Government Regulations

[smalltowngrll]

This question arises from the Oil industry thread.

The topic came up about government regulating the big oil companies in how much they should be permitted to charge.

My question to you all is this....just what do you consder permissable for government regulations? Where do you draw the line as to what the government should and should not regulate?

I for one am of the camp that says the government should regulate as little as possible. Now, with that said, I do believe in a certain frame for government regulations but, I'm still not quite sure of just how much. I'd like to hear your thoughts and please back them up with reasons. This is quite an open topic as far as the "What" is concerned..but, I am curious.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's the government's job to see that industries like Big Oil don't rip off American consumers, e.g., by manipulating supply, deliberately limiting refining capacity in order to drive prices up, etc. (which these companies have been caught doing repeatedly.)

If you or I, as private citizens, cheat or steal or defraud people then we are held accountable by the government, i.e., we get arrested, go to jail, pay a fine, or whatever.

Same thing should hold true for corporations.

They have a right to make a profit, but they should be subject to laws just like individuals.

The first American corporations had two rules designated by their charters:

1) Serve the public good

2) Do no harm to the community

These charters still exist, and they are legally binding.

[W*GS]

It's the government's job to see that industries like Big Oil don't rip off American consumers, e.g., by manipulating supply, deliberately limiting refining capacity in order to drive prices up, etc. (which these companies have been caught doing repeatedly.)

If you or I, as private citizens, cheat or steal or defraud people then we are held accountable by the government, i.e., we get arrested, go to jail, pay a fine, or whatever.

Is supply manipulation the same as "cheat, steal or defraud"? What law was violated by such manipulations? Apple "manipulates" the supply of iPods - if they didn't, then I could buy one for much much less than the hundreds of dollars they charge.

Your economic knowledge is too limited - supply cannot (and should not) always increase to meet demand such that the resulting price is what some bureaucrats divine. I'd like to know how you would determine what that price is - the Soviets tried that, and it failed miserably.

The first American corporations had two rules designated by their charters:
1) Serve the public good
2) Do no harm to the community

These charters still exist, and they are legally binding.

Like I've said before, it's a long way from those vague niceties to your ideology of suffocating State control of all manner of economic activity. Those two "rules" can be interepreted as nothing more than "don't break the law". They in no way mean "The State decides the price of a gallon of gas".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/1698-Menfolk.jpg

[W*GS]

Thanks for the spam, LABF.

[DB-Freak]

LOL

Oh the hilarity

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

Oh the hilarity

That's your contribution to the discussion?

No wonder people like Bush are able to bullsh*t the masses so easily. :pity:

http://xs66.xs.to/pics/06052/Rangelquote.jpg

[Spider]

Goverment Regulated Trucking , Jimmy Carter unregulated it . Trucking was a mess for many of years . to the point were Goverment had to step back in .CDL's D.O.T. pretty hard line stuff .....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How 'bout Enron?

If that whole mess doesn't convince you of the need for government regulation, then nothing will.

Of course, ol' Kenny Boy is probably breathing a big sigh of relief now that Alito is officially in. :pity:

[Mile High Shack]

amazingly enough Enron started their illegal practices during the Clinton administration

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

amazingly enough Enron started their illegal practices during the Clinton administration

Amazingly enough, Enron CEO Ken Lay was Bush's best friend and #1 campaign contributor and offered the boy king a lift to his coronation on the company's corporate jet.

[Mile High Shack]

Amazingly enough, Enron CEO Ken Lay was Bush's best friend and #1 campaign contributor and offered the boy king a lift to his coronation on the company's corporate jet.

lol

I don't want to get into a spin argument with you, b/c you have spin down to an art

but the fact remains, Enron started their illegal accounting practices well before Bush took office

:)

[RaiderH8r]

You could literally fill libraries with the amount of paper on regulation that exists currently pertaining to oil and gas exploration and production. SEC, FTC, CFTC, EPA, NEPA, FERC, BLM, F&W, BoR, Coast Guard, Port Authorities, Oil and Pipeline oversight, OSHA, Groundwater Protection Councils, State by State environmental review boards, Dept. of Int., Dept. of Energy, the list goes on and on.

Price caps discourage wise use and encourage waste. People can waste gas now by driving low mileage autos, but it comes at a premium. Price caps will encourage more people to waste because there is no financial disincentive not to.

The complexities of the oil and natural gas e&p industry are vast and very complicated and a wonderful case study in unintended consequences of government involvement in the free market system. You'll either get a spam war or intense debate. From the looks of it, I'm going with spam war at this point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

lol

I don't want to get into a spin argument with you, b/c you have spin down to an art

Spin?

You mean you're denying everything I just said about Bush and Lay?

but the fact remains, Enron started their illegal accounting practices well before Bush took office:)

Yep - it took awhile for Enron's activities to come to light. Gotta give Lay credit for being a slick little weasel.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Price caps discourage wise use and encourage waste. People can waste gas now by driving low mileage autos, but it comes at a premium. Price caps will encourage more people to waste because there is no financial disincentive not to.

Price caps probably wouldn't be necessary if the FTC and some of the other agencies you just mentioned actually did their jobs, i.e., cracked down on supply manipulation, etc.

[RaiderH8r]

Price caps probably wouldn't be necessary if the FTC and some of the other agencies you just mentioned actually did their jobs, i.e., cracked down on supply manipulation, etc.
Do you support energy conservation?

[Mile High Shack]

Price caps probably wouldn't be necessary if the FTC and some of the other agencies you just mentioned actually did their jobs, i.e., cracked down on supply manipulation, etc.

price caps would create lines at the pump ala the late 70's

while it sucks paying over 2.00/gallon, at least we are not in crisis shortage mode

[Mile High Shack]

Spin?

You mean you're denying everything I just said about Bush and Lay?



Yep - it took awhile for Enron's activities to come to light. Gotta give Lay credit for being a slick little weasel.

in truth it's not just enron, they just got busted the worst b/c they screwed their employees by having their employees keep investing their retirement into the company

a lot of companies were/are doing this..........and they all should be strung up by their testicles/ovaries

[W*GS]

How 'bout Enron?

If that whole mess doesn't convince you of the need for government regulation, then nothing will.

Seeing as how Lay and Skilling are currently being prosecuted for violating the law, you can't claim that Enron is proof of the "need for government regulation". If there hadn't been any, they wouldn't be on trial.

Duh.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Do you support energy conservation?

Support and practice it.

Too bad the current administration does not.

[RaiderH8r]

Support and practice it.

Too bad the current administration does not.
Then why are high energy prices a problem?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

price caps would create lines at the pump ala the late 70's

I dunno...I'm not calling for price caps, but I think a government crackdown on supply manipulation and Enron-style practices would bring retail prices down significantly.

[W*GS]

I dunno...I'm not calling for price caps, but I think a government crackdown on supply manipulation and Enron-style practices would bring retail prices down significantly.

And your evidence is....?

[smalltowngrll]

Looking at Government regulations from a Public Utility standpoint: The government (whether local or federal) regulates prices on many utility companies, ie power, natural gas, garbage, etc. Before a company can increase their rates, they must prove to the regulatory committee that they are losing money or have taken a big hit. Now, from my experience and what I've seen on a financial basis, heck...that's the business I want to be in! I have no competition and all I have to do is show a loss? Easy! Give bigger raises to my top execs (and myself of course) and buy more assets at higher prices. Sell them off when I want the cash and repurchase more at a later date for a large first year depreciation. That's government regulation! Some of the wealthiest companies are your government regulated companies.

Looking at the telecommunications debacle...the government broke up the communication companies, taxed the hell out of the consumer and the smaller companies that came about afterwards still have to go through the Big Guys. Yes, it helped in regulating the general prices, but it still isn't fixed.

Just my two cents at the moment....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Then why are high energy prices a problem?

Is that a rhetorical question or do you really need an answer?

High energy prices = inflation = slowing of economic growth.

Like it or not, until someone presents a viable alternative, our economy depends on oil and gas for everything from transport to supply lines to food production to plastics to pharmaceuticals to electricity generation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Some of the wealthiest companies are your government regulated companies.

They certainly have gotten unprecedently fat under Bush and his approach to "regulation," that's for sure.

Their contributions to Bush's campaign were money well-spent.

[smalltowngrll]

They certainly have gotten unprecedently fat under Bush and his approach to "regulation," that's for sure.

Their contributions to Bush's campaign were money well-spent.

This is the case under Clinton as well. The regulations have not changed much.

[RaiderH8r]

This is the case under Clinton as well. The regulations have not changed much.
Hell, the FTC approved the Exxon/Mobil merger under Clinton's watch. #1+#2=profits.

Furthermore, I'm curious to see just how many pension and retirement plans in this country have exxon/mobil in their portfolios.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is the case under Clinton as well. The regulations have not changed much.

Yes, the regs have changed a lot, as evidenced by all the new corporate tax loopholes, tax cuts, offshore shelters, environmental regs, outsourcing, etc., etc.

Bush has taken influence peddling to a whole new level.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hell, the FTC approved the Exxon/Mobil merger under Clinton's watch. #1+#2=profits.

But the oil companies didn't start writing their own legislation until GeeDubya came down the pike.

[RaiderH8r]

Yes, the regs have changed a lot, as evidenced by all the new corporate tax loopholes, tax cuts, offshore shelters, environmental regs, outsourcing, etc., etc.

Bush has taken influence peddling to a whole new level.
Which corporate tax loopholes are you talking about? Or is this another generalization based on a buzzword? I believe the latter.

Tax cuts, as a general rule, are a good thing. Which tax cut measures are you upset about, specifically?

Offshore shelters, well, would you have the US write taxation policy for sovereign nations? Perhaps a friendlier tax climate in the US would encourage companies to keep more capital in this nation.

Environmental regs, still kicking. Plenty to go around. We can go back and forth on anecdotal evidence. Sierra Club et al. still filing suits when they see fit, which is quite often, and having their day in court. System working, proceed.

[Mile High Shack]

Which corporate tax loopholes are you talking about? Or is this another generalization based on a buzzword? I believe the latter.

Tax cuts, as a general rule, are a good thing. Which tax cut measures are you upset about, specifically?

Offshore shelters, well, would you have the US write taxation policy for sovereign nations? Perhaps a friendlier tax climate in the US would encourage companies to keep more capital in this nation.

Environmental regs, still kicking. Plenty to go around. We can go back and forth on anecdotal evidence. Sierra Club et al. still filing suits when they see fit, which is quite often, and having their day in court. System working, proceed.
offshore shelters were set up during the Clinton era mostly

see the Enron argument again for the proof of that

[RaiderH8r]

But the oil companies didn't start writing their own legislation until GeeDubya came down the pike.
And your evidence is? Let me guess, they had a meeting on the hill with members and the administration. Guess what? Everybody has meetings with members and administration. AFL CIO has their influence, AARP...yeah, they've got some stroke, NRA, Sierra Club, Earth First, Greenpeace, Bono, UNICEF, all have a say in the legislation effecting their issues that come before Congress. Big deal. Congress is still accountable to their constituents for the legislation they sponsor and vote for or against. System operating, proceed.

[RaiderH8r]

offshore shelters were set up during the Clinton era mostly

see the Enron argument again for the proof of that
And done so because of a punitive tax policy based on the belief that any profit is bad profit and ill gained.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Which corporate tax loopholes are you talking about? Or is this another generalization based on a buzzword? I believe the latter.

I'm talking about U.S. corporations who are allowed to avoid paying American taxes when they move their headquarters overseas.

Tax cuts, as a general rule, are a good thing. Which tax cut measures are you upset about, specifically?

All of Bush's tax cuts (which only benefit corporations and the wealthiest Americans - not the middle class and/or regular working people.)

Perhaps a friendlier tax climate in the US would encourage companies to keep more capital in this nation.

"Friendlier?" If you're a big corporation or a fat cat, you can't get much friendlier than Bush's tax policies (as evidenced by record profits posted by Exxon, et al.)

Bush initially justified these cuts by arguing that they would stimulate the economy (same trickle-down bullsh*t Red Ink Ron tried to peddle to Americans during the 80s.)

How many new jobs have any of the companies who have benefitted most from Bush's tax cuts created? (Jobs in China and Mexico don't count.)

You can count the number on one hand and still have fingers left over.

Environmental regs, still kicking. Plenty to go around. We can go back and forth on anecdotal evidence. Sierra Club et al. still filing suits when they see fit, which is quite often, and having their day in court. System working, proceed.

:bs:

Bush has consistently overturned regulations that protect our environment while pandering to the polluting industries that line his pockets.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And your evidence is? Let me guess, they had a meeting on the hill with members and the administration. Guess what? Everybody has meetings with members and administration. AFL CIO has their influence, AARP...yeah, they've got some stroke, NRA, Sierra Club, Earth First, Greenpeace, Bono, UNICEF, all have a say in the legislation effecting their issues that come before Congress. Big deal. Congress is still accountable to their constituents for the legislation they sponsor and vote for or against. System operating, proceed.

But Clinton didn't invite Enron to write America's energy policy (and then refuse to allow public scrutiny of the record.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And done so because of a punitive tax policy based on the belief that any profit is bad profit and ill gained.

That's total BS. (As evidenced by the Clinton economy.)

Under Clinton, the rich got richer and the poor got richer.

Under Bush, the rich are getting richer and the poor (and the middle class) are getting poorer.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And done so because of a punitive tax policy based on the belief that any profit is bad profit and ill gained.

This is a shameless misrepresentation of your opponents' (read: the left) position.

No one claims that any profit is bad and ill-gained.

The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that some profits are ill-gained in some instances and that you refuse to entertain the idea of accountability for the offenders.

It's almost as if you belive that individuals can lie, cheat, and steal, but corporations can't.

[Rohirrim]

There's no need to put price contols on the oil industry. Just up the CAFE standards. If the average car was getting 40 miles to the gallon (like they did pre-Reagan), demand drops, supply goes up, oil profits go down. Maybe the U.S. could even get to the point where ALL of our oil comes from North America?