Volt pricing announced. Starts at $41,000*

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by truth411

but once it goes back to $4.50 a gallon again there will be more demand for it IMO.

I think you're RIGHT ON.

Note the period when the Volt was conceived and rammed through the bureaucracy to develop....fuel prices were high...

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I think you're RIGHT ON.

Note the period when the Volt was conceived and rammed through the bureaucracy to develop....fuel prices were high...

Sadly, there's no reason gas has to be $4.50 per gallon. It could easily be under $1.75 a gallon if not for unfettered government.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Sadly, there's no reason gas has to be $4.50 per gallon. It could easily be under $1.75 a gallon if not for unfettered government.

And it should be over $4/gal

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And it should be over $4/gal

It SHOULD be over $4 per gallon?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

It SHOULD be over $4 per gallon?

Yup, so that when it actually gets too expensive (say $7 or $8 per gal) there will be a 'pressure relief valve' in place. But in the mean time, demand and infrastructure for mass transit could get built up using tax money from gasoline, thus removing traffic from the highways and making it easier for me to drive. All of that would then cut down on the amount of fuel imported from overseas.

By the way, I'm paying $3.80/gal right now.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Sadly, there's no reason gas has to be $4.50 per gallon. It could easily be under $1.75 a gallon if not for unfettered government.

I doubt it....strongly. All the stories I've read during the hike in '08 explained how the prices shouldn't be that high...but they are rising, naturally. They often highlighted how the spike didn't correspond to the natural rise in price. Perhaps I misread though...I'm always down for more reading.

'Natural', aside....I tend to agree with DG in that fuel prices need to be higher if we want to "reduce our emissions". I don't agree we need them higher, because I don't think we need to reduce our emissions...but if that is the goal -- the easiest, least invasive way to do it is to artificially raise fuel prices and direct the revenue to sorely-needed infrastructure repair.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Yup, so that when it actually gets too expensive there will be a 'pressure relief valve' but in the mean time, demand and infrastructure for mass transit could get built up, thus removing traffic from the highways and making it easier for me to drive.

By the way, I'm paying $3.80/gal right now.

You can't simply say what price intermediate goods are going to be lol.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I doubt it....strongly. All the stories I've read during the hike in '08 explained how the prices shouldn't be that high...but they are rising, naturally. They often highlighted how the spike didn't correspond to the natural rise in price.

'Natural', aside....I tend to agree with DG in that fuel prices need to be higher if we want to "reduce our emissions". I don't agree we need them higher, because I don't think we need to reduce our emissions...but if that is the goal -- the easiest, least invasive way to do it is to artificially raise fuel prices and direct the revenue to sorely-needed infrastructure repair.

Capitalism is at its strongest point when allocating resources and its usage of the price mechanism. Capitalism would also drastically reduce the cost of oil, and disregarding this fact would to be simply disregarding simple economics.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Capitalism would also drastically reduce the cost of oil, and disregarding this fact would to be simply disregarding simple economics.

That contradicts what I've read. Markets are subsidizing fuels everywhere (especially China and India) because the natural, supply/demand price would be much higher.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

That contradicts what I've read. Markets are subsidizing fuels everywhere (especially China and India) because the natural, supply/demand price would be much higher.

Subsidizing fuels is simply a government intervention and a costly one at that. Also, I'm not talking about Capitalism in the sense of our current systems, where the principle of our current supply/demand is too influenced by government intervention for it to truly take its intended implementation. To regard the current global economic climate as Capitalist is plainly wrong, but to the contrary I'm talking about capitalism in the Austrian theory. Stripping regulations around the world would see a drastic reduction in price, because again the influences of government intervention are too wide for any pure capitalist principle to exist.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

but to the contrary I'm talking about capitalism in the Austrian theory. Stripping regulations around the world would see a drastic reduction in price, because again the influences of government intervention are too wide for any pure capitalist principle to exist.

Not that I like them...but I can't help but wonder what other effects stripping regulations across the world would have.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Not that I like them...but I can't help but wonder what other effects stripping regulations across the world would have.

Well, this definitely depends on your economic, philosophical, and sociological standings. Socialists would assume a chaotic world where we are exploited by corporations at their will, and the majority would live well below the poverty line. Capitalists on the other hand would assert a vastly increased standard of living for all, as well as freedom for the individual to do as he pleases.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Well, this definitely depends on your economic, philosophical, and sociological standings. Socialists would assume a chaotic world where we are exploited by corporations at their will, and the majority would live well below the poverty line. Capitalists on the other hand would assert a vastly increased standard of living for all, as well as freedom for the individual to do as he pleases.

What about those people in the middle with their heads on straight?

Anyways, that assumes a start from a blank slate....
I was imagining someone hitting the "deregulation button" tomorrow....




Edited post, whoops!

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

That assumes a start from a blank slate. I was imagining someone hitting a button tomorrow....

Definitely depends on where that missile is pointed at.