He's not a nutcase, he just has knowledge on economics. If the price of fuel increases, company's expenses increase. Those company's are already selling at their maximum, so they have three options to keep them out of bankruptcy: cut jobs, cut wages, and/or incease prices.
-If they cut jobs, employees will loose jobs. They will be unemployed and looking for work.
-If they cut wages, their current workers will either quit or get a second job. But, since prices have increased, there is a large number of people looking for a second job.
-If they increase prices, demand will fall, decreasing profits.

Fuel prices affect everyone, everywhere. The higher that fuel prices go, demand decreases, prices increase, unemployment increases.

I know there are diffent routes in education/life besides the traditional, but if you immediately dont go to college, your chances of ever attending drastically fall every year.

I had three choices when i graduated highschool: Go to college, get a job, join the military. I chose college because: most people with only a highschool diploma earn minimal wages, and I didnt want my last plane ride to be in a coffin.


Here is a view of college life nowadays, since you obviously have no idea.
A Vision of Students Today

 

What does that mean, companys are already selling at their maximum.????

Ok, fuel prices double...That doesnt double the price of everything. Gas has doubled, over and over, and over again over the last years... Who gets to decide what is too high? Where is the tipping point? At what point is high too high? When gas went from 1 to 2 dollars, that was going to ruin the economy. High gas prices are going to hurt some industrys but at the same time, something has to come and take its place...


Also, its your choice whether you attend college or not. Just because most people who dont go immediately dont go at all, doesnt mean you have to be the same way... Your obviously a folllower that doesnt understand economics...


BTW, having a HS diploma doesnt mean ****! most employers will never check.

As for that video, I saw it a while ago and its full of sensationalist propaganda, it basically gives statistic after statistic about how ****ed up our kids today are. How narrow minded, how lazy, how much they rely on the entitlement mentality.

 

I understand your thinking, have processed it, and found it to be flawed. What I really understand, is you read our words, and totally ignore them. How can I convey the big picture, when you view economics in its simplest terms. Take the reaming of higher priced goods, and counter with working more jobs. You already have a bias against those whose College is paid for by their families...

I am wasting my time with you. Our words fall upon deaf ears. Pearls before swine...

 

So here is my thoughts. High fuel costs will def. change our lives. Winter green house produce will cost a lot more. Like the idea of $4.00 a pound tomatoes?
The extra left over income that was spent on driving vacations will be a lot less, the extra cash that was used in impluse purchases will stop. With less cash flowing there is less demand and less work as marginal business fail.

I read that 10% of jobs have a direct link to the automobile, that does not account for the demands for raw manufacturing materials for auto's, transportation of the same, the insurance. Gas stations, the people that sell their candy and news papers from the gas stations. Roads will last longer and therefore less work, ( less taxs from the sale of gas).
Everything we have and our living standards are based on affordable energy.

Budgeting to spend more on fuel and the other costs is a solution, but the economic impact is huge. The idea of working more and two jobs is.... just stupid. What about the double income family with kids alone all day for two jobs... wait hire a nanny, lots looking for second jobs.


Ever been in a third world country?

 

The above, I can respect. Not that it really matter what I think, but I do...

Your right.. After re-reading what has transpired in its entirety, I have come to the following conclusion:

I believe that just because prices of our goods rise, that does not neccesarialy equal a disaster. Thats just how things work. Prices rise. Look back 50 or 100 years what did the same things we buy now cost? What did people make. Exactly.

I also believe that if prices rise too fast for some they are going to have to deal with it. I know I will, what will whining about it do?

your point: I see now what you were saying and I think that my sarcastic and often harsh and non-sympathetic tone does not translate well to this type of internet discussion. It is now clear to me that you prob have more experience in economics than I do. and conciede that you may in fact be correct. who knows?


Finally, please dont think that your words were read and ignored, thats simply not correct. just because I dont understand how prices going up, like they always have is really a problem in the grand scheme of things.

BTW, your right I do have a bias against people whom had their college paid for by parents. I don't believe they all have a lack of respect for what they have received, but in my experience most do. When my kids go to college, I will pay for them only on a performance basis. Graduate with a 4.0 100% reimbursement. 3.0 80%, etc..

 

80% efficiency! thats hilarious. Please tell me you are kidding, you really don't believe it do you?

For the record, no I didn't click on the link.

ETA

I got bored and clicked on the link. This clown says the reason common engines are only 30% or less efficient is because they aren't burning all the fuel. Unburned fuel is coming out the exhaust and this is what is causing the pollution.

For those interested in the real reason they aren't very efficient, its because there is tons of friction losses combined with even more heat losses. He is partially right, alot of your efficiency losses do come out the tail pipe, but its in the form of heat losses. Not unburned fuel.

 

Man, I should have traded my truck for a semi, not a car. Hauling a load 80 miles on 1 gallon. 80 mpg! All the truckers I know must be doing something wrong, they're getting about 6-6.5 mpg on a good day.

 

i just read that you beat me too it im gonna trade up to a pete in the morning lol

 

Dude speak for yourself on that not sweating 10 grand a year on gas...i make like 20 grand a year,im only 16 though. But also you said 20 mpg and 20,000 miles driven a year. Is anyone here matched up to that?

 

 

You do know they haul more than 1 ton right?

 

The biggest scam GM ever pulled and screwed us with was the catalytic converter. In the late 70s, Honda introduced the "lean burn" motor that met CAFE standards with out the aid of a catalytic converter. Ford readily bought this technology.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...09/ai_n8864380

For your education, at one time GM was almost as large an entity as the federal government. Their lobbyists pushed the catalytic converter on us before Honda and Ford could push into the market. Needless to say Ford had to eat the loss. This was a hard hit considering the looming recession to hit us in the late 70s and early 80s.
Yes much of an engines efficiency is lost in heat, but the purpose of a catalytic converter is to capture unburned hydrocarbons as a result of the engines inability to completely combust the fuel in the cylinder. We know for a fact that the higher you can compress the fuel, the more completely it will burn. Gasoline engines will run compression around 150psi +/- whereas diesels will run closer to 330psi. The compression is limited by the design of the motor and more specifically it;s head. By doing away with the head and making the block one piece, you can now create a lot more compression. There are no bolts to worry about or head surfaces to warp.The genius of the DARPA developed engine is that it compresses fuel closer to 3500 PSI! Keep in mind this power plant was developed with our tax dollars and its patents are readily available from the US patent office which requires proof of concept. Your internal combustion engine under load is not 30 percent efficient unless you are at wide open throttle. With the torque converter locked and cruising you are closer to 20 percent efficient. In regards to efficiency, much of the engines efficiency is also diminished by the number of moving parts.......the 1 Liter power plant has 84 parts. How many parts are in our current engines?
This isn't the messiah of the internal combustion engine but a rather unique way of thinking outside the box and it is not the first proof of concept that we can design small, efficient, powerful motors like the rotary, Otto diesel, and MYT engines.
MYT: http://www.angellabsllc.com/mytengine.html
Diesotto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiesOtto

Enjoy!

 

so if they only loaded one ton then they would get 80 mpg

 

Get yourself a 4 cyl. beater. It'll pay for itself in a year. Clean the F150 and garage it. Maybe bring it out on nice sunny Sundays. Become an old man way before your time. Seems like that's where we're headed. - Og

 

damnn right they would!!