billvon 3,116 #251 June 6, 2003 >And you don't need a job in order to pay for food, shelter, clothing, etc? Amazing. Tens of millions of people who work in Manhattan do not need gasoline to get to their jobs, but they do need business clothing. Therefore, if your proposal is to not tax things required for one's employment, gasoline should be taxed and clothing not taxed for these people. Many others (me included) choose where we live so we can get to work other ways - with me it's biking. If your whole point is that you just LIKE gasoline and don't think it should be taxed, that's fine - just say so. >And regardless of what vehicle they drive, the act of driving is a > necessity of many to work. Are they stupid if they're single with no > kids and buy a used SUV? Absolutely! And they'll pay more in gas > cost - why pay more in the form of NRST? Why should I have to pay more, via the NRST, for my method of transportation (a bike) than these people pay? Why are commuters who are more responsible, paying NRST on their bikes, subway tickets and bus passes, supporting the stupid single guy by subsidizing his portion of the NRST? Everyone pays the same sales tax whether you're stupid or smart. That's really the only fair way to do it. >Until the diesel breaks and/or is replaced by a model efficient > enough to offset its more expensive fuel, the company/trucker > suffers increased operational costs due to the increased cost of > gasoline, as I stated. SWIIIISH!!!!!! The short guy dunks and > the crowds go wild!!!!! The crowds are puzzled. 1. Diesel trucks don't use gasoline. 2. More efficient diesel trucks use (wait for it . . . wait for it . . .) diesel fuel. They just use less of it. 3. Diesel trucks ARE getting more efficient. They will get more efficient more quickly if fuel is expensive. They will not get more efficient if you subsidize fuel. >Other than repair they do have no other option. And until they break > beyond repair AND sufficient technology exists to buy a more > efficient vehicle, the increased cost of gasoline increases the cost of > transporting products. The technology DOES exist now, which is one reason the cost of trucking goods is decreasing even with increasing fuel costs. Cheaper fuel will always lead to cheaper shipping, but the fact remains that a truck can move a lot more freight a lot farther on a gallon of diesel that it could twenty years ago. I understand your argument, but historically it's already been invalidated. >Even should the technology become available there is no guarantee > that the new, efficient type of vehicle's cost could mandate its > purchase over a vehicle based on older technology. Nor should it. It should respond to market forces i.e. the cost of the new technology, the cost of fuel, the price people are willing to pay for shipping. Artificially deflating fuel prices by exempting them from taxes skews those market forces. For an extreme example of what happens when the government messes with marketing forces, take a look at the California deregulated power market in 2000-2001. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #252 June 6, 2003 QuoteAre they stupid if they're single with no kids and buy a used SUV? Absolutely! Hey, hey, hey...I'm single and I bought myself a $40,000 Acura MDX. That doesn't make me stupid. I could afford it and I liked the vehicle. Especially the 6 CD in dash player and the 10 speakers. I also spent a lot of money on gas, but as SUV's go the MDX got 19.3 mpgs...not bad. But before some of you get really upset, I did trade it in and now drive a vehicle that gets 33mpgs. And the car is a rocket. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #253 June 6, 2003 QuoteQuote3. Diesel trucks ARE getting more efficient. They will get more efficient more quickly if fuel is expensive. They will not get more efficient if you subsidize fuel. The efficiency of diesel powered truck engines is being increased by government mandate, not the rising cost of fuel. Sorry Bill, the government wins in this one. QuoteThe technology DOES exist now, which is one reason the cost of trucking goods is decreasing even with increasing fuel costs. Cheaper fuel will always lead to cheaper shipping, but the fact remains that a truck can move a lot more freight a lot farther on a gallon of diesel that it could twenty years ago. Um, sorry Bill. The average MPG is actually very close now to what it was in the mid eightys. Depending on the load and the truck, anywhere from 4 to 6 mpg can be expected. Hauling cars, I got better fuel economy from my 84 Kenworth T600 then I did with my 99 Volvo 660. Same engine, except that the 99 was computer controlled to produce less soot and sulfur. The cost of hauling freight has gone down for other reasons. A big reason is companies like JB Hunt and Swift, which are willing to hire drivers directly from driving schools. These drivers see a $600 a week paycheck as a big deal. Some even see $750 a week. Is that good money? Compared to Taco Bell or White Castle, maybe. Compared to the earnings of drivers from 10 or 20 years ago? HELL NO! These drivers have no idea how much it costs to even survive on the road. That paycheck looks awfully small after a few months of driving. They leave the profession, and are replaced with drivers exactly like they were. Why do product transportation costs go down? Because mega companies underbid the smaller ones, locking them out of a market. The smaller ones eventually go belly up (can't run a trucking company without freight). Once the competition is gone, the mega companies gradually raise freight prices again. Do the drivers see this? Nope. I'm sure you're speaking with your head, and probably some figures, Bill, but I'm speaking from experience. Without truckers, America STOPS. So, why then are we treated like second class citizens? Taxes are hurting too. A typical run may now only net the truck $1 per loaded mile. ZERO empty. 6 mpg, and $.285 per gallon in state fuel tax alone. Add in federal fuel taxes and actual fuel costs....you do the math.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #254 June 6, 2003 >Um, sorry Bill. The average MPG is actually very close now to what it was in the mid eightys. From the Truckload Carriers Association: ---------------------------- Managing fuel economy is a lot easier than it used to be. Carriers can spec aerodynamic trucks, governed engines for fuel-efficient driving and take advantage of lightweight equipment. They can meticulously plan routes to find cheap diesel, participate in fuel cooperatives or bulk purchasing plans and even pass on spikes in diesel prices to their customers. Although engines squeeze more miles out of the same tank of diesel and savvy carriers manage fuel costs better, bad drivers can still ruin a fleet's fuel economy. Despite all the advances, drivers remain an integral part of the fuel efficiency equation, carriers say, because you can't fully control them. True, you can monitor them and hold out carrots and sticks, but few carriers can bring themselves to dismiss drivers over fuel-guzzling habits. Even so, some carriers are using the information and incentive tools available to them to get results and squeeze out a few more tenths of a mile per gallon. ----------------------------- MPG actually hasn't increased too much (stats I got were from 4.5 to 6.5mpg for your 'average' large truck over 1975-2000) but a lot of other advances, like satellite dispatch communications systems, better load management and better management of idle all end up letting you move more freight for less fuel. We see the results of this because we see companies like JB Hunt spending a lot of money for Omnitracs (which we design.) They do that because it saves them money in fuel, driver time and overall operational costs. >Taxes are hurting too. A typical run may now only net the truck $1 > per loaded mile. ZERO empty. 6 mpg, and $.285 per gallon in state > fuel tax alone. Add in federal fuel taxes and actual fuel costs....you > do the math. Yep. Which is why I've been advocating _one_ universal sales tax on everything; doesn't matter what it is. That way, any one group doesn't get burdened with a 30% tax rate while other groups are paying 5% (or nothing.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RevJim 0 #255 June 6, 2003 I know, I know, not too bright to argue with Bill, am I? Bill, though I agree that there are ways of saving money in fuel costs, the real problem is the cut-throat industy in general. You can expect shipping costs to go up in the future. Do not expect to see them decline. It is now to the point where we are talking pennies of profit per week per truck. There really isn't any room for it to go lower. If it does, the only ones who will feel the pinch are the already underpaid drivers. I do agree with you wholeheartedly about the flat sales tax though.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ERICCONNELLY 0 #256 June 6, 2003 Since this thread started out as a GWB bash, I think it's in line to add that the "trucking industry" has found at least one more way to cut cost of transport under this admin. Allowing Mexican trucking firms to haul freight w/in the US, using their own fleets and drivers. Sorry Jim, I think it sucks too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #257 June 6, 2003 >Allowing Mexican trucking firms to haul freight w/in the US, using their own fleets and drivers. I think it sucks as well. Trucks in the US should meet all US requirements, including driver hours, brakes, emissions etc. whether they come from Chicago or Tijuana. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RevJim 0 #258 June 6, 2003 Wow, I missed where that got snuck through. I did find though that a Federal court has blocked it. Full story here QuoteFederal Court Acts To Halt Trucks From Mexico 1/17/2003 — Finding that the Bush Administration "acted arbitrarily and capriciously," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the administration violated federal environmental laws by taking steps to give Mexico-domiciled trucks full access to U.S. highways without adequately reviewing the impact they would have on air quality. The court ordered the administration to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement and Clean Air Act conformity determination. The court issued this ruling in response to a lawsuit filed in May 2002 by a coalition of environmental, consumer and labor groups including Public Citizen, the Environmental Law Foundation and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RevJim 0 #259 June 6, 2003 I agree with you on this too, Bill. Safety is a much bigger concern to me than environmental issues, but anything to block the trucks, for now at least, is good. They have a much lower chance of getting the older truck to meet pollution specs than safety specs. They will get in, eventually, but hopefully with newer units, up to our specs. I also believe they will be given the same rights as Canadian drivers. To and from Mexico, and a load from delivery point in the US to a load point in the US. Canadian drivers are not allowed to shuttle back and forth across the US, and I would hope that Mexican drivers wouldn't be able to either.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #260 June 7, 2003 Ahhh...the metropolitan paradigm resurfaces..... Quote Tens of millions of people who work in Manhattan do not need gasoline to get to their jobs, but they do need business clothing. Therefore, if your proposal is to not tax things required for one's employment, gasoline should be taxed and clothing not taxed for these people. Many others (me included) choose where we live so we can get to work other ways - with me it's biking. If your whole point is that you just LIKE gasoline and don't think it should be taxed, that's fine - just say so. My reasons for desiring any NRST not be applied to gasoline have nothing to do with me liking gasoline, they have to do with common sense. You have seemingly constructed a fantasy reality in which anyone can choose to live close to where they work, mass transit is always available, and anyone who desires a used car with great gas mileage can afford one, and Lord knows what other ludicrous assumptions - none of which are true. I hold that any NRST should not apply to gasoline because many people DO require it to get to work AND its recent price increases serve as a running cost penalty on any business that requires transport of goods - a concept you still don't seem to get. Quote >And regardless of what vehicle they drive, the act of driving is a > necessity of many to work. Are they stupid if they're single with no > kids and buy a used SUV? Absolutely! And they'll pay more in gas > cost - why pay more in the form of NRST? Why should I have to pay more, via the NRST, for my method of transportation (a bike) than these people pay? Why are commuters who are more responsible, paying NRST on their bikes, subway tickets and bus passes, supporting the stupid single guy by subsidizing his portion of the NRST? Your would pay tax on your bike one time, just like anyone purchasing a car from a retailer. Gas for your bicycle would be food, which I also proposed to be exempt from any NRST. Try again. Paying an NRST on a bus or subway pass is not subsidizing anything or anyone. The majority of Americans use some gasoline at some point during the month. Few are total bus/train folk. Quote Everyone pays the same sales tax whether you're stupid or smart. That's really the only fair way to do it. Everyone would pay the same sales tax on every product not exempt (gas and groceries). Quote >Until the diesel breaks and/or is replaced by a model efficient > enough to offset its more expensive fuel, the company/trucker > suffers increased operational costs due to the increased cost of > gasoline, as I stated. SWIIIISH!!!!!! The short guy dunks and > the crowds go wild!!!!! The crowds are puzzled. 1. Diesel trucks don't use gasoline. 2. More efficient diesel trucks use (wait for it . . . wait for it . . .) diesel fuel. They just use less of it. 3. Diesel trucks ARE getting more efficient. They will get more efficient more quickly if fuel is expensive. They will not get more efficient if you subsidize fuel. You are watching the game with tribal folk from Karin villages in northern Thailand (great hiking up there by the way) who have never seen a basketball game. They don't realize how cool it is to see a 190 lb stocky 5'4" white blonde man do a double back flip with a half twist slam dunk over Michael Jordan, which is exactly what happened. Diesel fuel is not gasoline. Ingenious observation. It is also a grasp at straws to avoid the vanguard of my onslaught of logic. You dodge yet again. Let me see if I can be more direct to limit the scope of any riposte. Diesel fuel and gasoline and whatever other fuel you use to propel vehicles of any sort on the road for any business purpose cost $$. When the cost of this fuel increases in any manner, the operational costs of the business increase as a result. This increase in operational cost does not warrant the immediate liquidation of an asset as large as a dump truck, tractor trailer, or vehicle. Your previous attempt to counter this did not address this fact of life, nor does this current one. Regardless of the remaining life of the asset, until a new one is purchased (and there is no guarantee the new asset will offset the increased fuel costs either) the increase in fuel price comports with a DECREASED profit margin for the company. Quote The technology DOES exist now, which is one reason the cost of trucking goods is decreasing even with increasing fuel costs. Cheaper fuel will always lead to cheaper shipping, but the fact remains that a truck can move a lot more freight a lot farther on a gallon of diesel that it could twenty years ago. I understand your argument, but historically it's already been invalidated. Businesses rely on fuel powered vehicles other than diesel trucks. Diesel trucks are more efficient than 20 years ago. Increased fuel price of any sort results in a decreased profit margin until a more fuel efficient asset is purchased. Immediate liquidation of the current vehicle and purchase of another is not an option for a business. Show me an NPV/IRR, balance sheet, and etc for one business that it would be feasible for, along with efficiency curves for the vehicles, loan amounts, depreciation schedules and etc, and I MIGHT cede the point for that one instance. Overall - no way dude. I say you can't even show me one example because common sense says it can't happen. Granted, I haven't done any financial calculations for a while, but the magnitude of the #'s involve tell me that's so. Quote Nor should it. It should respond to market forces i.e. the cost of the new technology, the cost of fuel, the price people are willing to pay for shipping. Artificially deflating fuel prices by exempting them from taxes skews those market forces. For an extreme example of what happens when the government messes with marketing forces, take a look at the California deregulated power market in 2000-2001. Exempting fuel from an NRST is not artificially deflating fuel prices at all. This analogy is baseless. I'm out of beer and need more. Good jumping this weekend. I must come down south and drink/talk politics with you in person. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 11 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,116 #254 June 6, 2003 >Um, sorry Bill. The average MPG is actually very close now to what it was in the mid eightys. From the Truckload Carriers Association: ---------------------------- Managing fuel economy is a lot easier than it used to be. Carriers can spec aerodynamic trucks, governed engines for fuel-efficient driving and take advantage of lightweight equipment. They can meticulously plan routes to find cheap diesel, participate in fuel cooperatives or bulk purchasing plans and even pass on spikes in diesel prices to their customers. Although engines squeeze more miles out of the same tank of diesel and savvy carriers manage fuel costs better, bad drivers can still ruin a fleet's fuel economy. Despite all the advances, drivers remain an integral part of the fuel efficiency equation, carriers say, because you can't fully control them. True, you can monitor them and hold out carrots and sticks, but few carriers can bring themselves to dismiss drivers over fuel-guzzling habits. Even so, some carriers are using the information and incentive tools available to them to get results and squeeze out a few more tenths of a mile per gallon. ----------------------------- MPG actually hasn't increased too much (stats I got were from 4.5 to 6.5mpg for your 'average' large truck over 1975-2000) but a lot of other advances, like satellite dispatch communications systems, better load management and better management of idle all end up letting you move more freight for less fuel. We see the results of this because we see companies like JB Hunt spending a lot of money for Omnitracs (which we design.) They do that because it saves them money in fuel, driver time and overall operational costs. >Taxes are hurting too. A typical run may now only net the truck $1 > per loaded mile. ZERO empty. 6 mpg, and $.285 per gallon in state > fuel tax alone. Add in federal fuel taxes and actual fuel costs....you > do the math. Yep. Which is why I've been advocating _one_ universal sales tax on everything; doesn't matter what it is. That way, any one group doesn't get burdened with a 30% tax rate while other groups are paying 5% (or nothing.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #255 June 6, 2003 I know, I know, not too bright to argue with Bill, am I? Bill, though I agree that there are ways of saving money in fuel costs, the real problem is the cut-throat industy in general. You can expect shipping costs to go up in the future. Do not expect to see them decline. It is now to the point where we are talking pennies of profit per week per truck. There really isn't any room for it to go lower. If it does, the only ones who will feel the pinch are the already underpaid drivers. I do agree with you wholeheartedly about the flat sales tax though.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ERICCONNELLY 0 #256 June 6, 2003 Since this thread started out as a GWB bash, I think it's in line to add that the "trucking industry" has found at least one more way to cut cost of transport under this admin. Allowing Mexican trucking firms to haul freight w/in the US, using their own fleets and drivers. Sorry Jim, I think it sucks too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #257 June 6, 2003 >Allowing Mexican trucking firms to haul freight w/in the US, using their own fleets and drivers. I think it sucks as well. Trucks in the US should meet all US requirements, including driver hours, brakes, emissions etc. whether they come from Chicago or Tijuana. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #258 June 6, 2003 Wow, I missed where that got snuck through. I did find though that a Federal court has blocked it. Full story here QuoteFederal Court Acts To Halt Trucks From Mexico 1/17/2003 — Finding that the Bush Administration "acted arbitrarily and capriciously," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the administration violated federal environmental laws by taking steps to give Mexico-domiciled trucks full access to U.S. highways without adequately reviewing the impact they would have on air quality. The court ordered the administration to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement and Clean Air Act conformity determination. The court issued this ruling in response to a lawsuit filed in May 2002 by a coalition of environmental, consumer and labor groups including Public Citizen, the Environmental Law Foundation and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #259 June 6, 2003 I agree with you on this too, Bill. Safety is a much bigger concern to me than environmental issues, but anything to block the trucks, for now at least, is good. They have a much lower chance of getting the older truck to meet pollution specs than safety specs. They will get in, eventually, but hopefully with newer units, up to our specs. I also believe they will be given the same rights as Canadian drivers. To and from Mexico, and a load from delivery point in the US to a load point in the US. Canadian drivers are not allowed to shuttle back and forth across the US, and I would hope that Mexican drivers wouldn't be able to either.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #260 June 7, 2003 Ahhh...the metropolitan paradigm resurfaces..... Quote Tens of millions of people who work in Manhattan do not need gasoline to get to their jobs, but they do need business clothing. Therefore, if your proposal is to not tax things required for one's employment, gasoline should be taxed and clothing not taxed for these people. Many others (me included) choose where we live so we can get to work other ways - with me it's biking. If your whole point is that you just LIKE gasoline and don't think it should be taxed, that's fine - just say so. My reasons for desiring any NRST not be applied to gasoline have nothing to do with me liking gasoline, they have to do with common sense. You have seemingly constructed a fantasy reality in which anyone can choose to live close to where they work, mass transit is always available, and anyone who desires a used car with great gas mileage can afford one, and Lord knows what other ludicrous assumptions - none of which are true. I hold that any NRST should not apply to gasoline because many people DO require it to get to work AND its recent price increases serve as a running cost penalty on any business that requires transport of goods - a concept you still don't seem to get. Quote >And regardless of what vehicle they drive, the act of driving is a > necessity of many to work. Are they stupid if they're single with no > kids and buy a used SUV? Absolutely! And they'll pay more in gas > cost - why pay more in the form of NRST? Why should I have to pay more, via the NRST, for my method of transportation (a bike) than these people pay? Why are commuters who are more responsible, paying NRST on their bikes, subway tickets and bus passes, supporting the stupid single guy by subsidizing his portion of the NRST? Your would pay tax on your bike one time, just like anyone purchasing a car from a retailer. Gas for your bicycle would be food, which I also proposed to be exempt from any NRST. Try again. Paying an NRST on a bus or subway pass is not subsidizing anything or anyone. The majority of Americans use some gasoline at some point during the month. Few are total bus/train folk. Quote Everyone pays the same sales tax whether you're stupid or smart. That's really the only fair way to do it. Everyone would pay the same sales tax on every product not exempt (gas and groceries). Quote >Until the diesel breaks and/or is replaced by a model efficient > enough to offset its more expensive fuel, the company/trucker > suffers increased operational costs due to the increased cost of > gasoline, as I stated. SWIIIISH!!!!!! The short guy dunks and > the crowds go wild!!!!! The crowds are puzzled. 1. Diesel trucks don't use gasoline. 2. More efficient diesel trucks use (wait for it . . . wait for it . . .) diesel fuel. They just use less of it. 3. Diesel trucks ARE getting more efficient. They will get more efficient more quickly if fuel is expensive. They will not get more efficient if you subsidize fuel. You are watching the game with tribal folk from Karin villages in northern Thailand (great hiking up there by the way) who have never seen a basketball game. They don't realize how cool it is to see a 190 lb stocky 5'4" white blonde man do a double back flip with a half twist slam dunk over Michael Jordan, which is exactly what happened. Diesel fuel is not gasoline. Ingenious observation. It is also a grasp at straws to avoid the vanguard of my onslaught of logic. You dodge yet again. Let me see if I can be more direct to limit the scope of any riposte. Diesel fuel and gasoline and whatever other fuel you use to propel vehicles of any sort on the road for any business purpose cost $$. When the cost of this fuel increases in any manner, the operational costs of the business increase as a result. This increase in operational cost does not warrant the immediate liquidation of an asset as large as a dump truck, tractor trailer, or vehicle. Your previous attempt to counter this did not address this fact of life, nor does this current one. Regardless of the remaining life of the asset, until a new one is purchased (and there is no guarantee the new asset will offset the increased fuel costs either) the increase in fuel price comports with a DECREASED profit margin for the company. Quote The technology DOES exist now, which is one reason the cost of trucking goods is decreasing even with increasing fuel costs. Cheaper fuel will always lead to cheaper shipping, but the fact remains that a truck can move a lot more freight a lot farther on a gallon of diesel that it could twenty years ago. I understand your argument, but historically it's already been invalidated. Businesses rely on fuel powered vehicles other than diesel trucks. Diesel trucks are more efficient than 20 years ago. Increased fuel price of any sort results in a decreased profit margin until a more fuel efficient asset is purchased. Immediate liquidation of the current vehicle and purchase of another is not an option for a business. Show me an NPV/IRR, balance sheet, and etc for one business that it would be feasible for, along with efficiency curves for the vehicles, loan amounts, depreciation schedules and etc, and I MIGHT cede the point for that one instance. Overall - no way dude. I say you can't even show me one example because common sense says it can't happen. Granted, I haven't done any financial calculations for a while, but the magnitude of the #'s involve tell me that's so. Quote Nor should it. It should respond to market forces i.e. the cost of the new technology, the cost of fuel, the price people are willing to pay for shipping. Artificially deflating fuel prices by exempting them from taxes skews those market forces. For an extreme example of what happens when the government messes with marketing forces, take a look at the California deregulated power market in 2000-2001. Exempting fuel from an NRST is not artificially deflating fuel prices at all. This analogy is baseless. I'm out of beer and need more. Good jumping this weekend. I must come down south and drink/talk politics with you in person. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
