LPG

The comment was in response to your "metrocentric" POV. I was putting
another POV into the discussion.

See comment you replied to above.

Hammo

 

Governments grants are not free, the money has to come from somewhere.

They will either get it in more taxes from you, and me, or they may
reallocate the money, from money that was earmarked for your mother's
artificial hip, or the crosswalk they were going to put in at your kids
school.

Theo

 

Google Earth?

Theo

 

"You big city people, no idea out side that framework."

That was a POV?

"metrocentric"? I get the impression you think you can impress people with
big words and obfuscation. To some people that just looks like shit.

Theo

 

I actually thought he was voicing his interest in
metrosexuals..................

ck

 

Fark me that's INSANE!!
Brisbane City Council is going to huge trouble and expense to make some of
their busses run on CNG (piped 500km from Roma) when they could just drive
20km out to the refineries and fill up on free waste LPG?!!?

 

In other words you don't know either.

 

No wonder I'm confused.

 

You're welcome to correct me if my facts are incorrect, however my
understanding is that LPG is one of the many products of the drilling
for/production of crude oil (along with petrol, diesel and kerosene
etc). Natural gas deposits (while formed by a similar process to crude
oil on my very basic understanding of geology) are seperate and distinct
from crude (and the LPG that is derived from that extraction process).

JL

 

<shrug> So what ? The vast majority of Australia's population falls in
to large or medium sized cities (which by the way includes you, unless
you;ve move - Albury Wodonga is a city by Aussie stds

JL

 

The govt. has a finite budget, which does vary according to the variable
taxes such as excise as well as it's expenditure choices. So if the
income goes down because they're raking in less dollars from petrol
excise, then they have the choice of reducing expenditure, raising
taxes, or borrowing money to cover the shortfall.

JL

 

His point was do you recognise there is a cost to some other program of
works to put this in place.

JL

 

Not specifically, but I do know that it' not free.

Theo

 

Aha, you don't know either.

Theo paraphrasing Stephen.

 

We're going to use less liquid (rather than liquified) petrol, so it must be
good for the planet.

Theo

 

That's not true, it's a cost benefit analysis - that ratio has certainly
been true for a while, however the additional travel costs are changing
the equation, for some that will matter, for others it won't

Which firstly assumes home ownership in both cases, people can
substitute home ownership in the 'burbs with renting in the inner city,
secondly it's funds available after fixed expenditures that count for
quality of life, so if transport costs of living in the outer ring
exceeds the rental/mortgage costs of living in the innner ring then the
cost benefit of living further away changes.

Which puts you in the "it doesn't matter what it costs me, I'm not going
to move" so you're inflexible on that parameter and hence you'll change
the other parameters to suit. Other people have different value sets.

JL

 

Of course I have. Something to which you are addicted you will obtain by
whatever means you have at your disposal.

So what ?

JL

 

You wish !!!

JL

 

Actually, it does, however it's far less effective than education
campaigns and banning it in workplaces and etc. There's a key difference
for a start, people are physically addicted to nicotine, that makes them
extremely inelastic in their buying habits. People have lifestyles built
around the consumption of petrol, that makes them inelastic in their
consumption but more elastic (able to change their behaviour) than smokers.

Yes, that is exactly what happens short term, and for some people
permanently if that's what they value least. For others, who's idea of a
good time might not include watching their chickens scratch in the
garden over a home made espresso on the verandah, it will be important
to regain the cash flow to be able to go out and socialise again,
they'll be the people finding ways to reduce their petrol expenditure in
order to be able to spend it on pubs, clubs and alcohol.

It's all choices, I can tell you exactly what people will do as a group
by percentages, you can never know what a particular person will do
unless you ask them (and even then you may not get a true indication)

Which maps your value set on the continuum of choices, there will be
others the same and others who don't make that choice long term

Maybe, but even that is over simplifying, generally speaking the
rational fiscal response is to downsize the vehicle as part of the
normal change over cycle. Depreciation costs can of course far outweigh
fuel costs. For many people it would be far more rational to buy a $2000
fuel guzzler than to keep their $35K cheap to run 4cylinder - you can
buy a lot of petrol and maintenance for the $32K but of course it's
never as simple as that.Some people value reliability, aircon etc and
you come back again to it being that personal mix of what's important to you

JL

 

Nope, I'm pleased to say I'm not a Howard minion. However I can assume
on past performance it will involve cutting funding to welfare, disabled
or the mentally ill.

JL
(certainly won't be the military)