Like Taking Candy from a Baby [Archive] - Beastie Boys Message Board

D_Raay

10-28-2005, 01:49 AM

The evidence is right there under our noses... They can't hide the profits, and all those smiling faces; aren't you just so happy for those oil execs with the ear to ear grins? We should have a hoe-down methinks.

Hell, I've got nothing better to do with my money do you?

Exxon Mobil made an extra $4 billion -- give or take -- over last year's third quarter without really lifting a finger. It's because the world oil supply is tight, and traders bid up the price. And so all that extra money came from us, money that we used to spend on, say, dinner or a movie, but now disappears every week at the gas station.

The people who run Exxon Mobil didn't invent a new product, or discover a major oil field, or even come up with a brilliant new marketing scheme. They simple used the basic laws of supply and demand to take billions of dollars of your money and stuffed it into their own pockets.

Ali

10-28-2005, 03:03 AM

all that extra money came from us, money that we used to spend on, say, dinner or a movie, but now disappears every week at the gas station.Drive a smaller, more efficient car, take the bus or train, ride a bike or... walk. Try not to use your car unless you absolutely have to, and then try to get a lift or offer to give work colleagues or friends a lift and share the expense.

I know it's not easy, the US has been designed to force you to use a car and cops harass pedestrians, but the only way to wipe the smug smiles off those fat faces is to give them less of your money.

valvano

10-28-2005, 08:15 AM

ummmm, its the laws of supply and demand folks, increased demand and limited supply....

so how many of you were equally as concerned back in the late 80s and early 90s when the oil companies were sucking wind (this is directed to those of you who were not still in diapers back then)...

Tone Capone

10-28-2005, 08:37 AM

Drive a smaller, more efficient car, take the bus or train, ride a bike or... walk. Try not to use your car unless you absolutely have to, and then try to get a lift or offer to give work colleagues or friends a lift and share the expense.

I know it's not easy, the US has been designed to force you to use a car and cops harass pedestrians, but the only way to wipe the smug smiles off those fat faces is to give them less of your money.

(y) agreed

QueenAdrock

10-28-2005, 09:40 AM

ummmm, its the laws of supply and demand folks, increased demand and limited supply....

So if there's an increased demand they can charge anything they want and make all the profits they want? They can run off like bandits, robbing people of their savings they need for food and clothing, just because they so happen to need gas to get to work and school too? That sounds like a good law. It doesn't sound like they're exploiting it at all, because that's what should happen. We don't have a limited supply yet, so there's no reason for them to be charging this much. There WILL be a limited supply, but the earliest prediction was 2015.

Weren't you the one that said Democrats would raise gas taxes in order to pay of the deficit, as a joke? That to me sounded like you were kinda pissed at the raising gas prices. But now I'm taking it you think it's fine? You don't have a problem with the oil exec's lining their pockets at your expense when they don't need to? Welp, to each his own.

so how many of you were equally as concerned back in the late 80s and early 90s when the oil companies were sucking wind (this is directed to those of you who were not still in diapers back then)...

Well, I was in diapers until I was 8 years old, so my opinion is invalid, seeing as how young I was. :rolleyes:

valvano

10-28-2005, 09:57 AM

i'm all for the marketplace setting the gas prices, i am not for the govt adding additional taxes to the price of gas. i know here in VA about 50 cents or so go to taxes (fed, state, etc) per the price per gallon. and i am not for the govt controlling the price of gas, much less anything else.

in a perfect world, other companies would see the huge profits being made in the oil market because of the imbalance between supply and demand and would enter the market. unfortunately, as a result of govt regulation, environment controls, etc, its not about to happen and ultimately the consumer pays the price for the entry limits imposed upon the oil/gas/energy markets.

so dont blame the oil companies for these huge profits. they are merely a reflection of imbalance of supply and demand that is currently going on. blame the limits placed upon this market for failing to allow new competition from entering the arena.

i am sure if you all were stock holders in these companies, you wouldnt be crying so much.........

QueenAdrock

10-28-2005, 10:01 AM

so dont blame the oil companies for these huge profits. they are merely a reflection of imbalance of supply and demand that is currently going on.

Yeah, we should blame the Democrats who aren't even in power! LOL!

So you honestly believe that we're in an oil crisis right now? We're not. We WILL be in the future, and the earliest prediction is 10 years from now. There's no reason to be charging these prices at this time, other than corporate greed.

Qdrop

10-28-2005, 11:33 AM

The first, in a long line of steps, is to put a Democrat in the white house.

no progress will be made until then.

from there, there must be constant hounding by the american people to put forth deadlines for industry fuel efficiencies....and time tables for alternatre fuel-source vehicles to become mandatory...

D_Raay

10-28-2005, 11:59 AM

valvano

10-28-2005, 12:00 PM

The first, in a long line of steps, is to put a Democrat in the white house.

..

what he going to do, tax them until they arent profitable anymore?
i guess you forgot who was president over the truly most serious energy crisis in US history........some guy from jawja

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 01:12 PM

And if prices DIDN't go up, we'd consume at even more exorbitant level, have even less of an incentive to buy efficient cars and our dependence on foreign oil would be even worse.

You're the same people that would be on here complaining that low gas prices cause people to expend oil wastefully, buy inneficient cars, and hurt the environment.

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 01:15 PM

The first, in a long line of steps, is to put a Democrat in the white house.

And even that's a craps-shoot.

If there would be a pro-free trade Democrat, I would support him an instant.

no progress will be made until then.

And quite likely, not even then.

from there, there must be constant hounding by the american people to put forth deadlines for industry fuel efficiencies....

Perhaps increase some PRICE on gas or another, discourage its puchase....

and time tables for alternatre fuel-source vehicles to become mandatory...

Or just wait for gas to become 6 bucks a gallon, and note how people suddenly desire all the fuel economy they can get.

King PSYZ

10-28-2005, 01:33 PM

People that argue that utility price gouging induces conservation are fucking insane.

These are things that people require to survive, and it does very little to conserve the actual resource and much more to hurt spending in retail markets, because the consumers money was spent on their water, heating, gas, or electricity bill.

They already proved it is a sham with the California "Energy Crisis" of 2001 where they said "blocks of energy" we're running short. What the fuck does that even mean, someone's been watching too many Transformers Cartoons (http://www.energycubes.com/) or some shit. You can't store something like electricity for extended periods of time.

And the exponential leaps in profits for these price gougers are further proof that it doesn't breed conservation, it breeds greed by the oil barrons. People still need to get groceries, take the kids to school, and go to work. Those effected the most are the ones on tight budgets that had to decide between new clothes for their kids, or gas to get to work.

Same with current utilities, they raise the price of gas, propane, and heating oils during winter. Does this encourage conservation? Fuck no, it's quick and easy profit because in some places you heat your home or you die. If your house falls below freezing at any point your plumbing could explode, which I know of several people this happened to because they couldn't afford to heat their homes while they were at work. If they were encouraging conservation they'd use more reliabe delivery sources (pipelines and the like) as well as encouraging the purchase of energy efficient appliances with discounts to those who did so. And the prices would remain the same year long. Do we not need to conserve gas during the hotter months? Are they saying let your stove run full blast all summer long no worries, but in the winter you better use the damn microwave?

QueenAdrock

10-28-2005, 02:57 PM

GMA']And if prices DIDN't go up, we'd consume at even more exorbitant level, have even less of an incentive to buy efficient cars and our dependence on foreign oil would be even worse.

That's the one good thing to come out of the rising gas prices; there's always a silver lining. However, I don't think that the price increase has stopped consumption much. People may try to conserve a little more, but more likely they'd just buy a more fuel-efficient car and drive the same amount. At least everyone I know hasn't stopped driving less, just because we HAVE to get to work and school, and it's still the cheapest form of transportation. We really need to get better buses, metro rails, etc.

Some people around the corner from me used to have this huge Expedition, and now they have a sad little "For Sale" sign on it. I felt like crying for them, I really did. Now they'll be forced to a buy a SEDAN to drag their brats to soccer practice in. :(

valvano

10-28-2005, 03:39 PM

Some people around the corner from me used to have this huge Expedition, and now they have a sad little "For Sale" sign on it. I felt like crying for them, I really did. Now they'll be forced to a buy a SEDAN to drag their brats to soccer practice in. :(

proof that misery loves company?

:p

QueenAdrock

10-28-2005, 05:52 PM

Ace42X

10-28-2005, 06:25 PM

unfortunately, as a result of govt regulation, environment controls, etc, its not about to happen

Hah, yes, it's the government's fault. It has nothing to do with the fact that the oil-companies are uber-power and thus have leverage to dictate terms to both consumers and rival new-comers at all.

Fucking 'tard.

franscar

10-28-2005, 06:48 PM

Only 89.9p per litre at the Shell garage at the bottom of my road.

Only. Fuckers.

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 06:49 PM

People that argue that utility price gouging induces conservation are fucking insane.

And people that argue otherwise are fucking stupid.

Whatever the monetary 'price' may be, the actual price for use of the resource exists.

There's a reason prices are high: Demand is high and supply is low.

But this isn't a capitalist creation: Demand will always be high; people need to get around, heat their homes, etc. and supply will always be low; we can't just will the stuff out of the ground and there is a limited, dwindling, amount.

If we don't raise prices and FORCE people to change their energy consumption habits, we won't have any of this type of energy to expend.

They already proved it is a sham with the California "Energy Crisis" of 2001 where they said "blocks of energy" we're running short. What the fuck does that even mean, someone's been watching too many Transformers Cartoons (http://www.energycubes.com/) or some shit. You can't store something like electricity for extended periods of time.

If this is the level of analysis of the situation, I see no real need to expound on the subject further.

Suffice it to say, I don't think you understand the situation.

And the exponential leaps in profits for these price gougers are further proof that it doesn't breed conservation, it breeds greed by the oil barrons.

Can it be both?

I don't like profits any more than you do?

But, to quote the cliche, what is to be done?

Cap the profits? What would that accomplish?

People still need to get groceries, take the kids to school, and go to work. Those effected the most are the ones on tight budgets that had to decide between new clothes for their kids, or gas to get to work.

Yes, it's quite the sob story.

Again, what is to be done?

Same with current utilities, they raise the price of gas, propane, and heating oils during winter.

Because demand goes up in the winter. It costs money to supply these things.

Does this encourage conservation? Fuck no, it's quick and easy profit because in some places you heat your home or you die.

Than what would encourage conservation? Giving it away?

[quote]
If your house falls below freezing at any point your plumbing could explode, which I know of several people this happened to because they couldn't afford to heat their homes while they were at work. If they were encouraging conservation they'd use more reliabe delivery sources (pipelines and the like) as well as encouraging the purchase of energy efficient appliances with discounts to those who did so. And the prices would remain the same year long. Do we not need to coOTnserve gas during the hotter months? Are they saying let your stove run full blast all summer long no worries, but in the winter you better use the damn microwave?[/QUE]

Doesn't it require more work to fuel all the homes in the winter?

Obviously the pricing system does decrease consumption; if it didn't, gas woud thousands upon thousands of dollars.

There's a price where people start consuming less.

Again, I ask, what is to be done?

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 06:50 PM

That's the one good thing to come out of the rising gas prices; there's always a silver lining. However, I don't think that the price increase has stopped consumption much. People may try to conserve a little more, but more likely they'd just buy a more fuel-efficient car and drive the same amount. At least everyone I know hasn't stopped driving less, just because we HAVE to get to work and school, and it's still the cheapest form of transportation. We really need to get better buses, metro rails, etc.

I agree.

Public transportation would be very economically beneficial.

Some people around the corner from me used to have this huge Expedition, and now they have a sad little "For Sale" sign on it. I felt like crying for them, I really did. Now they'll be forced to a buy a SEDAN to drag their brats to soccer practice in. :(

Prices should go higher.

Demand for fuel efficiency still isn't up as high as I think it should be.

There should nary be a car on the road that does less than 30 MPG.

Ace42X

10-28-2005, 06:53 PM

GMA']
There's a reason prices are high: Demand is high and supply is low.

No, if that was the case prices would be up and the gas companies would be breaking even. Record profits show that clearly there is manipulation occuring.

valvano

10-28-2005, 06:57 PM

No, if that was the case prices would be up and the gas companies would be breaking even. Record profits show that clearly there is manipulation occuring.

huh???
price are up, thats what all the bitching is about. they are up because demand is overwhelming supply. let me put in terms you might understand. when the hilary duff concert you wanted to see sold out, you were willing to pay somebody else even more for a ticket. limited supply + great demand = high prices

and doese any time a business has record profits mean there is manipulation going on? what type of manipulation exactly??
:confused:

valvano

10-28-2005, 06:59 PM

Naw, man. I'm not miserable in my sedan, I freakin' love it.

I just hate all the SUV douches on the road. Especially the platinum-blonde "I-can't-drive-and-my-husband-bought-me-this-car-to-make-up-for-him-having-late-hours-and-fucking-his-secretary" SUV drivers. You live in Virginia, I'm sure you see those bitches all over the road. They deserve Geo Metros, because 3 cylinders can't kill anyone.

well, we are a 3 car family (and a 3 kid family). my wife drives a minivan to school and back (shes a teacher). i drive the suburban somedays , but other days i drive my old mercedes , a 1983 240D. diesel 4 cyclinder, gets about 35 or so per gallon. i admit, i have been driving that more lately due to gas prices. but with 3 kids, i need something big. but i do know what you mean about the airhead moms driving around on the cell phones.

King PSYZ

10-28-2005, 07:04 PM

You don't seem to understand enigma, there is no shortage of supply. It's all in perception.

Because despite their cries of running out of supply so we must raise the cost (which doesn't really make sense honestly, it's not costing them more it's called desperation). But then did you see any gas stations run out of gas this summer? Nope

Did people stop using less? Nope

Did the oil companies make boatloads of money? Yes they did.

Same with heating oil, every year they cry about running out and yet somehow they are able to deliver all the oil people need, just at a gouged price.

I can't belive someone honestly belives regulated standard price fixing would breed over consumption.

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 07:08 PM

But yes, I do think oil prices are too high, and generally becaue of avarice on the part of the oil companies.

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 07:09 PM

No, if that was the case prices would be up and the gas companies would be breaking even. Record profits show that clearly there is manipulation occuring.

There is.

But the situation is compounded (And likely predicated) on real problems with supply, such as the hurricanes and a certain war.

EN[i]GMA

10-28-2005, 07:23 PM

You don't seem to understand enigma, there is no shortage of supply. It's all in perception.

There is a shortage of supply, not a desperate one, but a shortage.

But yes, a lot of it is perception.

Because despite their cries of running out of supply so we must raise the cost (which doesn't really make sense honestly, it's not costing them more it's called desperation). But then did you see any gas stations run out of gas this summer? Nope

http://www.mises.org/story/1936

Did people stop using less? Nope

Did the oil companies make boatloads of money? Yes they did.

Same with heating oil, every year they cry about running out and yet somehow they are able to deliver all the oil people need, just at a gouged price.

I can't belive someone honestly belives regulated standard price fixing would breed over consumption.

'Over' consumption?

Maybe not, but certainly more consumption.

There IS a very limited supply; do you realize that?

valvano

10-28-2005, 07:44 PM

keep in mind that a lot of the oil prices are being driven up because of speculation in the futures market

King PSYZ

10-28-2005, 07:48 PM

I know there's a lmited supply of natural resources, in fact everyone has known for a very long time that they were all going to hit their end eventually.

There's a lot more productive things that could be done to further curb this. The most obvious is to ban motor sports, sorry but if I have to pay $3+/gal. for regular gas then I see no reason why there should be assholes on TV driving cars in a circle, that is wasteful consumption.

Force the automakers to build more efficent vehciles, but you also can't stop with autos. You have to go after ship and plane makers as well. You realise most airliners are 20 years old? I doubt they are as fuel efficient as they could be. The boats and ships we depend on for shipping are just as outdated and wasteful as well I'm sure.
Not to mention sanctions against alternative fuel methods, there should be a real push by not only government, but the fuel companies as well. Time for the fuel companies to adapt to a changing world. Find ways to make the gas we have more efficient, look seriously into alternate sources, they have the money to do so now.

Force stricter building codes that breed conservation, enforce stricter manufacturing codes so that the only materials and appliances available are efficient.

There are plenty of things that could be done outside of lining power hungry corporation's pockets.

Ace42X

10-28-2005, 08:23 PM

let me put in terms you might understand.

I understand the situation perfectly. It is your specious grasp of the situation that I do not understand. The fact that someone can so happily ignore all logical reasoning, and then conclude with the implication that "it all makes perfect sense" is rather disturbing.

and doese any time a business has record profits mean there is manipulation going on? what type of manipulation exactly??
:confused:

When profit goes up despite product quantity going down, yes yes it does.

I know you don't respect "book learnin'" (Because you think that your job mopping floors is infinitly more meritous than learning things and gaining knowledge) - but try to keep up with fact rather than speculation:

A company's net profit = number of product sold (in units) multiplied by (gross price of unit sold - cost of manufacturing)

Or p = n*(g-c)

For P to increase (as it has in all of the articles cited in the first post) then either N or G need to go up, or C needs to go down.

N has gone down due to these "limited supplies" we keep hearing about. C has gone up (supposedly, but either way it hasn't gone down).

This means that if G was constant, P should go down. For P to go UP under these circumstances, that means that G's increase has vastly outstripped the decrease in N or decrease in C.

What this means, quite simply, is that oil companies are making more money because people are paying vastly more for oil than they were previously. Clerly N (the availability of oil) is thus irrelevant, as is C.

According to capitalist theory, this should never happen. G is supposedly the variable that the much touted "competition" should be driving to the lowest possible amount. Logically, if both P and G are greater than they were, that means that the business is taking *less* competition from its rivals.

As the post showed, three of the major players (and not the only three by any stretch) all are having "less competition" from their rivals, despite record profits meaning that these rivals have the most surplus cash to embark on competition.

For these corporations not to have competed the profit margins down to "normal" levels can only mean one of two things:

1. Price fixing is occuring (manipulation)
2. Capitalism is broken (1. doesn't preclude this).

QED.

What this shows is that in its most advanced form (Oil is one of, if not the, biggest businesses in the world, and also one of the longest standarding bastions of capitalist power and wealth) capitalism results in higher costs for the poor and greater profits for the rich - a massive widening of the rich / poor gap which has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with arbitrarily having the power to enforce your will.

It's not government regulations that are limiting competition, it's the fact that it is much more profitable for these companies to collude against the consumer, as well as against any company foolish enough to their their paltry holdings can rival the combined might of the petrol giants.

valvano

10-28-2005, 09:42 PM

thats some good quoting from your econ 201 textbook, now maybe when you graduate from college and come on out into the real world, you will see that all that gobidle gook is nothing but that, gobildy gook that makes you feel real smart. start quoting that junk at your first job and you will look like a first class dumb ass punk.

demand for oil is high.
supply is limited due to hurricanes, that refinement capability hasnt grown in 30 years, and numerous other factors.

there is also less competition for the supply of oil due to mergers and entry into the market place put up by govt regulation, environmental interests, etc.

limited supply + increased demand = increased prices to the consumer. add to the mix that price of oil is dictated mainly by commodity traders, and you got yourself a nice mess.

and so what if the oil companies have made huge profits as a result of this imbalance between supply and demand? who cares? sounds like everybody that is bitching is just that, bitching. its not fare, wah wah wah.

where was everybody's concerns 15-20 years ago with the oil companies were hitting hard times, oil was trading at around $10 a barrel. the only way the oil companies could survive back then was by merging. nobody cared back then and let it happen.

finally, i ask you who's job is it to decide what exactly is a "normal" profit margin?

:D

DJ_Skrilla

10-28-2005, 09:50 PM

now maybe when you graduate from college...
its not fare, wah wah wah.

What school did you goto? You graduated? What degree?... and you still spell like that?

Gas shortage is going to suck and continue sucking until it runs out, its been setup that way since the higher powers went along with that anti-semite Ford in the 20's... (!)

valvano

10-28-2005, 09:52 PM

DJ_Skrilla

10-28-2005, 10:46 PM

North Carolina State University (shouldnt my user name be obvious??)
BA in Business Mgt
BA in Economics
1990

post graduate
University of Richmond
Transportation Degree

do you really think I give a fuck about my spelling on a message board?

Congratulations! You must be like at least 38? I wasnt trying to hate, but its not even hard to spell fair. Internet is ruining kids today because of message boards and acronyms.... I admit I do it to. Oh well. (y)

D_Raay

10-29-2005, 03:15 AM

North Carolina State University (shouldnt my user name be obvious??)
BA in Business Mgt
BA in Economics
1990

post graduate
University of Richmond
Transportation Degree

do you really think I give a fuck about my spelling on a message board?
It's collusion plain and simple. If you are educated, you would see this, or are you so blinded by towing the party line that you don't? I don't see this as a partisan issue at all, rather regular, super, or "bend over".

QueenAdrock

10-29-2005, 09:50 AM

post graduate
University of Richmond
Transportation Degree

My friend's mother was the Dean of English/Psych of U of Richmond, about 5 years ago. (y)

Ace42X

10-29-2005, 10:10 AM

thats some good quoting from your econ 201 textbook

I didn't quote one damned thing there. Of course, if you actually knew about the subject in hand, you'd also know that isn't the sort of thing that an economy textbook would talk about due to its completely remedial nature.

now maybe when you graduate from college and come on out into the real world, you will see that all that gobidle gook is nothing but that, gobildy gook that makes you feel real smart.

See, here in "the real world" (IE the material world that isn't limited or coloured by the limitations of your perception and understanding) the ability to comprehend relationships and functions in terms of symbolic logic is rather important. It allows us to establish the difference between fact and speculation. I was using the former, you were using the latter. This is why, irrespective of "what world I am in" I am right and you are wrong.

start quoting that junk at your first job and you will look like a first class dumb ass punk.

Actually in my job I get paid for what I know. Now if, like you, my first job was mopping floors or taking out trash, then I could see why it would look a bit stupid. I'm sure if you attempted such a discourse the other guys on the trash-carts would mock your "book learnin'" quite intensely.

demand for oil is high.

Which is mostly irrelevant, as the end-user demand (at the pumps) hasn't changed.

and entry into the market place put up by govt regulation, environmental interests, etc.

Such as?

limited supply + increased demand = increased prices to the consumer.

However, in this "real world" that you are so fond of talking about (and yet so totally divorced from) there is no increased demand at the pumps. People are not fighting in the gas stations about "who'll pay the most for the last gallon of petrol" and forecourt clerks are not selling their petrol to the hightest bigger.

What has actually happened is that the gas companies, irrespective of "supply" (due to not one person in the US having to go without because 'hey there isn't any petrol to sell') have an excuse to deny people a resource they need. Just as if all the major food producers decided to boost their prices, people would be obliged to pay or else starve.

add to the mix that price of oil is dictated mainly by commodity traders, and you got yourself a nice mess.

Nonsense. The commodity traders do not dictate what price the gas is sold at. The firms cited have a complete A-Z monopoly in the petrol industry, from drilling, collection, transportation right through to selling at the pumps. Even if the trader's profit margins were going up, that still DO NOT TRANSLATE TO PROFIT IN THE COMPANIES. That would merely increase the value of C (Cost per unit) which would LOWER profits of the oil companies.

Retard.

and so what if the oil companies have made huge profits as a result of this imbalance between supply and demand?

Again, if you were not so ignorant, you'd see that it is not "as a result of the imbalance between supply and demand". Supply (N) is not effecting Value (G) in this situation. If it were the companies would be breaking even, as petrol being twice as rare (N/2) would only increase the value (G) by a proportionate amount.

And you might as well say "And so what if the food companies have made record profits because people have to work twenty hours a day just to afford a single loaf of bread. Sounds like everyone is just bitching!"

where was everybody's concerns 15-20 years ago with the oil companies were hitting hard times, oil was trading at around $10 a barrel. the only way the oil companies could survive back then was by merging. nobody cared back then and let it happen.

What has this to do with a damned thing? Because oil companies occasionally have times of low profit they can manipulate the market and charge extortionate amounts? How does that work?

finally, i ask you who's job is it to decide what exactly is a "normal" profit margin?

Society's. Precisely the same same sort of people who took it upon themselves to decide that the Tsar did not have a "normal" (read: acceptable) amount of wealth, and that making a mint while his people were starving was unnacceptably anti-social.

The same people who followed Citizen Robespierre, Oliver Cromwell and fought the British for their independance in the US.

Ace42X

10-29-2005, 10:13 AM

North Carolina State University (shouldnt my user name be obvious??)
BA in Business Mgt
BA in Economics
1990

post graduate
University of Richmond
Transportation Degree

Wow, those universities must be pretty damn bad if they are turning out people with such remedial understandings of their subjects. Here an undergraduate would be expected to know more. Combined with Sam i Am's total incompetence in his professed field of education, I think we have just found conclusive evidence for the "Americans are stupid" thread in beasties free.

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 11:07 AM

I know there's a lmited supply of natural resources, in fact everyone has known for a very long time that they were all going to hit their end eventually.

[quote]
There's a lot more productive things that could be done to further curb this. The most obvious is to ban motor sports, sorry but if I have to pay $3+/gal. for regular gas then I see no reason why there should be assholes on TV driving cars in a circle, that is wasteful consumption.

Ineffectual to the point of pointlessness.

Force the automakers to build more efficent vehciles, but you also can't stop with autos. You have to go after ship and plane makers as well. You realise most airliners are 20 years old? I doubt they are as fuel efficient as they could be. The boats and ships we depend on for shipping are just as outdated and wasteful as well I'm sure.

And how do you propose to pay for this?

Maybe by increasing prices or something?

Not to mention sanctions against alternative fuel methods, there should be a real push by not only government, but the fuel companies as well. Time for the fuel companies to adapt to a changing world. Find ways to make the gas we have more efficient, look seriously into alternate sources, they have the money to do so now.

As gas gets more expensive, other options become more appealing.

Force stricter building codes that breed conservation, enforce stricter manufacturing codes so that the only materials and appliances available are efficient.

Money, money and more money. Where does it all come from?

There are plenty of things that could be done outside of lining power hungry corporation's pockets.

But all of these things would, ultimately, do just that.

Do you honestly think the government capable of being fair and just in passing this sort of legislation?

Look at the latest Energy bill, or the transportation bill.

My fun fact of the month is: The recently passed transportation bill costs more than the Marshall Plan and Interstate Highway system, COMBINED, inflation adjusted.

THese are the people you trust to fix your energy problems.

Ace42X

10-29-2005, 11:17 AM

GMA']
As gas gets more expensive, other options become more appealing.

Good in theory, but the US still has cars that are ridiculously inefficient compared to the UK vehicles. The theory would suggest that market forces would've resulted in the US drivers buying more efficient cars. They haven't, the invisible hand was once again preoccupied with masturbating off the Chrysler CEOs, and cleaning up the residue with a $100 bill.

King PSYZ

10-29-2005, 11:30 AM

GMA']Ineffectual to the point of pointlessness.
How so? How do we preach conservation and have such a wasteful sport? A ban on motor sports would in effect save billions of dolalrs worth of fuel. I don't have exact figures, but look at motorcycle, monster trucks, drag racing, drift racing, f-1 racing, nascar, etc. It adds up to an impresive number.
GMA']And how do you propose to pay for this?

Maybe by increasing prices or something?
Considering that the airlines are being heavily subsidised by the government already, they should be using a portion of that income for rebuilding the fleet. Business expenses are considered a tax deduction, so they could make that right back. Also consider the revenue saved by using more fuel efficent vehicles.
For the shipping industry, lower tarrifs to shipping companies who start rejuvinating their fleet with newer more effient crafts.
GMA']As gas gets more expensive, other options become more appealing.
You dolt, alternatives have already been appealing, but their not being made readily available due to the stranglehold on the energy market by the oil barons.
GMA']Money, money and more money. Where does it all come from?
How do you figure? Having better codes in place that force them to use the materials already available? So the cost of a new home increases slightly, there are already programs that encourage buyers to get a energy efficient home. If all that's available are the better products, volume will bring down price. Right now they produce a small percentage of the efficent product, so demand being greater than supply drives that cost. If all that's available is the better product then supply will equal demand and the price lowers.
GMA']But all of these things would, ultimately, do just that.

Do you honestly think the government capable of being fair and just in passing this sort of legislation?

Look at the latest Energy bill, or the transportation bill.

My fun fact of the month is: The recently passed transportation bill costs more than the Marshall Plan and Interstate Highway system, COMBINED, inflation adjusted.

These are the people you trust to fix your energy problems.
The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and things will need to change or it's gonna be the 1700's all over again for capitol hill. The natives are getting restless.

I don't trust them to do anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to happen. And forcing companies to be energy efficent will line their pockets, by lowering the cost of doing business.

King PSYZ

10-29-2005, 11:38 AM

Good in theory, but the US still has cars that are ridiculously inefficient compared to the UK vehicles. The theory would suggest that market forces would've resulted in the US drivers buying more efficient cars. They haven't, the invisible hand was once again preoccupied with masturbating off the Chrysler CEOs, and cleaning up the residue with a $100 bill.
Actually, despite claims by some auto makers, over 18k hybrid or alternative vehicles were registered in the US last year. While it seems like a drop in the bucket, I can tell you deamnd for gas guzzlers is way down. Right now you can't give away a large SUV, these things value has been cut in half. And look for that 18k number to be double that when the 05 figures come out.

It's not alot, but a huge start. Even Ford is encouraging people to use natuaral diesel alternatives in their worst offending vehicles that can handle it. We even have a natual diesel fueling station here in vegas now.

As well as several hybrid engine SUVs being released this year. The market is changing, I know from working from them and reading then news that Toyota is pushing for the industry to be more fuel efficent, because it's the only viable business model.

Ace42X

10-29-2005, 11:39 AM

Well, that told me.

King PSYZ

10-29-2005, 11:46 AM

I can tell you personaly, I work with people everyday trying desperately to get rid of their high consumption vehicles and get into something more fuel efficent.

I think the next viable option is to get the DOTs to stick by the original pledge to up MPG restrictions and banning vehicles under a certain amount. Then at some point their is going to be a need for a "recycling program" to take place.

Something where once the price is down to a reasonable amount for hybrid systems they have a retrofit program where you bring it in and have your vehicle fitted with a hybrid engine.

There are ways this can be paid for by subsidies and other programs if we put them into place now. There are already many programs that give huge price breaks to hybrid and alternative purchasers. If that program was shifted to instead of paying people to buy better cars, it could be used to cover the cost of retrofits.

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 11:56 AM

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 12:06 PM

How so? How do we preach conservation and have such a wasteful sport? A ban on motor sports would in effect save billions of dolalrs worth of fuel. I don't have exact figures, but look at motorcycle, monster trucks, drag racing, drift racing, f-1 racing, nascar, etc. It adds up to an impresive number.

How do we teach people not to fight eachother with football on TV?

You've got to be realistic about this; taking away NASCAR is about the most suicidal political effort one could possible make.

Even if it were desirable, it won't be possible.

If you can make people stop watching NASCAR, making them be more fuel efficient will seem easy by comparison.

And remember how Prohibition worked out. Might people simply take their racing 'underground'?

Considering that the airlines are being heavily subsidised by the government already, they should be using a portion of that income for rebuilding the fleet.

But they already use all of that subsidy and more.

The subsidy would either have to be increased, or tickets be increased, both of which cost money.

Business expenses are considered a tax deduction, so they could make that right back. Also consider the revenue saved by using more fuel efficent vehicles.

I'm sure they do.

Obviously the numbers don't work out.

We can make cars that go hundreds of miles to the gallon, but they aren't really that efficient becaues of their cost.

For the shipping industry, lower tarrifs to shipping companies who start rejuvinating their fleet with newer more effient crafts.

Now this is something I could get behind.

You dolt, alternatives have already been appealing, but their not being made readily available due to the stranglehold on the energy market by the oil barons.

How do the oil barons have a 'stranglehold' on the market?

What are some of these alternatives and what are their prices?

The government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and things will need to change or it's gonna be the 1700's all over again for capitol hill. The natives are getting restless.

I don't trust them to do anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to happen. And forcing companies to be energy efficent will line their pockets, by lowering the cost of doing business.

Obviously not; if it did 'line their pockets', wouldn't they be doing it already?

It might have a very minimal cost, but it isn't free money.

D_Raay

10-29-2005, 01:09 PM

How do the oil barons have a 'stranglehold' on the market?

There are 5 major oil companies. When I was a teenager and a young man there were alot more.

Ace42X

10-29-2005, 01:42 PM

GMA']
'Market forces' can break down for a number of reasons, consumer ignorance paramount.

Precisely, and ignorance is easy. Not only can anyone, no matter how gifted, be ignorant, but it is easy to foster and maintain. A culture of ignorance is the target for any good capitalist system. Very lucrative market, a stupid one.

yeahwho

10-29-2005, 03:08 PM

Precisely, and ignorance is easy. Not only can anyone, no matter how gifted, be ignorant, but it is easy to foster and maintain. A culture of ignorance is the target for any good capitalist system. Very lucrative market, a stupid one.
Which is in a way saying, "Like Taking Candy from a Baby". The complete ignorance of our citizenship (blissful denial) has conditioned us into non-activists in our own well being. Mass consumption has blinded the US citizen into living a life of one crisis after another. All being sponsored by the Oil Companies and what appears to be a very corrupt administration.

I have so much to say on this and so little time, but I think even the ones defending the profiteering of these corporations realize something is more than a little off bubble here.

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 03:17 PM

There are 5 major oil companies. When I was a teenager and a young man there were alot more.

So?

There are a lot more factors than just the number of companies.

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 03:21 PM

Precisely, and ignorance is easy. Not only can anyone, no matter how gifted, be ignorant, but it is easy to foster and maintain. A culture of ignorance is the target forany good capitalist system. Very lucrative market, a stupid one.

Yes, but the same holds true for politics, or for anything really.

How can you assume that, to fix our ignorant market, the Demos will suddenly 'wise up' and elect good leaders?

If people were intelligent, and not ignorant, we wouldn't have these market problems OR political problems, but we do.

It's really a vicious cycle.

Bad government policy exacerbates bad corporate policy and visa versa.

Neither party has any real incentive to wise up the people; they both only stand to lose.

Basically, if people were good enough 'consumers' to elect good leaders, we wouldn't need good leaders to begin with, but it's this ignorance that predicates market problems and hence, governmental ones.

See, I think it's unfair for you to point out this as a flaw of the capitalist system. Similar things happen under any system, and if I may make a prediction, always will.

It's a human problem: People are just not that intelligent/concerned/whatever.

IF it really is 'capitalism' infecting their psyche's, than that only goes to speak for human frailty.

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 03:24 PM

Which is in a way saying, "Like Taking Candy from a Baby". The complete ignorance of our citizenship (blissful denial) has conditioned us into non-activists in our own well being.

Or has our own non-activism bred this system? Were people EVER good, concerned, informed citizens?

I don't think so.

Mass consumption has blinded the US citizen into living a life of one crisis after another. All being sponsored by the Oil Companies and what appears to be a very corrupt administration.

'One crisis after another' is nothing but a summarization of the human condition.

I have so much to say on this and so little time, but I think even the ones defending the profiteering of these corporations realize something is more than a little off bubble here.

I do.

But I simply don't think any of the proposed solutions or alternatives would have any real, beneficial effect.

This may indeed by the least evil situation.

Obviously it would be best if the companies could make a small profit, the consumers get cheap gas, etc. but I just don't think that's a reality, taking everything into account.

D_Raay

10-29-2005, 03:28 PM

GMA']So?

There are a lot more factors than just the number of companies.
You are missing my point?

Ace42X

10-29-2005, 04:23 PM

GMA']
See, I think it's unfair for you to point out this as a flaw of the capitalist system.

Banker, the tinker and the prostitute. It's in the corporation's best interest to have a stupid people they can dictate terms to, and thus in their best interests to invest all their considerable power to engineering and maintaining the situation. Yes "if the people were smart, they'd not be able to get away with this." But people are not smart, and this is not going to change because the corporations have more power and influence.

A government could theoretically "fudge" the system, enforce accountability / equitability - but this would be totally against free market capitalism in its most literal sense.

You keep telling us that "Communism doesn't work" and that the court of history has proven this. While I do not agree with this logical fallacy, I assume you do. By the same token, the court of history has proven that the omega of free market capitalism is precisely the sort of thing we see here, but to the Nth degree.

EN[i]GMA

10-29-2005, 07:36 PM

Banker, the tinker and the prostitute. It's in the corporation's best interest to have a stupid people they can dictate terms to, and thus in their best interests to invest all their considerable power to engineering and maintaining the situation. Yes "if the people were smart, they'd not be able to get away with this." But people are not smart, and this is not going to change because the corporations have more power and influence.

A government could theoretically "fudge" the system, enforce accountability / equitability - but this would be totally against free market capitalism in its most literal sense.

I would say it isn't, and we'd be off disagreeing again.

The Government's job is to set up the rules of the game. Anything a corporation does outside of those rules is wrong and is anathemic to its mission; or should be.

Just as I can't kill and rob you for profit, as the rules dictate, corporations cannot do many of things they would profit from.

The 'Free market system', or at least my perception of it (Different from that of most of my peers) needs these basic rules.

You keep telling us that "Communism doesn't work" and that the court of history has proven this.

History has validated it, not proven it.

Communism, or something like it COULD work.

But I doubt it, and given the ruin that has befallen other attempts at achieving it, I think I would require some better evidence.

I already doubt the assertion; its bloody history just stands as evidence.

While I do not agree with this logical fallacy, I assume you do. By the same token, the court of history has proven that the omega of free market capitalism is precisely the sort of thing we see here, but to the Nth degree.

I don't think we've seen an 'omega of free market capitalism' anywhere, nor ever will.

I think it's a utopian dream just as communism is.

But I think your other point is specious. 'What we see' is rather different.

You look at this situation and see, say, the 'record profits'.

I look at it and see the profit margins for these companies was 9%, well below the average of 12%; that they made this profit off of something like 100 billion dollars in sales, that a great deal of this profit goes back to stockholders and that anyone can purchase stock, etc.

We're seeing different things, and quite generally, talking past each other.

And interestingly enough, I heard our good friend GW is launching an investigation on collusion in the oil industry.

Presumably he'll put his best man on it.

We're doomed.

yeahwho

10-29-2005, 09:23 PM

GMA']
I look at it and see the profit margins for these companies was 9%, well below the average of 12%; that they made this profit off of something like 100 billion dollars in sales, that a great deal of this profit goes back to stockholders and that anyone can purchase stock, etc.

We're seeing different things, and quite generally, talking past each other.

A quick check of the math proves you correct, yet another way to view why these numbers are an outrage is this,

Recently released reports show that ExxonMobil pulled in $10 billion in profits in the third quarter, 75 percent more than last year, while Shell made $9 billon, an increase of almost 70 percent over 2004 third quarter profits. ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, enjoyed a staggering 89 percent profit increase, and BP reported $6.5 billion in profits. In the face of these enormous profits, consumers will likely spend 32 percent more for heating oil, 48 percent more for natural gas, and 30 percent more for propane this winter, and are already facing back-breaking prices at the gas pump.

Senator Maria Cantwell (http://cantwell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=247935) WA. ST.

Senate Inquiry (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/246273_oilcongress28.html)

Hey, profit is fine, I have no problem with an honest days work, but everything I've read, heard and seen tells me all us just got swindled.

Quickie from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Short_Term.png)

Energy Crisis overview from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crisis)

I think my view is the glass is exactly "half full", I am seeing babies getting they're candy stolen. :p