|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: May 27, 2008 22:14
Told you so!
"You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've
graphed it
When you look at inflation-adjusted prices of fuel, they're -
surprisingly - not so bad (updated for decimalisation)
May 22, 2008 7:21 AM
Today's front page story in the Technology supplement - Fuel costs 16p
per mile. Why? - looks at how the performance of cars really hasn't
improved so much in the 100 years since the Ford Model T rolled off
the assembly line (the assembly line itself being an innovation).
Yes, fuel prices at the pump are high in absolute terms. Yet when you
compare them over time and adjust for inflation, some surprising
results emerge.
Using data from the AA, with prices (for four-star fuel) going back to
1903, and mixing in the inflation data (which goes back to 1750,
though cars don't), you get the graph below, showing the real price of
fuel over the past century.
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
|
| | 28 Comments |
|
  |
Author: MeMe Date: May 27, 2008 22:23
> Told you so!
>
> "You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've
> graphed it
> When you look at inflation-adjusted prices of fuel, they're -
> surprisingly - not so bad (updated for decimalisation)
> May 22, 2008 7:21 AM
>
> Today's front page story in the Technology supplement - Fuel costs 16p
> per mile. Why? - looks at how the performance of cars really hasn't
> improved so much in the 100 years since the Ford Model T rolled off
> the assembly line (the assembly line itself being an innovation).
>
> Yes, fuel prices at the pump are high in absolute terms. Yet when you
> compare them over time and adjust for inflation, some surprising
> results emerge.
>
> Using data from the AA, with prices (for four-star fuel) going back to ...
|
| Show full article (1.58Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
  |
Author: Tony DragonTony Dragon Date: May 27, 2008 23:51
Doug wrote:
> Told you so!
>
2 out of 2, still 100%%
--
Tony the Dragon
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: May 28, 2008 01:24
On 28 May, 06:14, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
yet another car-related thread by Gollum the Liar
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Date: May 28, 2008 01:24
Tony Dragon btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> 2 out of 2, still 100%%
It's 3 out of 3, one of his threads was auto-killfiled here, and
possibly by others with a sensible policy.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: NotMeNotMe Date: May 28, 2008 05:18
On 28 May, 06:14, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
> Told you so!
> When you look at inflation-adjusted prices of fuel, they're -
> surprisingly - not so bad (updated for decimalisation)
So lots of fiddle factors put in, to make a good story.
> May 22, 2008 7:21 AM
You have gone up in the world from the mail to the guardian, but I
doubt that
blogs.guardian.co.uk is a reputable scientific journal.
Lets look at the title of the article.
"You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've
graphed it"
and we've graphed it.
-- If they had any scientific credibility, then
it went out of the window with those four words.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: May 28, 2008 06:28
On 28 May, 06:14, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
> Told you so!
>
> "You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've
> graphed it
Oh dear, oh dear, the curse of Duhg strikes again. The original
article and graph, which purported to "prove" that fuel is not
historically expensive, only showed data up to 2005, so was entirely
irrelevant to the issue of whether fuel in 2008 is expensive. Whoever
is responsible for the article is clearly almost as dumb as you.
Be that as it may, since you posted the link, it has been updated.
Have another look, Dung. They have added in the prices for 2008, and
they say … "Yes, fuel is more expensive than for ages, in real
terms".
Gosh, what a surprise. Who'd have thought it? In fact, the current
price of around £5.40 per gallon is, if you look at the first graph,
higher than at any time since around 1920.
|
| Show full article (1.29Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: May 28, 2008 07:16
Brian Whitehead wrote:
> On 28 May, 06:14, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>> Told you so!
>>
>> "You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've
>> graphed it
>
> Oh dear, oh dear, the curse of Duhg strikes again. The original
> article and graph, which purported to "prove" that fuel is not
> historically expensive, only showed data up to 2005, so was entirely
> irrelevant to the issue of whether fuel in 2008 is expensive. Whoever
> is responsible for the article is clearly almost as dumb as you.
>
> Be that as it may, since you posted the link, it has been updated.
> Have another look, Dung. They have added in the prices for 2008, and
> they say
|
| |
| no comments |
|
  |
Author: francisfrancis Date: May 28, 2008 07:30
On 28 May, 15:16, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Brian Whitehead wrote:
>> On 28 May, 06:14, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>>> Told you so!
>
>>> "You think fuel prices are bad? Historically, they're not - and we've
>>> graphed it
>
>> Oh dear, oh dear, the curse of Duhg strikes again. The original
>> article and graph, which purported to "prove" that fuel is not
>> historically expensive, only showed data up to 2005, so was entirely
>> irrelevant to the issue of whether fuel in 2008 is expensive. Whoever
>> is responsible for the article is clearly almost as dumb as you.
>
>> Be that as it may, since you posted the link, it has been updated.
>> Have another look, Dung. They have added in the prices for 2008, and
>> they say … "Yes, fuel is more expensive than for ages, in real
>> terms".
>
>> Gosh, what a surprise. Who'd have thought it? In fact, the current ...
|
| Show full article (3.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: conkersackconkersack Date: May 28, 2008 07:33
On 28 May, 06:14, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
> Told you so!
So, if you would like to see the price increased, who would you like
to have the extra money?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
  |
|
|
|
|
|