Daily Kos

Inflation Is Getting Worse

Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:33:31 AM PDT

From the WSJ:

After several years of relative stability, a wave of rising prices is washing over the world economy.

It comes at a most inconvenient time. The Federal Reserve is sharply cutting U.S interest rates -- the opposite of the usual response to rising inflation -- to prevent the housing bust and credit crisis from causing a deep, prolonged recession. That's making the global response to inflation more complicated.

On Wednesday, the World Bank estimated global food prices have risen 83% over the past three years, threatening recent strides in poverty reduction. The IMF forecast consumer prices in emerging and developing countries will rise 7.4% this year, the most inflation since 2001 though still well below the double-digit levels of the recent past.

From the WSJ:

Federal energy officials expect oil to average $101 a barrel this year, a sharp upward revision from its earlier forecast that suggests prices will remain above $100 for some time.

But the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects American drivers, truckers and airlines to use less fuel this year as the economy softens. That could take some pressure off prices for gasoline and other fuels, and could keep the price of gasoline under a U.S. average of $4 a gallon.

Just months ago, $100-a-barrel oil seemed an aberration -- a price surge driven by speculators that would soon slip back to more reasonable levels. But the move by the agency -- usually a price bear that had predicted $87-a-barrel oil in January -- suggests $100 oil could be the new norm this year.The arm of the U.S. Energy Department also doesn't anticipate much relief next year, when it sees prices averaging $92.50 a barrel.

Crude oil for May delivery fell 59 cents a barrel, or 0.5%, to $108.50 Tuesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil hit a record high of $110.33 March 13.

Contrary to warnings from many analysts, the agency believes gasoline prices will remain below $4 a gallon in the U.S. during the height of the summer driving season. The government sees gasoline prices peaking in June at $3.60, up from the national average of around $3.33 now. The U.S., consumer of nearly a quarter of the world's daily crude production, is expected to use 85,000 barrels a day less this year in liquid fuels than in 2007, the agency said.

No one really knows where prices will end up -- despite their best intentions and good faith efforts to try and figure it out.  However, here is the basic issue with energy demand: so long as India and China are still growing at strong clips, expect more upside price pressure.  Those two countries add 2 billion people to the demand side of the equation.

Let's look at some charts.

On the daily for oil, notice the following:

-- Prices were in an uptrend from early February to early March

-- Prices broke this trend, but have remained above the $100 level

-- Prices are consolidating above $100 level in either a triangle or rectangle formation

-- The 10 and 20 day SMAs are bunched together, indicating they are looking for direction.

-- Prices remain above the 50 SMA

On oil's weekly chart, notice the following:

-- Oil started a rally at the beginning of last year.

-- Throughout the course of that rally, oil has moved through resistance and then consolidated price gains.  

-- It has used the 10 and 20 week SMA as support

Short version: oil's charts are incredibly strong and show no sign of reversing.

As a result, prices are the pump are noticeably higher.

As a result of high fuel prices, we're starting to see protests from truckers:

Tons of freight idled across the country Tuesday as independent truckers pulled their rigs off the road while others slowed to a crawl on major highways in a loosely organized protest of high fuel prices.

Using CB radios and trucking Web sites, some truckers called for a strike Tuesday to protest the high cost of diesel fuel, hoping the action might pressure President Bush to stabilize prices by using the nation's oil reserves.

"The gas prices are too high," said Lamont Newberne, a trucker from Wilmington, N.C., who along with 200 drivers protested at a New Jersey Turnpike service area. "We don't make enough money to pay our bills and take care of our family."

On the Turnpike, southbound rigs "as far as the eye can see" staged a short lunchtime protest by moving about 20 mph near Newark, jamming traffic on one of the nation's most heavily traveled highways, authorities said.

While we're looking at commodity prices, let's look at agricultural prices because they have also been spiking

On the daily chart, notice the following:

-- Price have broken through the support of an upward sloping trendline started in late November 2007

-- Prices are below the 50 day SMA and are heading lower

-- The 10 day 20 day SMAs are both headed lower and have moved through the 50 day SMA

-- Prices are consolidating below the 50 day SMA

-- Prices have continually moved through previously established resistance and consolidated those gains

-- Prices are still in a confirmed uptrend

The reason agricultural prices are so important is there are food riots in various countries across the globe and governments are curbing exports:

As well as the riots in Egypt, rising food costs have been blamed for violent unrest in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal. Protests have also occurred in Uzbekistan, Yemen, Bolivia and Indonesia.

China, India, Pakistan, Cambodia and Vietnam have curbed rice exports to ensure there is enough for their own people.

Most commodities are priced in dollars.  Therefore a dropping dollar is a de factor price increase.

On the daily chart, notice the following:

-- Prices consolidated in the 74 - 77 range from late November to late February.

-- Prices broke through support and have since fallen about 3.3%

-- Prices are consolidating in a triangle consolidation pattern

-- The 10 and 20 day SMAs are bunched together, indicating a lack of direction.

On the weekly chart, notice the following:

-- Prices have continually moved lower, falling through support

-- After falling through support, prices have consolidated their drop and then moved lower

-- The shorter SMAs are below the longer SMAs

-- Prices are below the SMAs

All of this leads to high inflation in the US:

Tags: economy, recommended (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 274 comments

  •  I wonder when our "MBA" President will figure (133+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Thumb, Ed in Montana, vicki, hester, Hornito, Shockwave, billlaurelMD, gecko, ZAPatty, SallyCat, wenchacha, mataliandy, bronte17, mmacdDE, SecondComing, MD patriot, PBnJ, Scoopster, Aquarius40, roses, taonow, Swordsmith, wader, kosophile, Redfire, CitizenOfEarth, Tracker, snakelass, lcrp, barbwires, side pocket, eve, Josiah Bartlett, Blueiz, BDA in VA, rapala, maybeeso in michigan, 3goldens, PAbluestater, SherwoodB, OpherGopher, PBen, PsychoSavannah, Jersey Girl, truong son traveler, Brooke In Seattle, reflectionsv37, Mz Kleen, mojo workin, jimreyn, lotlizard, Ice Blue, blue jersey mom, Spunkmeyer, sodalis, Pluto, Dania Audax, noweasels, Mother Mags, Paul Ferguson, esquimaux, myboo, Ellicatt, rl en france, Yellow Canary, mcartri, srvaughn, greenearth, A Siegel, Lashe, gatorcog, imabluemerkin, Dauphin, NearlyNormal, justCal, bernardpliers, profh, doingbusinessas, crystal eyes, Granny Doc, Leap Year, takeahike, DBunn, ctlr, One Pissed Off Liberal, nathguy, donnamarie, Cronesense, Fredly, Deadicated Marxist, moodyinsavannah, offgrid, suburi, lemming22, yoduuuh do or do not, Outrider, unionboy, FishOutofWater, chigh, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, drchelo, Sean in Motion, Coolwateroverstones, jnhobbs, Hens Teeth, rmonroe, VA Breeze, FishBiscuit, 1Eco, swedenusa, spencerh, wagdog, Johnny Rapture, Akonitum, Lujane, Pitias, mofembot, temptxan, change the Be, BYw, less god more good, priceman, Scubaval, DemocraticOz, F64club, Losty, NY Dem, fitz2, jfromga, Sleepwalkr, LSBuchanan, The Honorable Freddie, Contra

    this all out   after  he leaves office and then blame it on his "successor"? He has run this country into the ground literally and figuratively between him, his father and Ronald Reagan they account for almost the entire 9 trillion in debt this nation is in, and the Republicans are the party of "fiscal responsibility"? We can;t afford anymore "fically responsible Republicans" can we?

    •  Question for the gurus here: (29+ / 0-)

      Years ago someone told me our gasoline prices were miniscule compared to European prices. This same person commented then (about 5-6 years ago) that if gas prices here were like in Europe, we'd have done more R&D in green alternatives... and that it was Saudi-US collusion that kept them low. Don't know if that's true or not.

      Just wondering what people think about that.

      On so many levels these guys have taken apart our country. Not just the economy, but the environment, the educational system, the health care system. When money is privileged over all else: humans, the nation, the globe, health, well-being, etc. we are lost. We went into Iraq to line cheney's pockets, basically. Imagine how much could have been done with the moolah being buried in Iraq.

      "The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing." The Tao Te Ching

      by hester on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:01:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that is true (35+ / 0-)

        and until gas prices are even higher, we won't kick our dependency on oil.

        In Europe, where gas is heavily taxed, there are many more options for small vehicles that are more fuel efficient, including, new, lower emission diesel's.  The car manufactures are making these cars, just not importing them here.  

        I think we do need to pay more if we are to see real innovation and reduction is use.  Two problems with our situation here, though.  The money we pay for gas is going to oil companies, not to rebuilding our infrastructure and paying for developing improved mass transportation.  And, because of that, it hits people on limited incomes, especially in rural states like Maine, hard, because there are no alternatives to driving your own car.

        Don't believe everything you think.

        by EJP in Maine on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:24:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I should emphasize however, (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          hester, Mz Kleen, beltane

          I in no way qualify as a "guru"!  I just have strong opnions about this!

          Don't believe everything you think.

          by EJP in Maine on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:25:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Europeans have much higher fuel taxes (22+ / 0-)

            to support public transport, discourage private vehicle use and reduce the outflow of Euros to OPEC.

            Saudi Arabia doesn't have the power to keep prices down anymore because they have proven to be unable to increase production.

            The world's largest field, in Saudi Arabia, is in terminal decline. See "The Oil Drum" for details.

            "It's the planet, stupid."

            by FishOutofWater on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:23:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wish. (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              mataliandy, snakelass, 3goldens

              Granted that the UK doesn't think of themselves as Europe, but even with our high fuel taxes, public transport is waaaay more expensive than driving. The upside is that people over 60 get a pass to ride the busses for free, even in London.

              •  UK government policy discourages mobility (4+ / 0-)

                Britain's transport policy is not a model we want to follow.  The regulatory structure there has the principle effect of spawning more management consultants.  There is a phenomenal amount of duplication and waste resulting from the franchising system for rail from John Major and similar problems from deregulated buses from Margaret Thatcher.  

                The only answer this waste of a Labour government has for it is to keep jacking up fuel duty, and skimming off most of the revenue for non-transportation purposes, so as to bring in more revenue for other purposes and hope that the expensive fuel gets people to use the overpriced transit.  But they are literally too deeply in hock to the private-sector-is-best ideology to change; they have gotten themselves so deeply into debt on private-public-partnership deals and so overcommitted with their own mismanagement of public services that they need the fuel duty revenue for purposes other than transportation.

            •  They also had options in place first (13+ / 0-)

              Europe has always prioritized public transportations; their trains would boggle the minds of most Americans.

              I don't think you can put punitive prices first and expect options and alternatives to follow, as our oil companies have shown. They just don't CARE whether we go into debt trying to pay their prices. Punishing the bottom-level consumer doesn't change the system. We need to push for changes higher up, and the proposal that's been on the table for a while (that had the oil companies whining in horror) that we not only rescind tax breaks for the oil companies but impose a windfall tax to invest in alternatives is a good one. But remember how the oil companies laughably claimed  that if they weren't free to make whatever massive profit they could they wouldn't be able to invest in alternativ-energy R&D....not that they ever WOULS but....

              We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

              by anastasia p on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:14:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So have the Canadians (24+ / 0-)

                Canada uses public transit at more than twice the rate we do on a per-capita basis.  Toronto, despite being very low density, has higher per-capita ridership than New York and has more total riders than metro Chicago despite having less than half the population. Guess what.  It's fast, and it's frequent, and it's affordable.  People will use public transit that is fast and frequent and affordable.

                But they didn't rip out all their streetcar systems, and those cities that did lose their streetcars have some splendid bus networks.

                •  Fair point... (5+ / 0-)

                  I live in Chicago and I've spent a smidgen of time in Toronto.  I went there on a business trip and I had a free day to go do some touristing.  I was in the suburbs, but I was able to catch a bus downtown very easily.

                  Here in Chicago, if you're in the city itself, the infrastructure is really good.  Once you get outside of the city though it falls apart quickly.  You can use Metra trains, etc, to get downtown, but you still have to get to the Metra, and bus service is infrequent and doesn't run particularly late in most places.  When I lived out in the burbs, I took the train downtown, but I still had to drive 20 minutes to get to the train stop.  

                  I'm actually on the verge of selling my one car.  I use it very infrequently at this point.  I get my groceries delivered (and if need be I could walk to a store).  I take the L or Metra to work or various activities around the city.  I can supplement with cabs or the hourly car rentals they now have throughout the city.  It's only when I want to go out to the suburbs that it gets to be a hassle to not have a car.

                  ---
                  Some of my best friends are wrong

                  by sterno on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:43:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right, Chicago transit (0+ / 0-)

                    stinks once outside the immediate metropolitan area.  My daughter and son-in-law essentially did without a car in Chicago, but when they moved to the burbs it was impossible.

                    "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man'". Robbie Robertson

                    by NearlyNormal on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:11:10 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Public Transit in US (7+ / 0-)

                  How's this for public transit?

                  My husband's car has died, so we're going to try to do without. There are few jobs in this state, so he has to work in another state during the week. Here's his commute:

                  1 - Drive 40 miles South to the bus (at this point I drive back, making it an 80 mile round-trip).

                  2 - Take the bus 180 miles South to the train.

                  3- Take the train 20 miles NORTH to the station near work.

                  The train station is literally across the street from his work, BUT, there's only one exit from the station, and there's fencing for a very long distance. so, he has to walk a mile around the fencing to get to the office.

                  4 - Get a ride 15 miles North to the place where he stays for the week.

                  5 - Ride his bike to work in good weather (15 mi each way) or get a ride by car from my very kind brother.

                  The only public transit alternative for his weekday commute would be to walk 2 miles to the train, take the train 45 miles South to another train, backtrack 20 miles North on the second train, followed by the mile walk to the office. Biking is significantly faster.

                  Reverse the process on Friday.

                  Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                  by mataliandy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:42:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Alternative (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    mataliandy

                    Wouldn't it just be cheaper and more expedient to move?  I assume all this public transport, not to mention your 80-mile round-trip in your vehicle, is not free.

                    I just read an article in last month's Atlantic about how the credit situation and the cost of energy and everything else will begin to force people to move, if not to large cities, then at least to mid-size ones, where transportation and energy costs, while not necessarily lower, can be avoided more easily.

                    I sympathize with your situation. My family has had to make similar hard choices, too, because of the economy. We decided to eliminate one car and I take public transportation to work.  When we absolutely MUST have another car, we rent (and splurge on something nice, since it's still cheaper than insurance, registration, taxes, etc.).  But when push came to shove, we had to look at our bottom line and make the right moves for our family as a whole.

                    •  We moved where we are (0+ / 0-)

                      Because we can't afford to live anywhere else. Even $700/mo rent is more than we can cover, and just try finding rent that low near anyplace with jobs.

                      Right now we have a dumpy little cabin on arable land, that's free to heat, with no mortgage. My husband has free lodging during the week, but there really isn't room for all of us to live there full time. So, we make do.

                      Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                      by mataliandy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:17:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Very different infrastructure (9+ / 0-)

                It's tempting to give Europeans credit for some kind of foresight here, but the truth is that the cities of Europe were built before the existence of the automobile.  Therefore, their transit infrastructure was built around the assumption of a lot of walking.  Everybody lives closer together in a much smaller space and so public transit is a very practical option.

                If you look at the United States, on average, we are sprawled out, but if you look at the cities that developed very early on in our history like New York, Boston, and Chicago, these are cities that have pretty robust public transit infrastructures.  Had Paris started becoming a real city in the early 1900's, it'd be a sprawled out traffic hell like Atlanta, or Los Angeles.  

                ---
                Some of my best friends are wrong

                by sterno on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Though that robust public transit in Boston, etc. (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  EJP in Maine, beltane

                  ... did not follow the people as they moved into the urban ring around the city. Instead, "bypasses" were built for cars to flow easily around the cities. If trains had been built along these highways, with spokes leading to the city hub stations, the transit infrastructure here would be much more like that in Europe.

                  Beware the everyday brutality of the averted gaze.

                  by mataliandy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  When you're in a hole ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... the first step is to quit digging.  And that means to quit structuring our towns and cities like they are today.

                  The problem is that we're at an impass.  We're not allowed to raise gas milage requirements, we're not allowed to increase gas prices, we're not allowed to punish people who live in suburbia -- we're screwed, and we're trying to tread water.

                  The sad fact is, people are going to pay more at the pump no matter what.  The question is whether we want them to pay more now and use the money to fund public transportation or whether we want them to pay more five years from now and not have infrastructure.  There is no other alternative.

                •  and it's helpful (0+ / 0-)

                  especially for those of you up East, to remember that we deal with significantly more distance between places here than most of Europe does.

                  I wonder -- asking the smart ones -- if a better analog to our fuel crisis may be looking at Russia...

                  Beware all ventures which require new clothes, and not a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

                  by Shocko from Seattle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Wisdom in anastasia p's point--punish high (6+ / 0-)

                See her quote:

                Punishing the bottom-level consumer doesn't change the system. We need to push for changes higher up, and the proposal that's been on the table for a while (that had the oil companies whining in horror) that we not only rescind tax breaks for the oil companies but impose a windfall tax to invest in alternatives is a good one.

                The Businessman's President knows what he's doing; he is inarticulate, not stupid.

                W. Bush is insecure and that makes him tentative.
                He is plenty smart when he's on his own firm ground,
                and with his own kind, which we in the public hardly ever see (nonpublic events).

                That's how he got the reputation for being cocky and arrogant. We haven't seen that side in public recently.

                Now he just wants out of the job, which we'll assist him in doing.

                Yet as long as this Texas oil frontman is in office, the oil companies will continue their record profits, as will the Mideast oil royal despots.
                These people currently run the world.

                So aim high. You hit what you aim for.

                Venceremos!

                Venceremos! (We shall overcome!)

                by Redfire on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:22:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We used to have rail systems in many cities (4+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                wu ming, mataliandy, EJP in Maine, beltane

                Then the oil & tire companies convinced the government to privatize the service. Once they owned the municiple rail systems, they pulled up the tracks, started using diesel busses, announced that public transportation wasn't economical, and returned an inefficient, debt-ridden, diesel-powered, system to the cities.

                Impeach or be impeached.

                by Hens Teeth on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Are there less suburbs too? (0+ / 0-)

              I'd wager at least they don't have 50 mile commutes like the average is around these parts.

              "A word after a word after a word is power." -Margaret Atwood

              by John Shade on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:17:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I have long pegged Americans' tipping point (22+ / 0-)

          at $9 per gallon. That is, gas will have to be $9 per gallon for people to substantively reconsider and change their living, driving and development habits.

          Unfortunately, I think we'll be seeing gunfire around suburban gas stations at $6 or $7 per gallon.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:34:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's funny (11+ / 0-)

            A few years ago -- whenever it was that gas prices first started to routinely hover around $3 -- I saw articles about how people weren't really curbing their driving. They were cutting back on other things, but not miles behind the wheel.

            I started claiming that I thought the tipping point was $10 a gallon -- not until then would we see a substantial change in American driving habits.

            The surprising thing to me is that nobody has ever disagreed with me on this. Nobody has ever said, "oh, no, it'll happen well before then." They think about it, and then they nod thoughtfully.

            •  It's easier to give up other things... (10+ / 0-)

              See the trouble is that most of the driving people do is necessary driving.  It's getting to work, taking the kids to school, shopping for groceries, etc.  There's only so much you can really cut that back.  

              It ends up being much easier to do less activities out and about, go on less vacations, buy less luxury goods, put off major purchases, etc.  If I was going to the movies every weekend, buying dinner with it, etc, and gas prices go up, it's easier to go every other weekend, rather than buy a new gas efficient car.

              ---
              Some of my best friends are wrong

              by sterno on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's our development decisions (12+ / 0-)

                that have made driving necessary. We've destroyed transportation choice for 80 to 90 percent of Americans.

                "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

                by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:38:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Geography is the mother of history... (10+ / 0-)

                  The reality is that the choices were made because they seemed reasonable at the time.  We had a vast sprawling country, plenty of gasoline, declining prices for vehicles, etc.  Why live in a cramped city when you can have a spacious yard in the suburbs?  

                  It isn't like Europeans decided from day one to just think ahead better about these issues.  What happened was that the cities and the culture and the sense of space all developed at a time when there were no cars, etc.  Population density has always been higher there and thus the sense of personal space, etc, have always been different.  

                  ---
                  Some of my best friends are wrong

                  by sterno on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Yes and no. (0+ / 0-)

                  These trends can be turned around easier than many people think. If people are willing, they can live in denser housing near where they work. Businesses can open satellite offices and use telecommuting technologies to reduce commutes. If we were to double or triple the number of people willing to use public transportation, don't you think an expanded system would also be much more convenient? More routes, more trips, and expanded hours would be a natural result of more riders.

                  All it takes is a financial incentive.

                  In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
                  American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

                  by davewill on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:32:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You have to undo set patterns (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Geenius at Wrok

                    Our absurd pro-sprawl zoning laws have to be completely undone and the people who benefited from them or rely on them aren't about to give up without a fight. Even worse, there are many housing associations that also have the power to enforce the low-density status quo, but little ability to overturn it.

                    •  Not to mention (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      Shocko from Seattle

                      the colossal cost of retrofitting nearly our entire built environment.

                      I can foresee sprawl suburbia becoming a massive squatterville.

                      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

                      by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Do you really think so? (0+ / 0-)

                        The biggest problem is the work commute. Most people have reasonable close shopping, or such shopping could reasonably be built. Most of our workforce (especially suburban workers) are candidates for decentralized offices. None of this requires massive infrastructure changes, just the will to do it.

                        In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
                        American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

                        by davewill on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  in how many suburbs (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          Pluto

                          might one reasonably walk to buy groceries?

                          Beware all ventures which require new clothes, and not a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

                          by Shocko from Seattle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:09:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How many people need a mega mart more than (0+ / 0-)

                            2-4 times a month? Smaller markets could become competitive again if people care enough to WANT to walk for groceries. It would not be difficult to accommodate them in most neighborhoods. Usually it would just be a matter of replacing the local "convenience" store with a real grocer.

                            But walking distance isn't really necessary, just close enough so that a true commuter car (electric, 25-35 mph) is practical.

                            In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
                            American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

                            by davewill on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  That's because you're trying to FORCE them. (0+ / 0-)

                      If fuel prices rise, they will be CLAMORING for these changes. It seems to be the ONLY way it will happen.

                      In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
                      American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

                      by davewill on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:50:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Here you buy housing in places where you can walk (8+ / 0-)

                There are fewer individual homes, more apartments, even in the suburbs. And one of the considerations when you buy a home is to make sure that you are within walking distance of food markets, public transportation, etc. So here in Madrid province, we live in a suburb. We have a relatively small appartment, but nice parks, four different buses that stop at the corner, a supermarket at the corner, walking distance from a food market, another supermarket, and several small food stores, as well as walking distance from many shops. In Va, we have a house, about a 35 min walk from the nearest bus stop, and about a 40 minute walk from the nearest supermarket. So, if there were ever to be gas restrictions for non-commercial drivers, I don't know what would happen in Va. Here in Spain, we would be OK.

              •  Also dropping those other activities (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Geenius at Wrok, 3goldens

                is the only REAL way to reduce the miles. People don't go out for "fun" drives, at least not enough to be a large factor. Mostly they run errands (or drive somewhere to spend money). Take me, for instance. I've got it down pretty low, I work 3 miles from my home and use an electric bike when I can. My wife drives less than 10 miles to work (and she nabbed my Prius because she was driving over double the number of miles I was...damn!). The rest of the driving is taking kids to school and activities, shopping trips and the like.

                If I wanted to reduce further, I'd have to chop the kid's activities which cost more than the fuel. My wife's 10 minute commute would take 2-3 hours by public transportation, and she is already using the most efficient car we are willing to consider at this time. Most shopping trips are combined with other driving, i.e. drop a kid at swim practice, visit the grocery store down the street, then wait for pratice to end, rather than go home and come back.

                The only thing we're doing that most people aren't is choosing to live close to where we work. This was a decision I made as a young man, opting for smaller, and/or more expensive housing rather than accepting a commute.

                In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
                American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

                by davewill on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Everyone I know is already (15+ / 0-)

            "substantively" reconsidering their driving habits, cancelling trips and even nights out. I bailed on a battle of the bands I promised to judge because it is in Kent, Ohio, about 50-60 miles away. Living and development habits unfortunately are things the average person has little control over. I look at how we in Cleveland tried to stop the budget-busting disaster that is the new convention center our county commissioners have been jonesing to build for their corporate masters, and we failed. They arrayed all the powers of the establishment against us including a newspaper that acted more as PR agency for the project than a reporting source.

            Remember that punishing the end user doesn't usually work. Corporations don't raise wages or put safety regulations into effect because the guy at the bottom is being crushed. They only change when they're forced to.

            We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

            by anastasia p on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:17:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My experience is similar (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              mataliandy, barbwires, ScienceMom

              I bailed on a battle of the bands I promised to judge because it is in Kent, Ohio, about 50-60 miles away.

              I'm in a couple of bands, but the one with the gigs is a Civil War reenactment band, so our jobs are in places like Gettysburg, Winchester, etc., which means that, despite clearing $900 for the year, after 'regular' expenses (strings, costumes, etc.) I actually lost $23 for the year when I factored in the $.45/mile tax deduction for travel.

              I have been traveling regularly from DC to Knoxville, TN, dealing with my son's stay in a residential treatment program, and, even with only a $.20/mile allowance for medical travel, still racked up quite a sizable deduction. God knows what the real costs were -- my car gets 22 mpg highway (we need more room than the Prius has, alas, so we take the Highlander), and it takes over $50 to fill the tank. Each trip requires about three fill-ups, so, in addition to hotels and food, we spend $150 a trip, far more than the tax deduction.

              Ed

              I do not belong to an organized political party -- I'm a Democrat. [Will Rogers]

              by Ed Drone on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:43:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  And the reason for this is (7+ / 0-)

            that we are captive to our development patterns.  Most of the United States -- by government policy -- developed after the Second World War at a far lower density than what had gone before it.  In Canada, where government approaches to zoning for density did not change, newer suburbs are far more compact.  Thus the paradox of a more thinly populated, more oil-dependent country than the United States that uses transit at more than twice the rate of the United States.

            Strange as it may seem, the current Supreme Court could do us a favor by going even more crazily right wing than it already is and simply rule that zoning laws are a violation of the takings clause.  It would get rid of one of the biggest threats of all to our energy independence -- density limits imposed by suburbs trying to keep the riff-raff out.  No more half acre or one acre or two acre minimum lot sizes.  Developers can stuff as much in as they want.  Tear down a ranch house and put an apartment building in its place?  Sure!  But that's what we're going to have to do if transportation in the burbs is going to be viable in the future.

            •  Not so fast (0+ / 0-)

              Not arguing with your idea, because the principle is sound, but in the execution there are unintended consequences.

              You tear down that Mc-ranch house and put up an apartment, and you drop the value of every other other Mc-ranch house in the neighborhood.  Bad for the homeowners, sure, but also bad for the local government, since when the value of property goes down, so do the tax collections from those properties, and taxes on everyone else then have to be raised to continue to provide the level of service, pay the salaries of your cops and firefighters and so forth.  I'm not sure the incrementally greater taxable value of the apartment building would make up for what you lose on all the other single family homes.

              A better idea is to go into where there is already high density, and make higher density.  Where apartments are limited to 10 stories, go to 20 or 30.  Where there are mobile home parks, yank'em out and put up apartment buildings.  And so on . . .

          •  It's a lot less than that (9+ / 0-)

            I'd say over $5/gal would do it.

            At that point, the McMansions out in the far suburbs, the 2 hr commutes, and the big SUVs become real budget killers. You'd easily be talking many hundreds a week for gas alone, because it's not just commuting to work - it's running the kids to every activity, because none of them are close, driving everytime you need ANYTHING, because there are no stores remotely in walking distance.

            Add the increase in gas to the increase in food, heating and electricity, and they'll be either looking for a job closer to home (which of course, doesn't exist) or living on beans and home-grown produce (the only advantage to most McMansions is a decent sized yard).

          •  In Germany the goal was ... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Geenius at Wrok, mataliandy

            ...around € 10.00/gallon  (around $15.00 per gallon)
            Now we are at € 5.80/gallon (almost $ 9.00).
            Sterno is quite right.
            We have cars that need less gas and we drive less. For $15.00 - I don't know. The public transportation will be affordable then. More or less we are constrained to walk or stay at home.

        •  It is an attitude..... (13+ / 0-)

          Americans love their cars and trucks, and they love them big.

          Take a simple comparison between Canada and the US. While Canada has higher gas prices, they are not that much higher but...

          In the US there are 1.01 cars per licensed driver, in Canada, .7. That's quite a difference.

          Just drive across the border and you will feel the difference. Canadians on average drive smaller cars. Super big SUV's like Lincoln Navigators are rarely seen.

          But the party is over. The US uses 25% of the world's oil with only 5% of the world's population. For that to continue Americans are going to have to pay a ton more for oil...its going to be less painful to simply drive smaller cars.

          I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong- Feynman

          by taonow on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:55:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have a pretty large truck... (0+ / 0-)

            but only because it is a vehicle with great utility, and it will easily haul broken motorcycles, which is what gets 95% of my driven miles.  If I lived in a less-marvelous climate, I'd get a little truck.

            Insanely fast, great handling 1000cc bike: around 35 MPG, more if I keep my throttle hand out of it.  A smaller, less high-performance model would get better mileage, but I like this one.

            1995 4X4 Chevy: 16 MPG?

            Difference in fun?  Vast.  Motorcycles are the perfect vehicle.  Even in the rain.

          •  I'm Driving a Hybrid These Days (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dotdot

        •  My guess is they CAN'T import them to this (3+ / 0-)

          country.

          •  Not true, they simply didn't think there would (0+ / 0-)

            be a market, but that's changing. The Smart car finally made it over, I've seen half a dozen in the past month. People were screaming for it for years, but until gas prices started rising, you couldn't convince anyone it would sell.

            In 2000, a criminal became President. In 2004, we failed to remove him.
            American Democracy, 1787-2004, RIP

            by davewill on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:37:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  anybody remember the CRX? (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              dotdot, truthbeauty

              I had a 1982 (I believe) Honda CRX with a 1.3 liter engine. First car I bought new, after blowing up five used cars the previous year (total expense for those five cars: less than $2,000).

              Point being, I got a legitimate 60 miles per gallon on the highway, if I was driving alone. It dropped two or three miles a gallon if I had a friend in the passenger seat. City mileage I don't remember, but it was at least in the high 30s. Now, it was a two-seater with a hatchback, and it was light (obviously), and it didn't go over 80 miles an hour.

              Big deal.

              I wish I still had it.

              But what I really wish is that somebody could explain why we're having such trouble with fuel economy when really good cars were made twenty-odd years ago with phenomenal fuel economy.

              Beware all ventures which require new clothes, and not a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

              by Shocko from Seattle on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I remember that car (0+ / 0-)

                It was quite popular and cute.

                "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

                by dotdot on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:07:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There've been others (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  truthbeauty

                  My wife had a 91 Geo Metro when I married her. That car had a 1.0-liter 3-cylinder engine and got an honest 52 mpg on the highway with two people riding. Fully loaded with our family of four and all our gear for Thanksgiving vacation at grandma's, we got 44-46. We put 175,000 miles on it and sold it to a mechanic when it lost 5th gear.  I remember reading around 1995 or so they did away with the 1-liter, 3-cylinder engine in the Metros favor of a 1.3-liter, 4-cylinder that never broke 44 mpg. And eventually the car went away altogether.

                  So yes, rather than evolving, we are taking backward steps in fuel economy.

            •  There are emissions and safety issues too (0+ / 0-)

              There is a 180 MPG diesel prototype, the mileage we get is not even close to what they could do.

        •  Please... Europeans have a different view (9+ / 0-)

          in general, about gas prices. The taxes that they pay that sits atop gasoline prices go for specific services received by the commons. Europeans know that they're paying taxes for all, and they're willing to adjust their spending and driving habits to further their common objectives.

          In the US, we're still living within the Reagan Nightmare, where taxes are mythical, endless drains on our individual pocketbooks for which we should summarily reject as the profits of publicly funded robber barrons.

          Nonsense.

          •  It isn't just gas taxes there either (6+ / 0-)

            In the countries with road tolling, the tolls are very high too -- at least they are in France and Italy.  I worked out the tolling on French autoroutes is about 21-22 cents a mile in US currency.  Even expensive systems in the US are about half that, and the cheapest one in the US, the Illinois Tollway, is a mere 2.8 cents a mile with I-pass and 5.6 cents a mile cash.

            The only tolled EU country with tolls that are at all typical of the US is Spain as far as I know.

            Granted, in the non-tolled EU countries -- Britain, Germany, the Low Countries, Scandinavia -- there is HUGE political resistance to tolls.  The fact Mayor Livingstone in London was able to get the congestion charge is simply a measure of how bad London traffic had become.

        •  One problem with that in the States (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          mataliandy, Pluto

          is that we are far less population dense than Europe (they have over 50% more people in about half the space as the continental US).  Also, their cities are older.  This means their urban areas have less sprawl than ours and tend to be concentrated more along old rail lines.

          By contrast, much of our urban and suburban growth has assumed ready access to personal automobiles and far more available space, so fitting public transit into that model is more difficult.  One of the problems of closely fitting development to a current set of circumstances and then getting caught flat footed when they change at some point down the road.

          Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds

          by synchronicityii on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Where I'm sitting (in Denmark)... (35+ / 0-)

        ...gas costs the equivalent of over $8/gallon. People drive here, but for the most part only essentially.  Bikes are a big part of traffic.  A few relatively easy lifestyle changes could make a big dent in oil consumption, in addition to making and buying more fuel efficient cars.  Within five years, I would guess, hybrids and super-efficient cars (including all-electrics) will be a big part of traffic on U.S. roads.  There is no other choice, for the economy and the environment.

        -7.75, -7.64 www.politicalcompass.org "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

        by scorponic on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:25:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]