Defining Gasoline Price 'Gouging'

[W*GS]

See Thomas Sowell's column at

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4473

Excellent, as usual.

The links to the right are also worth persuing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Defining Gasoline Price 'Gouging'



http://www.snopes.com/katrina/graphics/gaspump.jpg

Gasoline customers check prices and leave at a BP station in Stockbridge, Ga., Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005. Gasoline price soared Wednesday toward $3 a gallon in many parts of the country, surpassing that level in some places, such as this station, as key refineries and pipelines remained crippled by Hurricane Katrina, crimping supplies and leading to caps on the amount of fuel delivered to retailers.

http://tinyurl.com/7r7qu

[DBruleU]

Sowell is a genius. I love that guy. A regular Uncle Tom that the entire left can hate for his dead on accuracy of the facts.

I have found over the past couple years of my college education, more and more of my professors are using his books for class assigned reading.

[W*GS]

[...]

Seems BB's definition of "gouging" is "more than I want to pay".

BFD.

[bendog]

Man if you guys get excited about that, bushii must really be in trouble. lol

Seriously, I thought the definition of price gouging was more applicable to individual markets and individual retailers. If station A knows it can buy gas for 1.00, but because nobody else has supply, it can sell it for 3.00. That's illegal under state laws. If you find that leftist, take your views to the voters, and prepare to lose.

The facts are that the gop blocked mileage increases for the past 12 years, and they howled when they went up in bushi's term. Why we'd even want to refine more petroleum is a mystery. Even Ed Harris the gop strategist says the gop's alliance with the oil consumption crowd (nascar to exxon) is economically a drain and handicaps our national for policy.

Sowell's just coulter, but he likes his sex straight and writes complete sentences. But the sum of his op eds are less than the numbers he puts in.

[W*GS]

Seriously, I thought the definition of price gouging was more applicable to individual markets and individual retailers. If station A knows it can buy gas for 1.00, but because nobody else has supply, it can sell it for 3.00. That's illegal under state laws. If you find that leftist, take your views to the voters, and prepare to lose.

The true loss is trying to use the State to game supply and demand to meet some agenda. It never works.

Sowell's just coulter, but he likes his sex straight and writes complete sentences. But the sum of his op eds are less than the numbers he puts in.

Nice smear. NOT.

[bendog]

The true loss is trying to use the State to game supply and demand to meet some agenda. It never works.
BS. IF forces outside the market place are jacking up either supply or demand, then regulatory mechanisms should be used. See, enron's gaming of the market in Calif. They used computer software to create the very shortages by gaming Calif's decision making in buying power.

Similarly in Miss post Katrina, some gas stations had supply on hand, and greedy managers tried jacking up the retail cost beyond any correlation to cost. They were prosecuted and fined. Futher, the cops took over the gas stations to allocate supply to emergency responders.

My slam on Sowell was he was correct in saying the gas supply todya is NOT price gouging. The fact that gas is 3bucks a gallon (or close) is not a result of gaming the market. But then he does a coulter bait and switch and responds that had the "bad libs" let more refineries be built, gas would be cheap. Bull****. Oil's still over 70bucks a gallon. Gas ain't never gonna be cheap again UNLESS we cut consumption (no new refineries thanks very much) or increse oil extraction.

Moreover, wiht his little deflection he manages to avoid the truth that oil refineries are getting 3x the profit despite not increasing production or decreasing their cost, so by the very definition of a market based pricing, one can see there is no free market involved with the profit margin of the refiners. That's the issue. It's not so much price gouging, as the refiners simply upping the cost they pass on per each gal of gas refined. So the question is whether congress shoudl do something about it.

I assume you and perhaps 2% of the electorate like being raped.

[W*GS]

BS. IF forces outside the market place are jacking up either supply or demand, then regulatory mechanisms should be used.

"Forces outside the market place" == State interference.

Moreover, wiht his little deflection he manages to avoid the truth that oil refineries are getting 3x the profit despite not increasing production or decreasing their cost, so by the very definition of a market based pricing, one can see there is no free market involved with the profit margin of the refiners. That's the issue. It's not so much price gouging, as the refiners simply upping the cost they pass on per each gal of gas refined. So the question is whether congress shoudl do something about it.

I assume you and perhaps 2% of the electorate like being raped.

Up until the last sentence, you were OK. Then you had to toss in that crap.

Almost anything that Congress tries to do with just muck up a mucked-up situation even more. Period. Those who think that a mess can be fixed by adding more mess are truly whacked.

[bendog]

Yes, state interferece is forces outside the market, and they should only be used when the market has already been gamed somehow so it no longer works as a free market. The fact that you, and prooly 2% of voters, don't EVER want state interference is, imo, irrelevant to rationality.

[W*GS]

Yes, state interferece is forces outside the market, and they should only be used when the market has already been gamed somehow so it no longer works as a free market.

What is "gamed somehow" besides state interference?

The fact that you, and prooly 2% of voters, don't EVER want state interference is, imo, irrelevant to rationality.

Likewise, if 98% of voters want Congress to "do something" is also irrelevant to rationality.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sowell's just coulter, but he likes his sex straight and writes complete sentences.

:laugh: ^5

[W*GS]

:laugh: ^5

You got something against non-liberal African-Americans?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Defining price gouging...

We are approaching the third anniversary of the Toxic Texan's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech. It's worth remembering that the Bush administration told us that the Iraq war would increase global oil supplies, lower prices and help pay for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

None of this has happened.

Instead, oil prices are now more than $70 a barrel despite U.S. oil inventories being at their highest levels in eight years.

Instead, oil company profits are at record levels and most of that money is going to the CEOs rather than increasing refining and distribution capacity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush, Lay, Texas tea

It was an unfortunate accident of timing, hatched in the Texas oil patch.

But the juxtaposition yesterday was too striking to ignore.

Here was the former Enron chief, the pasty-faced Ken Lay, pleading for his freedom on a Houston witness stand. And there was former Midland oil man George W. Bush, who never once struck anything but a big dry hole, trying to convince Americans that he too is outraged by $3-a-gallon gasoline.

It wasn't proving an easy sell for either man.

"Americans understand, by and large, that the price of crude oil is going up and that the prices are going up, but what they do not want and will not accept is manipulation of the market, and neither will I," Bush said.

Now, this tough talk might have been convincing if the man hadn't just presided over five-plus years of a presidency where he gave the oil people everything they desired.

Who could possibly believe the tough talk now?

The polls say hardly anyone.

For his part, Lay was trying desperately to wiggle out of one of the largest financial frauds in American corporate history, a complex web of oil-finance manipulations. Of course, stand-up guy that he is, Lay didn't blame himself for any of this, even though he was chairman of Enron. He blamed his former chief money manager, Andrew Fastow, and a "witch hunt" by The Wall Street Journal.

This was telling. The minute they start blaming the reporters and the underlings, you know they have no real case left.

"We thought The Wall Street Journal was on a witch hunt against Andy Fastow and maybe Enron," Lay whined. "At that time we still didn't have any knowledge Andy Fastow had done anything inappropriate."

All the Enron boys did together was wipe out the investments of tens of thousands of stockholders and the retirement savings of tens of thousands of their own employees.

Thanks, Ken.

Or I guess I should say, "Thanks, Kenny Boy."

That's the nickname Bush gave his "good friend" and generous campaign contributor, Kenneth Lay.

"Kenny Boy."

That truly is all you need to know about the coziness of the relationship between the Bush administration and oil-and-gas executives who are making such high-flying profits while Americans are trying to figure out who they're going to pay for tomorrow morning's commute.

For more than five years, these Bushies never met an oil guy they didn't like. Wildcatters in Texas. Arctic punchers in Alaska. Oil-futures sharpies like Lay, Jeff Skilling and the rest of the Enron crowd.

Bush trusted these people so thoroughly, he let them draft the administration's energy policy behind closed White House doors. Heck, Bush even hired Dick Cheney to be vice president straight out of Halliburton, the giant energy-services firm.

You don't need to be a conspiracy buff to ask, "Who's representing the drivers of America in there?"

And now, with gasoline shooting past $3 a gallon, look at what all this coziness has done to the president and to the people he is sworn to serve.

They've sunk the president's approval rating into the lower 30s.

They've left an auto-dependent nation steaming mad. And the heavy summer-driving season hasn't even begun.

Yesterday, speaking to an audience of alternative-energy people in Washington, Bush was suddenly sounding mad.

He'll get the gougers, he swore. He'll choke the strategic petroleum reserve. He'll fund alternative energy.

Bush had to acknowledge that none of this will make much immediate difference.

But "every little bit helps," he added, which was about all he could say.

In the old days, we would have had a big debate: Who led us here - Big Oil or Big Government?

But now that the two are nearly indistinguishable, that question is almost moot.

Just ask W.

Or Kenny Boy.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nyhen264717265apr26,0,4881917.column

[Rohirrim]

That's funny. On the way home today I was listening to NPR and one of the things mentioned was that there were some post-Katrina refineries that were ready to go, but the refinery companies figured that if they didn't bring them online, the profits would be better, so they just say they're not ready yet.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's funny. On the way home today I was listening to NPR and one of the things mentioned was that there were some post-Katrina refineries that were ready to go, but the refinery companies figured that if they didn't bring them online, the profits would be better, so they just say they're not ready yet.

Wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened, would it?

But never fear - Oil Boy has promised to find the leakers (I mean gougers.)

:D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Those who think that a mess can be fixed by adding more mess are truly whacked.
Those who think a mess can be fixed by doing nothing are part of the worst administration in modern history (my definition of the "truly whacked").

[Spider]

the artical , is full of shít ...... no other way to put it ............ Outside forces ? Dumbest damn thing I have read in a long time , But then it has been awhile since W*GS posted .............. the merger , controling supply and demand .......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dumbest damn thing I have read in a long time , But then it has been awhile since W*GS posted ...............

;D

It's obvious that W*GS would like to do for the CEO of Exxon what Monica did for Bill.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Key Lawmakers Demand Oil Co. Tax Records
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans advocate sending $100 rebate checks to millions of taxpayers, and a Democrat is leading the campaign for a 60-day gasoline tax holiday.

Either way, it seems no one in Congress wants to be without a plan, however symbolic, to attack the election-year spike in gasoline prices.

A vote is possible as early as this week on the Senate GOP approach, which calls for $100 rebate checks for taxpayers to cushion the impact of higher gasoline prices. The measure seems unlikely to prevail, at least initially, since it includes a highly controversial proposal to open a portion of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Senate Republicans also favor extending a tax break that manufacturers receive for each hybrid vehicle they make, and want
President Bush to suspend deliveries to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve for six months.

Democrats seemed caught off guard by the GOP maneuvering, but a spokesman said they would have a plan of their own.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., has proposed a 60-day suspension in the federal tax on gasoline and diesel, a holiday that he says would cut the cost of gasoline by more than 18 cents a gallon and reduce the price of diesel fuel by more than 24 cents a gallon.

The
Senate Finance Committee provided additional evidence of the lawmakers' scramble to respond. In a rare move, the panel requested tax returns from the country's major oil and gas companies as part of an investigation into industry profits and soaring gasoline costs.

Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, the committee's chairman, said senators were concerned about the "record profits and significant executive compensation in the oil and gas industry."

"I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," Grassley said in a statement.

With gasoline prices soaring and oil companies announcing record profits, "it's relevant to know what the real financial picture is for this industry," added Montana Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record), the panel's ranking Democrat.

It's highly unusual for the Senate committee to seek corporate tax records. The last time it made such a request to the IRS it involved the tax records of the bankrupt Enron Corp.

The committee announcement came as Washington scrambled to respond to public anger over soaring gasoline prices — $3 a gallon or more in many parts of the country — and try to contain the political fallout.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/jvolj

[W*GS]

Those who think a mess can be fixed by doing nothing are part of the worst administration in modern history (my definition of the "truly whacked").

What's your proposal, BB? Nixonian price controls and rationing? Why do you think those things would work better now when they failed so miserably then?

[W*GS]

the artical , is full of shít ...... no other way to put it ............ Outside forces ? Dumbest damn thing I have read in a long time , But then it has been awhile since W*GS posted .............. the merger , controling supply and demand .......

As succinct and content-free as usual, Spider.

[W*GS]

It's obvious that W*GS would like to do for the CEO of Exxon what Monica did for Bill.

There you go bringing in Clinton's sexual activities, again.

For every protestation over the years you've made about other posters bringing up that aspect of Clinton, you've mentioned it many many times more.

What is your obsession, anyway?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What's your proposal, BB? Nixonian price controls and rationing? Why do you think those things would work better now when they failed so miserably then?
I've stated what I'd do, many times. Instead of greasing the oil and gas industry I'd use all those incentives and subsidies and much more to immediately invest in alternate and renewable energy and research technologies. Awarding companies and consumers who move in this direction.

[bendog]

I would guess that the "excess" profits (bad term I know) could be "adjusted" just by ending tax credits the gop extended just last year. However, I am still not at all convinced or trusting that the gas and natl gas and nuke and coal industries have any interest in low cost renewable RandD.

[W*GS]

I'm 100% in favor of removing all subsidies (direct and otherwise) to all energy providers. Let's see the fossil fuel industry compete without the billions they get from taxpayers - and that includes the costs of military protection for countries like Saudi Arabia.

[Hogan11]

Well, for the first time in literally weeks, the price of gas where I am didn't increase by 2 to 5 cents.....been stuck @ $3.09 for about a week now so something is happening somewhere along the line.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS
What's your proposal, BB? Nixonian price controls and rationing? Why do you think those things would work better now when they failed so miserably then?

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

There's our "binary" thinker at work again.

It's either Nixonian price controls or the sort of arrangement W*GS has been defending for the past six years, i.e., one in which government is simply a proxy for Big Oil and Big Oil writes U.S. energy policy.

[Garcia Bronco]

"Given the enormous sums of money involved in the production of oil, even if all the oil company CEOs worked for nothing, there is no hard evidence that this would be enough to reduce the price of gasoline by even one cent per gallon. As for oil company profits -- representing "greed," as the Barbara Boxers call it -- these profits per gallon of gas are much less than federal taxes per gallon of gas. But the government is never called "greedy" by liberals.

"

The CEO isn't the only guy making jack is the range of ridiculous in any company based on the actual work they do.

[Spider]

As succinct and content-free as usual, Spider.
Bullshít , you or that guy DBrule got his panties wet over , dont know what in the hell you are babling about .... tell me genius all about a stages of an oil field ......hell tell me all about reviving a stage 4 field , if it even needs reviving .......... This is whats wrong to many stupid people commenting and not researching ....... now get your ass on google , google this then come back and tell me your boy is on the money ..........Frreaking crack pot

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Given the enormous sums of money involved in the production of oil, even if all the oil company CEOs worked for nothing, there is no hard evidence that this would be enough to reduce the price of gasoline by even one cent per gallon. As for oil company profits -- representing "greed," as the Barbara Boxers call it -- these profits per gallon of gas are much less than federal taxes per gallon of gas. But the government is never called "greedy" by liberals.

Total bullsh_t. :bs:

While millions of people are suffering under the weight of higher prices, there is a narrow group making huge amounts of money. It’s not just the Saudi royal family that gets rich when speculators drive up the price of oil; ExxonMobil, which produces more oil every day than Kuwait, has enjoyed profits of $110 billion since President Bush took office. While it costs ExxonMobil about $20 to extract a barrel of oil in Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates or from federal land in Alaska or Texas, the company is selling that oil to the American people for $70/barrel.

That explains why ExxonMobil and other oil companies are posting the biggest profits in our economy’s history.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...ice_gambit.php

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bullshít , you or that guy DBrule got his panties wet over , dont know what in the hell you are babling about .... tell me genius all about a stages of an oil field ......hell tell me all about reviving a stage 4 field , if it even needs reviving .......... This is whats wrong to many stupid people commenting and not researching ....... now get your ass on google , google this then come back and tell me your boy is on the money ..........Frreaking crack pot

Unbelievable, isn't it?

W*GS and his fellow corporatist sycophants are getting mugged, and they're making excuses for the mugger.

Are these guys suffering from some weird version of Stockholm Syndrome, or what? ???

[Spider]

Unbelievable, isn't it?

W*GS and his fellow corporatist sycophants are getting mugged, and they're making excuses for the mugger.

Are these guys suffering from some weird version of Stockholm Syndrome, or what? ???
it is somthing ............. Problem isnt the local drillers , here it is in a nut shell , we have 3% of the worlds oil reserves , thats it no more , but what it isnt taken in account is how much is in these resrves .......... Classic example stage 4 field producing like mad , by using Co2 gas , or the Wamsutter field expanding by 50% true drilling is needing 8 more rigs , problem is they cant build em fast enough .......... Nabores , Patterson, unit , True , Grey wolf all short of rigs ....... when W*GS bullshíts he needs to at least come close DBruleU I can over look , he is like my dog , gets excited not to sure whats going on , but he is happy in his little world ........W*GS on the other hand is operating on a higher level , he needs to start posting that way

[Spider]

"Given the enormous sums of money involved in the production of oil, even if all the oil company CEOs worked for nothing, there is no hard evidence that this would be enough to reduce the price of gasoline by even one cent per gallon. As for oil company profits -- representing "greed," as the Barbara Boxers call it -- these profits per gallon of gas are much less than federal taxes per gallon of gas. But the government is never called "greedy" by liberals.

"

The CEO isn't the only guy making jack is the range of ridiculous in any company based on the actual work they do.
I had to reread this post ......... Man dude you are slinging some serious Bullshít ....... Let me break it down for you ........
During the winter all refineries run @ 85% capacity , reasoning is winter driving = Less driving ........
In the summer they bump up production to 95% to accomadate people on vacation ..........
Right now the big 4 will NOT bump up production .Why you ask ?
cause as it is right now the big 4 get 2.00 profit per gallon of gas , the station owner gets a nickle , the rest goes to taxes ........... Let me know in the future if I can be of any more help !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bendog]

NPR had a piece on this am speculating that somewhere between 85 and 95 dollars per barrel, consumption would lessen.

Does anyone have a site posting other countries price per gal/liter with the price adj for taxes?

[W*GS]

It's either Nixonian price controls or the sort of arrangement W*GS has been defending for the past six years, i.e., one in which government is simply a proxy for Big Oil and Big Oil writes U.S. energy policy.

Re-read

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1084754&postcount=26

[W*GS]

Bullshít , you or that guy DBrule got his panties wet over , dont know what in the hell you are babling about .... tell me genius all about a stages of an oil field ......hell tell me all about reviving a stage 4 field , if it even needs reviving .......... This is whats wrong to many stupid people commenting and not researching ....... now get your ass on google , google this then come back and tell me your boy is on the money ..........Frreaking crack pot

Read

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=41114

And come back properly chastened.

[W*GS]

W*GS and his fellow corporatist sycophants are getting mugged, and they're making excuses for the mugger.

Read

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=41114

and come back properly educated.

[Spider]

Read

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=41114

And come back properly chastened.
Chastened ? LOL ........... All the more proves my point dumbáss ....... there is a monopoly on oil ........... the merger not katrinia , Iraq , not the lack of refineries causing high gas prices .......... I have been telling everyone including you before you left after LABF beat you down like a rented mule , that there was no shortage , these is no shortage in sight ...........

[Spider]

So now , we either have to post win fall taxes on everything over 55.00 a barrel ( remember the oil companies posted record profits @ 40.00 a barrel) or we bust up the mergers ........ If Bill Gates tried this shít , he wouldbe pumped daylight ........

[W*GS]

Chastened ? LOL ........... All the more proves my point dumbáss ....... there is a monopoly on oil ........... the merger not katrinia , Iraq , not the lack of refineries causing high gas prices

What "monopoly"? By whom? What "the merger"?

I have been telling everyone including you before you left after LABF beat you down like a rented mule , that there was no shortage , these is no shortage in sight ...........

Crude oil reserves and gasoline are two different things.

It's clear you didn't understand the article.

[Spider]

What "monopoly"? By whom? What "the merger"?
Hello Iam earth have we met ?



Crude oil reserves and gasoline are two different things.

It's clear you didn't understand the article.
no your artical is full of shít , but then whats new huh ?
go back and reread what I said about 85% production and 95% production ....Face facts W*GS your artical is false , nothing more then a opinion piece from an educated idiot that didnt fully research ....... hurry up meet deadline get a paycheck ........

[W*GS]

Hello Iam earth have we met ?

Who or what has a monopoly on crude oil?

What "the merger" took place?

no your artical is full of shít , but then whats new huh ?
go back and reread what I said about 85% production and 95% production ....Face facts W*GS your artical is false , nothing more then a opinion piece from an educated idiot that didnt fully research

Spoken like a true hick who didn't actually read the article, or, if he did read it, moved his lips as he read it, or, who had it read to him and still didn't get it.

You're living up to the stereotype.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

no your artical is full of shít , but then whats new huh ?


Indeed.

W*GS should be Simple Scotty McClellan's successor - not this Tony Snow guy.

W*GS is WAY more committed to "catipulting the propaganda" for the Bush/Exxon administration.

:D

http://www.bartcop.com/oil-attack.gif

[Spider]

Who or what has a monopoly on crude oil?

What "the merger" took place? you want ot talk oil and you dont even know about Exxon Mobil , BP Ammaco, Chevron texaco



Spoken like a true hick who didn't actually ,read the article, or, if he did read it, moved his lips as he read it, or, who had it read to him and still didn't get it.

You're living up to the stereotype.
LOL this comming from a guy that didnt know about oil companies merger .......

[W*GS]

W*GS is WAY more committed to "catipulting the propaganda" for the Bush/Exxon administration.

Gee, the other half of the Dorklemint Twins pipes up. Wadda shocker.

You neither read nor understood the article. Obviously.

You wouldn't want the facts to confuse that vacuous L.A. brain of yours.

[W*GS]

you want ot talk oil and you dont even know about Exxon Mobil , BP Ammaco, Chevron texaco

Let's see - that's three companies, out of dozens and dozens in the crude oil extraction business. You didn't even mention OPEC or the state-owned oil companies. Aramco, for example.

I don't see no stinking monopoly.

LOL this comming from a guy that didnt know about oil companies merger .......

Still no monopoly, still no "the merger" that drove up gas prices.

Sheesh, you're dumb.

[Spider]

Let's see - that's three companies, out of dozens and dozens in the crude oil extraction business. You didn't even mention OPEC or the state-owned oil companies. Aramco, for example.

I don't see no stinking monopoly.



Still no monopoly, still no "the merger" that drove up gas prices.

Sheesh, you're dumb.
LOL speaking of dumb didnt you just say there is a difference in crude and Gasoline ? and if so if the big 4 control the refineries ............. get the picture yet ?

[W*GS]

LOL speaking of dumb didnt you just say there is a difference in crude and Gasoline ? and if so if the big 4 control the refineries ............. get the picture yet ?

The "Big Four" is not a monopoly.

Besides, isn't your hero Chavez running Citgo for you?

[Spider]

The "Big Four" is not a monopoly.

Besides, isn't your hero Chavez running Citgo for you?I cant decide if you are realy this stupid , or just confused ......... Citgo still has to be refined doesnt it ?
Look you want the truth , google why Refineries are still @ Winter production levels ............

[W*GS]

I cant decide if you are realy this stupid , or just confused ......... Citgo still has to be refined doesnt it ?
Look you want the truth , google why Refineries are still @ Winter production levels ............

Go to the NPRA and download and read the following table:

http://www.npradc.org/publications/statistics/RC2005.pdf

Educate yourself before you make yourself an even bigger fool.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I cant decide if you are realy this stupid , or just confused ........

Both. After all, he is a "free market as government" apologist. :D

A gouging market

Accusing oil companies of price gouging is like accusing sharks of swimming. That's what oil companies do. In fact, that's the imperative of the marketplace: to charge whatever you can get.

I remember taking Economics 10 at college, and my instructor told us that on a hot day the ice cream parlor should raise prices. Well, it's a hot day right now, and the oil companies are jacking up the price at the pumps.

If you worship the market, fill your tank and smile.

But the free market is not exactly in a textbook place right now when it comes to oil. Rather than having a multitude of ice cream parlors to choose from, the consumer can select from only a few oil companies, and they own not only the parlor but the cows and the dairies, too.

Plus, there's another big difference between ice cream and oil. The choice of having an ice cream cone is a luxury. Driving a car, for many of us, is a necessity.


That's something the hardcore free market apologists don't grasp.

"Gas station owners cannot force us to buy gasoline," writes Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute, in an article entitled 'The Myth of Price-Gouging.' "They can only offer us a trade, which we are free to accept or reject."

But how free is the independent trucker, or the taxicab driver, or the traveling salesperson? How free is the service worker who can't live in the expensive city where she is employed because the cost of housing is so high but has to live thirty miles away, where there is no public transportation?

Oil companies know that they have a lock on a crucial product. They're charging through the teeth for it.

Still, fantasies of a free market die hard.

"There is no such thing as 'price gouging' by private business," says Epstein. Which is, I suppose, just the flip side of saying all profit is theft.

It very well may be that what the oil companies have been doing over the last couple of years does not technically qualify as collusion.

"The real problem is legal manipulation of prices," says Tyson Slocum, acting director of Public Citizens' Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "The oil companies have gotten so big they don't need to collude anymore. Advances in computer modeling have really aided the ability of the big companies to game the market."

So game it they do.

And because the five largest oil refining companies in America--ExxonMobil, Valero, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP--control more than 50 percent of the market, they can individually decide to limit the supply of refined oil products. If ExxonMobil sees Shell taking gasoline off the market, it can do likewise, and they will all end up making more profits without ever needing to huddle together in a boardroom to fix prices.

Even George Bush, as ardent a defender of the oil companies as ever set foot in the Oval Office, has begun to yelp about price gouging. With his popularity down at the freezing mark, he'll say just about anything. But he won't say "windfall profits tax," even though 80 percent of Americans are in favor of it, including 76 percent of Republicans, according to one recent poll.

Bush ruled that out in his April 25 speech. "What can the government do?" he asked. "One of the past responses by government, particularly from the party of which I am not a member, has been to have--to propose--price fixing, or increase the taxes. Those plans haven't worked."

No, we can't have that, can we? Never mind that the windfall amounted to $36 billion last year in profits to the oil companies. ExxonMobil alone made $10 billion in the final quarter of 2005. In the first quarter of 2006, it made $8.4 billion, up from the same period a year ago.

Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan and Christopher Dodd have introduced legislation to impose a 50 percent excise tax on oil profits when it is selling for more than $50 a barrel. Representative Dennis Kucinich has proposed a 100 percent tax on windfall oil profits. But not only are Republican Congressional leaders opposed to these ideas, they don't even want to strip out some of the tax benefits the oil companies have been reaping already.

"While Republican leaders sharply criticize soaring gasoline prices and energy industry profits, GOP negotiators have decided to knock out provisions in a major tax bill that would force the oil companies to pay billions of dollars more in taxes," The Washington Post reported on April 26. No surprise there. Since 2001, the oil industry has gurgled up $55 million in campaign contributions, with 81 percent going to Republicans, according to Public Citizen.

Bush talked the talk. "These energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks," he said. But he didn't walk the walk. All he proposed was phasing out $2 billion in tax breaks over the next ten years. This, after giving the oil companies billions of dollars in tax breaks in last year's energy bill, along with a holiday on royalty payments on oil and gas they extract from public lands.

Bush proposed several other measures that won't solve the problem of high gas prices.

First, he offered to give bigger incentives to consumers who purchase hybrid or clean-diesel vehicles, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But it won't do anything in the short term. "There is already a long waiting list to buy certain hybrid cars," Slocum notes. And it's not aimed at the people who are being most disadvantaged by high oil prices.

Bill Wineke, a columnist for the Wisconsin State Journal, put it well. "Tax credits will help people like me, but they won't help people like my son, Andy," he writes. They both drive a fair distance to work. But "the difference between us, frankly, is that I have more money. . . . I can buy a new car. Andy can't. . . . If he could afford a new car, he could afford the gasoline for his current car."

Second, Bush said the U.S. government would stop purchasing oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so as to increase supplies of oil on the market. But the problem right now is not one of supply. The Department of Energy in April revealed that oil inventories in the United States were at an eight-year high. And anyway, Bush's move would account for less than half of 1 percent of U.S. oil consumption. His new-found religion on this issue is interesting, to be sure. "We will not play politics with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," Bush said on the 2004 campaign trail. Well, what's he doing now?

Bush also seized on high gas prices to advance his anti-environmental agenda. He proposed waiving clean air rules for gasoline blends, and he insisted that oil refinery construction permits be decided on within one year's time. This will greatly diminish the ability of consumers, environmentalists, cities, and states to properly investigate the risks that such construction could bring. To top that off, Bush once again put drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the table, even though oil supplies are plentiful right now.

"We can gut our environment to match that of Bangladesh, and all it'll accomplish is to make our air quality poorer and our people sicker," says Slocum.

Bush and conservatives love to harp on the fact that refinery capacity is way down in this country, and they blame that on environmentalists.

But as Slocum notes, a small oil company, Arizona Clean Fuels, has managed to navigate the bureaucracy and get all the permits it needs.

If it can do this, asks Slocum, "why can't the world's most powerful corporation?" He offers an answer: "ExxonMobil has no interest in creating additional refineries because it will drive prices down."

Finally, Bush ordered the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Energy Department to investigate whether the price of gas has been "unfairly manipulated." The tip-off here is the word unfairly. Because, like the Ayn Rand Institute, the Bush Administration doesn't believe there is such a thing, short of outright collusion. We should all live to see the day when the Bush-Cheney Administration hauls ExxonMobil and the other big oil companies into court. But Bush will never do it. Besides which, going after the oil companies would be hazardous to Cheney's health: He'd have his final, fatal heart attack if Bush brought indictments against them.

What Bush didn't propose is as telling as what he did. He failed to require the automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles. The average car and truck on the road today gets only twenty-one miles to the gallon. In 1987, the average was twenty-two.

We've been going backwards. And in last year's energy bill, Bush, the Republicans, and many Democrats, too, blocked an amendment to boost fuel efficiency standards.

"President Bush continues to ignore the most obvious and practical solutions," the Sierra Club says. "The biggest single step we can take toward saving money at the gas pump, curbing global warming, and cutting America's oil dependence is to make our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas."

We already have the technology, says the Sierra Club, "to make all new cars, SUVs, and other light trucks average forty miles per gallon within the next ten years." According to the Sierra Club, this would "save more oil than the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined."

Or, as Daniel A. Lahsof, science director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, puts it, "We cannot drill our way out of this crisis."

The only solution, he says, "is to use less oil. Period."

But that goes against the entire ethos of the Bush-Cheney policy, which is: Consume until we drop. Bush after 9/11 told us to go shopping. And Cheney derided conservation as a mere lifestyle choice. His energy report in the spring of 2001, where he was counseled by other energy executives, took as a given that the United States would be as dependent on foreign oil in twenty years as it was then. The Cheney solution was to make sure the United States had better relations with foreign oil producing nations, and to have the oil companies essentially act as U.S. ambassadors.

Since then, Cheney and Bush have wheeled out another tactic: war. They invaded Iraq, with the second biggest oil supplies, and now they're threatening Iran, another top ten oil supplier.

In fact, the instability of Iraq and the belligerent threats toward Iran have done a lot in themselves to push oil prices up.

"The Iranian situation obviously causes markets to--creates angst in the marketplace, and the result of which is higher prices," said Al Hubbard, Bush's director of the National Economic Council, on April 25.

What we're seeing at the pumps is part of the bill for Bush's reckless militarism.

Ultimately, to solve the problem of oil we need to solve the problem of empire.

We cannot keep consuming 25 percent of world's oil when we have 2 percent of the world's oil supply and 5 percent of its population.

We cannot keep invading and bombing countries that have the oil we're addicted to. (Bush, in his April 25 speech, acknowledged that "some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments, or agendas that are hostile to the United States.")

We cannot keep imposing an economic policy on the rest of the world that is designed for the oil industry and other private companies.

They are the ones that benefit the most from the empire.

They are the ones that now, more than ever, run the empire.

We need to get over the illusion of the self-regulating market and the sovereign consumer.

We need to bring the giant corporations to heel.

Otherwise, they'll keep gouging us. And not just at the pumps.

http://progressive.org/mag_wx042706

[Spider]

Go to the NPRA and download and read the following table:

http://www.npradc.org/publications/statistics/RC2005.pdf

Educate yourself before you make yourself an even bigger fool.
I dont do PDF's on a lap top , but I know for a fact that I am right and you are just spitting in the wind ............
No W*GS you are the fool ......... I told you along time ago High gas prices would effect food , clothing etc.. you smirked , well guess what fool ....I was right everythin is going up in cost , now brace your self for this ........... most trucking companies are charging a big fuel sur charge to the point they are only paying a 1.14 per gallon of diesel , thats right , the cost will be passed on to you .......... and you wont even bother to find out the truth ...What was it P.T.Barnum used to say about suckers .............

[Spider]

Both. After all, he is a "free market as government" apologist. :D

A gouging market

Accusing oil companies of price gouging is like accusing sharks of swimming. That's what oil companies do. In fact, that's the imperative of the marketplace: to charge whatever you can get.



http://progressive.org/mag_wx042706
W*GSwont make heads or tails of this .......... His party has taken a beating , he thought he could gain some angle with that Bullshít artical he posted

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GSwont make heads or tails of this .......... His party has taken a beating , he thought he could gain some angle with that Bullshít artical he posted

Yep.

It's amazing how Ayn Rand Institute types like W*GS would rather get cornholed by Exxon, et al, than entertain the nefarious notion of government imposing some regulations on how corporations do business.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Tells Americans that It's Good for Oil Companies to Rip You Off, Rejects Tax on Oil Company Windfall Profiteering

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AlWxOJueTOP59GTFnuAY38Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[W*GS]

Both. After all, he is a "free market as government" apologist.

There's a village in North Korea missing its idiot - time to go back, LABF.

[...]

You managed to dig up some screed from a "progressive" magazine. I'm stunned.

Let me fill you in - to everyone except Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-Il, socialism is dead. Get used to it, LABF.

[W*GS]

I dont do PDF's on a lap top , but I know for a fact that I am right and you are just spitting in the wind ............

Not my problem you're too dumb to figure out how to read PDFs on a laptop.

You offer no facts or references to support your views - that kind of belief is merely a matter of faith.

Your religious convictions are touching, but are irrelevant in the fact-based world.

Try again.

[W*GS]

W*GSwont make heads or tails of this .......... His party has taken a beating , he thought he could gain some angle with that Bullshít artical he posted

Anyone who spells "article" wrong can't begin to understand the article.

Thanks for proving the stereotype about hick truck drivers.

[W*GS]

It's amazing how Ayn Rand Institute types like W*GS would rather get cornholed by Exxon, et al, than entertain the nefarious notion of government imposing some regulations on how corporations do business.

Has it ever entered your wee vacuous L.A. mind that a big part of the problem is State interference and manipulation in the operation of markets?

You big-government types never get that - what is your problem?

[Spider]

Not my problem you're too dumb to figure out how to read PDFs on a laptop.

You offer no facts or references to support your views - that kind of belief is merely a matter of faith.

Your religious convictions are touching, but are irrelevant in the fact-based world.

Try again.
I know how to PDF on a lap top stupid , speed is more of my concern........
Oh I offer facts dipshít , hard cold facts , and despite all your tap dancing , oil refineries are still @ 85% production .........

[Spider]

Anyone who spells "article" wrong can't begin to understand the article.

Thanks for proving the stereotype about hick truck drivers.
spelling smack ....well thats all you have left after I debunked your stupid little " article" ...........it all boils down to production and the big 4 wont bump up thier refineries off the winter % production ......... you can window dress little articles,try to baffle with bullshít and long winded post , but that doesnt change the fact that you are being gouged ..........

[W*GS]

spelling smack ....well thats all you have left after I debunked your stupid little " article"

You did nothing of the sort - claims without evidence don't count for crap, bub.

[W*GS]

I know how to PDF on a lap top stupid , speed is more of my concern........

Being stuck at 56k or less is your problem.

Oh I offer facts dipshít , hard cold facts , and despite all your tap dancing , oil refineries are still @ 85% production .........

Prove it. I know where you can find the facts - let's see if you can figure it out all by yourself.

[W*GS]

I know where you can find the facts - let's see if you can figure it out all by yourself.

Read it and summarize, Spider:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/table10.pdf

Thanks!

[Spider]

You did nothing of the sort - claims without evidence don't count for crap, bub......... LOL if you say so ........

[Spider]

Being stuck at 56k or less is your problem. Yeah but I can connect anywhere anytime , even on the side of the road in nowhere wyoming .........



Prove it. I know where you can find the facts - let's see if you can figure it out all by yourself.
I know the facts cause I am in and out of the oil field dork ......... realy it isnt hard to figure out , last year the excuse was .well are refiners are down cause of Katrinia , the year before , it was repairs , year before that it was Iraq ..... dont blame me if you are easly duped .......the facts are out there , all you have to do is pull your head out of your áss and pay attention

[W*GS]

I know the facts cause I am in and out of the oil field dork .........

No, you don't know the facts, dork. Your view of the picture is about as accurate as visiting an orchard in CA every day and thus knowing how many oranges were produced in FL that same week.

Read it and summarize, Spider:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/pdf/table10.pdf

Thanks!

[Spider]

No, you don't know the facts, dork.

Read it and summarize, Spider:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...df/table10.pdf

Thanks!
remain clueless , hell you are used to that ...... but other people reading will pick up on what I am saying ......... 1 thing you will learn W*GS , well maybe you wont , but you can find an expert that will agree no matter what side of the issue you are on , me I take the word from the people in the field , hands on type ....... People that know whats going on cause they are working in it , where as you and your ilk sit behind a desk think you got a degree so you are an expert without doing a days work in the field ..................educated Idiots

[W*GS]

1 thing you will learn W*GS , well maybe you wont , but you can find an expert that will agree no matter what side of the issue you are on ,

The table is from the DOE Energy Information Agency, and reports the amount of various petroleum products produced over recent time periods, on a per-day basis. But, if you weren't so afraid of the facts, you'd have read it and understood that.

me I take the word from the people in the field , hands on type ....... People that know whats going on cause they are working in it , where as you and your ilk sit behind a desk think you got a degree so you are an expert without doing a days work in the field ..................educated Idiots

This is the most pathetic "reasoning" I've seen for making a claim about knowledge that I've seen.

You cut down a tree - that makes you an expert on the national lumber industry!

You drive a car - that means you know everything about the global auto market!

You eat a couple of scrambled eggs - so you know everything about H5N1!

Shooting the breeze around a cup of joe at the choke-n-puke hardly qualifies as incisive and general understanding.

[W*GS]

........ LOL if you say so ........

Your "debunking" consisted of nothing of substance. Calling the "artical [sic]" expletives and so forth hardly constitutes a disproof.

[Spider]

The table is from the DOE Energy Information Agency, and reports the amount of various petroleum products produced over recent time periods, on a per-day basis. But, if you weren't so afraid of the facts, you'd have read it and understood that.
I dontv give a damn where it came from since when did anyone in the goverment have a clue ?


This is the most pathetic "reasoning" I've seen for making a claim about knowledge that I've seen.

You cut down a tree - that makes you an expert on the national lumber industry!

You drive a car - that means you know everything about the global auto market!

You eat a couple of scrambled eggs - so you know everything about H5N1!

Shooting the breeze around a cup of joe at the choke-n-puke hardly qualifies as incisive and general understanding.Ha! pretty weak there desk jockey ,I will take the word of a driller or tool pusher then you and your goverment tables Hilarious! educated idiot pencil neck paper pushin geek , get out in the field work awhile , you will see what side the bread on ..........

[Spider]

Your "debunking" consisted of nothing of substance. Calling the "artical [sic]" expletives and so forth hardly constitutes a disproof.
got alot to learn about saving face there W*GS ole boy .........you know I am right , but now your are grasping doing everything you can not to admit it .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

got alot to learn about saving face there W*GS ole boy .........you know I am right , but now your are grasping doing everything you can not to admit it .........

No doubt.

The O'W*GS Factor has spent so much time and energy kneeling and bobbing for Big Oil on this thread that his brain is gummed up with 30 weight.

:D

[W*GS]

I dontv give a damn where it came from since when did anyone in the goverment have a clue ?

So supply another source (other than grunts out on a rig).

How much gasoline has been produced, on a daily-average basis, for the last year or so? Ask your "driller or tool pusher" friends for their statistics.

Ha! pretty weak there desk jockey ,I will take the word of a driller or tool pusher then you and your goverment tables Hilarious! educated idiot pencil neck paper pushin geek , get out in the field work awhile , you will see what side the bread on ..........

(You forgot "egghead".)

The babble from a hick trucker sumbeeatch is most amusing.

Anyway, my analogies still hold. You've done nothing to disprove any fact or statistic I've presented - while you've presented none and are relying on mere anecdote from folks whose views of the issue are rather too narrow.

[W*GS]

got alot to learn about saving face there W*GS ole boy .........you know I am right , but now your are grasping doing everything you can not to admit it .........

You're just an ignorant bumpkin - as you've amply proven with your oh-so-witty commentary on this thread.

The "Gee shucks, feller, everyone 'round these here parts just knows it's them big fat cat suits in them fancy-shmancy office buildins that's screwing the working man with them thar high gas-o-leen prices" crap may go down well with your buddies, but not with me. I expect more than a bunch of Cat caps bobbing up and down in agreement to prove my case.

[Spider]

You're just an ignorant bumpkin - as you've amply proven with your oh-so-witty commentary on this thread.

The "Gee shucks, feller, everyone 'round these here parts just knows it's them big fat cat suits in them fancy-shmancy office buildins that's screwing the working man with them thar high gas-o-leen prices" crap may go down well with your buddies, but not with me. I expect more than a bunch of Cat caps bobbing up and down in agreement to prove my case.
ignorent bumpkin that schooled you on whats what son ..............Educated Idiots , Desk jockeys .......... I suggest you stick with what you know ... like repairing Icee machines ............

[W*GS]

ignorent bumpkin that schooled you on whats what son ..............

:bs:

[Spider]

:bs:
hell you should be used to being schooled and beat down here ........... simple problem son , Oil refineries are still @ winter production have been for the last few years , Katrinia , Iraq , Repairs , they used all of the excuses ...... Dont blame me if you are unaware of this .... get out more .........

[W*GS]

hell you should be used to being schooled and beat down here ...........

:bs: times two.

simple problem son , Oil refineries are still @ winter production have been for the last few years , Katrinia , Iraq , Repairs , they used all of the excuses ...... Dont blame me if you are unaware of this .... get out more .........

Prove "refineries are still @ winter production".

The data doesn't support your assertion. From the table I provided:

Table 10. U.S. Petroleum Products Supplied, January 2005 to Present
(Thousand Barrels per Day of finished motor gasoline)

2005:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
8,775 8,798 8,996 9,130 9,257 9,380 9,451 9,454 8,897 9,013 9,079 9,246

2006:
Jan
8,727

Average for Four-Week Period Ending:
2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21
8,883 8,939 8,994 9,012 9,034 9,040 9,054 9,079 9,081 9,129 9,129 9,118

The latest four-week average is only slightly below December's average, however, all the figures from 2/3 onward are higher than the same period last year.

[Spider]

:bs: times two.



Prove "refineries are still @ winter production".

The data doesn't support your assertion. From the table I provided:

Table 10. U.S. Petroleum Products Supplied, January 2005 to Present
(Thousand Barrels per Day of finished motor gasoline)

2005: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
8,775 8,798 8,996 9,130 9,257 9,380 9,451 9,454 8,897 9,013 9,079 9,246

2006:
Jan
8,727

Average for Four-Week Period Ending:
2/3 2/10 2/17 2/24 3/3 3/10 3/17 3/24 3/31 4/7 4/14 4/21
8,883 8,939 8,994 9,012 9,034 9,040 9,054 9,079 9,081 9,129 9,129 9,118

The latest four-week average is only slightly below December's average, however, all the figures from 2/3 onward are higher than the same period last year.

LOL see what I mean you dick ,the last 6 years , specialy after we invaded Iraq , you will see production was down , you grab last years prodcution , try to compare it to this year, last year was down also ....go back to 2000 ..........you dont have all the info , you couldnt grasp what I was saying ...like a said , leave the desk , get into the field .............This is why your article sucks..........

[W*GS]

LOL see what I mean you dick ,the last 6 years , specialy after we invaded Iraq , you will see production was down , you grab last years prodcution , try to compare it to this year, last year was down also ....go back to 2000 ..........

Why don't you?

you dont have all the info , you couldnt grasp what I was saying ...like a said , leave the desk , get into the field .............This is why your article sucks..........

:bs: number three.

[Spider]

Why don't you? Cause I already know ...........



:bs: number three.
as opposed to comparing last years production to this year when last year prices was just as high , and the production was the same ..........

[W*GS]

LOL see what I mean you dick ,the last 6 years , specialy after we invaded Iraq , you will see production was down , you grab last years prodcution , try to compare it to this year, last year was down also ....go back to 2000

You're still wrong.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfrpus2m.htm

U.S. Refinery Production of Finished Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 7,483 7,404 7,793 7,909 8,124 8,372 8,172 8,020 8,137 7,850 8,237 7,902
2001 7,544 7,635 7,660 8,088 8,390 8,387 8,172 7,980 8,114 8,159 8,127 7,991
2002 7,915 7,836 7,858 8,318 8,311 8,307 8,330 8,366 8,088 7,959 8,450 8,438
2003 7,870 7,800 7,724 8,161 8,311 8,293 8,320 8,355 8,228 8,253 8,450 8,540
2004 7,956 7,979 8,102 8,233 8,447 8,336 8,370 8,357 7,993 8,384 8,346 8,659
2005 8,094 8,204 8,040 8,488 8,411 8,537 8,289 8,245 8,009 7,904 8,400 8,474
2006 8,185 7,969

Where's the production drop?

[W*GS]

Cause I already know ...........

Clearly you don't. See my previous post.

[Spider]

You're still wrong.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgfrpus2m.htm

U.S. Refinery Production of Finished Gasoline (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000 7,483 7,404 7,793 7,909 8,124 8,372 8,172 8,020 8,137 7,850 8,237 7,902
2001 7,544 7,635 7,660 8,088 8,390 8,387 8,172 7,980 8,114 8,159 8,127 7,991
2002 7,915 7,836 7,858 8,318 8,311 8,307 8,330 8,366 8,088 7,959 8,450 8,438
2003 7,870 7,800 7,724 8,161 8,311 8,293 8,320 8,355 8,228 8,253 8,450 8,540
2004 7,956 7,979 8,102 8,233 8,447 8,336 8,370 8,357 7,993 8,384 8,346 8,659
2005 8,094 8,204 8,040 8,488 8,411 8,537 8,289 8,245 8,009 7,904 8,400 8,474
2006 8,185 7,969

Where's the production drop?
W*GSY my boy , I dont know about your chart son ............I clicked on the link , 1 thing stood out ......Year of 1972 ......... your chart is off the mark there , so I am lead to believe that it is off every where else .........Damn near had me untill I click the link

[W*GS]

W*GSY my boy , I dont know about your chart son ............I clicked on the link , 1 thing stood out ......Year of 1972 .........

Meaning what? What about 1972 is so remarkable?

1970 5,633 5,546 5,529 5,409 5,496 5,733 5,744 5,827 5,951 5,667 5,778 6,064
1971 5,915 5,889 5,771 5,615 5,560 5,984 6,153 6,268 6,122 6,005 6,042 6,306
1972 6,151 5,989 5,913 5,833 6,023 6,244 6,612 6,588 6,605 6,532 6,437 6,424
1973 6,341 6,855 6,150 6,377 6,714 6,993 6,986 6,880 6,619 6,621 6,375 6,099
1974 5,900 5,969 5,982 6,311 6,329 6,663 6,793 6,815 6,453 6,336 6,292 6,419
1975 6,509 6,276 6,070 6,046 6,126 6,669 7,003 6,872 6,823 6,410 6,602 6,786
1976 6,483 6,473 6,455 6,562 6,775 7,303 7,174 7,149 6,878 6,678 6,938 7,176
1977 6,932 6,815 6,862 6,966 6,945 7,144 7,247 7,188 7,059 6,930 7,123 7,146
1978 6,933 6,631 6,750 6,668 7,059 7,210 7,265 7,454 7,399 7,176 7,583 7,831
1979 7,246 6,924 6,654 6,770 6,792 7,001 7,002 6,882 6,626 6,483 6,673 6,988



your chart is off the mark there , so I am lead to believe that it is off every where else .........Damn near had me untill I click the link

Prove your point. What is "off the mark"?

[Spider]

Meaning what? What about 1972 is so remarkable?

1970 5,633 5,546 5,529 5,409 5,496 5,733 5,744 5,827 5,951 5,667 5,778 6,064
1971 5,915 5,889 5,771 5,615 5,560 5,984 6,153 6,268 6,122 6,005 6,042 6,306
1972 6,151 5,989 5,913 5,833 6,023 6,244 6,612 6,588 6,605 6,532 6,437 6,424
1973 6,341 6,855 6,150 6,377 6,714 6,993 6,986 6,880 6,619 6,621 6,375 6,099
1974 5,900 5,969 5,982 6,311 6,329 6,663 6,793 6,815 6,453 6,336 6,292 6,419
1975 6,509 6,276 6,070 6,046 6,126 6,669 7,003 6,872 6,823 6,410 6,602 6,786
1976 6,483 6,473 6,455 6,562 6,775 7,303 7,174 7,149 6,878 6,678 6,938 7,176
1977 6,932 6,815 6,862 6,966 6,945 7,144 7,247 7,188 7,059 6,930 7,123 7,146
1978 6,933 6,631 6,750 6,668 7,059 7,210 7,265 7,454 7,399 7,176 7,583 7,831
1979 7,246 6,924 6,654 6,770 6,792 7,001 7,002 6,882 6,626 6,483 6,673 6,988





Prove your point. What is "off the mark"?

in 1972 there was a huge crunch on gasoliene , it was bad , to the point where you could only buy a dollars worth of gas @ one time from a station , most folks spent hours driving around putting in a buck here or there for gas ....... according to your chart , 1972 was on par a little off but not much ......

[Spider]

Meaning what? What about 1972 is so remarkable?


in 1972 , we embargoed Oil from a country ( I dont remember which one ) Gas was in very short supply .........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

......... your chart is off the mark there , so I am lead to believe that it is off every where else ...

The O'W*GS Factor has been 'off the mark' on nearly every issue of importance to most Americans since his arrival on this board.

But I guess that's what happens when you hitch your wagon to the Smirk & Sneer train.

:D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Case in point:

80 percent of Americans are in favor of a windfall profits tax for companies like Exxon Mobil, including 76 percent of Republicans, according to one recent poll.

Just another instance of W*GS being on the wrong side of an issue.

[W*GS]

in 1972 there was a huge crunch on gasoliene , it was bad , to the point where you could only buy a dollars worth of gas @ one time from a station , most folks spent hours driving around putting in a buck here or there for gas ....... according to your chart , 1972 was on par a little off but not much ......

Actually, the OPEC-led embargo on the US began on 19 October 1973.

And the reason there were lines at gas stations was because Nixon imposed gas rationing. Don't blame the market for State-based stupidity.

Oh, and it's not "my chart", it's data from the Energy Information Agency. Are you claiming they're not credible?

[W*GS]

Case in point:

80 percent of Americans are in favor of a windfall profits tax for companies like Exxon Mobil, including 76 percent of Republicans, according to one recent poll.

Just another instance of W*GS being on the wrong side of an issue.

Being in the minority doesn't mean being wrong, dork.

[W*GS]

If I was interested in proving your point, Spider, I'd do the following:

1) Create an annual average of daily gasoline production for each year 1945-2006;
2) Divide each month of each year by the respective annual average, and multiply by 100 to get a percentage for each month of each year (corrects for the increase in time of gasoline production);
3) Create a monthly mean by averaging (over different periods, say the whole time series, the 1970s only, 2000s only) for each month (J-F-M-...-O-N-D);
4) Create monthly anomalies by subtracting the above means from each month's data (the percentage values);
5) Plot the results for the various mean periods.

The above will help tell you what effect the 1973 OPEC embargo had on US gasoline production (note that we haven't gotten into gasoline consumption, nor the impact of gasoline imports, if any) as well as providing evidence for/against your belief that gasoline has been manipulated since at least 2000.

Then again, all the above is strictly dealing with gasoline production. It would be interesting to correlate it with gasoline prices (corrected for inflation, of course) as well as crude oil production and crude oil prices (also corrected).

[W*GS]

I've done what I suggested. A plot of the percentage differences from the 1970s indeed shows a significant drop (~-10.4%) after the start of the October 1973 OPEC embargo:

http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pergas7yj.gif

So, Spider, care to stick with all your claims or do you concede I'm right?

[bendog]

Personally, I'd only be "ok" with a windfall tax if the proceeds were specifically tied to something. For example, Katrina/Rita.

[Spider]

I've done what I suggested. A plot of the percentage differences from the 1970s indeed shows a significant drop (~-10.4%) after the start of the October 1973 OPEC embargo:

http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pergas7yj.gif

So, Spider, care to stick with all your claims or do you concede I'm right?
Nope , asI said 85% BUMPED UP TO 95% , again 10% , you just proved my point Kiddo ...........

[Spider]

and your chart doesnt show that much difference in 72 or 73 .....Take more then smoke and mirriors

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nope , asI said 85% BUMPED UP TO 95% , again 10% , you just proved my point Kiddo ...........

:giggle:

My favorite O'W*GS excuse/defense for oil company price gouging was "hey - a gallon of gas costs about the same as a gallon of milk - what are you b*tchin' about?"

Funny stuff. ;D

[Spider]

:giggle:

My favorite O'W*GS excuse/defense for oil company price gouging was "hey - a gallon of gas costs about the same as a gallon of milk - what are you b*tchin' about?"

Funny stuff. ;D
I think W*GS lost track of the argument , wound up proving my point , 10% in the #'s we are talking about doesnt even register

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I think W*GS lost track of the argument , wound up proving my point , 10% in the #'s we are talking about doesnt even register

Yep.

Watching him tap dance is funny. :D

http://www.bartcop.com/pretend-oil-bastards.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/baby-seat-monkey.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oil price gouging and Republican responsibility

Most American consumers understand that the energy policies of the Republican Party simply stink of oil money. The ties between the Bush White House and oil interests are well understood. The policies pursued by the Bush Republicans in terms of energy, environmental regulations, monopolies, taxation and foreign policy are those of the largest oil companies instead of the American consumer.

Recently on MSNBC, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn attempted to blame high oil prices on liberals and environmentalists. The attempt was pathetic and a classical Blackburn tactic. Blackburn often goes into a standard speech mode attacking liberals, environmentalists and/or Democrats or repeating some standard Republican talking points when she has no logical response to politically uncomfortable facts.

While visiting her office with a delegation of Tennessee auto workers, I saw her filibuster the members of the delegation. She quickly excused herself for a pressing meeting with a business lobby as soon as the auto workers started discussing policy issues of importance to working Americans. She refused to let these auto workers even state their concerns. Blackburn votes with the largest corporations on every importance piece of legislation and routinely against her largely middle class Congressional District.

Blackburn is a typical example of a Republican member of Congress. Her campaign coffers are stuffed with Corporate money. She always votes in the interest of the wealthiest of the wealthy. Her political story shows how Big Oil has been able to rape the American consumer with the active assistance of a Republican dominated federal government.

The largest oil companies have used their huge cash reserves to buy up other competing oil companies without the government halting these anti-competitive, monopolistic acquisitions. These huge cash reserves were not used to expand refinery expansion or to expand other forms of renewable energy sources in significant ways.

Some internal oil company documents and emails made public seem to indicate that supplies were deliberately tightened by oil industry actions in order to drive up prices and oil industry profits. The oil industry made scapegoats out of environmentalists, and Republican political allies picked-up this theme, in order to cover their apparent manipulation of markets. This market manipulation should have been illegal. Congress needs to investigate the oil industry at the highest levels. This investigation should be focused largely on refinery operations and the anti-competitive situation created by oil company consolidations.

In her MSNBC appearance, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn urged an investigation of individual gas stations. I believe Blackburn was trying to derail an investigation of Big Oil by misdirection of a Congressional investigation.

This writer believes that Democrats should push for the break-up of the largest oil companies. We need more competition in the energy sector. If criminal price-gouging can be proved, oil industry executive responsible should serve long jail terms. Excessive oil industry profits should be taxed. Blackburn publicly announced her opposition to this taxation policy. Her position is shared by almost all Republican members of Congress and the Bush White House.

Our government should stop creating foreign policy crises with major oil producing nations like Iran and Venezuela. The Bush Republican foreign policy seems to be designed to drive up international oil prices by creating crisis after crisis and constantly threatening war with oil producing nations. Greg Palast has a new book coming out soon that explores the possibility that the Bush White House pushed the United States into a war with Iraq to keep Iraqi oil off the international market. This interesting idea makes sense in that tight oil supplies permitted Bush’s friends in the oil industry to make billions and billions in excess profits. These oil industry people have funded Bush Republican politicians all over the nation.

The only defense American consumers have to fight back is their votes. Every Republican Senator and Congressperson should be voted out of office in 2006 and 2008. We need to enact laws to promote competition, peace, energy conservation and renewable energy. This cannot be done with the Bush Republicans in control of our federal government.

- Stephen Crockett

[W*GS]

Nope , asI said 85% BUMPED UP TO 95% , again 10% , you just proved my point Kiddo ...........

What was your point?

I can either prove or disprove your assertion with the data I've got.

Make your point in an analytical manner and we'll see.

[W*GS]

and your chart doesnt show that much difference in 72 or 73 .....Take more then smoke and mirriors

The analysis I've performed isn't "smoke and mirrors".

You didn't even get the date or the direction of the embargo correct, and you're accusing me of being wrong? Pshaw.

That said, there are aspects of gasoline price that aren't readily apparent from the domestic gasoline production data - imports, consumption, etc.

But, your original point was that recent gasoline production was less than it "should" be. The data doesn't support that - not in any significant way. Then you went off on the '73 embargo tangent, which is interesting but not relevant to your first argument.

[W*GS]

My favorite O'W*GS excuse/defense for oil company price gouging was "hey - a gallon of gas costs about the same as a gallon of milk - what are you b*tchin' about?"

That wasn't my point - but you've never let slide a chance to lie about what I've said.

Any reports on VHeadline about the corruption in Chavez' government?

[W*GS]

I think W*GS lost track of the argument , wound up proving my point , 10% in the #'s we are talking about doesnt even register

You still don't get it.

Not that I ever believed you would.

[Spider]

The analysis I've performed isn't "smoke and mirrors".

You didn't even get the date or the direction of the embargo correct, and you're accusing me of being wrong? Pshaw.

That said, there are aspects of gasoline price that aren't readily apparent from the domestic gasoline production data - imports, consumption, etc.

But, your original point was that recent gasoline production was less than it "should" be. The data doesn't support that - not in any significant way. Then you went off on the '73 embargo tangent, which is interesting but not relevant to your first argument.
LOL you twit you didnt even know about the embaro until you googled it . I lived it , I remember the hardship it caused all to well , I also know we felt the crunch long before the embargo , you Data sucks son , thats all there is to it , we both know #´s and cherry picking you can come up with any chart like the one you have ........... you are asking me to trust more then the people in the field , that wont happen ..............

[Spider]

You still don't get it.
No you are the one that doesnt get it , someone damn near has to smack you with a 2x4

Not that I ever believed you would.
then why all the effort ?

[W*GS]

you twit you didnt even know about the embaro until you googled it . I lived it , I remember the hardship it caused all to well , I also know we felt the crunch long before the embargo

:bs:

I'm fully aware of what happened in 1973. You didn't even get the year right - and the gas lines and shortages and all that had far more to do with Nixon's wage and price controls, and rationing, than it did with a Big Oil-engineered decline in gasoline production.

, you Data sucks son , thats all there is to it , we both know #´s and cherry picking you can come up with any chart like the one you have ........... you are asking me to trust more then the people in the field , that wont happen ..............

I cherry-picked nothing - I followed the steps I outlined earlier - which I wouldn't expect you to understand. You calling my analysis more-or-less a fraud?

When your buddies out in the field can tell me the daily mean gasoline production for any month between, say, 1950 and last month, let me know. In the meantime, their perceptions don't stand up to the facts.

You're an interesting example of the anti-reason anti-fact mindset of too many Americans. I'll let you figure out why, and why such "thinking" is a big problem.

[W*GS]

No you are the one that doesnt get it , someone damn near has to smack you with a 2x4

What you "know" and what really is are two different things.

then why all the effort ?

I had a glimmer of hope that you were reachable by dispassionate analysis.

I was wrong.

[Spider]

I was wrong.
you are always wrong , this isnt nothing new ...........

[W*GS]

you are always wrong , this isnt nothing new ...........

You should stay away from things that involve rational thought.

It's not your strong point.

Stick with things like drinking beer, fighting, and agreeing with your buddies that something's wrong, even if you don't know what it is, exactly.

[Spider]

You should stay away from things that involve rational thought.

It's not your strong point.

Stick with things like drinking beer, fighting, and agreeing with your buddies that something's wrong, even if you don't know what it is, exactly.
somthing tells me you dont like me anymore

[W*GS]

somthing tells me you dont like me anymore

I don't care for people who feel when they should think.

[Spider]

I don't care for people who feel when they should think.
I will keep that in mind , lets find somthing on your level we can agree on ........ the Elvis stamp , I thought the thin Elvis was the right move ........

[W*GS]

I will keep that in mind , lets find somthing on your level we can agree on ........ the Elvis stamp , I thought the thin Elvis was the right move ........

You're just sore I ran rings around you with my analyses. But, for folks of your type, the plain facts are never persuasive - they'll continue to stick with incorrect beliefs.

And some folks wonder why evangelicals are so stubborn and wrong-headed. You're just as bad as they are.

[Spider]

You're just sore I ran rings around you .
Only in your mind .......
And some folks wonder why evangelicals are so stubborn and wrong-headed. You're just as bad as they are.
so i take it you was for the fat Elvis stamp

[W*GS]

Only in your mind .......

You've got nothing to support your views.

You lost.

[Spider]

You've got nothing to support your views.

You lost.
oh I dont know , i think the thin Elvis stamp looked alot better ............as for the oil and Gas , no you lost , as soon as you relied on the goverment , your argument went down hill , oh I could ask when was the last time the goverment or any of its agents were truthfull about anything , but we both know the answer to that .... so just so you can hang in this debate , I am giving the great elvis debate , if that doesnt fit you , we canalways argue the Big mac vs the whopper

[W*GS]

as for the oil and Gas , no you lost , as soon as you relied on the goverment , your argument went down hill , oh I could ask when was the last time the goverment or any of its agents were truthfull about anything , but we both know the answer to that ....

Puhleeze. The government also says smoking is bad for you - is that fact suspect as well?

You've made an endless number of logical fallacies in this thread (as you do in any thread). A healthy skepticism is good, an unthinking skepticism is stupid.

[Spider]

Puhleeze. The government also says smoking is bad for you - is that fact suspect as well? second hand smoke hasnt been proved , but my 1 granddad somked up untill his death @ the ripe age of 86 , my other grand dad never smoked died @ the old age of 56 , my aunt never smoked died of cancer in her 70's , my uncle was a professional chain smoker died in his 70's .......take your pick

You've made an endless number of logical fallacies in this thread (as you do in any thread). A healthy skepticism is good, an unthinking skepticism is stupid.
LOL I knew it , the goverment is ok when they support your point of view , evil and crooked and full of liars when they dont ........... got your # .........

[alkemical]

wags,

when uncle sam takes my house, my car and my land. Looks to me and asks what more i can give after it's done stealing my money, why should i put any creedence into the gov't stance or actions, after all - it's only interest is further advancment of it's power and money it takes in.

The only reason the gov't doesn't want you to smoke (which is a lie, because they like the taxes.) Is that the gov't knows you will die before it can get an expected tax # out of you :)

[W*GS]

second hand smoke hasnt been proved , but my 1 granddad somked up untill his death @ the ripe age of 86 , my other grand dad never smoked died @ the old age of 56 , my aunt never smoked died of cancer in her 70's , my uncle was a professional chain smoker died in his 70's .......take your pick

Yep, the ol' anecdotal stuff again.

Let's say you try shooting yourself in the head - others have done it and lived. What say you try?

LOL I knew it , the goverment is ok when they support your point of view , evil and crooked and full of liars when they dont ........... got your # .........

The data in this instance is just the raw data - how one chooses to interpret it is where the agenda comes in. It just so happens that your agenda isn't supported by the data - in which case you claim the data is wrong, or fraudulent, or I did something to it to prove you wrong. Suffice to say none of that is true.

I'm not so ideological that if some random data X comes from the government, it's automatically wrong or falsified. Are you that ideological?

[W*GS]

when uncle sam takes my house, my car and my land. Looks to me and asks what more i can give after it's done stealing my money, why should i put any creedence into the gov't stance or actions, after all - it's only interest is further advancment of it's power and money it takes in.

If you were living in a totalitarian or authoritarian state, you'd have a stronger case.

[Spider]

Yep, the ol' anecdotal stuff again.

Let's say you try shooting yourself in the head - others have done it and lived. What say you try?`
LOL , desperation .......... you go first ....... dont worry I will make sure your wife doesnt get lonely ....... send your Kids off to a foster home ..........



The data in this instance is just the raw data - how one chooses to interpret it is where the agenda comes in. It just so happens that your agenda isn't supported by the data - in which case you claim the data is wrong, or fraudulent, or I did something to it to prove you wrong. Suffice to say none of that is true. LOL , if you say so , problem is you didnt prove me wrong .........

I'm not so ideological that if some random data X comes from the government, it's automatically wrong or falsified. Are you that ideological?
against the goverment damn right , they havent gave me anything for me to believe them , just like your little smoking senario ........... face it yo ulove the goverment when it supports your point of view , hate it when it doesnt ....... you just cant make up your mind

[W*GS]

desperation .......... you go first ....... dont worry I will make sure your wife doesnt get lonely ....... send your Kids off to a foster home ..........

Where's your unlimited skepticism?

And I do believe a foster home would be a better environment for your kids.

if you say so , problem is you didnt prove me wrong .........

Since your claims jumped all over the place, and you didn't prove the EIA data wrong, your statement above is incorrect.

against the goverment damn right , they havent gave me anything for me to believe them , just like your little smoking senario ........... face it yo ulove the goverment when it supports your point of view , hate it when it doesnt ....... you just cant make up your mind

Talk about a simplistic point of view. But not surprising.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO @ W*GS' ongoing effort to obfuscate facts that are obvious to anyone who isn't kneeling and bobbing for BushCo and Big Oil...

While millions of people are suffering under the weight of higher prices, there is a narrow group making huge amounts of money. It’s not just the Saudi royal family that gets rich when speculators drive up the price of oil; ExxonMobil, which produces more oil every day than Kuwait, has enjoyed profits of $110 billion since President Bush took office. While it costs ExxonMobil about $20 to extract a barrel of oil in Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates or from federal land in Alaska or Texas, the company is selling that oil to the American people for $70/barrel.

That explains why ExxonMobil and other oil companies are posting the biggest profits in our economy’s history.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/200...ice_gambit.php

[W*GS]

LMAO @ W*GS' ongoing effort to obfuscate facts that are obvious to anyone who isn't kneeling and bobbing for BushCo and Big Oil...

Of course you'll pipe up with some asinine uneducated comment:

"TomPaine.com is for people who want to keep in touch with the progressive community ..."

Gee, imagine LABF finding a "progressive" idiot (but I repeat myself). The mind boggles.

ExxonMobil doesn't set the price at which it sells oil, doofus.

[Spider]

Where's your unlimited skepticism?

And I do believe a foster home would be a better environment for your kids.
this was about your kids after all you are the NRA , you have guns dont you ? ........ take aim pull the trigger ,if you survive , then we know that shooting yourself in the headisnt realy a bad thing .......


Since your claims jumped all over the place, and you didn't prove the EIA data wrong, your statement above is incorrect.



Talk about a simplistic point of view. But not surprising.
LOL thats what I thought ......... you got busted ..... Believe the goverment , I will believe the guys in the field ........... not realy an issue

[W*GS]

this was about your kids after all you are the NRA , you have guns dont you ? ........ take aim pull the trigger ,if you survive , then we know that shooting yourself in the headisnt realy a bad thing .......

If you never believe anything the government says, then what fear do you have of guns?

LOL thats what I thought ......... you got busted ..... Believe the goverment , I will believe the guys in the field ........... not realy an
issue

And you believe the burger flippers down at McD's about mad cow disease.

And you believe the local pet store owner when it comes to avian flu.

And you believe the guys down at the used car lot about the car industry.

And so we're back to me showing you how narrow and uninformed you are. Wadda shocker.

[Spider]

If you never believe anything the government says, then what fear do you have of guns? Hilarious! and when did I develope this fear of guns ?



And you believe the burger flippers down at McD's about mad cow disease.

And you believe the local pet store owner when it comes to avian flu.

And you believe the guys down at the used car lot about the car industry.

And so we're back to me showing you how narrow and uninformed you are. Wadda shocker.
I would believe any of them before you ...... Now back to the shooting in the head thing ....... I realy wish you would git r done there bro

[W*GS]

I would believe any of them before you ......

Considering that you're an ignorant hick who willingly chooses to remain as one, I can live with that.

[Spider]

Considering that you're an ignorant hick who willingly chooses to remain as one, I can live with that.
ok ... now on to the shooting in the head .. whats wrong afraid you will miss ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

........... face it yo ulove the goverment when it supports your point of view , hate it when it doesnt ....... you just cant make up your mind

Exactly.

"Libertarians" like W*GS are the types who oppose things like land use laws - until someone decides to build an amusement park next to their property.

It's all about "unless it hurts me personally, screw everybody else."

[Spider]

Exactly.

"Libertarians" like W*GS are the types who oppose things like land use laws - until someone decides to build an amusement park next to their property.

It's all about "unless it hurts me personally, screw everybody else."
Yep , buit i want to see how good of an Aim mr I am the NRA is , and show me that shooting oneself in the head is a bad thing .........

[alkemical]

If you were living in a totalitarian or authoritarian state, you'd have a stronger case.


No wags, it's a strong case now. The gov't pays for fake news pieces/propoganda to be run on tv - eminent domain is out of control, taxes are out of control - it's more more more -how do totalitarian states start wags, with water and sunshine?

[Spider]

No wags, it's a strong case now. The gov't pays for fake news pieces/propoganda to be run on tv - eminent domain is out of control, taxes are out of control - it's more more more -how to totalitarian states start wags, with water and sunshine?
these things dont happen in LA LA land , goverment is honest .........

[W*GS]

ok ... now on to the shooting in the head .. whats wrong afraid you will miss ?

Bad choice of test on my part.

How 'bout this: Next time you come down Floyd Hill on I-70 in your rig, you ignore all those warning signs for truckers - after all, the gummint put 'em up, and we all know the gummint lies about everything.

You can dis the data I've used all you want, but the problem for you is that the data is simply the data. It's not manipulated in any way - you'd have to show that it is, somehow, and "Because my buddies in the field tell me different" is not proof.

It's a sign of a prejudiced mind when reality isn't allowed to alter their perceptions.

[W*GS]

"Libertarians" like W*GS are the types who oppose things like land use laws - until someone decides to build an amusement park next to their property.

It's all about "unless it hurts me personally, screw everybody else."

That's the liberal mantra, doofus.

For decades, you and your lefty idiots have been making the State more and more powerful. Now that you've got your powerful State, it gets used in ways you don't like (i.e., "unless it hurts me personally, screw everybody else").

The concept that a powerful State won't always be under your control is something you've never gotten. Sooner or later, a powerful State will infringe on your rights. Yet you insist on increasing the State's power.

Why?

[W*GS]

No wags, it's a strong case now. The gov't pays for fake news pieces/propoganda to be run on tv - eminent domain is out of control, taxes are out of control - it's more more more -how do totalitarian states start wags, with water and sunshine?

Compare your existence with those who are living under genuinely totalitarian regimes, say, North Korea. Is there a 1:1 correspondence?

Does that mean I believe we have a proper government that does only what the Constitution allows it? Certainly not - but to claim we live under a totalitarian State is ludicrous.

[alkemical]

Compare your existence with those who are living under genuinely totalitarian regimes, say, North Korea. Is there a 1:1 correspondence?

Does that mean I believe we have a proper government that does only what the Constitution allows it? Certainly not - but to claim we live under a totalitarian State is ludicrous.


We don't....yet

[Spider]

Bad choice of test on my part.

How 'bout this: Next time you come down Floyd Hill on I-70 in your rig, you ignore all those warning signs for truckers - after all, the gummint put 'em up, and we all know the gummint lies about everything.yes the goverment put it up ,and it is 1 size fits all , perhaps you should find a different "test"
Problem with floyd hill is like La Veta pass ( well used to be been awhile since I been down La veta ) , 30,000 is the cut off wieght , Now you want to tell me that a rig with 29,900 GVW is some how less dangerous then a Rig with 30,000 GVW ......... Bullshít

You can dis the data I've used all you want, but the problem for you is that the data is simply the data. It's not manipulated in any way - you'd have to show that it is, somehow, and "Because my buddies in the field tell me different" is not proof.

It's a sign of a prejudiced mind when reality isn't allowed to alter their perceptions. then if Ican dis it all I want , then why did you get so worked up when i did it ?
***edit note**** most of the steep grades in Colorado are the 30,000 cut off wieght ....So in the Goverments mind ( the one you defend ) a rig GVW of 29,900 pounds can stop better then a rig of 30,000 GVW .......100 pounds difference W*GS , on a 16 ton empty GVW rig ....... and on the same hand a truck with GVW of 30,000 is no different then a rig with 79,900 GVW . 30 mph for both ........... then there is no concideration to stopping a empty rig being harder much bigger chance of Jackknifing

[W*GS]

So, Spider, is the EIA lying when it presents the following data?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

[W*GS]

We don't....yet

Nor is such an end state inevitable.

It's our fault if we allow it to happen - which is why I'm a libertarian.

[W*GS]

yes the goverment put it up ,and it is 1 size fits all , perhaps you should find a different "test"
Problem with floyd hill is like La Veta pass ( well used to be been awhile since I been down La veta ) , 30,000 is the cut off wieght , Now you want to tell me that a rig with 29,900 GVW is some how less dangerous then a Rig with 30,000 GVW ......... Bullshít

Do us all a favor and make your rig obviously yours - perhaps big signs that say "I don't pay attention to steep grades and will drive as I please" so the rest of us can avoid you.

Thanks, honey.

then if Ican dis it all I want , then why did you get so worked up when i did it ?

I expect honest debate - not the kind of nonsense you spout.

[Spider]

Do us all a favor and make your rig obviously yours - perhaps big signs that say "I don't pay attention to steep grades and will drive as I please" so the rest of us can avoid you.

Thanks, honey. and in the next breath you say you want honest debate ? Hilarious! I didnt say I didnt follow it cupcake , I just pointed out the problems with it ........ Let me know if I lose you again

[Spider]

see W*GS this is your problem son , you cant even keep your own guidelines in a debate , then cry and moan when someone else doesnt follow it ....... after the post above , tell me what do you know of an " Honest Debate " ?

[alkemical]

Nor is such an end state inevitable.

It's our fault if we allow it to happen - which is why I'm a libertarian.


w*gs, if status quo continues to roll, when the man at the stand raises his hand, to say the truth, and the truth said is that when all is done and said, they've taken my home, and taken my bread.

*snaps fingers* :)

[W*GS]

and in the next breath you say you want honest debate ? Hilarious! I didnt say I didnt follow it cupcake , I just pointed out the problems with it ........ Let me know if I lose you again

The gummint is good when you think it is, it's bad when you don't like what it says.

You claimed that was my take, in fact, it's yours.

In any case, please let us all know you're driving a given rig. I'll be sure to be extra careful around you, when you've clearly stated you'll follow governmental regulations if and when it suits you.

[Spider]

So, Spider, is the EIA lying when it presents the following data?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp
in some spots damn right they are , they took an Average , of an Area , I can buy Diesel for less somtimes some times more ............depends

[W*GS]

w*gs, if status quo continues to roll,[...]

There's your "if".

What are you doing to lessen the chances of totalitarianism - other than your usual stance of fear and paranoia?

[Spider]

The gummint is good when you think it is, it's bad when you don't like what it says.

You claimed that was my take, in fact, it's yours.

In any case, please let us all know you're driving a given rig. I'll be sure to be extra careful around you, when you've clearly stated you'll follow governmental regulations if and when it suits you.
LOL Shoot low sherriff W*GS is on a shetland pony ......... Liek I said I follow them , but I understand they are not perfect ........... did you catch it this time ?

[W*GS]

in some spots damn right they are , they took an Average , of an Area , I can buy Diesel for less somtimes some times more ............depends

So an average is "lying"?

Do tell.

[defenseman]

this thread is headed into LA LA land. Make a distinct point, support if with facts, and carry on smartly. LABF , you really never cease to amaze me. The entertainment value is "priceless"...dman

[W*GS]

Liek I said I follow them , but I understand they are not perfect ........... did you catch it this time ?

I wouldn't trust you to follow any regulation.

[Spider]

I wouldn't trust you to follow any regulation.
thats nice ....... run along now let the big people talk

[Spider]

So an average is "lying"?

Do tell.
it isnt exact ....... now is it ........

[alkemical]

There's your "if".

What are you doing to lessen the chances of totalitarianism - other than your usual stance of fear and paranoia?


wags, the sandwich board wearing, bell ringing street prophets are the early detection system.

Look wags, i have a bit of paranoia that is a tad unhealthy. Putting blind faith in my leaders who are human - is insanity. To say the gov't won't continue to keep taking and taking is proven, by history - that the state will never give up power it attains. You and I both know, that is correct.

PS - don't you have an "IF" as well "IF" the gov't doesn't expand, IF people become libertarian. Sometimes Wags, i think you are like a PHd liberal - it's enough to say you do this and that, but do you do?

[W*GS]

it isnt exact ....... now is it ........

You're mathematically illiterate.

[Spider]

You're mathematically illiterate.
and your a wimp ? done now ?

[W*GS]

wags, the sandwich board wearing, bell ringing street prophets are the early detection system.

A good many of those folks are mentally ill.

Look wags, i have a bit of paranoia that is a tad unhealthy. Putting blind faith in my leaders who are human - is insanity.

Who's got "blind faith"? As a libertarian, I certainly don't!

To say the gov't won't continue to keep taking and taking is proven, by history - that the state will never give up power it attains. You and I both know, that is correct.

It's more complicated than that. Would you claim that the average American is far less free today than the average American of 1789?

PS - don't you have an "IF" as well "IF" the gov't doesn't expand, IF people become libertarian. Sometimes Wags, i think you are like a PHd liberal - it's enough to say you do this and that, but do you do?

Put simply - I'm not a fatalist, as that's a dead-end.

[Spider]

it takes a caculus expert to know that the average is just that the average price , in some places it might be higher , others lower ....... it takes a math wiz to understand that the average isnt exact ........... thanks for the tip W*GS

[W*GS]

and your a wimp ? done now ?

Are you?

Care to get back to the real discussion now you've ended up at your usual good-in-the-bar bad-on-the-internet takes?

[W*GS]

it takes a caculus expert to know that the average is just that the average price , in some places it might be higher , others lower ....... it takes a math wiz to understand that the average isnt exact ........... thanks for the tip W*GS

If you could assemble a time series of data for each and every diesel-selling gas station over the entire nation, with sufficient time resolution to catch when they change prices, no averaging at all, then you could start to prove your point. But then again, you've changed your argument a couple of times, so it's not clear exactly what it is you're trying to argue.

[Spider]

Are you?

Care to get back to the real discussion now you've ended up at your usual good-in-the-bar bad-on-the-internet takes?
wow ...... this maybe news to you , but Inever took you serious on anything.........1 minute you are defending Bush and republicans tooth and nail supporting goverment , next minute you are a libertarian , hating goverment , I never sure what W*GS I am arguing with ....... Bi Polar is real W*GS get checked out

[defenseman]

Statistics would get you that number quicker...dman

[Spider]

If you could assemble a time series of data for each and every diesel-selling gas station over the entire nation, with sufficient time resolution to catch when they change prices, no averaging at all, then you could start to prove your point. But then again, you've changed your argument a couple of times, so it's not clear exactly what it is you're trying to argue.
well then git r done ....... get started

[Spider]

Statistics would get you that number quicker...dman
what gets you that # quicker is the time of year , and the access in and out ........ see W*GS little table there would have me believe I can get fuel for 3.01 at the TA and at the Sinclair , Flying J . it dont work that way .......

[W*GS]

wow ...... this maybe news to you , but Inever took you serious on anything.........1 minute you are defending Bush and republicans tooth and nail supporting goverment , next minute you are a libertarian , hating goverment , I never sure what W*GS I am arguing with ....... Bi Polar is real W*GS get checked out

Obviously any political viewpoint more complicated than a single view with only two choices is beyond your comprehension.

Suffice to say my skepticism about government doesn't extend so far as to doubt EIA data.

[W*GS]

well then git r done ....... get started

You're the one with the point to prove, not me.

[W*GS]

what gets you that # quicker is the time of year , and the access in and out ........ see W*GS little table there would have me believe I can get fuel for 3.01 at the TA and at the Sinclair , Flying J . it dont work that way .......

Are you really this dumb?

[Spider]

Are you really this dumb?
question is are you ? you see W*GS there are different blends of diesel , different mixtures ...... oh forget it , you just go by your little chart and be happy , I will go by my pocket book and be happy ..........

[alkemical]

A good many of those folks are mentally ill.



Who's got "blind faith"? As a libertarian, I certainly don't!



It's more complicated than that. Would you claim that the average American is far less free today than the average American of 1789?



Put simply - I'm not a fatalist, as that's a dead-end.

W*gs,

I would say that we are less free today, than even 60yrs ago - of course there's the argument that if you don't have to think, or be offended - then that is freedom (aldous huxley) -

I'm not a fatalist Wags, i just feel that i'd rather be more safe than sorry.

[Spider]

You're the one with the point to prove, not me.
LOL I have nothing to prove . Iam going by the guys in the field , you are going by the goverment .......... mine is actual handson expierences , while youres is a website .........

[W*GS]

I would say that we are less free today, than even 60yrs ago [...]

There are blacks, gays, and others who would strongly disagree.

Do they count?

[W*GS]

question is are you ? you see W*GS there are different blends of diesel , different mixtures ...... oh forget it , you just go by your little chart and be happy , I will go by my pocket book and be happy ..........

Yep, you are dumb.

[W*GS]

LOL I have nothing to prove . Iam going by the guys in the field , you are going by the goverment .......... mine is actual handson expierences , while youres is a website .........

I didn't realize you were God, such that your "handson expierences" constituted all of reality.

Didja ever ponder the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, what you've seen and done and talked about is only a tiny part of the real picture? Hmmmm?

[alkemical]

There are blacks, gays, and others who would strongly disagree.

Do they count?


not if i were a republican. j/k :)

I didn't include them, because i often don't view them as seperate classes of people - but you do have a point - so i do concede on that point.

[Spider]

Yep, you are dumb.
ok then explain to me the different mixtures and what they mean

[Spider]

I didn't realize you were God, such that your "handson expierences" constituted all of reality.



well now you know and knowing is half the battle

[W*GS]

ok then explain to me the different mixtures and what they mean

Tell me what an average is.

[Spider]

Tell me what an average is.
there is no average , tell me why I would run 30/70 diesel #1&#2 mixture in summer and what advatange that is , you already have the price average in your little chart ...... as I said you use your chart I will use my pocket book .......

[Spider]

See W(GS I am the stupid one , I didnt fall for your little chart , now you use your little chart to show me what side the bread is buttered on

[W*GS]

there is no average , tell me why I would run 30/70 diesel #1&#2 mixture in summer and what advatange that is , you already have the price average in your little chart ...... as I said you use your chart I will use my pocket book .......

Tell me what an average is.

BTW, how long does it take to drive from Casper to Cheyenne?

[W*GS]

See W(GS I am the stupid one , I didnt fall for your little chart , now you use your little chart to show me what side the bread is buttered on

I've got you ranting now.

Care to get back on point?

[Spider]

Tell me what an average is. use your Chart ... I am the dumb one that doesnt see the whole picture , your chart does , you should be able to solve this with no problem ......

BTW, how long does it take to drive from Casper to Cheyenne?
by car 2.5 hours , by truck 3

[Spider]

I've got you ranting now.

Care to get back on point?
LOL . me ranting .. naw , just trying to understand where you are comming from Mr Churchill

[W*GS]

use your Chart ... I am the dumb one that doesnt see the whole picture , your chart does , you should be able to solve this with no problem ......

The data the EIA provides doesn't give the information you want - nor is it intended to do so.

When you read that when Jake Plummer (or whomever the Broncos QB is) completes a pass, it averages (say) 10.2 yards, will that tell him, on a given play during a game, to which side and which receiver he should throw the ball?

by car 2.5 hours , by truck 3

Are those data exact, or a lie?

[W*GS]

LOL . me ranting .. naw , just trying to understand where you are comming from Mr Churchill

Here we go again...

Interestingly, the person here on the OM most like Ward Churchill is your dear LABF. Chew on that for a bit, will ya?

[Spider]

The data the EIA provides doesn't give the information you want - nor is it intended to do so.

When you read that when Jake Plummer (or whomever the Broncos QB is) completes a pass, it averages (say) 10.2 yards, will that tell him, on a given play during a game, to which side and which receiver he should throw the ball?
I see so your little chart didnt include everything .... hmmmmmmmm , now what was you saying about hands on expierence ?


Are those data exact, or a lie?
right on the money following the speed limit not stopping , if it takes you longer , then you stopped ........

[W*GS]

I see so your little chart didnt include everything .... hmmmmmmmm , now what was you saying about hands on expierence ?

Your "hands on expierence" doesn't "include everything" either.

So...

If I'm interested in finding out how diesel prices have changed over time, what's the relevance, exactly, of "30/70 diesel #1&#2 mixture in summer"?

right on the money following the speed limit not stopping , if it takes you longer , then you stopped ........

You didn't take into account the road conditions (traffic, weather, day or night) and a whole bunch of other factors.

You lied.

[Spider]

ok W*GS here is the jist #1 Diesel doesnt gel and increases your fuel milage , but you cant run striaght #1 diesel , it doesnt have the oil #2 does , burns your pump up ,so now you get into mixtures , some stations already have the mixture prepared 70/30 or 60/40 seem to be the most popular for winter , during the summer just #2 diesel you have mix yourself ........

[Spider]

Your "hands on expierence" doesn't "include everything" either.

So...

If I'm interested in finding out how diesel prices have changed over time, what's the relevance, exactly, of "30/70 diesel #1&#2 mixture in summer"?
they have these things called signs , they have prices on them ........ works great ;D



You didn't take into account the road conditions (traffic, weather, day or night) and a whole bunch of other factors.
Night no difference , road conditions , if it is that bad stay home ....... the whole bunch of other factors , realy not much for only 180 miles stretch of road ........ Maybe you would like to bring up Household movers guide miles ......as opposed to hub millage

You lied.you dont need an excercise program with all the reaching you do

[W*GS]

Night no difference , road conditions , if it is that bad stay home ....... the whole bunch of other factors , realy not much for only 180 miles stretch of road ........ Maybe you would like to bring up Household movers guide miles ......as opposed to hub millage

You're just lying when you say "by car 2.5 hours , by truck 3" because you don't include everything.

I bet that "180 miles" is a lie too.

[Spider]

You're just lying when you say "by car 2.5 hours , by truck 3" because you don't include everything. drove it in winter 2.5 hours , drove it at night 2.5 hours , drove it middle of day 2.5 hours .....dont blame me if you cant drivr

I bet that "180 miles" is a lie too.
depends on whose guide you use Household movers or hub ....... take your pick........you do understand household moversguide dont you ?

[W*GS]

drove it in winter 2.5 hours , drove it at night 2.5 hours , drove it middle of day 2.5 hours .....dont blame me if you cant drivr

Every time you've driven it, it's exactly (without variation, ever!) 2 hours, 30 minutes, 0 seconds. Amazing.

So I guess another guy who always drives it in 2 hours, 29 minutes, 45 seconds is completely and totally wrong.

Spider, you can't even see where I'm leading you. Heh.

[Spider]

Every time you've driven it, it's exactly (without variation, ever!) 2 hours, 30 minutes, 0 seconds. Amazing. I drive for a living ......the longer I am under a load the more I lose money .......

So I guess another guy who always drives it in 2 hours, 29 minutes, 45 seconds is completely and totally wrong. either that or drives like old people make love , slow and unsure of himself

Spider, you can't even see where I'm leading you. Heh.
LOL ....... if you say so ........

[W*GS]

either that or drives like old people make love , slow and unsure of himself

He's always exactly 15 seconds faster than you. Which one of you is lying?

[Spider]

He's always exactly 15 seconds faster than you. Which one of you is lying?
he has always exactly what ?

[W*GS]

he has always exactly what ?

Driven from Casper to Cheyenne. Keep up!

[Spider]

Driven from Casper to Cheyenne. Keep up!
Keep up ? i do speed limit . no faster , you just keep on going , I will catch up

[W*GS]

Keep up ? i do speed limit . no faster , you just keep on going , I will catch up

Why is your 2h30m0s value any more valid than his 2h29m45s time?

[Spider]

Why is your 2h30m0s value any more valid than his 2h29m45s time?
how much does he pay in insurence ?

[W*GS]

how much does he pay in insurence ?

What's your BAC?

[Spider]

What's your BAC?
what kind of tires does he have ? and what color are his eyes this is very importent

[W*GS]

what kind of tires does he have ? and what color are his eyes this is very importent

We're back to the point that I made some time ago - your perceptions are not sufficient to judge the accuracy/inaccuracy of a given claim.

Thanks for playing.

[Spider]

We're back to the point that I made some time ago - your perceptions are not sufficient to judge the accuracy/inaccuracy of a given claim. the only point you have can be hidden if you comb your hair right

Thanks for playing.
you are welcome , do I get a parting gift or somthing ?

[W*GS]

you are welcome , do I get a parting gift or somthing ?

Certainly - your parting gift is a total lack of credibility.

[Spider]

Certainly - your parting gift is a total lack of credibility.
7.8 quake hits south pacific nation of tonga .............. that hasto factor in the drive time from Casper to Cheyenne

[Spider]

good news W*GS , that sue nami chick canceled for Tonga , maybe she can drive that Casper to Cheyenne and settle this for us ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF , you really never cease to amaze me. The entertainment value is "priceless"...dman

Not nearly as much as your inability to support your claims with facts, evidence, sources, etc., or to offer an actual rebuttal to any given claim amazes me.

OK, I lied - it doesn't really amaze me.

It's pretty much a given that anyone who is still on the BushCo/GOP bandwagon at this stage of the game is not exactly amenable to appeals to facts, reason, truth, or logic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Matt Lauer Inadvertently Revealed The Crux Of Oil Price Problem Today

In an interview with Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, Matt revealed the reason why it does no good to appeal to the conscience and morality of the head of a transnational corporation.

Lauer asked Tillerson if he would consider holding down prices because of the dire situation the high prices are creating for so many consumers this summer. Tillerson gave an evasive answer, explaining the purpose of corporations and his responsibility to the stockholders to maximize profit. Lauer replied, "then that's a no."

The wonder is that anyone really thinks that corporations have a conscience or a moral code and would ever even consider holding down prices for the common good of the nation. They are sociopathic in nature, caring nothing for their customers, who are in reality unacknowledged stakeholders along with stockholders and employees, unless it affects their bottom line profitability. To appeal to them to act in a different manner is sublimely naive.

The only entities who will or can be made to practically deal with the gas price crisis are governmental in nature. Corporations could care less about the consumer, as long as not caring doesn't reduce their bottom line. In this case "not caring" actually increases profits since contrary to what the republican sychophants would have you believe, this is NOT a problem of supply and demand. It is a problem of INELASTIC demand paired with purposeful reductions in supply by way of closing refineries either permanently or temporarily for supposed "maintenance" needs. We've seen how this works by looking at what happened in California power supplies as engineered by Enron.

Krugman revealed in an earlier column that Exxon-Mobil is the worst of the lot, not just because of oil price increases, but because they have used their funds to finance the creation and operations of pseudo-scientific think tanks dedicated to bamboozling the American people into thinking there is no such thing as global warming.

Of course, Lauer forgot to say anything about that little sin against the American citizen and his children and grandchildren.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Rule by government or rule by corporation - your choice.

The above point seems lost on young (and sadly, sometimes not so young) technocrat libertarian types like W*GS who speak about not trusting government and getting government out of our lives. They see this false choice between "freedom" and government. The truth, as you well know, is that when you remove the sovereignty of government, you increase the sovereignty of corporations, who will then do WHATEVER they want to you, your food, and your air, and you will have absolutely no recourse. Just like a middle ages serf. Doesn't exactly sound like freedom to me.

[W*GS]

Rule by government or rule by corporation - your choice.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

"The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or dilemma or bifurcation), involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options which have not been considered."

[defenseman]

Keep it up LABF, the coffers of the right continue to fill based on some of your mantra......dman

*rebuttal? Could have fooled me, You appear the hat,can, and dancing shoes salesman to me. Your sources are the absolutely unreliable at best, very left, falling off the planet left. Global warming? do some homework. The earth has been cyclically heating and cooling for millions of years..not due to us...due to the way it is....aka....we REALLY don't know why it does it, but it does.

[Rascal]

The only entities who will or can be made to practically deal with the gas price crisis are governmental in nature.

That is a complete load of BS. To rely on the government to be your saving grace in any situation is asking to be bent over repeatedly. If this situation is to be resolved the citizens must do it themselves. The gov't and companies will adjust. The gov't and companies can't force the public to do anything it doesn't want to truly do itself.

[W*GS]

The wonder is that anyone really thinks that corporations have a conscience or a moral code and would ever even consider holding down prices for the common good of the nation.

I wouldn't ask a business owner to "hold down prices for the common good" any more than I would ask an employee to "hold down wages for the common good".

Would you, LABF, voluntarily take a substantial pay cut for the "common good"?

They are sociopathic in nature, caring nothing for their customers, who are in reality unacknowledged stakeholders along with stockholders and employees, unless it affects their bottom line profitability.

This is one of the most hilarious things I've read in quite some time.

On the one hand, according to LABF, corporations strive for nothing other than more and more profit. They're greedy SOBs!

But wait, now he says corporations don't care about their customers, with the huge caveat that "unless it affects their bottom line profitability".

So, what really happens (and LABF doesn't even realize it), because corporations are indeed primarily motivated by the desire for more profit (just as we employees want more pay), corporations are forced to fulfill their customers' wants, lest a competitor does a better job of it and thus earns more profit.

LABF is so interested in bashing corporations that he doesn't even comprehend that he's demolishing his own arguments!

The only entities who will or can be made to practically deal with the gas price crisis are governmental in nature.

:bs:

The last time there was a "gas price crisis", the government stepped in and promptly FOOBAR'ed the whole thing.

To make a transient uncomfortable situation a permanent horrible mess, involve the government.

[...]since contrary to what the republican sychophants would have you believe, this is NOT a problem of supply and demand.

This is exactly a problem of supply and demand, silly.

It is a problem of INELASTIC demand paired with purposeful reductions in supply by way of closing refineries either permanently or temporarily for supposed "maintenance" needs.

Prove both assertions - demand is inelastic (the drop in sales of gas-guzzling SUVs is evidence against that) and that there have been "purposeful reductions" in supply. Examine gasoline production over time versus capacity and see if it's really far less than it could be, and, show that such a reduction is "purposeful".

Krugman revealed [...]

Krugman is no longer credible - he's gone off the deep (left) end.

[W*GS]

Global warming? do some homework. The earth has been cyclically heating and cooling for millions of years..not due to us...due to the way it is....aka....we REALLY don't know why it does it, but it does.

We do have some understanding of the cyclicity of the global climate system - we're not completely baffled by it.

However, it's increasingly unlikely that the changes in various phenomena that have been observed are a result of natural climate variability.

[alkemical]

Wags,

so here's a serious econ question:

If the market is set at $70/barrel - obviously 'they' don't want to set the market to high, if the world econ's are drained to fast or too quick due to high energy cost - eventually they loose out more on the long run, correct?

Now if the econ's drop, the price drops - due to currency being worth "more", correct?

(i learned my economics from a 'real' free market *cough*)

[W*GS]

If the market is set at $70/barrel - obviously 'they' don't want to set the market to high, if the world econ's are drained to fast or too quick due to high energy cost - eventually they loose out more on the long run, correct?

Correct. About the only thing the Saudis hate more than $10/bbl oil is $70/bbl oil, since that creates tremendous incentives to explore alternatives and decrease consumption.

Now if the econ's drop, the price drops - due to currency being worth "more", correct?

I suppose indirectly - exchange rates aren't set entirely by markets. Central banks have a significant influence on the value of money. One thing that would cause the price of crude to drop is reduced consumption from an economic downturn. We saw that with the 1998 Asian financial crisis - OPEC had ramped up production just as the Asian economies (outside of China) faltered badly. So the price of crude dropped significantly, as supply was too great in relation to demand.

[alkemical]

Correct. About the only thing the Saudis hate more than $10/bbl oil is $70/bbl oil, since that creates tremendous incentives to explore alternatives and decrease consumption.



I suppose indirectly - exchange rates aren't set entirely by markets. Central banks have a significant influence on the value of money. One thing that would cause the price of crude to drop is reduced consumption from an economic downturn. We saw that with the 1998 Asian financial crisis - OPEC had ramped up production just as the Asian economies (outside of China) faltered badly. So the price of crude dropped significantly, as supply was too great in relation to demand.


For the value of money question wags - if an economy drops - or a recession (maybe depression?) - doesn't the value of one's currency actually increase (as in the buying power of a dollar)?

[W*GS]

For the value of money question wags - if an economy drops - or a recession (maybe depression?) - doesn't the value of one's currency actually increase (as in the buying power of a dollar)?

That depends on the central bank's manipulation of the supply of money.

Consider the pre-WWII hyperinflation in Germany - an economy completely down the toilet and the central bank printing trillion-Mark notes as the value per Mark was negligible. See

http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=347363

[alkemical]

That depends on the central bank's manipulation of the supply of money.

Consider the pre-WWII hyperinflation in Germany - an economy completely down the toilet and the central bank printing trillion-Mark notes as the value per Mark was negligible. See

http://www.economist.com/diversions/millennium/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=347363


Now the US doesn't have a central bank, we have the Fed - which as i understand it - is a conglomerate of the banks in the US - (am i correct?) -
now with the fed not printing the M3 - (which shows $$$ in circulation) - how does this effect the market bearings to see what 'my' money is actually worth?

[W*GS]

Now the US doesn't have a central bank, we have the Fed - which as i understand it - is a conglomerate of the banks in the US - (am i correct?) -

The Federal Reserve system is the US central bank.

now with the fed not printing the M3 - (which shows $$$ in circulation) - how does this effect the market bearings to see what 'my' money is actually worth?

It's a little more complicated than that - whether or not the Fed publishes M3 doesn't really change anything, in that the value of US currency is set by a number of actors, including currency traders and the Fed itself, as well as buyers of US Treasury bonds, and so on.

[W*GS]

From http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013871.php

Price gouging defined

Pat Cleary takes a clear-headed look at the increase in gasoline prices. He argues that the causes of the increases we are experiencing are not mysterious, and that there is no need to posit "price-gouging" as an explanation.

But if we're going to blame price-gouging, we'll need a definition. My friend Craig Harrison offers this two-parter:

Price Gouging. Price Gouging is defined to be any profit made by a company in an industry that is defined to be a Suspect Industry.

Suspect Industry. Any company that is engaged in any energy activity, or any company or industry that is designated by any elected official of the Democratic Party to be a Suspect Industry by any public statement. Under no circumstances will trial lawyers, the health care industry, unions or the abortion industry be included within this category.

[alkemical]

The Federal Reserve system is the US central bank.



It's a little more complicated than that - whether or not the Fed publishes M3 doesn't really change anything, in that the value of US currency is set by a number of actors, including currency traders and the Fed itself, as well as buyers of US Treasury bonds, and so on.


But the fed reserve is NOT part of the fed gov't (it operates as it's own), correct?

[W*GS]

But the fed reserve is NOT part of the fed gov't (it operates as it's own), correct?

It is independent of the federal government (excepting that Congress approves the Chairman's appointment), correct, but it still determines basic US monetary policy. It controls the printing presses.

[alkemical]

It is independent of the federal government (excepting that Congress approves the Chairman's appointment), correct, but it still determines basic US monetary policy. It controls the printing presses.


I know it controls the presses, and i believe they charge/loan the currency to the us gov't -

[Rascal]

Anybody doing any investing in ethanol companies or bio fuels?

Doing some research on ANDE, PEIX, GPRE, ADM for ethanol investments.

Also looking at EBOF for bio fuels.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your sources are the absolutely unreliable at best, very left, falling off the planet left.

tsk tsk

Far from strengthening your case, blatant and obvious lies like this one only make you appear more desperate and foolish.

But how else can you appear when you're one of the ostriches still trying to defend BushCo?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To rely on the government to be your saving grace in any situation is asking to be bent over repeatedly.

This has certainly never been more true than for the past six years.

However, that's not how the Founders intended government to work.

If this situation is to be resolved the citizens must do it themselves. The gov't and companies will adjust.

But you don't accomplish this by getting rid of government - you do it by returning government to "we the people" (instead of "we the corporations.")

The gov't and companies can't force the public to do anything it doesn't want to truly do itself.

You're joking, right?

How about $3+ gallon gas for starters?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I know it controls the presses, and i believe they charge/loan the currency to the us gov't -

Greenback's long downward spiral

Mike Whitney

Why is George Bush destroying the dollar?

Or is it Bush? Maybe, it is the Federal Reserve, the privately owned group of 12 central banks that prints our money and sets the policy?

A UK Telegraph article on Tuesday "Dollar Drops as great Sell-Off Looms" explains the current dilemma. The dollar is falling against the euro and the Asian currencies while gold and energy prices continue to skyrocket. "Greenback liquidation comes amid growing concerns that global central banks and Middle East oil funds are quietly paring back their holdings of US bonds." David Bloom, a currency expert at HSBC, said the dollar was vulnerable to a steep sell-off as investors begin to refocus on America's yawning current account deficit, now 7% of GDP". (UK Telegraph)

Just to add some perspective to this topic; Argentina's economy collapsed when its trade deficit reached 4% of GDP. The US deficit is at an unprecedented level.

Normally, we could say that these are the predictable effects of market forces, but that's not the case here. After all, we know that Bush insisted that the lavish tax cuts be made permanent even though it was understood that such action would undercut the dollar. So, what is going on here; why does Bush want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

There are two ways to weaken the currency; either print more money which dilutes the supply, or create new debt which lowers the value.

Bush has done both simultaneously and with such gusto that it's a wonder the dollar hasn't crashed already. He's expanded government spending by 35% and produced humongous $450 billion per year tax cuts. Add this to the projected costs of a $2 trillion war and the dollar was bound to get hammered.

At the same time Bush has been spending us into oblivion, the Federal Reserve has kept the printing presses humming along at full-throttle doubling the money supply in the last decade. Almost half of all greenbacks are now located outside the country, which means that if the dollar becomes less attractive to investors those greenbacks will come flooding back to America and plunge the country into recession.

Regardless of one's political leanings, there is an obvious and demonstrable attempt to savage the currency by the political and banking establishment.

Why?

The real force behind Bush's actions is the Federal Reserve. No one has any illusion that our paper-mache president, who even boasts about not reading the newspapers, is making complex policy decisions about geopolitics and finance. As a privately owned institution, the Fed has its own agenda which runs contrary to the interests of the American people. Many people fail to realize that it was Greenspan who cooked up the massive increases in Social Security in 1983 to help Reagan reduce the soaring interest rates that were caused by his tax cuts for the wealthy. Ever since then, Social Security payments have gone directly into the general fund; paying for roads, social programs and war. This was the Fed's clever way of creating a flat tax directed exclusively at the poor and middle class.

The Federal Reserve has engineered many similar coups, the most impressive being the huge stock market bubble of the late 1990s. Greenspan kept the cheap money flowing into the Wall Street Casino (and refused to even increase marginal rates on stock purchases) while PE's skyrocketed and the bubble expanded to Hindenburg-proportions.

Following the explosion, which left tens of thousands of Americans stripped of their retirement and savings, Greenspan breezily noted that it is not the task of the Fed to stop bubbles.

Really? The European Central Bank (ECB) takes an entirely different tack intervening whenever it is clearly in the public interest. Greenspan's recalcitrance has nothing to do with principle; he was simply acting on behalf of constituents in the investment community.

Currently, the Fed has created the largest equity bubble of all time; the $9 trillion housing bubble, slapped together over the last 3 years by lowering rates to an unbelievable 1.5% (at one point) and facilitated through shabby lending practices. As rates continue to rise to satisfy America's need for $2 billion cash inflows from foreign lenders every day, the carnage from the housing-bomb is bound to be extensive and agonizing.

The Federal Reserve has always served the singular interests of the ruling class, the only difference now is that the present clash is designed to drive the wooden-stake into the heart of the middle class and create a permanent American oligarchy.

Bush has purposely generated another $3 trillion in debt ensuring that the dollar will fall mightily and working class people be left with a trifling of their life savings.

6 months ago, the Federal Reserve, anticipating the day when the foreign inflows would dry up, eliminated the M-3, their public record of foreign purchases of dollars and securities. It all sounds very abstract, but what it means is that we no longer have any way of knowing how quickly foreign banks are dumping their greenbacks. This means that the American people will be left holding the bag once again; stuck with an inflationary dollar while foreign investors bail out.

The Federal Reserve gave Bush the go-ahead on his "war of choice" just as they cheerily endorsed the budget-busting tax cuts. They've doubled the money supply and done everything in their power to shift middle class wealth to corporate kingpins and American plutocrats.

Still, this doesn't explain why they appear to be intentionally savaging the dollar?

Here's the key: We are not a "capitalistic" system or a "free market" system, that's all just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. In practical terms, we are a "Dollar system" and the greenback must continue to dominate the world oil trade or the Federal Reserve, the IMF, the World Bank and all the privately owned global institutions will crash and burn. That's not their plan; their plan is to perpetuate this debt-pyramid into infinity; integrating dissident states into an expanding and predatory neoliberal network.

The face value of the dollar doesn't matter to the men who print the money. The actual value is constantly manipulated to shift wealth from one class to another. (via bubbles and inflation) What really matters is who controls the system and the means whereby others are coerced to participate. In the last decade the amount of dollars stockpiled in foreign banks has gone from 53% to nearly 70%; this is a monopoly that the US intends to defend by every means possible. To maintain this monopoly, the Federal Reserve has linked arms with the oil industry (and the US military) in its effort to control the world oil market. This has become an "existential" issue for the corporate elites who run American foreign policy. If the dollar is not supported by access to the world's dwindling oil supplies, then there is no incentive for foreign banks to accumulate the anemic dollar. (Oil is sold exclusively in US greenbacks)

By this standard, we can see that Bush's fictitious war on terror is really just a smokescreen for a global resource war that will decide which economic system prevails.

Will it be the dollar system, with its wars and gulags spread across the planet? Or will some other system emerge, some non-ideological incarnation of socialism that redistributes wealth according to people's needs like we see in Venezuela?

The future of the dollar may be decided sooner than any of us had imagined. Iran's Mehr News Agency announced that the long-awaited Iran Oil Bourse (OIB) will open sometime next week on Kish Island challenging head-on America's monopoly on the sale of oil in dollars. Iran's plan is a direct attack on the greenback as the world's "reserve currency". The US must preserve that advantage because it allows it to maintain massive deficits as well as a national debt of $8.4 trillion without fear of economic collapse or hyper-inflation. The opening of the bourse guarantees that central banks around the world will convert some of their reserves into euros precipitating a sharp decline in the dollar's value.

This may be the most serious threat the dollar has ever faced. The fundamental economic law of "supply and demand" ensures that the bourse means hard times for the greenback. This explains why the Bush administration is cobbling together a feeble coalition of European allies (England, France and Germany) to push a resolution through the Security Council expressing their "serious concern" about Iran's alleged nuclear programs.

Washington is looking for international cover to conceal its battle-plans. The hawkish members of the administration want to preempt the opening of the bourse with a unilateral attack (nuclear?) on Iranian facilities.

Even if Washington succeeds in stopping Iran's plans to compete in the oil market, it's still a bumpy road ahead for the greenback. The dollar is under growing pressure from overspending and mismanagement. The prospect of diminishing foreign inflows and a fragile housing market are telltale signs of an inflationary cycle.

America is now facing a slow-motion meltdown that could escalate into a widespread run on the dollar. Attacking Iran will only aggravate the situation and push tenuous states towards new alliances. (China, India, Venezuela and Russia have already expressed support for the new bourse) Military action will do nothing to relieve America's enormous account imbalances or lesson the vulnerability of the ailing greenback.

The problems facing the dollar are purely systemic. The privately owned central banks in the Federal Reserve cannot be trusted to decide monetary policy any more than the oil giants can be trusted to decide foreign policy. When the public interest is excluded from policy-making, catastrophe is inevitable.

Expect the greenback to follow a long-downward spiral.

[W*GS]

However, that's not how the Founders intended government to work.

What's your take on how government is supposed to work?

Big Mother?

Some pseudo-socialist nonsense?

Please do tell.

[Rascal]

However, that's not how the Founders intended government to work.

I disagree with that.

But you don't accomplish this by getting rid of government - you do it by returning government to "we the people" (instead of "we the corporations.")

I didn't say getting rid of gov't (although making it smaller is a great idea). I agree with the last statement.

You're joking, right?

How about $3+ gallon gas for starters?

Is the gov't and companies causing the price of gas to $3+ or the market? If the market (not companies or gov't) forces the price of gas to be at such a level to hurt the consumer, the consumer will demand a new solution and the companies/gov't will be forced to oblige.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I disagree with that.

???

So you're saying you do believe the framers intended for the government to be nothing more than a proxy for business, the investor class, the rich, etc?

Is the gov't and companies causing the price of gas to $3+ or the market?

Both.

As for the government's part of the equation, are you happy with a situation where Big Oil is allowed to write America's energy policies in secret meetings the details of which are kept from the voters? Doesn't sound like representative government to me.

If the market (not companies or gov't) forces the price of gas to be at such a level to hurt the consumer, the consumer will demand a new solution and the companies/gov't will be forced to oblige.

Carter warned us 30 years ago that we needed to find new energy solutions.

Reagan chose to take the country in the opposite direction, i.e., down the wrong road, by pandering to Big Oil.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago

In his recent news conference, George Bush Jr. suggested that our nation's "problem" with high gasoline prices was caused by the lack of a national energy policy, and tried to blame it all on Bill Clinton. First, Junior said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an energy policy in this country."

This was followed by, "That's exactly what I've been saying to the American people -- 10 years ago if we'd had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. And -- but we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in." As is so often the case, Bush was lying.

Consider President Jimmy Carter's April 18, 1977 speech. Since it was given nearly three decades ago, when many of the reporters in Bush's White House were children, it's understandable that they don't remember it. But it's inexcusable that Bush and the mainstream media (which, after all, has the ability to do research) would completely ignore it. It was the speech that established the strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the modern solar power industry, led to the insulation of millions of American homes, and established America's first national energy policy. "With the exception of preventing war," said Jimmy Carter, a man of peace, "this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes."

He added: "It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century. "We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

"We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us." Carter bluntly pointed out that: "The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation." He called the new energy policy he was proposing, "[T]he 'moral equivalent of war' -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy."

When Carter had become president three months earlier, the nation was still recovering from the "oil shock" of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and scientists were realizing our nation was just then hitting the point of domestic peak oil production predicted more than a decade earlier by scientist M. King Hubbert. (The rest of the world is hitting the Hubbert Peak right now.) As Carter noted in his speech, "The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained." Hubbert had predicted that the peak of oil production for the USA would come in the 1970s, and it did, hitting us with a shock.

"The world has not prepared for the future," said Jimmy Carter. "During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history." Hubbert said we must begin to conserve. Carter agreed.

"Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth," he said, a point that is still true. "We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden." Carter directly challenged the fossil fuel and automobile industries. "One choice," he said, "is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years. "Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. "We can continue using scarce oil and natural gas to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process."

But that would be unpatriotic, anti-American, and essentially wrong. Who but a traitor sold out to special interests, or an idiot, would countenance such insanity?

The year 1977 was a turning point for America. If we didn't make clear and rapid progress, we would face painful times ahead. The Saudis would have their fingers around our necks. We'd face war in the Middle East to secure future oil supplies. "Now we have a choice," Carter said. "But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs."

Failure to act in the 1970s and 1980s would inevitably lead to a time when the only way to maintain our lifestyle would be to rape our planet and seize control of oil-rich nations in the Middle East. If we didn't begin to develop alternatives like solar power, and dramatically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, then, Carter said, even our cherished personal freedoms would be at risk. If we continued to simply follow past policies that enriched the oil industry and the Saudis, instead of becoming energy independent, Carter said, "We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment."

If we failed to develop alternative sources of renewable energy and conserve what we have, the alternative could be nasty. As Carter pointed out: "We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country. "If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions."

Carter's speech drew a strong reaction from the Saudis and the oil industry. Think tanks soon emerged - many whose names are today familiar - to suggest there was really no energy problem, and they led the charge to establish a permanent right-wing media in the US. Within two years, Saudi citizen and oil baron Salem bin Laden's sole US representative, James Bath, would funnel cash into the failing business of the son of the CIA's former director, political up-and-comer George H. W. Bush. With that money from the representative of Osama Bin Laden's half-brother, George Bush Jr. was able to keep afloat his Arbusto ("shrub" in Spanish) Oil Company. And he would be in the pocket of the bin Laden and Saudi interests for the rest of his life. But Carter was incorruptible.

"We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly," he said. "They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing." But that would be wrong. It would be un-American. It would lead to future oil shocks, and the probable death of American soldiers in Middle Eastern oil wars. Instead of caving in to the Saudis and the oil industry, Carter said: "There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country."

Two years later, as the bin Laden family's sole US representative was bailing out George Bush Junior's failing oil business, Jimmy Carter gave another speech on energy, further refining his national energy policy. He had already started the national strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the gasohol and solar power industries, and helped insulate millions of homes and offices. But he wanted to go a step further. "I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States," Carter said on July 15, 1979. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s..." In addition, we needed to immediately begin to develop a long-range strategy to move beyond fossil fuel.

Therefore, Carter said, "I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000." But then came the Iran/Contra October Surprise, when the Reagan/Bush campaign allegedly promised the oil-rich mullahs of Iran that they'd sell them missiles and other weapons if only they'd keep our hostages until after the 1980 Carter/Reagan presidential election campaign was over. The result was that Carter, who had been leading in the polls over Reagan/Bush, steadily dropped in popularity as the hostage crisis dragged out, and lost the election. The hostages were released the very minute that Reagan put his hand on the Bible to take his oath of office. The hostages freed, the Reagan/Bush administration quickly began illegally delivering missiles to Iran.

And Ronald Reagan's first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter's conservation and alternative energy policies.

Today, despite the best efforts of the Bushies, the bin Ladens, and the rest of the oil industry, Carter's few surviving initiatives have borne fruit.

It is now more economical to build power generating stations using wind than using coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid. (Shell and British Petroleum are among the world's largest manufacturers of solar photovoltaic panels, which can now even be used as roofing shingles.) And hybrid cars that get 50-70 miles to the gallon are increasingly commonplace on our nation's highways. Instead of taking a strong stand to make America energy independent, Bush kisses a Saudi crown prince, then holds hands with him as they walk into Bush's hobby ranch in Texas. Our young men and women are daily dying in Iraq - a country with the world's second largest store of underground oil. And we live in fear that another 15 Saudis may hijack more planes to fly into our nation's capitol or into nuclear power plants.

Meanwhile, Bush brings us an energy bill that includes eight billion dollars in welfare payments to the oil business, just as the nation's oil companies report the highest profits in the entire history of the industry. Americans struggle to pay for gasoline, while the Bush administration refuses to increase fleet efficiency standards, stop the $100,000 tax break for buying Hummers, or maintain and build Amtrak. George Bush Jr. is arguably right that gas prices are spiking because we don't have an energy policy. But instead of blaming Clinton, he should be pointing to the Reagan/Bush administration, and to his own abysmal failures over the past four years.

By Thom Hartmann

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins (profits)," said an internal Chevron document in November 1995, citing views presented by participants at an American Petroleum Institute conference.

A year later, an official at Texaco, in a memo marked "highly confidential," called concerns about too much refinery capacity "the most critical factor" facing the refinery industry. Excess capacity is producing "very poor refining financial results," the memo said.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0615-02.htm

http://www.hucklesby.com/images/oiltank.jpg

Chevron Memo Raises Suspicion

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A Chevron memo is raising suspicion that oil executives intentionally reduced refining capacity in an effort to boost profits. The 1995 memo, obtained by Consumers Union, reads:

"If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce it's refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery profits."

In the last 20 years, 18 of California's 32 refineries have shut down. The industry is now seeing record prices and profits at the pump.

On Friday, former oil and gas executive Joe Sparano Soprano spoke with KCRA 3 and made no apologies for continued rise in gas prices. In fact, he explained that prices are a direct result of driver demand far exceeding gas supply.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12652455/

[Rascal]

So you're saying you do believe the framers intended for the government to be nothing more than a proxy for business, the investor class, the rich, etc?

Quit putting words in my mouth. I said I don't believe the gov't was created to be our "saving grace".

As for the government's part of the equation, are you happy with a situation where Big Oil is allowed to write America's energy policies in secret meetings the details of which are kept from the voters? Doesn't sound like representative government to me.

Yeah I agree with that, but then I also don't think any company should be getting any kind of subsidies from the gov't.

Carter warned us 30 years ago that we needed to find new energy solutions.

Reagan chose to take the country in the opposite direction, i.e., down the wrong road, by pandering to Big Oil.

Not sure how that proves/disproves my statement.

And Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Defining Gasoline Price 'Gouging'

http://72.22.74.110/BB/showpost.php?p=1104507&postcount=238

[W*GS]

"If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins (profits)," said an internal Chevron document in November 1995, citing views presented by participants at an American Petroleum Institute conference.

A year later, an official at Texaco, in a memo marked "highly confidential," called concerns about too much refinery capacity "the most critical factor" facing the refinery industry. Excess capacity is producing "very poor refining financial results," the memo said.

These rather obvious comments are news?

1995? That was Clinton's watch. What did he do about it?

In the last 20 years, 18 of California's 32 refineries have shut down. The industry is now seeing record prices and profits at the pump.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

These rather obvious comments are news?

1995? That was Clinton's watch. What did he do about it?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
LOL
Never have to worry about you changing your standard reply.
Were those memo's public then?

[W*GS]

Never have to worry about you changing your standard reply.

News from 1995 (what was the price of crude then and why?) isn't terribly germaine to 2006.

Were those memo's public then?

Does it matter?

A glut of supply doesn't do producers any good. This is news?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

News from 1995 (what was the price of crude then and why?) isn't terribly germaine to 2006.
Why not? What's the title of this thread? What is the end result of reducing refining capacity?

Does it matter?

Not to you, apparently.

A glut of supply doesn't do producers any good. This is news?
Sure is when big oil discusses how to increase their refining margins by reducing supply at the expense of American citizens.

[W*GS]

Why not? What's the title of this thread? What is the end result of reducing refining capacity?

That depends on the states of supply and demand.

Sure is when big oil discusses how to increase their refining margins by reducing supply at the expense of American citizens.

Someone needs to read about demand, supply, and price again.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That depends on the states of supply and demand.
Someone needs to read about demand, supply, and price again.
Someone needs to admit it's very possible the large corporate world he worships may be sh*tting on him and everyone else.

[W*GS]

Someone needs to admit it's very possible the large corporate world he worships may be sh*tting on him and everyone else.

Someone needs to admit that the Big Government he aids and abets (by being a left-winger) is dumping on him, has always dumped on him, and will always dump on him.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Someone needs to admit that the Big Government he aids and abets (by being a left-winger) is dumping on him, has always dumped on him, and will always dump on him.
:) That's what I thought, a right leaning corporate apologist.

[W*GS]

That's what I thought, a right leaning corporate apologist.

Your thinking is none too clear, then.

What duties does a producer of a good or service have? Answer that, and we'll begin to deconstruct your faulty conception of what "gouging" is.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Your thinking is none too clear, then.

What duties does a producer of a good or service have? Answer that, and we'll begin to deconstruct your faulty conception of what "gouging" is.
You and I don't know what the oil companies have done as far as collusion behind the scenes. We have some indicators though.
To think that they aren't trying to increase their bottom line at the expense of the American public is a "faulty conception".

They deal in a product that people have to have, no competition, no multiple choice. Since they don't compete in a marketplace that gives people other options (tire company, soft drink maker, PC maker, etc...) they provide the a product that people have to buy, no alternative (yet).

So they are not a "producer of goods and services" in a free marketplace (where you were trying to go with this) but THE sole provider of a product that people have no choice but to buy from them.