Solution to gas prices: Nationalization

Why do you bother responding then, if you are so busy, Mr. Take Things
Out Of Context?

Ad hominem attacks only show your own character. Address the issue,
rather than accuse me of ignorance.

 

Taking sentences from two separate paragraphs and implying that they
belonged together doesn't prove anything. Go back and read what I said.
I currently put gasoline in my 1987 Accord, and I have a flex fuel
Chrysler that sits in my driveway with a bad valve. I think it would be
cool if I could fix the van and save money by putting E85 in it, but
it's not clear whether that will ever happen.

Incidentally, I'm not haranguing anybody. I'm just sharing my opinion
of what the real causes are that lead to gas prices. I think it has a
lot to do with the fact that if you are dissatisfied with the status
quo, it's pretty much impossible for you to start your own refinery and
compete with those who set the prices.

 

How are conservative justices doing with eminent domain these days?

 

Touché!

 

"In the 1930s and '40s, General Motors, the Firestone Tire Company, Mack
Truck, Phillips Petroleum, and Standard Oil of California--all operating
through a front company called National City Lines (NCL)--bought up
dozens of local mass-transit systems that were operating the popular
electric streetcars. Their plan was to control virtually all the leading
mass-transit systems in America......

I see you are a stickler for *that*. Shows in your snipping.

Example of "objective?"

LOL, Another rational conservative. I won't ask what *you're* smoking.
Your sender I.D. telegraphs it.

 

Why does everything have to be labeled? The privately owned companies
were poorly run, but were offering a valued service. Then another
privately owned company came along and shut them down, offering another
attractive product as a replacement. With enough hindsight it seems an
unfortunate turn of events. All along, you can bet that every one of
these privately owned businesses had lobbied for huge portions of pork
from various government agencies. You can call that fascism, since you
love labels.

I'm pretty sure I've just made a reasonably rational contribution to
this discussion, but somehow I get the idea that you're going to call me
a McCarthyist, or a necrophiliac or something.

 

That's very clever... I guess. What's your point?

 

I'm no big fan of the oil companies, but I always find it interesting
that when people critical of them point to their "obscene profits", they
never give the profit figures IN TERMS OF PERCENT OF REVENUE. Why is 9
or 10% profit considered bad for a company?

Also, they never discuss the price of gasoline in the U.S. of, say, 25
or 30 years ago in comparison to the INFLATION-ADJUSTED price of today.
Why is today's price bad when it is lower than the price of 25 or 30
years ago WHEN ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION?

Anyone want to address those two questions?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

In message F.H. sprach forth the
following:

It was the conservatives (Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor and Scalia) who voted
properly in Kelo v. New London. Liberal Stevens wrote the fascist opinion.

I'm not at all surprised that you were unaware of that, idiot.

 

In message JoeSpareBedroom sprach
forth the following:

Asshole!

 

First of all this is bullshit about them being private companies. Their
tracks
were in the public right of way - they were operating with government
sanction.
They were equivalent to modern telephone monopolies. Even the cellular
carriers are not fully private - because they depend on government
regulation
of airwaves. In short, they were private companies that were semi
regulated,
had a very limited amount of competition, and operated on the goodwill of
the
local governments.

A product that was also heavily dependent on government sanction and
support.
Without the road system the automobile as we know it today would not exist.

What was the unfortunate turn of events is that as cities grow, they are
shaped by the transit system and the transit system in turn is shaped by
growth. By ripping out the street cars it fundamentally modifed how
the cities grew, it created sprawl, which then discouraged public transit,
as public transit is dependent on high density of population. And, as
people were raised in suburbia and got used to lower population density,
they grew accustomed to it and many city cores rotted. As a result of all
of
that, today it is not a realistic option to save a significant amount of
fuel
by pushing everyone into public transit.

HOWEVER the one thing people miss all of the time is that ALL of this
is dependent on one single factor - the notion that it is very important to
save fuel. That itself is a completely bankrupt notion. Sure, it is
important
to save OIL but there are MANY OTHER sources of fuel.

Any fuel replacement to oil will not have the geopolitical problems that
oil has. Fuels that come from sunlight, in fact, cannot by definition
contribute
to global warming - because capturing sunlight and extracting energy from
it reduces heat input to the planetary atmosphere since the sunlight isn't
available to generate heat, and some of the sunlight energy is converted
into
kinetic energy.

Once the oil runs out and we switch over to solar then there will not be
the need to conserve energy.

Ted

 

The dissenters (O?Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas) attempted to
play the role of judicial activists in this case and tried to use
federal constitutional law to reverse the decisions of duly elected
lawmakers, railing against "those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process, including large
corporations and development firms."

Sounds like good old-fashioned liberalism to me.

 

Male prostitute foreplay?

 

Sure. I'll take the second question first since it's easier.

Inflation adjustment has no meaning because what matters is buying power,
and
that isn't dependent on prices, it is dependent on both income and prices.
To put it simply, 30 years ago, more people made higher incomes when
adjusted
for inflation. Today, more people make lower incomes when adjust for
inflation
however the super-rich make far, far higher incomes when adjusted for
inflation.
That is what people mean when they say the gap between rich and poor is
widening,
and the middle class is losing average income.

An obvious symptom is that 50 years ago more 2 parent families could survive
on a single breadwinners salary, today most 2 parent families have both
parents
working. The reduced supervision of children this creates has resulted in a
much higher juvenile crime rate, among other things.

So, while many things are cheaper today, when adjusted for inflation,
because
people's income is even lower when adjusted for inflation, they have less
buying
power.

As for percent of revenue, the issue there is that in a normal industry, it
is
recognized that after a company pays off it's base costs, and before it pays
dividends out, that if it has a lot of extra money due to a good year, that
it
is good business to spend that money expanding it's markets. Companies
often spend surpluses on marketing campaigns, which can include severe
short term undercutting of competitors, even selling at a loss to expand
their
market. Or they purchase competitors and seek to expand market that way.
After all, the only way to insure the future existence of your company is
to increase it's market share every year.

The oil companies by contrast never do this. Never once do they loss-lead
gasoline or other oil products, nor have they taken serious steps in the
last
20 years to expand market. The same companies making motor oil and gasoline
today were making it 30 years ago and their market shares haven't changed
much.
In short, it appears to be a market
where all the majors are colluding with each other to set prices, they seem
to have a gentlemen's agreement among themselves that they will never
seriously undersell each other to gain market.

Ted

 

Some of them used to be Communists.

What airlines use private airports exclusively?

Why do so many right-wingers complain about Amtrak's $30-40 per
passenger subsidy but not about the airline industry's even higher per
passenger subsidy (and I'm not counting 9/11 security measures)?

 

IOW the conservatives voted against states rights while Stevens voted
for them.

 

They made cars much more useful by taking those taxes and building
roads. That's quite a subsidy for the auto and oil industries.

 

Count me in.

 

In message F.H. sprach forth the
following:

Apparently you've heard of neither Marbury v. Madison nor the fifth
admendment. Stevens didn't even pretend to have heard of either - inventing
the neologism "public purpose" and ignoring the actual words of the
Constitution ("public use").

 

In message larry moe 'n curly sprach forth the following:

Maybe because people actually use airports?

Anyway, our local airport operates from an enterprise fund, so it's
responsible for operating without money from property taxess etc.

I'm against the "9/11 security fee" - I do not want to pay extra for the
fiction that it's helping to protect me.