Down with the evil Gas lords II: Kaak's Revenge!

[Imran Siddiqui]

He is a socialist after all .

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm for the nationalization of essential industries (like drinkable water, electricity), and refineries belong to them.

I'm all for letting market mechanisms apply for non-essential goods and services (Ipods etc.)

Spiffor's world would result in an eventual "defining 'essential' downward" problem so that, in time, Ipods would be considered "essential" - just as many people in the US consider cable TV today.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
Spiffor's world would result in an eventual "defining 'essential' downward" problem so that, in time, Ipods would be considered "essential" - just as many people in the US consider cable TV today.

To me, there are two kinds of "essentials":
Things that let people be alive, or are necessary for their human dignity (food, water, housing, healthcare, safety, education etc.)
Things that are necessary for the economy, and for a normal economic activity (electricity, telecom & computers, oil, transportation, capital etc.).

Some of these needs are currently filled adequately by the market (I'm thinking of food, computers and cars), some aren't. There is no inherent reason that the market will fill the need for these things eternally, since the market is about filling demand, i.e. only to allocate resources to those who can allocate it.

I don't see how anyone can construe cable TV as either necessary for a human being's livelihood, or for the efficiency of the economy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see how anyone can construe cable TV as either necessary for a human being's livelihood, or for the efficiency of the economy.

You'd be surprised...

FWIW, I think JohnT is correct in saying that MANY people in the US would consider cable TV to be an essential... Hell, people below the poverty level in the US have cable TV!

And don't forget, cable TV in the US is the biggest way for advertisers to reach people, thereby greasing the economy .

And frankly if telecom is necessary for the efficiency of the economy, I'd imagine broadband internet access is as well, a lot of which is done by cable.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And frankly if telecom is necessary for the efficiency of the economy, I'd imagine broadband internet access is as well, a lot of which is done by cable.

The immense majority of broadband here uses regular phone wire, and wifi is the way of the future so there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you'd want to nationalize wifi access?

Well.. I guess you are a crazy socialist .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
No seriously- When I pay x for a carton of milk, I don't care how much the dairy farmer paid himself or his wife. If I perceive it as a fair price for milk, I pay it. Leave aside the fact that 450 million or whatever is , relatively speaking , an insignificant sum to ExxonMobil. It seems like such a huge number but it is a small fraction of 1 % of their annual revenue.

That's not very scientific. We want the lowest prices possible. Our perceptions are irrelevent. We need to analyse where the money goes to see if prices can be lower. The $450 million is just one expenditure that people look at to see how the money is being spent.

No. Obviously a company can spend it on whatever they choose. For instance they could give a raise to Kaak's dad.

Seriously I'm not sure what your question is--Whetehr they give that 400+million to a ceo, or the shareholders or if they buy girl scout cookies with it--- none of these decisions will impact the price of gasoline. I think you know that-- its just that its a big flashy and outrageous number

The point is that they're paying their CEO and outrageous amount of money and they aren't expanding capacity when that's what society needs. Therefore people are pissed about the $450 million.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


That was my point. Perhaps they should rails against other things where people are paid huge sums. In oil there is at least a reason why a higher price is needed to create enough profit on the higher-cost-to-produce barrells.

Higher prices are needed because people need more profit. Man, that's rich.

[Velociryx]

Well, I see Kid is making about as much sense as usual.



-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I think we just have two different objectives. Some of you simple want more profits for their own sake, and some of the rest of us want lower prices for consumers and higher standards of living for the majority of people. It's no wonder why we don't connect in these decisions.

[Velociryx]

I think it runs deeper than that.

Some of us think that when you plunk down your money for something, that's pretty much the end of your involvement with the company. You pay your money for good X. You agree that $X.00 is a fair price for Y amount of stuff. You then take said stuff and go on about your merry way.

The fact that you purchase said stuff does NOT give you the right to dictate to, or care about (or even ask about) what they do with the money you willingly parted with.

It's just not your concern after the point at which you complete the transaction.

But I know a fair bit about your visions of "Teh Utopia," and I know that you'd dearly love to MAKE IT your business, and THAT's the reason we don't connect.

It's the same thing when people here try to talk economics. They're talking the simple, practical application of the principles, and you're trying to make it some funky pseudo social science (a thing it was never meant to, or designed to be). Result: You come across as making less-than-no sense much of the time.

It's really not that complicated.

Anyway, carry on, I just popped in to see what this thread was about, and found....pretty much what I expected.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think it runs deeper than that.

Some of us think that when you plunk down your money for something, that's the end of your involvement with the company. You pay your money for good X. You agree that $X.00 is a fair price for Y amount of stuff. You then take said stuff and go on about your merry way.

Either you are careless people, or you just aren't concerned then. You don't really stop to think about matters of economics. People are paying for gas right now, but they are still concerned about the price, and they want to see if there is something that can be done to lower the price. Most of the people don't know much about economics, but they are still concerned and want to know what is going on. On the other hand you seem to just be oblivious to what is happening. So it seems to me that you are just here to be a mouth piece for those who don't really care about low prices but only how much people can take advantage of opportunities and make a buck.

The fact that you purchase said stuff does NOT give you the right to dictate to, or care about (or even ask about) what they do with the money you willingly parted with.

It's just not your concern after the point at which you complete the transaction.

Says you. Ok, moving on.

[Velociryx]

Either you are careless people, or you just aren't concerned then. You don't really stop to think about matters of economics. People are paying for gas right now, but they are still concerned about the price, and they want to see if there is something that can be done to lower the price. Most of the people don't know much about economics, but they are still concerned and want to know what is going on. On the other hand you seem to just be oblivious to what is happening. So it seems to me that you are just here to be a mouth piece for those who don't really care about low prices but only how much people can take advantage of opportunities and make a buck.

Yep. That is certainly a valid concern. And there are lots of ways to address that concern.

Most of the better ways of addressing that concern is to look at use and conservation. Very real, hands-on ways of dramatically reducing your weekly or monthly costs (attacking the cost side, rather than the price side).

One of the worst is to whine that such-and-so got paid "too much" money.

I'm not at all oblivious to "what's happening." Global demand for oil is rising. Supplies are being disrupted. This has the predictable effect of increasing price.

The people in the oil biz have and continue to take significant risk to bring the oil to you in a manner convenient enough that you're able to pull into any number of the thousands of filling stations around the country and top off your tank. If and when they fail NO ONE steps in and sugessts that they should be given a government subsidy for "not making enough money," but why not? Should not the reverse hold true?

And for the risks they take, they're compensated. If you don't like it, don't buy the product. If enough people do likewise, they'll pay attention.

It really is that simple.

Says you. Ok, moving on.

No, not "says me." Please explain to me the thought process involved in arriving at the conclusion that participating in a business transaction with a company (trading dollars for a product) gives you any right to dictate to said company?

If you want a say, buy some stock with voting rights (which you are free to do!). Otherwise, you're just b*tching and moaning to hear yourself talk.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I really can't discuss it with you. You just want to put blinders on. If you can see how analyzing the expenditures of a producer and how they make a product and bring it to market, etc. I'm not going to bother.

[Velociryx]

Absolutely I can see how analyzing expenses and going over production methodology can be beneficial.

And I'm 110% convinced that the oil companies hire people (and pay them good salaries) to do that very thing.

But that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking why you, Kidicious, feel that just because you bought a tank of gas from Exxon once-upon-a-time, feel that you ought to be able to dictate to Exxon how they spend the money YOU parted with willingly.

How's that logic work in your brain? How do we arrive at that point?

That's what I wanna know.

-=Vel=-