More Fuel Protests Threatened - Would they be justified?
- Thread starter magneze
- Start date
Going to break down your post
1. in the medium term a rising oil price will cause inflation
2. So fuel as a proportion of real income returns to roughly the same place
3a. won't actually affect car use
3b. except that post-inflation we'll all probably be a bit poorer and our consumption of everything will be less, in which case it's more important for car manufacturers to make cheaper cars
1 - fine. But most people do not think 1 is the way forward.
2 - Not really true. Some goods are more inflation sensitive than others.
3a - no 1, no 2, not going to get 3a!
3b - total rubbish
Anyway, the point you were addressing (that a massive increase in the price of oil would cause manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars) isn't something I'm entirely convinced on. Fuel economy is something that is already very high on the agenda for many car manufacturers.
1. in the medium term a rising oil price will cause inflation
2. So fuel as a proportion of real income returns to roughly the same place
3a. won't actually affect car use
3b. except that post-inflation we'll all probably be a bit poorer and our consumption of everything will be less, in which case it's more important for car manufacturers to make cheaper cars
1 - fine. But most people do not think 1 is the way forward.
2 - Not really true. Some goods are more inflation sensitive than others.
3a - no 1, no 2, not going to get 3a!
3b - total rubbish
Anyway, the point you were addressing (that a massive increase in the price of oil would cause manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars) isn't something I'm entirely convinced on. Fuel economy is something that is already very high on the agenda for many car manufacturers.
Magneze said:
I don't know... GM had thrown (as of March 2005) $1 billion into Hydrogen fuel cells, Toyota is pushing ahead with Electric (currently by using hybrids but then moving over) and European manufacturers are using the 'alternative' (if you can call it that) of efficient diesel (Honda too).
the B said:
How do you mean, I was addressing a point suggesting exactly that should happen.
In terms of oil - anything that needs transport or power is sensitive. Sure it would affect different areas of the economy in different ways, but I don't think it's outrageous to claim that a rise in oil price cause fairly broad inflation.
I was trying to be simplistic. I seriously don't think that transport costs will rise significantly as a proportion of real income over the medium term. Do you?
3b - total rubbish
How does inflation not reduce the income of waged employees?
Sorry. said:
First off - your suggestion that there would be a 'medium term' (medium term is kind of meaningless in economics by the way...) rising in the price of oil.
Why have lots of small increases? Why not just one big increase? If you know it's going to increase steadily overtime, traders will just discount expectations (the interest rate) against the future price to the spot (current) price and make it leap in an effective single bound anyway.
Some goods are more inflation sensitive than others because they take longer to produce, value is distributed across different sectors (some of which may compete against oil!) etc. I'd of thought that'd be pretty damn obvious... for example, the cost of a good I could buy now and probably forever buy right now if I wanted it (apples) is going to be a lot less inflation sensitive than trying to buy a super massive yacht that will take 10 years to build.
To address the last two points - historically, transport costs have fallen over time.
Inflation/wage link is a different kettle of mostly very boring fish. You implied there would be a longer term fall in the natural growth rate due to inflation erosion. Historically, the reverse happens.
Although inflation on the kind of scale we now see it is a recent thing in economic history, the level of growth massively outstrips it such that real growth is increasing over time.
Inflation/wage link is a different kettle of mostly very boring fish. You implied there would be a longer term fall in the natural growth rate due to inflation erosion. Historically, the reverse happens.
Although inflation on the kind of scale we now see it is a recent thing in economic history, the level of growth massively outstrips it such that real growth is increasing over time.
the B said:
What difference does it make?
Yeah and?
Point was, that if you're a car manufacturer you're not going to base your r&d program on high oil prices diminishing petrol consumption, unless you're convinced that the price rises will affect petrol prices as a proportion of real income when it comes to the point where you will actually be building and selling these cars.
moose
like some cat from Japan
Why is everyone so obsessed with car drivers? The main groups protesting last time (and planning to do so this time) were not representing private car drivers, but the haulage industry. Some people here seem to have a blind spot which leads them to think increased fuel prices will only affect their pet hate, car drivers, whereas in fact everyone pays increased costs for food and consumer goods (a situation which will only be exacerbated by the expansion of the Working Time Directive, btw, increasing costs and daytime congestion)
so if they are planning a car convoy or whatever I may well join em. Made quite an impact back in 2000 IIRCparallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
So the increased cost of haulage (exacerbated by the WTD - though I don't see how daytime congestion is made any worse: it's mainly about total hours, breaks and spacing between shifts) will hit worst companies which shift goods unnecessarily long distances (e.g. supermarkets). Of course, supermarket and other chain-store outlets are generally more difficult to reach without a car, so petrol shortages would hit them that way too. Meanwhile people have to use local shops because they're easier to get to. Sounds good to me!moose said:
moose
like some cat from Japan
There is specific legislation about night time driving. Also, more goods will be carried in smaller vehicles for which tachos are not required, leading to more vans on the roads.parallelepipete said:
If you live outside a city, you will understand that local shops simply don't exist any more. For example, in the small town I live in, there are no greengrocers whatsoever. If you want vegetables you must go to a supermarket.parallelepipete said:
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
There appears to be a little confusion over the way fuel is taxed in the UK.
There is already a 'per litre' tax levied upon fuels for road use.
These are: Dinodiesel (DERV) and petrol at £0.46ppl, biofuels (biodiesel/veg oil etc) at £0.26ppl and LPG at £0.09ppl.
On top of that we pay 17.5% VAT.
Therefore, it's covered both ways.
AFAIAA, there has been no recent change in any of these duty rates, nor is there any planned.
-
As I mentioned on a parallel thread (in UKP), an interesting article appeared in the Guardian in Oct 2000, just after the 'fuel crisis':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4071229-103772,00.html
I found the article worth reading as it really helped to explain a few things that didn't appear to make sense at the time.
Edit to add: Doh. add £0.0122 to those duty rates as of, erm, last week.
Full duty rates here: (pdf!) http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD1_023928
There is already a 'per litre' tax levied upon fuels for road use.
These are: Dinodiesel (DERV) and petrol at £0.46ppl, biofuels (biodiesel/veg oil etc) at £0.26ppl and LPG at £0.09ppl.
On top of that we pay 17.5% VAT.
Therefore, it's covered both ways.
AFAIAA, there has been no recent change in any of these duty rates, nor is there any planned.
-
As I mentioned on a parallel thread (in UKP), an interesting article appeared in the Guardian in Oct 2000, just after the 'fuel crisis':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4071229-103772,00.html
I found the article worth reading as it really helped to explain a few things that didn't appear to make sense at the time.
Edit to add: Doh. add £0.0122 to those duty rates as of, erm, last week.
Full duty rates here: (pdf!) http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/downloadFile?contentID=HMCE_PROD1_023928
Sorry. said:
Huge? Because it eliminates your line of reasoning by getting rid of your starting point.
Given the historical trend for the cost of motoring to fall over time (absolute real terms and as a share of the weighted basket of goods) and that car manufacturers have far more considerations to make in their R&D programme, your point is just pants
People don't buy cars because of point A to B anymore. They want options, extras - it's the power of advertising for you when it comes to the things. Given how car manufacture is so unprofitable for most firms (only real exception being Toyota) - value added product is what counts for them.
It'll be a long time (and a single massive jump in fuel prices - not a gradual rise - which the market would turn into a single massive tise) before future oil prices lead to technologies that are massive sellers. The current trend in R&D away from Toyota and GM is towards improved safety, reliability and driver aids.
moose - yes, the end of cheap oil would increase costs for us all - but maybe we should think about paying what many think really is a more appropriate price for it.
the B said:
Even if implementing it means vast majorities of the population are either very badly off as a result or cant afford to make it into work in the first place? (note this was based on a big price hike).
If your not using a car, you have to get a local job, if no local jobs are available, how are you gonna eat? Let alone pay the rent.
Magneze said:
No, they're lame and always will be lame because they're basicaly glorified batteries used to power electric motors. And electric motors are teh suck, because they're not powerful enough and don't go BROOOOOOOOOM.
Unlike a BMW with a hydrogen powered v12
http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/h2r_racer.htm
No what we need is a few dozen nuclear power plants to produce loads of hydrogen, and we can laugh as the middle east becomes poor again and they all starve to death / get invaded by israel
tw1ggy5 said:
As I said on the other thread, I don't think a soft landing on this thing is possible. I'd like to avoid a 1920s style depression (the sort where 25% of people are unemployed for example) but some things are VERY difficult to avoid when there isn't the politically will at a grassroots level, let alone with the 'big boys'.
You can either take the hike now or wait until there's just none left (provided no stunning alternative is arrived at)
Economic growth since the industrial revolution has predominantly been driven by cheap and easy energy in the shape of fossil fuels. But they won't last.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Nuclear is at best a medium-term bridge fuel and has severe inherent disadvantages. see e.g.tom k&e said:<snip> No what we need is a few dozen nuclear power plants to produce loads of hydrogen, and we can laugh as the middle east becomes poor again and they all starve to death / get invaded by israel
The fundamental problem with nuclear is that we already use vast amounts of fossil fuels to build the nuclear facilities, mine the ore, refine it and so forth.
There is a limited amount of fairly pure ore with which the energy you put in in the form of oil is less than the energy you get out. Once that stuff gets used up, there is a point at which you need to put in more energy than you get back out.
I don't wish to comment on people starving or being invaded by Israel
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Depends how long it lasts as a bridge fuel. It's a relatively small proportion of global supply right now. I've seen figures suggesting that if it were say 10% of global supply, then we'd burn through all the known good desposits of uranium ore in 14 years.tom k&e said:
Similar threads
