Congressional inquiry of Oil industry profits

i didnt know any of this, but it makes sense, the government is always the one causing monopolies or silly pricing schemes. thats why even more oversight will only make things worse.

i would argue that the only real monopolies are ones enforced by the government, and the oil industry should be left alone. they waste so much money on that crap (like the whole microsoft thing).

again, if the market is left alone, the natural progression of things will take care of us, either developing new fuels or prividing affordable oil in some way. if oil prices get out of hand, fine we will find something else. why delay that?

 

Really, you're too kind.

And that's still your favorite thing to tell me.

You seem to be overlooking the short-term impact to the economy. Inflation is not good. And if you do believe that oil companies have acquired the patent to alternatives, then wouldn't that hinder your pie-in-the-sky solution? Besides, implementation of alternatives on a large scale will take a very long time. So if gas prices cripple the economy, how would such a transition take before it recovers? I don't think that it could.

 

first, let me ask if you still consider yourself a libertarian. it doesnt make sense that i would need to explain this to a person who believes at all in libertarian principles. have you really read into what libertarianism is? it just doesnt make any sense that you ask this. (try to answer without taking a jab at me, that is so boring. the question is sincere)

why would that be? possibly if you have the government intervene, then that might be true. why would the government be able to help with any of these alternatives you think are needed?

i dont consider the free market to be a pie in the sky solution. and i think you underestimate the market greatly. government intervention is never the answer, it is the problem. if gas really is becoming scarce, then prices should go up, right? and the government could only reduce them through taxes, which of course is another (much worse) way of paying higher prices.

but arent gas prices going down now? and dont you agree that rising gas prices will only hasten the solutions? the more you artificially reduce prices with the government rules, the less motivated capitalists (who can solve almost anything) are to develop something new.

i see an article almost every day about some odd new fuel. even today i saw something about biodiesel. i dont know much about that, but i can guarantee there some capitalists out there working their asses off on it, waiting for oil prices to go up, and venture capitalists ready to pour zillions into it the moment it is needed.

in what way should the oil companies be regulated? should their be a cap on profits? what should that cap be? it is all over the news now (i linked it earlier) that exxon is making more money than ever, but on more revenue than ever. the profits are around 10%. shouldnt i love it if they are only making profit of 10%? what do you think is a fair amount of profit? (this is a question that should never be asked, but should be answered by the market.)

i hope i can say this next part without you getting angry. i think you listen to much to doom and gloom media and the sort of scare tactics people use to make news. and i think government intervention is always what everyone wants for every percieved problem, but it is the opposite of the solution. people who dont know what they are doing are always trying to push everything closer to socialism. and that is the best thing possible if you want to restrict global growth and cripple the quaility of life for the entire world.

so everyone wants you to think there is a problem. and still you are driving the same car as before, and not carpooling. is there really a problem, or just a chance for the government to start manipulating us more?

and if there really is a problem, dont you see that the only real solutions will not come from the government?

furthermore, i sorta think it is immoral to tell somebody what price they are to sell their goods at. they are not my goods.

off-topic: one of the few things i believe may be real that the media is currently tring to scare us with is bird flu. although probably no to the extent that are portraying it.

 

basically i agree with the official libertarian party platform plank on energy:

"Energy
The Issue: Government regulation of the energy industry has resulted in high prices, shortages, lack of competition, stunted exploration and development of alternative energy sources, and displaced responsibility for wrongdoing in the energy markets, while granting advantage in existing markets to those with political access.

The Principle: We favor the creation of a free market in oil by instituting full property rights in underground oil and by the repeal of all government controls over output in the petroleum industry. Any nuclear power industry must meet the test of a free market. Full liability -- not government agencies -- should regulate nuclear power. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, such as that imposed by the Department of Energy, state public utility commissions, and state pro-rationing agencies. We oppose the creation of any emergency mobilization agency in the energy field, which would wield dictatorial powers in order to override normal legal processes."

from:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

cc, this is "the party of principle". your words.

 

And I don't know how many times I've had to explain to you that I'm not the 'stupid & blind' party loyalist that you once accused me of being, which I guess conveniently fits into your other goal of trying to accuse me of not being one at all. I don't refer to the homepage when I'm unsure of a particular idea. I've explained to you before that, in fact, the opposite was true. Independent thinking on my part was largely in congruence with a lot of the ideals set forth by Michael Badnarik in his 2004 platform. I actually had the wrong idea about Libertarians before I was shown his homepage.

Additionally, nowhere in this thread have I favored government intervention. I have only identified the problem and possible consequences, but never did I say that it should be up to the government to do anything about it. I think you have an overeagerness to pigeonhole me or tell me that I'm not what I say I am. Weak sauce, bro. Argue with the substance of what I write, not what you think I meant. You've shown some bitter discontent for people telling others what they think (or should think) before.

There are multiple angles that one can take with Libertarian principles in mind. One would be that outrageous gas-prices can potentially cripple the free-market economy. Any sort of a monopoly is highly opposed to a free-market. That includes the acquisition of alternative patents by a particular industry. Anything which degrades the quality or possibility of competition, and giving the consumer a choice, has a negative effect on the free will of the economy. Refer back to the bit NoLimit quoted me on about monopolies. I think I explained a similar idea there.

Because there are millions and millions of people currently driving around combustion-engine vehicles. There are also millions of fueling stations that only supply unleaded and diesel gasoline. Even if every person that bought a new car, let's say, next year, bought one that ran on an alternate source, that would still be a negligble percent of the total vehicles on the road. It would be decades until even the majority of drivers had one that ran on an alternate source. On top of that, if they ran on an alternate fuel, do you think the availability of these fuels would be readily available at fueling stations overnight? Implementations on a scale this large will take a very long time, and I am completely in favor of the auto industry aggresively attempting to begin that transition now. But how can they if they are handcuffed by the oil companies that own the rights to designs that would allow that?

Again, I haven't suggested government intervention. This should address any additional comments you have insinuating the contrary.

I think it's immoral to tell somebody how much they should sell plasma screen TV's for. But I also think it's immoral for one industry to have a chokehold on the rest of the economy.

Nope. Their words, not mine.

 

ok, you could have just said you arent really libertarian.

ah wait a second, so you agree with me that the market can handle it. maybe you are libertarian after all. its hard to figure what you think.

oh, so you arent taking a stance. you are right, i shouldnt try to pigeonhole you. you dont have a stance. also you are wrong, the libertarian stance is clear. let the market work it out.

of course. but you offer no opinion. and we already knew the problems.

right, even your sig wasnt really your words.

 

Whatever you say, dude. You won't be happy until I agree with every single shred of anything ever offered up on the LP homepage, at which point you will then just say that I'm a 'blind and stupid' party loyalist. You sure you're not female?

No, that is the one you pulled off of their homepage. Further, what's wrong with having an opinion on a certain issue that's different from your party's? I don't see you chastizing all these Republicans (yourself, included) that continue to support Bush despite his fiscal free-for-all. Wonder why that is...

I didn't make up the motto. What are you insinuating? Quit beating around the bush and just come out and say it. I'm sure that's an insignificant enough point for you to argue over.

 

well you arent helping. and i thought i knew alot about libertarianism. i read quite a bit. i realize you will not tell me specifically what i was mistaken about.

nothing. but the fundamental thing about libertarianism is that the government doesnt manipulate us. you may or may not agree with that. i have no idea. if you favor the existence of this congressional hearing, then you disagree with the main premise of libertarianism. but i am aware you keep your stance secret.

i have talked with red at length about why i dont have huge problems with bush's spending. and i do call out republicans for religious policy regularly.

my mistake. i thought it was in your sig, and that you agreed with libertarian principles. i should have drawn no conclusions.

 

Well, it's been spelled out I don't know how many times in this thread that monopolies/collusion impede the free market, which is the staple of Libertarianism (on the fiscal side, anyway). Sounds to me like you have Libertarianism confused with Anarchism.

Either way, you've already stated in this thread that you agree with a Libertarian poster, who, like me, has expressed concern over the possible monopolistic actions of the oil companies. Good day.