We have a Public Utilities commission why not one for oil? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 03-11-2008, 11:38 AM

If the electric companies have to go before a state commission show their need for a rate increase and be able to reach a compromise and set a fair price for it's services.... why can we not have the oil companies do the same?

Fuel is unfortunately the main cog in our economy. If it sky rockets inflation skyrockets and our economy is severely hurt.

So my proposal is let's have state commissions that look at what the oil companies want to charge, what they need to charge and set a happy medium that cannot change for 3 months, then the prices get reviewed and set for another 3 months and so on.

Can this work?

samcol · 03-11-2008, 11:47 AM

Bad idea.

The free market is the solution.

Just open up the dozens of oil spickets we have in the US and start building refineries again.

We need more energy companies and competition not more government protected oligopolies.

Ustwo · 03-11-2008, 11:52 AM

....and food
......and health care
........and shelter

Quote:

When the U.S. government set maximum prices for gasoline in 1973 and 1979, dealers sold gas on a first-come-first-served basis, and drivers got a little taste of what life was like for people in the Soviet Union: they had to wait in long lines to buy gas. The true price of gas, which included both the cash paid and the time spent waiting in line, was often higher than if prices were not controlled at all. At one time in 1979, for example, the U.S. government fixed the price of gasoline at about $1.00 per gallon. If the market price would have been $1.20, a driver who bought ten gallons apparently saved $.20 per gallon, or $2.00. But if the driver had to line up for thirty minutes to buy gas, and if her time was worth $8.00 per hour, the real cost to her was $10.00 for the gas and $4.00 for the time, an overall cost of $1.40 per gallon. Some gas, of course, was held for friends, long-time customers, the politically well-connected, or those who were willing to pay a little cash on the side.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 11:53 AM

Ustow, that was during a shortage, so the results wouldn't be the same today.

Ustwo · 03-11-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ustow, that was during a shortage, so the results wouldn't be the same today.

Price controls create shortages or surpluses, neither good, read the whole article, that was but one example.

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 12:01 PM

I'm still not sure if I would support price control on oil. For one thing, even if it works it's coming too late. Second, in a debate between socialist policies and free market, I don't automatically side with the socialist policy. It took a few months of research for me to get behind universal healthcare.

For the time being, I'll say that it may have worked if it were implemented in the 60s. Right now, the oil industry does have way too much control and is corrupt, of course, but a better solution would be more aggressively seeking out alternatives so as to bypass them.

Ustwo · 03-11-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

For the time being, I'll say that it may have worked if it were implemented in the 60s. Right now, the oil industry does have way too much control and is corrupt, of course, but a better solution would be more aggressively seeking out alternatives so as to bypass them.

Out of curiosity, how is the oil industry 'corrupt'?

levite · 03-11-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If the electric companies have to go before a state commission show their need for a rate increase and be able to reach a compromise and set a fair price for it's services.... why can we not have the oil companies do the same?

Fuel is unfortunately the main cog in our economy. If it sky rockets inflation skyrockets and our economy is severely hurt.

So my proposal is let's have state commissions that look at what the oil companies want to charge, what they need to charge and set a happy medium that cannot change for 3 months, then the prices get reviewed and set for another 3 months and so on.

Can this work?

Sure, it's a great idea. Now let's see if we can find two elected officials to rub together who haven't been bought off by the oil companies.

The oil companies write their own ticket at this point. They are more or less above the law, and will continue to be so until either oil is completely displaced by some cheap, clean alternative energy, or until all the oil is gone.

The corruption of government by the energy concerns is one of the most pervasive of the corruptive influences. Maybe the single most pervasive, aside from that of the military-industrial complex.

I would love to be proven wrong, but I am pretty sure they would never allow an idea like this to come about.

Ustwo · 03-11-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by levite

I would love to be proven wrong, but I am pretty sure they would never allow an idea like this to come about.

And I thank my own personal Jebus daily for that.

Controlled economy is to prosperity as Godzilla is to Tokyo.

aceventura3 · 03-11-2008, 12:50 PM

The oil market is international. Oil basically will go to the highest bidder. We can try to regulate the price of oil and we won't do anything but hurt ourselves. Opec basically laughed at Bush when he suggested that they increase production to help stabilize and lower oil prices. I can't image oil producing nations being willing to go before American bureaucrats to justify the price of oil.

Oil companies are not the problem.

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Out of curiosity, how is the oil industry 'corrupt'?

A lot of it has to do with the buying of government officials and the placement of politicians who are friendly to them. I don't want to threadjack.

aceventura3 · 03-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

A lot of it has to do with the buying of government officials and the placement of politicians who are friendly to them. I don't want to threadjack.

So, are you saying the politicians are corrupt?

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So, are you saying the politicians are corrupt?

Both. Many politicians are corrupt and many oil companies are corrupt. Combined, they don't exactly provide a good environment to develop, say, an electric car. Even the Tesla is really not doing well, now.

aceventura3 · 03-11-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Both. Many politicians are corrupt and many oil companies are corrupt. Combined, they don't exactly provide a good environment to develop, say, an electric car. Even the Tesla is really not doing well, now.

Why would an oil company develop an electric car? Shouldn't the auto industry develop an electric car, or electric companies or battery manufacturers? Also, people don't buy electric cars.

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why would an oil company develop an electric car? Shouldn't the auto industry develop an electric car, or electric companies or battery manufacturers? Also, people don't buy electric cars.

People don't buy electric cars because the auto industry only leased them. And they leased a shit-ton.

The problem is the hand holding between the oil and auto industries.

aceventura3 · 03-11-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

People don't buy electric cars because the auto industry only leased them. And they leased a shit-ton.

The problem is the hand holding between the oil and auto industries.

Why don't the folks in the Green Party start a company to make and sell electric cars? They might have a bigger impact doing that than trying to run for public office. Think about it, build a better mouse trap - put the evil oil and auto companies out of business!

Willravel · 03-11-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why don't the folks in the Green Party start a company to make and sell electric cars?

Because I'm probably the richest person in the Green party (and the oldest one that's not stoned). Don't get me wrong, I'm green through and through, but the party is a damn mess. When they're not distancing themselves from the latest ELF "terrorist" attack, they're simply handing out "Inconvenient Truth" DVDs or looking generally crazy. It's inconvenient, to say the least.

Tesla is trying desperately to get an electric car on the road (a supercar, none the less), but they've run into hurdle after hurdle. In the meantime, Toyota is selling people a hybrid that only actually gets 5 mpg better than my Eclipse, despite the fact that they said it got 60 mpg. 15 years ago, Geo (a combination of Chevy and Toyota) made the Metro, which could get 50 mpg without an electric motor.

ASU2003 · 03-11-2008, 06:05 PM

I think there should be profit limits on gas. And they should be set as a price per gallon instead of a percentage per gallon. If they were making 10 cents per gallon at $1 (10%), they should be getting 10 cents per gallon at $3 instead of 30 cents. This will cause the gas companies to want the oil price to come down, or at least not win if oil prices go up.

levite · 03-12-2008, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And I thank my own personal Jebus daily for that.

Controlled economy is to prosperity as Godzilla is to Tokyo.

Well, nobody's preaching Stalinomics, dude. Yet if what you've said is uniformly so, why do the Scandinavian countries, which have some defined controls on their economy, consistently have the highest standards of living in the world?

host · 03-12-2008, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And I thank my own personal Jebus daily for that.

Controlled economy is to prosperity as Godzilla is to Tokyo.

You are naive....what do you think happened in the "markets" on tuesday?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=...-8&sa=N&tab=wn

The entire, rigged "casino" is coming apart. Nothing is as you post so faithfully that it is.

http://wallstreetexaminer.com/?p=2434

The "Fed" is taking in "manure" as collateral in a desperate attempt to INTERFERE to "save" the system it has ALLOWED to get "this way". It's almost over, Ustwo....the "American way of life"......

Quote:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...swap-meet.html
.......What happens after 28 day is pretty clear. The swap will be rolled over and over and over until the mortgage backed security market stabilizes. This could be a year from now, or perhaps 10. <h3>That may sound ridiculous but it's essentially what happened in Japan.</h3> It's also part of the Zombification process I described in <a href="http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/03/great-pretender.html">The Great Pretender.</a>

Inquiring minds might be asking what happens if the value of the MBS drops. Will the Fed issue a margin call or just look the other way? One might think we just have to wait and see, but since the Fed will probably never say, it's more likely we have to wait and not see.

One thing is for sure: The more liberal the Fed is in valuing the MBS the more likely a margin call situation arises. However I strongly suspect the Fed will not disclose who is doing the swapping, in what size, or whether the swap ratio is 1:1 or not. The TAF does not abide by freedom of information so I would be amazed if this does. So much for transparency.

This may temporarily stop a further squeeze against dealers who are short treasuries and long MBS, but it is will not do much of anything to restore a bid in the MBS market. Nor will it cure the massive leverage problems at many of the primary dealers and banks.

Here's an interesting paragraph from the MarketWatch article reference earlier: <h3>"Counting the currency swaps with the foreign central banks, the Fed has now committed more than half of its combined securities and loan portfolio of $832 billion</h3>, Lou Crandall, chief economist for Wrightson ICAP noted. 'The Fed won't have run completely out of ammunition after these operations, but it is reaching deeper into its balance sheet than before."

Quote:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...pretender.html
......The Great Pretender
There is a ton of pretending going on. The rating agencies are pretending the monolines are worthy of an AAA rating. This is nothing new. I have talked about this many times, most recently in California calls muni insurance waste of taxpayer money.

And in a bury your head in the sand move, MBIA is still pretending it has a rating to protect. Amazingly, late last week <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080308/1194753592735.html?.v=5bject">MBIA asked Fitch to stop rating its debt.</a>

However, the above pretending takes second fiddle to the biggest pretending of all. I am talking about <h3>the Fed pretending that banks are well capitalized even as the Fed resorts to desperation tactics</h3> in the misappropriatly named Term Auction Facility (TAF) soon to become the Permanent Auction Facility (PAF).....

aceventura3 · 03-12-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Tesla is trying desperately to get an electric car on the road (a supercar, none the less), but they've run into hurdle after hurdle. In the meantime, Toyota is selling people a hybrid that only actually gets 5 mpg better than my Eclipse, despite the fact that they said it got 60 mpg. 15 years ago, Geo (a combination of Chevy and Toyota) made the Metro, which could get 50 mpg without an electric motor.

Are the hurdles faced by Telsa due to government regulations? If even partly true, isn't that the ultimate irony?

Willravel · 03-12-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Are the hurdles faced by Telsa due to government regulations? If even partly true, isn't that the ultimate irony?

I'm not sure why you'd assume that. No, the hurdles are due to new technology (i. e. electric motors produce a ton of torque, which means the tranny has to be rock solid), but they've also been facing attempted buy outs from at least one car company, GM. If you'll recall, GM is the company that killed the electric cars of the 90s.

dc_dux · 03-12-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Are the hurdles faced by Telsa due to government regulations? If even partly true, isn't that the ultimate irony?

I suspect its more to due to the difficulty in raising $100 million in venture capital to produce a car that will cost $100,000.

roachboy · 03-12-2008, 08:15 AM

anyone wondered about spiking oil prices and the collapse of the dollar?
or that the evaporation of american economic power as a result of exactly the type of market-fundamentalism that you see reflected in the one-dimensional posts from comrade ustwo above?

this situation is political....i dont think the states would be in this position were it's "democracy" flexible enough to have a mechanism like a vote of no confidence--in a more democratic structure, the bush people would be a fading embarrassment relegated to history and the damage would be limited.

as for a regime of price controls on oil--it might come to that. but that'd be a stop-gap and not a solution to the problem. the problems are structural.

neo-liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster.
what it has been a cover for--sixty years of military keynesian policies--sixty years of pathological military spending to the benefit of a particular faction within the american coroporate sector--this is a structural problem that needs to be addressed, needs to be changed.
deregulation of banking has demonstrated that banking cannot be deregulated if the idea is the longer-term survival of the economic and political order.
but i don't expect market fundamentalists to even start to say anything coherent about any of this, and so far in this thread, they haven't.

it's time for fundamental change or what host says above will turn out to be the case.
it's obvious that the right has nothing to offer beyond banalities of manliness that can be uttered from the bridge of any sinking ship.
between now and the point where the next administration is elected, i expect some pretty crappy economic times.

i dont think that the game is necessarily over--but if you can't even start to face problems, particularly structural problems--because your economic ideology won't let you get started--then there's no hope of addressing basic problems.

a good start would be scattering neoliberalism's ashes.

Ustwo · 03-12-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

stuff

Unmitigated disaster?

There have been several 'unmitigated disasters' in the 20th century, most involving socialists and mass graves, but 'neo-liberalism' is not one of them.

Seriously get a sense of perspective, you offer nothing better, or even close to 'as good'.

Willravel · 03-12-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

There have been several 'unmitigated disasters' in the 20th century, most involving socialists and mass graves, but 'neo-liberalism' is not one of them.

Neither Hitler nor Nazi Germany were socialist. Calling one's self "National Socialist" does not make one a socialist. There was no worker ownership, nor control of the means of production; private individuals owned the means of production. It was capitalist/fascist.

Hitler was for all intents and purposes a neocon. He valued racism over tolerance, competition over cooperation, nationalism over internationalism, militarism over pacifism, and had strong ties to the church.

aceventura3 · 03-12-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I suspect its more to due to the difficulty in raising $100 million in venture capital to produce a car that will cost $100,000.

The reason it takes up to $100 million or more in venture capital is in part due to regulations governing the production of motor vehicles. Even adjusting for inflation it did not take Henry Ford $100 million to introduce the nation to the Model T. Regulation is a major barrier to new competitors entering a market, even if they do have a "better mouse trap".

host · 03-12-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And I thank my own personal Jebus daily for that.

Controlled economy is to prosperity as Godzilla is to Tokyo.

Pssst...Ustwo, the Fed's "actions"...accepting near worthless MBS at "face" value as collateral to distressed "primary dealers" who short sell the treasury bills that they borrow from the Fed, back into the market ....their aggregate T-bills short position yesterday was $800 billion, BEFORE the Fed agreed to accept another $160 billion of near worthless MBS, is the epitome of an indicator of a "controlled economy".

What else do you call an economy that is stoked with easy lending for unlimited upside, but is not "permitted" to go DOWN, not without this ridiculous "fight" to stop it from doing so?

Here is the next "logical" progression after what the Fed has been doing:

Quote:

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot...ly-modest.html
"Don't Limit the Bailouts to Banks."

Think about this for a minute. An act of God, "an unexpected earthquake of risk, a financial disaster on the scale of a natural disaster like Katrina" has assaulted our nation. Are we going to sit around and let people suffer thirst and heat prostration, and being shot at while seeking shelter, as we did in New Orleans that last time God tried to take away our good times?

Rather than risk a flood of jingle mail, let's allow the Fed to cut a check to EVERY homeowner in the full amount of the house in which they are the full time occupant (no need to encourage speculators). This way, they can be compensated for this act of God that threatens to reduce the value of their net worth. We can use the current assessed value for property taxes as our benchmarks.

But let's not stop there.

What about all the large ticket consumer products that people purchased with their hard earned credit that have simply not met expectations, through absolutely no fault of their own?? That big screen TV that is now outdated because it doesn't support 1080p? (how were WE supposed to know about THAT!). What about those crappy refrigerators, washers and dryers that no long function and are OUT OF WARRANTY? We bought two Maytag appliances (just before they were acquired by Whirlpool) that had major failures within 16 months, and required substantial labor costs to fix them even though they were obviously mis-designed and of poor quailty.

What about people who have suffered the earthquake of bad investing, and can show losses on their brokerage accounts, and carryovers on their income tax forms? Not to mention those whose cars are just not up to snuff, or have been damaged in accidents and are insufficiently insured? Should they be made to suffer? Are we that cruel? Costco will take almost anything back if you have a receipt. Is the United States government less sophisticated than a discount store (with great quality products AND plenty of free samples for the afternoon nosh).

Working with local municipalities we can set up 'economic relief centers' where we can:

TAKE IT ALL BACK! LET'S EXTEND THE BAILOUT TO EVERYONE! THE U.S. (that's US) DESERVES A 'FRESH START.'

And let's not limit it to houses and consumer durables, which are only a percentage of our GDP. What about the service sector? We're a service economy now. What about the man who spends a CONSIDERABLE amount of time and expense and personal energy trying to score with some likely hottie, only to STRIKE OUT! Should he be punished for falling victim to the earthquake of reality? And what about a woman who marries a prince charming, but who turns out to be a shiftless dud? You still have the original marriage certificate? He may have to take a 'haircut' which he probably needs anyway, but why should you have to live with your clouded judgement? Ever gotten stuck with some sour milk, bad dope, a lousy movie that had a good rating? Oh, you didn't realize that the upright conservative you voted for was going to squander your Social Security on crony capitalism? And dare we mention the faux pas of the century...... the Iraq War?

But the banks are too big to fail! And we're not! Oh yeah, before they had the laws changed there were lots of small banks, but they got organized into a few powerful behemoths!

SAVE THOSE RECEIPTS PEOPLE!

,,,and yeah, I think the idea of the US, an importer of 14 million bbl per day of petroleum and petroleum equivalents, setting up some sort regulatory body that expects it could "control" petroleum prices without effecting massive reduction in domestic petroleum consumption, is as absurd as the Fed accepting MBS worth 55 cents, when marked to market per dollar of face value....AT FACE VALUE, and then sitting idly by while the "primary dealers" borrow from the Fed and then short sell T-Bills, and putting themselves in the crisis position that they found themselves in yesterday...

Others stuck with MBS were selling them at any price, after Fannie Mae stock dropped 19 percent in price in one day, on monday, and buying T-bills with the sale proceeds....driving the value of the MBS that the primary dealers are STUCK WITH, down, and driving the prices of T-Bills, the very thing the primary dealers have huge short positions in, UP.

The Fed's "solution" was to accept near worthless collateral, in exchange for the lending to the primary dealers of even more T-Bills....so as this cycle continues to repeat itself, the primary dealers increase their T-Bill short positions and wait to see if the Fed ignores the fact that the collateral, the MBS that the Fed has accepted in exchange for the T-Bills is, in the real world, worth less and less.

The primary dealers will resist buying back the T-Bills that they owe the Fed at higher prices than they sold them for....and where would they obtain the money to buy them back out of the market?

dc_dux · 03-12-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The reason it takes up to $100 million or more in venture capital is in part due to regulations governing the production of motor vehicles. Even adjusting for inflation it did not take Henry Ford $100 million to introduce the nation to the Model T. Regulation is a major barrier to new competitors entering a market, even if they do have a "better mouse trap".

ace...I think you have it backwards.

The new energy law provides tax incentives to alternative energy development, including electric vehicles, and those companies can also request waivers from some regs if the may be burdensome to development (although I cant think of what those regs might be...perhaps you can offer examples).

aceventura3 · 03-12-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...I think you have it backwards.

The new energy law provides tax incentives to alternative energy development and those companies can also request waivers from some regs.

No, I just take a broader view of the issue.

dc_dux · 03-12-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No, I just take a broader view of the issue.

So what regs would stifle the development of an electric car?

aceventura3 · 03-13-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So what regs would stifle the development of an electric car?

You may be better served to do a search. Just for kicks I found one:

Quote:

COTTON DUST. In 1976, OSHA proposed a maximum permissible exposure limit of 0.2 milligrams per cubic meter, and its consultant estimated that compliance costs would be approximately $700 million per year. The standard promulgated in 1978 actually allowed for higher exposure levels in
some sectors of the textile industry, but the small changes in the standard do not fully explain the decrease in estimated compliance costs: in 1978 the estimate fell to $205 million per year. Moreover, a new study conducted in 1982, after the Reagan administration called for a review of the standard,
concluded that compliance costs were $83 million per year (Mendeloff 1988).

http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/bp69.pdf

No matter what estimate of the cost is used, there is agreement that there is a cost. The cost of producing goods made using cotton are reflected in every product. Perhaps they don't use cotton in the electric cars, but I bet they do somewhere in the manufacturing process.

{added} or How is this for irony - I bet they use cotton based filters/masks/reperators to protect against cotton dust.

03-11-2008, 11:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	We have a Public Utilities commission why not one for oil? If the electric companies have to go before a state commission show their need for a rate increase and be able to reach a compromise and set a fair price for it's services.... why can we not have the oil companies do the same? Fuel is unfortunately the main cog in our economy. If it sky rockets inflation skyrockets and our economy is severely hurt. So my proposal is let's have state commissions that look at what the oil companies want to charge, what they need to charge and set a happy medium that cannot change for 3 months, then the prices get reviewed and set for another 3 months and so on. Can this work? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-11-2008, 11:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Bad idea. The free market is the solution. Just open up the dozens of oil spickets we have in the US and start building refineries again. We need more energy companies and competition not more government protected oligopolies. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

03-11-2008, 12:50 PM	#10 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	The oil market is international. Oil basically will go to the highest bidder. We can try to regulate the price of oil and we won't do anything but hurt ourselves. Opec basically laughed at Bush when he suggested that they increase production to help stabilize and lower oil prices. I can't image oil producing nations being willing to go before American bureaucrats to justify the price of oil. Oil companies are not the problem. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

03-12-2008, 08:15 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	anyone wondered about spiking oil prices and the collapse of the dollar? or that the evaporation of american economic power as a result of exactly the type of market-fundamentalism that you see reflected in the one-dimensional posts from comrade ustwo above? this situation is political....i dont think the states would be in this position were it's "democracy" flexible enough to have a mechanism like a vote of no confidence--in a more democratic structure, the bush people would be a fading embarrassment relegated to history and the damage would be limited. as for a regime of price controls on oil--it might come to that. but that'd be a stop-gap and not a solution to the problem. the problems are structural. neo-liberalism has been an unmitigated disaster. what it has been a cover for--sixty years of military keynesian policies--sixty years of pathological military spending to the benefit of a particular faction within the american coroporate sector--this is a structural problem that needs to be addressed, needs to be changed. deregulation of banking has demonstrated that banking cannot be deregulated if the idea is the longer-term survival of the economic and political order. but i don't expect market fundamentalists to even start to say anything coherent about any of this, and so far in this thread, they haven't. it's time for fundamental change or what host says above will turn out to be the case. it's obvious that the right has nothing to offer beyond banalities of manliness that can be uttered from the bridge of any sinking ship. between now and the point where the next administration is elected, i expect some pretty crappy economic times. i dont think that the game is necessarily over--but if you can't even start to face problems, particularly structural problems--because your economic ideology won't let you get started--then there's no hope of addressing basic problems. a good start would be scattering neoliberalism's ashes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-12-2008 at 08:19 AM..

03-11-2008, 11:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ustow, that was during a shortage, so the results wouldn't be the same today.

03-11-2008, 12:01 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm still not sure if I would support price control on oil. For one thing, even if it works it's coming too late. Second, in a debate between socialist policies and free market, I don't automatically side with the socialist policy. It took a few months of research for me to get behind universal healthcare. For the time being, I'll say that it may have worked if it were implemented in the 60s. Right now, the oil industry does have way too much control and is corrupt, of course, but a better solution would be more aggressively seeking out alternatives so as to bypass them.

03-11-2008, 06:05 PM	#18 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I think there should be profit limits on gas. And they should be set as a price per gallon instead of a percentage per gallon. If they were making 10 cents per gallon at $1 (10%), they should be getting 10 cents per gallon at $3 instead of 30 cents. This will cause the gas companies to want the oil price to come down, or at least not win if oil prices go up.