PDA

View Full Version : Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline


Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 10:45 AM
Man! The oil companies must love having neocons in charge!

Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve.

Easing the environment rules will allow refiners greater flexibility in providing oil supplies since they will not have to use certain additives such as ethanol to meet clean air standards.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/04/25/376497.html

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 10:53 AM
:LOL: Bitch ‘bout the price of gas, then bitch when something’s done ‘bout it. At least you’re not predictable. :thumb: ;)

CHIEF4EVER
04-25-2006, 11:02 AM
:LOL: Bitch ‘bout the price of gas, then bitch when something’s done ‘bout it. At least you’re not predictable. :thumb: ;)

Beat me to it! Bastige! :banghead: :cuss: ROFL

Logical
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
:LOL: Bitch ‘bout the price of gas, then bitch when something’s done ‘bout it. At least you’re not predictable. :thumb: ;)

Though I get your point, I think UD's point might be that rather than pressure the oil companies to reduce there profit margins and quit gouging the public, the Bush administration chose to gut some more environmental regulations.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 11:54 AM
I would guess that you all missed the news report today that indicated that President Bush has asked for an investigation into the oil companies gouging the U.S. public.

Is this something you expected or is it just that the president is doing his job?

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 12:04 PM
Though I get your point, I think UD's point might be that rather than pressure the oil companies to reduce there profit margins and quit gouging the public, the Bush administration chose to gut some more environmental regulations.

I know, Jim. And I’m sure that UD, whether he actually believes what he posts or not, is post’n this mainly to poke fun at others.
But if you wanna be honest ‘bout it, I see the gubment as bigger “gougers” than any of the oil companies here. We could have gas back under $2/gal. tomorrow if the state and federal gubments cut the taxes they impose on it.

Logical
04-25-2006, 12:06 PM
I would guess that you all missed the news report today that indicated that President Bush has asked for an investigation into the oil companies gouging the U.S. public.

Is this something you expected or is it just that the president is doing his job?

Did not expect it, think it is good, and it might give him a small boost in his popularity ratings.

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 12:09 PM
Did not expect it, think it is good, and it might give him a small boost in his popularity ratings.

And that right there is what this “probe” is all ‘bout.
It’s not like they’re actually gonna find any price gouge’n, at least not more than a local gas station level.

Duck Dog
04-25-2006, 12:24 PM
Though I get your point, I think UD's point might be that rather than pressure the oil companies to reduce there profit margins and quit gouging the public, the Bush administration chose to gut some more environmental regulations.


He is doing something about it, this just happens to be a temporary solution to give fast relief. The price gouging investigation will last months.

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 01:10 PM
I know, Jim. And I’m sure that UD, whether he actually believes what he posts or not, is post’n this mainly to poke fun at others.
But if you wanna be honest ‘bout it, I see the gubment as bigger “gougers” than any of the oil companies here. We could have gas back under $2/gal. tomorrow if the state and federal gubments cut the taxes they impose on it.Would you rather be taxed another way? It's not like the different levels of government are swiming in extra cash.

banyon
04-25-2006, 01:12 PM
He is doing something about it, this just happens to be a temporary solution to give fast relief. The price gouging investigation will last months.

Duck Dog and I agree again! 2x in the same month! (other was golf course wetlands).

Starting to get scary. Next thing you know, I'll be wearing some sort of hat with earflaps. :)

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 01:15 PM
I'm OK with a TEMPORARY ease of environmental restrictions. If this is done without a major boost in alternative fuel research funding or a significant increase in fuel economy standards then it's just a TEMPORARY waste of time.

The price gouging investigation is also a TEMPORARY waste of time that will have the same results as every other investigation.

I think that most adults with at least average inteligence know what the problems are and TEMPORARY fixes aren't going to actually solve the problem.

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 01:17 PM
Would you rather be taxed another way? It's not like the different levels of government are swiming in extra cash.

Not say’n that, just point’n out where the real gouge’n is go’n on. ;)

And don’t even get me started on the extra expense ‘cause of bullchit additives like MTBE. That stuffs “knee jerk junk science” at it’s worst. :shake:

kcfanintitanhell
04-25-2006, 01:19 PM
If we are "addicted to oil" this is the equivalent of coke dealers easing up on the baby laxative.

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 01:28 PM
Not say’n that, just point’n out where the real gouge’n is go’n on. ;)

And don’t even get me started on the extra expense ‘cause of bullchit additives like MTBE. That stuffs “knee jerk junk science” at it’s worst. :shake:I don't know much about the additives or the science behind them but from what I've seen it does sounds like we can do without certain one's. I also like the idea of having a standard formula for the entire country. This should reduce refining costs as well.

Cochise
04-25-2006, 01:53 PM
It's about damned time for this.

banyon
04-25-2006, 01:56 PM
This will have about the same effect on curbing petroleum prices that tort reform would on curbing rising health care costs. In both cases, you're ignoring the 800 pound gorilla that is causing the vast majority of the problem (respectively China/India, and Prescription Drug Costs).

Cochise
04-25-2006, 02:05 PM
This will have about the same effect on curbing petroleum prices that tort reform would on curbing rising health care costs. In both cases, you're ignoring the 800 pound gorilla that is causing the vast majority of the problem (respectively China/India, and Prescription Drug Costs).

How does the cost of prescription drugs affect the fact that you go into the hospital for something relatively minor and your insurance is getting billed 5 figures?

Story: a few years back my brother injured himself at work. He got his hand caught in a machine. It wasn't anything too serious, he didn't lose any part of his hand or anything. He had some cuts that needed stitches, and IIRC two fingers broken. He got some prescription pain killers and these splint things for his fingers and hand, and came home without a hospital stay. The hospital bill was more than I paid in cumulative for a college education.

What do the drug companies have to do with that?

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 02:12 PM
I don't know much about the additives or the science behind them but from what I've seen it does sounds like we can do without certain one's. I also like the idea of having a standard formula for the entire country. This should reduce refining costs as well.

I’m fine with update’n refining processes and even changing the formula to reduce emissions like sulfur, not just from vehicles but also from the refineries themselves. That’s a “no brainer”, IMO, and it’s not like I’m against a cleaner environment.
But MTBE doesn’t help any of that.
It was introduced as a way to reduce vehicle emissions. The theory is that because MTBE, and it’s ethanol replacement, are oxygen bearing liquids adding it to gas would cause a leaner air / fuel mixture and therefore fewer emissions.
In the ‘70’s when most new vehicles were carbureted this would’ve worked. Everything would’ve run like chit but it would’ve reduced the emissions. But since the 80’s more and more vehicles have become electronic fuel injected to the point that you can’t buy a new carbureted vehicle now, excluding motorcycles but that’s change’n also.
Now, part of how electronic fuel injection works is that it has several sensors that monitor engine temp, amount of air flow, then meters in gas to suit and checks how well it’s burning by way of an oxygen sensor, or two, in the exhaust. When the injection computer senses that the engine is run’n lean, as it would with MTBE or ethanol, the computer will increase injector pulse width, or spray more gas into the intake port, to compensate.
So, that means that it makes your engine burn more gas and spits out just as many emissions as it would without that crap, and there by negates any positive results of use’n it.
What’s worse is that we’ve known for a while now that if spilled on the ground, or leaked from an underground gas tank, that MTBE will separate from gas, is water soluble, and will work it’s way to the water table where it’ll contaminate drink’n water. This has already happened all over California where water wells have been shut down because of contamination with MTBE.

Sorry, but that stuff is a pet peeve of mine.

jiveturkey
04-25-2006, 02:44 PM
Well Radar you seem like a smart fellar so I'll trust you and also make it a pet peeve of mine. :)

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 02:52 PM
Well Radar you seem like a smart fellar so I'll trust you and also make it a pet peeve of mine. :)

Well, I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of that before, but thank you. :toast:
I’ve just been keep’n track of this subject since it directly effects one of my favorite past times, be’n a gear head. ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 03:01 PM
How does the cost of prescription drugs affect the fact that you go into the hospital for something relatively minor and your insurance is getting billed 5 figures?

Story: a few years back my brother injured himself at work. He got his hand caught in a machine. It wasn't anything too serious, he didn't lose any part of his hand or anything. He had some cuts that needed stitches, and IIRC two fingers broken. He got some prescription pain killers and these splint things for his fingers and hand, and came home without a hospital stay. The hospital bill was more than I paid in cumulative for a college education.

What do the drug companies have to do with that?


Well, it seems bad, when you look at how much IC's are billed, but guess what, they never pay that much. Exorbitant health care costs are set up to f*ck people who don't have insurance. Insurance companies go through a fairly standard arbitration process w/ hospitals where the real amount they pay is a fractional amount of what you are actually billed. That's why most hospitals are damned near broke--they aren't getting near the returns on their bills that you think.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 03:02 PM
If someone thinks that this is honestly the solution to the problem well then may a nonexistent God have mercy upon their nonexistent soul.

Radar Chief
04-25-2006, 03:19 PM
If someone thinks that this is honestly the solution to the problem well then may a nonexistent God have mercy upon their nonexistent soul.

Who said, posted, it was “the solution” to “the problem”?
FYI, this same thing happened after Hurricane Katrina.

Duck Dog
04-25-2006, 03:23 PM
If someone thinks that this is honestly the solution to the problem well then may a nonexistent God have mercy upon their nonexistent soul.


Who has said that? If anything it seems both sides agree it's broke and that this is a temporary fix to a huge complex fu c k ed up problem.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 03:45 PM
I would guess that you all missed the news report today that indicated that President Bush has asked for an investigation into the oil companies gouging the U.S. public.

Is this something you expected or is it just that the president is doing his job?

This is pandering to an irrational public. Probably politically necessary, and it will probably do no harm, but it's pandering nontheless. I don't think Bush believes the oil company's are doing anything illegal.

memyselfI
04-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Though I get your point, I think UD's point might be that rather than pressure the oil companies to reduce there profit margins and quit gouging the public, the Bush administration chose to gut some more environmental regulations.

Which, ironically, will probably also help the oil companies profit margins...

coinky dinky, I'm sure. :rolleyes: :shake:

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 04:20 PM
Did not expect it, think it is good, and it might give him a small boost in his popularity ratings.

I'm sure that's why he did it. :rolleyes:

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 04:21 PM
And that right there is what this “probe” is all ‘bout.
It’s not like they’re actually gonna find any price gouge’n, at least not more than a local gas station level.

You do know that the local gas stations in SE Kansas do not have any control over the price of gas don't you?

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 04:23 PM
Though I get your point, I think UD's point might be that rather than pressure the oil companies to reduce there profit margins and quit gouging the public, the Bush administration chose to gut some more environmental regulations.
Government's place is better founded in the level of regulation imposed than in pressuring pricing.

But I'm sure as a libertarian, you know that. :p

patteeu
04-25-2006, 04:24 PM
Though I get your point, I think UD's point might be that rather than pressure the oil companies to reduce there profit margins and quit gouging the public, the Bush administration chose to gut some more environmental regulations.

Their profit margins aren't very high. They are up a bit from their lean years when oil was $20 or $25 per barrel, but they are lower than a lot of big businesses in the US. Someone should compare Exxon or Chevron to Johnson & Johnson. In fact, I like that idea so much, I'll do it myself.

The data in this table comes from MSN Money.

Johnson & Johnson (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=JNJ)
Bank of America (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=BAC)
McDonald's (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=MCD)
General Mills (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aGIS)
Exxon (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aXOM)
Chevron (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aCVX)
Wal-Mart (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=WMT)

.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 04:35 PM
I drank a coke at McDonald's today. Damn that thing was expensive. It cost me something like $1.20. I bet it didn't cost them more than $0.25 for the water and the syrup (or whatever they make the coke with these days).

I was suspicious that they were price gouging, but now that I see that their profit margins are BIGGER THAN EXXON's I KNOW I GOT SCREWED!!!!! It's time for a government investigation. /sarcasm

memyselfI
04-25-2006, 05:19 PM
I'm sure that's why he did it. :rolleyes:

Well, he sure didn't do it last year when gas prices and his approval rating were both high. :hmmm:

memyselfI
04-25-2006, 05:21 PM
Their profit margins aren't very high. They are up a bit from their lean years when oil was $20 or $25 per barrel, but they are lower than a lot of big businesses in the US. Someone should compare Exxon or Chevron to Johnson & Johnson. In fact, I like that idea so much, I'll do it myself.

The data in this table comes from MSN Money.

Johnson & Johnson (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=JNJ)
Bank of America (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=BAC)
McDonald's (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=MCD)
General Mills (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aGIS)
Exxon (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aXOM)
Chevron (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aCVX)
Wal-Mart (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=WMT)

.

How many of those companies besides Chevron and Exxon are critical to your very survival?

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 05:23 PM
Well, he sure didn't do it last year when gas prices and his approval rating were both high.

You spin any situation you want, it doesn't mean that your point of view is correct. Besides, I don't think that he's trying to recoup his numbers so he can run again.

Let it rest and spend more time finding facts. The only weapon you have is speculation.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 05:38 PM
How many of those companies besides Chevron and Exxon are critical to your very survival?

Two of them are in my food chain and a third is responsible for some of the drugs that I might need some day. I bank at Bank of America, but I could change to a different bank. However, since the industry average for BoA's industry is 16.8%, I might need to take the counterproductive approach of stuffing my money in a mattress to avoid getting gouged.

memyselfI
04-25-2006, 05:47 PM
Two of them are in my food chain and a third is responsible for some of the drugs that I might need some day. I bank at Bank of America, but I could change to a different bank. However, since the industry average for BoA's industry is 16.8%, I might need to take the counterproductive approach of stuffing my money in a mattress to avoid getting gouged.

Two of them are one of many sources in your food chain and are thereby not critical and the rest you are trying to make critical in an attempt to formulate some kind of cohesive argument. The truth of the matter is, only Exxon and Chevron are the two companies whose products are not luxuries but necessities. As far as your food chain, you can grow your own veggies, raise your own cows and chickens, plant some fruit trees...

I'd like to see you come up with oil in your backyard, refine it, and then support yourself without Exxon and Chevron.

CHIEF4EVER
04-25-2006, 05:59 PM
Two of them are one of many sources in your food chain and are thereby not critical and the rest you are trying to make critical in an attempt to formulate some kind of cohesive argument. The truth of the matter is, only Exxon and Chevron are the two companies whose products are not luxuries but necessities. As far as your food chain, you can grow your own veggies, raise your own cows and chickens, plant some fruit trees...

I'd like to see you come up with oil in your backyard, refine it, and then support yourself without Exxon and Chevron.

I'd like to see you get a Jr Mad Scientist Chemistry kit and brew up your own pharmaceuticals.........

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 06:02 PM
Two of them are one of many sources in your food chain and are thereby not critical and the rest you are trying to make critical in an attempt to formulate some kind of cohesive argument. The truth of the matter is, only Exxon and Chevron are the two companies whose products are not luxuries but necessities. As far as your food chain, you can grow your own veggies, raise your own cows and chickens, plant some fruit trees...

I'd like to see you come up with oil in your backyard, refine it, and then support yourself without Exxon and Chevron.

I think you totally misunderstood the intent of what he said, but then that is normal for you..

WilliamTheIrish
04-25-2006, 06:15 PM
This will have about the same effect on curbing petroleum prices that tort reform would on curbing rising health care costs. In both cases, you're ignoring the 800 pound gorilla that is causing the vast majority of the problem (respectively China/India, and Prescription Drug Costs).

Exactly.

I cringe when I hear folks whine about the cost of fuel. We have been living in fuel bubble for some 30 years.

When I hear a Senator from the great state of (x) claim we need an investigation into the high price of a gasoline, I think:

"What would this mf'er do without the tax generated by the sale of said gasoline?"

So I say, investigate away you useless twits. In 04 for the first time in my life I voted for a Libertarian candidate for POTUS. Never did that previously. I'll do the same in 08. It's my absolute hope that eventually there will be a large enough % to get elected officials back to serving the people.

Until then, they deserve a gang raping with razor wire condoms.

Ugly Duck
04-25-2006, 07:24 PM
:LOL: Bitch ‘bout the price of gas, then bitch when something’s done ‘bout it. At least you’re not predictable. :thumb: ;)?? I didn't bitch about the price of gas. Nor did I bitch about something being done about it. Just pointing out that what the neocons propose profits the oil companies at the expense of our environment (big surprise). You guyz "predicted" wrong.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 07:36 PM
Exactly.

I cringe when I hear folks whine about the cost of fuel. We have been living in fuel bubble for some 30 years.

When I hear a Senator from the great state of (x) claim we need an investigation into the high price of a gasoline, I think:

"What would this mf'er do without the tax generated by the sale of said gasoline?"

So I say, investigate away you useless twits. In 04 for the first time in my life I voted for a Libertarian candidate for POTUS. Never did that previously. I'll do the same in 08. It's my absolute hope that eventually there will be a large enough % to get elected officials back to serving the people.

Until then, they deserve a gang raping with razor wire condoms.

I think the 'ludes you took in the past are catching up with you.

The dream you have of politicians actually serving the people is nothing more than just that, a dream.

WilliamTheIrish
04-25-2006, 08:20 PM
I think the 'ludes you took in the past are catching up with you.

The dream you have of politicians actually serving the people is nothing more than just that, a dream.

That's one of the differences between you and me. I actually believe that it can happen.

The other is that you're a useless f*ckwit troll who embarrasses himself every time he posts.

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 08:28 PM
That's one of the differences between you and me. I actually believe that it can happen.

The other is that you're a useless f*ckwit troll who embarrasses himself every time he posts.

I see, you don't agree that politicians are so corrupt by the time the make it to a national office that they are beyond actually serving the people.

Which part of their being makes you think that they can even consider anything that might be of interest to the common man? Do you think that it might be all of their money? I'm sure that the millionaires that are serving as president and down have a very good grasp of what ailes you.

At least I come by my position honestly, you are overly impressed with yourself.

I'm happy to see that at least on my lowly level I can resist calling you names. Just goes to show that one of us is an adult (or is working on it) and the other is working with a limited vocabulary.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 09:26 PM
Two of them are one of many sources in your food chain and are thereby not critical and the rest you are trying to make critical in an attempt to formulate some kind of cohesive argument. The truth of the matter is, only Exxon and Chevron are the two companies whose products are not luxuries but necessities. As far as your food chain, you can grow your own veggies, raise your own cows and chickens, plant some fruit trees...

I'd like to see you come up with oil in your backyard, refine it, and then support yourself without Exxon and Chevron.

Regardless of how necessary the two oil companies are in relation to the other corporations I listed, they still deserve to make a profit on the value they add. In this post, you seem to indicate that they add value that I would otherwise be unable to match (unlike McDonalds and General Mills who both have higher profit margins). The profit they are making is in line with US industry standards. It's ridiculous, IMO, to call profit margins of 11% and 7.6% unreasonable.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-25-2006, 09:34 PM
Regardless of how necessary the two oil companies are in relation to the other corporations I listed, they still deserve to make a profit on the value they add. In this post, you seem to indicate that they add value that I would otherwise be unable to match (unlike McDonalds and General Mills who both have higher profit margins). The profit they are making is in line with US industry standards. It's ridiculous, IMO, to call profit margins of 11% and 7.6% unreasonable.

In the words of a Composition Instructor, "stay on topic". It's clear that you have no rebuttal, so you choose to offer profit margins of said oil companies....well consider this

Do you think it is in the best interests of you children to have McDonalds decide what should constitute their school lunch at which point the Golden Arches will then provide it for them??

jspchief
04-25-2006, 09:53 PM
Regardless of how necessary the two oil companies are in relation to the other corporations I listed, they still deserve to make a profit on the value they add. In this post, you seem to indicate that they add value that I would otherwise be unable to match (unlike McDonalds and General Mills who both have higher profit margins). The profit they are making is in line with US industry standards. It's ridiculous, IMO, to call profit margins of 11% and 7.6% unreasonable.So what are the profit margins of the average power or water company?

banyon
04-25-2006, 11:32 PM
patteu, please explain to me how the disparity between the currently reported price of $4.14 pg in Brooklyn, NY and the $2.67 pg in Atlanta is all due to some quirk of the Market and not manipulation?

patteeu's favorite source: MSN money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CNBC/Dispatch/060425gasprices.aspx)

banyon
04-25-2006, 11:35 PM
How does the cost of prescription drugs affect the fact that you go into the hospital for something relatively minor and your insurance is getting billed 5 figures?

Story: a few years back my brother injured himself at work. He got his hand caught in a machine. It wasn't anything too serious, he didn't lose any part of his hand or anything. He had some cuts that needed stitches, and IIRC two fingers broken. He got some prescription pain killers and these splint things for his fingers and hand, and came home without a hospital stay. The hospital bill was more than I paid in cumulative for a college education.

What do the drug companies have to do with that?

Sorry your brother got screwed, but the insurance premiums aren't due to malpractice, they are health care premiums. look at TX, where they had this tort-reform under then-Governor Bush and the insurance premiums went unchanged.

Drug company ads are a mahor component in the esacalation of health care costs, along with the stolidity of insurance companies. Try to watch anything without seeing an f***in Levitra or Viagra commercial.

Nightwish
04-26-2006, 12:13 AM
He is doing something about it, this just happens to be a temporary solution to give fast relief. The price gouging investigation will last months.Are you sure about that? He did the same thing last year, and the investigation lasted a few days. Of course, about the time the investigation was announced, the gas prices abruptly dropped back down to "normal."

patteeu
04-26-2006, 05:49 AM
In the words of a Composition Instructor, "stay on topic". It's clear that you have no rebuttal, so you choose to offer profit margins of said oil companies....well consider this

Do you think it is in the best interests of you children to have McDonalds decide what should constitute their school lunch at which point the Golden Arches will then provide it for them??

What was that you were saying about "stay on topic?"

I didn't bring profit margins into the discussion, but instead provided data to rebut the person who did. OTOH, school lunches is a new and irrelevant twist added to the discussion by the guy who ironically posted the words "stay on topic."

patteeu
04-26-2006, 05:55 AM
So what are the profit margins of the average power or water company?

Well, the electric utility that my sister works for, Ameren (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&Symbol=US%3aAEE), has a profit margin of 9.3%. But the industry average appears to be 4.2%.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 06:00 AM
patteu, please explain to me how the disparity between the currently reported price of $4.14 pg in Brooklyn, NY and the $2.67 pg in Atlanta is all due to some quirk of the Market and not manipulation?

patteeu's favorite source: MSN money (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CNBC/Dispatch/060425gasprices.aspx)

I don't know the answer to that but different levels of government taxation/regulation and market factors could well be the difference. Why is housing more expensive in Brooklyn than it is in Kansas City (Atlanta?)?

If big oil was manipulating prices, why would they let Atlanta get away with such low prices instead of charging them just as much as they charge the people of Brooklyn?

Radar Chief
04-26-2006, 06:32 AM
Two of them are one of many sources in your food chain and are thereby not critical and the rest you are trying to make critical in an attempt to formulate some kind of cohesive argument. The truth of the matter is, only Exxon and Chevron are the two companies whose products are not luxuries but necessities. As far as your food chain, you can grow your own veggies, raise your own cows and chickens, plant some fruit trees...

I'd like to see you come up with oil in your backyard, refine it, and then support yourself without Exxon and Chevron.

http://freedomfuelamerica.com/

:p

Radar Chief
04-26-2006, 06:44 AM
I don't know the answer to that but different levels of government taxation/regulation and market factors could well be the difference. Why is housing more expensive in Brooklyn than it is in Kansas City (Atlanta?)?

If big oil was manipulating prices, why would they let Atlanta get away with such low prices instead of charging them just as much as they charge the people of Brooklyn?

Donger is the expert on this, but from what I’ve seen it’s partially due to the added expense of get’n the product there, that’s why gas is less expensive closer to the gulf and more expensive as you move from there, but I’d guess the majority of that particular price difference is in local taxes. IOW it’s part of the expense of do’n business in Brooklyn. Don’t like it? Tell Luca Brazi ‘bout it. ;)

tiptap
04-26-2006, 06:49 AM
Oil companies for years have raised prices for gasoline in step with the rise in price of crude. But the step down does not follow linerarly, instead they have a step down process that doesn't reflect the complete drop in price. As such they are quick to raise prices and slow to lower them in response to crude price changes.
Now I am not so mad about the gas prices. We are reaching the tipping point in how much oil can be produced. The absolute amount of oil to be produced is at its peak. As such the price is going to go up. It is time to start weaning our use of oil. As such it doesn't make sense to build expensive new refineries for sweet oil production from crude when our new source of oil or carbon burning will be coal.

But in any case the absolute amount of carbon burning needs to be reduced and not just shifted from oil to coal.

No one likes these kinds of changes but recognizing that they are necessary and dealing with it earlier rather than later is prudent.

Duck Dog
04-26-2006, 07:04 AM
Are you sure about that? He did the same thing last year, and the investigation lasted a few days. Of course, about the time the investigation was announced, the gas prices abruptly dropped back down to "normal."


Good point. Let me rephrase that. If this investigation is a real one (this time), it will last months.

Radar Chief
04-26-2006, 07:28 AM
?? I didn't bitch about the price of gas. Nor did I bitch about something being done about it. Just pointing out that what the neocons propose profits the oil companies at the expense of our environment (big surprise).

And I’m try’n to point out that your gripe’n is misplaced.
Gripe’n ‘bout a company make’n a profit is like gripe’n bout ice be’n cold. If a company didn’t make a profit, if ice wasn’t cold, they wouldn’t be a company, ice, for very long.

WTI has it right.

I cringe when I hear folks whine about the cost of fuel. We have been living in fuel bubble for some 30 years.

When I hear a Senator from the great state of (x) claim we need an investigation into the high price of a gasoline, I think:

"What would this mf'er do without the tax generated by the sale of said gasoline?"

You guyz "predicted" wrong.

Who is “you guyz” and what was “predicted”? Sorry, ya lost me there.

BucEyedPea
04-26-2006, 07:38 AM
ROFL I'm against having a Price Inquisition with some appointed Energy Torquemada to "provide" for the general welfare in an allegedly free country. That's economic facism.

It's not a right to have low gas prices. Letting them go high, only invites competition for cheaper and/or cleaner sources and forced conservation--exactly what we need imo.

Overall, oil prices, despite recent spikes due to the current immediate political tensions with Iran,which has been created (not to speak of increased world demand ) are cheaper over the past twenty years. Contrary to people's emotions, profits over this time period for the oil companies (Standard & Poor's) has declined. Bush's energy policy (new ethanol requirements) have something to do with this too. Easing them was the right action.

Let them plow the profit into more refineries.

The market will adjust.

banyon
04-26-2006, 08:08 AM
Are you sure about that? He did the same thing last year, and the investigation lasted a few days. Of course, about the time the investigation was announced, the gas prices abruptly dropped back down to "normal."

I thought that was a Congressional initiative.

banyon
04-26-2006, 08:09 AM
I don't know the answer to that but different levels of government taxation/regulation and market factors could well be the difference. Why is housing more expensive in Brooklyn than it is in Kansas City (Atlanta?)?

If big oil was manipulating prices, why would they let Atlanta get away with such low prices instead of charging them just as much as they charge the people of Brooklyn?

Um, because real estate is not a uniform good maybe?

Unlike say, bread (or gas).

banyon
04-26-2006, 08:12 AM
Donger is the expert on this, but from what I’ve seen it’s partially due to the added expense of get’n the product there, that’s why gas is less expensive closer to the gulf and more expensive as you move from there, but I’d guess the majority of that particular price difference is in local taxes. IOW it’s part of the expense of do’n business in Brooklyn. Don’t like it? Tell Luca Brazi ‘bout it. ;)

Hopefully you are joking. I don't think there are hardly any municipalities that have the wherewithal to tax fuel, and if they did, it would only be a couple of cents p/g at most.

It's not transportation, Check Fuel prices in Maine or Rural PA. (shhh...4.14 p/g is gouging!)

Radar Chief
04-26-2006, 08:34 AM
Hopefully you are joking. I don't think there are hardly any municipalities that have the wherewithal to tax fuel, and if they did, it would only be a couple of cents p/g at most.

No I’m not joke’n, but you are apparently try’n to render what I posted down to a single reason. Not surprise’n just point’n out.

It's not transportation, Check Fuel prices in Maine or Rural PA.

Again, you should stop with the singular reasoning.

(shhh...4.14 p/g is gouging!)

Link to an investigation prove’n this? Otherwise it’s your opinion.
You could be right, but then again you could be wrong. You asked for reasons and I tried to provide possibilities. Sorry that doesn’t settle with ya.

Oh and BTW, if you know someone that paid $4.14 / gal. smake’em upside the head. Latest gas price at Sunoco was $3.03 / gal.
http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/

:rolleyes:

banyon
04-26-2006, 08:40 AM
No I’m not joke’n, but you are apparently try’n to render what I posted down to a single reason. Not surprise’n just point’n out.



Again, you should stop with the singular reasoning.



Link to an investigation prove’n this? Otherwise it’s your opinion.
You could be right, but then again you could be wrong. You asked for reasons and I tried to provide possibilities. Sorry that doesn’t settle with ya.

Oh and BTW, if you know someone that paid $4.14 / gal. smake’em upside the head. Latest gas price at Sunoco was $3.03 / gal.
http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/

:rolleyes:

http://cbs4denver.com/national/local_story_110071705.html

Radar Chief
04-26-2006, 08:52 AM
http://cbs4denver.com/national/local_story_110071705.html

The co-manager of the Gulf Station, Donald Borbee, told the Daily News that his prices were so high because his gas tanks are small and the station gets frequent deliveries.

Pretty lame azzed excuse.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 11:10 AM
Hopefully you are joking. I don't think there are hardly any municipalities that have the wherewithal to tax fuel, and if they did, it would only be a couple of cents p/g at most.

It's not transportation, Check Fuel prices in Maine or Rural PA. (shhh...4.14 p/g is gouging!)

Brooklyn and Atlanta are in different states. "Local taxes" include taxes at the state level as well as those at the municipality, school district, and county levels. New York's gas taxes are 4 times as high as Georgia's (31.9 cents per gallon vs. 7.5 cents per gallon, not including sales taxes; link (http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp)).

Obviously that doesn't account for the full difference between the prices you cited, but it is a component. Besides the tax differences, there are almost certainly regulatory differences on both the fuel itself and on the overhead of the gas stations and the distribution networks that contribute to the retail price.

What do you mean by gouging anyway? Is it gouging to charge what the market will bear? We used to call that capitalism.

When you explain the difference between a Brooklyn shack and the Kansas City mansion that costs the same amount by saying that real estate isn't a uniform good, I can only believe that what you mean is that people in Brooklyn will pay more for a shack than people in KC. That's a market based price not a price based on the value of the natural beauty or the inherent quality of the real estate. Apparently, people in Brooklyn will pay more for gas than people in Atlanta too. What's wrong with that?

WilliamTheIrish
04-26-2006, 11:22 AM
I see, you don't agree that politicians are so corrupt by the time the make it to a national office that they are beyond actually serving the people.

Which part of their being makes you think that they can even consider anything that might be of interest to the common man? Do you think that it might be all of their money? I'm sure that the millionaires that are serving as president and down have a very good grasp of what ailes you.

At least I come by my position honestly, you are overly impressed with yourself.

I'm happy to see that at least on my lowly level I can resist calling you names. Just goes to show that one of us is an adult (or is working on it) and the other is working with a limited vocabulary.

Tom, compared to you, I'd be impressed with critical thinking skills of autistic silverback gorilla. At least I'd know I'm debating somebody that I could possibly take to Vegas and have him count cards.

So, to be clear Tom, you're not an adult. You are a self absorbed, paper pushing drone, with nothing better to do than be a troll on this bb.

And learn to spell, Tom. Or use spell check. Most of us see through your idiocy. The n00bs might not. You don't need to embarrass yourself further.

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 11:52 AM
Tom, compared to you, I'd be impressed with critical thinking skills of autistic silverback gorilla. At least I'd know I'm debating somebody that I could possibly take to Vegas and have him count cards.

So, to be clear Tom, you're not an adult. You are a self absorbed, paper pushing drone, with nothing better to do than be a troll on this bb.

And learn to spell, Tom. Or use spell check. Most of us see through your idiocy. The n00bs might not. You don't need to embarrass yourself further.

Another non-adult resorting to insults and name calling?

I guess you have done your job now.

Your opinion is one of an unknowing jerk that tends to believe that he is the answer to everyone's problems when he is actually 90% of their problems.

To be clear, if I cared if what was spelled I'd do spell checks, but alas I respond and send without the fear that I'll get a failing grade in English Comp.

Spelling problems? n00bs = now there is one that must be spelled correctly. My dictionary doesn't indicate that it is even a word.

Get off of your self righetous soap box and go away.

go bowe
04-26-2006, 11:59 AM
I'd like to see you get a Jr Mad Scientist Chemistry kit and brew up your own pharmaceuticals.........y0u're making it hard for me to type this i'm laughing so hard...

go bowe
04-26-2006, 12:05 PM
I don't know the answer to that but different levels of government taxation/regulation and market factors could well be the difference. Why is housing more expensive in Brooklyn than it is in Kansas City (Atlanta?)?

If big oil was manipulating prices, why would they let Atlanta get away with such low prices instead of charging them just as much as they charge the people of Brooklyn?even with a republican-controlled government, anti-trust laws and other such restrictions still make price manipulation a very risky affair...

i just don't see it...

in addition to taxation/regulations and market factors, you really have to consider transportation costs from the refineries to the markets in question...

obviously those costs are skyrocketing because of the cost of fuel...

go bowe
04-26-2006, 12:09 PM
. . .I'm happy to see that at least on my lowly level I can resist calling you names. Just goes to show that one of us is an adult (or is working on it) and the other is working with a limited vocabulary.LMFAO!!!

speaking as a homo liberal asshole, i find this to be totally hilarious...

and it's also classic bullshit from t*m c*sh...

i think banyon should rate this as at least a 9/10...

go bowe
04-26-2006, 12:12 PM
Donger is the expert on this, but from what I’ve seen it’s partially due to the added expense of get’n the product there, that’s why gas is less expensive closer to the gulf and more expensive as you move from there, but I’d guess the majority of that particular price difference is in local taxes. IOW it’s part of the expense of do’n business in Brooklyn. Don’t like it? Tell Luca Brazi ‘bout it. ;)maybe i should read the thread before i post...

(but that would take half the fun out of it...)

go bowe
04-26-2006, 12:20 PM
Another non-adult resorting to insults and name calling?

I guess you have done your job now.

Your opinion is one of an unknowing jerk that tends to believe that he is the answer to everyone's problems when he is actually 90% of their problems.

To be clear, if I cared if what was spelled I'd do spell checks, but alas I respond and send without the fear that I'll get a failing grade in English Comp.

Spelling problems? n00bs = now there is one that must be spelled correctly. My dictionary doesn't indicate that it is even a word.

Get off of your self righetous soap box and go away.you should take your own advice t*m...

really...

banyon
04-26-2006, 01:05 PM
LMFAO!!!

speaking as a homo liberal asshole, i find this to be totally hilarious...

and it's also classic bullshit from t*m c*sh...

i think banyon should rate this as at least a 9/10...

for you, 9.5/10. :D

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 03:23 PM
you should take your own advice t*m...

really...

Why would I go away and deprive all of you guys of the opportunity to show the futility of your arguments?

I can derail any argument/discussion on this forum just by showing up.

milehighfan
04-26-2006, 03:47 PM
The president ordering oversight of price gouging is about as good as him firing anyone in his administration that is involved in leaking classified information. It has no teeth.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 03:53 PM
The president ordering oversight of price gouging is about as good as him firing anyone in his administration that is involved in leaking classified information. It has no teeth.

Who leaked classified information? Mary McCarthy was fired because they believe she leaked. Anyone else?

Hydrae
04-26-2006, 05:25 PM
Another non-adult resorting to insults and name calling?

I guess you have done your job now.

Your opinion is one of an unknowing jerk that tends to believe that he is the answer to everyone's problems when he is actually 90% of their problems.

To be clear, if I cared if what was spelled I'd do spell checks, but alas I respond and send without the fear that I'll get a failing grade in English Comp.

Spelling problems? n00bs = now there is one that must be spelled correctly. My dictionary doesn't indicate that it is even a word.

Get off of your self righetous soap box and go away.


Just curious, have you ever noticed the rather large percentage of posters who can not stand you or any of your takes on issues? Have you ever stopped to consider what the common denominator is to all these people? Like, maybe the person they are responding to? :hmmm:

Ugly Duck
04-26-2006, 06:26 PM
Donger is the expert on this, but from what I’ve seen it’s partially due to the added expense of get’n the product there, that’s why gas is less expensive closer to the gulf and more expensive as you move from thereWe have something else in the equation here on the San Francisco Bay. Chevron brews up their gasoline across the Bay in Richmond. The farther they truck it from the Bay, the less it costs. Seems that prices are also influenced by the cost of living index for each community around the Bay.

penchief
04-26-2006, 06:31 PM
I know, Jim. And I’m sure that UD, whether he actually believes what he posts or not, is post’n this mainly to poke fun at others.
But if you wanna be honest ‘bout it, I see the gubment as bigger “gougers” than any of the oil companies here. We could have gas back under $2/gal. tomorrow if the state and federal gubments cut the taxes they impose on it.

Some people think that these huge corporations which make money off the backs of the environment, the worker, and the consumer shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

Let em' move their offices off shore so they don't have to pay business taxes to the country that gives them the freedom to pursue unlimited wealth (and in many cases, their native land). Let them sell American jobs to the lowest bidder. Let em' rape and pillage the environment (OUR NATURAL HABITAT) for maximum profit. Let them do whatever is necessary because profit is God and profit is freedom. They feed us candy and we give them our souls.

For the umpteenth time........Trickle Down is a big gigantic scam.

patteeu
04-26-2006, 07:24 PM
Some people think that these huge corporations which make money off the backs of the environment, the worker, and the consumer shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

patteeu is one of those people

Let em' move their offices off shore so they don't have to pay business taxes to the country that gives them the freedom to pursue unlimited wealth (and in many cases, their native land). Let them sell American jobs to the lowest bidder. Let em' rape and pillage the environment (OUR NATURAL HABITAT) for maximum profit. Let them do whatever is necessary because profit is God and profit is freedom. They feed us candy and we give them our souls.

For the umpteenth time........Trickle Down is a big gigantic scam.

I bet Native Americans talked like this in their teepees and wigwams as the white man was taming this country. But still, societal evolution worked against them.

We should be making the US a tax haven for business so more of them will want to move their headquarters here rather than the domestic ones wanting to move their headquarters offshore.

Very little raping and pillaging of the environment is going on. What is going on is by the occasional renegade business not a standard practice. We have some of the cleanest air in the industrial world and cleaner air than we had when you were born.

Logical
04-26-2006, 08:07 PM
...
Very little raping and pillaging of the environment is going on. What is going on is by the occasional renegade business not a standard practice. We have some of the cleanest air in the industrial world and cleaner air than we had when you were born.I don't know where you live but clearly it is not in a major city.

banyon
04-26-2006, 08:26 PM
patteeu is one of those people



I bet Native Americans talked like this in their teepees and wigwams as the white man was taming this country. But still, societal evolution worked against them.

Most of them didn't have time for leisurely political discussions while they were being slaughtered or driven from their land.

We should be making the US a tax haven for business so more of them will want to move their headquarters here rather than the domestic ones wanting to move their headquarters offshore.

or rather than continually capitulate to industry until our tax coffers are completely dry, we might just prohibit the offshore practice.

Very little raping and pillaging of the environment is going on. What is going on is by the occasional renegade business not a standard practice. We have some of the cleanest air in the industrial world and cleaner air than we had when you were born.

To quote my good friend Chiefs Express: "That's only your opinion." :p

Seriously, the "renegade" businesses have been monitored at almost 1/2 the level they have been under previous administrations. EPA staffs/attorneys have had their budgets severely slashed.

WE only have the "cleanest" air if the only pollutant you are measuring for is particulate matter (i.e., powdered and stomped into dust in the air horses***.) I'll argue with people who try to say that Bush is the "worst" president ever. But "worst environmental president" ever? No contest.

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 09:29 PM
Just curious, have you ever noticed the rather large percentage of posters who can not stand you or any of your takes on issues? Have you ever stopped to consider what the common denominator is to all these people? Like, maybe the person they are responding to? :hmmm:

I have been commissioned by one of the pharmacutical companies to keep people's blood pressure high. The bonuses from the prescriptions that are sold to members of Chiefs Planet are phenominal.

banyon
04-26-2006, 09:40 PM
I have been commissioned by one of the pharmacutical companies to keep people's blood pressure high. The bonuses from the prescriptions that are sold to members of Chiefs Planet are phenominal.

I would have believed it if you had said you were comissioned by someone to waste as much bandwidth as possible.

Hydrae
04-26-2006, 09:59 PM
We should be making the US a tax haven for business so more of them will want to move their headquarters here rather than the domestic ones wanting to move their headquarters offshore.


Fair tax! :D

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 10:06 PM
I would have believed it if you had said you were comissioned by someone to waste as much bandwidth as possible.

Your stupid rating for this one is 10/10

banyon
04-26-2006, 10:22 PM
Your stupid rating for this one is 10/10

Can't you at least come up with your own jokes? :rolleyes:

(nevermind, I know the answer to that :shake: )

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 10:23 PM
Can't you at least come up with your own jokes? :rolleyes:

(nevermind, I know the answer to that )

You are my own joke.

banyon
04-26-2006, 10:26 PM
You are my own joke.

you should really take a little more time between posts.

Rub the sticks in your head together and see if you can generate a little bigger spark with more time.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-26-2006, 10:28 PM
I don't know where you live but clearly it is not in a major city.

Patteeu also claims that having major US energy corporations set our energy policy wasn't a conflict of interest. He is completely out of touch with reality. If our air standards are so shitty, then why did we feel Kyoto was such a personal affront to us??

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 10:35 PM
you should really take a little more time between posts.

Rub the sticks in your head together and see if you can generate a little bigger spark with more time.

Ooooooo, you are so witty.

You are beginning to fall way below the level most people here have me listed under. My plan is coming together.

banyon
04-26-2006, 10:39 PM
Ooooooo, you are so witty.

You are beginning to fall way below the level most people here have me listed under. My plan is coming together.

Actually I've gotten more pos rep from my iggy thread than any other I've ever posted . They just keep rolling in.

You and Chiefs4me are the only neg reps I've gotten in my last 2000 posts.

*edit* I forgot about 1 disagreement with Taco.

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 10:43 PM
Actually I've gotten more pos rep from my iggy thread than any other I've ever posted . They just keep rolling in.

You and Chiefs4me are the only neg reps I've gotten in my last 2000 posts.

*edit* I forgot about 1 disagreement with Taco.

And all from about 3 people. I'm impressed.

What good happens in your life when you get postive reps? You might not realize it but the don't have any impact on your paycheck or your annual reviews with your job. In the same light your neg rep war with Vlad have the exact same effect on my life...nothing....nada....zero.

Oh, BTW, your opinion of me has exactly the same effect....nothing....nada....zero.

Play your game, insult, harrass and make a fool out of your self. My reputation on this board is what I made it, you are quickly letting every one know that you are more petty than they once thought.

banyon
04-26-2006, 10:47 PM
And all from about 3 people. I'm impressed.

What good happens in your life when you get postive reps? You might not realize it but the don't have any impact on your paycheck or your annual reviews with your job. In the same light your neg rep war with Vlad have the exact same effect on my life...nothing....nada....zero.

Oh, BTW, your opinion of me has exactly the same effect....nothing....nada....zero.

Play your game, insult, harrass and make a fool out of your self. My reputation on this board is what I made it, you are quickly letting every one know that you are more petty than they once thought.

I don't think you ever answered my or go bo's earlier question.

If you don't care about rep, why did you disable it?

Chiefs Express
04-26-2006, 10:50 PM
I don't think you ever answered my or go bo's earlier question.

If you don't care about rep, why did you disable it?

To show you that I don't care about it. If you need it turned on just send me a check for $1000.00 and I'll turn it on and leave it on. Easy huh?

banyon
04-26-2006, 10:55 PM
Play your game, insult, harrass and make a fool out of your self. My reputation on this board is what I made it, you are quickly letting every one know that you are more petty than they once thought.

BTW. I try to treat everyone on this board as fairly and proportionately as they merit.

I even tried treating you that way originally until you refused such treatment.


I read everything from The National Review and Foreign Affairs to Mother Jones and Dissent, there are good and bad sources on both sides. So where's the link?


You will have to be more specific than that, I've slept a few times since the discussion was going on.

If you haven't figured out by now, there is no seriousness from me in the political forum. I attempt to turn the argument to get the focus away from politics whenever possible.

The DC forum is a place people go to damn the President, and in my eyes, defame the U.S. That is just something that doesn't wash with me.

banyon
04-26-2006, 10:55 PM
To show you that I don't care about it. If you need it turned on just send me a check for $1000.00 and I'll turn it on and leave it on. Easy huh?

Answer the question moron: WHY DID YOU TURN IT OFF?

go bowe
04-26-2006, 11:58 PM
...Play your game, insult, harrass and make a fool out of your self. My reputation on this board is what I made it, you are quickly letting every one know that you are more petty than they once thought.now there's something i can agree with...

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

patteeu
04-27-2006, 05:50 AM
I don't know where you live but clearly it is not in a major city.

Why, what's going on in the major cities?

patteeu
04-27-2006, 05:58 AM
Most of them didn't have time for leisurely political discussions while they were being slaughtered or driven from their land.

Perhaps not, but they tried to cling to a way of life that couldn't compete in the modern world, just like penchief wants to do.

or rather than continually capitulate to industry until our tax coffers are completely dry, we might just prohibit the offshore practice.

We shouldn't be relying on business taxes to fill our tax coffers. That was my point. In the end, the American people need to support their own government financially anyway so they might as well be taxed directly.

Trying to prohibit businesses from relocating offshore will work as long as the US market drives the world economy. But as our market is eclipsed by the other 5.75 billion people in the world, we can't continue to rely on using our domestic market to force businesses to do things our way. We need to make businesses want to locate here because it is the best place for them to be as they service the global market. That's the best long term strategy for US economic success.

Radar Chief
04-27-2006, 06:45 AM
Actually I've gotten more pos rep from my iggy thread than any other I've ever posted . They just keep rolling in.

Well here’s a little more. Even if we disagree on subjects, I still appreciate your input here.

Radar Chief
04-27-2006, 07:02 AM
Perhaps not, but they tried to cling to a way of life that couldn't compete in the modern world, just like penchief wants to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes

Not exactly, but it doesn’t surprise me you haven’t heard of the Civilized Tribes, not many have.
The Cherokee, originally from the Alabama area, were one of Five Civilized Tribes that had their own written languages. They lived in permanent houses set up in towns and even published their own newspapers. Some even owned plantations and slaves.
They tried to assimilate to the European culture but you blue eyed devils ;) wouldn’t have any of it and marched them on the “Trail of Tears” to the “Indian Nations” or Oklahoma.

That and the Massacre at Wounded Knee are probably two of the saddest moments in American History.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

Radar Chief
04-27-2006, 07:07 AM
Some people think that these huge corporations which make money off the backs of the environment, the worker, and the consumer shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

Let em' move their offices off shore so they don't have to pay business taxes to the country that gives them the freedom to pursue unlimited wealth (and in many cases, their native land). Let them sell American jobs to the lowest bidder. Let em' rape and pillage the environment (OUR NATURAL HABITAT) for maximum profit. Let them do whatever is necessary because profit is God and profit is freedom. They feed us candy and we give them our souls.

For the umpteenth time........Trickle Down is a big gigantic scam.

I have absolutely no freak'n idea what in the world this has to do with anything I posted. :spock: :shrug:

But you’re on a roll so, DAMN THE MAN! :cuss:

jspchief
04-27-2006, 08:11 AM
Sorry to interrupt the bitch fight, but I have a question pertaining to the original thread topic...

Has anyone noticed a drop in prices since Bush took this action? I realize that the literal effect probably hasn't hit the refineries yet, but since so much of gas pricing is speculative, I don't see why this wouldn't start showing up. Of course, it's funny how speculators always drive the prices up, but rarely run them down at the same rate. Wonder why that would be...

mlyonsd
04-27-2006, 08:20 AM
Sorry to interrupt the bitch fight, but I have a question pertaining to the original thread topic...

Has anyone noticed a drop in prices since Bush took this action? I realize that the literal effect probably hasn't hit the refineries yet, but since so much of gas pricing is speculative, I don't see why this wouldn't start showing up. Of course, it's funny how speculators always drive the prices up, but rarely run them down at the same rate. Wonder why that would be...

Gas is down .05 here this morning from it's high of $2.79 a week or so ago.

Big whoop.

patteeu
04-27-2006, 10:02 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes

Not exactly, but it doesn’t surprise me you haven’t heard of the Civilized Tribes

I stand corrected on the portion of Native Americans who tried to adapt to the new reality but were done in by whatever forces (racism, xenophobia, greed, etc.) led to situations like the trail of tears. Thanks for the link, interesting. :thumb:

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 09:51 AM
Hey.... the neocons will pay each of us $100 if we let them drill in our national parks! One hunerd smackers each! That oughta raise their approval ratings, eh? Heck, it won't cost nothin.... they'll just tack it on the national debt:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Wednesday, on the other side of the aisle, Democrats called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats want to roll back billions in tax breaks for oil companies.

On Thursday, she reiterated her party's interest in forcing oil companies to ease the burden of high gas prices.

"The oil companies are making record profits; they're getting billions of dollars of subsidies and royalty holidays from the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration," she said.

"What do the Republicans suggest? Let's do away with the environmental rules, let's drill in the ANWR."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html

patteeu
04-28-2006, 10:02 AM
Hey.... the neocons will pay each of us $100 if we let them drill in our national parks! One hunerd smackers each! That oughta raise their approval ratings, eh? Heck, it won't cost nothin.... they'll just tack it on the national debt:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Wednesday, on the other side of the aisle, Democrats called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats want to roll back billions in tax breaks for oil companies.

On Thursday, she reiterated her party's interest in forcing oil companies to ease the burden of high gas prices.

"The oil companies are making record profits; they're getting billions of dollars of subsidies and royalty holidays from the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration," she said.

"What do the Republicans suggest? Let's do away with the environmental rules, let's drill in the ANWR."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html

I'm not a fan of the $100 check gimmick, but what did the federal government do to encourage domestic oil development during the Clinton administration? The answer is that they bribed the oil companies with subsidies for drilling on federally controlled territory. Bush is just talking about giving them permission to drill on federal lands but at least he's not talking about helping them with their expenses. Which do you prefer, Mr. Deficit Hawk/Duck?

mlyonsd
04-28-2006, 10:03 AM
Hey.... the neocons will pay each of us $100 if we let them drill in our national parks! One hunerd smackers each! That oughta raise their approval ratings, eh? Heck, it won't cost nothin.... they'll just tack it on the national debt:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Wednesday, on the other side of the aisle, Democrats called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats want to roll back billions in tax breaks for oil companies.

On Thursday, she reiterated her party's interest in forcing oil companies to ease the burden of high gas prices.

"The oil companies are making record profits; they're getting billions of dollars of subsidies and royalty holidays from the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration," she said.

"What do the Republicans suggest? Let's do away with the environmental rules, let's drill in the ANWR."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html

I fail to see why a Democrat from California has a say in what the state of Alaska wants to do with it's own natural resources.

banyon
04-28-2006, 10:23 AM
I fail to see why a Democrat from California has a say in what the state of Alaska wants to do with it's own natural resources.

Maybe because the land doesn't belong to Alaska? :shrug:

Radar Chief
04-28-2006, 10:30 AM
Hey.... the neocons will pay each of us $100 if we let them drill in our national parks! One hunerd smackers each! That oughta raise their approval ratings, eh? Heck, it won't cost nothin.... they'll just tack it on the national debt:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote soon.

However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Wednesday, on the other side of the aisle, Democrats called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats want to roll back billions in tax breaks for oil companies.

On Thursday, she reiterated her party's interest in forcing oil companies to ease the burden of high gas prices.

"The oil companies are making record profits; they're getting billions of dollars of subsidies and royalty holidays from the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration," she said.

"What do the Republicans suggest? Let's do away with the environmental rules, let's drill in the ANWR."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html

Odd they didn’t just come out and say, “Pelosi wants to raise the price of gas even more.” Wonder why they didn’t? :hmmm:

mlyonsd
04-28-2006, 10:32 AM
Maybe because the land doesn't belong to Alaska? :shrug:

Exactly.

Which is why the state should file an eminient domain suit against the Federal government. Now that is irony.

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 11:11 AM
Odd they didn’t just come out and say, “Pelosi wants to raise the price of gas even more.” Wonder why they didn’t? :hmmm:Uhhh.... cuz she wants to roll back tax breaks for the oil companies instead?

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 11:13 AM
I fail to see why a Democrat from California has a say in what the state of Alaska wants to do with it's own natural resources.Hey... I used to live in Mendenhall and also in Homer. Fantastic place, Alaska!

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/naturewatch/images/photos/sitephotos/mendenhall/glacier_mgvc.GIF

Radar Chief
04-28-2006, 12:08 PM
Uhhh.... cuz she wants to roll back tax breaks for the oil companies instead?

Right, she wants to increase their taxes. Call it anything you want, rollback, reinstituting, or just plain raise’n taxes, it’s still the same. She’s preposing increasing the operating costs for oil companies and you know as well as I do that they’ll just pass the added expense on to the consumer.
She’s give’n them a excuse to raise prices at the pump as a knee jerk (vote pandering ? :hmmm: ) response.

mlyonsd
04-28-2006, 12:31 PM
Hey... I used to live in Mendenhall and also in Homer. Fantastic place, Alaska!

Lucky SOB.

banyon
04-28-2006, 02:19 PM
Right, she wants to increase their taxes. Call it anything you want, rollback, reinstituting, or just plain raise’n taxes, it’s still the same. She’s preposing increasing the operating costs for oil companies and you know as well as I do that they’ll just pass the added expense on to the consumer.
She’s give’n them a excuse to raise prices at the pump as a knee jerk (vote pandering ? :hmmm: ) response.

They are getting increased subsidy amounts under VP Cheney's "Energy Plan" that was approved by Repubs in Congress in 03 (IIRC).

I know, Reducing/removing those and making them compete on a level playing field goes against everything Republicans stand for. :)

banyon
04-28-2006, 02:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_wT0qW15Cc&search=daily%20show%20oil

Is this the best a Wall Street economist can do?

patteeu
04-28-2006, 03:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_wT0qW15Cc&search=daily%20show%20oil

Is this the best a Wall Street economist can do?

Actually, she's a journalist who works for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

But I don't know what was so bad about her performance. She explained that oil/gasoline prices are being driven by a combination of demand pressures on a semi-fixed supply and market interference on the part of the the regulators in Congress. She also tried to explain that Big Oil is seeing increases in profits because they aren't simply a middle man between the Saudi Oil Sheiks and the consumer, but instead are actually producers who profit as a result of the market's upward pressure on crude oil prices in addition to profits they make on refined products, but JS wasn't listening.

banyon
04-28-2006, 06:06 PM
Actually, she's a journalist who works for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

But I don't know what was so bad about her performance. She explained that oil/gasoline prices are being driven by a combination of demand pressures on a semi-fixed supply and market interference on the part of the the regulators in Congress. She also tried to explain that Big Oil is seeing increases in profits because they aren't simply a middle man between the Saudi Oil Sheiks and the consumer, but instead are actually producers who profit as a result of the market's upward pressure on crude oil prices in addition to profits they make on refined products, but JS wasn't listening.

Her explanation of why profits are up and oil companies have not had higher costs to diminish those profits was pretty lame, which is Why JS had to ask her twice.

The real answer is that oil companies have subtly adopted this "cost-plus" accounting methodology that has been such a great success with our contracts in Iraq. Therefore, the higher their costs, ther higher their profits (and our costs). It's what happens in a non-competetive market.

patteeu
04-28-2006, 06:48 PM
Her explanation of why profits are up and oil companies have not had higher costs to diminish those profits was pretty lame, which is Why JS had to ask her twice.

The real answer is that oil companies have subtly adopted this "cost-plus" accounting methodology that has been such a great success with our contracts in Iraq. Therefore, the higher their costs, ther higher their profits (and our costs). It's what happens in a non-competetive market.

Do you have any statistics on the amount of profit the oil company's see from each gallon of gas from say 2003 versus today (minus the market cost of crude)?*

The guest's explanation differed from yours although I'll agree that she wasn't crystal clear. What she indicated was that company's like Exxon extract a great deal of oil from the ground and therefore they share in the profits when the price of crude oil is bid up by either increased demand or speculation. They aren't just a middle man, they are a producer. There is competition in the gasoline market, but there is even more competition in the crude oil markets where a lot of this profit is being made. I'm not saying there is none of what you describe going on, but I'd be a little surprised if that's where the majority of the increased profits are coming from.


-----------------
* Don't take this as a challenge, I'm just curious if you've seen anything like this or if you know where I could find it.

Ugly Duck
04-28-2006, 08:43 PM
Lucky SOB.Here's my old hangout - the Salty Dawg Saloon. Don't look like much, but they do spread sawdust on the floor in case you puke:

http://www.wildnatureimages.com/images%202/050827-025..jpg

The really cool thing about Homer is the halibut - they're BIG!! Big & lazy - they won't take a live anchovy cuz they think they'll have to chase it. You have to kill the bait first:

http://halibutcharters.com/derbyfish.jpg

banyon
04-28-2006, 09:23 PM
Still looking for recent profits, patteeu.

but along the way I found this interesting chartfrom the Houston Chronicle:

http://images.chron.com/content/news/photos/05/04/20/bz-oiljob.jpg

This is also undoubtedly a component of the profits as well.