What a disappointment
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market".
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good, especially one that's so tightly bound to its economy. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon (with annual adjustments for inflation)?
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
Al Beback wrote:
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good,
Not. Communist.
Al Beback wrote:
What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
No business sells product for less than cost.
It costs Saudi Arabia $2 to pump out a barrel of oil. That's the cost.
Rob Graham wrote:
China and india would gladly buy what we won't.
At lower prices, right? Since, as you imply, there would be excess supply, prices would drop substancially.
Rob Graham wrote:
Clearly you never took a single course in basic economics, and know absolutely nothing about the subject.
I'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
Al Beback wrote:
'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
That wasn't opinion, but rather observation of apparent fact. My opinion of you is based on statements like the one I just quoted. To wit: You are an ignorant jackass and not worth arguing with.
-
Great. The Republican solution is to open up more land for drilling and hope the oil companies feel grateful or something. The Democrat solution is to burn off our strategic reserves and when that doesn't work tax the oil co. profits and hope they feel sufficiently chastised or something. If congress owned a puppy, the capitol would smell like piss... :rolleyes:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Would you prefer we continue to send hundreds of BILLIONS of $$$ to foreign governments, or would it not be preferable to keep the $$$ here in the USA??? Which one do you think benefits the American consumer the most? The dollar is becoming worthless as a currency on the world market. There is probably more dollars overseas than we have here in the US!!
John P.
-
Would you prefer we continue to send hundreds of BILLIONS of $$$ to foreign governments, or would it not be preferable to keep the $$$ here in the USA??? Which one do you think benefits the American consumer the most? The dollar is becoming worthless as a currency on the world market. There is probably more dollars overseas than we have here in the US!!
John P.
jparken wrote:
Which one do you think benefits the American consumer the most?
Neither one. That, uh, was kinda my point. It's all empty grandstanding. The American Consumer is doing what benefits him already - using less of the expensive fuel. We've managed to shock the market by reducing our consumption. If our Gov't were actually interested in helping out, they'd be working on the mess of subsidies, regulations, and funding programs that directly affect the production and sale of efficient vehicles, alternate fuel sources, etc... But they aren't. The Republicans are worried about hurting domestic auto manufacturers, the Democrats are worried about cooperating with the Republicans in an election year, and both sides are beholden to the oil companies...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You are seriously naive about government, capitalism and economics...
You are seriously trying to avoid responding to my post by attacking me. Let me help you: Hurray for free markets! Down with evil Uncle Sam!
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Al Beback wrote:
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good,
Not. Communist.
Al Beback wrote:
What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Communist.
:zzz:
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
My income would pay? If you're interested in sharing your wisdom on the negative effects of government regulation on corporations, I'm open to it. If you prefer to act like a jackass on top of some high horse, I'll pass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Al Beback wrote:
'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
That wasn't opinion, but rather observation of apparent fact. My opinion of you is based on statements like the one I just quoted. To wit: You are an ignorant jackass and not worth arguing with.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Communist.
:zzz:
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
My income would pay? If you're interested in sharing your wisdom on the negative effects of government regulation on corporations, I'm open to it. If you prefer to act like a jackass on top of some high horse, I'll pass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Please go read up on the price caps in the US in the early 70s, and see what effect they had on the economy. It does not work.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Please go read up on the price caps in the US in the early 70s, and see what effect they had on the economy.
I've heard of the long lines and the chaos. But it's either wait in a line to fill my tank for $40 or spend twice as much to not wait, and have my food costs go up, my electric bill go up, my travel expenses go up, my heating bills go up, consumer spending go down, unemployment going up, and... when does it end?! When the government steps in, that's when.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You are seriously naive about government, capitalism and economics...
You are seriously trying to avoid responding to my post by attacking me. Let me help you: Hurray for free markets! Down with evil Uncle Sam!
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Please go read up on the price caps in the US in the early 70s, and see what effect they had on the economy.
I've heard of the long lines and the chaos. But it's either wait in a line to fill my tank for $40 or spend twice as much to not wait, and have my food costs go up, my electric bill go up, my travel expenses go up, my heating bills go up, consumer spending go down, unemployment going up, and... when does it end?! When the government steps in, that's when.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
Al Beback wrote:
've heard of the long lines and the chaos.
I'm glad you heard of them, but the gas crisis under Carter is not what I am talking about. Read up on price and wage freezes put in place by Nixon. There is good reason to believe it lead to the 'stagflation' under Carter. You remember, when times really were tough: inflation in the teens and unemployment in the teens. People were amazed when we passed 5% unemployment on the way down. Now they are freaking because we are above 5 again. That used to be called 'structural unemployment'. The thought was that your economy was throttled by to low an unemployment rate, as you did not have workers to fill new jobs.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.