Bill,
You are quite the politician aren't you.
<<The issue isn't whether we use resources or not, Mike. To suggest that we are to "blame" or it is a "problem" to use resources is patently absurd. You say I use resources, so therefore I am just as bad as everyone else.
No, no, no! >
You can't have it both ways here. If you are saying that the suvs are a problem because they are wasteful (which I believe is what you are saying), I'm saying you are wrong in the way that the problem IS the petroleum. If the vehicle is causing pollution and poisons in the air, then it is ALL cars, not just those pushing a little more into the environment.
<<The issue is the sustainable use of resources.>>
You see, to me I'm a lot more simple than that. Burning petroluem is a problem. We need another solution or it won't matter what car your wife has. Maybe not in your generation, but sooner or later someone is going to have do something, but in the meantime, WE are all part of the problem and we cannot have a "holier than thou attitude." (This was not meant as an insult to anyone....Panther).
<< It's like managing your money. Some people manage to take a normal salary, live a decent lifestyle, send their kids to college, and have money left over for retirement. They even can absorb a financial bump in the road (or two). Meanwhile most of the world pi$$es their paychecks away as soon as they get them, live constantly in debt (which lowers their standard of living), and want government to bail them out when things go bad or when they retire with no nestegg. >>
Well now you are speaking of quantity over quality. I don't put myself in that place to judge people on how they live their lives. We spend such a short time on this planet in comparison to many things and I don't begrudge anyone for doing what they want with their money. If they are happy, then so be it. I've seen many people scrimp and save for a lifetime, only to be lonely and bitter when they retire. Who's right?
<<Our first Americans were examples of sustainable use of natural resources. They hunted, they fished, and they harvested, and yet there was so much game in the midwest that the skies sometimes would be blackened by flocks of birds, and the plains were covered with animals in numbers we can't even fathom today.>>
And then came technology and the "need for greed." Must of all been republicans.
<<Then came the Europeans (the Anglo Saxons, to be specific). They would farm a plot of land until it wouldn't yield any more cotton and corn. Then they would move on. Again, and again, and again. The European migration west was less about adventure and more about not knowing how to make do with what you have.>>
I would have to disagree with you here. The migrations of the 1800s were not as you would like to have us believe. Migrations, say after the Civil War were due to economics. Blacks (i.e. Exodusters) moving West to escape the thraldom of sharecropping and such. Plus, the government was offering huge tracts of land (i.e. Homestead Act, etc) for people to settle. This was hard to say no to whether you were already in America or coming from Europe. People weren't in the East getting board and running out West for something better to do. The growth of the railroad (i.e. technology) made this easier.
<<As for game, well the predators were "inconvenient" so they were eliminated. Roaming game were plentiful, so they shot them for sport from train cars and left the carcasses.>>
I won't argue this, but is the guy who shot 10 buffalo any more guilty then the guy who shot 2?
<<They put up fences which stopped the normal migration. Pretty soon, the whole ecosystem was out of whack. Buffalo almost became extinct. Deer need to be culled by humans because their natural predators were eliminated. And then there was the dust bowl era.>>
The dust bowl had a lot more to due than missing buffalo and coyote.
<<Undaunted Courage:
Meriwether Lewis Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West
by Steven Ambrose >>
Although I love Steven Ambrose, he gets on a soapbox sometimes, but he's a great read.
<<So - for example - don't call my friend Mr. Castanet "rich" (as opposed to Rich) as if it were a pejorative. He worked hard. He saved. He fixed his own stuff. He invested. He retired young. Now he's having the time of his life. His kids are through college, He has half a dozen cars around the house. His house is paid for. Good for him. He spent wisely. He engaged in sustainable consumption. And now he's in great shape. >>
I'm happy that Rich is doing well and is extremely satisfied with the way his life has turned out, however, would you like him less if he lived in a shelter with no money and was little over weight? And more importantly, what if he liked living in the shelter and looking the way he did? Who's more successful? I'm not that kind of judge.
<<This is NOT the same as the guy down the street who is saddled in debt and will go bankrupt if he gets layed off or has a bad medical bill. >>
Yes it is Bill, because it has to do with the quality of the person, not the stats sheet.
<<Do NOT compare me to the guy down the street who uses 10 times as much energy (literally) to heat his home.>>
Why Bill, don't you ever leave the gas on a little too high sometimes? Keep open a window by mistake? Waste is waste.
<<Do NOT compare me to the guys down the street who use 5 times as much gasoline because everyone drives solo, and drives SUVs. >>
I will compare you because you USE gasoline in your car and I'm happy for the guy who is happy with his suv.
<<Do NOT compare me to the guys who are NOT working hard to purchase a next vehicle that'll have multiple options for energy (E85 or biodiesel or hybrid or some combination thereof). >>
There is an easy solution to that. Stop producing gasoline cars and force the industry to make the alternative. BUT NO, that won't happen, and you know why? Because the ficticious oil lobby and the auto makers would never allow it to happen.
<<And any financial advisor will tell you that it's the little things that make big differences down the road. Save a dollar today and it's worth 3 to 10 dollars a decade from now.>>
Let's see, One dollar in the 1980s (triple the deficit and increase the cost of living...especially here in New England) and it's worth $10 today? But how much does it buy compared to back then?
<<Borrow a dollar on a credit card today, and you've got quite a debt a decade later. Do enough "little" things right, and it isn't chump change any more.>>
So (to be a little sarcasitc here), spend 2 - 5 Billion per month on a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then decrease taxes. I don't have to be a good economist here, but I would say we are deficit spending again. Is that the same as your credit card example?
<<Never mind the fact that SUVs kill their occumpants (via rollovers) and anyone they run into... Like the Yankees, there's lots of reasons to hate 'em.>>
And small cars crumble when they are hit. It's not the car that is dangerous, but the people who drive them. Let's regulate them for a while.
<<As for your "speaking from the gut", well you are indeed doing so. Pay close attention to the language, Mike. Perhaps you need some finance and accounting classes to appreciate the concepts here. (I picked them up from the school of hard knocks).>>
Personally, I'm not the best with economics (A- in college), but to me it's a simple matter for us little guys. You can't spend what you don't have and you need money to make money. How's that for a start. But economics is a hard science. It doesn't take into account the person. Making the profit as Panther alludes to, that's what it is all about, and it sounds like from your examples, that you think so as well. If you make it financially, then you are a good soldier, but if you become a burdon on society, then we should just dump you on the side of the road with all of society's blame. I don't go for that way of thinking.
mike
Disclaimer:
Anyway, gotta run to class. This post, although direct and sarcastic in part was in no way meant to be demeaning or disrespectful to my friend Bill Sensei.
