Bush and 'Big Three:' Less oil

Bush and Cheney want us to reduce our dependence on oil now that they've finished stuffing their pockets and those of their rich friends of billions of dollars in profit money.

I applaud any simcere effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
If the Big Three could design an ATTRACTIVE auto that runs on alternative fuel, that would be a winning combo.

Blah blah blah, less oil, blah blah blah, ethanol, blah blah blah, biodiesel. There, they talked about it. Now they'll make a nice press release and then talk some more six months later.

Meanwhile the Japanese automakers will kick their butts again with something like a plug-in version of their hybrids.

Bush and Cheney want Americans to consume less oil like wolves want sheep equipped with machine-guns.

Big Three?

You forgot Toyota which, I believe, is ranked two.

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-fi-autos2feb02,0,2809203.story?coll=la-class-autos-highway1

Japan will take the lead (and assume the risk) by manufacturing and marketing more hybrid and eventually electric cars that all of us want to buy. We will buy them, then we will read more whining from the Big Three about the high cost of ungrateful American union workers and a fickle and unpatriotic American consumer.

Enough already -- make the cars. Japan isn't whining, they are innovating and risking. In 10 years, the Big Three will consist of Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi They are almost there.

In 10 years, the Big Three will consist of Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi They are almost there.

Posted by: Tom | Mar 26, 2007 1:53:27 PM

I personally think it'll be Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai in 10 years... add a Chinese company or two in 20.

Isn't the Big 3 now the Little 2½ since Chrysler is owned by Mercedes as Daimler Chrysler? Losing markets share and market capitalization as I write.

Do they still think the quality controls used by the Japanese 30 years ago were unnecessary added expenses while their Pintos caught fire?

It's hard to feel sorry for them, particularly as they meet with Bush "privately" which sounds a little more polite than Cheney's energy policy meetings with leaders of that industry which are sealed under Executive Privilege.

They've made most of their profits from the sales of SUVs and trucks, and despite a steady stream of press releases are flat-footed again without a dependable compact car of ANY fuel type let alone diesel, hybrids, bio- and others considered environmentally friendly. GM, for example, has been fiddling with fuel cells for nearly 20 years, I'd guess. Well?

Two words: lip service

Please, won't somebody buy our SUVs?

Bwahahahahahahahaha !!!!

Funny how they made the same mistake in the 2000s that they did in the 1970s.

They went right on building behemoths while the Japanese readied themselves for future demand.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Our fleet average is 27 miles per gallon. Great Britons fleet average is 43 miles per gallon.

I heard yesterday, Europe's AVERAGE mileage is 49 mpg....true or not? Mileage like that won't happen in the US unless it is law or people give up what we affectionately call the Suburban Attack Vehicle commonly known as SUVs.

Man, you Loony Lefties have nothing but hate, hate and more hate and a complete knack for knowing nothing!!

Ford, GM and Chrysler makes lots of cars that are high gas mileage vehicles, but few people are buying them. People are still buying the SUVs and trucks though (trucks being Ford's best sellers). They are also making hybrids. The Ford Escape is an SUV that is a hybrid. You Lefties buying it?

And while everyone seems to love ethanol, remember the more corn used for ethanol means the less corn there is for food.

And while everyone seems to love ethanol, remember the more corn used for ethanol means the less corn there is for food.

Posted by: John D | Mar 27, 2007 8:37:57 AM

I think I am now dumber for having read that.

Johnny D,
You could use a little less food. (disclaimer: this attack is mean spirited but so are the attacks on VP Al Gore's weight; and no, 2 wrongs do not make a right)

jethro, please show me where I attacked Al Gore's weight!

And thanks Beverly Hillbilly Jethro and to Dave as well for once again showing just how ignorant and clueless the Loony Left is.

Is it that difficult a concept for your blithering idiots to understand that corn used for other purposes other than food means less food? Right now we use 5 million barrels of ethanol a year. Earlier this year, Bush said he would like for 20 percent of our energy use to be ethanol. Fine. But to get to that point means more corn will have to be used. To reach that goal, from what I have read, means that one-quarter of corn grown would have to be switched from a food source to an energy source. That also means higher prices for corn-based products such as corn itself, ceral, etc. Corn also is used as feed for animals such as cows and chickens. The more it costs to feed them, the more it costs to eat them.

I know ALL of this goes over the heads of Loony Lefters, but try to understand, OK!!!

Little Johhny D,
I noticed you use a lot of question marks and exclamations in your posts. It is obvious to fellow Swampers you are confused and angry. I know of some professionals who may be able to help you if you are willing. You've made several threatening comments recently and we don't want you to act out violently.

"The Ford Escape is an SUV that is a hybrid. You Lefties buying it?"

posted by John D.
____________________

The engine of the Ford Escape Hybrid is based on Japanese technology and is built under license from Toyota.

Don't wave the flag too hard, you'll hurt yourself. No name calling required.

Janet, dear, or are you really John E. disguised as Janet? What threatening statements have I made? How am I confused or angry? Is it anything like one poster saying how glad he is that Tony Snow has cancer again so he can hurry up and die?

Oh Janet, Janet, Janet, what a waste of a human being.

And Kenny Bunkhead, the Escape is still a U.S. car sold by a U.S. manufacturer. Is that beyond your minimal grasp too?

John D,

The name's Bunkport.

You're the one waving the red, white and blue, but it's the land of the rising sun that gets the patent rights. Got that, John Dolt?

Johhny D,
Put down the gun and climb down from the clock tower. You've said your party should call a meeting for all Democrats and bomb the building they gather in and you threatened to put the Democratic leadership in front of a firing squad. If you read what I said it's combination of what you've said above and the fact that your posts contain an unusual amount of question marks and exclamation points. Just look at your comment above @ 1:54. You used 5 question marks in 6 sentences. In the one sentence you didn't use a question mark, you called me, someone you don't know, a waste of a human being. These are clear signs you are confused and angry. Please seek help before you hurt someone innocent. If you are too ashamed to seek help, a good cry may help.

Janet.... John D. doesn't need help. He needs a nickel to cover the increased cost of a box of corn-pops. Damn Ethanol! Sure, reducing dependance on foreign oil would solve a myriad of foreign policy and economic problems, but corn would cost 2% more to the consumer!

OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

(not to mention the government wouldn't have to subsidize corn farmers to the tune of $9+ billion annually.. what a horrible world that would be.)

(And then they all broke out with!)

Well we know where were goin
But we dont know where weve been
And we know what were knowin
But we cant say what weve seen
And were not little children
And we know what we want
And the future is certain
Give us time to work it out

Were on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin that ride to nowhere
Well take that ride

Im feelin okay this mornin
And you know,
Were on the road to paradise
Here we go, here we go

Were on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin that ride to nowhere
Well take that ride

Were on a road to nowhere

If any posts were excellent examples of the sheer stupidity that is the Loony Left, Janet and Dave do great jobs.

I'm all for getting away from foreign oil and I am not against ethanol. But anyone with any brain (which absolutely excludes Janet and Dave and JOhn E.) would understand that more ethanol means more than just a 2 percent increase in the cost of corn as a food.

Perhaps, this article from cnn will help (hmmm, corn DOUBLING in price, oh my!!):
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/30/news/economy/corn_ethanol/index.htm

All, I am saying is that there is more to ethanol than just getting away from foreign oil.

Also, ethanol is not the cleanest burning fuel either. I thought you guys cared about the environment?

John D.

Do you even read your own reference material?

From the article you just posted:

"Chicken Little scenario?

Simple economics is the main reason cited for debunking the "corn-out-of-control" scenario."

That Chicken Little the article you just posted is talking about? That's you.

And that increase of the price of chicken of 6 cents a pound... that's roughly... 2%. Oh no!!!

And the cost of corn increasing to $4 a bushel... that's an increase to... 7 cents a lb. OH NOOOO!!!

That box of corn-pops you eat at the store? It probably consumes 1/2 lb of corn. At most. That means it'll cost an additional 1-2 cents for Kellog's to produce it. WHAT WILL WE EVER DO!!!

And the ear of corn you're gonna eat on the 4th of July? You're paying a lot more for it to be transported to your grocer, washed, and displayed than you are for the actual ear of corn, which probably costs 2 cents on the commodities market. There's a better argument for that corn to be more expensive due to transportation and energy costs if we don't reduce our dependance on increasing foreign oil prices than from increased corn costs due to Ethanol production.

Man, you're dumb.

Dave, you are the clueless moron. I read the article and it made a whole bunch of points, both pro and con in regard to ethanol and price of corn.

But as usual you moronic Lefties cannot read, understand or comprehend. But that is par for the course.

Right now we use about 5 million barrels of ethanol. The goal is to use 20 to 25 million barrels in 10 years. I have repeatedly said I have nothing against ethanol, but it isn't a panacea.

Hey Dave, originally the Dan Ryan makeover was to cost $500 MILLION. Now, it's gonna cost at least $1 BILLION (that's a higher amount, if you didn't know). If you want to think that more ethanol will not impact corn prices across the board as time goes on, be my guest. I live in the world of reality.

John D. I see how you've not mentioned "the price of corn" in your last post. Obviously some of this is sinking in and you're realizing how stupid your "Remember the more corn used for ethanol means the less corn there is for food." comment that started this diversion truly is.

Read this slowly, and read it three times... maybe then it will sink in a little more.

1) The article that you just posted says very clearly that the price of corn has roughly doubled to it's current price of $4 a bushel. It also states that the price basically cannot go any higher because, if it does, ethanol production will be reduced.... supply & demand occurs... prices are moderated. The article predominantly predicts that prices will come DOWN from the current of $4 a barrel as farmers increase supply to meet the demand.

2) Do you buy the corn you eat by the bushel from a commodities broker?

I didn't think so.

That means you buy it from a grocery store like the rest of us.

That being the case, that means that the cost of the corn products TO YOU, THE CONSUMER, will increase by roughly 2%, even if the price of corn TO PRODUCERS stays at twice it's former price (which, per the article YOU POSTED, is its maximum price).

Why?

Let's use corn pops as an example. In the average box of corn-pops is maybe 5 cents of actual raw corn. The box costs $2.99 because from raw corn, the following must happen:

Your box of Corn Pops pays for raw Corn it consumes (roughly 5 cents worth).

Your box of Corn Pops pays for said corn to be transported to Kellogs processing plant (oil is used)

Your box of Corn Pops pays for the machinery, energy, and labor used to turn said raw corn into corn pops

Your box of Corn Pops pays for its packaging

Your box of Corn Pops is sold to a wholesaler (simultaneously Your box of Corn Pops pays for Kellog's profit)

Your box of Corn Pops pays for transportation to the wholesaler (oil is used again).

Your box of Corn Pops pays for the wholesaler's warehouse, labor, and utilities.

Wholesaler sells Your box of Corn Pops to a grocer (simultaneously Your box of Corn Pops pays for Wholesaler's profit)

Your box of Corn Pops pays for transportation (for a third time.. oil is used)

Your box of Corn Pops pays for the Grocer's facility, utilities, labor, and advertising.

You buy Your box of Corn Pops (simultaneously Your box of Corn Pops pays for the Grocer's profit)

After all that... five cents of raw corn costs you $2.99. Ergo, a doubling in the price of corn on the commodities market results in a 2% increase to YOU, THE CONSUMER (like I originally said).

The same goes for the can of corn, doritoes, or even ear of corn (less the production) you eat.

Bottom line is that this quote from you:

"Remember the more corn used for ethanol means the less corn there is for food."

Made me dumber for having read it. Got it?

Apology accepted.

Man you're dumb.... your "but what about the cost of corn!" argument when talking about energy security is analogous to the captain of a cruise ship saying he doesn't want to steer away from that iceberg because he's worried the act of turning the ship might spill a couple drinks in the lounge.

Just plain dumb.