America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by Brewha. 900 replies replies.
Poll Question : Is Global Warming Real?
Choice Votes Statistics
No, it’s just made up by the left wing Liberals. 10 11 %
Maybe, it’s a natural cycle - not really man made. 46 54 %
Yes, it largely caused by industrial pollution. 29 34 %
Total 85 100%

18 Pages«<91011121314151617>»
Is Global Warming Real?
frankj1 Offline
#601 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,245
tailgater wrote:
Vic, fuel prices impact the cost of EVERYTHING.
if it were only the daily commute We'd all own a prius.

we'd never fit.
Brewha Offline
#602 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
no we wouldn't... Not talking

True that....
Brewha Offline
#603 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
victor809 wrote:
You're both horribly wrong.

First, Eric... Brewha wasn't talking "flat earth" he was talking heliocentric theory. You changed the argument on him and decided to call him ignorant after doing so.

Second, the church did in fact accept Copernicus' heliocentric theories at first. However, later they then chose to ban his doctrine... for about 200 years. For saying the earth revolves around the sun.

No Victor, I do not agree that I am “horribly wrong”. I may not have told the whole story of Copernicus, but saying that the Church exiled him is accurate.

Eric, on the other hand, exemplifies “horribly wrong”. But at least he works hard at it.




Btw Victor, have you ever considered raising bricks in the Poconos?
DrafterX Offline
#604 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
wasn't Copernicus that ape dude from Planet of the Apes..?? Think
DrMaddVibe Offline
#605 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time.

The U.S. Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide “high-quality” climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the U.S. in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years.

The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide “continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations,” NOAA states on its website. “The stations are placed in pristine environments expected to be free of development for many decades.” In essence, NOAA chose locations so they don’t need to be adjusted for “biases” in the temperature record.

”Clearly, a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ exists in this most pristine climate data,” writes Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That. “In fact, a very slight cooling trend appears.”

Watts’s plotting of U.S. Surface Climate Observing Reference Networks (USCRN) data comes after NOAA researchers put out a study claiming there’s been no “hiatus” in global warming– a 15-year period with no significant rise in the world’s average temperature. Basically, NOAA made adjustments to weather stations, buoys and ships that increased the warming trend from older data.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus’,” NOAA scientists wrote in their study.

NOAA found that from 1998 to 2012 there was “more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists wrote. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

NOAA’s latest climate adjustments were sharply criticized by climate scientists skeptical of man-made global warming. Skeptics argued NOAA’s data adjustments were largely unwarranted and excluded data that didn’t fit with the global warming narrative.

“My bottom line assessment is this,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. “I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated.”

“The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target,” Curry added. “So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

What’s interesting about the USCRN data is that it was created to provide scientists with “long-term sustainable and robust climate observations that are necessary to document long-term climate change trends for the United States,” according to NOAA. Much of this relies on the fact that these climate stations are placed in areas that don’t need to be adjusted for interference, like urban heat created in cities.

NOAA’s latest temperature update did not include USCRN data. One reason for this may be that the USCRN stations only have about a decade of data on them, which could be considered too short of a time period to use them in their analysis.

It should also be noted that USCRN only covers the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska, but the rest of the world lacks these high quality weather stations that don’t require temperatures to go through ex post facto adjustments by NOAA.

Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others.

“So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?” Watts asked.

“While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual ‘State of the Climate’ reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the [National Climatic Data Center] website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted,” Watts added. “We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.”




http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/
DrafterX Offline
#606 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Sounds about right to me.... Mellow
Brewha Offline
#607 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
wasn't Copernicus that ape dude from Planet of the Apes..?? Think

I think you’re tryin’ to make a monkey out of my posting…..
Brewha Offline
#608 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrMaddVibe wrote:
America’s Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

Data from America’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the U.S. has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time........


http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/

So I go to The Daily Caller and a head line reads:
Local Paper Reacts; News Alert Claiming ‘The Sun Just Exploded’

Another DMV link……
DrafterX Offline
#609 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Brewha wrote:
I think you’re tryin’ to make a monkey out of my posting…..



no way man.... just a thought.... I don't think I'll ever understand my thought process... Think
tailgater Offline
#610 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
If I drove a smart car I could fuel it with the irony.
victor809 Offline
#611 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
No Victor, I do not agree that I am “horribly wrong”. I may not have told the whole story of Copernicus, but saying that the Church exiled him is accurate.

Eric, on the other hand, exemplifies “horribly wrong”. But at least he works hard at it.




Btw Victor, have you ever considered raising bricks in the Poconos?


I tried raising bricks. But BPS (Brick Protective Services) took them away from me. Said I was being neglectful.

Anyway, from what I read (I am NOT a historian, and I did NOT sleep at a Holiday Inn or whatever) the church and Copernicus were all "we're cool brah"" while he was alive. It wasn't until he was dead and there was some brief protestant anti-science revival (kind of like what we're seeing in the south now) that the church decided to be all anti-copernicus.
victor809 Offline
#612 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Vic, fuel prices impact the cost of EVERYTHING.
if it were only the daily commute We'd all own a prius.


First off... hell no. I'd still drive my BMW.

Second, what costs? I honestly don't know of anything that seems outrageously expensive? I agree that fuel impacts the cost of the supply chain. And I agree that there is a cost for anything made from petroleum products (assuming that item comes from the same fraction as fuel). But I don't see anything in my life as being that expensive...

Let me rephrase that... when I look at the total cost of the items I've been buying, the bulk of the cost is certainly not fuel or petroleum based input. When I buy a 4$ latte, how much do you really think the price of fuel for harvesting the beans, bringing them to the cafe, sourcing the milk etc etc etc really contributes, vs how much is simply mark-up by starbucks or whatever cafe owner it is, or labor for the highly trained baristas? When you buy a $20 drink at a bar, do you really think lower gas prices is going to make that cheaper? To keep the topic somewhat based around cigars, do you really think there is much impact gas prices will have on your $20 cigars? How much more do you think you're paying for your cigars because gas is 4$ instead of $2? How do you think that price compares to the percentage you're paying for taxes or raw material or labor?
victor809 Offline
#613 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I don't want it to seem like I don't agree with you tail. I do. fuel cost impacts the price of everything. But to think that it impacts your life that much is a little disingenuous. The point where you're smoking cigars for a hobby, you're in a "luxury" lifestyle and are not looking at the bare margins of everything. Sure, if gas were $2/gallon I'd save $100 a month, I suppose I'd save a few dollars more than that on various supply chain items.... But compared to the other expenses in my life that's just not that big an impact.
tailgater Offline
#614 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
So you admit fuel costs could prompt one to move closer to work, but not to opt for a more fuel efficient vehicle.

frankj1 Offline
#615 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,245
victor809 wrote:
I don't want it to seem like I don't agree with you tail. I do. fuel cost impacts the price of everything. But to think that it impacts your life that much is a little disingenuous. The point where you're smoking cigars for a hobby, you're in a "luxury" lifestyle and are not looking at the bare margins of everything. Sure, if gas were $2/gallon I'd save $100 a month, I suppose I'd save a few dollars more than that on various supply chain items.... But compared to the other expenses in my life that's just not that big an impact.

the lawn crew charges me more!
victor809 Offline
#616 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
So you admit fuel costs could prompt one to move closer to work, but not to opt for a more fuel efficient vehicle.



I said I wasn't getting a more fuel efficient vehicle. My point is pretty clear, unless you already live close to work or drive a fuel efficient vehicle, the bulk of your fuel expenses are a "luxury" in that they allow you to live in some area other than where you work.
Brewha Offline
#617 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
victor809 wrote:
First off... hell no. I'd still drive my BMW.


Yeah, but admit it; deep down inside and secretly - you really want a Prius.
With a Louis Vuitton shifter…..
victor809 Offline
#618 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
Yeah, but admit it; deep down inside and secretly - you really want a Prius.
With a Louis Vuitton shifter…..


Me? No. But the gf will literally wear anything with LV on it. Don't get me started on their f-ing suitcases.
Brewha Offline
#619 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
victor809 wrote:
Me? No. But the gf will literally wear anything with LV on it. Don't get me started on their f-ing suitcases.

Well at least you lead by example, living walking distance from restaurants and entertainment, only using a small apartment, driving a four cylinder. You help make others green……
victor809 Offline
#620 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
Well at least you lead by example, living walking distance from restaurants and entertainment, only using a small apartment, driving a four cylinder. You help make others green……


Straight six. Let's not get hasty. No way I'm moving down to 4 cylinders.
banderl Offline
#621 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
How far is your commute if you're spending more than that? I'm driving about 1.75hr per day just getting to and from work.... that's a pain in the azz commute in my mind.



I don't commute when I huff gas.
frankj1 Offline
#622 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,245
banderl wrote:
I don't commute when I huff gas.

good decision.
tailgater Offline
#623 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I said I wasn't getting a more fuel efficient vehicle. My point is pretty clear, unless you already live close to work or drive a fuel efficient vehicle, the bulk of your fuel expenses are a "luxury" in that they allow you to live in some area other than where you work.


What you said was "if gas were prohibitively expensive, (you'd) move closer to work"
You then said that you'd never trade the Beemer for a Prius regardless of fuel costs.

So you'd MOVE before you parted with your status symbol.
Not a bad thing. Just an odd sense of priorities.



As for the impact of fuel prices, I'm in the plastics industry so I'm affected directly. Manufacture and transit costs are literally more than double what they were a mere dozen years ago.

So fuel costs don't just affect "luxury" items. Maybe for you. Based on your age, profession, social life and living situation. But for many it's a huge issue.


victor809 Offline
#624 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
What you said was "if gas were prohibitively expensive, (you'd) move closer to work"
You then said that you'd never trade the Beemer for a Prius regardless of fuel costs.

So you'd MOVE before you parted with your status symbol.
Not a bad thing. Just an odd sense of priorities.

Well, those were two temporally different statements. Gas is not prohibitively expensive for me, so I have no need to either move or turn in my beemer (it's almost a decade old, it isn't a status symbol, I just like how it drives). If there is a time in the future at which gas becomes prohibitively expensive for me, then I'd change my current commuting habits, likely well before leaving the city. Of course, if gas has become so expensive that someone who can afford rent in SF cannot afford gas to drive out of SF... then you've got a serious gas price problem...


Quote:

As for the impact of fuel prices, I'm in the plastics industry so I'm affected directly. Manufacture and transit costs are literally more than double what they were a mere dozen years ago.

So fuel costs don't just affect "luxury" items. Maybe for you. Based on your age, profession, social life and living situation. But for many it's a huge issue.



For the manufacturers it's a big issue, I'll agree. Your widget may cost 2x the amount to make. But remember, your widget is only a percentage of the final product cost... yes a lot of things are made from plastic... but there are additional costs going into the price of a final product (including "branding" costs, which are completely valueless, but add enormous markup to final goods). .

There are people who are affected by the cost of gas. But we as americans hear a disproportionate amount of noise around the cost of gas compared to the number of people actually impacted in any way or the amount of impact it actually has. Think about it... outside of the costs you deal with at work, has the price of gas really impacted you at all? Have you bought less gourmet coffee beans? Fewer cigars?
mikey1597 Offline
#625 Posted:
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
victor809 wrote:
Well, those were two temporally different statements. Gas is not prohibitively expensive for me, so I have no need to either move or turn in my beemer (it's almost a decade old, it isn't a status symbol, I just like how it drives). If there is a time in the future at which gas becomes prohibitively expensive for me, then I'd change my current commuting habits, likely well before leaving the city. Of course, if gas has become so expensive that someone who can afford rent in SF cannot afford gas to drive out of SF... then you've got a serious gas price problem...



For the manufacturers it's a big issue, I'll agree. Your widget may cost 2x the amount to make. But remember, your widget is only a percentage of the final product cost... yes a lot of things are made from plastic... but there are additional costs going into the price of a final product (including "branding" costs, which are completely valueless, but add enormous markup to final goods). .

There are people who are affected by the cost of gas. But we as Americans hear a disproportionate amount of noise around the cost of gas compared to the number of people actually impacted in any way or the amount of impact it actually has. Think about it... outside of the costs you deal with at work, has the price of gas really impacted you at all? Have you bought less gourmet coffee beans? Fewer cigars?



Fixed it for ya
tailgater Offline
#626 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Well, those were two temporally different statements.


Some would say "contradictory"




victor809 wrote:
For the manufacturers it's a big issue, I'll agree. Your widget may cost 2x the amount to make. But remember, your widget is only a percentage of the final product cost... yes a lot of things are made from plastic... but there are additional costs going into the price of a final product (including "branding" costs, which are completely valueless, but add enormous markup to final goods). .



Branding. Like "Mercedes"?

Dude, plastic isn't just the product. It's the packaging and the storefront that advertises it.
Oil/fuel/gas/diesel/energy is the tail that wags the dog. Supply and demand sets the price, so the individual pieces simply make due with less.
You don't see it until it ships over seas. Then you bemoan the greedy business owner. Well, not you. You might understand that they're simply driven by profits. But even you can't see that the margins are disappearing thanks to that insignificant thing known as fuel prices.

victor809 Offline
#627 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Some would say "contradictory"

Potato Potahto....
Quote:


Branding. Like "Mercedes"?

Dude, plastic isn't just the product. It's the packaging and the storefront that advertises it.
Oil/fuel/gas/diesel/energy is the tail that wags the dog. Supply and demand sets the price, so the individual pieces simply make due with less.
You don't see it until it ships over seas. Then you bemoan the greedy business owner. Well, not you. You might understand that they're simply driven by profits. But even you can't see that the margins are disappearing thanks to that insignificant thing known as fuel prices.



Margins disappear... that's kind of what they do in most businesses. Then you raise the prices when you can't handle the thin margins any longer, and the consumer pays a little bit more for the final product (after Mercedes or Louis Vuitton has already slapped a 300% markup on it....) I understand completely what you're talking about, my point is that even after all the various manufacturers have had to raise their prices to deal with the increased cost of doing business, your average american is likely not overly inconvenienced. A more salient way of looking at it is simply this, what percentage of your annual income are you spending on durable goods? TVs, computers, phones.... do you really buy that many a year that it's having an impact on your life if they become more expensive to manufacture? Compare that to how much you spend on latte's a year (or scotch, or some other high-markup consumable)...

I know when I look at my monthly expenses, at various times in my life the highest categories (after rent) are Starbucks, alcohol and restaurant expenses ... these are very high mark-up goods, and a slight increase in the COGS is not likely to impact the price by a high percentage, because direct COGS is not a large percentage of the price to begin with.
MACS Offline
#628 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,867
Victor... if you're renting an apartment, and driving almost 2 hours commuting, in a BMW... you may have spent too much time in science class and not enough time in ECONOMICS.

A home (traditionally) appreciates. Cars go the opposite direction. So... before you spend luxury money on a depreciating asset, you should already own a home.

Just sayin'.
tonygraz Offline
#629 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,310
And there will always be something to do in order to maintain that home.
wheelrite Offline
#630 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
Brewha wrote:
Well at least you lead by example, You help make others green……

I want to procreate on you...




oh my

wheel,,

MACS Offline
#631 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,867
tonygraz wrote:
And there will always be something to do in order to maintain that home.


Been in my house 15 years. I know eventually I will have to shell out some money for something... but in 15 years, I have replaced a water pressure regulator and some toilet parts.

In that time, I have earned about 100% of what I paid for my home in equity. If you've rented for 15 years... you've earned someone else that equity, so your point would be completely devoid of any common sense whatsoever.

At one point, before the housing bubble burst, had I sold my home I would have tripled my money. But I submit to you, once I own my home, I will happily pay $5,000 a year to maintain it rather than $18,000 in rent/mortgage.

Your mileage may vary...
jpotts Offline
#632 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
victor809 wrote:
Potato Potahto....


Margins disappear... that's kind of what they do in most businesses. Then you raise the prices when you can't handle the thin margins any longer, and the consumer pays a little bit more for the final product (after Mercedes or Louis Vuitton has already slapped a 300% markup on it....) I understand completely what you're talking about, my point is that even after all the various manufacturers have had to raise their prices to deal with the increased cost of doing business, your average american is likely not overly inconvenienced. A more salient way of looking at it is simply this, what percentage of your annual income are you spending on durable goods? TVs, computers, phones.... do you really buy that many a year that it's having an impact on your life if they become more expensive to manufacture? Compare that to how much you spend on latte's a year (or scotch, or some other high-markup consumable)...

I know when I look at my monthly expenses, at various times in my life the highest categories (after rent) are Starbucks, alcohol and restaurant expenses ... these are very high mark-up goods, and a slight increase in the COGS is not likely to impact the price by a high percentage, because direct COGS is not a large percentage of the price to begin with.


What a complete load of unmitigated Bull. Stick to big Pharma Victor. You're out of your depth here.

The reason why there is a THRIVING used car market out there has much to do with the price of a car. And the price of a car skyrockets when artificial costs are pumped into the price.

Costs like government regulations, to be specific. You know that the government has mandated that at one point, every new car will have a rear-view back-up monitor installed? Do you have even the slightest idea what adding that does to:

1) R&D Costs,
2) Warranty costs,
3) Vehicle development costs (because those things have to work nice-nice with the rest of the car),
4) After-market / service / maintenance costs (technicians have to diagnose and fix them),
4) Sourcing a supplier that will provide components that will meet federal requirements, and do so with low defects, and high volume,
5) Hours and hours of testing the component in various ways by multiple people.

You rack up MILLIONS of dollars of accumulated costs because of a slight change in one single government regulation. And it is artificial, and directly impacts margins. So costs of vehicles go up, up, and up.

Why do you think people lease these days as opposed to buy? It is, for the most part, because the price of vehicles has outstripped the consumer's ability to pay-to-own. So forced into this situation, car manufacturers lease the car on one side, then sell it used on the other to make up the difference.

So yes, the average American IS overly inconvenienced. Likewise, they are spending more for less. I could buy a car, run that thing for ten years. After five years, it's paid off, driving my cost over the remaining time (I usually keep my vehicles longer than 10 years) down with each year. Whereas if you lease each year, the cost for the lease goes up for the same basic vehicle because the cost of the vehicle artificially rises.

Likewise, my parents owned a retail store. I can tell you from direct experience, when prices rise, and wages do not rise proportionally, people spend less. Period. The made do with less. Any price increases - especially in retail markets - has a HUGE impact in sales. Hence the reason why some food manufacturers will reduce portion sizes in order to maintain the same price. Because the consumer first looks t the price of an item, not the volume /quantity for the price. Very few do that type of cost calculation on most purchases.

So, in short, you're completely full of it.

tailgater Offline
#633 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Victor, all I'm saying is that fuel prices aren't a luxury expense for MOST people.
ZRX1200 Offline
#634 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Victor you owe jpotts an apology.
tonygraz Offline
#635 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,310
Hey Pottsie, I think that business slowed down at your parents' store because people couldn't stand their little nasty arrogant brat that hung around there.
victor809 Offline
#636 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
MACS wrote:
Victor... if you're renting an apartment, and driving almost 2 hours commuting, in a BMW... you may have spent too much time in science class and not enough time in ECONOMICS.

A home (traditionally) appreciates. Cars go the opposite direction. So... before you spend luxury money on a depreciating asset, you should already own a home.

Just sayin'.


You'd be right MACS. If it weren't for the details. Like I said before, the BMW is almost 10 years old. I bought it with 50k miles on it. Depreciation is still occurring, of course, but it's not at the steep end of the curve.

Similarly, when looking at the homes I would be interested in buying (condos), when combining the non-recuperated expenses, things like condo fees (300-700$/mo), property taxes (800$+/mo) and interest on a $500k mortgage, these will be close to, or possibly more than the rent I pay. Yes, there is equity to be had by buying property, but these properties simply don't have the growth potential right now to be worth the effort. Especially considering the cash I've been holding for the purchase has gone up significantly more than property values over the past year.

I'm not disagreeing with you MACS, but when you look at the details, the money I'm losing isn't that significant. But don't think we haven't been considering buying for the past year and a half. The available units don't appear to be an appropriate value
ZRX1200 Offline
#637 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Tony.....jpotts is a made man here.

Stay in your lane, you are out of your league.
victor809 Offline
#638 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
jpotts wrote:
What a complete load of unmitigated Bull. Stick to big Pharma Victor. You're out of your depth here.

The reason why there is a THRIVING used car market out there has much to do with the price of a car. And the price of a car skyrockets when artificial costs are pumped into the price.

Costs like government regulations, to be specific. You know that the government has mandated that at one point, every new car will have a rear-view back-up monitor installed? Do you have even the slightest idea what adding that does to:

1) R&D Costs,
2) Warranty costs,
....blah blah blah....





Funny... once again you've written a whole lot of tripe, without relating any of this to the discussion about fuel prices. Gonna explain how regulating a rearview back-up monitor is part of the price of gas?

Your apology is accepted.
victor809 Offline
#639 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
Victor, all I'm saying is that fuel prices aren't a luxury expense for MOST people.


I still disagree TG. I would maintain that when you look at the total impact of fuel prices (ie, COGS, commuting, home heating) the largest percentage of these costs is likely still an individual's daily commute. Their choice to not live close to wherever they are commuting is by definition a choice, and therefore not a necessity.

Maybe the average american is buying 200$ worth of petroleum products a month and I don't realize it... but it just doesn't seem like it.
DrafterX Offline
#640 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
I do... I was spending almost twice that before I bought my new ride... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#641 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
I do... I was spending almost twice that before I bought my new ride... Mellow


I was talking about petroleum products not directly used to make a vehicle move. Plastics, flip-flops, condoms... but thank you for helping to support my point.
Brewha Offline
#642 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
ZRX1200 wrote:
Victor you owe jpotts an apology.

Or maybe just some prunes....
Brewha Offline
#643 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
This just in:

Pope Francis has gone on record as saying that climate change is real, that we are damaging the planet, and need to make it a priority. Now not only does he have a masters degree in chemistry, but he says he is on a first name basis with God.

Wheelrite is a good Catholic boy, so I'm sure he will back this fully.
victor809 Offline
#644 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
This just in:

Pope Francis has gone on record as saying that climate change is real, that we are damaging the planet, and need to make it a priority. Now not only does he have a masters degree in chemistry, but he says he is on a first name basis with God.

Wheelrite is a good Catholic boy, so I'm sure he will back this fully.


To be honest, the pope believing in global warming is about as meaningful as wheel believing he's 5'11". The pope is a religious leader and as such an expert in believing in things which do not have any scientific data to support them.

Yes, he used to be a chemist at one point, but his current occupation is just too far removed from chemistry. If a marathon runner quit his job completely and became the best competitive eater inthe world... after 30 years you don't really rely on their long distance running skills.
Brewha Offline
#645 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
victor809 wrote:
To be honest, the pope believing in global warming is about as meaningful as wheel believing he's 5'11". The pope is a religious leader and as such an expert in believing in things which do not have any scientific data to support them.

Yes, he used to be a chemist at one point, but his current occupation is just too far removed from chemistry. If a marathon runner quit his job completely and became the best competitive eater inthe world... after 30 years you don't really rely on their long distance running skills.

So I can put you down as a non-believer?
victor809 Offline
#646 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
So I can put you down as a non-believer?


that's a safe bet.
DrafterX Offline
#647 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
put him down cause he's a non-believer..?? Huh
Brewha Offline
#648 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
victor809 wrote:
that's a safe bet.

Careful, remember what they did to Copernicus.......
Brewha Offline
#649 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
put him down cause he's a non-believer..?? Huh

Damn, I missed that one.......
DrafterX Offline
#650 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,577
Brewha wrote:
Careful, remember what they did to Copernicus.......



Did they send him to the forbidden zone..?? Huh
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
18 Pages«<91011121314151617>»