Want proof of market manipulation in the oil industry? Here it is.

[Le Jacquelope]

A major failure of laissez-faire capitalism is the power of cartels (which would be legal under laissez-faire) to reduce production of a good in order to keep the price high.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4981.html

Saudi Arabia's Shura council (parliament) will hold a series of meetings over the next two weeks to discuss a controversial proposal by a key member to curb oil production to save reserves for better prices, Saudi media reported. The council will listen to a report by deputy chairman of the Shura water and public utilities committee, Salim bin Rashid Al Marri, who will argue for cutting crude supplies to maintain the Kingdom's underground reserves.

 

[JagFarlane]

Hmmmm and then oddly enough they put out this information:

Saudi Arabia to prevent price hikes.

Not disagreeing with you, just wondering what they're really up to

 

[sr71plt]

You lose me completely. The Saudi Shura council isn't a cartel, and the Saudis aren't doing anything that the United States hasn't already been doing for decades. We are sitting on our own oil reserves until we've used up everyone elses'--and our version of the Shura council (Congress) has been complicit in that. What's your point?

The bottom line is that Americans are avoiding reality--in a long-delayed sense--until we face up to what it's been costing others for gas for some time. Fifteen years ago I was paying $6.00/gallon for gas in Europe.

 

[trysail]

A major failure of laissez-faire capitalism is the power of cartels (which would be legal under laissez-faire) to reduce production of a good in order to keep the price high.
Want proof of market manipulation in the oil industry? Here it is.

Saudi Arabia's Shura council (parliament) will hold a series of meetings over the next two weeks to discuss a controversial proposal by a key member to curb oil production to save reserves for better prices, Saudi media reported. The council will listen to a report by deputy chairman of the Shura water and public utilities committee, Salim bin Rashid Al Marri, who will argue for cutting crude supplies to maintain the Kingdom's underground reserves.

It is possible that the above is the most tortured and twisted piece of logic(?) ever to grace Lit. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with laissez-faire capitalism.

How the little cavity between your ears can somehow manage to draw any comparison whatsoever between the action of a royal family and "manipulation in the oil industry" (which in itself is a simplistically transparent and obvious attempt to apply a broadbrush condemnation) is beyond comprehension.

It is THEIR country. It is THEIR petroleum. The Sauds can do whatever they want to do with it.

Exactly what is it that you propose we do to enforce compliance with United States law, invade?

Since you're too young and, even worse, a starry-eyed, pie-in-the-sky dreamer who doesn't understand economics, I'll give you a little free lesson. Anyone who understands economics understands that the only way a monopoly can be sustained in the long run is by continually LOWERING PRICES. Ask John D. Rockefeller, ask Bill Gates, ask Intel.

IBM, DeBeers, the whalers of Nantucket and General Motors ignored that truth— look what happened to them.

You need to read Joseph Schumpeter's Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. It is not easy to read but it might save you from making such colossal errors of judgment and logic. "Creative destruction" may be the single most important concept you've (obviously) never heard of.

 

[R. Richard]

Under current United States law, anyone can generally sell anything they own for wnatever price they can find a buyer. They can also refuse to sell anything they own. [No, you aren't permitted to sell heroin, even if you own it. Also you aren't permitted to sell liter bottles of bottled water at $10 each in the aftermath of a disaster. However, what I said is still basically true.]

If I had a couple, ten oil wells in Texas, I could move down there, change my name to J.R. Richard and refuse to sell a single drop of the oil I pump, with no penalty, except the loss of my own revenue.

I don't know where you went to school, but go and report the operation. They are obviously conducting a fraud.

 

[Liar]

A major failure of laissez-faire capitalism is the power of cartels (which would be legal under laissez-faire) to reduce production of a good in order to keep the price high.

This statement is roughly correct.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4981.html

This article has pretty much nothing to do with the statement above.


Thank you, come again.

 

[amicus]

Thanks yet again Trysail, for swatting mosquitos, pesky critters and hoard's of em, they must reproduce in swamps, I fathom.

Further, Euro tax loads, to create such loss leaders as the 'Chunnel, and the 'Airbus', is what you paid for with pricey energy costs. Thas what happens in t he absence of free enterprise and minimum taxation.

You have prolly read it, Trysail, but going back through Robert Hessen's "In Defense of the Corporation", a rejection of the shill, Ralph Nader, and his attacks on corporate enterprise.

"

Giant corporations affect the life and livilhood of nearly everyone. Many people work for or invest in several, and almost everyone consumes the products of dozens or even hundreds of others. Combining the capital of millions of investors and the talents of millions of workers, giant corporations are a testament to the ability of free men, motivated by self-interest, to engage in sustained, large-scale, peaceful cooperation for their mutual benefit and enrichment. As a result, Americans today enjoy a standard of living---of luxury, leisure, and longevity---that is unprecedented in world history, and unparalleled in contemporary socialist societies...."

Nader wants to return to a Monarchical system wherein government, 'charters' corporate activity. Modern society has created a system unique in all of human history to harness the efforts of a combined group of individuals without the permission or interference of government. That has lead to wealth and prosperity that the rest of the world envies.

No big deal...

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This statement is roughly correct.
This article has pretty much nothing to do with the statement above.


Thank you, come again.

That article has everything to do with the statement I made. Why do you lie so blatantly?

Saudi Arabia's Shura council (parliament) will hold a series of meetings over the next two weeks to discuss a controversial proposal by a key member to curb oil production to save reserves for better prices,

That is absolutely flat out an example of cutting production of a good in order to keep the price high. You can't get more a solid example of what I said, than that right there.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You lose me completely. The Saudi Shura council isn't a cartel, and the Saudis aren't doing anything that the United States hasn't already been doing for decades. We are sitting on our own oil reserves until we've used up everyone elses'--and our version of the Shura council (Congress) has been complicit in that. What's your point?

The bottom line is that Americans are avoiding reality--in a long-delayed sense--until we face up to what it's been costing others for gas for some time. Fifteen years ago I was paying $6.00/gallon for gas in Europe.

They are part of a cartel.

And you are right about the fact that we are not paying the TRUE price of gasoline. If we did, things would really get ugly; the true price of gasoline is far, far to the north of $6/gallon.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Under current United States law, anyone can generally sell anything they own for wnatever price they can find a buyer. They can also refuse to sell anything they own. [No, you aren't permitted to sell heroin, even if you own it. Also you aren't permitted to sell liter bottles of bottled water at $10 each in the aftermath of a disaster. However, what I said is still basically true.]

Why shouldn't you be able to sell bottled water at $10 each in the aftermath of a disaster? Going by your logic, it's your property, you can sell anything you own at whatever price you can find a buyer.

Whoever you paid for that brain transplant you received should give you your money back.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Hmmmm and then oddly enough they put out this information:

Saudi Arabia to prevent price hikes.

Not disagreeing with you, just wondering what they're really up to

Well said. It seems that they're changing their tune now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609...l&printer=1;_ylt=ArCGIlOhx0_k5GDa9QaS7Mlv24cA

We now have two faces, plus we have the overriding will of OPEC overshadowing these guys (this bunch is part of OPEC).

Which face will prevail?

 

[trysail]

Hmmmm and then oddly enough they put out this information:

Saudi Arabia to prevent price hikes.

Not disagreeing with you, just wondering what they're really up to

It is entirely possible that the Sauds haven't got the goods. Matt Simmons' meticulously researched and highly informative Twilight In The Desert may have been the most important book published in all of 2005 (... and nobody read it).

 

[Carnevil9]

Here in the USA, the Democrats took over Congress in the 2006 elections, partly on a campaign to bring down the price of gasoline*. It has more than doubled since they took over the majority in both houses. Is anyone holdiing their feet to the fire?.....Carney

(*Their main promise is off topic for this thread, but they haven't fulfilled that one, either)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

A major failure of laissez-faire capitalism is the power of cartels (which would be legal under laissez-faire) to reduce production of a good in order to keep the price high.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4981.html

I'm dying to know what your regulatory "solution" to this particular type of cartel is. The only one I know if is the old fashioned kind - invasion, conquest and occupation. The old imperialism game. (Risk, anyone?)

("What's your sand doing on my oil?")

 

[R. Richard]

Why shouldn't you be able to sell bottled water at $10 each in the aftermath of a disaster? Going by your logic, it's your property, you can sell anything you own at whatever price you can find a buyer.

Whoever you paid for that brain transplant you received should give you your money back.

Le Jacquelope:
You ask: "Why shouldn't you be able to sell bottled water at $10 each in the aftermath of a disaster?"
Answer: The United States government and some local governments have
decided that the sale bottled water at $10 per liter in the aftermath of a disaster is AGAINST THE LAW, that's why. If you read what I said, I specifically exempted certain things from the general statement that you can sell anything you own at whatever price you can find a buyer. One of the specific things I excepted was bottled water at $10 per liter in the aftermath of a disaster.

There are other things that are also excepted from the general statement that you can sell anything you own at whatever price you can find a buyer. I didn't list a whole lot of things and situations that are exceptions, because it would take far to long.

Obviously you don't read too well. Perhaps it is you who suffers from an inept brain transplant, since you brought the matter up.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Le Jacquelope:
You ask: "Why shouldn't you be able to sell bottled water at $10 each in the aftermath of a disaster?"
Answer: The United States government and some local governments have
decided that the sale bottled water at $10 per liter in the aftermath of a disaster is AGAINST THE LAW, that's why. If you read what I said, I specifically exempted certain things from the general statement that you can sell anything you own at whatever price you can find a buyer. One of the specific things I excepted was bottled water at $10 per liter in the aftermath of a disaster.

I saw your exemption. I also pointed out that if US law truly respected Laissez-faire, this exemption would not exist.

There are other things that are also excepted from the general statement that you can sell anything you own at whatever price you can find a buyer. I didn't list a whole lot of things and situations that are exceptions, because it would take far to long.

Obviously you don't read too well. Perhaps it is you who suffers from an inept brain transplant, since you brought the matter up.

Spare me the IKYABWAI comeback, Captain Unoriginality. I read fine and well enough. It's you who jumped bad at me because you failed to understand my clear references to laissez-faire principles, which run contrary to such things as US law forbidding the sale of bottled water for $10 a bottle during a disaster. Okay, so US law forbids that behavior. But I wasn't talking about that though. I was talking about how the Saudis, and by extension OPEC (okay, I can entertain arguments that they're not a part of OPEC... I've heard crazier things), were talking about intentionally holding back oil to profit off higher prices - aka price manipulation.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm dying to know what your regulatory "solution" to this particular type of cartel is. The only one I know if is the old fashioned kind - invasion, conquest and occupation. The old imperialism game. (Risk, anyone?)

("What's your sand doing on my oil?")

My solution is to reduce dependency on oil and throw all we can into alternative fuel research.

My long term agenda is to utterly supplant the oil economy with an alternative fuel economy and leave the Saudis high and dry having lost their biggest customer.

The more the Saudis, and by extension OPEC, squeezes America, the faster we will take action to slip through their fingers. (Yes, Princess Leia wept.)

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Here in the USA, the Democrats took over Congress in the 2006 elections, partly on a campaign to bring down the price of gasoline*. It has more than doubled since they took over the majority in both houses. Is anyone holdiing their feet to the fire?.....Carney

(*Their main promise is off topic for this thread, but they haven't fulfilled that one, either)

This argument completely loses its legs when it is pointed out that the Republicans have, with the help of George W Bush, blockaded the Democrats repeatedly. The Democrats cannot beat a Bush veto, this has been used against them repeatedly. Please, tell me, which part of what I said was factually wrong?

 

[Carnevil9]

This argument completely loses its legs when it is pointed out that the Republicans have, with the help of George W Bush, blockaded the Democrats repeatedly. The Democrats cannot beat a Bush veto, this has been used against them repeatedly. Please, tell me, which part of what I said was factually wrong?

Well played. The argument has no legs, and you are correct that the Democrats cannot fix our energy woes. Nor can any party. But I think my point is made that looking to the GOVERNMENT to fix problems that ultimately reside in the FREE MARKET is a mistake......Carney (which, of course, brings us right back to laissez-faire capitalism)

 

[sr71plt]

I But I wasn't talking about that though. I was talking about how the Saudis, and by extension OPEC (okay, I can entertain arguments that they're not a part of OPEC... I've heard crazier things), were talking about intentionally holding back oil to profit off higher prices - aka price manipulation.

This is more supply manipulation than price manipulation--and as was pointed out (and you ignored), not only is this their sovereign right to control--it's their oil--but this supply control also is practiced by everyone else, including the United States (which, as I pointed out--and you ignored, is trying to sit on its own oil reserve until it has exhausted everyone elses'). There's nothing sinister in a country controling its assets to its greatest advantage (and in consort with any other grouping of countries, for that matter). They would be stupid to do otherwise. The United States has no inalienable "right" to a drop of Saudi oil--or any other country's oil.

This discussion, from inception, is pretty inane. You are taking a self-centered Jingoist view of this. Should be on the General Board, not here.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This is more supply manipulation than price manipulation--and as was pointed out (and you ignored), not only is this their sovereign right to control--it's their oil--but this supply control also is practiced by everyone else, including the United States (which, as I pointed out--and you ignored, is trying to sit on its own oil reserve until it has exhausted everyone elses'). There's nothing sinister in a country controling its assets to its greatest advantage (and in consort with any other grouping of countries, for that matter). They would be stupid to do otherwise. The United States has no inalienable "right" to a drop of Saudi oil--or any other country's oil.

Nothing sinister, huh? Not even in consort with other countries? I totally disagree. But this makes a great argument for not depending on imports at all, a holy grail I have often spoken of on the GB and will reiterate here and now. Holding back oil from the market and causing global economic turmoil is the most sinister act of all, in what its effects are. Can you imagine how badly we would look if we used your line of reasoning and stopped exporting any food?

I ignored your allegation that the US is sitting on its own reserve until everyone elses is exhausted, because I am still researching the credibility of that claim.

 

[SavannahMann]

Time for a little reality regarding gas prices.

Everyone thinks that the big oil companies and the rich are screwing the consumer.

Guess what, I own a little bit of the oil companies. If you have a 125k or a 401k retirement plan, and have anything invested in a mutual fund, you probably own a bit of an oil company. You own shares of the company. That is what pays the employee retirements at many companies, like the one I work for, they invest the money paid into the retirement plan, carefully we hope, and then use the dividends, that is money that the companies they own stock in pay to stockholders.

Profit, that is not a bad thing. Profit is the purpose of doing the business. Let's say for the sake of argument that you wrote books for pay. If you wrote a book, and it cost you $10,000 to write, and publish the book. Then you earned $5,000 in total sales, you would have lost at least $5,000 and would not write a second, or third book.

We expect something for our time, or money. If we leave our money in the bank, we save it, we expect interest. That interest is made by the bank investing our money. Possibly in car loans, home loans, or business loans. Some is probably invested in the market too. We get paid a portion of that interest, too small of a portion in my opinion, but that is another discussion.

When we work, we are trading time, and skill, for money. I am a heavy equipment operator. I run large and complicated machines rather quickly, for my bosses. They pay me for that time, and skill. They pay me by the hour, and I invest the time with them, so I can get the return, the paycheck.

No one is owed anything in life. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The richest ten percent of Americans are paying more than half the taxes. At the moment, that means families earning over $100,000 are paying a majority of the taxes. In other words, a Nurse, and a Longshoreman who are married are rich by that standard, and paying a larger portion of the taxes.

This is who we want to punish. People who work hard for their money. People who sweat on the docks, who see forty tons of cargo moved every minute and a half or so. Forty times an hour a crane operator moves a large container from a ship, to shore, or in reverse. He is using years of skill to place that container within a half inch of true in a split second. Then he does it again, and again, and again. Each time the same precision is achieved if he's any good. This is not born with a silver spoon in his mouth rich guy. This is someone who earns that money with sweat and concentration. With long hours, in all weather. On the dock, there is a guy who checks the boxes on and off the ship. He finds the box on a page full of them, and marks it off. Absolute precision is required. Taking the wrong box is like stealing it, and at the very least, will cost someone a lot of money, and that we don't want to do because of a stupid mistake.

Today's rich are people who work for their money. There are very few old families like the Kennedy's and Rockefeller's anymore. Most of those old families are shells of what they were once. The modern rich are mostly self made, they made their own money, they earned it through hard work, and often through personal risk. They risked their own fortunes to see the business grow, or fail.

I explained communism this way to a friend. There are ten of us, and each of us has five acres of land to farm. At the end of the harvest, we meet and share and share alike. Everyone gets a fair share of the booty. No matter how much they put into the pile. In the winter, while we all rest, you're out there cutting and preparing another acre to be planted. In the spring, you plant six acres, while we all plant five.

Guess what, in the fall, you don't get more than anyone else, no matter how much more effort you put in, than anyone else. That is what I call unfair, when your hard work isn't realized. Some things you can't control, a drought taking the crops, locusts eating them in an hour. Floods destroying the fragile crops. But if everyone puts in equal amounts to the pile, then everyone should take from it what they put in, to be fair.

Now I'll tell you this. Gas prices are going up, because we the people, want them to go up. We allow environmental groups to object when a Refinery is proposed. We pitch a fit when a Nuclear Power plant is proposed. We have a cow when someone says we can drill somewhere. The environmentalist's are more to blame than the Oil companies are. The companies who sell the oil must locate, drill down to, pump out of the ground, transport, refine, and transport again the product you put into your tank. They are paid to do that when we buy the gas. They would love to have the price lower, because then they have long term customers who aren't looking at alternatives.

Alternatives the Environmentalists object to. Wind power is bad because birds fly into the propellers. Nuclear is bad, now they want us to present them with a detailed plan on what we'll do for the next ten thousand years that the objects are radioactive. We can't even really tell you what happened over the last ten thousand years, not with any certainty of accuracy. No one planned this society here my friends, not ten thousand years ago.

We look to the Government to solve problems they have no business in. McCain and Obama, neither of them have been in the world working for corporate America. McCain has said the economy is his weakest subject. The economy is his weak subject, but he's got a plan anyway. One that the rest of us know is a bad idea.

If you want to get gas prices down, get the Environmentalists to leave them alone, quit scaring people with hype and discuss the facts. Get Congress to relax those stupid regulations that make it impossible to build a refinery in less than twenty years.

One day, perhaps Fusion will take over the burden, and we'll have clean cheap energy. Perhaps one day, Solar will convert more than 12% of the sunlight to electricity. Perhaps someday these alternative systems will be ready for prime time. They aren't right now, that's the sad truth. When they are ready, we'll see Exxon and BP leading the way into these technologies. They're still going to want to make money.

Corporations aren't inherently evil, any more than Universities are. Universities keep jacking their prices up, more than the cost of living increase every year. Yet, we don't have objections to big education pricing knowledge out of the reach of average people. Instead, we demand that government pay the people who have education cornered, and deny it to the people. Take all your anti oil arguments and apply them to the education system, and you'll see a truly horrifying corner of the market all right.

 

[sr71plt]

Nothing sinister, huh? Not even in consort with other countries? I totally disagree. But this makes a great argument for not depending on imports at all, a holy grail I have often spoken of on the GB and will reiterate here and now. Holding back oil from the market and causing global economic turmoil is the most sinister act of all, in what its effects are. Can you imagine how badly we would look if we used your line of reasoning and stopped exporting any food?

I ignored your allegation that the US is sitting on its own reserve until everyone elses is exhausted, because I am still researching the credibility of that claim.

As I said, self-centered Jingoism.

 

[sr71plt]

I ignored your allegation that the US is sitting on its own reserve until everyone elses is exhausted, because I am still researching the credibility of that claim.

How much research do you think you have to do?

Just two questions will do it.

1. Does the United States have oil reserves. (Yes, of course--lots of untapped oil)

2. Is the United States dipping into its oil reserves. (No, certainly not)

There's absolutely no difference in the sovereign Saudi Arabia manipulating its oil reserves as it sees fit and the sovereign United States manipulating its oil reserves as it sees fit. The Saudis owe you no oil whatsoever--certainly don't owe you as much of a response/explanation as your own government does.

It's true that supply is capped by refining capacity (which the United States has neglected)--but that has nothing to do with where the oil comes from to be refined.

You don't have much experience in international relations/economics, do you?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Everyone thinks that the big oil companies and the rich are screwing the consumer.

Guess what, I own a little bit of the oil companies. If you have a 125k or a 401k retirement plan, and have anything invested in a mutual fund, you probably own a bit of an oil company. You own shares of the company. That is what pays the employee retirements at many companies, like the one I work for, they invest the money paid into the retirement plan, carefully we hope, and then use the dividends, that is money that the companies they own stock in pay to stockholders.

That's good - for those who have a 401k.

Guess what - people are now making hardship withdrawals against that in order to pay for gasoline, food, medicine, etc.

Those who are among the now swelling ranks of the unemployed, well, they have no stake in your "reality". What do they have to lose by shaking down the oil companies?

Profit, that is not a bad thing. Profit is the purpose of doing the business. Let's say for the sake of argument that you wrote books for pay. If you wrote a book, and it cost you $10,000 to write, and publish the book. Then you earned $5,000 in total sales, you would have lost at least $5,000 and would not write a second, or third book.

True. We certainly did not have books before the onset of profit. Nosiree. We'd never even have writing without the promise of profit. </sarcasm>

We expect something for our time, or money. If we leave our money in the bank, we save it, we expect interest. That interest is made by the bank investing our money. Possibly in car loans, home loans, or business loans. Some is probably invested in the market too. We get paid a portion of that interest, too small of a portion in my opinion, but that is another discussion.

When we work, we are trading time, and skill, for money. I am a heavy equipment operator. I run large and complicated machines rather quickly, for my bosses. They pay me for that time, and skill. They pay me by the hour, and I invest the time with them, so I can get the return, the paycheck.

No one is owed anything in life. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The richest ten percent of Americans are paying more than half the taxes. At the moment, that means families earning over $100,000 are paying a majority of the taxes. In other words, a Nurse, and a Longshoreman who are married are rich by that standard, and paying a larger portion of the taxes.

This is who we want to punish. People who work hard for their money. People who sweat on the docks, who see forty tons of cargo moved every minute and a half or so. Forty times an hour a crane operator moves a large container from a ship, to shore, or in reverse. He is using years of skill to place that container within a half inch of true in a split second. Then he does it again, and again, and again. Each time the same precision is achieved if he's any good. This is not born with a silver spoon in his mouth rich guy. This is someone who earns that money with sweat and concentration. With long hours, in all weather. On the dock, there is a guy who checks the boxes on and off the ship. He finds the box on a page full of them, and marks it off. Absolute precision is required. Taking the wrong box is like stealing it, and at the very least, will cost someone a lot of money, and that we don't want to do because of a stupid mistake.

Okay so how about the haulers who are being severely punished by skyrocketing gasoline/diesel prices? Oh wait, no sympathy for them. Let them just go out of business. Okay, so how will your goods get from the dock to the stores?

Oh yeah and here's another hole in your rant. You may not think profit is evil, but guess what - gasoline is taking up a larger part of everyone's income now. They're buying less of everything else as a result. Your little theory left that part out. For oil companies to profit more, all the other businesses have to, and in fact are, losing out. Consumer spending is going down. Guess what that means to the dock worker.

Oh yeah and those hardship withdrawals? That translates to selloffs on Wall Street. Most of the time it means micro-selloffs, stuff you don't notice on your portfolio. But then sometimes you get a Friday June 6th level selloff: a 390 point drop.

Squeeze the consumer too much with your relentless pursuit of profits, and the consumer will spend less on everything else as they have to break the bank on gasoline to get to work. You can see the utter devastation this is inflicting on poor helpless profit driven entities like Ford, GM and Chrysler.

Today's rich are people who work for their money. There are very few old families like the Kennedy's and Rockefeller's anymore. Most of those old families are shells of what they were once. The modern rich are mostly self made, they made their own money, they earned it through hard work, and often through personal risk. They risked their own fortunes to see the business grow, or fail.

And they stand to lose it all because of high fuel prices killing their customer base. Think I am crazy? Ask the airlines. Ask the general/subcontractors - I and my wife insure them, we know how badly they are doing because of super high fuel prices, to say nothing of the subprime mess and everything else going on.

I explained communism this way to a friend. There are ten of us, and each of us has five acres of land to farm. At the end of the harvest, we meet and share and share alike. Everyone gets a fair share of the booty. No matter how much they put into the pile. In the winter, while we all rest, you're out there cutting and preparing another acre to be planted. In the spring, you plant six acres, while we all plant five.

Guess what, in the fall, you don't get more than anyone else, no matter how much more effort you put in, than anyone else. That is what I call unfair, when your hard work isn't realized. Some things you can't control, a drought taking the crops, locusts eating them in an hour. Floods destroying the fragile crops. But if everyone puts in equal amounts to the pile, then everyone should take from it what they put in, to be fair.

Now I'll tell you this. Gas prices are going up, because we the people, want them to go up. We allow environmental groups to object when a Refinery is proposed. We pitch a fit when a Nuclear Power plant is proposed. We have a cow when someone says we can drill somewhere. The environmentalist's are more to blame than the Oil companies are. The companies who sell the oil must locate, drill down to, pump out of the ground, transport, refine, and transport again the product you put into your tank. They are paid to do that when we buy the gas. They would love to have the price lower, because then they have long term customers who aren't looking at alternatives.

Alternatives the Environmentalists object to. Wind power is bad because birds fly into the propellers. Nuclear is bad, now they want us to present them with a detailed plan on what we'll do for the next ten thousand years that the objects are radioactive. We can't even really tell you what happened over the last ten thousand years, not with any certainty of accuracy. No one planned this society here my friends, not ten thousand years ago.

We look to the Government to solve problems they have no business in. McCain and Obama, neither of them have been in the world working for corporate America. McCain has said the economy is his weakest subject. The economy is his weak subject, but he's got a plan anyway. One that the rest of us know is a bad idea.

If you want to get gas prices down, get the Environmentalists to leave them alone, quit scaring people with hype and discuss the facts. Get Congress to relax those stupid regulations that make it impossible to build a refinery in less than twenty years.

You don't read me much, do you?

I want gasoline to go away. Period. The day of the internal combustion engine cannot end too soon. We need to hasten the dawn of an alternative, renewable, clean fuel and energy infrastructure. My comments about high oil prices are about all the manipulation that is clearly going on.

One day, perhaps Fusion will take over the burden, and we'll have clean cheap energy. Perhaps one day, Solar will convert more than 12% of the sunlight to electricity. Perhaps someday these alternative systems will be ready for prime time. They aren't right now, that's the sad truth. When they are ready, we'll see Exxon and BP leading the way into these technologies. They're still going to want to make money.

Corporations aren't inherently evil, any more than Universities are. Universities keep jacking their prices up, more than the cost of living increase every year. Yet, we don't have objections to big education pricing knowledge out of the reach of average people. Instead, we demand that government pay the people who have education cornered, and deny it to the people. Take all your anti oil arguments and apply them to the education system, and you'll see a truly horrifying corner of the market all right.

You make some seriously flawed assumptions here. The rising cost of tuition is on every parent's mind. There are calls for Congress to get this under control.

But lack of a college degree won't automatically take food off your table. The rising cost of fuel is causing food to become more expensive and hard to get. You are definitely mixing apples and oranges here, along with making some incorrect assumptions.

Profit is not a bad thing, but you also do not have a God given right to profit, and if you squeeze people to the point where survival is at stake, you may find that your right to own and run a business is also not God given, either.

Take note, there are now food riots and fuel strikes going on around the world. Those people are certainly not receptive to the arguments you're making - as they have or will soon become a tragic consequence of the very arguments you're making.


You can make all the arguments you want but reality is what it is: if gasoline prices keep going up, all those other businesses out there will suffer. Economies will collapse. Then your oil execs will not physically be safe. As I said, we're now seeing riots. This will escalate.