Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Ba-Dump Tissssh - Memes


Pat Riot

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Right.....increasing labor costs,  say $5,000/day per vessel is disastrous compared to saving $19,000/day per vessel in fuel costs.

 

I  have no idea what a retrofit would cost, but let's say a savings of $15,000 per day of steaming,  that's $4,500,000 savings in 300 days of steaming. Might come close to paying for a retrofit. Even if it took 2 years to pay off a retrofit,  in the 25 to 30 year average life of merchant vessels that still amounts to a significant reduction in fuel costs.   

 

But OHMYGAWDTHEARTICALSAIDCARBONEMISSIONS!!!!! So naturally it CAN'T be good and every True American should oppose it!

 

Yeah....it might not work out.  But,  like the Pony Express....the heavily subsidized by the government Pony Express (OMG!!!!GOVERNMENTSUBSIDY!!) it's worth a shot.   Industry tries all sorts of things that don't work,  look at the oil industry and dry wells.

I’m all for doing things the most efficient way. If this was actually that much of a savings I think businesses would actually be doing it. I don’t think for a minute they would want to pass the savings on to the consumer. But they would definitely want the profits. 
I would rather use domestically produced oil/gas and just skip the shipping. But we don’t seem to want to do that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Buckshot Bob

    5271

  • Pat Riot

    2824

  • Alpo

    2448

  • Subdeacon Joe

    1870

15 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Yeah....it might not work out.  But,  like the Pony Express....the heavily subsidized by the government Pony Express (OMG!!!!GOVERNMENTSUBSIDY!!) it's worth a shot. 

Well . . . since you bring it up:

 

At the time Pony Express was the fastest way to get mail from one side of the country to the other. It is rational for the government to support such a service.

 

But when the Pony Express couldn't financially make it on its own, the service was discontinued after two years. 

 

The relatively rapid demise of the Pony Express tends to indicate that the government did not decree that all other mail services had to end, use its regulatory authority to make it difficult, expensive, or impossible to send mail any way OTHER than the Pony Express. It did not impose additional costs on the users of other means of communication, and then use the funds to shore up financial shortfalls in the Pony Express. It did not use government regulating and permitting authority to reward or restrict consumer choices to achieve a government-decreed goal.

 

Instead the government let the 'free hand' of the market work, the consumers made their choices, and the Pony Express became a bit of romantic western history.

Edited by Ozark Huckleberry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

Well . . . since you bring it up:

 

At the time Pony Express was the fastest way to get mail from one side of the country to the other. It is rational for the government to support such a service.

 

But when the Pony Express couldn't financially make it on its own, the service was discontinued after two years. 

 

The relatively rapid demise of the Pony Express tends to indicate that the government did not decree that all other mail services had to end, use its regulatory authority to make it difficult, expensive, or impossible to send mail any way OTHER than the Pony Express. It did not impose additional costs on the users of other means of communication, and then use the funds to shore up financial shortfalls in the Pony Express. It did not use government regulating and permitting authority to reward or restrict consumer choices to achieve a government-decreed goal.

 

Instead the government let the 'free hand' of the market work, the consumers made their choices, and the Pony Express became a bit of romantic western history.

 

Bottom line....something new, government subsidized,  failed.  

 

The only "subsidies" this attempt at maritime fuel savings is the usual business tax breaks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

Bottom line....something new, government subsidized,  failed.  

 

Relevant (to your comment) bottom line -- something new, government subsidized, was ALLOWED TO FAIL on its own merits.

 

Not shored up through ideology-driven government transfer of funds from successful consumer choices. Not sheltered from the market by regulation and permitting policies hostile to its competitors. Not carried along past the point at which it demonstrated it was a market failure through government intransigence (and likely, truth be told, corruption).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion about the pony.

 

I had always understood that the pony was killed by a combination of THERE'S A WAR GOING ON and the telegraph. The pony charged $5 an ounce. Now if Aunt Susie wanted to write to nephew Joey out in California, she might be willing to pay that, if she's going to send a long newsy letter. But if Company A wants to send some information to their West Coast office, the telegraph is a whole lot cheaper.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Bottom line....something new, government subsidized,  failed.  

 

The only "subsidies" this attempt at maritime fuel savings is the usual business tax breaks 

Tax breaks ARE subsidies and they are never-ending. Take away the taxpayer support and the entire green energy gambit dies overnight. 
 

Now, let’s take this dead horse topic to a new thread and leave this meme thread alone.  

Edited by Abilene Slim SASS 81783
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Darwinism at work.

 

I hate to tell you guys this but you've been fooled.  I was looking for the LA Times article because I wanted to see what part of LA he was from and I found this:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gold-member/

 

I realize Snopes isn't very reliable either but when I couldn't find anything from the LA Times, I have to think they're correct.

  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Calamity Kris said:

 

I hate to tell you guys this but you've been fooled.  I was looking for the LA Times article because I wanted to see what part of LA he was from and I found this:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gold-member/

 

I realize Snopes isn't very reliable either but when I couldn't find anything from the LA Times, I have to think they're correct.

I did the same, but didn’t consult Snopes. There is no story to be found about this supposed person. I’m amazed people fall for this s**t. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Abilene Slim SASS 81783 said:

I did the same, but didn’t consult Snopes. There is no story to be found about this supposed person. I’m amazed people fall for this s**t. 

I don't think that it's necessarily that we, (I) believe the story, it's just that I have such little faith in people today that I think that somebody might be stupid enough to try it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

I don't think that it's necessarily that we, (I) believe the story, it's just that I have such little faith in people today that I think that somebody might be stupid enough to try it.

 

And start a TikTok "challenge."

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be a much more compelling photograph if we knew for a fact that it was taken in California.

 

Gas right now, here, is running right at $3. The highest it's been since Brandon took over is just under 4. And it has been down to real close to 2 several times. So $1.68 ain't all that impressive.

 

But I have seen comments that California gas is running a close second to British gas. 7-8-9 dollars a gallon.

 

So if California gas was $1.68, pre-Brandon, and is now 8 or 9 dollars - that would be an impressive statement.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alpo said:

That would be a much more compelling photograph if we knew for a fact that it was taken in California.

 

Gas right now, here, is running right at $3. The highest it's been since Brandon took over is just under 4. And it has been down to real close to 2 several times. So $1.68 ain't all that impressive.

 

But I have seen comments that California gas is running a close second to British gas. 7-8-9 dollars a gallon.

 

So if California gas was $1.68, pre-Brandon, and is now 8 or 9 dollars - that would be an impressive statement.

 

 

Personally I’d be very happy if gas got back down to $1.70 a gallon 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.