On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:26:18 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Lessening of consumers' purchasing power causes a reduction of demand,
and therefore the prices will drop further, which then leads to
deflation, which was a very real fear a few years back. Which is one
reason why the fed chopped interest rates so much.


Greenspan chopped the prime rate after Bush's tax "rebates" because
the expected revenue wasn't coming back -- instead of spending that
money people were paying down their credit cards. So the Fed dropped
the prime rate to encourage people to borrow and spend -more- money.
IOW, the Fed was bailing out the economy after Bush ****ed it up.

Well, that's certainly your opinion. Even if it is wrong. Look up
"deflation" as it related to the recent recession and see what you
find.


I'm sure that none of them put it as simply as you did. They know, as
you should, that there are many mitigating factors that also influence
where a price is set. Think about things like monopolies and economic
collusion.


Think about taking a couple semesters of economics.

Why? I understand the process.


snip
Wrong again, Dave. The recommended fuel for the Model T was alcohol,

No Frank, the Model "T" had the capability to run on alcohol "as an
alternative" to gasoline. Henry Ford felt that allowing the car to run
on alcohol would sit well with local farmers who produced it. It was a
"bell and whistle" not a mandatory requirement.


Wrong, Dave. The preferred fuel for the Model T was ethanol, and any
Model T fanatic or Ford historian will tell you the same thing.

From:
http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/spec...al/ethanol.htm

"Ford's interest in using ethanol as an alternative fuel goes back to
the days of Henry Ford. Ford planned to use ethanol as the primary
fuel for his Model T, however, the less expensive gasoline emerged as
the dominant fuel."

You win a point for getting it almost right. Yes, it would seem that
they planned to use alcohol, but Ford soon realized that the less
expensive gasoline would become the dominant fuel.

In
fact, Henry Ford called alcohol "the fuel of the future. There are
more stills in this country than filling stations."

He sure missed the call on that one......


and that's what automobiles were built to use back in the early years
of their history. And it was great because there were a whole bunch of
backyard stills that were pumping out gallon after gallon of good ol'
moonshine. But along came a big foreign oil company that decided to
take a risk by dumping cheap gasoline on the market (at a net loss), a
move which shut down the stills and convinced auto manufacturers to
build their engines to run only on gasoline.

Titusville Pa. (Not all that far from me) is a foreign oil company?
We were producing "cheap" oil since 1859.


Except that it wasn't refined for gasoline until much later. Otto
invented the IC engine to run on alcohol, not oil or gas.

It doesn't matter what the I.C. engine was invented to run on
initially. It's what it eventually ran on as a practical motor car
engine that matters.

From:
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/fuel.html

"Another early developer of the internal combustion engine was German
inventor Nicholas August Otto. In 1860, Otto used ethyl alcohol as a
fuel in an early engine because it was widely available for spirit
lamps throughout Europe. He devised a carburetor which, like Morey's,
heated the alcohol to help it vaporize as the engine was being
started. But a January 1861 patent application with the Kingdom of
Prussia was turned down, probably because heated alcohol carburetion
was already being widely used in spirit lamps.32 It is interesting to
note that Otto's initial financing came from Eugen Langen, who owned a
a sugar refining company that probably had links to the alcohol
markets of Europe. Of course, the Otto & Langen company went on to
success in the 1870s by producing stationary gas engines (usually
powered by coal gas) and the later "Otto-cycle" engine was fueled
primarily with gasoline but was still adaptable to alcohol or benzene
from coal."


We didn't start importing oil on a large scale until 1970.


The world's first oil tanker was built in 1877. Henry Ford continued
to push for alcohol fuel until the 40's, even though big-time oil was
discovered in the middle east a decade earlier. The rest is history
(that you never learned).

Until 1970, we relied on our own sources of oil. American oil
production peaked then. It has been falling ever since as we have
become more dependant on foreign oil.

Try entering "US first imported oil" into google and see what you
find.

You really should stop with the conspiracy theories Frank.....



snip
If, back in the early 1900's, the alcohol producers were able to stay
in business (in a fair and competitive market, protected by import
tariffs) they most likely would have developed the technology to
produce much cheaper alcohol, technology that is only -now- being
developed. We now know that fuel-grade ethanol can be produced cheaply
on a large scale using specially developed yeasts & enzymes and vacuum
distillation, but there are no 'refineries' large enough to make it
profitably.

You also discount the potential environmental impact that large scale
raw material farms, as well as the effect of production emissions and
byproducts of the process might have on pollution.


The environmental impact of farming? That's a -real- stretch, Dave.

It's true nonetheless. Ethanol comes primarily from corn. Corn needs
to be grown. Acreage used for ethanol production would be unavailable
for food growth. Also fertilizers used for corn, could cause a local
runoff problem in nearby waterways (as a boater I am conscious of
these). Excess nitrogen in ponds and lakes has a damaging effect on
the eco-system of that waterway.


FYI, gasoline was originally just a worthless byproduct of refining
kerosene from crude oil.

I see you've been doing a little crash internet researching. (What
happened to those wonderful books?) That's almost word for word the
description used on one site.

Here's some mo
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm


It would seem that there have been some improvements in the efficiency
in the production of alcohol in the last 10 years or so. But there are
still some issues. Still, I agree that we should look into it. I owe
no allegience to gasoline. I tend to favor that which is cheap.


Regardless, part of the 'byproducts' left
over from the fermentation process of alcohol are left in the vats to
ferment the next batch of mash, while the rest is almost a perfect
fertilizer (and sometimes used as hog chow). Ethanol burns cooler so
there are no NO emissions

Wrong. There are "less" of some emissions, like hydrocarbons, but
there are still some VOC's and other byproducts.


(thereby reducing ozone pollution), there
are almost no hydrocarbon emissions,

Wait, you just said above that there are NO emissions. Make up your
mind Frank.


no need for lead or other
additives, no cyclic carcinogens, and the fuel burns more efficiently
than gasoline. Ethanol is clean at both ends. Get educated, Dave.


How's this for education:

From:
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deput...ons_062596.htm

"Alcohol fuels provide America a way to reduce our oil dependence, but
concerning exhaust emissions, test results are disappointing.
Alcohol-fueled vehicles emit large amounts of some of the most
reactive VOCs, particularly formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene are VOCs
considered to be air toxics. Air toxics are known cancer-causing
chemicals. Alcohol-fueled vehicles usually produce more air toxics
than any other vehicle fuel."


Hindsight is always 20/20. We didn't know about such things as global
warming, ozone depletion, the finite availability of fossil fuel, and
the need for truly renewable fuel sources back in the early 1900's.
Oil was cheap, easy to extract, and plentiful. It was a no-brainer
back then.


Wrong again, Dave. Read up on the Free Alcohol Bill of 1906.

So you're denying that oil was cheaper to produce?

Read into the term "Net Energy Value" and then see how it has applied
to alcohol over the years. Only recently has the technology advanced
to the point where the NEV value is significantly positive.

If you would agree to back off on your blind, relentless quest to call
me wrong at every turn, I can certainly agree that alcohol has the
potential of augmenting and offsetting our need for oil. At the
current high oil prices, alcohol may be able to compete on a price
basis. But cars cannot run on pure alcohol without modifications.
Alcohol attracts and retains water, which cause the corrosion of metal
parts. Alcohol also deteriorates rubber parts. Some changes would also
have to be made to find the optimal stoichiometric air fuel ratio for
proper combustion. For gasoline it is currently around 14.7:1. For
newer cars with fuel injection systems and OBD-II Engine management
systems, the changes could be made in firmware. For older cars with
carburetors, the changes would have to be done by changing jets and
metering rods (After replacing all the rubber parts).


snip
I'm not nearsighted. No, in fact, I am a realist. Like you once told
me, change is inevitable. We can't go back to what we once were, so
our best chance is to adapt to what we will become.


Wrong -again-, Dave. Our best chance is to make decisions that will
provide the most benefit for us -as- those changes occur.

Which is what I meant when I said to anticipate and "adapt" to those
changes. For instance, if I was a "young-un" in school right now, I
would not pick manufacturing as a career path. Right now your best bet
seems to be to pick a career that deals with either information,
technology, entertainment, or professional services.


snip
Wrong again. Oil is inelastic because the -demand- remains constant
-regardless- of the price.

Demand is never constant. Demand changes with the season, economic and
social conditions around the world, and emerging technology in
developing nations. Overall, demand has been steadily increasing for
the last several years.


geez U R dum:

http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/dem...sticity/price/


Nice site. But it does not address my claim that factors other than
price can affect demand.

I'm tired of educating you, Dave. I think I'll let Twisty or someone
else do it for a while.


Maybe you should. You're doing a **** poor job of it.

That 20 year old obsolete education you have is showing.

Dave
"Sandbagger"