As I noted in another thread the oil is not really a freemarket. There are too few players so we need to make sure that these high prices are not a result of collusion.
The fact that gas prices dropped almost a dollar is a good sign.
Perhaps the high prices are the stimulus we need to reduce our dependence on oil.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Exxon should make MORE money. Just think, you get to drive 20 or 30 MILES for a lousy $2 or so. They give us this great gift, ask for chump change (no matter how many billions they make), and they are villified.
Capitalism, the first system to do any one any damned good, is under attack. The American people ought to literally run out of town any politician who attacks these men, the foundation of our society.
Do you want the Politburo or Exxon? Make your choice; and your time is running out.[/quote]
Thank god…I was wondering “What’s the stupidest fucking thing I’m gonna hear today?”
Gifts are free. So are books. Read some.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And the government considers all who disagree with it to be a threat to its power. Ask Sacho and Vanzetti (sp?).[/quote]
Well, I think that is a bit of overreach, but essentially I think you are right about the dangers of consolidating power - and thankfully we have a wonderful form of government set up to counter that.
They are called elections, which act as a public audit of public behavior every several years.
I apologise to anyone who has already laid out the situation with gas prices. I read the first page of bickering and couldn’t go on with the remaining pages.
Gas prices are high due to increased world demand. We now have China, India and Brazil using much more fuel creating this demand. In response, OPEC raises the price. The American oil companies then have to pay more. Even though these companies are paying more, they are making more because their mark-up is by a percentage. So, say they pay a buck for X amount of gas and their mark-up is 40%. They make 40 cents. If they have to pay 3 bucks for the same amount of gas their profit is now $1.20.
It’s not collusion or the Man in the office. It’s just business.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
chadman wrote:
Energy security is a major concern, of course. However, Bush and the gang have expertly used distortion of real fears to push their own agendas. Has the mess in Iraq not illustrated this enough? Why is it so unbelievable that they would distort things in this instance as well?
I hear this alot and it is just gas from the Left. Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards. We can debate whether Bush chose the right policy or not, but that is a different issue. Name one.
What ‘fears’ have been ‘distorted’, and for what ‘agenda’?
And I am not suggesting always engages in angelic behavior - but seriously, all you have are abstractions about bad guys playing on our fears. Sounds like nothing more than a failed script of a bad action movie.
You claim they have ‘expertly’ done so - so what have they done ‘expertly’? By the way, the government rarely does anything expertly, so you may find yourself ice skating uphill on this one.
Energy companies have made record profits, and it can’t be that the energy markets are paying off handsomely due to etxernal, largely uncontrollable factors - no, no, it always has to be the work of a secret cabal of oil barons and neocons.
No wonder the Left is drifting ever further into irrelevance.[/quote]
First off, I’m an independent. In fact, I didn’t vote for Clinton in his second term because I decided he was a liar. I feel the same way about Bush and his buddies.
Do you honestly believe that the Right has not lied about 9/11 and it’s connection to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, etc.? Why are we not bombing the shit out of Saudi Arabia? They are far more dangerous to us than Iraq ever was. Cheney and Wolfy have been gunning for Iraq since '92 and 9/11 was a good excuse to get back in there.
You’re right, the administration has no agenda other than helping the average Joe achieve the American Dream. Their is no cronyism involving Corporate America or just old buddies.
Yes, the left does this as well. I generally hate most politicians on both sides. They all seem to have an agenda other than working for the benefit of the average American they are supposed to be serving.
I am amazed that in the face of mounting evidence to Bush and Co. ineptitude and corruption that the right still defends these assholes. There has to be someone else on the right who is worthy of such loyalty!
Chadman,
One other thought.
You seem to hate the very idea of using the ‘politics of fear’ to advance an agenda.
What exactly is trying to convince people that Bush is trying to consolidate power and create a fascist state, enriching oil companies to secure his support for entrenchment, invading Iraq to expand the Pax Americana so as to to dominate the world and have access to cheap oil, and the claims that Bush is trying to create a theocracy…
…all wild, radical claims unsupported by any credible empirical evidence…
…what exactly is all of this if not the very definition of the ‘politics of fear’ to advance an agenda?
[quote]kellyc wrote:
I apologise to anyone who has already laid out the situation with gas prices. I read the first page of bickering and couldn’t go on with the remaining pages.
Gas prices are high due to increased world demand. We now have China, India and Brazil using much more fuel creating this demand. In response, OPEC raises the price. The American oil companies then have to pay more. Even though these companies are paying more, they are making more because their mark-up is by a percentage. So, say they pay a buck for X amount of gas and their mark-up is 40%. They make 40 cents. If they have to pay 3 bucks for the same amount of gas their profit is now $1.20.
It’s not collusion or the Man in the office. It’s just business.[/quote]
Good point. As I’ve stated earlier, I don’t have a problem with the profits themselves, just the way that Bush and Co. go out of their way to ensure they go ever higher at the expense of the environment, etc.
Bush is awfully late to the conservation bandwagon. We should have had alternative fuel sources readily available by now. We should have had better fuel efficiency by now. Why don’t we? Policy makers don’t require it. Oil and car companies are big allies to the right, surprise!
If policy had been promoted to truly get us less dependant on oil instead of just looking for more areas to squeeze oil out of, the demand for oil would be less and the price of oil would go down.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Chadman,
One other thought.
You seem to hate the very idea of using the ‘politics of fear’ to advance an agenda.
What exactly is trying to convince people that Bush is trying to consolidate power and create a fascist state, enriching oil companies to secure his support for entrenchment, invading Iraq to expand the Pax Americana so as to to dominate the world and have access to cheap oil, and the claims that Bush is trying to create a theocracy…
…all wild, radical claims unsupported by any credible empirical evidence…
…what exactly is all of this if not the very definition of the ‘politics of fear’ to advance an agenda?
[/quote]
You could very well be right on this. Could be, if over time it is proven that the things you mention do not come to pass. We have ample evidence that we have been lied to by Bush and right to make us fear for our safety from an immiment attack from Iraq using weapons of mass destruction. This is reality. If what the left is spouting about the right-wing theocracy does not come to pass assuming the Republicans stay in control of the country, than that would be just as bad.
I find it hard to find people in the middle, such as myself, how are willing to be vocal. Plenty of screeching from the right and left. Most of us in the middle have become so apathetic and numb to the political process that we’ve given up. The country needs a strong centrist view instead of two extremist views and a weak center, otherwise we’ll snap in two.
<<Thunderbolt23:
Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards.>>
-Iraq has WMDs.
-Chemical weapons are positioned around Baghdad and could be deployed in 45 minutes.
-Iraq is importing nuclear weapons material from Africa.
-“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney, 8/2002
-“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Bush 3/2003
-“But make no mistake–as I said earlier–we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” Fleischer, 4/2003
Need I continue?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And the government considers all who disagree with it to be a threat to its power. Ask Sacho and Vanzetti (sp?).
Well, I think that is a bit of overreach, but essentially I think you are right about the dangers of consolidating power - and thankfully we have a wonderful form of government set up to counter that.
They are called elections, which act as a public audit of public behavior every several years. [/quote]
You are right, I understand this. I just wonder how many elections are about politics, and how many are about corporations. Not to say that the Democrats aren’t just as bad, of course. I vote for them because they hold similar views to those that I hold. I don’t want you to think that I disrespect the way the government was setup; it is ingenius in its conception. But businesses like big oil corrupt that original ideal.
[quote]chadman wrote:
kellyc wrote:
I apologise to anyone who has already laid out the situation with gas prices. I read the first page of bickering and couldn’t go on with the remaining pages.
Gas prices are high due to increased world demand. We now have China, India and Brazil using much more fuel creating this demand. In response, OPEC raises the price. The American oil companies then have to pay more. Even though these companies are paying more, they are making more because their mark-up is by a percentage. So, say they pay a buck for X amount of gas and their mark-up is 40%. They make 40 cents. If they have to pay 3 bucks for the same amount of gas their profit is now $1.20.
It’s not collusion or the Man in the office. It’s just business.
Good point. As I’ve stated earlier, I don’t have a problem with the profits themselves, just the way that Bush and Co. go out of their way to ensure they go ever higher at the expense of the environment, etc.
Bush is awfully late to the conservation bandwagon. We should have had alternative fuel sources readily available by now. We should have had better fuel efficiency by now. Why don’t we? Policy makers don’t require it. Oil and car companies are big allies to the right, surprise!
If policy had been promoted to truly get us less dependant on oil instead of just looking for more areas to squeeze oil out of, the demand for oil would be less and the price of oil would go down.[/quote]
I agree completely
I don’t work in the oil industry, but my business is also commodity driven. When the price of the underlying commodity is low, business sucks. When it is high, business is good (obviously an over simplification).
Pricing is often based on a percentage of the underlying commodity. This is also likely built into the financial systems that run these companies and would be difficult to change.
As someone else noted, the price of commodities is often drive by speculative as well as physical demand. This means that hedge funds can have a significant impact on pricing. These funds react to news (hurricane damage, flooding, etc.) and consequently buy/sell futures contracts.
Something to think about:
We are willing to pay over $1.00 for a 20 oz bottle of water. This is calculates out to over $6.00 per gallon - for water…
[quote]jerryiii wrote:
Something to think about:
We are willing to pay over $1.00 for a 20 oz bottle of water. This is calculates out to over $6.00 per gallon - for water… [/quote]
Nice. Sad but true.
[quote]Robobrewer wrote:
<<Thunderbolt23:
Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards.>>
-Iraq has WMDs.
-Chemical weapons are positioned around Baghdad and could be deployed in 45 minutes.
-Iraq is importing nuclear weapons material from Africa.
-“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney, 8/2002
-“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Bush 3/2003
-“But make no mistake–as I said earlier–we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” Fleischer, 4/2003
Need I continue?
[/quote]
Thanks for the backup! I doubt you’ll get an adequate response.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I wasn’t trying to insult you anymore than you were trying to insult me. There is nothing wrong with being successful.[/quote]
I’ll go one better: There is a lot right about being successful!
Exactly my point! And when you get older and have even more experiences you will indeed have a more valuable opinion. That is not to say your opinion is not now valuable. Do you know what I mean? However, how much credence do you give a 12 year olds opinion? Not that the kid may not have a point.
Sure we would, but it would be on a different level.
Agreed!
[quote]Greed corrupts even the best men. I am saying that without a government to keep these things in check, enforced by the mob as a whole, a fortunate few will control everything[/quote].
I just want to make sure that you don’t walk down that well trodden liberal path. The one that states “all corporations are bad. All who are rich are evil.” Get the idea?
[quote]chadman wrote:
Thanks for the backup! I doubt you’ll get an adequate response.[/quote]
Think again.
[quote]Robobrewer wrote:
<<Thunderbolt23:
Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards.>>
-Iraq has WMDs.
-Chemical weapons are positioned around Baghdad and could be deployed in 45 minutes.
-Iraq is importing nuclear weapons material from Africa.
-“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney, 8/2002
-“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Bush 3/2003
-“But make no mistake–as I said earlier–we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” Fleischer, 4/2003
Need I continue?[/quote]
This has been rehashed over and over - but here we go.
Relying on the same intelligence as the Clinton administration, the Bush administration came to the same conclusion as the Clinton administration.
So do you consider the Clinton administration to have played the nefarious ‘politics of fear’ by saying the exact same thing?
We can debate whether or not the invasion of Iraq was the best way to deal with the threat of WMDs, but that is a separate issue than whether or not there was a reasonable basis that the threat existed.
Moreover, you didn’t answer the question. This is what I wrote:
I want you to show me evidence that there was no reasonable basis to believe WMDs were in Iraq prior to the war.
What you have showed me is what turned out to be wrong, not what was illegitimate to begin with. Show me where the fears of WMDs were unfounded to begin with.
But here is the kicker - you don’t get to do it playing Monday morning quarterback. We all know there were no WMDs now, but that doesn’t prove that the fears weren’t legitimate. Abandon hindsight and show me where the fears weren’t legit - don’t give me after-the-fact gassing.
Based on the evidence, the threat of WMDs was legitimate and reasonable - at least if you believe the Clinton administration, the Iraq Liberation Act, the UN Security Council’s own resolutions, and the Senate authorization for use of force in Iraq. I have all these on my side - what do you have?
This is a fun game, but a word of advice - don’t bring a butter stick to a knife fight.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
chadman wrote:
Thanks for the backup! I doubt you’ll get an adequate response.
Think again.
Robobrewer wrote:
<<Thunderbolt23:
Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards.>>
-Iraq has WMDs.
-Chemical weapons are positioned around Baghdad and could be deployed in 45 minutes.
-Iraq is importing nuclear weapons material from Africa.
-“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” Dick Cheney, 8/2002
-“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Bush 3/2003
-“But make no mistake–as I said earlier–we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” Fleischer, 4/2003
Need I continue?
This has been rehashed over and over - but here we go.
Relying on the same intelligence as the Clinton administration, the Bush administration came to the same conclusion as the Clinton administration.
So do you consider the Clinton administration to have played the nefarious ‘politics of fear’ by saying the exact same thing?
We can debate whether or not the invasion of Iraq was the best way to deal with the threat of WMDs, but that is a separate issue than whether or not there was a reasonable basis that the threat existed.
Moreover, you didn’t answer the question. This is what I wrote:
Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards.
I want you to show me evidence that there was no reasonable basis to believe WMDs were in Iraq prior to the war.
What you have showed me is what turned out to be wrong, not what was illegitimate to begin with. Show me where the fears of WMDs were unfounded to begin with.
But here is the kicker - you don’t get to do it playing Monday morning quarterback. We all know there were no WMDs now, but that doesn’t prove that the fears weren’t legitimate. Abandon hindsight and show me where the fears weren’t legit - don’t give me after-the-fact gassing.
Based on the evidence, the threat of WMDs was legitimate and reasonable - at least if you believe the Clinton administration, the Iraq Liberation Act, the UN Security Council’s own resolutions, and the Senate authorization for use of force in Iraq. I have all these on my side - what do you have?
This is a fun game, but a word of advice - don’t bring a butter stick to a knife fight.[/quote]
Read anything by former weapon’s inspector Scott Ritter. He knew what was and was not going on in Iraq and he got relieved of his duties for not towing the Bush party line.
[quote]chadman wrote:
Read anything by former weapon’s inspector Scott Ritter. He knew what was and was not going on in Iraq and he got relieved of his duties for not towing the Bush party line.[/quote]
You mean Ritter, who has recently come out and said that Bush and the GOP may actually stage a terrorist act themselves in order to keep the police state growing?
Let’s see - you have Scott Ritter, whatever that is worth.
I have two Presidential administrations - both Democrat and Republican, the UNSC, a bipartisan Iraq Liberation Act, and a bipartisan Senate authorization to use force in Iraq on the basis of the threat of WMDs.
You like your odds?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Name one fear that the Bush administration has put forward that has no basis of legitimacy under a reasonable human being’s standards.
[/quote]
How about this?
Cheney: Kerry win risks terror attack
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
“Ironically enough, the bar I went to tonite was having some kind of contest where if you named the highest amount of songs (and bands that played them) in the bar, you won an Ipod. 20 out of 20…thank God for classic rock and Q104.3. Must be my lucky day…but I forgot that damn lottery ticket.”
Fightin,
Seriously man. Going to a bar when I was in college implied discretionary income and time to kill, especially on a Thursday night. It’s all about choices.
Understood. My choice was to go to a bar and spend $6. I know I could have invested that $6 in Exxon, but methinks it wouldn’t have made that much of a difference…[/quote]
You shouldn’t have had those three beers! You should have bought oil company stock and hedged!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)