Solution to gas prices: Nationalization

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

All laws hostile to the Constitution are null and void. Stevens didn't
even use the test written into the Fifth Amendment ("public use") - he
fabricated the neologism "public purpose" out of thin air.

 

In message Some O sprach
forth the following:

Great. One out of 300 million.

 

This, of course, has nothing to do with communism but everything with
economic mismanagement.

Turkey had nothing like a 'socialist regime' yet the Turkish pound collapsed
to a small value. When I was there a few years ago it was 5 million to the
pound. The currency (and, I hope, the economy) has been reformed and there
are now about TRL 2.6 per GBP 1.00.

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling

 

Me too!


Steve R.

 

Me three....

Actually there is a nice new one in Tampa.

http://www.tecolinestreetcar.org/

 

In message Scott in
Florida sprach forth the following:

From the annual report:

Expenses: $2.4 million
Fares: $0.5 million

Operating deficit (expenses minus fares): $1.9 million

Average number of unique riders per day: 541

This is insane.

 

Trolleys are still used extensively in downtown Toronto, if by
trolley, you mean electric streetcars. They also have electric
buses - or they did. We're not sure if they still have the electric
buses but the streetcars will be there forever.

cordially, as always,

rm

 

What is insane about it?

 

The invisible hand is not visible.

 

Watch what you wish for! Don't forget President Chavez has also
"nationalized" the news media. That is one off the first things Hitler,
Stalin, and Saddam did, as well, before then killed millions of people.

mike

 

That is also the goal of the Dim party....

 

It's semi-insane, if only because most fixed route transit systems
are constrained by artificial barriers and Civil Service attitudes.
Therefore, the heavy subsidies are the only way to keep those creaky,
ill-planned, ill-designed systems in the black.

The Buses/Subways/Trolleys/Trains don't really go to the places you
need them to go because the NIMBY people in the "Nice Neighborhoods"
don't want them too close - "the noise, the safety, the crime..." The
routes are determined by politicians deciding where to put an
artificial line on a map to get the most votes in the next election,
and not by urban planners deciding where they need to be placed to be
the most useful to the most riders to get them out of their cars and
onto transit.

Political Considerations have kept the Green Line light rail from
going directly into the LAX Departure/Arrival loop area for years -
the Taxi and Shuttle Van services wanted it kept out so they wouldn't
lose business. Finally it looks like cooler heads will prevail, and
an extension into the airport is in the works.

They don't run at the times people need them, which would be fairly
frequent service all night for people who get off work real late or
want to go out at night, and start work real early.

If a three-unit train is too much for the night crowd, split one
train into three single cars for the overnight runs. If they shut
down the trolleys for late night maintenance, have an all-night bus
that takes the same route, to handle those few late travelers -
otherwise they have to drive.

They don't provide heavy enough service coverage during 'rush hours'
to prevent long waits for a transit vehicle with a seat (or even
standing room). Does no good to have a transit system going the way
you need it if you can't get on and end up late for work.

And they can easily leave you stranded, with the typical mindless
Civil Service "We're the Government - We don't care, you can't fire
us, we don't have to!" attitude. Los Angeles METRO buses and LADOT
"Commuter Express" buses are both infamous - if the "Last Bus" on a
line breaks down, they don't send out a replacement bus to sweep the
people and get them home, the driver just kicks everyone off the bus
and calls for a mechanic and/or wrecker.

Everyone waiting past that stop sits there for an hour or two
waiting for a bus that will never arrive, till they give up and take a
taxi or call home for a ride - That is, if you can still find a
working payphone...

--<< Bruce >>--

 

And Me, but just recently.

 

In message Scott in
Florida sprach forth the following:

A $2 million subsidy for 500 riders. If you were a conservative you'd
understand.

 

That's ridiculous. Let's be fair and take the people who *complain*
about the oil companies' profits (in raw dollars and are always careful
not to mention them as percentage of sales) and ask them what business
they are in, what product do they or their employer sell, what their
wages are compared to someone of their age and experience in whatever
their career is and ask if they base their prices, wages, etc. on what
people's *buying power* is *OR* is it based on the effects of
*inflation*. By definition, it's based on inflation - otherwise the
inflation figures would exactly equal *buying power*.

My point there is that it is unfair to hold the oil industry to one
standard for these comparisons when the critics themselves don't conduct
their own lives to that standard. IOW - when I see them lower their
wages and their salaries based on people's buying power rather than on
inflation, I will allow them to hold the oil companies to that same
standard.

Yes - that's what everyone decided they wanted. Keep cause and effect
straight. It was everyone wanting to put the second spouse to work in
the business world that eventually made it a necessity - not the other
way around. That's one of those "be careful what you ask for things in
life". Just like Chavez's being elected to the position of dictator,
they asked for it and they got it.

Agreed. Again - unintended consequences of what everyone thought they
wanted. No one to blame but themselves.

Yes - same for oil companies. So why are they oil companies judged by
and singled out for a different standard.

So - you're saying oil companies have not been merging or buying each
other out?

Shell and BP are not the same company now? The compaint I've heard is
that they're buying the competition too much - that there are too few
companies controlling the market. Which way do you guys want it?

And therefore what? What's that got to do with their turning a
respectable 9 or 10% profit?

Nor have they taken serious steps in the

Strange. Four years ago, I'd never heard of Valero - yet they expanded
to Virginia - are all over the place here now.

Petroleum companies have divisions that manufacture and market plastics
for the plastics molding industry.

I don't understand how you can say that oil companies have not increased
markets. Frankly I don't know what you would consider "expanding of
markets in the context of selling oil and gasoline, other than what they
are in fact doing,. Sounds like something being repeated with no basis
in fact.

It might seem that way. Not sure if it's true. Still, their profits
are only 10%. Seems if they were price fixing they could do way better
than that. Or perhaps they are price fixing, but do it in such a way as
to force their profits to that.

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

 

Good points. Here in somewhat socialist Canada (definitely NOT
communist), the government did nationalize one oil company quite a few
years ago and the integrated oil company PetroCanada was born. It's a
completely publicly traded company now, like Exxon, etc... I can't
say that it had any effect on gas prices, then or now. What does have
a large effect on price is taxes (of which we have lots more up here)
and the silly price of crude oil as determined by those neurotic oil
commodity traders who are driven by fears of shadows and other matters
of doom and gloom everywhere.

That said, oil is a valuable chemical and it's selling well below it's
"true" value, I think. If you want to bring down prices, then you
have to demand less, and that means smaller cars, smaller engines,
better fuel efficiency, more public transit, more bike riding,
walking, etc. In other words, a change in the way we do things.
Cheap gas and oil isn't a right.

Dave

 

Interesting subject for debate. What is the true value of oil? Who should
benefit from any money when it is sold? Oil had been in the ground for
billions of years as a natural resource. Who should divvy it up and take
the money traded for it?

You can argue that the actual cost of a gallon of crude is essentially $0.
Refiners should be able to recoup costs and make a profit on the processing
of it, but what after that?

 

The survivors of those killed in Iraq should get a lifetime supply of
free gas.

 

??? You can say that about anything that is mined or grown (the only
difference between mined or grown is that most of the time, for
something that is grown, human effort has to be put into it before you
can even access or process it). Somewhere, there has to be human effort
put into it to turn it into an accesible and/or useable product. I
guess I'm not sure what your point is there beyond the obvious.

Any commodity has actual costs above the $0 cost of actually having it
sit in or on the ground. Above the actual costs (labor, materials,
marketing, etc.), hopefully there's pure profit for someone willing to
invest and take the risk - otherwise (short of slave labor or
dictatorship, which sometimes are the same thing) it's just going to sit
there.

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

 

Those whose soil the pumps are located. OPEC was created so as to ensure
that the low cost producers could control/manipulate prices to their
collective benefit. I've often wondered what the result would be if the US
decided that the Yanky dollar was no longer going to be an International
currency (ie. could only be spent in the US) by issuing new script.

Well almost. The Middle East lifting cost was about $0.25 /barrel in the
early '70's and on the assumption that we are still drawing from the same
fields the cost shouldn't have changed much. However, new fields have have
their own unique costs and are sustantially higher. Like all things, as
prices rise, in this case crude oil, new sources become economically viable.
In this sense we will probably never really exhaust our supply of carbon
based fuels.

Richard