Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by mastahunta
Where is IAMJUSTHERETOREAD???
Just wait... 5-4-3-2-1

Can you prove it?

Do you have photos?

You must be lazy and retarded!

Look at the moon, it is so pretty!

Make your own technology sport

Technology is for weak people

----------------------------------

Nice link, Thanks!

Grow up.

Sorry, but that is how this thread is becoming and you seem to think that
my brain is too stupid to detect when something is afoot with the 200 + %
increase in gas prices over the last ten years.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by mastahunta

 

I got a great idea for the redesign of the automobile that I think would blow peoples sock off.

I just need to sell this other patent and come up with some money. Its nice to dream.

The end of cheap oil, IMO, will be one of the best things to happen to the U.S..

If you really do Poet, you should try your best to make it a reality, I think you can
do it. You sure seem smart to me at least.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by hawkiye

 

You will find me jumping all over the problems with current elitist liberals all the time on these boards. I don't support their ignorance anymore than I support conservative ignorance.

I seem to recall us being on the same side in those debates.

At what point in time do you start to face the proven facts that free market strategies do not work?

Yes we were but we differ on free markets. You have already proven you don't seem to understand what a free market is. History have proven free markets work in the few times they have been allowed to work relatively freely. What you and all the anti-free market folks call free markets are not free markets they are highly regulated monopolized markets where the politically connected mega corps get all the perks and fair competition is quashed with government regulation.

When you claim some industry got deregulated and screwed us that is just the politically connected getting their perks from politicians they bought and paid for it has nothing to do with a free markets. Not sure why you cannot understand that.

Let me give you an example maybe that will help.The federal reserve has a monopoly on the currency. All banks are Agent banks for the federal reserve, You cannot get a banking license unless you agree to bow to their every whim and only use their currency. If you don't and start a bank using other currency or even gold and silver guys with guns will show up and shut you down and even kill you if you resist. I think you would agree that is anything but a free market right?

OK so now they have their monopoly in place protected by government force. Now their lap dog politicians get paid off to pass laws or regulators to look the other way allowing them to screw people more and more. That is not a free market principle in any way shape or form they still have a monopoly we still have no choice except to face jail or death if we do not comply etc. Wouldn't you agree that is still not a free market?

In a free market lets say anyone can start a bank or any other business without government intervention. Say these federal reserve banks start screwing people like above. Now there's freedom to start up another bank that treats their customers good and is honest and trustworthy so Someone does just that. Which bank do you think people will gravitate to? The Answer is obvious of course. However we do not have the freedom to do that we are forced to use the corrupted Federal reserve agent banks and their worthless currency. Here's the rub with you and me; How the politicians giving the current monopoly or banking cartel more leeway to screw people can be called anything close to free market principles defies any stretch of logic reason or even imagination wouldn't you agree... Does that make more sense to you?

reply to post by mastahunta

I am familiar with the works of both and I disagree with their views in the same specific areas that I disagree with the majority of posters here.

Your disagreement of free markets does not excuse your - and since you claim to be familiar with the works of Friedman and Rothbard - purposeful obfuscation and absurd misrepresentation of what those you claim to be familiar with state about free market principles.

Further, your disagreement doesn't excuse your willful disregard for the actual principles free market advocates propose in order to keep continually calling the absurdly regulated markets of today a "free market".

You have every right to disagree, you even have a right to lie in this context, but sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming loudly "La la la la la I can't hear you la la la la" is beyond disagreement, it is just childish.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by mastahunta

Pay us, or you can't drive?

I am not asking for free gas here man, I am asking that we should not have to pay for some
gambling scheme invented by billionaires. What is the use of it to any of us?

 

Well, technically you could carpool, take a bus, train or some other type of transit. In most places in North America, for some reason that's socially unacceptable. In some cases not entirely feasible, but regardless it isn't very popular.

Neither are higher mileage vehicles. Consumers are not helping the situation. For the most part, the monopolized market hurts potential entrepreneurs.

But alas, even when it was a free market, the amount of scams in the oil industry by prospectors was rampant.

At the end of the day, the consumer needs to call the shots. And asking your local government for better transportation is the first step.

Public transportation serves the poor. This is another one of those partisan issues that you will not see a Republican backing. People have been askling for better public transportation but now with budgets being slashed improvements are put on the back burner.

Now if you were talking about a new Marina or Airport (since they are used by the wealthy) you will see those being built, somehow there's money in the budgets for those, before any changes or improvement to Public transportation are made. It is a scam, a sham and a shame.

Originally posted by poet1b
Actually the article says this.

Well, that's what I meant by the supply adjusts the market information (i.e. price) to temper demand. Once the supply can no longer keep up with the demand, the prices are changed to curb demand until more supply can be developed/produced to satisfy consumption. If the prices get too high, no one will buy it or seek an alternative (like developing alternative energy, etc.,) so the market information has to reflect the consumer's valuation of the service/product. That's what was implied by the-fallacy-of-shortages technicality.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mastahunta

 

You know, if America doesn't lead the way here pretty soon we are gonna get left behind by people who get it. It will be the first time in our history that we didn't lead the way and chart the new corse.

There are bigger things to worry about...like Obama's 1000 fake birth certificates!!!

If you look closely, they are signed by the Devil!!

edit on 25-2-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

I saw his secret birth certificate, did you see that? It was so secret, his doctor didn't even know
it existed.

The obsession with the certificate seems to be about the same as the obsession with free markets.
Somehow it has to be true, they both defy all opposition or analysis.

Originally posted by mastahunta
Sorry, but that is how this thread is becoming and you seem to think that
my brain is too stupid to detect when something is afoot with the 200 + %
increase in gas prices over the last ten years.

No, I didn't. I asked you to demonstrate your argument. You provided me with that testimony and the initial speculation claim you made regarding it was wrong, and since then you've not provided any further citations.

reply to post by poet1b


I am not sure what you are calling me on, brother. Respect back, but me defending the integrity of free market principles and calling out some other posters gross misrepresentation of those principles is not me claiming the United States of America was founded on free market principles.

Indeed, I tend to be a purist and since the coining of money in the beginning of The U.S. was regulated so that the price of gold was fixed to the price of silver, it is arguable that this nation has never, ever, known a free market. That doesn't mean I cannot defend free market principles, in fact it is arguable this gives me even more reason to defend the principles.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

I am familiar with the works of both and I disagree with their views in the same specific areas that I disagree with the majority of posters here.

Your disagreement of free markets does not excuse your - and since you claim to be familiar with the works of Friedman and Rothbard - purposeful obfuscation and absurd misrepresentation of what those you claim to be familiar with state about free market principles.

Further, your disagreement doesn't excuse your willful disregard for the actual principles free market advocates propose in order to keep continually calling the absurdly regulated markets of today a "free market".

You have every right to disagree, you even have a right to lie in this context, but sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming loudly "La la la la la I can't hear you la la la la" is beyond disagreement, it is just childish.

How about you take those three points I made in the last post to you and
tell me how I am wrong. I don't think I should keep having to repeat myself, if I
am wrong show me.

and how am I lying? Is free trade against speculation?

reply to post by mastahunta


The three points you made had nothing at all to do with free market principles and if you were telling the truth about being familiar with the works of Rothbard and Friedman you wouldn't need me to explain that to you and you likely wouldn't have made the silly claims you made.

People get it, you are mad at the exponential rise of the price of oil. What many people don't get is why you think attacking free market principles that are not at all in play in this matter has anything to do with your outrage. Your rage imbalances you and clouds your thinking.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by mastahunta
Sorry, but that is how this thread is becoming and you seem to think that
my brain is too stupid to detect when something is afoot with the 200 + %
increase in gas prices over the last ten years.

No, I didn't. I asked you to demonstrate your argument. You provided me with that testimony and the initial speculation claim you made regarding it was wrong, and since then you've not provided any further citations.

edit on 25-2-2012 by imherejusttoread because: (no reason given)

That is not even slightly true, Hofmeister said at the "NOPEC" Senate Judiciary meeting that Oil could
be delivered to the pump for 40-60 a barrel if speculation was taken out of the equation.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by mastahunta

 

The three points you made had nothing at all to do with free market principles and if you were telling the truth about being familiar with the works of Rothbard and Friedman you wouldn't need me to explain that to you and you likely wouldn't have made the silly claims you made.

People get it, you are mad at the exponential rise of the price of oil. What many people don't get is why you think attacking free market principles that are not at all in play in this matter has anything to do with your outrage. Your rage imbalances you and clouds your thinking.

Yes they did, Free Market as proposed by those two is an all encompassing system
that works by using natural functions that both economists believe to be true in the
real world.

I think several of their observations are wrong and do not work as they propose, not
in some circumstances at least. I pointed those out and those same circumstances
are why I think the entire validity of the proposed theory is just speculation, not truth.

I will say there is a greta deal of truth in it, but the gaps are very large and you and others
somehow feel threatened by me pointing that out here.

Originally posted by mastahunta
That is not even slightly true, Hofmeister said at the "NOPEC" Senate Judiciary meeting that Oil could
be delivered to the pump for 40-60 a barrel if speculation was taken out of the equation.

He only mentions speculation twice and both times are dismissive:

Along with the above factors, some observers have questioned whether speculative trading has also contributed to increased crude oil prices[...] it is unclear what effect this activity has had on prices.

Then he cites CFTC's investigation, saying there's a lack of evidence for speculation:

For example, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission recently testified before Congress that there was an absence of evidence that speculation had driven up oil prices.

I can't find anything that reports him saying speculation helped cause rising costs.

reply to post by hawkiye

History have proven free markets work in the few times they have been allowed to work relatively freely.

I am always open to ideas. If you could provide some apt example of this, I would appreciate it.

In a free market lets say anyone can start a bank or any other business without government intervention. Say these federal reserve banks start screwing people like above. Now there's freedom to start up another bank that treats their customers good and is honest and trustworthy so Someone does just that. Which bank do you think people will gravitate to? The Answer is obvious of course. However we do not have the freedom to do that we are forced to use the corrupted Federal reserve agent banks and their worthless currency. Here's the rub with you and me; How the politicians giving the current monopoly or banking cartel more leeway to screw people can be called anything close to free market principles defies any stretch of logic reason or even imagination wouldn't you agree... Does that make more sense to you?

Honestly, I get what you are saying. I understand the concept, and well put. Look at what was going on before the Fed Res act in 1913, and there you will find your answer. The Fed Res act was a compromise of ugly proportions, a choice of lessor evils, and still ugly IMO.

An even bigger problem was created when the U.S. dollar became the world currency. We need our own separate domestic currency.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by mastahunta
That is not even slightly true, Hofmeister said at the "NOPEC" Senate Judiciary meeting that Oil could
be delivered to the pump for 40-60 a barrel if speculation was taken out of the equation.

He only mentions speculation twice and both times are dismissive:

Along with the above factors, some observers have questioned whether speculative trading has also contributed to increased crude oil prices[...] it is unclear what effect this activity has had on prices.

Then he cites CFTC's investigation, saying there's a lack of evidence for speculation:

For example, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission recently testified before Congress that there was an absence of evidence that speculation had driven up oil prices.

I can't find anything that reports him saying speculation helped cause rising costs.

He was not dismissive, all the panelists were shocked when he said it, they made all the other
oil executive testify again because his claim was so scandalous. Hofmeister later changed
his tune when he was hired on to a European task force, he hasn't spoken about it since.
I was lucky enough to watch it in real time, The Saudi's and Our oil companies are fleecing us
blind.

second; the Judiciary meeting was called in the first place because the entire dynamic was
already suspect prior to the hearing.

But see, you are using the fact that one of the Biggest industries in the world is good at suppressing
information to discredit the little information I have. That does not change the truth, gas is up
somewhere around 250% in ten years.

that smells real funny, mind telling me what the wage index has risen in the same time?

reply to post by mastahunta

A. markets cannot be consolidated in a free market, -SEE DRUG CARTELS in Mexico.

B. That large industries will always strive to compete themselves down to a small profit margin. - Look at the price of a cup of coffee, more competition has increased the average retail cup several 100% in the last 15 years. Same with bottled water, competition does not mean cheaper prices, that is a fairy tale.

C. That large players do not and would not sabotage supply as a mutual business arrangement to ensure higher profit margins.

A. These are the three points you made. You point to the principle of no consolidated markets and then in the same sentence point to drug cartels in Mexico. This may come as a surprise to you, but those drug cartels exist precisely because of prohibitions on drugs. In a free market - not the black market - anyone can compete in selling drugs, not just criminals cartels.

B. Your disingenuous language of the "large industries" is quite clearly code for corporatism and corporatism is not and never will be a free market principle. Corporations are charted entities granted permission to exist by the state. Free market principles are founded on the idea that no one needs permission to exist in order to compete in the market.

C. Your argument here is outrageously a lie if you are claiming this is an idea that comes from free market principles. Free market principles, in fact, argue that the "large players" find it difficult to become large because of the massive competition they face.

Again, you have every right to disagree, and still keep lying and pretending you read Friedman and Rothbard, but your own language undoes you just as much as your rage does.

reply to post by imherejusttoread

Well, that's what I meant by the supply adjusts the market information (i.e. price) to temper demand. Once the supply can no longer keep up with the demand, the prices are changed to curb demand until more supply can be developed/produced to satisfy consumption. If the prices get too high, no one will buy it or seek an alternative (like developing alternative energy, etc.,) so the market information has to reflect the consumer's valuation of the service/product. That's what was implied by the-fallacy-of-shortages technicality.

I getcha, and I agree to some degrees. The thing is, all evidence points out that efforts to increase oil production will be futile, while efforts to develop new technologies and strategies are most likely to move us forward.

However, IMO, big business is fighting tooth and nail to prevent this from happening, because there realize new tech and strategies will end their control over the worlds economy.

Then, possibly, we might see something akin to what free market supporters dream of, but again, IMO, it means a return to a predominately rural US and world, and a revival of the cottage industry.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


I don't think Repubs are necessarily clean. I think there are just greedy people on Wall Street. Greed is greed whatever name is put to it. An R or a D is incidental.

Originally posted by mastahunta

that smells real funny, mind telling me what the wage index has risen in the same time?

edit on 25-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)

to add, when a commodity completely out plods the customer base in such a large way
it starts to become suspect.