Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...

"Larry Bud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> fclaugus wrote:
> > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand.
> > >
> > > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true.
> >
> > I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term
> > demand will go up.
>
> No kidding. Which would cause prices to go up, which would cause
> demand to go down... we all know this. What's your point?
>
> > I never said people would drive more.
>
> Sure you did:
> "And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, oil consumption would
> return to it's current level in a matter of a few years because low gas
> prices would increase consumption."

Also, there is a difference between saying more people will drive and people
will drive more. The first refers to more drivers, the second refers to more
miles per driver. Hasn't it been obvious that 3$ gallon gas has lowered
demand ?

"Larry Bud" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > > > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?",
the
> > > > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that
increased
> > > > > volume makes it cost-effective?".
> > > > >
> > > > > Only time will tell.
> > > >
> > > > Not at $2 a gallon, anyway...
> > >
> > > You don't know that. In 5 or 10 years it could be that it's a $500
> > > option to have a hybrid over gas only. Used to be that an automatic
> > > transmission was extra, now often a manual tranny costs more.
> >
> > Moot point, gas prices are not going to be $2 a gallon in 5 to 10 years.
>
> If it's higher, even more incentive to buy a hybrid. Do you think gas
> will be lower in 10 years?

My point is hybrids are not economical at 2$ a gallon, we are talking about
today, not in 10 years. Yes, gas will be more scarce and more expensive in
10 years.

> > > > And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid,
> > > > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a
few
> > > > years because low gas prices would increase consumption.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. People have a finite amount of time to of
> > > discretionary travel, so there IS a limit to the amount of miles that
> > > can be driven, hence a finite amount of fuel that people can burn in a
> > > given amount of time.
> >
> > I'll use your answer, you don't know that.
>
> Of course I know that. There's a finite amount of time in a day,
> therefore there's a finite amount of time each person can drive.
>
> > People will demand more cars and more people will drive.
>
> There's also a finite amount of people that can drive.

But there are plenty of people who cannot afford to drive because it's too
expensive. Or can't afford services that consume fuel such as air travel.

> > > Technically "world oil reserves" are depleted every time you fill your
> > > tank, so I'm not sure what your point is, except to try and make a
> > > political point using some hot button verbage.
> >
> > You are wrong again ....
> >
> > These are the oil reserves I was talking about:
> > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
>
> So what? What's your point? Geologically the Earth isn't creating
> more oil than we're using.

You are confused, you said you didn't understand what I meant by oil
reserves and I explained it. What more do you want ? You though we consume
our reserves in a short amount of time, and I showed that this is
impossible. There are billions of barrels in reserve all over the world. My
point is, we will deplete all reserves in a matter of time, no matter how
efficient our cars are.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not in terms of how
> much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long
> before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us.
>
Well, if you keep exporting your potty-mouthed
tv shows and movies, we may have to do something
to save the children. Think of the children!

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Kenneth Crudup wrote:
>
> >> Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
> >> Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
> >
> >> 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
> >> 2. Canada 178.81
> >
> > Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da
>
> Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not in terms of how
> much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long
> before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us.

What's our oil doing underneath your snow?

You said -> "Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not
in terms of how much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in
terms of how long before the American tanks roll in to "spread
democracy" to us."

I don't think you need to worry Daniel. The last two times we tried it,
it did not work out so well. After the war of 1812, you guys gave us
Michigan back as punishment. If we tried it again, you might make us
take Quebec.

Ed

In article .com>, Larry Bud wrote:
> fclaugus wrote:
>> Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ?
>
> Every new technology is priced at a premium when it first comes out
> until volume can decrease manufacturing costs.

Environmentally, one can do considerably more for the environment by not
having another vehicle manufactured. That doesn't change with the price.

fclaugus wrote:

> > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand.
> >
> > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true.
>
> I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term
> demand will go up.

No !

There isn't limitless demand.

> I never said people would drive more. It's possible that
> more people would drive and oil would be used more for other purposes such
> as power generation. Also, services such as shipping and air travel become
> cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large
> quanities of oil derived fuels.

Since the price of petroleum products isn't going to reduce in the overall
long-term your ideas are moot anyway.

Graham