Thanks, Obama

[superpunk]

Was steel a "necessity corporation"?

History is repeating itself and most people are too uninformed to notice or care.

 

[VTA]

Was steel a "necessity corporation"?

History is repeating itself and most people are too uninformed to notice or care.

When? What does it have to do with leveling the playing field, which is your initial argument?
We get that there has to be regulations, especially in cases where assholes can abuse the customer, but you're not just talking about it in those terms, you're talking about forcing corporations into a salary cap in this scheme to raise pay rates. How would that be regulated?

 

[superpunk]

I think it's a fine alternative to raising wages.

If they want us to buckle our belts and budget more responsibly - while refusing to share the ENORMOUS portion of their pie (which continues to grow and all go to one place, rather than "trickle down"), then we can subject them to the same thing. Drive down prices via regulation so that our wages mean more.

Or they can share more of the pie. They can certainly afford to pay their employees a larger portion of the pie rather than do something like Wal Mart - where you're posting 5-6 billion dollar quarterly profits, while being a drain on society by paying your employees so little that most of them also must be on government assistance just to survive.

Granted, this would require a shift from our imagination-land economy where what matters is not how much can we charge and still turn a profit, but how big of a profit can we turn this quarter to impress our investors?

 

[superpunk]

recently we've seen a few companies re-privatize (I think Dell did) rather than be subject to imagination land economy. It will be interesting to see if that continues or becomes more popular.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Was steel a "necessity corporation"?

History is repeating itself and most people are too uninformed to notice or care.

Speaking of history repeating itself, let me get this straight: You're proposing that we impose the same kind of regulations and price controls on the oil industry that Nixon did during the 1970s, right? These would be the same kind of regulations that are widely credited for causing a severe oil and gas shortage, four hour lines at the pumps, and 10 percent annual inflation, resulting in stagflation?

For those of you who don't know, stagflation is rarely seen but very dangerous economic phenomenon where your money supply is, quite literally, hyper-inflating.

Stagflation was the very reason the oil and gas industry was deregulated in the first place. Both Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter agreed.

 

[VTA]

I think it's a fine alternative to raising wages.

If they want us to buckle our belts and budget more responsibly - while refusing to share the ENORMOUS portion of their pie (which continues to grow and all go to one place, rather than "trickle down"), then we can subject them to the same thing. Drive down prices via regulation so that our wages mean more.

Or they can share more of the pie. They can certainly afford to pay their employees a larger portion of the pie rather than do something like Wal Mart - where you're posting 5-6 billion dollar quarterly profits, while being a drain on society by paying your employees so little that most of them also must be on government assistance just to survive.

Granted, this would require a shift from our imagination-land economy where what matters is not how much can we charge and still turn a profit, but how big of a profit can we turn this quarter to impress our investors?

And that sounds fair, but how does that work in the broader context? Regulations on targeted companies? You obviously can't impose sweeping regs, because not all businesses are as profitable. And then you're lynched with a very unfair kind of system.

And why is it Wal-Mart that's always the target? They sell necessities for the most part, while Apple and the tech giants sell commodities, are making more than double what Wal Mart makes and outsourcing the shit out of their labor. Yet they're never ever brought up as the Corporate raiders that they are.

 

[superpunk]

When? What does it have to do with leveling the playing field, which is your initial argument?
We get that there has to be regulations, especially in cases where assholes can abuse the customer, but you're not just talking about it in those terms, you're talking about forcing corporations into a salary cap in this scheme to raise pay rates. How would that be regulated?

I re-read above and can maybe see where you're missing the connection, so I'll add one more thing.

A common argument, and one dodger made, is that these regulations, higher costs and higher wages will always be passed to the consumer. That does not have to be true unless the company is concerned with posting higher and higher profits to drive their stock prices up, which benefits a comparatively small amount of people. Wal Mart could pay it's employees more, still turn a healthy profit and not raise prices a goddam cent. It's their greed, something you ranted about earlier with regards to consumers, that unnecessarily drives up prices. They refuse to let rising costs eat into their profits, but expect us to just deal with our quality of life going in the shitter as wages stagnate and goods increase in price.

Fuck that shit.

 

[superpunk]

Speaking of history repeating itself, let me get this straight: You're proposing that we impose the same kind of regulations and price controls on the oil industry that Nixon did during the 1970s, right?

No.

 

[superpunk]

And that sounds fair, but how does that work in the broader context? Regulations on targeted companies? You obviously can't impose sweeping regs, because not all businesses are as profitable. And then you're lynched with a very unfair kind of system.

I don't exactly have a 10,000 page dissertation on "Superpunk's Economic Plan" where every detail is already hammered out, I'm just speaking in generalities.

And why is it Wal-Mart that's always the target? They sell necessities for the most part, while Apple and the tech giants sell commodities, are making more than double what Wal Mart makes and outsourcing the shit out of their labor. Yet they're never ever brought up as the Corporate raiders that they are.

They are an easy, readily accessible example. Could be anyone, really.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

No.

Oh, so you're price controls on the oil and gas industry are going to have different affects than price controls on the oil and gas industry have had historically (i.e. shortages and inflation).

Interesting. How so?

 

[superpunk]

I don't exactly have a 10,000 page dissertation on "Superpunk's Economic Plan" where every detail is already hammered out, I'm just speaking in generalities.

In fairness, oil was a bad choice given historical precedence (there may be a way to make it work but I don't know specifically), but that being admitted you can stop being pedantic now.

 

[iceberg]

but my idiots guide to pendantic behavior just came in...

 

[Dodger12]

So let me ask you this, dodger...

we regulate energy prices. We regulate all sorts of things and it is a GOOD thing for citizens in general. We can't have huge companies charging whatever they want for necessities, because they don't care about whether or not Joe Fucker in Indiana can afford to feed his family and keep his landscaping business going. They care about posting a quarterly profit.

We have oild companies posting 3 billion dollar profits IN EACH QUARTER. These companies aren't altruistically setting price points to help the populace while still turning a decent profit - they are bending the populace over, ass-raping them, and then not giving a goddam thing back by taking advantage of accounting loopholes. They also aren't subject to normal supply and demand principles, because they are ENORMOUS and there are so few of them. Rather the entire system works together so they all offer the same good at about the same price, and maximize their profits.

What would be your issue with regulating their prices? From my perspective it would slow inflation, bring down the costs of goods, and fuck we could work with them so that they're still turning a profit of several hundred million dollars every quarter. All we say is - you aren't going to rape us so that your quarterly earnings impress your investors, and you're going to pay your fair share in taxes.

Explain the downside of something like that to me. We already do it with other industries.

I understand what your saying and the question you're asking. But you're making an assumption as to why the price of fuel has increased. You listen to some folks and they talk about "oil futures" which sets the price of oil and they point to restrictions in drilling and less permits for drilling platforms which caused the price increase (I know I'm sounding simplistic).

The reality is that I don't know enough to completely understand the economics of oil and/or the oil business. What I do know is that the price of gas has doubled since Obama took office. I also know his energy secretary, Stephen Chu, has publicly stated the administration wants higher gas prices to force people to look at alternative energy.

http://news.yahoo.com/energy-secretary-chu-admits-administration-ok-high-gas-193900713.html

COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.

Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.

This simply can not be denied. Business, such as oil, knows there's a price breaking point for their product. For them to increase the cost of fuel for the consumer (to maximize profits according to you) to the point that the consumer will look elsewhere for alternative energy is business suicide. Just the fact that people are buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars, as well as looking for alternative heating for their home (see Obama's tax break) can not possibly be a sound business strategy for an oil company.

If the oil industry has acted improperly and inflated the price of fuel simply to maximize profits, as you claim, then I have a real issue with that. But can an argument be made that the increase in prices are the result of the current administration's policies toward the oil companies? We may not be able to get a definitive answer but I'm not blind to what's happened the last 5 years and it's happened under Obama's watch.

 

[superpunk]

Again it doesn't have to be oil that was just an example. Good talk anyhow.

 

[iceberg]

it's just GAY to say *WE* pay too much, blame the admin, and then ignore the same price around the world.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
Think you pay a lot for gas? Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Venezuela.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) � Gasoline prices in the United States, which have recently hit record highs, are actually much lower than in many countries. Drivers in some European cities, like Amsterdam and Oslo, are paying nearly 3 times more than those in the U.S.

The main factor in price disparities between countries is government policy, according to AirInc, a company that tracks the cost of living in various places around the world. Many European nations tax gasoline heavily, with taxes making up as much as 75 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, said a spokesperson for AirInc.

In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said. All prices updated March, 2005.

Nation City Price in USD Regular/Gallon
Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94
Luxembourg $4.82
Croatia Zagreb $4.81
Ireland Dublin $4.78
Switzerland Geneva $4.74
Spain Madrid $4.55
Japan Tokyo $4.24
Czech Republic Prague $4.19
Romania Bucharest $4.09
Andorra $4.08
Estonia Tallinn $3.62
Bulgaria Sofia $3.52
Brazil Brasilia $3.12
Cuba Havana $3.03
Taiwan Taipei $2.84
Lebanon Beirut $2.63
South Africa Johannesburg $2.62
Nicaragua Managua $2.61
Panama Panama City $2.19
Russia Moscow $2.10
Puerto Rico San Juan $1.74
Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78
Egypt Cairo $0.65
Nigeria Lagos $0.38
Venezuela Caracas $0.12

 

[Dodger12]

That does not have to be true unless the company is concerned with posting higher and higher profits to drive their stock prices up, which benefits a comparatively small amount of people. Wal Mart could pay it's employees more, still turn a healthy profit and not raise prices a goddam cent. It's their greed, something you ranted about earlier with regards to consumers, that unnecessarily drives up prices.

A company's number one motive is making a profit and as much of a profit as they can make. That's any business, anywhere in a true free enterprise/capitalist society. You mention Walmart and some pricing utopia that favors the company AND the employee but Walmart competes with other comparable stores (Target, Sears, and whoever). Walmart's prices need to be competitive or people will shop elsewhere. It's just not that simple unless you somehow "regulate" the whole industry to cap prices. And if you do that, then what's the incentive for innovation and finding a better/cheaper way to make a product and maximize your profits?

And while I do understand a person's need to make more money, what skills do you need to stock shelves and greet a customer at the door? Really now, how much can you pay these people? I'm not busting on a Walmart employee but they can certainly look elsewhere for employment if they feel that they don't make enough AND could make more elsewhere.

 

[iceberg]

gas is most expensive in amsterdam.

how does our lack of control over a given industry affect the rest of the world?

there's a gap in his (god i hate to use this word) logic.

he's angry at shit all liberals are mad at.

success.

 

[JBond]

Again it doesn't have to be oil that was just an example. Good talk anyhow.

Hey little spunk, who make more profit on a gallon of oil? The company drills for the oil, builds refineries, transports the oil and then pushes the final product to market, or the government?

I'll wait...

 

[superpunk]

A company's number one motive is making a profit and as much of a profit as they can make. That's any business, anywhere in a true free enterprise/capitalist society. You mention Walmart and some pricing utopia that favors the company AND the employee but Walmart competes with other comparable stores (Target, Sears, and whoever). Walmart's prices need to be competitive or people will shop elsewhere.

When a company is posting near 6 billion dollar quarterly profits (and at the same time being a drain on society for the reasons I mentioned before) we've passed beyond the realm of making a profit and into the realm of damaging greed.

 

[JBond]

So you can not answer the question. Instead you respond with more stupidity. I know big numbers scare you but how many gallons of gas were created and sold to make the billions you are so jealous of?

Last chance...Who makes more on a gallon of gas, the government for doing nothing or the people that create the product?

Drain on society... Fucking idiot. They create. You and your greedy liberals bitches take. You are the drain on society.