JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Correlation does NOT equal causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 Chom there can be a bunch of reasons, and yes reasons you will not agree with. The first is the refineries have been able to get their production line with the new regulations, which was a huge issue in the beginnig of the year. The second is more places have reopened since the Katrina last year, remember we lost a ton of places in the area that very important for our gas.The Mideast crisis has simmered down some, and Iraq is taking control more every day. The price of crude is dropping in the world which the oil companies have no ability to change due to OPEC. Last but not least, look at the calendar is the end of the Summer, we did not see the drop last year due to Katrina, so this is normal. I know everyone is saying "there are a bunch of reasons", but can someone show me quantifably as to why the prices dropped? I took what Iheart said last time when he stated the future prices set the market, because the future prices were sky high, along with the oil prices. Well, the future price has not dropped a whole hell of a lot, and gas has, so why is that? if the futures was the reason for the high prices, why are they still up and the price drops. I think believing the price is arbitrarily set by basic supply and demand economics is akin to just trusting the oil companies. I do not believe in supply and demand of a necessity to live, it is an entirely new playing field in terms of macro-economics. As for me, I am not that trust worthy of either big business or our government now. Remember when the prices fell in 2000 to about $1.00/gallon, and the right was saying it was Clinton? Well could the same be said now? Does the government hold much more power in controlling the price of oil then we are led to believe because of hedgemony? All valid questions, and I do not know the answers. That is why I put my thoughts out there, and it will be a great thread to revisit in a few months to see where everything is. Maybe I am right, but if it pans out as I speculated, then maybe there is something to collusion and the government turning a blind eye while its citizens were porked after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I read somewhere last week that the Justice Department was launching a probe into possible price fixing by British Petroleum (BP). This may have something to do with it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 Corelation does NOT equal causation. Not necessarily, but if the supposition was correct, that the price is set by the futures market, and the futures market has not decreased a whole heck of a lot, then I would think it was a faulty supposition to begin with. Wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Corelation does NOT equal causation. Let me ask you this: If you were a big oil company, would you rather have Ted Stevens and George W. Bush in charge of the Senate hearings/economy or Carl Levin and Mark Warner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 The same reason that drove gas prices up...we have no idea.It's all speculation and all we can do is bend over and take it. The oil companies are moving on to shafting us over heating oil and propane prices. It seems it's that time of year... i endorse these statments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher44 Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Oil is going down but beer prices are going up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Let me ask you this: If you were a big oil company, would you rather have Ted Stevens and George W. Bush in charge of the Senate hearings/economy or Carl Levin and Mark Warner? I would rather have someone in charge that interferes little in my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 I would rather have someone in charge that interferes little in my business. We are not really talking about "leaving business alone" now are we? When you have the industry leaders deciding government policy on the industry, that is a bit more then "leaving them alone". That is fascism in a nutshell, is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I would rather have someone in charge that interferes little in my business. Ted Stevens and GWB have done more than "interfere little." They have literally shielded big oil from serious investigations and inquiries. If you were unbiased you would see that you have unwittingly conceeded two points on this issue thus far: There is a correlation that illustrates chom's point and the political motive which I just illustrated (of course I could go into more detail and add backround or even video but I think we all saw the energy hearings where Ted Stevens layed his job on the line to protect his owners in big oil). Thus, we have the foundation of a legitimate case to be made against the big oil monopoly and their allies who dominate our Government right now. ...and we have not even touched on the record profits yet in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I think believing the price is arbitrarily set by basic supply and demand economics is akin to just trusting the oil companies. I do not believe in supply and demand of a necessity to live, it is an entirely new playing field in terms of macro-economics. As for me, I am not that trust worthy of either big business or our government now. Remember when the prices fell in 2000 to about $1.00/gallon, and the right was saying it was Clinton? Well could the same be said now? Does the government hold much more power in controlling the price of oil then we are led to believe because of hedgemony? Honestly, a properly functioning free market is the opposite of arbitrary. Markets included aggregate demand from millions and millions of consumers and the aggregate supply of thousands of suppliers. "Arbitrary" implies one entity is making big decisions, when in reality it is the millions and millions of little decisions (whether I drive to the grocery store) that form the prices we pay at the pump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Ted Stevens and GWB have done more than "interfere little." They have literally shielded big oil from serious investigations and inquiries. If you were unbiased you would see that you have unwittingly conceeded two points on this issue thus far: There is a correlation that illustrates chom's point and the political motive which I just illustrated (of course I could go into more detail and add backround or even video but I think we all saw the energy hearings where Ted Stevens layed his job on the line to protect his owners in big oil). Thus, we have the foundation of a legitimate case to be made against the big oil monopoly and their allies who dominate our Government right now. ...and we have not even touched on the record profits yet in this thread. there were no record profits last quarter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 there were no record profits last quarter... That depends on how you look at it. http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/27/news/companies/exxon/ July 27 2006: 4:27 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Profits at Exxon Mobil surged 36 percent to a near record $10.4 billion in the second quarter as surging oil prices helped the world's largest publicly traded company soundly beat Wall Street forecasts. Highest second quarter profits ever eclipsed only by Exxon's fourth quarter profits from 2005. So yeah, they had record profits for the second quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 We are not really talking about "leaving business alone" now are we? When you have the industry leaders deciding government policy on the industry, that is a bit more then "leaving them alone". That is fascism in a nutshell, is it not? Fascism originates in the government. It isn't the occupying of government by businesses, but businesses being coopted by the government. The origin of the word "fascism" is the Italian words "fasces," which is a bundle of reeds. The Italian government under Mussolini used this ancient symbol to mark products of businesses that met its "standards." The people were encouraged only to buy products carrying this seal. Businesses were forced to conform to the "standards" because of the economic incentives. So Mussolini was able to more or less expropriate the entire private sector without having to actually socialize them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 Honestly, a properly functioning free market is the opposite of arbitrary. Markets included aggregate demand from millions and millions of consumers and the aggregate supply of thousands of suppliers. "Arbitrary" implies one entity is making big decisions, when in reality it is the millions and millions of little decisions (whether I drive to the grocery store) that form the prices we pay at the pump. I disagree hence my initial prediction. I believe the oil price IS set by big oil through collusion. I also disagree that the millions of little actions drive the price up and down. Oil is not a typical macro commodity, as in it is a necessity. People can not live without oil, so it is not supply/demand driven like other markets. People usually use food as analogous to oil, but it is a failed analogy. If there was only one kind of food, and the one kind of food was only available through one of five or so companies, then it would work. I personally think collusion is at play here, because of everything that has gone on in the past few years. There were initial investigations which were both stalled, then became a farce. The Oil CEOs testified before congress, yet they were not under oath, something they refused to do. Why is that? Why would they refuse to testify under oath unless they were hiding something? I am looking at this through all the data I have been given, and everything in my eyes points to collusion. It only makes sense, and it is pretty blatant to be honest with you. The big lie, I remember reading that somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Ted Stevens and GWB have done more than "interfere little." They have literally shielded big oil from serious investigations and inquiries. There have been investigations before, they have found nothing. If you were unbiased you would see that you have unwittingly conceeded two points on this issue thus far: There is a correlation that illustrates chom's point and the political motive which I just illustrated (of course I could go into more detail and add backround or even video but I think we all saw the energy hearings where Ted Stevens layed his job on the line to protect his owners in big oil). Thus, we have the foundation of a legitimate case to be made against the big oil monopoly and their allies who dominate our Government right now. I'll admit I'm biased, but so is everyone. My biases lie with the free market that I've studied my entire adult life. There is ZERO evidence of price fixing by oil companies. Markets determine prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 Fascism originates in the government. It isn't the occupying of government by businesses, but businesses being coopted by the government. The way I always looked at fascism was as the opposite of communism, not in the Mussolini's Italian form. I always equated fascism as business running government, where communism was government running business. In the lowest common denominator, that is what you have right? They are two diametrically opposed ideologies of how to run a government, communism and fascism, when it comes to the economic aspects. I always looked at the melding of business with government (ie the energy task force meetings) as an example of modern day fascism. The only way it could be more fascist would be if the government leaders were the business leaders of the states, as in the Italian or Mussolini form. It doesn;t mean that is the ONLY form of it though, and I do believe when you have industry leaders deciding what government policy shall be in the industry, it is a form of fascism. i think a very strong argument can be made for that being the case. The origin of the word "fascism" is the Italian words "fasces," which is a bundle of reeds. The Italian government under Mussolini used this ancient symbol to mark products of businesses that met its "standards." The people were encouraged only to buy products carrying this seal. Businesses were forced to conform to the "standards" because of the economic incentives. So Mussolini was able to more or less expropriate the entire private sector without having to actually socialize them. I agree with everything you stated here, and I understand we are not the Italian model of fascism by any stretch. I just think we are a different forms of fascism. Some like to call it creeping fascism, but I think it is more along the lines of fascism "lite" or Fascism 2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I disagree hence my initial prediction. I believe the oil price IS set by big oil through collusion. I also disagree that the millions of little actions drive the price up and down. Oil is not a typical macro commodity, as in it is a necessity. People can not live without oil, so it is not supply/demand driven like other markets. I will amicably accept your disagreement. But, know this: the free market has successfully supplied our needs for oil, food, clothing, etc. for generations and generations. Why the mistrust now? People usually use food as analygous to oil, but it is a failed analogy. If there was only one kind of food, and the one kind of food was only available through one of five or so companies, then iti would work. I personally think collusion is at play here, because of everything that has gone on in the past few years. There were initial investegations which were both stalled, then became a farce. The Oil CEOs testified before congress, yet they were not under oath, something they refused to do. Why is that? Why would they refuse to testify under oath unless they were hiding something? I am looking at this through all the data I have been given, and everything in my eyes points to collusion. It only makes sense, and it is pretty blatent to be honest with you. The big lie, I remember reading that somewhere "The big lie?" Where are you getting that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 I will amicably accept your disagreement. But, know this: the free market has successfully supplied our needs for oil, food, clothing, etc. for generations and generations. Why the mistrust now? The mistrust comes from a government complacent with allowing business to do anything they want. While I do abhore regulations, I also recognize in a true capitalist system, there needs to be some recourse for the consumer, otherwise corruption will rule and I do believe this is the case. As for why right now, the price of gas increasing over 100%, which coincided with the record breaking profits by big oil quarter after quarter leads me to be skeptical. IF there is a very small playing field, and conglomerates are allowed to operate at their own valition, collusion is an inevidibility. It is the government's role to insure collusion does not happen, and they are not doing that right now. It was why I originally posted the question in the thread, and why I made my predictions of what the gas prices will do in the near future. If I am right, then the prices should follow what I predicted, if I am wrong, I don't think they will, and this may be a "re-adjustment" phase. Either way, i think this thread should be brought back up in November to see who was right and who was wrong "The big lie?" Where are you getting that? It's an old reference to Mein Kampf. Some equate it to Goebbles, but it was Hitler who first wrote of it. All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 Chom, I think you've convinced yourself of the collusion charge with little evidence. Yes, the price has gone up alot (I don't like paying forty dollars a pop either). Yes, the oil companies have made lots o' profit (a function of price). But, there simply isn't collusion. Even companies and governments that collude can't get away from the market. OPEC's influence has been decreasing for decades with the emergance of Canada, Russia and Nigeria as major oil producers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 The "free market" does not work in the Oil industry. There are not enough players on the supply side for the market to operate freely, and the refinery and delivery systems are not free to market forces. It's a very complicated economic model, and I am sure that SOME economic forces are in play on it, but not the pure supply and demand principles of Adam Smith. Maybe back when there were 15 major oil companies, but not when there are only 5. I do not subscribe to the Chomerics "political ploy" theory, and I do not subscribe to the John Locke "its a free market driven by supply and demand" theory. I subscribe to this theory: The oil companies are gouging us because they can. Pure and simple. They do not need to actively collude. There are so few of them, and the disincentives to actually competing on price are so high, that all they have to do is act in their own rational self interest and keep prices high, and they all make out like bandits. There is no incentive to do otherwise, and there is no alternate available to us under this market structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I subscribe to this theory: The oil companies are gouging us because they can. Pure and simple. They do not need to actively collude. There are so few of them, and the disincentives to actually competing on price are so high, that all they have to do is act in their own rational self interest and keep prices high, and they all make out like bandits. There is no incentive to do otherwise, and there is no alternate available to us under this market structure. summery: Bush and the boys are :hump: us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 5, 2006 Author Share Posted September 5, 2006 Chom, I think you've convinced yourself of the collusion charge with little evidence. Yes, the price has gone up alot (I don't like paying forty dollars a pop either). Yes, the oil companies have made lots o' profit (a function of price). But, there simply isn't collusion. Even companies and governments that collude can't get away from the market. OPEC's influence has been decreasing for decades with the emergance of Canada, Russia and Nigeria as major oil producers. Maybe so, I do think there is little evidence right now, I will admit, but I also think the incentive to collude is so great, it would inevitably happen. i do agree with what Predicto stated as well, you don't need to have a meeting in which the big players all get together and say "this will be the price, don't deviate", because exactly as he stated, it does not run on typical supply/demand economics. All the oil companies would have to do is hold themselves back from making the price lower, heck all of their production is used anyways. It is not as if they can create a surplus of oil, and drive the price down, the demand is that great. Now, even using his model, it would be in the oil companies best interest to drive the price down, thus giving the incumbents more power. Everyone knows who big oil donates to, and a Republican government means hundreds of billions of dollars for these companies. It is incentive enough to keep the price down to help republicans keep power. Hell, the $50billion dollar tax break alone is incentive to drive the price down. When the government is in the back pockets of big oil, outrageous profits will happen, as we are witnessing right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I subscribe to this theory: The oil companies are gouging us because they can. Pure and simple. They do not need to actively collude. There are so few of them, and the disincentives to actually competing on price are so high, that all they have to do is act in their own rational self interest and keep prices high, and they all make out like bandits. There is no incentive to do otherwise, and there is no alternate available to us under this market structure. Well, I don't believe in price gouging either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 No checks and balances = abuse of power No transparency = no accountability No investigations = unethical conduct it is inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.