| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 10:04:02 PM
|
| Typical of a liberal not wanting to listen. Increased demand from developing countries such as China and India are raising the price of oil on world markets. Clinton and Bush have nothing to do with it. Why let the facts get in the way of things though. You'd need a grasp of economics to understand it and that would be too much trouble. |
 |
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 07:12:44 AM
|
Ah, Middle-man - one could also say that it's typical of a "conservative" to use labels to stereotype and denigrate the person of their fellow debater, while unspooling their argument. However, Mr. Turk's response is fairly typical to what's been heard on the street, and your response to him was ill-considered if you want to change minds. I recall the "misery index" and people are feeling it now.
As you've stated, it's about the economy. The laws of supply and demand will prevail.
While you've touched on the topic of the global economy, you've also failed to address the issue of the refineries, which have not been pushed by the federal government to upgrade performance like other utilities, which would have provided some relief when the oil prices stabilized. This is a problem that could have and should have been addressed...but given the ties between the president and the oil industry, it would appear unlikely. I don't think one can possibly ignore the record profits that oil companies have amassed while keeping their refining capacity well below demand. The Wall Street Journal has reported on this issue widely.
You should also note that Congress, even when it was controlled by the Republicans, had initiated investigations into price gouging. Given the history of the industry, it would not be unseemly. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 07:53:02 AM
|
| They initiated investigations into price gouging and found.... nothing. And as far as the refinery issue I agree we need more capacity in the US. There has'nt been a refinery built here since the 70's. Mostly due to nimby type tree huggers who don't want any industrial development of any kind. This has been a problem since the gas lines when Carter was president. All the way through Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. It is not a Republican or Democrat problem and can hardly be blamed on Bush's ties to the oil industry. If that were the case Congress would certainly reign Bush in now that the opposition party is in control. Surely the Dems can find the evidence of price gouging and tie it to Bush. I'll be waiting. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/07/2007 7:46:33 PM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 7:24:23 PM
|
So, let's look at this logically. Because there have been refinery problems since Carter, we can't hold Bush responsible for his inaction? Hmmmmmmmmm. And the tree-huggers are to blame, how? Really, I do want to understand how it is that "tree-huggers" have singlehandedly strangled refineries, because the issue seems to me far more complex than that...but if you want to reduce it to "treehuggers" then by all means, let's do so. And oil's ties to various politicians, regardless of party, can be found in the "Selling of the Presidency" every four years. Oh yes, each president is bought and paid for with corporate bucks.
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/07/2007 7:31:28 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 7:42:24 PM
|
| It certainly is far more complex than tree huggers. It just needs to be reduced here to something that can be easily written and read. I'm sure you are well aware Court, that a gallon of gasoline is cheaper today than in 1981 when adjusted for inflation. Where then is the gouging? You won't find homes , food or many other things cheaper after inflation adjustment since the early 80's. The profit margin on a gallon of gas has not risen much at all due to the cost of crude skyrocketing to 60 some odd dollars a barrel. This goes back to the increased demand argument causing the price of crude to double in the past couple of years. The oil companies are a convienient scapegoat for all those looking to blame someone. The government , both state and federal, make more per gallon in taxes than the oil companies make in profits. That is the fact. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/07/2007 7:47:42 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2007 : 11:51:35 PM
|
| Another sidelight to the immigration issue. Where do Governor Richardson and Senator Dodd of the Democratic party get the nerve to hold a Uninted States of America presidential debate in SPANISH ! Not only that but they scold others for not wanting to take part. These two should go attempt to become the president of our neighbor to the South. The Mexicans would appreciate a debate being held in Spanish. In this country most of us are appalled that they even have the audacity to bring it up. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 1:10:17 PM
|
I don't think you need to reduce a complex argument down to simple sound-bites. I think we're all intelligent enough to comprehend that there are multiple factors involved, and to be quite frank - we get enough of the simple sound bit crap from our President. It hasn't done us any favors. Also, Middleman - take a look at that link I posted about the oil refineries. It would appear that there was some collusion in terms of keeping the refinery process stagnant, and prices high.
I agree with you about the debate in Spanish; I think it's incredibly inappropriate...but while our Spanish speaking prezident would never insist on a debate in Spanish (really, he has enough trouble in English, doesn't he) he's got no problem, despite his "rule of law" and "law and order" sound bites, allowing millions of illegal immigrants into this country, and then touts a guest worker program. Why would that be? Because that what big business wants - cheap labor. There are plenty of studies, most notably of the meat packing industry, in which wage deflation was the result of illegal immigration, cutting wages by 50%.
So, while I am not thrilled about these two nitwits from the Democratic party calling for a presidential debate in Spanish...the net effect in negligle. The bigger challenge to this country is the 12 million or more illegal immigrants that we already have and securing the borders.
I don't think the current bill is anything better than previous illegal immigrant reform legislation.
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/08/2007 1:13:37 PM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 6:04:44 PM
|
| Court, I have to tell you, since I first discovered Everett Average Citizen, your posts have been the ones I most look forward to reading. Not to slight any others here but my opinion is that your commentary is the standard here against which all others will be measured. There is a solid group of long time contributors here and I aspire to become one of them. That being said let me answer of few of your questions about my posts on this thread. If someone says " Take your conservative views and go tell someone who wants to hear them. And " Don't bother replying because I am not listening". Is that your definition of a fellow debater? I think that particular post deserved the response it received. I was not invited to debate there. Which by the way I am more than willing to do any time. As those posts reveal, not everyone has your aptitude to dissect complex issues. Some need the short version. I have'nt had the time to read your link yet but I will read it. If there is collusion then it would be a violation of the anti-trust laws. Big oil will not have me defending them if they are found guilty of collusion. I will say I don't anticipate that happening though. Moving on, I have said President Bush has lost me with his stance on sealing the borders, his amnesty plan and his guest worker program. He is making the Republican base, including myself, wish that someone took him on in the primary in 2004. He's done some good with the tax cuts, child tax credit, and the war on islamofacists but I am breathing a sigh of relief that this rediculous immigration bill has been defeated. That is due to constituants, Democrats and Republicans alike, calling their congressmen and loudly voicing their opposition to this plan. My feeling is that our own home grown free-loaders should be forced off of public assistance and made to do the so called jobs Americans won't do. If they no longer received section 8 housing vouchers and food stamps and many other taxpayer funded giveaways they would go back to work. Let them work the hotel jobs, meatpacking jobs, agricultural jobs etcetra. And I'll cut my own lawn thank you if it will expedite the removal of these illegal aliens. The idea that we need these border jumpers or our economy will suffer is pure fiction. Back to refineries for a minute. You were the only one who seemed capable of deciphering the convoluted posts of POOP N SCOOP. Riddle me this Batman. What if I were to tell you that Exxon-Mobil, which already has a presence in Everett, had purchased the property where the old Charleston Chew was and intended to build a refinery there to increase their gasoline output? The people here went ballistic when Boston wanted to build a treatment facility on their city property. Could you imagine the wingnuts coming out against a new refinery. I realize that property is'nt big enough to put a refinery on. I am just trying to illistrate the problems there have been across the country in building new facilities of this type. The libs just want it both ways. They want to rail against gasoline prices but threaten environmental lawsuits if oil companies attempt to build new plants to increase output. God forbid we drill at ANWAR! Would'nt want to disrupt the mating of the caribou now would we? This is what I mean by "tree huggers". Between threats of lawsuits tying up the process for years and the trend twords alternitive fuels, is it worth the enormous ammount of up front capital it would take for these companies to build a new refinery if they could even find a place to locate it that would'nt be vehemently opposed? Like it or not, they do have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. They are a private buisness there to make as much money as they can. I am not trying to pick a bone with you here. I really enjoy the art of debate with you. Of course you understand what a debate is while some do not. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/08/2007 6:08:24 PM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 10:36:49 PM
|
Middleman - thank you for your kind words, however undeserved. I just happen to be a voracious reader. Relative to my colleagues here on the board, let me state that we all have something to contribute. I've been well-schooled by Citizen, Emile, MassDee, etc.
In terms of the debate, the issue that I have is your frequent useage of the word "liberal" to describe anyone who disagrees with you. Justme has engaged similiarly, and I don't think it's productive. While you may have felt provoked, Everett isn't exactly a liberal town, in fact, most of the Democrats are quite conservative on abortion, gay marriage and the like. I have no idea what Turk's affiliation is (many in Everett are currently independent) but it's the broad brush of "liberalism" you casually toss into the mix when in fact - it's not actual "liberalism" as a philosophy, but sheer frustration that you're witnessing after 6 years of bad foreign policy and limp domestic policy. You're right about the cost of gasoline in terms of today's dollars, but one has to also consider the absolutely crushing cost of housing in this part of the country, which is well beyond the cost of 1970's housing in real dollars. These two issues combined - housing and heat, are what is driving the misery index.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, liberals or conservatives, have a cornerstone on NIMBY. If it were, then logic would suggest that conservatives/Republicans would get behind a refinery just about anywhere, right? Yet, I don't think the conservative tendencies of say, Senator Tisei would prompt him to allow a refinery in his district, like Lynnfield? To be quite honest, if Exxon bought the Charlestown Chew, I would support any fight to keep out a refinery, Middleman, because we're already shouldering our burden of utility support with the presence of Distrigas. Enough, as they say, is enough. I'm old enough to remember when the state wanted Everett to take on the coal burning plant...and saying "no" was the right thing to do.
The NIMBY and tree hugger arguments don't take away the very real issue of utility management, which has been forced on natural gas, electrical, etc...while big oil has dodged the bullet for decades. Will some administration appointed agency find collusion? I think it's debatable, but I do think that someone needs to step up to insure stability, and I really don't care what his/her party affiliation is. And while you're right about "private" business being there to make as much money as they can, but it could also be debated that oil isn't exactly "private" when one considers how much the government actually supports it. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 11:31:10 PM
|
| Liberal is admittedly a "catch-all" phrase that does not apply to all in the Democratic party. I do not disagree with you on that point. There are many Dems who share my views on the issues of the border, gay marriage along with some others. That's why the immigration bill and gay marriage everywhere but the peoples republic of Massachusetts have gone down to defeat. I still have hope the the citizen intiative process of amending the Massachusetts state constitution will be honored by the memebers of the general court. The marriage debate needs to be put to a vote of the people despite the underhanded tricks of past leaders like Tom Birmingham gavelling the con-con closed without allowing a vote. I have had the chance to read your link on the refinery issue. I have to say the heading with the names Jamie Court, Arianna Huffington, Noam Chomsky, CHARLES RANGEL, NANCY PELOSI, HUGO CHAVEZ told me a lot before I read a word. I can't figure how Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson got in there but I digress. The article refers to the 1990's which is about 10 years ago. I don't think it applies to todays situation. It states there was a surplus of refining capacity, meaning they were producing more than they could expediently sell. This is bad buisness practice and must be stopped if you wish to remain solvent as a company. Say you were a baker and sold 100 loaves of bread daily but you were producing 150 loaves. You would have to throw away 50 loaves or lower your prices to dump them on a market where there was not enough demand for loaves of bread. After a couple of weeks of these losses you would cut your production to match the demand at that time would you not? The demand is there now that was apparently not there in the time frame this article was refering to. We do need more capacity but you must admit the obstacles at this point in time are not easily overcome by these companies. I would support an end to government subsidies for the oil industry if that's what your getting at with the government support argument. All have to understand if that were to occur the price of gasoline and heating oil would only rise even further. That's only common sense. These companies will not operate at a loss any more than any other segment of the buisness community. It is also important to note that Exxon-Mobil, Sunoco, Phillips-Conoco are multi national corporations that derive a large percentage of their profits from overseas. When people argue "windfall profits" they always neglect to mention this fact. They play it like these companies are making all this money on the backs of US citizens knowing full well that is not the case in an attempt to fuel public sentiment against the oil industry. If they want to argue a point they should do so honestly and bring facts to the table to back up their accusations. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 09:48:29 AM
|
I'm glad that we agree on the use of the word "liberal," and I hope that rather than flinging it around as a perjorative, it will be used as a descriptor of a philosphy as opposed to "someone who disagrees with a conservative person," because that's incorrect.
Relative to the refineries...I hope you took the time to actually review the memo from L.D. Hopkins. I wouldn't be quite so dismissive of the content. The 1996 memo clearly states "significant events need to occur to asist in reducing supplies and/or increasing demand for gasoline." This statement is prefaced with the statement, "The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. The memo went on to discuss a sucessful campaign in Washington State to shrink refined supply by removing other additives in the gasoline that filled gas volume.
So what does this mean? It means that more than ten years ago, there was a strategy put into place to reduce supplies, despite the fact that our government supports this industry significantly - allegedly because it's a common good for citizens. Shrinking supplies to artificially reduce supplies and increase margins while taking the government dime isn't in the best interests of the country or its citizens. This is a de-facto oligopoly that plays both ends - it takes government subsidies while engaging in long-term price point driving strategies amongst a few key players. Your bakery scenario is not the same thing; this is not, nor has it been, a true free market enterprise in which the bakeries strategies would be entirely appropriate.
No one is suggesting that these companies operate at a loss, and far from it. I do think your "average joe" has every right to be skeptical when lectured about "the market" when in fact, it's not a free market and subsidized by the taxpayer. While the global economy is certainly playing a role in the rapid and unstable pricing of gasoline, it has to be acknowledged that these companies have been remarkably adept at keeping the status quo up, and government regulation, ie "interference" at bay - despite the subsidies. It's a no-win for the consumer.
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/09/2007 09:49:37 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 10:10:46 AM
|
| Court and Middle-Man, great debate. I am finding it very informative. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 06/09/2007 : 10:15:29 AM
|
| I feel like I'm back in school (and it's been a very long time), but this time I'm more interested in what's being taught! |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 10:25:24 AM
|
| Court, we have some common ground here at least. I do not support subsidies. I have no problem with their elimination just as I would have no problem with the elination of subsidies for the agriculture industry as well. Why single out oil companies? Farmers are paid by the goverment NOT to work their land to keep prices up. This is insane in my view. These huge agri-buisnesses are making huge profits by employing illegals and still getting government subsidies. Where is the outrage with that? There is none because most pepole don't realize they pay more for produce than they need to. It does'nt get the publicity the oil buisness gets however it's the same thing. At least the oil companies employ Americans at good wages. People do need to concede the inevitable rise in price an end to government "interference" will bring. I am willing to let the free market find it's level and I support the end of subsidies as a whole. Not just for the oil industry. Hey, we may be approaching the time for the goverment to jump in with a breakup of this buisness into smaller more competitive companies. With all the mergers the last few years many companies have reached the point where they control too large a share of the market in my opinion. Ma Bell was broken into the "baby bells" years back . What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't want to wait until there is a defacto monopoly before something is done. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2007 : 12:31:50 PM
|
We do have common ground, Middleman. Anti-trust regulation has been dismantled to the point of allowing megamergers - the "de-facto monopolies" all over again. Competition is what drives market forces, yet our government has allowed end-runs around legislation that should protect us. Having seen the federal budget, I can assure you that it's not just agri-business that's propering under current schemes; we even subsidize the advent of Mickey D's over in Asia. Pork is what's killing the budget, Middleman. Our government continues to beat the drum on social spending....but it's the pork that also out-of-control. So, while we support ending subsidies, the practice is unlikely to end. And if that's the case, then let's not pretend that there's a free market here. And if there's not a free market, then what can we expect in return for the subsidies? Those are the questions I want answered.
I also don't think price increases are inevitable, Middleman; it depends on forces within the market. My microeconomics professor would have insisted that more competition allows more companies to enter and leave a market. They have to decide at which point it makes sense to produce or not produce. This is better for the consumer than this hybrid market that we have now.
At the end of the day, the last six years have NOT been years of "smaller government." There's a reason why J and K Streets are crowded with lobby concerns. |
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/09/2007 12:33:35 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Safe Haven
