You think that you are old? When I was a teenager, gas sold for .26 per gallon for…probably at least 2 or 3 years. We used to be able to cruise around for a few days on $2.00 worth of gas.
Of course, the minimum wage at that point was about $1.20/hr., so perhaps things were roughly equivalent. When gas went up to .28, everyone complained about being ripped-off.
Who knows, that might even get a few high school kid to actually take a math or science class. Another “big issue” that needs some attention.
That would be a novel idea. I’m lucky in that I have a advanced degree in Mathematics…My kids benefited greatly from that. But many of their classmates are very very mathematically challenged. We also need the teachers who are qualified to teach it. My son goes to a private high-school where they have the qualified teachers. I know the head of the math department at the local high-school…All I can say is I’m glad my son is in private.
“The US spends more money every year on the war in Iraq then they’ve spent in the TOTAL amount of fusion research in the past 40 years.”
And we spend about twice as much on social security as we do on defense. Scary, isn’t it? Especially because the Boomer generation is just starting to retire.
“As was previously stated–wouldn’t it be nice if the current administration had some forward-thinking policies regarding our fiscal situation, as well as regards the energy situation?”
What incentive do they have to think ahead? There’s no penalty for ignoring problems, only addressing them. I find that aspect of our society disturbing.
The process to pull cellulose-based ethanol is much more expensive than sugar-based ethanol. That’s why corn-based ethanol is the preferred method. There are grants out there for cellulose-based ethanol in the hopes that evolving technology will reduce the cost, but it is not there, yet. There are only a few experimental producers trying it out. A long way away from any meaningful production.
Mike1nNH…I owe an apology. Please go the post on the Pruis and read it. It’s genuine. If you would just post a couple of words so I know you read it. Again, it’s genuine.
thanks, meaneyedcatz
The difference between a statesman and a politician is the desire and ability to take risks, be proactive, and do what is right for the country rather than bribe the people with their own money, and focus on re-election only. All good US presidents have had to make what appeared at the time to be unpopular decisions.
The current administration seems to have made one diastrous decision after the other. Way back “Reaganomics” worked because the US; (1) was not engaged in an insanely expensive foreign war, (2) was not running an enormous trade deficit, (3)world oil prices had not skyrocketed yet, and (4) domestic stimulation resulted in more jobs rather than only more imports. The current administration is incapable of grasping that the world has changed , and no one country can throw its weight around and influence world economic behavior. True globalization has arrived.
Thomas Friedman’s book “The World is Flat” should be required reading for everyone in the White House and every congressman/woman.
Addressing the issues of depleting oi & gas resources, global warming, balance of payments, and domestic energy consumption can all be done in one bill. The next administration will have a great time facing the new reality. A precipitous drop in the value of the US dollar may be the Pearl Harbor to finally wake up the administration.
“Way back “Reaganomics” worked because…”
Because of the incredible industrial revolution we were in the middle of at the time. The proliferation of solid state devices did more than anything else to cure our economic ills. The next economic revolution is not so far along that we have noticed it yet, if it has started at all. Don’t credit President Reagan for the great wealth creation of the 1980s. It was Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Andy Grove, and the other entrepreneurs who made the silicon economy the giant it is today.
(3)world oil prices had not skyrocketed yet
What are you talking about??? Oil prices quadrupled in 70’s. Reaganomics did NOT work…The strong economy which followed had NOTHING to with Reagon…Had everything to do with the technological revolution…
I’m not crediting Ronald Reagan with anything; I just wanted to point out that he was able to make fiscal moves to stimulate the economy which would have been disastrous at any other time. You are right, the US economy was under-performing at that time, and there was enough money and new technology available to allow it to take a quantum leap in performance and productivity. Few of these conditions exist today.
I’m referring to oil and other energy prices in terms of percentage of GDP. In the early-mid eighties oil prices crashed to $15/barrel, after the Iranian revoltion ran its course. Reagan came after Carter, who had to deal with the run-up in oil prices in the late 70s and early eighties.
The quadrupling in the seventies was an increase from $3.50 to $11.50 per barrel.
" “Way back “Reaganomics” worked because…”
Anyone buys that starement is a historical revisionist.
No new taxes that caused Bush on the election and later signed into war was a rebuff of the temp. wallstreet bump given bu his economics. Everyone else suffered. Bush two uses EXACTLY the same eco. policies with no re education for lost jobs and a third world economy recession that he’s pleased to lead.
Dropping interest rates is the WORST eco policy in the long run. A temp. fallacy that floated Reagon and Bush 3 and put us where we are.
Leading economist all stated that sustained eco growth can only occur in an enviornment with interest rates of at least 7 to 8%. No growth or return on investment, no long term bussines incentives. That was over Reagan’s head and Bush 2 who is dumber than me…a pres. dumber than the ave. joe is not who we want.
Have you heard of the FUEL CELL MODIFICATION KIT? It is advertised as being able to quadruple your gas
mileage, only costs $1000 to buy (plus installation costs) and it can be accessed on www.picctv.com.
I am thinking of getting this if it works, but cant find data on it at all? Do you know anything about this product that advertises itself as being able to boost a 2001 hyundai accent from 33mpg to 75mpg?
ETC ETC Sounds too good to be true, but hoping it is POSSIBLE?
Theresa