PDA

View Full Version : Is It Time To Nationalize The Oil Industry?



chefmike
01-21-2006, 12:51 AM
Is It Time To Nationalize The Oil Industry?
by Raymond J. Learsy

An interesting article in www.huffingtonpost.com

Raymond J. Learsy is the author of "Over A Barrel:Breaking The Middle East Oil Cartel"
He made his life in the commodities industry, beginning in 1959
his bio available at the above link

Is It Time to Nationalize the Oil Industry!?

Vice President Cheney said yesterday a spike in world oil prices is entirely possible as the West deals with Iran's nuclear ambitions. After Cheney's comments the price of oil climbed to over $67/bbl in an inexorable march to new highs.

There is something terribly wrong here. The rise in oil prices poses an enormous burden on our economy and perpetuates vast transfers of wealth to nations who wish us ill.

And yet, in the oilpatch there is muted satisfaction that oil prices are ever ratcheting higher and earnings reports ever stronger. And the oilpatch has friends. VP Cheney's political base is Wyoming and President Bush's Texas: two States that have enjoyed an abundance of riches since the onset of the war on terror. With each threat, with each geopolitical event that heightens fears of oil dislocation the oilpatch grows wealthier. And as Texas and Wyoming et al prosper those living in the Midwest or Northeast and west have trouble paying their heating bills.

Back in 1962 John F. Kennedy, issued a statement on the then steel crisis, and I quote "Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest in this serious hour in our Nation's History, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives…." The Steel industry backed down.

The oil industry will respond that it is the market that sets the price. As I have set forth in my blog "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Gas Pump," January 15, 2006, that is a highly questionable contention. Yet the influence of the oil industry and their hires on "K" Street is so strong one despairs that the oil industry's interests and the nation's interests as currently constituted can ever be fully aligned to constructively respond to today's exigencies.

It should be known that nationalization is not unique to the American experience. During WW1 the nation's railroads were nationalized and administered by the US Railroad Administration. After 9/11 the private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.

Though most of us do not welcome more Government involvement in our daily lives other than on important issues of national security, as we were reminded only yesterday (bin Laden's radio address), we are at war!

BlackAdder
01-21-2006, 01:12 AM
I think its high time we stop paying money to the very terrorists nations we are trying to combat.....almost all the terrorists on those planes were Saudi werent they?......

scorpion
01-21-2006, 01:28 AM
Bin ladin????He are wearing a shirt... why dont go and fuck his ass :P :P :P
Scorpion

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 01:30 AM
You dreamers. We can't even get the democrats to open up the ugliest beach in Alaska, to get our oil out, yet you want to nationalize the little bit we have in reserve. Actually, if we could extract all the reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and Anwar, we'd have enough for about 10 years of independence. Good luck in talking the dems into that.

chefmike
01-21-2006, 02:02 AM
his usual troll drivel

The editorial refers to nationalizing the US oil industry...US oil reserves were not the focus of the authors editorial. Go watch NASCAR...if we want your opinion, we'll ask rush, or oreilly what it is.

more on this subject from the authors blog...

This may be boring, but it is important. Gasoline prices are creeping up again responding in large measure to tenacious oil prices that are nearing three month highs touching almost $65 a barrel surpassed only in September/October by market conditions influenced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Over the past few years the price of crude oil has advanced almost lockstep with the price of natural gas, and the advance in natural gas prices has served as a persuasive explanation and rationale for the extraordinary escalation in crude prices and in turn gasoline and refined petroleum products.

But something strange has been happening. Over the last few weeks, with unseasonably warm weather, supply balances etc. the price of natural gas has plunged from a peak of $15.75 per 1,000 cubic feet on December 13, 2005 to a close of $8.79 on January 13, 2006 a drop of some 45%! On the same day oil closed at $63.92/bbl near its three month high. If the price of natural gas and crude oil have been so intrinsically tied together on the march to ever higher highs, why this sudden divergence in “market” pricing as natural gas prices erode? Could it be that one commodity is responding to market conditions and the other commodity is not? That the market price for crude oil is manipulated while that for natural gas is not? Inherently the market for natural gas is a geographically North American market (produced in, consumed in the U.S. and Canada, with some Caribbean and other offshore imports of Liquefied Natural Gas representing but a small portion of the total). Given the players in natural gas production and distribution, and after Enron, it does not lend itself to manipulation as the risk of anti-trust infringement and prosecution is too great.

Crude oil is another story. Much more than natural gas in North America, crude oil is a world commodity and produced in worldwide locations and priced on international exchanges on a minute by minute basis. Some 40% of the world’s oil trade is controlled by the OPEC cartel and their vested interest in keeping oil prices high is paramount. It was reported this week that OPEC’s revenues in 2005 were at record levels and were expected to reach $522 billions in 2006, a further increase of 10% according to the US Department of Energy. “It is just a phenomenal transfer of wealth from consuming to producing nations” said an analyst at Merrill Lynch.

The oilpatch, its supporters in and out of government and all those who benefit by high oil prices, be they oil companies, suppliers, financial institutions, “K” street lobbyists etc., will tell you that it is free market forces of supply and demand that determine oil prices. But is it so?

Consider that the minute by minute price of oil is set on the futures markets traded on exchanges in New York, London, Dubai, Singapore, etc and now increasingly through electronic trading. Trading is virtually unregulated and basically opaque – that is to say one doesn’t know who is buying or selling and trading can be done anonymously through straw men or accounts and therefore lends itself to manipulation (witness the allegations of trading malfeasance at Refco) by those who have the means and interest in pushing markets higher or lower.

The members of the OPEC cartel certainly have a keen interest in pushing markets higher and given the flood of billions being cashed in, have the means to do so.

A funny thing happened on December 12, 2004. Then after a slight and inappropriately timed fall back in oil prices OPEC’s President and Saudi Oil Minister predicted “Watch what happens tomorrow. I tell you prices will go up tomorrow”. And indeed, with some unusual gyrations the quoted price of oil did go up on December 13th.

Putting his highly visible public reputation so clearly on the line the only way al-Naimi could have been certain that the price of oil was going to up the next day was if either Saudi Arabia through its national oil company, Aramco, or OPEC or its it agents played and manipulated the oil futures markets on that day. And if indeed the oil futures markets was manipulated on that day it raises the very crucial question; when before and since have the oil futures trading markets been tampered with, how blatantly have the markets been distorted and how have these manipulations impacted the price of oil now and in the past.

Given the malign impact the price of oil and its strange distortions are having on our economy, on the massive transfer of wealth to the OPEC cartel nations and the oilpatch in general, it is urgent that the trading of oil on commodity exchanges be closely scrutinized and subject to immediate Congressional investigation and requisite action. The time to act is now!

Felicia Katt
01-21-2006, 04:45 AM
Chefmike, I have to say no. Rather than getting the Government into the oil business, we need to get the oil business out of the government. Letting oil company lobbyists set energy policy is too much like letting pedophiles run day care centers.

as far as the "ugliest beach in Alaska". go here (http://arctic.fws.gov/). or here (http://www.alaskavisionquest.com/wrangell_sea_kayaking.htm) or here (http://training.fws.gov/history/public%20lectures/waterman.html) and see for yourself the pristine wilderness in question.

FK

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 08:54 AM
I see you conveniently left out pictures of the totally ugly beaches where exploration would ACTUALLY take place. It's a totally featureless area, democrat.

BlackAdder
01-21-2006, 08:58 AM
Im all for opening up the oil reserves....The dependence on foreign oil must end!!! If we could cut out buying from OPEC for even a single year, they would CRAWL to us......You cant tell me we cant support our own oil consumption for a year.....

TrueBeauty TS
01-21-2006, 10:30 AM
Im all for opening up the oil reserves....The dependence on foreign oil must end!!! If we could cut out buying from OPEC for even a single year, they would CRAWL to us......You cant tell me we cant support our own oil consumption for a year.....


I agree that we should end our dependence on foreign oil but we, as a country, are not ready to do that and not serious about it. We still want to drive our gas guzzling SUV's because it's our God given right as Americans to drive a big ass car. Can you even imagine, that if everyone that drove an SUV drove a smaller car and got even 5 more miles to the gallon how much gas that would save??? I'm not trying to demonize all SUV drivers, I know some wonderful people that drive those, but you can see my point.

In fact, we should look farther than 10 years in the future and actually develope alternative forms of energy and fuel. (Since we are already giving oil companies subsidies for doing just this very thing. Because with a 600% profit margin, they just couldn't afford to do it themselves.) We should have done this the FIRST time we had an oil crisis back in the 1970's but we just don't learn. MAYBE when prices hit $4-$5.00 a gallon people might start to take it serious.

Unless we start to walk the walk, we shouldn't talk the talk.

JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel
01-21-2006, 12:17 PM
off topic Hybrid technology has gotten a huge boost

and quiet as kept BMW has been running Hydrogen engines in some of their vehicles for a year now..............successfully

if the U.S. really gave a fuck about this oil crisis they'd allow companies like BMW to bring in their hydrogen filling stations at least for their own customers and let them sell their hydrogen vehicles to the public........

chefmike
01-21-2006, 02:36 PM
FK, good point about the lobbyists. Especially after what cheney allowed them to our current energy policy. Reminds me of the old line about reagan's sec of interior, watt. "His idea of enjoying nature is a cookout in a stripmine."

Mugai_hentaisha
01-21-2006, 03:11 PM
I agree with FK

i also believe that our energy mess isn't something we can drill ourselves out of......hell with our present fossil fuel use...drilling the anwar(sp) is only gonna bail us out for what 10-20 years tops?? Might be enough time for Hummer to come up with a SUV that tops 16 MPG.

we are just gonna have to reduce our use and at the same time get to work on alternative fuel sources.

not a great answer but what else is there?


by the way there yourdaddyo I have never seen the area in question but i do know from experience that, some of the most featureless land you call ugly doesn't even come close to some of the oil well areas i worked on in WV when I was young and some of those places now are totally uninhabitable.

south ov da border
01-21-2006, 04:22 PM
chefmike, great job the TSA is doing ensuring that some of us miss out planes because we have a common name or a "terrorist's alias".

ok, now to the important stuff

America was based on faulty concepts to begin with, so it only gets worse after time. Remember, our government was supposed to be superior to most governments for the fact that we had a choice in what we want and our constitution gives us rights to choose.

SO why is it that we can't choose a good president who will do what's best for the people? Won't happen b/c too many people are involved in the procedure.A lot of us are poor. If you have a mortgage or student loans or credit cards, you're poor. We are all sold on having what we want, and not on the responsibility of what getting it actually means for the future. If I would have understood how easy it is to owe money I wouldn't have succumbed to the pressure of being the first one to go to college in my fam. Result, I owe 20 grand, got screwed out of a degree and it doen't matter that I can't get a good job to pay it back. It's Not about choice anymore.

Don't like the fact we go to war or that our jails are overcrowded? Get mad at the common person and not our government b/c without us playing right into those systems, we wouldn't feel so helpless. At the same time we wouldn't have what we do now.

Millitary sold a lot of people on bs. FUCKED a lotta people in vietnam. Sold people on the fact you could have a career in the millitary. Sent them to war to die. Kids dying virgins. JUST FUCKIN wrong. To ensure certain liberties, you have to give up certain things.

That's just how it goes.

when our president and co. deal with other countries and put money in their pockets, it's making life easier for all parties involved except who is being exploited, but it only lasts so long. It's like the House nigger field nigger concept. House sell field up the river to the white man because at least then house doen't have to deal with field anymore. White man comes In the end and takes house too. they were all fucked.

Gov is in control, but what can they control really? Money, sure b/c all that it really is happens to be an interest rate. We have been in debt as a nation since the inception basically, but have gotten over on screwing everyone out of what they have. It's all history and economics. As long as there's money to be made off something that revolves in everyday society, believe that the gov is getting the first bid on it.


rich stay rich by making sure the poor need them, and also by spending the least amount to make the most. that's how it is. Nationalizing oil won't change that fact. It'll just make a new monster...
Can't do much about it.

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 04:57 PM
We have 334 billion barrels of oil reserves in North America alone. That counts 110 years of shale oil alone, here in 3 Western States. chefmike, with his socialist ideas thinks a huge government nationalization of the oil industry would be the answer.What a boondoggle THAT would create. Pessamists like chefmike, the "waffle-boy", give no credit to American ingenuity, or inventions here and around the world, that will wean us from oil dependence. The rich get richer, because the poor get dumber. Next, waffle boy will be calling for a re-distribution of wealth.

south ov da border
01-21-2006, 05:04 PM
it's not poor get dumber, it's complacency. It's hard work to change .

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 05:23 PM
I stand corrected.

Felicia Katt
01-21-2006, 08:24 PM
I see you conveniently left out pictures of the totally ugly beaches where exploration would ACTUALLY take place. It's a totally featureless area, democrat.
I see you did so too. There were 1000's of pictures available online through google images and I didn't see any showing anything other than a pristine wilderness. To try to help your case, here is the the photo gallery (http://www.anwr.org/photo.htm) for the website for a group supporting development. It shows a unique and unspoiled natural environment. It also shows some images of pipelines and other equipment in other developed areas of Alaska. Maybe its cute to see a polar bear doing the tightrope on an oilpipe, but its not exactly my idea of wilderness.

FK

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 09:30 PM
You only see what you want to see. There are hubdreds of pictures of the 2 mile long beach where exploration will take place. It is totally featureless. Google Anwar oil exploration are....see what you get. I'm not gonna do your work for you. If you had been paying attention, you would know thisa already. Is it Naivte or politically inspired blindness?

Felicia Katt
01-21-2006, 10:05 PM
Sweetie, My mind and my eyes are open so I see what's there and what's what. I even saw what you wanted me to see, doing your work for you. What part of "the photo gallery for the website for a group supporting development" did you fail to pay attention to?

FK
ps, if you are going to persist in accusing me of naivete could you at least spell it right? LOL

FK

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 10:14 PM
Felicia, so as not to embarass you in front of your friends, I just sent you a picture of the Anwar exploration area. Post it if you have the balls.

TrueBeauty TS
01-21-2006, 10:45 PM
Felicia, so as not to embarass you in front of your friends, I just sent you a picture of the Anwar exploration area. Post it if you have the balls.

Why do you keep wanting her to do your work for you? Post it yourself, lazy ass.


As a side note, I am 100% sure "yourdaddy" is a troll. No one could actually believe all the outrageous, silly nonsense he says. No way. If he was really that dumb he wouldn't even be able to feed himself. He's just a sh*t thrower trying to stir things up.

Felicia Katt
01-21-2006, 11:08 PM
Yourdaddy, did you get that from the Karl Rove playbook? You didn't send me anything. No private message here. No email at my yahoo address. And you know photos attachments are disabled right now, right? Its at the very top of the board. So, I grant you dispensation. Go ahead, post the picture. I'll take my chances, but I think its more likely you're caught red-handed than I'll be red faced.

I posted a link to a picture gallery from a group in support of drilling. Maybe your idea of a beautiful shoreline is Coney Island, but its not mine. And are you being naive, or disingenuous when you say its limited to a 2 mile stretch? That might be the case for the initial exploration, but it will certainly involve a lot more than that for the eventual exploitation of whatever oil they may find. But my guess is that the argument will be, WTF its not really pristine anymore anyhow.

You've heard of a slippery slope, right. Well, nothing is slipperier than one lubricated by greed and oil.

FK

yourdaddy
01-21-2006, 11:09 PM
I sent her a picture of the exploration area, fool. Let's see if she'll post it.

chefmike
01-22-2006, 12:23 AM
the usual troll drivel...which ended with- will be calling for a re-distribution of wealth.

Not to worry, gump! I can assure you that your trailor, your truck, and your tractor will be safe when the people's liberation rolls into your corner of the swamp.

However, you will NOT be allowed to burn crosses, harass black voters, have sex with your sister, farm animals, etc.
While these new restrictions may be tough to get used to, they are in your best interests.







http://photobucket.com/albums/a78/chefmike_/th_revolucion.gif

Felicia Katt
01-22-2006, 12:29 AM
Yourdaddy, its been nearly 2 hours. Did you forget to put a stamp on it? LOL

FK

chefmike
01-22-2006, 12:36 AM
Yourdaddy, its been nearly 2 hours. Did you forget to up stamp on it? LOL

FK

He's probably locked himself in the outhouse....again.


---------------->http://photobucket.com/albums/a78/chefmike_/th_look.gif

yourdaddy
01-22-2006, 11:15 AM
Felicia, your e-mail address has 3 T's in it. The e-mail came back, so I sent it again.

Felicia Katt
01-22-2006, 11:43 PM
Yourdaddy here is the pic you wanted us to see
http://www.geocities.com/felicia_kattt/pic_ANWR_134.jpg
I don't know why you didn't just give us the the link to the Free Republic website where it was apparently located (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pic_ANWR_134). Its very similar to the gallery I linked to earilier in this thread (http://anwr.org/photo.htm). I think this shows a pristine arctic wetland, whereas you thinks its the "ugliest beach in the world". Either way, its presently natural and unspoiled and should stay that way.

Here is another pic from that same flight, which gives a better overall perspective on the area
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_ANWR_150.jpg
You can see the caribou and more of the majesty of the land at the near horizon. This pic didn't make it to the Free Republic site.


Felicia, your e-mail address has 3 T's in it. The e-mail came back, so I sent it again.
I'm sure you have had more than three T's in you and you will come back for more LOL
My right email address is linked at the bottom of every message here so all you or anyone else has to do is point and click. I have that there as a courtesy, which is also why I posted your pic for you, not to prove I have balls. I'd rather go to balls than show them anyday! LOL

FK

yourdaddy
01-23-2006, 02:38 AM
I rest my case. A featureless, ugly beach. The exploration actually takes place in the Sea. Face it....It's gonna happen. You losers will lose again.

chefmike
01-23-2006, 02:52 AM
Learsy, the author of the editorial being discussed, never even mentioned anything regarding drilling in the US to begin with. This was brought up due to yourdaddygump's inability to comprehend what was said in the editorial.

FK, your point about oil lobbyists was dead on, but Learsy believes that nationalizing the industry would mean less shady dealings by the oil industry on "K" street.

As long as there is a repug in office the shady dealings of the oil industry will only get worse.

Felicia Katt
01-23-2006, 03:56 AM
“To make a point, is to be blunt, which is pointless.”
Bob McMahan

I think that sums up Yourdaddy's contribution to the discussions here pretty accurately.

He missed the points, completely, which were (a) that I was against nationalizing the oil companies and (b) that I posted his picture(c) that I had already posted pictures just like it , and (d) that his picture didn't really prove his case.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think the ANWR is beautiful and should remain unspoiled. All I have ever beheld from Yourdaddy is his ugly attitude, which I try not to let spoil the discussion here.

FK

Trogdor
01-23-2006, 09:49 AM
Facts are simple, the oil guys, just like any other corporation and big business, are scumbags.

Oh, they say they believe in good values, yet they'll fuck anyone over to make a profit or a precentege.

Have you noticed that the richer the person, the greedier they get? Like having a bank account that has 6sex or more zeros behind it is never enough? Kinda like an addiction when you think about it. :P

Can't wait till the oil runs out one day. Though they'd probably already wanked a cheap, clean alternative fuel concept already from someone and have it stored away in some lab and when the oil runs out, they pull it out and sell it for an arm and a leg :roll:

yourdaddy
01-23-2006, 10:43 AM
Trog......You really ARE fucked up !!!!!!!

Felicia Katt
01-24-2006, 02:56 AM
Proposition

All I have ever beheld from Yourdaddy is his ugly attitude.

Proof

Trog......You really ARE fucked up !!!!!!!

now that's a case closed.

FK

chefmike
01-24-2006, 03:26 AM
And now that we are done with the reich-wing troll, for now, this article sheds more light on the complicity of the current regime and energy policy corruption...


As Profits Soar, Companies Pay U.S. Less for Gas Rights
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - At a time when energy prices and industry profits are soaring, the federal government collected little more money last year than it did five years ago from the companies that extracted more than $60 billion in oil and gas from publicly owned lands and coastal waters.

If royalty payments in fiscal 2005 for natural gas had risen in step with market prices, the government would have received about $700 million more than it actually did, a three-month investigation by The New York Times has found.

But an often byzantine set of federal regulations, largely shaped and fiercely defended by the energy industry itself, allowed companies producing natural gas to provide the Interior Department with much lower sale prices - the crucial determinant for calculating government royalties - than they reported to their shareholders.

As a result, the nation's taxpayers, collectively, the biggest owner of American oil and gas reserves, have missed much of the recent energy bonanza.

The disparities in gas prices parallel those uncovered just five years ago in a wave of scandals involving royalty payments for oil. From 1998 to 2001, a dozen major companies, while admitting no wrongdoing, paid a total of $438 million to settle charges that they had fraudulently understated their sale prices for oil.

Since then, the government has tightened its rules for oil payments. But with natural gas, the Bush administration recently loosened the rules and eased its audits intended to uncover cheating.

Industry executives deny any wrongdoing, arguing that the disparities stem primarily from different rules for calculating the sale prices for paying royalties and the sale prices for informing shareholders.

"The price of gas downstream is always going to be higher because you have costs that have to be recouped for getting it to the customer," said Robert H. Davis, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil. "You have to process the gas. You have to transport it, and you have to sell it. There will always be a discrepancy there."

Companies that pump oil and gas on federal property are required to pay the government royalties, usually 12 percent to 16 percent of the value of what they sell.

Royalties for natural gas have climbed sharply in the last three years. But while prices nearly doubled from 2001 to 2005, the $5.15 billion in gas royalties for 2005 was less than the $5.35 billion in 2001. When oil and gas are combined, royalties were about $8 billion in 2005, almost the same as in 2001.

Because much of the information about specific transactions is kept secret, it remains unclear to what extent, if at all, the weakness in royalty payments stems from deliberate cheating or from issues with the rules themselves.

But one major producer, Burlington Resources, admitted to shareholders last year that it might have underpaid about $76 million in gas royalties in the 1990's. And in Alabama, a jury ruled in 2003 that Exxon had cheated on $63.6 million worth of royalties from gas wells in state-owned waters. The jury awarded $11.9 billion in punitive damages, which a judge later reduced to $3.5 billion. Exxon disputes the charges and is appealing the verdict.

The possible losses to taxpayers in gas could be even higher than the losses tied to the scandals over oil royalties. For one thing, natural gas production on federal land is worth twice as much as oil.

Moreover, the Interior Department has scaled back on full audits, pushed out a couple of its more aggressive auditors and been criticized by its own inspector general for the audits that ....more-

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23leases.html?ei=5065&en=2b56e8f6ac332a04&ex=1138683600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Trogdor
01-24-2006, 08:06 AM
Proposition

All I have ever beheld from Yourdaddy is his ugly attitude.

Proof

Trog......You really ARE fucked up !!!!!!!

now that's a case closed.

FK

For me or yourdaddy? :?:

Felicia Katt
01-24-2006, 01:06 PM
For me or yourdaddy? :?:

for your daddy's negative attitude. I would never say what he said about you

FK

chefmike
01-26-2006, 03:14 AM
Off the topic of oil, but on the topic of K street and it's corruption...

Another scandal has ensnared the white house and it's web of lies...

CSI: K Street
Arianna Huffington

Why is the White House so desperate to downplay any contact between the president and Jack Abramoff -- even though the photos of Bush making nice with Abramoff are bound to surface sooner or later? And why is the White house refusing requests to release information about Abramoff's White House meetings -- what today's Washington Post described as "a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government"?



I mean, sure, the former uber-lobbyist has become the poster boy for the GOP's culture of corruption -- famously guilty of mail fraud, tax evasion, bribery, federal conspiracy, and taking in $80 million from Indian tribes he subsequently disparaged as "morons" and "troglodytes." But it's not like he's been implicated in murder, right?

Oh, wait a minute... he has!

But amidst all the stories about pricy golf junkets with members of Congress, $230,000 skyboxes, the funding of sniper schools and yeshivas, bilked Indian tribes, donations to 210 members of Congress, and friends (like Grover and the Hammer) in very high places, scant national attention has been paid to Abramoff's connection to the 2001 gangland-style murder of Gus Boulis, a Florida businessman involved in a disputed business deal with Abramoff and two of Abramoff's buddies from his College Republican days.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has done some terrific reporting on the case, and Weekly Standard reporter Matthew Continetti's detailed takedown of the story reads like a well-written crime novel. Be sure and check it out -- both for a good read and for chapter and verse on just how dirty Abramoff's dirty dealings got.

Here are the basics:

Boulis was gunned down four months after agreeing to sell SunCruz, his fleet of 11 casino ships, to Abramoff and his pals for $145 million -- a deal made possible by a series of illegal financial transactions for which Abramoff has since pled guilty. The business relationship soon soured, devolving into heated disagreements and a flurry of lawsuits. Boulis was murdered just days before he was scheduled to testify in his divorce case -- testimony that could have uncovered Abramoff's fraudulent activities.

Three men with ties to organized crime -- Anthony "Big Tony" Moscatiello, Anthony "Little Tony" Ferrari, and James "Pudgy" Fiorillo -- have been charged in Boulis' murder. Earlier this month, prosecutors decided to seek the death penalty against all three.

Here's where it gets interesting: in the months leading up to and immediately following Boulis' murder, "Big Tony" (who has admitted ties to the Gambino family) and "Little Tony" (who has claimed to be John Gotti's cousin) each received hefty checks authorized by Abramoff's SunCruz partner, Adam Kidan.

much more here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/csi-k-street_b_14450.html

chefmike
03-07-2006, 09:22 PM
Another interesting and original idea from Raymond J. Learsy-

Raymond J. Learsy is the author of "Over A Barrel:Breaking The Middle East Oil Cartel"
He made his life in the commodities industry, beginning in 1959.

A Forceful and Immediate Antidote To Our Oil Dependence

It has become clear to all of us that the nation's dependence on imported oil presents an immediate and exponentially growing risk to our national and economic security. Even President Bush has cautioned that "tyrants control the spigots." These are strong words, especially from a Texas oilman, but hardly extravagant in light of the recent failed attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia, the general state of the world from Nigeria to Venezuela to Iran, and new threats over the weekend from Al Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahari.

(In an audiotape posted on the Internet on Saturday, March 4, Al-Zawahari urged Muslims to "inflict losses on the crusader West, especially to its economic infrastructure . . . to make it bleed for years . . . to prevent [it] from stealing the Muslims' oil.")

Given the seriousness of the threat, it is essential that the United States act now to moderate the price of oil and to assure an equitable distribution of available supply, no matter what the circumstances. But what the president has proposed are, at best, vague and underfunded alternative-energy initiatives, ranging from biofuels to clean coal to nuclear power, whose promised benefits are years away. The will to take quick and forceful action appears to be lacking. Most glaringly, there has been no mention of controlling demand, the shunted-aside stepchild of the energy debate. Indeed, the deafening silence lends an almost heretical aura to the question of mandating constraints on demand. Yet, such constraints are the most immediate and effective way for us to gain control and a modicum of self-respect on this issue in the eyes of the world.

Ironically, we needn't look any further than the cap-and-trade Clear Skies Initiative for a viable and very successful example of what can and should be done to take control of oil consumption. The federal Clear Skies program permits cleaner-operating power companies to sell emissions credits to heavier polluters, thereby keeping total emissions within government-mandated levels. In spite of early criticism, the program has worked admirably and has reduced total pollution.

A similar program incorporating a national system of tradable gasoline vouchers could be instituted almost immediately. Every car owner would be entitled to a designated number of vouchers based on geographical location, vocational need, transportation options, and so on, with the idea being to meet a national target for gasoline consumption. The target would be revised, say, every three months or as contingencies necessitated. A driver who needed more gas than he or she was allotted could buy vouchers from drivers who needed less than the average. The price would be set by the market, with rights traded through classified ads, online bulletin boards, or local markets accessed at filling stations. Widely available tech products such as the versatile debit card could greatly facilitate the process.

The effects of the "Cap-and-Ride Open Road Initiative," let's call it, would be fair and immediate. Everyone would be free to choose how little or how much gasoline to use, and no one would be unduly penalized. But, more to the point, oil consumption would be effectively controlled while also encouraging more fuel-efficient use of cars and trucks and public transportation. Equally important, we would have a system in place that assured equitable distribution of available fossil fuels in case a major displacement occurred or an emergency threatened.

Unlike an across-the-board gas tax, which would set the antitax folks to howling while unfairly punishing the poor and those living in rural areas and in cities and towns without public transportation options, a voucher system would give all Americans a chance to pitch in to avert a national crisis. It would also set an example for other oil-importing nations to institute similar programs and would give our government valuable negotiating leverage with oil producers (i.e., if a producer threatens to cut supply, we retaliate by mandating a cut in consumption). In the end, a voucher system would allow us to regain our energy self-reliance.

Can we do it? Yes, but only with visionary political leadership and forceful political will. Just don't expect the oil patch to lend a hand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/a-forceful-and-immediate-_b_16888.html

chefmike
04-21-2006, 10:15 PM
It's time for a change...

The Oil Industry Is Running Away With Our Future
Raymond J. Learsy 04/21/06


The outrageous pension collected by Exxon Mobil's retiring chairman Lee Raymond -- nearly $400 million, counting all the perks (and not to be confused with Bill Gates' remuneration, which I believe is well deserved because his entrepreneurial genius has enriched the nation) -- should be a wake-up signal to the country: The oil industry is out of control, and we have to bring it to heel.

We need a federal commission to ride herd on the industry in general, and a national oil company to develop oil and gas from federal land for the good of the country instead of the oil industry.

Oil is too vital to the national interest to permit its continued exploitation for the private greed of oilmen, acting as handmaidens of the OPEC oil cartel. As readers of these postings know well, oil executives have been cheerleaders and apologists as the sheikhs have relentlessly pushed oil prices to the stratosphere. In the past two years, as the price has doubled to more than $70 a barrel, the increase in revenues to Exxon Mobil alone has been more than $97 million a day, or $35.4 billion a year, while Exxon's costs to ship and refine the oil have risen only with inflation. Small wonder that Exxon raked in $36 billion in profit last year -- and so much for the managerial "genius" of Lee Raymond (see Exxon's Lee Raymond, "Steward of the Free Market System" 4/15/06). And yet, all told, the company paid him a mind-numbing $686 million in the 12 years he presided over the "God Pod," as Exxon's executive suite is known. That's $144,573 per day. And like all the rest of the oil profits, it came from our pockets.

Here's what we should do to stop being exploited:

• Just as air safety and telecommunications are too important to be left unsupervised -- and just as the profiteering of the railroad barons led to government regulation -- we must set up a federal agency to keep an eye on the oil business. The new commission should have the power to monitor everything oilmen do, including their relations with OPEC suppliers, lobbying activities, and royalty and depletion allowance calculations.

• The agency must also control the futures trading used to manipulate the price of oil (see Oil Prices Being Pushed Ever Higher By Manipulating Oil Futures Trading 4/05/06) and gas. On March 7th of this year the attorney generals of Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Wisconsin cited the lack of oversight of financial markets -- not supply and demand problems -- were to blame for skyrocketing natural gas prices. They urged Congress to increase regulation of financial trading markets which they found vulnerable to abuse and manipulation.

• The agency must further oversee the in-house transfer prices that may have been used by oil companies to maximize depletion allowances and minimize royalty payments.

• Since the industry, in the opinion of many, places its own self-interest well before the greater national good, it has forfeited the public trust that is essential if it is to develop our greatest potential fossil fuel resource: the oil shale deposits on federal land in the western states. We must set up a federal trust to control those resources, and a national oil company to oversee their development. Where private-sector companies are invited to participate royalties must be set high and without depletion allowances. It would be a forfeiture of the public's trust and our government's responsibility to the electorate if our elected officials once again permitted a great national resource to become another oil patch boondoggle.

• All income accruing to a national oil trust or a national oil company from oil/gas production derived from public/federal lands should be set aside for programs that would replace fossil fuels -- including mass transportation, ethanol derived from various harvested crops, wind and solar power, hydrogen, clean coal and research generally, especially in nuclear waste storage and disposal.

• We must pass a surtax on oil company earnings to cover the extra profits of monopoly pricing (see Taxing Oil's Monopoly Profits 3/14/06). Existing royalties on oil and gas from federal land and offshore deposits must be reviewed and, where legally possible, raised to recapture these monopoly profits.

As all these measures take effect, big oil's profits will become more realistic -- or at the very least be directed to benefit the nation and help it deal with its affliction and addiction. The hundreds of billions now being needlessly spent to enrich the oil patch will be used to level the playing field in our dealings with the oil pushers. And if Lee Raymond's pay package proves to be the eye-opener that makes people angry enough to force this sea-change, even $686 million for one fat-cat manager will have been a bargain.

this article and it's related links here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/the-oil-industry-is-runni_b_19536.html

trish
04-22-2006, 06:57 AM
I don't get it. If we intend to use up every drop of oil on Earth, isn't it smarter to use up everybody else's first?

Trogdor
04-22-2006, 07:53 AM
Just to remind everyone:

It took mother nature over 70,000,000 years to make this oil, and yet within a century, man has ravaged it.

One must stop being dependent on oil. When it's gone, it's gone. I doubt man can wait another 70,000,000 years for more to be made.

First thing one can do to save $ and the air is to trade in your SUV's for a car only 1/3 as polluting. Or an EV1, which uses no fossil fuels whatsoever. :idea:

chefmike
04-22-2006, 08:28 AM
Happy earth day from Exxon!

Exxon's Earth Day: $10 Million on Alt Energy, $400 Million on CEO
Jamie Court

Happy earthday from the world's most profitable corporation. ExxonMobil invested less than three-hundredths of one percent of last year's record $36 billion in profits on direct research on alternative energy, according to recent Senate testimony and company documents analyzed by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR). The $10 million a year that Exxon puts into a 10-year project at Stanford University pales next to the more than $400 million granted in his final year to recently retired CEO Lee R. Raymond.


Exxon's penny-pinching on the research needed to ease U.S. petroleum dependence and lead oil companies into a less petroleum-dependent future comes on top of the FTCR's finding on April 17 that less than one-fourth of the recent spike in gasoline prices to $3 and above can be attributed to crude oil prices and ethanol costs, despite the claims of oil producers and refiners.

American oil companies, like Exxon and Chevron, will never spend resources developing cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy without the government forcing them to do so. Californians at least will have a chance to vote on a November ballot measure that takes back oil companies' windfall profits for a state fund that will provide practical incentives to make alternative fuel vehicles more available and affordable. Americans should realize by now that we cannot rely on oil companies to create cheaper and cleaner fuels. American oil companies like Exxon will never want us to use less oil.

Raymond, while defending his compensation in a speech Tuesday, scorned the idea that oil companies should invest in alternative energy sources. His final-year compensation was reported last week in the New York Times, which added up his salary, stock options, $98 million pension grant and $199 million in longer-term restricted stock grants.

In recently available transcripts of March 14th US Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on soaring energy prices, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) pressed current Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to state Exxon's spending on alternatives to petroleum.

The only direct investment Tillerson could name was to the Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project, which is not solely focused on alternative energy sources. Pressed by Schumer about the meager $10 millon a year, Tillerson responded: "We are investing in technology, and we are investing heavily in oil and natural gas, which is the business we are in." Even President Bush, a former Texas oilman, stated flatly in his January State of the Union Speech, "America is addicted to oil," and pledged support (if meager) of solar, wind and other technology development.

A 2004 Exxon "Report on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Alternative Energy" also cites no other direct dollar investment, and dismisses alternative energies including solar, wind, biofuel and hydrogen as too inefficient and unprofitable in the near term to be of interest to Exxon. Solar is an "unattractive investment." Wind? "Politically unstable," because government subsidies are uncertain. Hydropower? "[No] competitive advantage for ExxonMobil." Even hydrogen fuels, the current darling of the U.S. automotive industry and the Bush administration, are dismissed because "significant commercialization... [is] not likely for some time."

This earth day let's remember Exxon has not interest in either saving individuals money or saving their planet.

this article and it's related links here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/exxons-earth-day-10-mi_b_19468.html

chefmike
04-22-2006, 08:39 AM
Some more informed thoughts on Earth Day-

Earth Day 2006: Saving the Future By Looking to the Past
Lester Brown

Tomorrow is the 36th anniversary of Earth Day. While some celebrate this day planting trees or collecting trash, our world leaders must rapidly confront a dangerous reality: our early twenty-first century civilization is on an economic path that is destroying and disrupting the natural systems on which it depends, consuming renewable resources faster than they can regenerate.

Forests, grasslands, soils, water tables, and fisheries are disappearing. And we are using up oil at a pace that leaves little time to plan beyond peak oil, discharging greenhouse gases into the atmosphere faster than nature can absorb them.

As a result the earth's temperature is rising, ice sheets are melting, the sea is rising, and we are increasingly finding ourselves in a battle for the survival of our civilization -- one that will require a massive restructuring of our economy.

In my book Plan B 2.0 I highlight our civilization's need to shift from business as usual -- the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway Plan A economy -- to a renewable-energy-based, diversified-transport, reuse/recycle, Plan B economy.

We can see the Plan B economy emerging in the wind farms of western Europe, the solar rooftops of Japan, the growing fleet of gas-electric hybrid cars in the United States, the reforested mountains of South Korea, and the bicycle-friendly streets of Amsterdam.

The solutions exist. The struggle now is implementing this Plan B economy in time. As we contemplate the rapid restructuring needed, it is both instructive and encouraging to look at the U.S. restructuring for World War II. Initially, the United States resisted involvement in the war and responded only after it was directly attacked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. But respond it did. After an all-out commitment, the U.S. engagement helped turn the tide, leading the Allied Forces to victory within three and a half years.

In his State of the Union address on January 6, 1942, one month after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt announced the country's arms-production goals. The United States, he said, was planning to produce 45,000 tanks, 60,000 planes, 20,000 anti-aircraft guns, and 6 million tons of merchant shipping.

No one had ever seen such huge arms-production numbers. But Roosevelt and his colleagues realized that the largest concentration of industrial power in the world at that time was in the U.S. automobile industry. Even during the Depression, the United States was producing 3 million cars a year. After his State of the Union address, Roosevelt met with automobile industry leaders and told them that the country would rely heavily on them to reach these arms production goals.

Combined with this transition was a large-scale rationing program. Strategic goods -- including tires, gasoline, fuel oil, and sugar -- were rationed beginning in 1942. Cutting back on consumption of these goods freed up material resources to support the war effort.

The year 1942 witnessed the greatest expansion of industrial output in the nation's history -- all for military use. Wartime aircraft needs were enormous. They included not only fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance planes, but also the troop and cargo transports needed to fight a war on two distant fronts. From the beginning of 1942 through 1944, the United States far exceeded the initial goal of 60,000 planes, turning out 229,600 aircraft, a fleet so vast it is hard even today to visualize it. Equally impressive, by the end of the war more than 5,000 ships were added to the 1,000 or so that made up the American Merchant Fleet in 1939.

In her book No Ordinary Time, Doris Kearns Goodwin describes how various firms converted to wartime production. A sparkplug factory was among the first to switch to the production of machine guns. Soon a manufacturer of stoves was producing lifeboats. A merry-go-round factory was making gun mounts; a toy company was turning out compasses; a corset manufacturer was producing grenade belts; and a pinball machine plant began to make armor-piercing shells.

In retrospect, the speed of this conversion from a peacetime to a wartime economy is stunning. The harnessing of U.S. industrial power tipped the scales decisively toward the Allied Forces, reversing the tide of war. Germany and Japan, already fully extended, could not counter this effort. Winston Churchill often quoted his foreign secretary, Sir Edward Grey: "The United States is like a giant boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate."

This mobilization of resources within a matter of months demonstrates that a country, and indeed, the world, can restructure the economy quickly if it is convinced of the need to do so. In this mobilization, the scarcest resource of all is time. With climate change, for example, we are fast approaching the point of no return. The temptation is to reset the clock, but we cannot. Nature is the timekeeper.

The question facing governments is whether they can respond quickly enough to prevent threats from becoming catastrophes. History judges political leaders by whether or not they respond to the great issues of their time. For today's leaders, that issue is how to move the global economy onto an environmentally sound path while confronting aquifer depletion, rising temperatures, expanding deserts, melting polar ice caps, and a shrinking oil supply.

In times of crisis, societies sometimes have a Nero as a leader and sometimes a Churchill. The solutions are there. On this Earth Day, let's hope the leadership is too.

this article and related links here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lester-brown/earth-day-2006-saving-th_b_19542.html

Trogdor
04-22-2006, 07:49 PM
Happy earth day from Exxon!

Exxon's Earth Day: $10 Million on Alt Energy, $400 Million on CEO
Jamie Court

Happy earthday from the world's most profitable corporation. ExxonMobil invested less than three-hundredths of one percent of last year's record $36 billion in profits on direct research on alternative energy, according to recent Senate testimony and company documents analyzed by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR). The $10 million a year that Exxon puts into a 10-year project at Stanford University pales next to the more than $400 million granted in his final year to recently retired CEO Lee R. Raymond.


Exxon's penny-pinching on the research needed to ease U.S. petroleum dependence and lead oil companies into a less petroleum-dependent future comes on top of the FTCR's finding on April 17 that less than one-fourth of the recent spike in gasoline prices to $3 and above can be attributed to crude oil prices and ethanol costs, despite the claims of oil producers and refiners.

American oil companies, like Exxon and Chevron, will never spend resources developing cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy without the government forcing them to do so. Californians at least will have a chance to vote on a November ballot measure that takes back oil companies' windfall profits for a state fund that will provide practical incentives to make alternative fuel vehicles more available and affordable. Americans should realize by now that we cannot rely on oil companies to create cheaper and cleaner fuels. American oil companies like Exxon will never want us to use less oil.

Raymond, while defending his compensation in a speech Tuesday, scorned the idea that oil companies should invest in alternative energy sources. His final-year compensation was reported last week in the New York Times, which added up his salary, stock options, $98 million pension grant and $199 million in longer-term restricted stock grants.

In recently available transcripts of March 14th US Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on soaring energy prices, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) pressed current Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to state Exxon's spending on alternatives to petroleum.

The only direct investment Tillerson could name was to the Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project, which is not solely focused on alternative energy sources. Pressed by Schumer about the meager $10 millon a year, Tillerson responded: "We are investing in technology, and we are investing heavily in oil and natural gas, which is the business we are in." Even President Bush, a former Texas oilman, stated flatly in his January State of the Union Speech, "America is addicted to oil," and pledged support (if meager) of solar, wind and other technology development.

A 2004 Exxon "Report on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Alternative Energy" also cites no other direct dollar investment, and dismisses alternative energies including solar, wind, biofuel and hydrogen as too inefficient and unprofitable in the near term to be of interest to Exxon. Solar is an "unattractive investment." Wind? "Politically unstable," because government subsidies are uncertain. Hydropower? "[No] competitive advantage for ExxonMobil." Even hydrogen fuels, the current darling of the U.S. automotive industry and the Bush administration, are dismissed because "significant commercialization... [is] not likely for some time."

This earth day let's remember Exxon has not interest in either saving individuals money or saving their planet.

this article and it's related links here-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-court/exxons-earth-day-10-mi_b_19468.html


Like I said, the oil industry, just like the pharmacutical industry, are just money hungry douche' bags that are going to milk it till the very end.

One thing about the insanely rich, even if they got 10 billion dollars in their bank account already, they NEED more, and it's NEVER enough. I often wonder how much IS enough for guys like this? :?:

Lobo
04-22-2006, 08:57 PM
Read this for some info on what the future holds:

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

It doesn't look pretty.

hondarobot
04-22-2006, 10:24 PM
Awesome idea. I don't buy gas myself because I don't need it right now, but I can totally see refusing to buy gas from Exxon and Mobile as an effective way to hit those bastards where it hurts.

Now we just need to figure out all the gas stations that purchase gasoline from Exxon and Mobile. . .

(Sarcasm is included in this part of the post, so far)

There is no realistic answer to the problem until alternative energy sources are fully researched and developed (kinda like SRS science, really). I'm not so sure if hybrid cars are a step in the right direction or not at this point because of added chasis weight (due to fuel cell), which decreases MPG on long hauls, and the fact that said fuel cells are a whole set of different problems to deal with once the vehicle becomes unusable.

How do you safely dispose of the fuel cell once the other mechanic systems of the car wears out?

Hybrids do get better gas milage in the city, and have lower emisssions.

Isn't there some sort of research and develpment going on involving fuel from some derivative of corn, or something? This isn't sarcasm here, I really don't know, but fuel from corn seems like a good idea. It's not like corn is a rare resource or anything.

(Apologies in advance to any growers of corn who may frequent this forum, I'm not a farming enthuist so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject).

My own solution to the problem of oil dependency would be for everyone to start riding bicycles, using public transportation, and walking. Of course, if someone handed me a sweet car, I'd probably violate these suggestions myself, but that hasn't happened yet.

There is something nice about driving a cool car.

:)

latrix67
04-22-2006, 10:27 PM
Over here in the U.K Petrol is now nearly £1.00 a litre & Diesel over £1.00 a litre.We pay around 46 pence to the government in tax.Our fuel is the dearest in Europe!

hondarobot
04-22-2006, 10:37 PM
How do you Brit folk get that "pound" sign on your keyboard? I'm serious about this. It's not an option on my keyboard. I'm just asking.

I once asked a cute girl from Japan what a Japanese keyboard was like, and she nearly kicked me in the balls. I don't know how the japanese language is expressed via a keyboard, and my curiosity made me seem like an ass.

Why? I still don't know.

:?

latrix67
04-22-2006, 10:57 PM
The top line of letters on my keyboard spell 'qwerty',I think that's how you spot a European keyboard.
L67

hondarobot
04-22-2006, 11:08 PM
That's awesome, we all have the "QWERTY" thing going on, I guess. . .

Where does the option for the British Pound sign come in? I've never seen a keyboard with that option, personally.

I'm just asking, maybe it's more complicated then I thought.

(Honestly I'm waiting for that Japanese girl to show up again and kick me in the balls finally. . . people are so goofy. . .)

partlycloudy
04-23-2006, 06:30 PM
>> typing special characters << (http://tlt.psu.edu/suggestions/international/accents/codealt.html)

White_Male_Canada
04-23-2006, 06:33 PM
Ahh, the wet dreams of socialists and marxists worldwide,to nationalize the major means of production.

OK numbskulls,here`s Eco 101:

Prices are controlled by the interplay between supply and demand not some conspiracy of secret oligopolists.


According to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey, consumers spent only 3.3% of their annual income on gasoline. So people are not going to change their habits and will continue to exercise freedom of choice and drive their 4X4`s if they wish to.

The futures price of crude oil in the summer of 2000 was 27.00 per barrel. By the summer of 2005 it was almost 70.00,about a 20% annual increase. During the same time gas went up from $1.46 to $2.61 per gallon,an increase annually of 12% (US Dept. of energy). Prices increases immediately seen at the pumps are based upon expected replacement costs relative to current demand.It is a sunk cost relative to opportunity cost.

Government intervention would be a socialistic/marxist emotional re-action.What the radical left is saying is that under normal conditions,supply and demand work well,but under a crisis, cease to respond.It is the exact opposite.Under a crisis the free market responds as it should.So under normal conditions emotional leftists agree and accept the outcomes of supply and demand and tolerate the prices they pay for goods and sevices under routine circumstances.But when a crisis occurs these same people suddenly dislike higher prices under the exact same set of pricing structures in terms of supply and demand.

Refineries are operating at maximum output.None are being built,why? Ask the enviros.No drilling is being done on the mainland or off the coasts,why? Ask the enviros.Even windmills are being fought by the BANANAs,Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Nowhere.

Barbara Boxer is complaining about Exxon`s Lee Raymond`s buyout after 43 years of service?

D.Sen. Barbara Boxer
Assets: $1.2 million to $5.5 million.
Interest, dividend and retirement income: $131,000 to $1.1 million.
Liabilities: None listed.
Most of Boxer's assets are in a blind trust she set up in 2001 after catching flak for owning stocks in some of the same energy companies that she accused of overcharging Californians for electricity.

chefmike
04-23-2006, 11:02 PM
^^^^^^^
The message above brought to you by Faux News: We Distort, You Decide...

White_Male_Canada
04-24-2006, 02:16 AM
" NATIONALIZE THE MAJOR MEANS OF PRODUCTION ?

OF COURSE I WILL "

Trogdor
04-24-2006, 02:23 AM
White_Male_Canada sounds suspiciously like your_daddy. :idea:

White_Male_Canada
04-24-2006, 02:24 AM
We just scanned chef`s puny little brain and it`s complete utter failure to

understand basic economics. The scan is now revealed :P :

White_Male_Canada
04-24-2006, 02:28 AM
White_Male_Canada sounds suspiciously like your_daddy. :idea:

Never heard of him/her.

I just have zero tolerance for imbeciles who have zero comprehension of the law of supply and demand.

hondarobot
04-24-2006, 03:07 AM
I don't think The White Canadian and Your_Daddy are the same person, they probably just share similar views on a number of things. The majority of people on HA seem to be leaning towards a more liberal point of view, and given it's a TS girl/porn/escort oriented board, that's probably not surprising. But since conservatives would then be the minority here, I think more people should be tolerant of viewpoints they don't agree with.

Oh, and for the record, I think the Canadian Guy is kinda a jerk, but that's just my opinion. I distrust Canadians because they hate our freedom. ;P

The majority of people in the world would consider all of us an extreme minority just because we post here, and they probably wouldn't show much tolerance in regards to that.

I've got friends who have fairly conservative views on many topics (while I'm more a wussy liberal), and we've had disagreements, debates, fights, and near hysteric blow-outs on several occasions. For the most part though, we have always agreed to disagree in the past, remain friends and leave it at that. Things are just more civil that way.

Nothing wrong with debate, I'd enter this debate myself but I happen to think the oil problem can only be solved by developing huge Zeppelins and teleportation machines. Or that corn derived fuel thingy I mentioned yesterday, maybe. . .what do I know? Flame wars just get way too out of control way too often.

Now I'm wrapping up my white flag once again, speeding off in my Peace Maker jeep, and expecting not to have any effect on hostilities what-so-ever, but it's just my nature to try.

(BTW, nice one, as always, partlycloudy. . .hehe)

chefmike
04-24-2006, 03:58 AM
Bush warns of 'tough summer' with higher petrol prices

WEST SACRAMENTO, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush has warned rising oil prices will mean a "tough summer" for US consumers as the high cost of gasoline (petrol) showed signs of becoming a big political issue.

But even as more Americans expressed discontent over the price of filling up their gas tanks, Bush suggested there was little his government could do in the short term about the problem.

The political importance of gasoline prices before the summer break was clear as both opposition Democrat and Republican lawmakers spent the week taking the administration to task over the issue and asking if oil companies were exploiting the situation.

Senator Bill Nelson called Friday for "more dramatic steps" to lessen US dependence on foreign oil.

Dennis Hastert, the Republican head of the House of Representatives, and Senate Republican majority chief Bill Frist said they planned to write Bush a letter calling for an investigation into possibly price manipulation by oil companies.

While the oil companies deny any manipulation, public confidence was eroded at the recent report that exiting Exxon Mobil executive Lee Raymond was getting a 400 million dollar retirement package.

the rest of this article here-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060423/bs_afp/uspoliticsoil_060423025355

Felicia Katt
04-24-2006, 07:14 AM
RECORD PROFITS
$25.3 billion:
Exxon Mobil's record-setting profits last year

$3.4 billion:
Fourth-quarter 2004 profit for Chevron-Texaco Corp, double the profit for the same quarter of the previous year.

218%:
Exxon Mobil profit increase last year

145%:
ConocoPhillips profit increase last year

51%:
Shell profit increase last year

39%:
ChevronTexaco profit increase last year

35%:
BP profit increase last year

RECORD TAXPAYER GIVEAWAYS
$80 billion:
Total money (tax breaks, direct spending, and authorizations) currently in the energy bill conference report - the majority of it going to polluting energy industries. $66.3 billion in authorized spending, $11.68 billion in the tax package, and $2 billion in the Administration’s new nuclear risk insurance provisions. (Taxpayers for Common Sense – www.taxpayer.net)

$3 billion:
Cost to taxpayers to conduct an invasive oil and gas inventory along the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) even though these coastal areas are currently under a decades old drilling moratorium.

$0:
Total royalty payments from the oil and gas industry for deep water exploration on public lands (Sec. 345) and for oil drilled areas off Alaska’s coastline (Section 346) since the energy bill allows the industry to forgo royalty payments for these activities.

RECORD CONTRIBUTIONS
$52.3 million:
Amount the oil and gas industry contributed to political candidates in 2004. (Center for Responsive Politics – www.opensecrets.org)

$314.4 million:
Amount the energy and natural resources industries spent on lobbying in 2003 and 2004. (Bloomberg News)

RECORD INJUSTICE
$4.5 billion: punitive-damage judgment for the Exxon Valdiz disaster that the company has not paid

RECORD JUEVOS
Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes.

Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress "We're all in this together, everywhere in the world,"

At the time, Raymond was getting a $51.1 million paycheck equivalent to $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour. It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made.

I don't know about you, but in my world, you don't make 5 times as much as your peers in the same jobs, or get nearly half a billion dollars to NOT work for the company anymore.

FK

happyjack
04-24-2006, 01:29 PM
let me get this straight,,,the price of gas is outragious because the govt is obviously corrupt,so lets put them in charge of the whole thing?how about not driving 6mpg suvs?that might help some

Trogdor
04-24-2006, 05:43 PM
let me get this straight,,,the price of gas is outragious because the govt is obviously corrupt,so lets put them in charge of the whole thing?how about not driving 6mpg suvs?that might help some

And maybe prising it at a decent price would help too. :idea:

Not the first time price gouging happens.


Hell, I remember when $1.15 for a gallon of gas was considered high back in 1990.

chefmike
04-24-2006, 07:45 PM
MSNBC poll taken today-

Should the oil industry be government regulated? * 5665 responses

Yes 79%
No 21%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/#anc_QOD042406

White_Male_Canada
04-24-2006, 07:51 PM
RECORD PROFITS
$25.3 billion:
Exxon Mobil's record-setting profits last year

$3.4 billion:
Fourth-quarter 2004 profit for Chevron-Texaco Corp, double the profit for the same quarter of the previous year.

218%:
Exxon Mobil profit increase last year

145%:
ConocoPhillips profit increase last year

51%:
Shell profit increase last year

39%:
ChevronTexaco profit increase last year

35%:
BP profit increase last year

RECORD TAXPAYER GIVEAWAYS


FK

The amounts seem large because the companies are very large.

What are the profit margins ?

Are oil company profit margins the largest ever,the largest in the USA ?

Absolutlely not.

Oil profit margins are less than that of pharmaceuticals and banks,to

name only two, 8% to 18% respectfully.

Taxes on corporations are paid for by the consumer, Eco 101.

In a gallon of unleaded, crude accounts for $1.45 of today's average price of $2.68 at the pump.

Next is the cost of refining that oil — 55 cents of the gallon's price, a big jump in costs.

"They're normally about $5 to $10 a barrel," said Tom Kloza, an analyst. "Now, it's closer to $20 to $30. And that's because a lot of money is flowing in on the fear we won't have enough refining capacity this summer."

Next is transporting gas to the pump — just 5 cents a gallon.

And then, there's taxes — 18 cents for the federal government and 27 cents for state governments.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=1846576&page=1

The Federal Tax of 18.4 cents per gallon is collected in all states in addition to any state or local taxes on gasoline sales.

Gasoline taxes are levied in various ways in different states. Some states, such as Louisiana, levy a flat rate per gallon. Others charge a tax similar to a sales tax in that it applies to the monetary amount of the gasoline sold. Other states allow local communities to levy gasoline taxes in addition to any state taxes that might be levied.

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

LCF
04-24-2006, 07:55 PM
Canada, you raise some good points, if you will give me your ear for just a second, I have a bit contrary views.

See, the thing is the law of supply and demand don't work when you are talking about a resource that is needed. No matter what the price of oil, demand is always, always raising for it. Therefore there is no equilibrium point between supply and demand that is the maximum of what the market will bear. If all food was suddenly 20% more expensive, people wouldn't stop buying food, they still need it. You might get a lot of obese people going on diet so they don't waste so much money on food, but otherwise, life goes on.

The laws of supply and demand were created assuming a free market between commodities that are not neccesary to human survival. They were also assuming that competition would drive prices down, instead companies agree on a general price where they all make a maximum proft.

Anywho, as for nationalizing the oild industry: No. The value of a theory or model is in its ability to predict. Coming out of the great depression and world war 2, Keynsian economics ruled the day, with most countries adopting control of the Commanding Heights of their respective economies: Coal, Steel, Oil, etc. The problems with these systems were that they were extrodinarily inefficient because they were not competing against any other company. In addition, they recieved no real profits, so there was no incentive as a worker or as a manager to boost production to above abysmal levels. The results of nationalizing the prime industries is representative in many of the countries in poverty today: India, South American countries, and the former USSR. Major industry control by the government is a definate economic bad.

Also on a purely philosophical level I object to nationalizing any industry. The social agreement that you make upon entering the State is that you are giving up the freedoms of the state of nature-namely to infringe on the rights of others as you see fit- in return for protection for your property, your right to life, and your right to liberties. As long as you aren't infringing on those rights of others, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell you what to do. It isn't the government's job to ensure low oil prices, just as it isn't the government's job to ensure health care or jobs for all of its citizens. These are all desirable outcomes to be sure, but it shouldn't be the government that does these things. It is ironic that people complain that they feel weak and powerless in the face of the government, and then advocate making the government stronger. Practically all of the worst human tragedies in human history have been caused by giving the government too much power.

Ironically, the alternative to fossil fuels is already avaiable and easy to achieve. Diesal fuel can be made from essentially vegetable oil. For many years, where was this oil retrieved from? Cannabis plants-hemp. For almost the entirety of human existance Hemp has been one of the most useful plants in existance. It can grow anywhere, in just 6 months you get a crop, and all parts of it can be used for something. The leaves and such can be harvested for use in clothing to replace nylon. In fact before the creation of Nylon, the government relied on Hemp for most of its uniforms and parachutes for wartime. THC can be used to medicinal purposes, and the oil made from the plant itself can be used to create diesal fuel.

In fact, if it weren't for the fact that people were so eager to allow the government to infringe on their rights, diesal fuel would be a cheap, renewable fuel source still. The number one lobbying groups for the illegalization of cannabis wasn't concerned parents for their children-it was lobbyists from companies like Standard Oil who realized that with such an abundant, easily renewable fuel source like Diesal from cannabis, petrol would soon be put under. Frankly it's one of the greatest Coup D'etats in human history. Legalize Cannabis and watch Diesal oil prices plummit. If you're worried about green house gas emissions, plant some fucking trees,seriously. CO2 is neccesary for human life, so if you go buy a suburban plant a few trees you will be OK. The replacement of oil fields and the such with cannabis fields would drastically increase vegetation in America, which would in turn help reduce the effects of atmospheric CO2, cause everyone knows that plants turn CO2 into oxygen. In addition, mercedes beinz is developing technology that can chemically alter diesal emissions into harmless N2 and O2, I'd have to search for the article however.

Anyway, so sorry for making y'all read all that lol.

chefmike
04-24-2006, 08:01 PM
The Oil Industry Is Driving Away With Our Future-The Norway Solution
Raymond J. Learsy 4/24/2006

Given the prices we are paying at the pump, given the egregious profits rung up by Big Oil and the oil patch generally, given the influence oils' billions has over our elected officials in government, given the perverse twists and turns that the oil patch has had on our policies, both foreign and domestic, given the wake up call exemplified in the grossness of Exxon-Mobil's retirement package for their Chairman Lee Raymond, the time has come for us as a people to rethink this nation's relationship to the oil industry.



In the world of oil, the word "nationalization" most often brings to mind nations where government ownership of the industry has meant technological stagnation, corrupt and politicized management, and squandering of the riches oil brings. But it doesn't have to be that way, and Norway is proof positive of the benefits the United States could reap by intelligent government management of the oil to be found on federal/public lands, the continental shelf, and with environmental sensitivity, on our nature preserves and wildlife refuges.

Norway is now the world's third largest oil exporter, behind only Saudi Arabia and Russia. The oil that it struck in 1969 was offshore, on continental shelf owned by the government. With a tradition of state development of natural resources, Norway rapidly created an oil ministry, a national oil company to develop the oilfields, and a Petroleum Directorate, which would hire the necessary experts and manage the companies invited to join the project. Significantly, after the early oil boom turned to bust and the profits were frittered away in inflationary spending, Norway set up a Government Petroleum Fund to keep the money in trust for future generations.

The fund is run on strict Norwegian principles by Knut Kjaer, a soft-spoken former central banker who rides the tram to work and lives on a civil servant's salary. But he gets top-notch returns -- "much better than the big pension funds," says an admiring economist -- and the fund had mounted to $198 billion nearly a year ago, in June 2005. Since then, added dividends have been running between $2 billion and $3 billion a month.

The fund is conservatively invested, with 59 percent in bonds and just 41 percent in equities. Though total returns have been running at 8 percent annually, the government draws down no more than 4 percent, leaving the rest to compound.

Crucially and wisely, the fund is also barred from investing in the local economy. Norway learned from its early excesses and also from the lessons of such countries as Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, and 16th-century Spain, all of which fell victim to the "resource curse" that produces inflation, plummeting currencies, and economic decay. Countries rich in commodities rarely do as well as nations that live by their wits, so Norway has resolved to keep most of its wealth safely offshore, with teams of professional money managers advising on investments in their countries. (Among the American teams: T. Rowe Price and Wellington Management.)

The payoff: Norway is the only large oil exporter with a solid industrial economy. Its productivity rivals that of the United States, and its high-tech startups include TOMRA, a recycling pioneer, the Web browser OPRA, and FAST, an Internet search engine. Best of all, Norway's future is secure. The national debt has been paid off. And even if the wells ran dry tomorrow, Norway would have enough in its petroleum fund to pay the entire cost of its armed forces (not by way of comparison, thank you), police, and ambulance service in perpetuity.

We could do a lot worse than follow suit, setting up a federal trust to handle the revenues from oil found on federal land/continental shelf and a national oil company to manage the development of our vast potential bonanza in Western federally-owned oil shale (over a trillion barrels, four times the declared reserves of Saudi Arabia- see "The Oil/Gas On Federal Lands Belong To Us" 3/24/06). The profits should go to a fund promoting the development of alternative energy sources, expanding our mass transportation infrastructure and on in order to get the fossil-fuel monkey off our back.

Predictably, my proposal will be attacked as nationalism, socialism, or worse. Yet given the oil industry's track record, their obscene profits extracted on our backs, and the watershed retirement package that was rewarded by Exxon-Mobil to their retiring Chairman, Lee Raymond (see "Exxon's Lee Raymond, Steward Of The Free Enterprise System" 4/15/06) it is time to end this insane industrial welfare. Handing over the profits of our natural resources to the oil patch must come to an end. Whose oil is it, anyway?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/the-oil-industry-is-drivi_b_19671.html

White_Male_Canada
04-24-2006, 08:14 PM
Canada, you raise some good points, if you will give me your ear for just a second, I have a bit contrary views.

See, the thing is the law of supply and demand don't work when you are talking about a resource that is needed. No matter what the price of oil, demand is always, always raising for it.

The laws of supply and demand were created assuming a free market between commodities that are not neccesary to human survival. They were also assuming that competition would drive prices down, instead companies agree on a general price where they all make a maximum proft.

THC can be used to medicinal purposes, and the oil made from the plant itself can be used to create diesal fuel.

The number one lobbying groups for the illegalization of cannabis wasn't concerned parents for their children-it was lobbyists from companies like Standard Oil who realized that with such an abundant, easily renewable fuel source like Diesal from cannabis, petrol would soon be put under. Frankly it's one of the greatest Coup D'etats in human history. Legalize Cannabis and watch Diesal oil prices plummit.

.

In regards to supply and demand concerning a resource that is required.

It would be true if that resource were lacking,but it is not. There`s an abundance of oil,merely a lack of refining process/higher demand, combined with fear.Fear of the Nazi like Iran regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons with only one intent. To detonate over Isreal.

THC is available in the form of Marinol
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html

To imply that "big oil" is in cahoots to fix the price of gasoline is quite the charge to make.

I have no idea if hemp is cheaper and easier t orefine than oil,or if it produces more BTUs.

That said, here`s the Hemp Car

http://www.hempcar.org/

trish
04-24-2006, 08:42 PM
In fact supply never rises to meet demand. By definition “demand” is dependent upon price. The market or the monopoly (what-ever the case may be) adjusts the prices of goods and services so as to optimize profits. The optimization determines the supply as well as the price. It would be silly, after all, for a producer to over or under produce the optimum that maximizes their profits. This is the only sense in which supply meets demand. There are always people who would buy if the price were cheaper; i.e. there is always unmet demand. That’s one reason why you can always gain more market by lowering prices.

Currently we have over six billion people on the planet and all of them are striving hard to copy U.S. levels of consumption. True, our standard of living depends on work done, not energy consumed; i.e. we could maintain our standard and consume less energy by being more efficient. But even at 100% efficiency, can six billion people (growing exponentially) expect not to consume all the worlds fossil fuel reserves before the end of the century? I’m pessimistic. No, I’m depressed.

White_Male_Canada
04-24-2006, 08:46 PM
The Oil Industry Is Driving Away With Our Future-The Norway Solution
Raymond J. Learsy 4/24/2006

Given the prices we are paying at the pump, given the egregious profits rung up by Big Oil and the oil patch generally...



In the world of oil, the word "nationalization" most often brings to mind nations where government ownership of the industry has meant technological stagnation, corrupt and politicized management, and squandering of the riches oil brings
Norway Saudi Arabia and Russia.


Predictably, my proposal will be attacked as nationalism, socialism, or worse. Yet given the oil industry's track record, their obscene profits extracted on our backs, and the watershed retirement package that was rewarded by Exxon-Mobil to their retiring Chairman, Lee Raymond (see "Exxon's Lee Raymond, Steward Of The Free Enterprise System" 4/15/06) it is time to end this insane industrial welfare. Handing over the profits of our natural resources to the oil patch must come to an end. Whose oil is it, anyway?



No one is attacking anyone.

To demand the Federal government aquire and run any company or industry is in fact,socialism and or communism. I would even call Learsy a NAZI. THe National Socialist German Workers Party allowed private ownership of production,as long as you did whatever they said.

That`s what it is called,that is what it has always been called.

Norway,Saudi Arabia,Russia? All do not have that pesky thing called the Constitution. They can have all the big brother government they wish. There is absolutely no Article in the US Constitution that enables Washington to nationalize the major means of production.

LCF
04-24-2006, 11:08 PM
Whether hemp is cheaper to produce diesal oil from or not is irrelevant, it's reproducible. It can grow to full harvest in just 6 months. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. I advocate drinving Diesal cars anyway, it's estimated that if half of all small trucks and cars were immediately switched to diesal fuel, we would elimate the neccesity for about 1/3rd of the oil we import.

Regardless if there's a lot of oil, it's still a neccesary resource. It's not like, say, pornography, which is a luxury item that has to be priced reasonably in order for people to consume. No matter what happens, people will buy gas because they need it for their cars. As such, there is a guaranteed demand that does not proportionally decrease as price increases.

Norway's system sounds similar to the one that Britain had under the Labor party post WW2. I oppose any movement by the government in an attempt to go beyond its job as the custodian of our rights to life, liberty, and property. It is not the government's job to keep oil prices down for your benefit, there isn't an ammendment in the constitution that guarantees fair prices. The best way for fair prices to exist is with an open market.

chefmike
04-24-2006, 11:34 PM
The Oil Industry Is Driving Away With Our Future-The Norway Solution
Raymond J. Learsy 4/24/2006

Given the prices we are paying at the pump, given the egregious profits rung up by Big Oil and the oil patch generally...



In the world of oil, the word "nationalization" most often brings to mind nations where government ownership of the industry has meant technological stagnation, corrupt and politicized management, and squandering of the riches oil brings
Norway Saudi Arabia and Russia.


Predictably, my proposal will be attacked as nationalism, socialism, or worse. Yet given the oil industry's track record, their obscene profits extracted on our backs, and the watershed retirement package that was rewarded by Exxon-Mobil to their retiring Chairman, Lee Raymond (see "Exxon's Lee Raymond, Steward Of The Free Enterprise System" 4/15/06) it is time to end this insane industrial welfare. Handing over the profits of our natural resources to the oil patch must come to an end. Whose oil is it, anyway?



No one is attacking anyone.

To demand the Federal government aquire and run any company or industry is in fact,socialism and or communism. I would even call Learsy a NAZI. THe National Socialist German Workers Party allowed private ownership of production,as long as you did whatever they said.

That`s what it is called,that is what it has always been called.

Norway,Saudi Arabia,Russia? All do not have that pesky thing called the Constitution. They can have all the big brother government they wish. There is absolutely no Article in the US Constitution that enables Washington to nationalize the major means of production.

Back in 1962 John F. Kennedy, issued a statement on the then steel crisis, and I quote "Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest in this serious hour in our Nation's History, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives…." The Steel industry backed down.

The oil industry will respond that it is the market that sets the price. As I have set forth in my blog "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Gas Pump," January 15, 2006, that is a highly questionable contention. Yet the influence of the oil industry and their hires on "K" Street is so strong one despairs that the oil industry's interests and the nation's interests as currently constituted can ever be fully aligned to constructively respond to today's exigencies.

It should be known that nationalization is not unique to the American experience. During WW1 the nation's railroads were nationalized and administered by the US Railroad Administration. After 9/11 the private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.

Raymond J. Learsy

trish
04-24-2006, 11:56 PM
The law of supply and demand does not demonstrate that free market economies tend toward a stable state where all demands are satisfied. It merely asserts that under the right conditions an economy can have a set of attracting states. For extra-economic reasons these attractors can be anything but stable. Moreover, when the good is a necessity, the profit can be an unbounded function of price and the number of people left without can be dangerously and tragically high. In this way unfettered capitalism unwittingly invites regulation. A republic with a regulated economy is hardly a communist state.

White_Male_Canada
04-25-2006, 12:46 AM
No one is attacking anyone.

To demand the Federal government aquire and run any company or industry is in fact,socialism and or communism. I would even call Learsy a NAZI. THe National Socialist German Workers Party allowed private ownership of production,as long as you did whatever they said.

That`s what it is called,that is what it has always been called.

Norway,Saudi Arabia,Russia? All do not have that pesky thing called the Constitution. They can have all the big brother government they wish. There is absolutely no Article in the US Constitution that enables Washington to nationalize the major means of production



Yet the influence of the oil industry and their hires on "K" Street is so strong one despairs that the oil industry's interests and the nation's interests as currently constituted can ever be fully aligned to constructively respond to today's exigencies.

It should be known that nationalization is not unique to the American experience. During WW1 the nation's railroads were nationalized and administered by the US Railroad Administration. After 9/11 the private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.

Raymond J. Learsy

Learsy is coming from so many angles,one doesn`t know if he himself can keep track of his last statements and if they possibly contradict his new ones.

He states nationalization of the major means of production is not unique yet can only come up with a handfull of unique instances it has been done. When done it was during world wars on a temporary basis and not on a permanent one.Unionizing and federalizing airport security workers has done nothing to increase efficiency or security.

Learsy argues for nationalization or government run monopolies yet rails in anger at the oil cartels,specifically OPEC.

It is time for the U.S. government to adopt a policy inimical to the existence of OPEC...In September, at the instigation of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, OPEC cut oil production by 900,000 barrels per day. Claude Mandrill, head of the International Energy Agency, voiced his disappointment, given the continued weakness in the world economy. OPEC's strategy to maintain prices at persistently high levels works directly against sustained recovery and global economic growth...

So is Learsy arguing it is alright for a monarchy to own the mineral rights under the soil of Saudi Arabia and set it`s own prices,or is Learsy arguing against a country owning it`s own mineral rights and allowing the free market to set the price? Is Learsy implying the futures traders are employed by Exxon/Mobil and conspire to fix the futures price? Can he prove this through documentation?

Felicia Katt
04-25-2006, 07:22 AM
The law of supply and demand does not demonstrate that free market economies tend toward a stable state where all demands are satisfied. It merely asserts that under the right conditions an economy can have a set of attracting states. For extra-economic reasons these attractors can be anything but stable. Moreover, when the good is a necessity, the profit can be an unbounded function of price and the number of people left without can be dangerously and tragically high. In this way unfettered capitalism unwittingly invites regulation. A republic with a regulated economy is hardly a communist state.
The high price of oil is not just a simple reflex reaction of supply and demand. As Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said "The market determines the price,", meaning speculative trading
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060424/ts_afp/opecoilsaudiprice_060424083057

The key to understanding some of the recent, drastic oil price increases, therefore, is the role of the speculative factor. Most predictions of where oil prices are headed are based on trends in oil futures or derivative instruments that involve a bet on the likely trend in oil prices. Speculators are betting on a price increase which can result in available stocks being held back with future trade at a profit in mind. This in turn affects the actual demand-supply balance and the the bet on a price increase tends to get covered.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/06/08/stories/2004060800031100.htm

As a more and more speculative funds buy into the crude, gasoline, and heating oil markets, their price structures are getting distorted. Speculative buying is fostering the artificial hoarding of oil. It is dangerous, and it should be stopped. Markets can be distorted by manipulation and mania. which can justify intervention, which should leave producers and sellers but will make it too costly for funds to play the speculation game.

Some will say that is interfering with the “free” market but the “free” market is starting to get awfully expensive and isn't really free when the speculators' tail wags the dog. It’s one thing to speculate on pieces of paper called stocks, but with a vital commodity like oil it can have devastating results, as we are seeing now.
(paraphrased from The Danger of Speculation Commentary by Mike Norman )
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166038,00.html

Even though there is precedent for it, nationalizing the oil industry would be an extreme measure and should be reserved for a real emergency. But regulating and limiting speculation is not as drastic or draconian and should be done now.

And there is plenty of precedent for the US to do that. After the war Iraqis were paying only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline - a benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars subsidies bankrolled by American taxpayers, done to stabilize the market and avoid corruption and speculation.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2004/06/06/build/world/47-iraq-gasoline.inc

(Coincidentally, these millions, of course went to Halliburton ,which bought gas in Kuwait and transported it about 400 miles to Baghdad. Halliburton received hundreds of millions of dollars, charging 5 times as much as it should have cost. Oil experts called that amount "outrageous," a "rip-off" and "highway robbery." This increased cost isn't because of security. The military provides security for fuel convoys traveling to Iraq)
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11209

Gambling and Gaming are ok for Vegas, but not for vital resources, like oil, especially in a time of crisis. I guess if the "Halliburton mob" could still get its cut, the Adminstration should be ok with some gaming controls.



FK

Trogdor
04-25-2006, 09:40 AM
Plus we forget that the people who run the oil companies are overpaid, pencil-pushing fat-assed suits are all, simply put: pompous, money hungry donkey rimmers.

If an oil suit drops dead tomorrow, I'll have a bottle of champagne un-corked. :mrgreen:

chefmike
04-25-2006, 11:33 PM
At last... an answer to this problem! Stop bashing Rumsfield (unlike those traitorous generals calling for his resignation), and all will be well!

Tony Snow Attributes High Gas Prices To “People Complaining About Donald Rumsfeld”

Fox News Anchor Tony Snow is being considered as a replacement for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Looks like he would fit right in. Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Snow said that “people complaining about Donald Rumsfeld” were partially to blame for high gas prices.
Transcript:

O’REILLY: Prices have doubled in the USA and continue to go up. What say you sir?

SNOW: Well, this is where you get to call me a pinhead again, Bill. You’re absolutely right, supplies are high. But a couple of different things going on.

Different types of oil that are in supply. Oil refining costs have gone up a little bit. But let’s be real about this: 60 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline right now is crude oil prices. Crude oil over $70 a gallon right now. That gets written into the price. Why is that per gallon crude oil price so high? Because people are jittery.

You’ve got a guy in Iran saying we’re going to build a nuclear weapon. You’ve got people complaining about Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. There are jitters about the stability of the Middle East. Those subside and a number of people say this, analysts in the industry, the price goes down again.

article and video link here-

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/19/snow-oil-rumsfeld/

chefmike
04-25-2006, 11:48 PM
George Bush: Foreign Policy from God, Energy Policy from Big Oil
Arianna Huffington 04/25/2006

The president may turn to God when it comes to shaping his foreign policy, but his energy policy is strictly courtesy of the Men Upstairs at Big Oil.

Which is why it is beyond comical to watch Moe, Curly, and Larry -- sorry, I mean Bush, Hastert, and Frist -- getting all blue in the face about skyrocketing gas prices, and calling on the Energy and Justice Departments to look into possible market manipulation by oil companies.



It’s the least believable call for an investigation since O.J. set out to find the real killers.

For those of you experiencing a sudden wave of déjà vu, yes, the GOP demand for a federal probe of potential oil industry price-gouging was a carbon copy of the demands Chuck Schumer made last week. Hey, maybe they just unconsciously “internalized” Schumer’s words.

If it wasn’t so despicable it would be laughable.

There was Frist on Good Morning America today, putting aside his video diagnostic skills to become one of the “Car Talk” guys. Among Frist’s helpful money saving tips for drivers forced to consider taking out a second mortgage in order to fill up their tanks: get a tuneup, drive slower, and carpool. Thanks, Dr. Goodwrench!

But Frist was just the gassy second banana. The clear headliner was Bush, who had them rolling in the aisles at a meeting of the Renewable Fuels Association, with zingers like his claim that “large cash flows” mean that “these energy companies don’t need unnecessary tax breaks”. A sentiment that didn’t stop the president from signing a GOP energy bill stuffed with some $14.5 billion in tax breaks, tax subsidies, and tax deductions for his cash-rich energy industry chums. I guess those tax breaks were “necessary.”

Bush also scored big with his impression of a guy who cares about conservation, highlighting the need to “promote greater fuel efficiency”: “And the easiest way to promote fuel efficiency,” said the president, “is to encourage drivers to purchase highly efficient hybrid or clean diesel vehicles.” As the proud owner of a pair of hybrids, I say “hear, hear.” As a sentient human being I say, "Isn't this the same guy whose administration hasn't increased fuel efficiency standards for passengers cars even a single m.p.g. in six years?” Maybe now that former GM-lobbyist (and fuel efficiency opponent) Andy Card has left the White House, Bush has finally allowed his inner-Prius owner to run free. Or maybe the lure of touting vehicles that can run on alternative energy sources to an alternative energy trade association was just too hard to resist.

How gullible do they think we are? Memo to the White House: it’s not working. Bush’s approval rating just dropped to 32% -- a number at which both water and political clout freeze.

All this huffing and puffing about manipulated markets and record gas prices scream of a blatant attempt to inoculate Republicans from consumer rage over the massive earnings oil companies are scheduled to announce this week. Industry analysts predict that ExxonMobil will report first-quarter earnings of only $9.1 billion on Thursday -- down from the record $10.7 billion posted in the fourth quarter of 2005. With profits like that, Lee Raymond’s $400 retirement package is starting to look a little stingy. Except to those paying through the nose at the pump.

The most honest comment on the gas price crisis came from Scott McClellan (freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose, eh, Scottie?) who said: “This is not something we got into overnight.” Exactly. These levels of oil company profits took years of careful lobbying and planning to orchestrate.

Our oil-man president may want us to think that he’s shocked, shocked by the “large cash flows” of the oil companies, and the sticker shock drivers are experiencing at the pump, but even before Team Bush was dreaming of toppling Saddam, it was laying the groundwork for the gargantuan windfall the oil industry is seeing -- starting with Dick Cheney’s secret Energy Task Force.

It’s not a coincidence that the oil and gas industries donated over $25 million to Congressional campaigns in 2004 (with 80% of that money going into Republican coffers), and another $7.2 million so far in the 2006 cycle (with 84% going to the GOP). They also doled out over $4.5 million to Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential runs.

And what did they get for their largess? According to Public Citizen, the top five oil companies have pocketed over a quarter of trillion (that’s with a “T”) in profits since Bush took office. Talk about a return on investment. That’s a gusher!

So for American consumers, payback is a bitch. And three bucks a gallon at the gas pump. The Bush administration has turned the White House into a full service filling station for Big Oil. And we’re the ones being forced to pick up the tab.

So don’t let the empty rhetoric and the phony outrage pouring out of the White House and the Republican Congress fool you: America isn’t facing a shortage of fuel; it’s facing a shortage of leadership.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/george-bush-foreign-poli_b_19791.html

White_Male_Canada
04-26-2006, 12:39 AM
Big brother,aka your government, makes over 50 cents on every gallon

of gasoline sold.

Oil companies make about 8 to 10 cents per gallon sold.

Who`s ripping you off ?

All the hype and emotionalism does not trump

facts.

specialk
04-26-2006, 02:07 AM
I'm not too sure a lot of people are going to like my take on the gas price situation, but here we go!

I've always felt the answer to high gas prices and heating oil prices was to get off of oil. The more oil you pump out of the ground the longer the needle is in your vein. We had a chance in the mid 70's to get the job done, and we fell short. As you remember back then, we all got on the conservation kick. We insulated our homes, turned down thermostats, turned off unnecessary lights, down-sized autos, took shorter vacations, Solar was making a run at home and small business electric needs.etc. The net result of that was by the late 80's the bottom fell out of a barrel of oil, and we were paying 1.05 a gal for gas. The conservation caused a glut of oil, and that finally "paid off" so to speak. But we fucked up, by buying into cheap gas at the pump, and reveresed almost all the conservation measures we had in place. Had we kept up the effort to get into alternative fuels by now we wouldn't be using gas/oil in our cars and we would be making our own solar electricity in our homes. Today, for 15-20 G's you can do solar electric in most homes with a payback of 10-13 yrs. That price/ payback ratio would be much smaller today had we not lost sight of the goal.

Anyway, I hate paying through the nose as much as anyone at the pump. However, on the plus side of this rip off is that we are now thinking about things like corruption in the energy business and in Washington. That could lead to a change in leadership this fall. We're also starting to get back into alternative fuels again, that's a good thing. All this for 3.00 a gal. If it goes to 4.00 a gal, imagine what we'll be willing to do at that price.? WE, could force the auto industry to give us really efficient autos that we actually like to drive, or else they can go belly up trying to sell gas guzzlers.

You see, WE can take the bull by the horns and WE can make changes in our lives when WE are feeling a pain in our wallets. WE JUST NEED TO KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE. Whether it's politicians that will serve the people, or auto makers that will build what cars WE demand. So, there is a silver lining maybe in this dark cloud, it just comes at a higher cost to see the light. Lets not blow it again folks.

chefmike
08-05-2006, 11:30 PM
The Price of Oil, The Maddening Silence of The Press
Raymond J. Learsy 08/04/2006

In the past few years no commodity has played such havoc on our lives than has oil, and little has more directly touched the political and economic sinews of our era than the pernicious impact of the price of oil. It has penetrated everything from our governance, our foreign relations, our well being and most importantly our sense of personal destiny and our communal sense of the future.
And yet, it is the one issue that has received little insightful analysis by our media other than a repetition of the oil patch mantra that prices are a reflection of the free interface of market forces.

Just the other day a panel discussion whereby Fox News' Neil Cavuto discussed Exxon's staggering quarterly earnings with Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Interior, a vocal proponent of a windfall profits tax on oil companies (perhaps Senator Dorgan's crusade would have more traction were he to call it a "War Profiteering Tax", given that oil company earnings have escalated in almost direct tandem to the length of the war in Iraq).

The assembled panel talked about the usual shibboleths handed out to us by press and oil patch flacks; shortages, political instability, government policy, rising demand in China and India, and on. The focus came down to supply side problems, but never querying anything other than the accepted presumption that free market forces were setting the price of oil and oil products. That in turn oil patch profits, i.e. Exxon's profits, were a mere reflection of market conditions. That oil is a world commodity and its price is set accordingly, reflecting market supply and demand. Even Dorgan's main complaint was that profits aren't being used adequately to increase supply through new exploration and drilling (Exxon expects to use profits to increase dividends and buy back stock, and of course to hoard additional cash). Any hint alluding to the price of oil being a stacked deck through OPEC collusion and Big Oil's happy acquiescence, or mention of a doctored futures market wasn't touched on and would have been steamrolled by the assembled panel.

My contention has been, as set forth in these postings, that there is no "free market" in oil. And yet there seems to a total unwillingness in the press to even examine this possibility. It has permitted the administration to hide behind the oil patch's fig leaf rallying cry "it's not us, it's market forces", or "the price reflects the market place, and there is little we can do" as a convenient excuse to do nothing.(see "As Prices Go Through The Roof, Some Tough Questions For President Bush" 4.27.06)

In the meantime the enormous transfer of wealth continues to the oil companies, and to state oil producers who are using their new found wealth to act with impunity on the world stage, undermining in turn our interests, and if allowed to be successful, our future.

I am not alone in my perceptions. Let me cite some examples some of which I have touched on before. In September of 2005 no less a personage than Gordon Brown, Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly accused the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries of deliberately holding back oil production from the market thereby artificially causing a doubling of prices in two years time (from circa $30/bbl to over $60/bbl back then), please see "As Oil Prices Rise the Media Slumbered Away- Psst, Don't Wake Up the New York Times or Wall Street Journal" 4.25.06. - Neither the New York Times nor the Wall Street Journal picked up on Gordon Brown's brave and prescient declaration (prices would only get worse), nor did any of the national press.

In the summer of 2005 Senators Mike DeWine (R. Ohio) and Herb Kohl (D. Wisconsin) introduced a bill which passed a Senate vote giving the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission specific power to override the sovereign immunity exemption extended to OPEC members (see "The Price of Oil, OPEC and Our Laws", 3.10.06) The bill would have permitted the Justice Department and the FTC to process legal action through our courts of law against OPEC members for colluding to set oil prices (action permitted and often successful against other cartel adherent or like organizations that happen not to be government entities). The bill died in joint committee with the House. There was total lack of press follow up nor interest.

Even Alan Greenspan has now joined the Alfred E. Neuman, "Who Me Worry" Club jetting around the country giving lectures on the blandishments of speculative oil futures trading (see "Gasoline Over $3.00 Gallon, Why? BP Knows. Plus Alan Greenspan Sings In the Energy Choir" 7.12.06) without a hint that manipulated price distortions might be in play. And because he comes to the issue as Alan Greenspan (especially given his long history as an oil man??), nary a commentary in the press questioning that perhaps, just perhaps, he's wrong.

Recently Senators Coleman and Levin, ranking members of the of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations agreed to investigate the manipulation of commodities, especially oil trading in the futures markets, with the prospect of enacting legislation that would close major loopholes in federal oversight of oil and gas trades (see "The Enron Loophole Helps OPEC Serve Up a Hefty Helping of Oil-Price Baloney" 7.20.06). The press has been totally absent in focusing our attention on this important initiative

In my experience with such as CNBC, CNN, Fox News, Bloomberg (viz. Bloomberg's very recent pandering headline, "Bush Silence on Oil Prices Reflects Lack of Influence on Market" reporting that a government run by a president devoted to free market principles doesn't have much influence over energy prices) has been fairly consistent. If the issue of the "manipulation of oil markets" is touched upon, however gingerly, that is either the end of the interview or we wont call again.

Not that my comments are especially insightful, but there is a consistent insistence that this issue begin to be looked at closely. The circling of the wagons mentality by the media is sadly misguided. It is not a question of market orientation or mercantile philosophy that is at stake, but rather the essential key is to assure the true functioning of a primordially important market in a way that our future is not endangered.

this article and it's related links here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/the-price-of-oil-the-mad_b_26574.html

chefmike
08-11-2006, 12:42 AM
Bravo BP! Those Record Earnings Really Help. Alaska and the Nation Thank You!

Last quarter BP's earnings stood at $7.3 billions. Another record. Earnings continue at stupendous levels yet much good that has done for the care and maintenance of their Alaska pipeline infrastructure. The level of mismanagement, purposeful or otherwise, has Rep. John Dingell (D. Michigan) calling for congressional hearings and expressing his outrage "It's appalling that BP let this critical pipeline deteriorate to the point that a major shutdown was necessary".
MSNBC reported that allegations about BP's maintenance practices have been so persistent that a criminal investigation is under way into whether BP has for years deliberately shortchanged maintenance and falsified records to cover it up. Further, that current BP employees claim they've been told to cut back chemical applications ordinarily put into the system to retard rust and corrosion, and to falsify records. That a federal official confirmed that many of these workers have also talked to the FBI.

In announcing the shutdown BP acknowledged that a key maintenance procedure to check for sludge otherwise known as "pigging" had not been performed for more than a decade.

In an interview this week with NBC News, a federal official Thomas J. Barrett, with the Department of Transportation's Office Of Pipeline Safety, stated bluntly, "What disappointed me was their failure to maintain these lines to an accepted industry level of care".

So much for oil company profits, as exemplified by BP, and the use to which they are put to husband the nation's natural resources. (see "The Oil/Gas on Federal Lands Belong To Us!"3.24.06) One must begin to ask whether the nation is being taken by the oil industry and the deeply vested interests whose avarice is now veering far afield from the nation's trust and well being.

Oh, one last thing if the above isn't enough. BP, while grievously shortchanging pipeline maintenance (not to speak of the Texas City Refinery disaster the year before) found $8.5 billions, I repeat $8.5 billions, to buy back 725 million of its shares during the first half of 2006 alone. And to raise its dividend by 11%.

Nice work if you can get it. Thanks BP!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/bravo-bp-those-record-ea_b_26911.html

tsafficianado
04-27-2007, 02:08 AM
chiefmike, who apparently has never actually had a real thought in his head, incessantly posts socialist manifesto from the liberal press occasionally interspersed with salacious inuendo about the sexuality or the inclinations of anyone who might dare to disagree with (other people's) opinions he shares.
Chiefmike, you seem to have a very limited grasp of the fundamentals of capitalism and a market economy. Folks do stuff and sell it with the intention of making a profit. The profit margins in the oil industry have ranged between negative and 8% over the last 20 years. At the same time they pour trillions of dollars into exploration and capital expenditures to assure some reasonaly reliable flow of oil, natural gas and heating oil to a market that demands those products. In the late nineties when they were doing all of this and often LOSING money where was all the liberal whining? Now they make a couple of bucks and the libs want to tax it or nationalize it? They make a LOT of money because they supply a LOT of product at profit margins FAR below those of most American industries. Coke puts water and sugar and caramel coloring in a bottle and sells it for a huge profit but I don't hear you hollering that we need to nationalize the soda pop industry. Nike pays some Chinese kid ten cents an hour to use 3 bucks worth of materials to make a pair of tennis shoes they sell to your kids for $175 but I don't hear the liberals getting all worked up about that. You folks whine about what a 'big oil' CEO makes, a guy who runs one of the most complicated companies in the world, a guy who is responsible for the employment of thousands of people, but you probably drool over dimwit steroid-hyped quasi-thug prima donnae who get paid the same amount of money to sort of play sports.
One of your contributions suggested that the federal government should receive the profits from the draws of fossil fuels from land in the public domain and fields in the national sea shelf.....who do you want to drill for this oil? Exxon? They're going to do it for free? Or perhaps you want Coke or Nike to do it? Or perhaps the national government can start up an oil company and drill it themselves and we can start paying fifty dollars a gallon for gas.
Socialism, communism did not work. That's why ALL of the major socialist regimes have collapsed and most are converting to market driven economies. Capitalist and market mechanisms solve problems, certainly not as quickly or efficiently as we would like, but that is the human factor. There is corruption and malpractice in the oil industry just as there is corruption and malpractice in EVERY industry, just as there are Boy Scout leaders and Catholic priests who engage in sodomy with little boys and high school teachers who bang cheerleaders....it's not a perfect world, unfortunately.
The American auto industry made a half-assed stab at increasing efficiency and building dead-ass dullmobiles in the eighties to counteract the surge in gas prices, but in the nineties and into this century they reverted to building gas-guzzling SUVs and high-powered cars, perhaps all of this is the fault of the auto industry? Of course not, they built what consumers would BUY.
Next time try THINKING before you (let someone else) speak.

qeuqheeg222
04-28-2007, 09:11 AM
america has always been about some business monopolizing the masses...the oil industry,the auto industry,the phones,the power utilities,,..but the real power is in the market..what these business pukes need is ever growing markets(what they call people/consumers)..someone earlier spoke of the 70's early 80's conservation measures where the MARKET took hold of some of the reins and changed behaviour and costs...see toyotas large grab in world auto sales today!what is interesting tho is these same republicans who want free markets dont want you to have access to alternatives or self installed solar panels because it cuts into their business buddies pocketsbooks...we as consumers need to change vehicles or ride goddamn bikes to work(shit their are enuff fat asses in this country who need the exercise)..what would happen if everyone in your town for 1/2 a sunday a month shut off their electric meters?what if more people went to city council meetings to vote for trolley cars that got ripped out by gm,standard oil in the 50's...consumers have the control but they need to be educated i geuss...

guyone
04-28-2007, 07:36 PM
Good luck!

chefmike
04-28-2007, 10:59 PM
Learsy knows more about these matters than a GOP shill like tsafficianado
could learn in two lifetimes...

Next... :roll:

tsafficianado
04-29-2007, 01:20 AM
chief, i am no gop shill, i am an independent and don't care much more for bush than i did for clinton, though i dare say he was a better choice than the other crappy choice....al gore. as for learsy, don't know who he is but he sounds like a spew-machine. first off, ANYONE who would reference the clown-school reject Dorgan is laughable.
now, just for once, engage YOUR brain. where were learsy and dorgan in 1999 when oil was going for $12 a barrel and 'big oil' was losing money? why weren't they leading a charge to ensure that companies that provide a resource critical to national security were solvent? bottled water was selling for $1 a gallon and oil was selling for 45 cents a gallon....do you think a gallon of bottled water is more difficult to obtain than a gallon of oil? the profits of exxon and the like have been 'headline quality' for the last few quarters primarily because they sell a LOT of product, but their profit MARGINS are MUCH MUCH lower than many industries that have far less stringent barriers to entry and success. Nike's profit margins, Nintendo's profit margins, Coca Cola's profit margins, Altria's profit margins and those of hundreds of other 'elective' producers are significantly higher than those of 'big oil'. Why aren't you and Learsy and Dorgan raising a stink about them if profits are the issue?
You (Learsy) may not have noticed that in the period when the price of oil doubled there was a triple of prices for copper, a quadruple for reactor-grade uranium, major spikes in prices for nickel and moly and strategic metals and for soft commodities as well. You (and I guess Learsy) probably do not understand the mechanisms which generate commodity cycles that are much longer and much more violent than most of the other economic cycles. if you ask nicely i will explain them to you and perhaps you can share them with Learsy?
As far as the suggestion that Congress is using OUR time efficiently to debate a suggestion that the Justice Department file in US court to go after OPEC, well, roflmao. I can just see them hauling a cowering Chavez in front of Judge Judy for his tongue-lashing.
The facts are that fossil fuels, particularly oil, are a dwindling resource and the demand is exploding. The US has some 5% of the world's population and consumes 22% of its oil. This is a crisis coming to a boil and our CHILDREN face a big problem. The Chinese are going to demand vastly accelerating quantities of oil, as are the other legions of the emerging nations, and these little price spikes you reactionaries are whining about are NOTHING compared to what is coming in the next fifteen years. Nationalize it? Harharharharahar. In the next ten years you will see barrels of oil for $400 and gasoline for $15 a gallon. Nationalize it and it will be here much sooner.
Your beloved Democrats have held the Presidency for almost half of the last 45 years and the Congress for more than that, please point out to me the major initiatives that they have enacted to avert this impending disaster? Google 'Peak Oil' and do a little reading and get some rough idea of where we are heading. The 'Peak Oil' bellringers are certainly exaggerating the case, but the problem is real and it is on our doorstep. The US will continue to engage in military action to secure our share of the remaining world oil reserves, you had better get used to it.
The US dollar has been in steady decline to world currencies for 20 years and will continue to follow that path, adding to the inflationary mess that spiking oil and commodity demand will cause. Whining about Exxon's profits or the CEO's pay package is almost as effective as pissing on a forest fire. Did you park your SUV yet? Did you start walking to work? Did you turn your thermostat back to 65 degrees yet? I suggest you get in practice, because you won't have a choice in a few years, and your hero Learsy and his hero Dorgan are not doing ANYTHING to head off the problem.
Look, things have changed . THINK about this. Over the last one hundred and fifty years one fifth of the world's population emerged into the industrial and then the 'modern' world. Over the next 40 years one half of the world's population intends on making the same transition. That's two and a half times as many people in a quarter the time, a TEN-FOLD increase in the RATE of person-transition. Even during the tepid pace of the last century there were severe disruptions of the commodity base and infrastructure (the oil spikes of the seventies, the spike of gold from $30 an ounce to $600 an ounce in 1981 are examples). The reserves of all of the primary energy and hard commodities have been DWINDLING and the infrastructure is not keeping pace with the demand acceleration. The transition pace is growing and will accelerate rapidly because the mechanisms like transportation and communication and the internet and etc. are already in place and universally available. Urban construction in China has now reached a pace equivalent to building Houston once a month, the equivalent of building every major US city in six years. I think everyone knows about and talks about the scope of China but I don't think anyone, ANYONE, has GRASPED it yet.

White_Male_Canada
04-29-2007, 02:07 AM
Learsy knows more about these matters than a GOP shill like tsafficianado
could learn in two lifetimes...

Next... :roll:

Hilarious old fart. TSA is eating your lunch intellectually.

You post not your own knowledge or thoughts, merely what OTHER leftists spout.Your replies are the thoughts of others, not your own specific knowledge and commentary,unless it`s the usual invectives.TSA replies with what TSA knows.

You`re getting your head handed to you old man. Walk away.

Quinn
04-29-2007, 02:38 AM
Does anyone care to point out the irony in the above post?

-Quinn

specialk
04-29-2007, 02:43 AM
Does anyone care to point out the irony in the above post?

-Quinn

Oh.. Oh, let me, let me LMAO. The classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.....from a pantywaste of all people. :roll:

svenson
04-29-2007, 02:53 AM
Does anyone care to point out the irony in the above post?

-Quinn

white-male-canada calls persons gay alot but is gay. he calls chef-mike old when hes fourtysix. he is very sad

Maxwell
04-29-2007, 08:11 AM
Wow.

Someone here actually considers nationalizing an American market.

Glad to see that Stalinism is still alive and well on Hungangels.

specialk
04-29-2007, 03:07 PM
Wow.

Someone here actually considers nationalizing an American market.

Glad to see that Stalinism is still alive and well on Hungangels.

Hi Tfool :P

White_Male_Canada
04-29-2007, 07:47 PM
Does anyone care to point out the irony in the above post?

-Quinn

This from the village idiot who googles,cuts and pastes from the first page !? How amusing. Not only from the premier cut `n paster but how her/his little students learned the trade from her/him.
Moronic leftists should never attempt to argue law when they have no background in it.In fact they don`t, they merely cut and paste arguments written by others.

Now THAT, is irony at it`s finest and it is what makes you, the Village Idiot.

Quinn
04-29-2007, 10:52 PM
Does anyone care to point out the irony in the above post?

-Quinn

This from the village idiot who googles,cuts and pastes from the first page !? How amusing. Not only from the premier cut `n paster but how her/his little students learned the trade from her/him.
Moronic leftists should never attempt to argue law when they have no background in it.In fact they don`t, they merely cut and paste arguments written by others.

Now THAT, is irony at it`s finest and it is what makes you, the Village Idiot.

What's wrong, Tinkerbell? Not getting enough big strong men to top your pansy ass? Let me know when people begin to take you or your weak Jamie-Michelle style rantingds seriously. Until then, enjoy your continuing irrelevance.

svenson
04-29-2007, 11:06 PM
all persons know white-male-canada is a liar and hypocrit. his insanity is worse then regular arguing of leftists and rightists. hes a loser

chefmike
04-29-2007, 11:34 PM
WMP remains irrelevant, unless someone happens to be looking for a pillow-biter... :P

White_Male_Canada
04-30-2007, 01:11 AM
Does anyone care to point out the irony in the above post?

-Quinn

This from the village idiot who googles,cuts and pastes from the first page !? How amusing. Not only from the premier cut `n paster but how her/his little students learned the trade from her/him.
Moronic leftists should never attempt to argue law when they have no background in it.In fact they don`t, they merely cut and paste arguments written by others.

Now THAT, is irony at it`s finest and it is what makes you, the Village Idiot.

What's wrong, Tinkerbell? Not getting enough big strong men to top your pansy ass? Let me know when people begin to take you or your weak Jamie-Michelle style rantingds seriously. Until then, enjoy your continuing irrelevance.

Let`s see,

the VillageIdiot and the other 2 stooges cannot debate law, economics, ethics,etc,etc.

So what`s left for the 3 stooges? Ahh, injective, perjorative and the big lie.


The second the moron brigade tries anyone who can reason, you all lose. Take a gander at the old man pushing 60, CM. Having his head handed to him by TSA. You are all intellectually vapid and void. A vacuum exists between your collective ears, it`s a space devoid of matter.

Intellectual lightwieghts such as yourselves best stay in your little corner and circle jerk. 8)

chefmike
04-30-2007, 01:24 AM
WMP remains irrelevant, unless someone happens to be looking for a pillow-biter...

Quinn
04-30-2007, 02:00 AM
LMFAO.... White_Male_Tinkerbell thinks his nancy boy opinion matters – to anyone at all. Two words: deluded irrelevance..

-Quinn