supply, because there's way more calcium in there than lead, as if all particals of all types have an equal effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

Companies are always looking to adapt, open up new markets. It's how up and coming executives make their names. It's how management justifies its existance to shareholders. "This year we kept doing stuff as we'd kept doing stuff for the last 50 years, because change is hard and expensive, now pay me my bonus" just doesn't work.

That's creates all sorts of problems, of course, but it also has undeniable strengths.

sebster wrote:kangaroos don't fart

Well I learned something today.

sebster wrote:Companies are always looking to adapt, open up new markets. It's how up and coming executives make their names. It's how management justifies its existance to shareholders. "This year we kept doing stuff as we'd kept doing stuff for the last 50 years, because change is hard and expensive, now pay me my bonus" just doesn't work.

That's creates all sorts of problems, of course, but it also has undeniable strengths.

Many big companies prefer to go with the cheaper, financially safer alternative.

Melissia wrote:Many big companies prefer to go with the cheaper, financially safer alternative.

If there was a commercially viable tech, companies would be all over it. You'd be looking at a trillion dollar market, and if older companies stalled on entering the market, new companies would spring up over night.

No-one worried that the horse and buggy giants were buying up these new 'car' inventions and suppressing them, because their money was in horses and buggies. No, they just got on with getting left behind by this new automobile market. The same isn't happening with alternatives to oil, because there isn't an alternative that can actually match oil for cost and effectiveness.

Melissia wrote:As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

Bull crap. Otherwise we would still be walking, except the rich who would have horses. And listening to 8-track.

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

Bull crap. Otherwise we would still be walking, except the rich who would have horses. And listening to 8-track.

Not really. And at times the Horse and Buggy Lobby really did try to push through laws to restrict cars. In Pennsylvania, for example, there are laws still on the book that you have to pull off to the side of the road and hide your car if a horse and buggy are passing by. It's not enforced anymore, but it's still on the books, along with a law that you have to stop your car and fire a rocket every two miles if driving at night, so that farmers can clear livestock off the road.

That response doesn't come close to addressing what I said. In fact, it actually helps make my point.

Even WITH restrictions from the entrenched Horse and Buggy crowd, the inovators came up with a way to not only make automobiles, but make them profitable.

If I commit a horrible crime and end up sentenced to graduate school, I'd want to research and write a paper on the inherent humanism of conspiracy theories.

All of them, deep down, belief two things: 1) that humanity is more capable than we think in some regard, and 2) some people have enough control to keep that capability a secret.

Polonius wrote:If I commit a horrible crime and end up sentenced to graduate school, I'd want to research and write a paper on the inherent humanism of conspiracy theories.

All of them, deep down, belief two things: 1) that humanity is more capable than we think in some regard, and 2) some people have enough control to keep that capability a secret.

I think you just gave me a thesis for my Gen. Psych. essay. Thanks Polonius

CptJake wrote:That response doesn't come close to addressing what I said. In fact, it actually helps make my point.

Even WITH restrictions from the entrenched Horse and Buggy crowd, the inovators came up with a way to not only make automobiles, but make them profitable.

Actually, what saved them was that car makers an petrolium companies joined force4s and were more underhanded and better organized. They systematically shut down any and all competitive modes of transportation in the United States, regardless of profitability, including rail and canal systems, bought out lumber companies and either shifted them to furniture and paper, or closed them, smeared their rivals or flat out had them killed. The idea that oil or car companies might have inventors murdered unfortunately has some basis in fact, though no direct links have ever been proven, the rise of the big five automakers was strewn with mysterious deaths, particularly among union members. Big Oil is positively infamous for using assassination as a tool of negotiation, particularly in South America and South East Asia. Over a dozen national leaders have been killed supposedly in the name of National Security but in reality, it was to consolidate the position of oil and gas firms. In Africa, oil and gas concerns are hot on the heels of DeBeers as the number one employers of mercenaries in West Africa to ensure their operations remain viable.

It's quite possible that many inventions that were more viable have appeared over the years to vanish again, unheralded.

Al Capone once suggested that he wanted to bring the same efficiency to crime that Ford brought to cars, but wasn't ruthless enough for it.

You guys are are right. Profit and expansion and inovation mean nothing to oil companies trying to get ahead of their competition within the industry and to ensure their viability as a company into the future.

It is allabout just keeping the status quo and slowing change as much as possible.

Sorry it took me so long to realize that.

CptJake wrote:You guys are are right. Profit and expansion and inovation mean nothing to oil companies trying to get ahead of their competition within the industry and to ensure their viability as a company into the future.

It is allabout just keeping the status quo and slowing change as much as possible.

Sorry it took me so long to realize that.

Why innovate when you have a near monopoly and can force people to pay whatever you like? Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment: the oil companies are in a position where they can actually dictate foreign policy to the most powerful nations on earth, and rape the populations for whatever they think they can excuse. The Status quo equates continued windfall profits. Innovation threatens that.

A viable alternative would mean that people would refuse to spend $5 a gallon and more at the pump.

Most big companies think that safety is better than risk. It's safe to continue doing the same thing, why should they change? Change is expensive. Doing essentially the same thing you've always done but slightly more efficiently isn't.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Why innovate when you have a near monopoly and can force people to pay whatever you like?

Because Microsoft exists.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment: the oil companies are in a position where they can actually dictate foreign policy to the most powerful nations on earth, and rape the populations for whatever they think they can excuse. The Status quo equates continued windfall profits. Innovation threatens that.

If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

BaronIveagh wrote:
A viable alternative would mean that people would refuse to spend $5 a gallon and more at the pump.

Sure, but oil companies are not somehow special. They can, and have, invested in different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Most big companies think that safety is better than risk. It's safe to continue doing the same thing, why should they change? Change is expensive. Doing essentially the same thing you've always done but slightly more efficiently isn't.

Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

dogma wrote:Because Microsoft exists.

Wait, waht?

Microsoft doesn't innovate. It just buys out other companies, fires their employees, then steals THEIR innovations.

dogma wrote:Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

The expense is a known variable. The profit is an unknown variable. Ergo, change is risky, as it deals with expenses paid towards an unknown payoff.

dogma wrote:
Because Microsoft exists.

You do realize that Microsoft hasn't innovated for years, and has more or else shoved the same thing down people's throats for most of that time, just putting a snazzy new UI on the outside of it. Large sections of Windows have not changed since NT.

dogma wrote:
If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

Really? Explain to me then why the majority of American wars since Korea have almost without exception taken place in countries that either possessed, or were believed to possess, large petroleum reserves. Oh, and how American companies (or their wholly owned local subsidiaries three holding corps removed) ended up with the majority of the oil contracts? Or why big oil spends more then a billion dollars a year buying American politicians (never mind everywhere else).

Never mind all the nations the US has supported in the name of oil : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

dogma wrote:
Sure, but oil companies are not somehow special. They can, and have, invested in different things.

Yes, but only now that investors are concerned about the possibility of petroleum running out (real or imagined). Previously they invested a lot of money in making people and other things that were a hindrance to them dead and dumped titanic amounts of money into politics to ensure they got their way.

So far the only countries to hold big oil accountable in a way that mattered have been places like Ecuador and Venezuela, where they nationalized their oil industries in response to corporate malfeasance. Oh, and the CIA hired assassins in both locations to try and prevent it. Venezuela they were disguised as Colombian army to try and set up a war between Colombia and Venezuela. Ecuador they pretended to be communist guerrillas. Both groups were caught and confessed.

dogma wrote:
Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

Change is always the first in Industry. The second, however, is more of a gamble.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

The expense is a known variable. The profit is an unknown variable. Ergo, change is risky, as it deals with expenses paid towards an unknown payoff.

Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

Oh wait.

What is your point exactly?

BaronIveagh wrote:
You do realize that Microsoft hasn't innovated for years, and has more or else shoved the same thing down people's throats for most of that time, just putting a snazzy new UI on the outside of it. Large sections of Windows have not changed since NT.

Clearly you missed my point. Microsoft is an example of what happens when established corporations are beaten to the punch by start-ups.

As for innovation: systemic concerns tend to be an issue, and one that extends beyond the ability of company X to dictate.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really? Explain to me then why the majority of American wars since Korea have almost without exception taken place in countries that either possessed, or were believed to possess, large petroleum reserves.

Because global oil prices are related to global oil supply. Note that very little of America's petroleum actually comes from the Middle East. Hell, American extraction companies would make more money (per barrel, at least) if the Middle East went to hell and stopped shipping crude.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Never mind all the nations the US has supported in the name of oil : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

I don't see any indication of support in that article. Nice try though.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but only now that investors are concerned about the possibility of petroleum running out (real or imagined). Previously they invested a lot of money in making people and other things that were a hindrance to them dead and dumped titanic amounts of money into politics to ensure they got their way.

Oil companies are not involved solely in the petroleum trade.

BaronIveagh wrote:
So far the only countries to hold big oil accountable in a way that mattered have been places like Ecuador and Venezuela, where they nationalized their oil industries in response to corporate malfeasance. Oh, and the CIA hired assassins in both locations to try and prevent it.

Of course they did, oil nationalization tends to drive up global oil prices, and we don't like that. However, oil companies do like it. You're consistently confusing the interests of corporations involved in the oil trade, with US interests.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Change is always the first in Industry. The second, however, is more of a gamble.

No, that's flatly incorrect. Change is no more expensive, by necessity, than existing is.

dogma wrote:No, that's flatly incorrect. Change is no more expensive, by necessity, than existing is.

If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

For a lot of big businesses... there haven't been. They've just repackaged the same old stuff over and over again, or bought out and repackaged a smaller company's ideas. There's no substantial difference between one year model of car and the next. Hell, anyone but the most blatant car aficionado often can't even tell the difference between two cars of the same size of different brands as most car styles and functions are essentially the same with very minor variations in the same company and even to some extent across companies.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

For a lot of big businesses... there haven't been.

I just... I don't even...

Where do you come up with these things? I'll just leave this here. Let me know if you need another example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Iphone is simply a cellphone with a touchscreen. It's been marketed to be the 2nd-5th comings of Christ, but they're all simply cellphones. Touchscreens have been around for at least two decades, and while miniaturizing one effectively was nice, it wasn't revolutionary by any extent. While it was something different, it was along the lines of adding mp3 player capabilities to cellphones; New, but not amazingly earth-shattering.

Apple hasn't been innovative for awhile. Steve Jobs' real talent is in packaging. He takes technology and puts it together in new ways and that's what he's really good at. I mean, come on. He's got people buying a new iPod every year.

Still hate him though

And to get back on topic: People who think oil companies are trying to stop alternate fuels need to really look at the numbers. The oil industry is one of the top investors in R&D and construction of alternative fuel sources. They know they can't live off the black juicy money machine that is crude forever.

Melissia wrote:If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.

Considering your woeful use of the term "capital" that's most likely for the best.

darkPrince010 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Iphone is simply a cellphone with a touchscreen. It's been marketed to be the 2nd-5th comings of Christ, but they're all simply cellphones. Touchscreens have been around for at least two decades, and while miniaturizing one effectively was nice, it wasn't revolutionary by any extent. While it was something different, it was along the lines of adding mp3 player capabilities to cellphones; New, but not amazingly earth-shattering.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the idea of a handheld cell phone is relatively new. We're talking about new products being introduced. Not unlike touchscreens and MP3 players, which are two more examples of new products that have been introduced in or around the last 30 years. Everything that is made in the technology industry is based off of the work of those who came before. You can't really sit there and say that there is no evidence of innovation between the iphone, or droid, or whatever, and the cell phones of the 80s, 90s, or even 5 years ago.

Did you read the post that I was replying to?

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

For a lot of big businesses... there haven't been.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.

Considering your woeful use of the term "capital" that's most likely for the best.

I think you're a capital fellow.

Monster Rain wrote:
I think you're a capital fellow.

Stop falling in love with me...I have a commitment...to my love bot!

Am I missing something by not seeing the difference between buying the innovation of others and marketing, and developing it internally? It seems to me that either way new ideas are turned into consumer products.

Polonius wrote:Am I missing something by not seeing the difference between buying the innovation of others and marketing, and developing it internally? It seems to me that either way new ideas are turned into consumer products.

I don't think so. If you're the one with the patent and your name on the box, you get the credit for the innovation from reasonable people.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think you're a capital fellow.

Stop falling in love with me...I have a commitment...to my love bot!

Dr. Krieger?

Seriously, Krieger. You are my Oprah.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think you're a capital fellow.

Stop falling in love with me...I have a commitment...to my love bot!

Dr. Krieger?

Mr. Universe.

Monster Rain wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the idea of a handheld cell phone is relatively new. We're talking about new products being introduced. Not unlike touchscreens and MP3 players, which are two more examples of new products that have been introduced in or around the last 30 years. Everything that is made in the technology industry is based off of the work of those who came before. You can't really sit there and say that there is no evidence of innovation between the iphone, or droid, or whatever, and the cell phones of the 80s, 90s, or even 5 years ago.

Calling Dick Tracy: the idea of a miniaturized phone with a touch screen has been around a lot longer then the technology has existed to make it practical. Conceptually, it (phone plus screen) was actually originally predicted in the 1890's, however, it's taken miniaturization technology a long time to catch up.

dogma wrote:
I don't see any indication of support in that article. Nice try though.

REALLY? So, the CIA helping Gaddafi eliminate militants had absolutely nothing to do with the US state departments attempts at the time to get preferential treatment for the US oil industry from Libya? Particularly considering the extremes they went to for some of them, such as kidnapping them out of South East Asia.

dogma wrote:
Of course they did, oil nationalization tends to drive up global oil prices, and we don't like that. However, oil companies do like it. You're consistently confusing the interests of corporations involved in the oil trade, with US interests.

Everything drives up oil prices. The sun is shining and it's raised crude oil to 175 dollars a barrel. And, no, oil companies don't like it, particularly after having sunk billions into drilling and infrastructure, AND now have a new player that now owns oil fields that used to be their private playground.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the idea of a handheld cell phone is relatively new. We're talking about new products being introduced. Not unlike touchscreens and MP3 players, which are two more examples of new products that have been introduced in or around the last 30 years. Everything that is made in the technology industry is based off of the work of those who came before. You can't really sit there and say that there is no evidence of innovation between the iphone, or droid, or whatever, and the cell phones of the 80s, 90s, or even 5 years ago.

Calling Dick Tracy: the idea of a miniaturized phone with a touch screen has been around a lot longer then the technology has existed to make it practical. Conceptually, it (phone plus screen) was actually originally predicted in the 1890's, however, it's taken miniaturization technology a long time to catch up.

I suppose I misspoke. Still, the cell phone as a mass-produced consumer product is a recent development.

BaronIveagh wrote:
REALLY? So, the CIA helping Gaddafi eliminate militants had absolutely nothing to do with the US state departments attempts at the time to get preferential treatment for the US oil industry from Libya?

Nope.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Particularly considering the extremes they went to for some of them, such as kidnapping them out of South East Asia.

Yeah, information is expensive.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Everything drives up oil prices.

Wrong. I ate a cheeseburger today and oil prices didn't change.

Try something other than hyperbole.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The sun is shining and it's raised crude oil to 175 dollars a barrel. And, no, oil companies don't like it, particularly after having sunk billions into drilling and infrastructure, AND now have a new player that now owns oil fields that used to be their private playground.

So...much....populism...

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:If you honestly think that maintaining capital you already have is just as difficult as obtaining brand new capital, I think I'll just ignore your opinions on business matters.

Considering your woeful use of the term "capital" that's most likely for the best.

Capital; the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

No, I'm using it properly.

It's the Jewish Illuminati Conservative Fascists!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Calling Dick Tracy: the idea of a miniaturized phone with a touch screen has been around a lot longer then the technology has existed to make it practical. Conceptually, it (phone plus screen) was actually originally predicted in the 1890's, however, it's taken miniaturization technology a long time to catch up.

Well, so what? Lightsabers and teleportation are ideas now, does that mean that when they eventually come around they won't be considered new innovations?

Melissia wrote:
Capital; the wealth, whether in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc.

No, I'm using it properly.

No, you aren't.

rubiksnoob wrote:It's the Jewish Illuminati Conservative Fascists!

Buncha communists, that group.

Ahtman wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:It's the Jewish Illuminati Conservative Fascists!

Buncha communists, that group.

I heard they were working with the NAZI's as well

rubiksnoob wrote:
Well, so what? Lightsabers and teleportation are ideas now, does that mean that when they eventually come around they won't be considered new innovations?

Yes, but they won't be new concepts, which was what was implied. And the guy that builds a light saber better be prepared to shell out to George Lucas' decedent at the rate that copyright is growing longer and longer...

dogma wrote:
Yeah, information is expensive.

Hiring kidnappers and booking a flight from Thailand to Libya, even more so.

dogma wrote:
Wrong. I ate a cheeseburger today and oil prices didn't change.

Try something other than hyperbole.

You kill the cow, make the cheese, and bake the bun yourself? Otherwise, yes, probably, though by an incredibly tiny increment. If everyone in the US sat down and ate a McBurger at the same time, fuel costs would rise. For pretty much the same reasons they rise on weekends like this one, since large numbers of people are out burning fuel.

Try something called supply and demand.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You kill the cow, make the cheese, and bake the bun yourself?

Baking affects crude prices now?

BaronIveagh wrote:
Otherwise, yes, probably, though by an incredibly tiny increment. If everyone in the US sat down and ate a McBurger at the same time, fuel costs would rise. For pretty much the same reasons they rise on weekends like this one, since large numbers of people are out burning fuel.

Try something called supply and demand.

If we're going into that level of detail, then simply being alive drives up oil prices.

dogma wrote:
Baking affects crude prices now?

Yeah it does. The farmer burns fuel to planet and harvest, the mill burns fuel to grind it into flour, trains burn fuel moving it from point a to point B, the packaging plant uses up electricity (which may be oil generated) and I'm willing to bet your oven isn't fire heated either. So, yeah, baking can increase crude prices.

dogma wrote:
If we're going into that level of detail, then simply being alive drives up oil prices.

Notice that petrol no longer costs a nickle at the service station, and it's rise has way outstripped inflation. Oh, and, rather then a team of well paid station attendants, there's a single snarky goth chick who gives the impression that she's not paid enough to sit there and take your money.

BaronIveagh wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:
Well, so what? Lightsabers and teleportation are ideas now, does that mean that when they eventually come around they won't be considered new innovations?

Yes, but they won't be new concepts, which was what was implied. And the guy that builds a light saber better be prepared to shell out to George Lucas' decedent at the rate that copyright is growing longer and longer...

I fail to see why that matters in the slightest. Just because an idea has been around for a while doesn't mean when it actually comes around it isn't an innovation. The idea of human flight has been around since Icarus; That doesn't mean airplanes aren't an innovation.

BaronIveagh wrote:Notice that petrol no longer costs a nickle at the service station, and it's rise has way outstripped inflation. Oh, and, rather then a team of well paid station attendants, there's a single snarky goth chick who gives the impression that she's not paid enough to sit there and take your money.

So essentially the whole nostalgia over how things used to be cheaper is entirely based on the raising of gas prices? It is solely responsible for all price changes over time?

rubiksnoob wrote:
I fail to see why that matters in the slightest. Just because an idea has been around for a while doesn't mean when it actually comes around it isn't an innovation. The idea of human flight has been around since Icarus; That doesn't mean airplanes aren't an innovation.

It's been around a lot longer then Icarus. And, actually the Wright flyer itself was not really all that innovative either (it was largely based off of existing gliders) The actual innovation was designing an engine that was both light weight and powerful enough to sustain it (thus the real innovator could be argued to have been Charlie Taylor, who designed the Wright's engine for them) This was done by combining Aluminum (a relatively new material at the time, as the bauxite extraction process was only then reducing it's price. Previously it had similar value to Gold) for a lightweight engine block and bicycle technology to increase power. This gave the Wrights the needed horsepower to keep their glider design aloft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
So essentially the whole nostalgia over how things used to be cheaper is entirely based on the raising of gas prices? It is solely responsible for all price changes over time?

The point was that gas prices rise higher, faster, then inflation explains. (Inflation being what causes things to become more expensive over time, mostly)

What did the Wright brothers ever do to you that you have to take all the joy out of their achievement? Besides, the design of their glider was part of the innovation. Just because gliders had existed before doesn't mean any glider would work and they tested multiple designs. Charley Taylor built an engine in collaboration with the Wright brothers using their data and input. They didn't just tell him to build something and walk away, they were involved in the process. Certainly he should get more mention but pretending he would have done anything without them pushing it is a ridiculous; they gave the initial plans, data, and work order. It isn't often referred to as the Wright/Taylor Engine just to give some flair to it. The whole project required being innovative.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yeah it does. The farmer burns fuel to planet and harvest, the mill burns fuel to grind it into flour, trains burn fuel moving it from point a to point B, the packaging plant uses up electricity (which may be oil generated) and I'm willing to bet your oven isn't fire heated either. So, yeah, baking can increase crude prices.

Shockingly, oil isn't the only source of energy on the planet. I know, this is revelation for those who like to say "oil" whenever questions of politics or economics are asked, but the world is more complicated than that.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Notice that petrol no longer costs a nickle at the service station, and it's rise has way outstripped inflation. Oh, and, rather then a team of well paid station attendants, there's a single snarky goth chick who gives the impression that she's not paid enough to sit there and take your money.

There is so much wrong with this that I barely know where to begin.

First, service stations are not generally owned by oil companies, so they're irrelevant.

Second, cars are no longer a luxury, so service stations aren't operated as luxury services. Notice that airlines have seen similar changes.

Third, no, gas prices have not outstripped inflation. Historically the opposite is true.

BaronIveagh wrote:Yes, but they won't be new concepts, which was what was implied.

In the context of this conversation, I thought what was clearly implied was that we were talking about the introduction of consumer products.

dogma wrote:
Shockingly, oil isn't the only source of energy on the planet. I know, this is revelation for those who like to say "oil" whenever questions of politics or economics are asked, but the world is more complicated than that.

Yes, but all the named things burn or potentially burn oil or distillates of oil, so that hardly disproves my point.

dogma wrote:
There is so much wrong with this that I barely know where to begin.

First, service stations are not generally owned by oil companies, so they're irrelevant.

Every last one in my area not owned by the government is the property of Shell, British Petrolium, Sunoco, or Exxon. Maybe it's different where you live.

dogma wrote:
Second, cars are no longer a luxury, so service stations aren't operated as luxury services. Notice that airlines have seen similar changes.

Cars haven't been a luxury since about 1945. The demise of the full service station has been primarily in the last 20 years. As far as the airlines go... I'm glad I don't get strip searched and body cavity checked every time i get in my car, so I can't say that it's 'similar'.

dogma wrote:
Third, no, gas prices have not outstripped inflation. Historically the opposite is true.

In 1990: a gallon of gas cost $1.15 It now nearly costs $5 a gallon. However, the value of the dollar has been only reduced by half via inflation relative to real goods in the same time period. Compare this to a gallon of Milk, which has only increased on average 85%. While Milk has followed the curve, and almost doubled in that twenty year span, gasoline has increased by nearly a factor of five.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but all the named things burn or potentially burn oil or distillates of oil, so that hardly disproves my point.

It does, actually, if your point is "Oil companies run the world."

BaronIveagh wrote:
Every last one in my area not owned by the government is the property of Shell, British Petrolium, Sunoco, or Exxon. Maybe it's different where you live.

Owned by, or franchised by?

BaronIveagh wrote:
Cars haven't been a luxury since about 1945. The demise of the full service station has been primarily in the last 20 years. As far as the airlines go... I'm glad I don't get strip searched and body cavity checked every time i get in my car, so I can't say that it's 'similar'.

Wrong. In 1960 the US population was ~180 million, 79 million vehicles were held in private and public hands at the same time. Compare this to 288 million vehicles for ~300 million in 2002. If automobiles were a necessity in 1945 you would expect a much higher rate of saturation.

BaronIveagh wrote:
In 1990: a gallon of gas cost $1.15 It now nearly costs $5 a gallon. However, the value of the dollar has been only reduced by half via inflation relative to real goods in the same time period. Compare this to a gallon of Milk, which has only increased on average 85%. While Milk has followed the curve, and almost doubled in that twenty year span, gasoline has increased by nearly a factor of five.

Wow.

Can't really argue with that.

Occasionally dogma knows things.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Wow.

Can't really argue with that.

Watch me.

First of all, your diagram is wildly misleading, as the means by which inflation was tracked by the government in that time shifted vigorously and frequently, by Mr McMahon's own admission. Point of fact, he gets called out on it on his own site and instead presents MIT's 'Billion Prices' data, which is more reliable, but also only goes back a few years.

The data I quoted used three fixed points: the buying power of the dollar in 1775 (point of origin), the buying power of the dollar in 1990, and the current buying power of the dollar. (Comparatively, the buying power of the modern dollar compared to the 1775 Dollar is 3 cents. Now that's a Continental Damn!). Milk was used as the control, though as Mr McMahon points out, goods do not suffer inflation evenly, it was something that could be used as a reference at all three points.

Secondly, reading the fine print at the bottom: you are quoting EIA data, who's methodology has been repeatedly raked over the coals by independent peer reviews, including University of Vermont's Eric Garza, PhD.

BaronIveagh wrote:
First of all, your diagram is wildly misleading, as the means by which inflation was tracked by the government in that time shifted vigorously and frequently, by Mr McMahon's own admission. Point of fact, he gets called out on it on his own site and instead presents MIT's 'Billion Prices' data, which is more reliable, but also only goes back a few years.

How the government tracked inflation is irrelevant to the calculation unless said tracking equation was used to calculate X.

You didn't go to his own site because nothing you've said is referenced there. The metric of comparison isn't even comparable. In short, stop lying, it is obvious when you do it, because you aren't sufficiently learned in this regard to pull it off.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The data I quoted used three fixed points: the buying power of the dollar in 1775 (point of origin), the buying power of the dollar in 1990, and the current buying power of the dollar. (Comparatively, the buying power of the modern dollar compared to the 1775 Dollar is 3 cents. Now that's a Continental Damn!). Milk was used as the control, though as Mr McMahon points out, goods do not suffer inflation evenly, it was something that could be used as a reference at all three points.

No, incorrect. Obviously so. If you compare X to Y and X and Y are both abstractions, then the comparison follows from metric Z if Z is constant (or reasonably so, as dollars are). Anyone who has spent half a day analyzing anything knows this.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Secondly, reading the fine print at the bottom: you are quoting EIA data, who's methodology has been repeatedly raked over the coals by independent peer reviews, including University of Vermont's Eric Garza, PhD.

If a guy that got his PhD after 10 years, in Vermont, is the best you can do; then I'm not worried.

dogma wrote:If a guy that got his PhD after 10 years, in Vermont, is the best you can do; then I'm not worried.

Unless it's either Ben or Jerry.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:If a guy that got his PhD after 10 years, in Vermont, is the best you can do; then I'm not worried.

Unless it's either Ben or Jerry.

They put the Delicious in PhD.

dogma wrote:
You didn't go to his own site because nothing you've said is referenced there. The metric of comparison isn't even comparable. In short, stop lying, it is obvious when you do it, because you aren't sufficiently learned in this regard to pull it off.

"For years now in an effort to hide the actual amount of inflation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (who tracks the inflation rate) has been erasing inflation through a trick called "hedonics".

"Basically they say since a new computer is faster than an old one you get more for your money, so they adjust the price down.They use the same logic for cars and other things. Everyone who studies it knows the Government is fudging the numbers, but it has gotten so bad that now they have to hide the M3 altogether. " - Tim McMahon: http://inflationdata.net/2006/03/16/goodbye-m3-what-is-the-government-hiding/

I may not be a great statistician (I prefer to dig through thousands of pages of documents and distill them into a sensible narrative.), but I do read. Oh, and I know history: In 1921 when the US government started tracking dollar value relative to real goods, they used the exact same methodology I just used above to do their estimates back to 1913. It was changed in 1940, 1951, 1953, 1964, 1978, 1983, and 1995



This shows inflation using the methodology adopted in 1983 vs the post Boskin Commission methodology adopted in 1995.

dogma wrote:
If a guy that got his PhD after 10 years, in Vermont, is the best you can do; then I'm not worried.

Good, then you won't be worried about the doctor who got his MD in ten years in Vermont telling you you're going to die of cancer the other guy failed to detect. I'm not sure what you mean by 'best I could do' there as nothing you mention disproves what the man found.

One thing I can say I do know about numbers: garbage in, garbage out: if the information you're inputting into your formula is bad, then your result is also incorrect. It might be mathematically fine, but it no longer resembles anything in the real world.

How is shadowstats more credible than the US Department of Energy, again?

Monster Rain wrote:How is shadowstats more credible than the US Department of Energy, again?

Neither one is what I would call credible. Shadowstats overlooks the change from using the real values of homes to the use of 'equivalent rents' which had a stabilizing effect, which the fed also overlooks in the other direction (and it's entirely possible that this disparity may be part of what drives the two apart).

Then again, no source is infallible: I for example misspoke and it was 1979 and 1980 that were the point of divergence, not the 1995 Boskin Commission alterations. (Though, again, those changes would also tend to drive the two apart)


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Inflation-Actually-Near-10-cnbc-357695506.html?x=0

However, since even the dictionary definition of what inflation is has changed since 1980, and the fact that the internet is alive with opinions on it (real/imagined/researched/BS) this argument is as unlikely to go anywhere as a discussion of One More Day, Grey Knights fluff, or politics.

I'm neither a statistician, nor an economist, but if a product is "better," than shouldn't that affect if we view it as costing more or less?

I mean, cars are safer, last longer, and get better gas mileage than they did 20 years ago. The amount of price increase due to inflation has to take that into account. I'm not sure how, but it should.

Polonius wrote:I'm neither a statistician, nor an economist, but if a product is "better," than shouldn't that affect if we view it as costing more or less?

I mean, cars are safer, last longer, and get better gas mileage than they did 20 years ago. The amount of price increase due to inflation has to take that into account. I'm not sure how, but it should.

Well, I don't know about cars, but in reality while a computer is 'better' then the one we bought 20 years ago, the base requirements for that computer have also increased dramatically.

BaronIveagh wrote:Well, I don't know about cars, but in reality while a computer is 'better' then the one we bought 20 years ago, the base requirements for that computer have also increased dramatically.

You mean your expectations of what you want the computer to do has increased dramatically.

I can acquire an early '90s computer on the cheap and load it with Windows 3.1 and it will perform just as well as most computers from the early '90s.

Yeah, that still seems like a fancy way of saying "it can do more for cheaper."

I replaced a $3000 computer with a $400 one, and it did more than the old one. That's in less than 10 years.

In short, it's hard to decry inflation as being that bad when the standard of living has increased dramatically.

Polonius wrote:Yeah, that still seems like a fancy way of saying "it can do more for cheaper."

I replaced a $3000 computer with a $400 one, and it did more than the old one. That's in less than 10 years.

In short, it's hard to decry inflation as being that bad when the standard of living has increased dramatically.

How do you draw that the standard of living has improved because a luxury like a computer now has more power for less?

It now takes two incomes to pay for basic necessities for many families where previously it could be done with one.

biccat wrote:
You mean your expectations of what you want the computer to do has increased dramatically.

I can acquire an early '90s computer on the cheap and load it with Windows 3.1 and it will perform just as well as most computers from the early '90s.

Well, I expect it to type and save files in a manner that can be printed or transferred to other computers. And, guess what, you can't do that anymore with a 1991 PC, as it's no longer compatible with current systems (and find someone that still produces and sells floppies or ink carts/ribbons for printers that old...)

BaronIveagh wrote:

Polonius wrote:Yeah, that still seems like a fancy way of saying "it can do more for cheaper."

I replaced a $3000 computer with a $400 one, and it did more than the old one. That's in less than 10 years.

In short, it's hard to decry inflation as being that bad when the standard of living has increased dramatically.

How do you draw that the standard of living has improved because a luxury like a computer now has more power for less?

It now takes two incomes to pay for basic necessities for many families where previously it could be done with one.

That's one way to look at it. Another is say that social and technological improvements have eliminated the need for a person to run a houshold, allowing extra income to be spent on non-necessities like cell phones, cable, computers, etc.

40 years ago, one aveage income could support a family in a modest home, put food on the table, and pay for one car. That's still doable... it's just that people want more than that now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote: (and find someone that still produces and sells floppies or ink carts/ribbons for printers that old...)

http://www.floppydisk.com/

http://www.worldclassink.com/index.html

BaronIveagh wrote:It now takes two incomes to pay for basic necessities for many families where previously it could be done with one.

Um...no, it doesn't. It takes two incomes to pay for the luxuries that we want today.

My FIL was raised in a 3-bedroom house with 8 kids. That house today can be purchased for under $50,000 (<$200/mo. including taxes, insurance, and PMI). A family of four can eat comfortably for a few hundred dollars per month (although you're not eating steak or fresh produce daily, you can get ground beef and canned vegetables at that price).

$1,500 per month ($18,000/year) can provide a lifestyle that most of the lower-middle class lived on in the '50s-60s.

Once you throw in cable, going out to eat once or twice a month, cell phones, new (off the shelf) clothes for everyone every year, and other luxuries, the price of living goes up dramatically.

BaronIveagh wrote:

biccat wrote:You mean your expectations of what you want the computer to do has increased dramatically.

I can acquire an early '90s computer on the cheap and load it with Windows 3.1 and it will perform just as well as most computers from the early '90s.

Well, I expect it to type and save files in a manner that can be printed or transferred to other computers. And, guess what, you can't do that anymore with a 1991 PC, as it's no longer compatible with current systems (and find someone that still produces and sells floppies or ink carts/ribbons for printers that old...)

You can type and save files that are transferrable to other computers. An external floppy drive is ~$15 (max) and connectable (at worst) by SCSI.

TXT and DOC files also haven't changed dramatically, and would be accessible on a new computer. I work with files that are at least 20+ years old on a regular basis.

Polonius wrote:
That's one way to look at it. Another is say that social and technological improvements have eliminated the need for a person to run a houshold, allowing extra income to be spent on non-necessities like cell phones, cable, computers, etc.
40 years ago, one aveage income could support a family in a modest home, put food on the table, and pay for one car. That's still doable... it's just that people want more than that now.

I'll have to stop you there, because I'm still seeing too many people that have two jobs and are having a hard time even making the 'modest home, food on the table, one car' level. It's not a matter of wanting more, it's a matter of there is no money to buy those items.

Polonius wrote:
http://www.floppydisk.com/

http://www.worldclassink.com/index.html

Nice find on the floppies, but the ink place still doesn't carry what I need to finish restorations on the old system that controls the church bells.

biccat wrote:
My FIL was raised in a 3-bedroom house with 8 kids. That house today can be purchased for under $50,000 (<$200/mo. including taxes, insurance, and PMI). A family of four can eat comfortably for a few hundred dollars per month (although you're not eating steak or fresh produce daily, you can get ground beef and canned vegetables at that price).

$1,500 per month ($18,000/year) can provide a lifestyle that most of the lower-middle class lived on in the '50s-60s.

...

TXT and DOC files also haven't changed dramatically, and would be accessible on a new computer. I work with files that are at least 20+ years old on a regular basis.

Where do you live? Because I want to move there! At current market value in this area that's a 150k house. The two bedroom I live in was last appraised two years ago at 85k and it's in less then ideal condition. Currently: it takes, with me living alone, $900 a month, factoring taxes, insurance, etc. I have no cell, cable tv, or car atm, and I split my internet with my next door neighbor. In winter it climbs to $1200 a month due to heating bills.

txt hasn't changed much, but in the last few years M$ has been monkeying with doc a bit. However, I have to carry around a floppy drive and plug it in every time I'd need to transfer a file. Which was sort of the point, as it's making the new computer more backward compatible, rather then having them both be compatible with each other.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Polonius wrote:
That's one way to look at it. Another is say that social and technological improvements have eliminated the need for a person to run a houshold, allowing extra income to be spent on non-necessities like cell phones, cable, computers, etc.
40 years ago, one aveage income could support a family in a modest home, put food on the table, and pay for one car. That's still doable... it's just that people want more than that now.

I'll have to stop you there, because I'm still seeing too many people that have two jobs and are having a hard time even making the 'modest home, food on the table, one car' level. It's not a matter of wanting more, it's a matter of there is no money to buy those items.

Than at least one of the two isn't working full time, or they are living outside their means, or they have medical expenses (which are admittedly higher now. Of course people don't die as often). Yes, two people working crappy jobs have it tough, but so did families relying on one crappy job.

Nice find on the floppies, but the ink place still doesn't carry what I need to finish restorations on the old system that controls the church bells.

Why do you need a printer ribbon for a system that controls church bells?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Houses in the Midwest central cities can be regulalry had for $50k or under.

BaronIveagh wrote:Where do you live? Because I want to move there! At current market value in this area that's a 150k house. The two bedroom I live in was last appraised two years ago at 85k and it's in less then ideal condition. Currently: it takes, with me living alone, $900 a month, factoring taxes, insurance, etc. I have no cell, cable tv, or car atm, and I split my internet with my next door neighbor. In winter it climbs to $1200 a month due to heating bills.

Here's a single-family 3-bedroom house for $45k (Ohio)

Here's another for just under $50k (Iowa)

And a third just at $50k (Michigan)

I'm reasonably familiar with each of these cities and while the houses aren't in gated communities, they're also not in what most people would consider "dangerous" parts of town.

BaronIveagh wrote:txt hasn't changed much, but in the last few years M$ has been monkeying with doc a bit. However, I have to carry around a floppy drive and plug it in every time I'd need to transfer a file. Which was sort of the point, as it's making the new computer more backward compatible, rather then having them both be compatible with each other.

Not a whole lot worse than a flash drive.

But I think the point stands that if you're simply looking for utility, an old computer isn't all that inferior to a new one.

Polonius wrote:
Than at least one of the two isn't working full time, or they are living outside their means, or they have medical expenses (which are admittedly higher now. Of course people don't die as often). Yes, two people working crappy jobs have it tough, but so did families relying on one crappy job.
...

Houses in the Midwest central cities can be regulalry had for $50k or under.

That would be the difference: I live on a native res surrounded by New York State. Would that I could move, but that costs more then I have.

Polonius wrote:
Why do you need a printer ribbon for a system that controls church bells?

Because it doesn't display the schedule on the screen, it prints it. (I await the day that M$ writes Church Bells 2012, since every piece of software I've looked at to operate this carillon is ancient)

I'd also point out that even for a single person, $900 a month is below the poverty line. If you're point is that poor people have it bad... than I'd agree.

Polonius wrote:I'd also point out that even for a single person, $900 a month is below the poverty line. If you're point is that poor people have it bad... than I'd agree.

I don't know, from the things I've heard the poor have it better than the rich. They have refrigerators. REFRIGERATORS!

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'd also point out that even for a single person, $900 a month is below the poverty line. If you're point is that poor people have it bad... than I'd agree.

I don't know, from the things I've heard the poor have it better than the rich. They have refrigerators. REFRIGERATORS!

I'll admit, listening to some people go on about welfare and how the people on it have it too good, I often think, "why don't you go on it."

I mean, if it's such a sweet deal, why aren't people quitting jobs, moving into section 8 housing, and drawing welfare?

Polonius wrote:I'd also point out that even for a single person, $900 a month is below the poverty line. If you're point is that poor people have it bad... than I'd agree.

Actually I'm fairly well off: I'm actually employed. Most of the people around here are not, since the government banned selling mail order tobacco.

BaronIveagh wrote:
"For years now in an effort to hide the actual amount of inflation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (who tracks the inflation rate) has been erasing inflation through a trick called "hedonics".

Why, hello Austrian School, why do people pay attention to you?

BaronIveagh wrote:
"Basically they say since a new computer is faster than an old one you get more for your money, so they adjust the price down.They use the same logic for cars and other things. Everyone who studies it knows the Government is fudging the numbers, but it has gotten so bad that now they have to hide the M3 altogether. " - Tim McMahon

That's not an indictment of hedonic regression.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I may not be a great statistician (I prefer to dig through thousands of pages of documents and distill them into a sensible narrative.), but I do read. Oh, and I know history: In 1921 when the US government started tracking dollar value relative to real goods, they used the exact same methodology I just used above to do their estimates back to 1913. It was changed in 1940, 1951, 1953, 1964, 1978, 1983, and 1995

So?

BaronIveagh wrote:
This shows inflation using the methodology adopted in 1983 vs the post Boskin Commission methodology adopted in 1995.

Shockingly different statistical measures report different things. Note also that, returning to the original point, a higher rate of inflation would outpace the price of gasoline at the pump if a lower rate of inflation did the same.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Good, then you won't be worried about the doctor who got his MD in ten years in Vermont telling you you're going to die of cancer the other guy failed to detect.

You know that University X can have a great med school, and a terrible program in ecological economics, right?

dogma wrote:
That's not an indictment of hedonic regression.

Don't look at me, he's the source you brought into this.

dogma wrote:
Shockingly different statistical measures report different things. Note also that, returning to the original point, a higher rate of inflation would outpace the price of gasoline at the pump if a lower rate of inflation did the same.

"The Consumer Price Index rose 0.5% in March, according to the Labor Department. That matched February's increase, the largest since the recession officially ended in June 2009. In the past 12 months, the index has increased 2.7%, the biggest rise since December 2009. The steep climb in food and gas prices could limit consumers' ability to purchase discretionary goods and services. Gas jumped 5.6% last month and has risen nearly 28% in the past year. Food prices rose 0.8%, the largest increase in almost three years." - Los Angeles Times, Consumer Confidential: Inflation rising, led by gas prices; Mattel comes up short April 15, 2011. (Ooooh, Ironic Date!)

Gas is not increasing slower then the CPI.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Don't look at me, he's the source you brought into this.

And I interpreted him correctly, but you didn't.

BaronIveagh wrote:
"The Consumer Price Index rose 0.5% in March, according to the Labor Department. That matched February's increase, the largest since the recession officially ended in June 2009. In the past 12 months, the index has increased 2.7%, the biggest rise since December 2009. The steep climb in food and gas prices could limit consumers' ability to purchase discretionary goods and services. Gas jumped 5.6% last month and has risen nearly 28% in the past year. Food prices rose 0.8%, the largest increase in almost three years." - Los Angeles Times, Consumer Confidential: Inflation rising, led by gas prices; Mattel comes up short April 15, 2011. (Ooooh, Ironic Date!)

Different statistical measures report different figures. This has already been said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Gas is not increasing slower then the CPI.

What?

Oh no, commodity X cost less in past dollars than current dollars.

dogma wrote:
And I interpreted him correctly, but you didn't.

"With all its efforts at “Tracking Inflation” most everyone agrees that the last thing the Government really wants is for the general public to know how much it is stealing out of your pockets through inflation."
Inflation has been called “the hidden tax” and that is exactly what it is. When the Government “prints” extra money what do you think it does with it? It spends it of course!"
What would happen if you started writing checks (creating money) from an account that was empty? You’d end up in jail! But that is exactly what the government is doing when it creates money out of thin air." - The paragraph right before the quoted one.


Tell me where the interpretation is in what he's saying here, I'm curious.

dogma wrote:
Oh no, commodity X cost less in past dollars than current dollars.

You might want to re-read that: it cost less in the past in past dollars too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Different statistical measures report different figures. This has already been said.

Those numbers come from the same set you have been claiming are (more) correct. They would seem to paint a very different picture though then the one you seem to be trying to paint.

BaronIveagh wrote:
"With all its efforts at “Tracking Inflation” most everyone agrees that the last thing the Government really wants is for the general public to know how much it is stealing out of your pockets through inflation."Inflation has been called “the hidden tax” and that is exactly what it is. When the Government “prints” extra money what do you think it does with it? It spends it of course!"
What would happen if you started writing checks (creating money) from an account that was empty? You’d end up in jail! But that is exactly what the government is doing when it creates money out of thin air." - The paragraph right before the quoted one.


Tell me where the interpretation is in what he's saying here, I'm curious.

The interpretation is in the reading, obviously. You did it poorly, I did not.

Still no indictment of hedonic regression. Nice try.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You might want to re-read that: it cost less in the past in past dollars too.

No it didn't, read the graph. Obviously 1979 dollars will zero out in 1979 anyone who has passed high school math will know that.

dogma wrote:
The interpretation is in the reading, obviously. You did it poorly, I did not.

Still no indictment of hedonic regression. Nice try.

"indictment
noun
1. an act of indicting.
2. Law . a formal accusation initiating a criminal case, presented by a grand jury and usually required for felonies and other serious crimes.
3. any charge, accusation, serious criticism, or cause for blame.
4. the state of being indicted. " - Websters dictionary (highlight and italics mine)


The dictionary would appear to disagree with you. Since his entire statement would appear to be an example of #3, as he rather bluntly observes that if a person were to do it it would be a flat out crime, and the government is misusing it to create a fraudulent illusion of lower inflation.

dogma wrote:
No it didn't, read the graph. Obviously 1979 dollars will zero out in 1979 anyone who has passed high school math will know that.

Um, no, since it didn't cost zero dollars in 1979. The real price and adjusted price will converge, but none of them will zero out, since that's a graph depicting price fluctuations. I suspect you're simply trolling at this point.

BaronIveagh wrote:The dictionary would appear to disagree with you. Since his entire statement would appear to be an example of #3, as he rather bluntly observes that if a person were to do it it would be a flat out crime, and the government is misusing it to create a fraudulent illusion of lower inflation.

So now your having to go with extremely broad interpretations as well as mixing technical and laymen use to feel like you are winning an argument? I mean, if that makes you feel better go for it, but it isn't very sound.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:If a guy that got his PhD after 10 years, in Vermont, is the best you can do; then I'm not worried.

Unless it's either Ben or Jerry.

Meh. Professors Ben and Jerry are over rated. Pofessor Blue Bell however is da bomb. Strangely enough, I don't think cows really do think Brenham is heaven as there were a bunch out on the road in front of the main turn off the other day. Apparently they were making a break for the freedom train, with the fuzz in hot pursuit.

Ahtman wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:The dictionary would appear to disagree with you. Since his entire statement would appear to be an example of #3, as he rather bluntly observes that if a person were to do it it would be a flat out crime, and the government is misusing it to create a fraudulent illusion of lower inflation.

So now your having to go with extremely broad interpretations as well as mixing technical and laymen use to feel like you are winning an argument? I mean, if that makes you feel better go for it, but it isn't very sound.

How is it a broad interpretation to point out that dogma claiming something is not an indictment, when it is the dictionary definition of what an indictment is?

It's like holding up a dachshund and claiming it's a goldfish, then having some other person claim you are using a broad definition of what a fish is when you call him out on it.

Normally I'd have given up by now and just let the thread drop, but being called a liar (inaccurately) by dogma is a good way to get me to stay for the brawl.

BaronIveagh wrote:
How is it a broad interpretation to point out that dogma claiming something is not an indictment, when it is the dictionary definition of what an indictment is?

It's like holding up a dachshund and claiming it's a goldfish, then having some other person claim you are using a broad definition of what a fish is when you call him out on it.

Normally I'd have given up by now and just let the thread drop, but being called a liar (inaccurately) by dogma is a good way to get me to stay for the brawl.

The quote is an indictment, but not of hedonic regression. Its an indictment of government policy, which is not the same thing as hedonic regression.

dogma wrote:
The quote is an indictment, but not of hedonic regression. Its an indictment of government policy, which is not the same thing as hedonic regression.

I never said that hedonic regression itself was the problem, it was that the government used to it produce a misleading figure that did not accurately represent the reality of the situation and that because of this the governments released numbers were not useful in producing a realistic measure of inflation. I'll add that this is most particularly evident when you try and take housing and medicine into account. While the CPI does, after a fashion, try to take housing into account, it's misleading at best and failing to account for medical costs is absurd at this point as the number of senior citizens is growing rapidly relative to the rest of the population.

Even with a fixed value adjusted for inflation at the government's number, gasoline is rising in price.



And if you don't think that oil companies try to control policy, you might check that sudden, massive drop in price and compare it to the dates, since it matches the run up to the US Presidential election in 2008. Drill Baby, Drill.

BaronIveagh wrote:
I never said that hedonic regression itself was the problem, it was that the government used to it produce a misleading figure that did not accurately represent the reality of the situation and that because of this the governments released numbers were not useful in producing a realistic measure of inflation.

1: You didn't differentiate between the two, and actually conflated them at first.

2: You're claiming that a statistical measure that is determined by statistical measures is not accurately measured by statistical measures, which is more than a little ridiculous.

BaronIveagh wrote:
While the CPI does, after a fashion, try to take housing into account, it's misleading at best and failing to account for medical costs is absurd at this point as the number of senior citizens is growing rapidly relative to the rest of the population.

It isn't misleading at all, it does exactly what the methodology describes.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Even with a fixed value adjusted for inflation at the government's number, gasoline is rising in price.

Yeah, when you fix the value to 1979 dollars, and ignore the fact that gasoline has been historically without value due to being useless.

BaronIveagh wrote: if you don't think that oil companies try to control policy, you might check that sudden, massive drop in price and compare it to the dates, since it matches the run up to the US Presidential election in 2008. Drill Baby, Drill.

Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said, maybe you should read more closely.

BaronIveagh wrote:And if you don't think that oil companies try to control policy, you might check that sudden, massive drop in price and compare it to the dates, since it matches the run up to the US Presidential election in 2008. Drill Baby, Drill.

Wait, if oil companies control policy, why would they want to increase oil drilling? When prices are higher, their profits (absolute, if not percentage) increase as well.

Wasn't that why Bush ran up oil prices during his term, so oil companies could get more money?

dogma wrote:
2: You're claiming that a statistical measure that is determined by statistical measures is not accurately measured by statistical measures, which is more than a little ridiculous.

No, I'm claiming the statistics are being cooked so that they work out mathematically but do not really represent the reality of what they're supposed ot be tracking. Sort of like how no motion picture has turned a profit in the last forty years or so on paper, but they keep right on making movies and money is coming from 'somewhere'. The accounting all adds up, but in reality something is wrong with this picture.

dogma wrote:
It isn't misleading at all, it does exactly what the methodology describes.

A methodology which is increasingly obscured so it's hard to say what the methodology is describing at all. By law, it was intended to track the value of the dollar relative to the cost of living (particularly for those working in US Navy Shipyards, but also for the public in general). If it is actually doing any of those things is now something of a mystery.

dogma wrote:
Yeah, when you fix the value to 1979 dollars, and ignore the fact that gasoline has been historically without value due to being useless.

Except the period measured covers 1979 forward. Unless people didn't drive cars in the 1980s.

dogma wrote:
Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said, maybe you should read more closely.

dogma wrote:
If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

biccat wrote:
Wait, if oil companies control policy, why would they want to increase oil drilling? When prices are higher, their profits (absolute, if not percentage) increase as well.
Wasn't that why Bush ran up oil prices during his term, so oil companies could get more money?

Increased drilling does not necessarily translate into reduced cost at the pump. (Regardless of what the supporters of drilling in ANWAR claim) What it does do is reduce cost by reducing the shipping costs and removing the need to compete with other nations for crude in the open market, as they're drilling to increase domestic supply.

Bush ran up prices, but indirectly. Due to having two wars running at once, the military demand for fuel skyrocketed, supply and demand kicks in and the price of gas soars. Combined with Hurricane Katrina reducing refinery output in the Gulf Region, the oil companies had a plausible reason to raise prices even further (actual output reduction nationwide, however, was not heavily effected, but prices nationwide increased). When the two primary candidates for President in 2008 became apparent, fuel companies began lowering prices in an attempt to make the price of gas a non-issue for the presidential elections, as high fuel prices would hurt their preferred ticket (McCain/Palin) as Palin had close ties to the industry.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, I'm claiming the statistics are being cooked so that they work out mathematically but do not really represent the reality of what they're supposed ot be tracking.

You cannot "cook" statistics without flat, and obviously discernible distortions of data or reporting gaps; these do not exist in the government statistics for inflation. Their reported methodologies are exceedingly thorough, and very clearly show why their results came about. The problem here is that you don't know anything about statistics, and are going on the opinions relayed to you by others without the necessary knowledge to criticize them. This is fine if you don't really care about the topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Sort of like how no motion picture has turned a profit in the last forty years or so on paper, but they keep right on making movies and money is coming from 'somewhere'. The accounting all adds up, but in reality something is wrong with this picture.

Nothing is wrong with it at all, you simply don't understand the methodology being used. Perhaps if you put real effort into learning how the mathematics work, you wouldn't have to proceed on what seems to be your gut, and a narrative.

BaronIveagh wrote:
A methodology which is increasingly obscured so it's hard to say what the methodology is describing at all.

Yeah, if you don't spend much time looking, and can't interpret anything you find.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Except the period measured covers 1979 forward. Unless people didn't drive cars in the 1980s.

You apparently didn't understand my criticism. The line of comparison is normalized for inflation against 1979 dollars, but the other two lines are raw price data using the dollar value at which the price existed. The graph literally shows nothing beyond the fact that inflation happened, it does not show that the price of gas outpaced inflation.

BaronIveagh wrote:

dogma wrote:
Is that what I said? It doesn't sound like what I said, maybe you should read more closely.

dogma wrote:
If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

Interestingly, the words "dictate" and "control" mean different things. You also broadened my comment about oil companies not dictating foreign policy to oil companies not trying to control foreign policy, which is a strawman.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Increased drilling does not necessarily translate into reduced cost at the pump. (Regardless of what the supporters of drilling in ANWAR claim) What it does do is reduce cost by reducing the shipping costs and removing the need to compete with other nations for crude in the open market, as they're drilling to increase domestic supply.

That's not necessarily true. Extraction costs vary significantly by location.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Due to having two wars running at once, the military demand for fuel skyrocketed, supply and demand kicks in and the price of gas soars.

Military demand had very little effect on the oil price, you'll note the price of oil did not increase in a way which was consistent with troop deployment levels. The primary determinants of oil prices are speculation (which is influenced by perceived threats to supply) and actual supply; both of which were affected by the invasion of Iraq among other things (rising global demand being a really big thing).

dogma wrote:
This is fine if you don't really care about the topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

No, in all honesty, I really could care less about the subject of inflation, but since you called me a liar, I'm drawing this out a bit until I'm no longer angry about it, and then I'll probably let it drop.

dogma wrote:
Nothing is wrong with it at all, you simply don't understand the methodology being used. Perhaps if you put real effort into learning how the mathematics work, you wouldn't have to proceed on what seems to be your gut, and a narrative.

Actually I understand the methodology in that one quite well. You use a caterer that's a wholly owned subsidiary, to pay them a hideous fee, which goes back into your own pocket, and some carpenters who work for a contractor you own, and you do stuff like that enough, and the movie studio writes it all off as a loss on their taxes despite having had an income of 500 million dollars, and the small businesses you own that support the movie take a small business tax break. It's all very tidy.

If nothing is wrong with it, why is it the guy on the street that's on the losing end?

dogma wrote:
Yeah, if you don't spend much time looking, and can't interpret anything you find.

Yes, actually I did read a few of those, and my 'interpretation' discovered a lot of the usual ass covering and buck passing I found when I was still a government auditor. It took a while, but I eventually found the actual mathematics used buried a text that it would not be immediately apparent that it would be in, and missing from several documents that it probably should have been in.

Although, I did find a wonderful paper by Williams and Greenlees re issues with the weighting system in the CPI-U generating discrepancies and several alternate measures that could be considered. They found none of them to really resolve the issue, but it was an interesting paper none the less.

dogma wrote:
You apparently didn't understand my criticism. The line of comparison is normalized for inflation against 1979 dollars, but the other two lines are raw price data using the dollar value at which the price existed. The graph literally shows nothing beyond the fact that inflation happened, it does not show that the price of gas outpaced inflation.

You might want to look at that bottom line again then. If the price had remained constant relative to inflation, that bottom line would be fairly flat. It's not. It's not as exaggerated as the real price, but it still shows an increase.

dogma wrote:
Interestingly, the words "dictate" and "control" mean different things. You also broadened my comment about oil companies not dictating foreign policy to oil companies not trying to control foreign policy, which is a strawman.

dictate
verb (used with object)
1. to say or read (something) aloud for another person to transcribe or for a machine to record: to dictate some letters to a secretary.
2. to prescribe or lay down authoritatively or peremptorily; command unconditionally.

control
1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

I would suggest that the difference in definition is somewhat fine.

dogma wrote:
Military demand had very little effect on the oil price, you'll note the price of oil did not increase in a way which was consistent with troop deployment levels. The primary determinants of oil prices are speculation (which is influenced by perceived threats to supply) and actual supply; both of which were affected by the invasion of Iraq among other things (rising global demand being a really big thing).

It wouldn't increase or decrease with deployment levels. That's a misconception. The DoD buys up the outputs of refineries in proximity to their zone of operations and adjusts output to match need, or purchasing additional refinery outputs. The price of oil would increase based on an increase or decrease in how many operations entered into exclusive contracts with DoD, not the troop deployment levels, since DoD stockpiles any surplus production at depots.



In 2004 the DoD consumed 144m barrels a day, or roughly the consumption of the nation of Greece, and constitutes the single largest purchaser of oil in the world, according to American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Red Cavaney. I have a hard time imagining that that a 40% increase over peacetime usage by the worlds largest purchaser made no impact on the market.

BaronIveagh wrote:
If nothing is wrong with it, why is it the guy on the street that's on the losing end?

He wasn't smart, or well positioned enough to do anything else?

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, actually I did read a few of those, and my 'interpretation' discovered a lot of the usual ass covering and buck passing I found when I was still a government auditor.

Its called citation, and you generally should keep going past the reading of the first article. In fact, you have to, if you want to understand.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Although, I did find a wonderful paper by Williams and Greenlees re issues with the weighting system in the CPI-U generating discrepancies and several alternate measures that could be considered. They found none of them to really resolve the issue, but it was an interesting paper none the less.

To reiterate: different statistical measures report different things.

BaronIveagh wrote:
You might want to look at that bottom line again then. If the price had remained constant relative to inflation, that bottom line would be fairly flat. It's not. It's not as exaggerated as the real price, but it still shows an increase.

No, it wouldn't. When you adjust price X for dollar value Y you calculate how much X would cost if priced in dollar value Y. This tells you nothing about money supply, average income, etc. It tells you only that X would have cost less (or more) if the dollar was valued as it were when point Y was concurrent.

BaronIveagh wrote:
dictate
verb (used with object)
1. to say or read (something) aloud for another person to transcribe or for a machine to record: to dictate some letters to a secretary.
2. to prescribe or lay down authoritatively or peremptorily; command unconditionally.

control
1. to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

I would suggest that the difference in definition is somewhat fine.

Sure, but it exists, and given my web persona you might expect me to exercise that difference.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The DoD buys up the outputs of refineries in proximity to their zone of operations and adjusts output to match need, or purchasing additional refinery outputs.The price of oil would increase based on an increase or decrease in how many operations entered into exclusive contracts with DoD, not the troop deployment levels, since DoD stockpiles any surplus production at depots.

And yet the price statistics don't support this claim.

BaronIveagh wrote:
In 2004 the DoD consumed 144m barrels a day, or roughly the consumption of the nation of Greece, and constitutes the single largest purchaser of oil in the world, according to American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Red Cavaney. I have a hard time imagining that that a 40% increase over peacetime usage by the worlds largest purchaser made no impact on the market.

First, no, the US DoD is the single largest government consuming body in the world.

Second:



You ouwld expect it to do up if what you claim is true.

dogma wrote:
Its called citation, and you generally should keep going past the reading of the first article. In fact, you have to, if you want to understand.

No, citation wasn't what I was reffering to, god knows we've all had to do enough of that, though it can be used for ass covering and buck passing (and is in several of these) no, I was referring to how some of them blame everything from the consumer to the data collection personnel to the lag inherent in the system for any and all inaccuracies, contradictions, or anomalies.

and now you're just baiting me since I actually read several of them and you even thoughtfully quote me on one of the later ones right off the bat...

BaronIveagh wrote:
Although, I did find a wonderful paper by Williams and Greenlees re issues with the weighting system in the CPI-U generating discrepancies and several alternate measures that could be considered. They found none of them to really resolve the issue, but it was an interesting paper none the less.

dogma wrote:
To reiterate: different statistical measures report different things.

Yes, we know that, you've said it enough times already, but that was not the point, and you know it. They were looking into alternatives because someone realized there was a problem with the existing system and were seeking a solution to the problem.

dogma wrote:
No, it wouldn't. When you adjust price X for dollar value Y you calculate how much X would cost if priced in dollar value Y. This tells you nothing about money supply, average income, etc. It tells you only that X would have cost less (or more) if the dollar was valued as it were when point Y was concurrent.

It doesn't need to say any of the things you reference to disprove your point. You point, being, at that time, that gas prices have been increasing at or below inflation. If this were true, the bottom line in the diagram would be fairly flat, as the cost of fuel would not fluctuate, or might even decrease, relative to that fixed dollar rate. It does not. What it does say is the cost of gas increased using that fixed value, meaning that the rate of increase and decrease would have had to have been greater then the rate of inflation.

dogma wrote:
And yet the price statistics don't support this claim.

"DESC (the Defense Energy Support Center, part of the logistical arm of DoD) typically awards fuel contracts based on the lowest cost to the point of delivery, typically for lengths of one year." - Department of Defense Fuel Spending,
Supply, Acquisition, and Policy, Anthony Andrews, Congressional Research Service

dogma wrote:
First, no, the US DoD is the single largest government consuming body in the world.

Second:



You would expect it to do up if what you claim is true.

"...DESC’s purchases, however, do not necessarily correspond with DOD’s actual consumption. DESC may draw fuel down from storage to supplement demand and may replenish fuel stores with purchases. DOD also maintains a fuel “war reserve” that it may draw down in contingencies."
"DESC’s total fuel purchases peaked at 145.1 million barrels in FY2003, when U.S. forces invaded Iraq." - Department of Defense Fuel Spending,
Supply, Acquisition, and Policy, Anthony Andrews, Congressional Research Service

What your graph shows is actual consumption, not purchase. Further, if you show how that graph breaks down, the reason for the peak in consumption in 1980's and the drop off in 1991 becomes clear:



1991 saw the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and this led to a reduction in military aviation fuel consumption as part of NATO. As such, a certain amount of it was defrayed by other NATO members, much as during the 1st Gulf War when Saudi Arabia supplied US forces with free fuel.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, citation wasn't what I was reffering to, god knows we've all had to do enough of that, though it can be used for ass covering and buck passing (and is in several of these) no, I was referring to how some of them blame everything from the consumer to the data collection personnel to the lag inherent in the system for any and all inaccuracies, contradictions, or anomalies.

Yes, because those things cause inaccuracy relative to the data being produced. "Inaccuracy" doesn't mean what it does in general parlance when considering statistics.

BaronIveagh wrote:
and now you're just baiting me since I actually read several of them and you even thoughtfully quote me on one of the later ones right off the bat...

Several isn't enough.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, we know that, you've said it enough times already, but that was not the point, and you know it. They were looking into alternatives because someone realized there was a problem with the existing system and were seeking a solution to the problem.

No, they were looking into alternatives because looking into alternatives is how you remain employed as an academic, or analyst. Its called "publish or perish".

BaronIveagh wrote:
It doesn't need to say any of the things you reference to disprove your point. You point, being, at that time, that gas prices have been increasing at or below inflation. If this were true, the bottom line in the diagram would be fairly flat, as the cost of fuel would not fluctuate, or might even decrease, relative to that fixed dollar rate.

Yes it does because that's how you compare relative cost against inflation.

BaronIveagh wrote:
"DESC (the Defense Energy Support Center, part of the logistical arm of DoD) typically awards fuel contracts based on the lowest cost to the point of delivery, typically for lengths of one year." - Department of Defense Fuel Spending,
Supply, Acquisition, and Policy, Anthony Andrews, Congressional Research Service

Not relevant.

BaronIveagh wrote:
1991 saw the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and this led to a reduction in military aviation fuel consumption as part of NATO. As such, a certain amount of it was defrayed by other NATO members, much as during the 1st Gulf War when Saudi Arabia supplied US forces with free fuel.

And yet, according to you, fuel prices have gone up faster than inflation, and this has been largely driven by military action; which is not supported by any information, or any argument have made.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

dogma wrote:
No, they were looking into alternatives because looking into alternatives is how you remain employed as an academic, or analyst. Its called "publish or perish".

Yes, but in most fields saying that the conclusion is that there is no conclusion other than what everyone already knew (that different formulas yield different results) would not fly. It would be like a physicist publishing a paper that reveals that dropped objects fall to the ground via gravity. Unless he's checking someone else's work or revealing that he's found the Higgs Boson, it wouldn't qualify as 'publishing' unless he happened to be the first to discover gravity.

dogma wrote:
Not relevant.

Really? Because you previously said that the data does not support that being what they do.

dogma wrote:
And yet, according to you, fuel prices have gone up faster than inflation, and this has been largely driven by military action; which is not supported by any information, or any argument have made.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

No, I said it went up due to military demand. Demand is not consumption. Demand is how much they're buying. DoD buys based on two things: how much fuel they think they need in their fuel reserves, and how much they think they're going to actually use. And, further, my statement was that bicat was incorrect in his assertion that the Bush Whitehouse was directly manipulating fuel costs, but rather it was Bush's military actions that were driving the price up (as DoD in response to it's perceived increase in fuel requirements began to purchase increasing amounts of fuel in anticipation of further military action). If you check that price graph again, the price starts to rise late 2001 and continues to rise dramatically all the way to the presidential election in 2008 where it undergoes a sudden drop that may or may not be artificial and then rapidly rises again.

It's remaining high due to a combination of greed and speculation, as well as sensationalist reports of how production will not be able to meet demand in the next year.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but in most fields saying that the conclusion is that there is no conclusion other than what everyone already knew (that different formulas yield different results) would not fly

No, that's completely wrong, there are literally thousands of pages written on exactly that. Maybe you should reconsider speaking on academia to an academic.

BaronIveagh wrote:
It would be like a physicist publishing a paper that reveals that dropped objects fall to the ground via gravity. Unless he's checking someone else's work or revealing that he's found the Higgs Boson, it wouldn't qualify as 'publishing' unless he happened to be the first to discover gravity.

It qualifies as "publishing" if its in an academic journal.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really? Because you previously said that the data does not support that being what they do.

Nope, not in that quote.

BaronIveagh wrote:
No, I said it went up due to military demand. Demand is not consumption. Demand is how much they're buying. DoD buys based on two things: how much fuel they think they need in their fuel reserves, and how much they think they're going to actually use.

Yet both price and consumption decreased in line with troop increases.

We can turn it down a bit with regards to tone and general snarkiness please.

Obliged.

dogma wrote:
No, that's completely wrong, there are literally thousands of pages written on exactly that. Maybe you should reconsider speaking on academia to an academic.
...
It qualifies as "publishing" if its in an academic journal.

By that definition Estwing's advertising team would be the number one geologists and paleontologists in the world. Sorry, every field I've ever directly dealt with, to even get through the door at the publication, you had to have some sort of actual discovery or new information to publish or the editors file it in the round file. Granted, as far as academia, mostly I've had to deal with physical sciences, you know, where scientists sweat in the sun instead of smoking cigars all day while pulling in grant money? (Granted, certain branches of chemistry and physics also do that, but I also suspect that it's not a traditional cigar some of them are smoking either...)

dogma wrote:
Yet both price and consumption decreased in line with troop increases.

Really?




The only drop I could find reviewing the average prices was between October of 2008 and Feb-March of 2009. Otherwise it's been heading up. When I get back later, since I have someplace to be and it will take me a bit to dig up the numbers on actual outlay vs deployment levels, I'll take on the other half of your assertion.

BaronIveagh wrote:
By that definition Estwing's advertising team would be the number one geologists and paleontologists in the world. Sorry, every field I've ever directly dealt with, to even get through the door at the publication, you had to have some sort of actual discovery or new information to publish or the editors file it in the round file.

You clearly have never dealt with any academic field in any serious capacity, because you aren't differentiating between academic and popular publications, or good publications and bad publications. No one rates any scholar based on how often he has been published alone. I mean, seriously, Kripke has been published like 30 times, nowhere near half of Chomsky, and yet Kripke is more highly regarded.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Granted, as far as academia, mostly I've had to deal with physical sciences, you know, where scientists sweat in the sun instead of smoking cigars all day while pulling in grant money? (Granted, certain branches of chemistry and physics also do that, but I also suspect that it's not a traditional cigar some of them are smoking either...)

Very few physical scientists sweat in the sun. Chemistry, biology, and physics labs are well air conditioned. The guys that sweat in the sun are anthropologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, and other people who either dig in the dirt or interview people that live their whole lives sweating in the sun.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really?

Yep, note it actually fell in the aftermath of the surge, when troop levels were at their highest.

BaronIveagh wrote:
The only drop I could find reviewing the average prices was between October of 2008 and Feb-March of 2009. Otherwise it's been heading up. When I get back later, since I have someplace to be and it will take me a bit to dig up the numbers on actual outlay vs deployment levels, I'll take on the other half of your assertion.

But not in concurrence with troop levels.

Wow, you guys just keep going.

rubiksnoob wrote:Wow, you guys just keep going.

dogma wrote:
You clearly have never dealt with any academic field in any serious capacity, because you aren't differentiating between academic and popular publications, or good publications and bad publications. No one rates any scholar based on how often he has been published alone. I mean, seriously, Kripke has been published like 30 times, nowhere near half of Chomsky, and yet Kripke is more highly regarded.

I'm going to stop you there and have you define 'academic' and 'popular' as well as 'good' and 'bad' because no matter what rebuttal I give to that, you'll claim that my response is incorrect. So rather then dance around another verbal trap, I'm going to make you clearly define what you're talking about, and then tear it down.

(Assuming that you're talking about Noam Chomsky and Saul Kripke...)
Their level of regard would depend on the specific subject. Chomsky has published on a much wider spectrum of topics then Kripke has.

dogma wrote:
Very few physical scientists sweat in the sun. Chemistry, biology, and physics labs are well air conditioned. The guys that sweat in the sun are anthropologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, and other people who either dig in the dirt or interview people that live their whole lives sweating in the sun.

... you don't think chemists and biologists sweat in the sun too? Where do you think they get their data from, the sample fairy? (Further, that the disciplines you do name as sweating in the sun don't have air conditioned labs they use when not on site?) I've even seen physicists sweat in the sun once or twice gathering data. Perhaps if you came down from the ivory tower for some field work sometime, you might see things like that.

dogma wrote:
Yep, note it actually fell in the aftermath of the surge, when troop levels were at their highest.

Again, consumption does not equal purchase. You seem to have a hard time with this concept. Further, ground vehicle fuel only makes up approx.10% of the DoD's annual fuel purchases. As to why the price dropped over that specific time frame, my opinion is that it was artificial, but I don't have any hard data on it.

The price hike during the surgw was because of mid east instability. Anytime there is big news in that region oil prices go up. DoD ground vehicles use what % of the DOD fuel supply, the DoD fuel consumption is what % of US fuel consumption, and US fuel consumption is what % or world fuel consumption? In 2008 there were also large increases in fuel consumption in both China, India, and Africa.

The oil companies are better equiped to sell butanol than anybody else. It would not be expensive to alter a refinery to refine butanol instead of crude, but it would be very expensive to attempt to build refinerys from scratch without the skilled workers the oil companies have. In short once butanol is profitable the oil companies will jump on that bandwagon and nobody would be able to compete with them.

Easy to drill easy to refine crude is becoming more and more scarce. The remaining oil we have is either more difficult to drill or more difficult to refine. The oil companies know this, and do care about 1 thing: Their bottom line. If Butanol becomes profitable then it's good for their bottom line, they will jump on board, and then sell the entire idea as green.

schadenfreude wrote:
The oil companies are better equiped to sell butanol than anybody else. It would not be expensive to alter a refinery to refine butanol instead of crude, but it would be very expensive to attempt to build refinerys from scratch without the skilled workers the oil companies have. In short once butanol is profitable the oil companies will jump on that bandwagon and nobody would be able to compete with them.

Easy to drill easy to refine crude is becoming more and more scarce. The remaining oil we have is either more difficult to drill or more difficult to refine. The oil companies know this, and do care about 1 thing: Their bottom line. If Butanol becomes profitable then it's good for their bottom line, they will jump on board, and then sell the entire idea as green.

I agree with you on most of these points. The question is how much actual refining would be required, if the bacteria are producing high grade butanol already or if there is some refining required. (It would obviously need some sort of filtration, regardless) If the answer is that it doesn't actually require a great deal of refining, the oil companies become white elephants, as anyone could do it with the right bacterial culture and a backyard setup. If it's a lot, then, yes, the oil companies make out jumping on it.

schadenfreude wrote:The price hike during the surgw was because of mid east instability. Anytime there is big news in that region oil prices go up. DoD ground vehicles use what % of the DOD fuel supply, the DoD fuel consumption is what % of US fuel consumption, and US fuel consumption is what % or world fuel consumption? In 2008 there were also large increases in fuel consumption in both China, India, and Africa.

It's not so much the hike as the drop Oct 2008 - Feb 2009. Oil has been pretty much been rising since 2001. If treated as a nation, the DoD is the 34th largest consumer of oil in the world, and according to some sources the leading purchaser, as most nations have at least some oil industry that offsets this.