Liberals Get What They Wanted...High Fuel Prices

[KenH]

Call whom?

By the way, my hobbies are training some of my dogs to compete in AKC agility trials, and reading books and articles on international relations.

 

[saturneptune]

Homeland Security, the department you threatened me with. Fascinating hobbies. What do you do for an encore?

 

[KenH]

With Bush's domestic spying program I wouldn't doubt that they know what everyone posts on the Internet.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Hey Ken,

If you think domestic spying began with Bush, you really are more naieve than I thought you were.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

No, I don't think that the domestic spying program began with Bush.

 

[Brother Bob]

Well lets see, a Republican Congress, Republican Supreme Court, Republican President and Rush Limbaugh and the Liberals are at fault.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Republicans, Democrats, and Big oil are all at fault. Rush Limbaugh doesn't pass laws or make policy, so he is in the clear.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

"Big oil" is not at fault. You have never proven that it is. It's just populist poppycock that you keep spewing over and over and over without an ounce of proof. And without proof you are bearing false witness, Joseph.

 

[saturneptune]

Ken, you know what, you make Homeland security investigation threats quite freely. What you seem not to realize is that you have no idea who you are talking to in these forums, and it could be that you end up being the subject of an investigation. You talk lots.

 

[saturneptune]

 

[TomVols]

"Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips made a profit of $8.19 on every $100 in sales. In contrast, Internet bellwethers Google, Yahoo and eBay collectively turned a $19.20 profit on every $100 of their combined revenue."
SOURCE

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I don't need Google, Yahoo or eBay to get to work. I do need gas.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[saturneptune]

ditto to Joseph, google and gas are not a comparison

 

[UTEOTW]

Fine. Then what percentage is a fair rate of return? What means should be used to compel oil companies to sell their product at below market rates? (What other industries should also be so compelled? Since you say that you must use gas, then it logically follws that you must use a car. Perhaps GM should be forced to sell cars to you at a loss.) And what do you plan to do about the resultibg supply/demand imbalance that will come from forced selling at below market rates?

 

[Brother Bob]

Well if you compare it to bread, milk etc, items we must have everyday they only make 1 or 2%. It is the volume where they can make a huge profit. Even ice cream is very low on the profit. I know for I once had a grocery store but was to tender hearted when a poor mother came in needing food for her children and I gave away the store and had to close the doors, so much for my enterprise.
What is a fair profit? Depends on the volume sold.

 

[UTEOTW]

We're talking oil. What rate ot return is fair for the oil companies? And if you are going to restrict their rate of return, what means are you going to use to allow them to recoup their losses when prices are too low to earn that return?

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[qb] "If there are, I think those should also end in the spirit of capitalism and let the oil tycoons spend their own money and make it on their own in a truly free market. What do ya say?"

In principle, I agree. There are too many special interests who get tax breaks for themselves. The question is where is the line between those special breaks that help the country and those that just help a select few and/or the politicians?

I don't know what breaks and subsidies the oil companies get, either. If we knew, we might could decide whether specific breaks were worthwhile or not.

Let's say there were incentives to developing new oil supplies in some area. Would you consider that beneficial? If there was money to research better ways of getting oil out of oil shale or tar sands, would that be worthwhile?

Did anyone else besides me notice how concerned UTEOW was about not becoming socialist until it might adversely effect the oil company. Then, he is cautious about how it might hurt us if we took away socialistic entitlements from the oil companies. Are you telling me that there are times when capitalism is not as good for the consumer as socialism? I am curious...do you work for an oil comapny?

Joseph Botwinick </font>

Nope, I do not work for an oil company nor do I have any financial interests in the oil business.

Now, we have long decided that we will as a country use the tax code to shape what we think is good for the country. Maybe that is socialists and maybe it is not.

I suggested that perhaps there might be the possibility of oil companies getting breaks that are in everyone's interest.

So let's use an analogy. Should we quit making 401K and IRA contributions tax deductible? Should we eliminate the child tax credit? Should we do away with the mortgage interest deduction?

We like the breaks when they come our way but they are a bad thing when they go to someone else.

 

[Petrel]

Noting I agree with KenH and UTEOTW here. And I'm surprised at the hostility and accusations coming from some people in this thread, it seems a kind of stupid topic to get angry about.

 

[Brother Bob]

Oil has to operate in the same enviroment as every thing else so it has no special avenue or shouldn't have let me add. Well I do own percentages in several gas wells and I still say the profit should be controlled by the volume sold as everything else.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I say that in a free market economy, the profit should be controlled by what people are willing to pay. That's the way our nation is set up, and that's the way things get done.

Look to the former Soviet Union to see how well things work when it's all mandated and controlled by Big Daddy government.

Most of our innovations and inventions have come about because someone thought they were going to make a little profit on it.

Now, I can just picture in my mind the results of the loggerhead that will occur if the Fed steps in, says, "You can't make a profit", so the oil companies simply quit. The Fed is always more efficient at running things. Right?

Or, when Big Daddy tells them they can only sell it for so much here, and they simply quit buying it on the world market! Or perhaps even start selling it on the world market instead of keeping it here!

The only thing to prevent that would be the confiscation by the Fed of all the infrastructure, etc. That sounds like a really good solution...