Skip to comments.Sticker Shock-$3 a gallon gas? Some links
Posted on 03/17/2004 2:08:40 PM PST by backhoe
|To find all articles tagged or indexed using calpowercrisis, click below:|
|click here >>>||calpowercrisis||<<< click here|
|(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)|
I just think we're getting gouged in Idaho.
Oh, long after that as well. All intertemporal decisions have been priced into the forward contrats traded on futures markets --- even in the present set of constraints such as drilling restrictions. None of the posters is even addressing the presence of futures: it's all about the past and present, and the sky-is-falling present is so much worse than the sunny-sky past.
Even if you remove drilling restrictions, people who today refuse to learn economics and institutions of capitalism will continue to do so.
to compensate. For what? Why would bankers care about the oil prices?
This gave us 21% inflation during the Carter years. Those with debts benifited from this as wages went up also! And those without debts did not benefit from wage inflation?
And the point of this enumeration was... what exactly?
That's propaganda. Domination must be defined even to be discussed --- something you do not bother to do and replace with nice-sounding, insendiary phrases.
Markets do not provide public goods, and we hire the government to provide them. By itself, it is not at all act of submission. Naturally, any contract grants privilages and imposes duties, so to partake of public goods you as individual do forgo certain freedoms.
Having common currency, including that which is "faith-based," in a public good.
Any libertarian statement such as yours is nonsense as long as it does not even bother to address provision of public goods.
The prices are not based on cost: they are based on supply and demand. They rise if demand goes up or supply goes down.
Delivering into a less densely populated area is more costly (per galon, per customer), and that is one of the things you pay via higher prices. The second is that the greater demand in a more populated area brings more competition that, once there, lowers the price. By comparison, there is less competition in a less populated area: in a tiny town you are stuck with Uncle Joe who opened a station next to the General Store some thirty years ago...
Price differentials are due to differences in market characteristics, which affect both the demand and supply side and, ultimately, cost --- but not the cost of producton of oil.
You confuse citizenship with trade, Eva.
While we as individuals may care about the citizenship of those with whom we trade, we all would lose a great deal if we imposed citizenship to which you refer in your post on COMPANIES.
If you do not see me pumping gas at the gas station and ONLY see that I am handing my money over to the attendant, you might similarly think that he robbed me.
You would be equally wrong in that case, of course.
Get away from his stores and the local competitors and the prices drop significantly.
Yes, Adam it does: you apparently are uncomfortable not only with economics but also with logarithms if you think of them as level of education beyond reading.
If you knew anything about prices, you would know that that is a relative notion, and their ratios make more sense than they themselves. And it is changes in ratios that are captured by a logarithm.
Now, you prefer something else: arbitrarily singled out notions and measures that don't measure anything. Well, as COBOL programmers used to say in ancient Rome, purgamentum init, exit purgamentum: garbage in, garbage out.
Of course, if one puts a you-should-love-liberty slant on garbage, you expect it somehow to be transformed into a philosophical thought...
Oh no, Mr. Petronksi: this may uncover facts, you cannot do that with a libertarian. Plus, knowledge of logarithms immediately give you away as an elitist and thus disqualifies you from "feeling the pain of the masses." You should not have admitted to knowing logarithms... They don't even use them is business schools any more.
This suggestion is hardly practical: it presupposes the ability to process information and, more importantly, take responsibility for one's own actions. The suggestion and motivation of the oroginal post on this thread is much more practical: b---ch and moan about the markets, evil Fed, stupid government... Don't you see how much more practical THAT is?
You have an erroneou perception that oil companies are insulated in those countries where they drill:
ARCO was a totally US company, with a totally domestic supply of crude. There was no foreign currency involved That's what you think. It would've been terrible if their finance department did not trade currency futures, and I would be VERY surprised if their shareholders and directors allowed that for long. Oil and gas are international markets, and even if you sell only in Montanta you are subject to price oscillations that are smoothed out by forward currency contracts. In addition, a domestic oil company tips into spot oil markets when they are short in supply or have excess volume.
and no foreign markets either, to drive up the price of oil. The price for oil was not determined by ARCO. It was determined by demand and AGGREGATE supply.
BP stated at the time of the take over that they wanted to see a single price for oil in all their markets, that they hoped to raise the price of gasoline in the US to the same price that they pay in Europe. And you thing that ARCO, being good Americans they were, would not want the same thing?
In addition, you misunderstood what BP said: it is a well-managed company and I cannot believe that someone could say such a silly thing, which would cause laughter even in an MBA class...
Yeh... That's the ticket...
Snake oil is also good, I hear. Unfortunately, it was all confiscated by the Fed, masons, and international Jewish bankers as part of enslavement of the American people. Otherwise I would definitely buy some: a solid investment.
I forgot to explain my remarks on this. Another poster was claiming that the weak dollar was the cause of the price rise. There is no foreign exchange involved in the sale of domestic crude. Also, the philosophy of the board changed to a more market conscious strategy after the Lod Cook left. They reversed everything that Cook had done and basicly prepared ARCO for the takeover by BP, for which they were paid handsomely.
There is no such thing. Is a polio shot a public good to the one child in a million who dies from it? Is a highway a public good to the man who loses his farm for it?
and we hire the government to provide them.
Hiring refers to a voluntary process. You are referring to a non-voluntary process based on violence not collaborative activity.
Naturally, any contract grants privilages and imposes duties, so to partake of public goods you as individual do forgo certain freedoms.
Please provide evidence that I have signed such a contract.
Having common currency, including that which is "faith-based," in a public good
Not for young folks trying to purchase inflated housing. Or old folks being robbed of their benefits and savings via inflation. Remind me how falsifying the CPI is a public good?
The 4 makes the 3 superfluous as you will be able to go dirty like crazy.
The ratio of what to what?
Now, you prefer something else: arbitrarily singled out notions and measures that don't measure anything.
What do you propose we use a unit of monetary measure? Lord Greenie himself has rejected all the M's and MZM.
Actually just plain dumb steel, copper, soybeans or oil have been sufficient for the last several years.
Now why is that?
Could it have something to do with the fact the Feds probably have more unfunded liabilities than all privately held wealth in America?
Eva, "prevewnting" a takeover IS in the interest of shareholders. Takeovers cannot be prevented altogether: poison pills increase the price, which is in the interest of the shareholders.
Sound like you'be been subjected to a great deal of anti-management rhetoric from armshair generals in your company: somehow, even if one's expertise is limited in makign two-sided copies, he still knows best what is good for the company --- having never seen its books even!
With this in mind, Cook increased the debt to value ratio to a such a high level that a take-over was unattractive. And what happened to the price of the stock?
The idea was to keep the company going, rather than please the stock holders. I would think that to let the company function as a going concern IS the mains interest of the shareholders.
After the embargo of '78, ARCO pulled out of all it's foreign holdings and concentrated solely on it's Alaskan oil, purposely to be free of the OPEC pressure. That is a bet the company made, like many strategic decisions management faces.
ARCO was one of those companies that people were proud to work for, What people are proud of is the function of their psyche and often has little to do with the object of pride. Witness, for instance, the pride of a parent in her or his child: it is there even when the child's achievements are average. There is nothing wrong with that (in fact it's great for the lucky child) but it has nothing to do with the child itself.
In those times, Eva, Americans were generally proud of their corporations. The same was true about people who worked for GM, GE, aerospace industry: you were a part of something big, you were making America great. A generation before that, Americans were proud of their country in general, but by '70s the civil rights movements not only achieved equality for minorities but went further and imposed guilt and shame on Americans. We were no longer proud of our country and ashamed of what "we" have done to the VIetnamese, blacks, women, Latin Americans: the leftists have won that territory. However, we were still proud of our corporations.
Well, the battle continued and granted more victories to the left, which after patriotism went on to dismantle other insitutuions: family, parenting, primary education (liberal arts higher education is dead since 1050s) -- and, finally, capitalism itself. The change in attitude manifested itself in 1987-1989 or so with a notable increase in labor turnoover: loyalty to companies has disappeared. Companies have responded, of course, by cutting costs in that area --- from reduced benefits to "hotelling" (office-sharing).
You may or may not see the point in the specifics I offered, but the main point is valid: whether employees feel good or bad working for the company has nothing to do with the company's strategy in the global market. This is simply because people do not know management, although they believe they do --- just because they observed their managers (sort of like fancying oneself being an engineer just because you've seen a car or better yet --- drove one!) Havig very little reason of that kind, people liked working for ARCO in 1970s and they do not, as you say, now --- with equally little reason.
Most certainly, this feeling has nothing to do with the company strategy or country of incorporation.
There is no foreign exchange involved in the sale of domestic crude. YOu are correct, of course. But this does not mean that foreign exchange does not affect the price.
Also, the philosophy of the board changed to a more market conscious strategy after the Lod Cook left. They reversed everything that Cook had done and basically prepared ARCO for the takeover by BP, for which they were paid handsomely.
Now you finally said it! In the increasingly socialist atmosphere of the present-day America, one freely offers a libel that the management is interested in being taken over because they allegedly receive a lot of money.
I cannot even count the angles, each of which shows how patently wrong this view is! Firstly, suppose that management is indeed benefiting from a takeover. So what? All of the shareholders do so too: the price offered for a company is almost always greater than the current stock price by a significant amount. To benefit shareholders is the jib the managers were hired to do and, if they do it well -- they get paid for it. What's wrong with that?
Secondly, the argument is a logical fallacy: you see and state the fact that managers benefited from the sale of the company and substituted with the fact that that was the ONLY thing that moved them. If I enjoy driving my car and thus benefited from buying it --- it must be that I purchased it to the detriment of my family. Silly, of course.
Demagogues around you use such argument all the time: it is a favorite of Pat Buchanan, for instance. He observers that some of our actions abroad, such as invasion of Iraq, benefit Israel (we weaken or destroy Israel's enemy) and claims that this is WHY we did it in the first place. What is the connection with that country? Clearly, Bush or Cheney cannot have any, so it must be Jews in the administration (who are expected, according to him, to sell out their own country for the sake of Israel): he uses "neocon" as a synonym for Jew.
Leave aside the (im)moral implications of Buchanan's argument and observe that it is logically incorrect: Buchanan starts with "Israel benefits from war in Iraq" but then substitutes it with "only Israel benefits from war in Iraq." This is a logical fallacy.
Friends of your husband do the same when they start with "management benefits from the sale of the company" and substitute it with "only management benefits from the sale of the company." It is the same argument, and it is equally incorrect and equally wrong: just as Buchanan defames Jewish members of Bush's administration by accusing them of betraying their country, the argument against management accuses them of betraying the shareholders. As I said, this is factually incorrect and immoral. And, incidentally, I do not find ignorance to be a sufficient excuse: if one does not know, one should not speak at all rather than speak falsely.
The reason for your not hearing opinions and facts such as those expressed in my post is a deep one: this knowledge has been removed from your textbooks and from the press. According to the press, everything American is bad, and what is more American than capitalism itself? What is more American than the corporations that FOUNDED this country? Indeed, how many people today, when thinking about the Hudson Bay Company or Virginia Company, connect them with the present-day corporations? How many people think of Harvard College (University) as the longest continuously functioning corporation in the U.S.? Hardly any, despite, the ironic fact that Hudson Bay is even still in existence.
Thirdly --- and finally, for I am going to stop here --- the claim that the company officers prepared it for "takeover by BP, for which they were paid handsomely" is also not quite correct. Surely, you have heard about the huge bonuses and severance they received. As I said earlier these two are different animals: a bonus, just like yours or mine, is a reward for the job well done in behalf of the shareholders. Severance pay, which is also like yours or mine and differs only in quantity -- the famous "parachutes" made infamous by the press and other socialist provocateurs --- are large as sums of money but they are not as great as the compensation the managers would've received if the company had NOT been taken over. In other words, if you compare the pay to your salary, it is a huge sum; but if you compare it to the pay the officer would've received if he stayed on his or her job --- that pay is not so great. It is often on the level of one year compensation. When IBM was downsizing in late 1980, it was paying that AND MORE to every person who was layed off.
It sad to see that conservatives do not even recognize when they repeat, however innocently, socialist mantra. That is why I think we shall see socialized medicine and then everything else within a generation. There is no one left who would be proud of capitalism to defend is --- or even know what it is. .
You exhibit what Dostoyevky called arrogance of ignorance. As if it were not bad enough that you delve into matters of some complexity without taking economics at least at the intermediate level of college --- you declare that things you do not know and clearly do not understand do not even exist.
You have no idea how foolish you look when you say things such that quoted above. Perhaps you should stop: you already have both feet firmly placed in your mouth.
The original subject was the "public good" of a Centrally Controlled Currency. I think its plain to see that there will be winners and losers in such a system. It isn't good for everyone. Its also fairly easy to understand our current system allows the government essentially an unlimited budget. Unlimited budgets lead to unlimited government. Perhaps you're like most physicists and have spent your entire career as a glorified welfare queen and dare not bite the hand that feeds you.
You have done nothing to address my points concerning the falsification of the CPI, or the recent increases in the prices of commodities, or even the measure of money itself.
All you have done is adopt a psdueo-sophisticated posture and call me names.
Congrats on reading Dostoevsky. I'm soooo impressed.
That is your call: you can call it lack of vision, or you can call being somewhat informed.
Backhoe's links portray genuine concerns the average voter has,
Of course. Equal Rights Amendment was also a genuine concern of the leftists in the '70s. Anti-corporate and anti-capitalist propaganda is their concern today as well. It is genuine, all right, but has nothing to do with either our traditions or reality.
Same with oil prices: to talk about them without even knowing what price is --- well, it may be a genuine concern but it should be addreseed either in the classroom or local bookstore.
Further, as a conservative may be concernred with interferernce of the government into the oil industry and questioning whether environmental protection went too far. This is not the same thing as scaring people with high oil prices. That is intellectually dishonest.
Backhoe reminds us of the dust covered solutions that conservatives have been offering in a new light. SOme of these solutions are offered to nonexistent problems.
I personally believe that low oil prices create jobs, which is why I bookmarked it.That's great. Do you believe in gravity? DO you form beliefs about results of chemical reactions? How about hypotheses about the shape of the Earth --- perhaps, you believe it to be squere?
There is no need to form beliefs ahout things that are known. And, in addition, who besides Marx and Lenin said that creation of jobs is a virtue that has to be pursued?
Of course not! But this is different from screaming, "Buy dogs! Crime rate may hit 3 per block by the summer!"
It is this --- the original post on this thread --- to which I referred as intellectually dishonest.
See, what I don't get about that argument is that there doesn't seem to be any shortage of gasoline at the pumps. No stations with signs saying "OUT OF GAS." No fewer cars at the stations lining up to fill up. No fewer cars on the road at rush hour. By all empirical indications, there's just as much gas as there ever is. It just costs more.