Chuck Kuecker wrote:
> At 09:14 PM 10/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Chuck Kuecker wrote:
> > > I do not think it would be cost-competitive with gasoline. Of course,
> > > gasoline is presently price-supported in the US, so any comparisons would
> > > be warped.
> >ExcUUUSE me? How is a fuel that has a tax margin on it of 60% to be considered
> >in any way 'price-supported'? Alcohol for fuel is sold tax free and actually
> >subsidized in some cases and it still isn't competetive with gasoline.
> Oil production is price-supported - witness the recent release of federal
> "emergency" stocks to bring the price down just in time for the election.
Funny, I thought price supports kept prices *up*. Anyway, the "release"
of federal stocks means the gov't is either selling crude it bought when
it was cheap (thus turning a profit at the expense of distributors) or
more likely merely allowing refineries to draw on large volumes of crude
they've been paid to store at government expense. Either way, the
government actions are lowering the price of petroleum products, not
> All the federal military strength that goes into policing world oil
> production has to count for some kind of "support".
More like a subsidy wich reduces business uncertainty and *lowers*
prices for the consumer (more than made up for in a higher tax burden,
> The taxes are an
> attempt at social engineering, and are actually minimal compared to the
> rest of the world. Don't for a nanosecond think I am approving of either
> the taxes or the roundabout "price supports". The free market price would
> be an interesting thing to see.
I agree with you there- I speculate that overall prices to the consumer
would be lower, but even more variable than they are now, due to typical
commdity market fluctuations.
-- Doug Jones Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT