Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 25
19
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I think it is very difficult to make a democratic style government to work properly and efficiently, and it is often dysfunctional, but the well phrase states it, democracy is a terrible form of government until you consider the alternatives.

Economically, I believe in the market system, and like a democracy, it is very difficult to make a market system work properly and efficiently. IMO, only with an evenly enforced fair set of rules can an efficient market system work. There being large numbers of people constantly looking for ways to cheat the system, it is often dysfunctional, a terrible system of economics until one considers the alternatives.

edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: typos




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


The cheating of systems applies to both democracies and market systems. It is demonstrable in this anti-free market that is so heavily regulated today that cheating happens, and it is demonstrable in this representative republican form of government that cheating happens. The Utopia is that belief that a system can be put in place to stop the cheating. It is a naive ideal and undermines the rational and natural laws in place to deal with conspiracy, fraud, theft, and other such crimes. No one needs regulations to prosecute criminality, merely the backbone and integrity to enforce the law.

We do not enforce laws of theft, fraud, conspiracy, coercion, extortion, racketeering, and so on as a preventive measure but as a method of remedy for the victim after the fact. This is how law and justice works, in the negative not in the positive.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Can't have a free market with the current system because no one knows what anything is really worth.


But there is tons of free market to be found, herein dwells the copout.
I can call 10 different pizza places and order a pizza based upon the one
I like the best or even the cheapest price. So does this mean the is no
free market? I mean based upon the last six responses you have offered
I would have to believe that me being able to get 10 different pizza's
is not free market because there is fiat currency or the federal reserve.

So you use the principle to fit the environment which is exactly what
corporations do. Its free market when it serves them and it is regulated
when it doesn't.


We have a freer market than the USSR did. I have read that it was illegal to grow your own vegetables there.

There is alot of competition in the restaurant industry. The prices tend to be the same when the product is the same. Domino's is cheaper but its got less stuff. That is an example of the equilibrium point on a supply and demand curve.

The free market is mostly about steadily increasing prosperity across the whole economy without the boom and bust cycles, efficiency of resourse allocation and very low inflation- probably defaltion like in the computer/ electronics industry. In a free market everything would decrease in price like computers do, to a greater or lesser degree.

Competition is the regulator like in the restaurant buisness. The customer votes with his dollars.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

This is a gross oversimplification. Market forces, regardless of the system in place, are bound by certain laws such as supply and demand. Regardless of how much competition there may be, if the demand outpaces the supply, then there will be no drop in prices simply because there is massive competition. However, limit that competition and it follows that prices will not only remain high but will likely be inflated by the legalized cartels supplying the demand.



I wish we could find full agreement, but we do not... I think the laws of supply and demand is an
over simplification and a law that does not hold up in all cases. Which is exactly why I brought up
brewed coffee, a market place that is rife with competition, little regulation and an example where
prices have skyrocketed in the last ten years across the entire US market place. A cup of coffee
that once costed $.85 is now pushing $2.00, in direct defiance of the supply and demand/free market
theory. Then you take the airlines, which is a highly regulated industry and prices have remained
low for a decade even though fuel has surged 250%, another example that is the complete opposite
of what you or theorists might have me believe. So two examples where supply and demand does
not follow it's touted behavior... Then there is Oil, production is way up in the states, new technology
has cheapened the refinement costs, yet prices are run away regardless of supply and demand.

I think supply and demand works for many items, but the law is not consistent; and when it is
applied to OIL it can devastate people and this economy. The causes are extremely complex
many of which are industry manipulations and casino schemes, but the result is a real burden
on people and I reject the idea that Americans have to eat crow so industry can rip off me,
my family, my friends and my neighbors.






Free and unregulated markets is a principle that declares government has no business regulating the market place, it is not declaring that markets are naturally unregulated, they clearly are by the forces of supply and demand, diminishing returns and other economic principles. The strongest regulation are the buyer themselves.


I agree that the strongest regulators are the buyers, but I don't think that applies to OIL.
And 300,000,000 buyers do not have the luxury to change the pricing structure by
changing purchasing habits. The end result is being stuck with a vital commodity
that is crushing people. If a hamburger shop makes a $22 burger they are going to
risk losing all their customers, clearly the customers will either bare the cost or not.
But Americans do not have a comparable mechanism in gas, going across town to
pay %0.4 less is hardly any market based power. In the end the gas is the same
product anywhere you go... But to compound it all, gas is tied to almost every
commodity.



You have already offered up a refutation of the buyer being the regulator that was a cogent point when you pointed to the phenomenal success of Coca-Cola,...


Well I fully think the laws of supply and demand work in this case. Plus Coca Cola is not the
second most vital fluid on the planet Earth, Coca Cola has not created wars or pushed economies
into the depths of recession. But to my larger point, Coca Cola will never be regulated out of
existence by market forces, which is supposed to be the force that punishes bad actors,
but does that process even work in all cases? I already argued this... I think we will never
agree because you believe and I do not, but that is the nature of politics



It is arguably irrational to keep paying for a liquid that is killing you, yet people keep doing it, and the more cogent point to that is that even in the face of prohibition of this soda, as long as the demand exists there will be suppliers. The same principle I am speaking to is found in democracies.... (masta ran out of room to respond)


These are good points, but I look at the entire issue differently. First of all I do not think companies and
markets are people. But more importantly I think in an unmitigated market place, like OIL, the minority can
simply inflict horrible economic hardships on the majority. In that I think adhering to free market, anti
government positioning serves as the most practical way to maintain extorionary Oil prices, because
that position is safe from any corrective measures. It is hard for me to believe that you or others
don't recognize this, I suspect, maybe wrongly so, that the real case might be that you guys don't
care about this issue or that you think Oil Magnets are entitled to put it to anyone they want, including
the whole of America. I think a small minority should not be able to extort America with prices
that are outrageous. Representative democracy is for the benefit of people, not markets



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Can't have a free market with the current system because no one knows what anything is really worth.


But there is tons of free market to be found, herein dwells the copout.
I can call 10 different pizza places and order a pizza based upon the one
I like the best or even the cheapest price. So does this mean the is no
free market? I mean based upon the last six responses you have offered
I would have to believe that me being able to get 10 different pizza's
is not free market because there is fiat currency or the federal reserve.

So you use the principle to fit the environment which is exactly what
corporations do. Its free market when it serves them and it is regulated
when it doesn't.


We have a freer market than the USSR did. I have read that it was illegal to grow your own vegetables there.

There is alot of competition in the restaurant industry. The prices tend to be the same when the product is the same. Domino's is cheaper but its got less stuff. That is an example of the equilibrium point on a supply and demand curve.

The free market is mostly about steadily increasing prosperity across the whole economy without the boom and bust cycles, efficiency of resourse allocation and very low inflation- probably defaltion like in the computer/ electronics industry. In a free market everything would decrease in price like computers do, to a greater or lesser degree.

Competition is the regulator like in the restaurant buisness. The customer votes with his dollars.


Keynes would disagree and insist that markets bust due to the volatility of free markets,
I would disagree with both of you and argue that both courses have inherent peril and
volatile components. I would also state that both economic principles are growth based.

Computers get cheaper, yes but, you were saying that I could not examine OIL because
everything is based upon a fiat money system. Well, Computers are bought with fiat currency.
I am just pointing out that you contradicted the foundation of several of your thrusts.

You know, the ironic thing is, I would probably be for 95% market based solutions and 5%
structured in several key markets.

BTW, the airline industry is highly regulated and its price structure is very positive for
consumers, which is the opposite of what free market theory would assume. Now there
are cases where this is not the case at all... Oil is a case where your theory is full of holes.
Computers is where your argument is very strong, but see they are not the same thing,
which is the foundational problem with any one size fits all theory.
edit on 2-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b
 


The cheating of systems applies to both democracies and market systems. It is demonstrable in this anti-free market that is so heavily regulated today that cheating happens, and it is demonstrable in this representative republican form of government that cheating happens. The Utopia is that belief that a system can be put in place to stop the cheating.


But even the founders believed in the merits of trying in their line of influence, government.
It is certainly demonstrable that billionaires can out litigate virtually any legal challenge.
It is also demonstrable that this case, oil is of vital national importance and that this
market place is out of control. It is just utopian to believe that these prices can be effected
by passive means, inaction or comparable approach.



It is a naive ideal and undermines the rational and natural laws in place to deal with conspiracy, fraud, theft, and other such crimes. No one needs regulations to prosecute criminality, merely the backbone and integrity to enforce the law.


Well, you need resources and most individuals cannot afford to get in a legal battle with the
Saudi Royal Family. To hedge that as a component of rational law is not very rational by
my standards. But it is natural, by the nature of money's power, it would be virtually
impossible to properly serve the Saudis without being wiped out by an insurmountable
counter suit ployed to drain you of resources.




We do not enforce laws of theft, fraud, conspiracy, coercion, extortion, racketeering, and so on as a preventive measure but as a method of remedy for the victim after the fact. This is how law and justice works, in the negative not in the positive.


But we do put laws in place to discourage certain behavior people who do not violate laws are not fined preemptively . An Oil company who criminally Colludes with the Saudi's would not be punished until
the act was actioned

Yes, you are very right about the order of law, Mexico is the opposite which is crazy.
Guilty until proven innocent -

edit on 2-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 



Originally posted by hawkiye
No one said the federal government created standard oil however they paid off politicians to allow it how else could they get the Volstead act passed enabling their monopoly. As I have said government regulation simply protects markets for the politically connected and paved the way for the oil monopoly.


John D. Rockefeller, under the ruse of Christian temperance, gave 4 million dollars to a group of old ladies and told them to fight for Prohibition (they successfully used the money to buy off Congress). Why? Rockefeller owned Standard Oil, the main company pushing gas as an alternative fuel to alcohol. By getting Congress to pass Prohibition laws, Rockefeller eliminated his competition. And see this.
georgewashington2.blogspot.com... Also see David Blumes book Alcohol Can Be a Gas: www.alcoholcanbeagas.com...



Butanol may be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. Because its longer hydrocarbon chain causes it to be fairly non-polar, it is more similar to gasoline than it is to ethanol. Butanol has been demonstrated to work in vehicles designed for use with gasoline without modification.[1] It can be produced from biomass (as "biobutanol")[2] as well as fossil fuels (as "petrobutanol"); but biobutanol and petrobutanol have the same chemical properties.

Butanol link

The original deisel engine was designed to run on peanut oil.


Diesel originally thought that the diesel engine, (readily adaptable in size and utilizing locally available fuels) would enable independent craftsmen and artisans to endure the powered competition of large industries that then virtually monopolized the predominant power source-the oversized, expensive, fuel-wasting steam engine.


Diesel expected that his engine would be powered by vegetable oils (including hemp) and seed oils. At the 1900 World's Fair, Diesel ran his engines on peanut oil. Henry Ford demonstrated that cars can be made of, and run on, hemp.

Diesel Engine


At the 1900 Paris Exhibition, the Otto Company, at the request of the French government, demonstrated that peanut oil could be used as a source of fuel for the diesel engine; this was one of the earliest demonstrations of biodiesel technology

Diesel uses peanut oil

The goverment has made every monopoly.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta
 



Originally posted by hawkiye
No one said the federal government created standard oil however they paid off politicians to allow it how else could they get the Volstead act passed enabling their monopoly. As I have said government regulation simply protects markets for the politically connected and paved the way for the oil monopoly.


John D. Rockefeller, under the ruse of Christian temperance, gave 4 million dollars to a group of old ladies and told them to fight for Prohibition (they successfully used the money to buy off Congress). Why? Rockefeller owned Standard Oil, the main company pushing gas as an alternative fuel to alcohol. By getting Congress to pass Prohibition laws, Rockefeller eliminated his competition. And see this.
georgewashington2.blogspot.com... Also see David Blumes book Alcohol Can Be a Gas: www.alcoholcanbeagas.com...



Butanol may be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. Because its longer hydrocarbon chain causes it to be fairly non-polar, it is more similar to gasoline than it is to ethanol. Butanol has been demonstrated to work in vehicles designed for use with gasoline without modification.[1] It can be produced from biomass (as "biobutanol")[2] as well as fossil fuels (as "petrobutanol"); but biobutanol and petrobutanol have the same chemical properties.

Butanol link

The original deisel engine was designed to run on peanut oil.


Diesel originally thought that the diesel engine, (readily adaptable in size and utilizing locally available fuels) would enable independent craftsmen and artisans to endure the powered competition of large industries that then virtually monopolized the predominant power source-the oversized, expensive, fuel-wasting steam engine.


Diesel expected that his engine would be powered by vegetable oils (including hemp) and seed oils. At the 1900 World's Fair, Diesel ran his engines on peanut oil. Henry Ford demonstrated that cars can be made of, and run on, hemp.

Diesel Engine


At the 1900 Paris Exhibition, the Otto Company, at the request of the French government, demonstrated that peanut oil could be used as a source of fuel for the diesel engine; this was one of the earliest demonstrations of biodiesel technology

Diesel uses peanut oil

The goverment has made every monopoly.






If you are trying to make a point, I would prefer that you would use your own
faculty to do it. Otherwise I am not sure what you are trying to get me to
respond to. I made my own arguments and I provided reasons that are
concurrent with thoughts and feelings. Maybe you can tell me how my
points, which are very specific, are wrong because my points will not
change, I have these opinions for a reasons.
edit on 2-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I've heard the gas is rising because the dollar is falling.???



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taggert
I've heard the gas is rising because the dollar is falling.???


I am not sure about to what degree that is true... Gas was lowest when our
economy was in the toilet about when Obama came to town, the dollar
was on life support.

It's interesting because the when the DOW has hit 13,000, gas usually crosses
the $4.00 threshhold, 2008, before the crash.

Sucks because consumers seem to get crushed when wall street does better.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually is free market principles that destroyed our economy. Under GW, the laws to regulate the markets, go after fraudulent business practices were ignored, and fraud ran amuck.

When you elect politicians who refuse to enforce laws against fraudulent business practices, under the con of the free market, you get the destruction of our economy.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Actually, it is the corporations that created the monopolies, mainly by undermining the government, as your own links prove.

You are still trying to blame government for the actions of the corporations.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
@ the op


yeah if free market forces are the obama regime....

hmmm he gets the DOE to sue the oil companies at every corner...

104$ a gallon should equal 3.30 a gallon (in the most expensive regions)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
@ the op


yeah if free market forces are the obama regime....

hmmm he gets the DOE to sue the oil companies at every corner...

104$ a gallon should equal 3.30 a gallon (in the most expensive regions)



Links.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


The level of denial by so many when it comes to the free market is truly sad. Some I think, truly believe such a system could work, but honestly, I think most don't care. They support fraud, because they think they will someday beat the system, and get rich themselves, so they are willing slaves to the system, more matter how crooked it becomes.

How many of the people who support free market ideology are willing to admit that they got duped into voting for politicians who created policies that turned almost all the power in our country over to the International Corporate Bankers.

The Republicans, under the banner of the Free Market ideology, have done everything in their power to prevent government from being able to go after fraudulent business practices and worked hard at turning all power over the the ICBs.

Which is why stock market gamblers, referred to as speculators, have managed to skim $.60 off every gallon of gas bought in this country, and people want to say the government should not have the power to do anything about it, which is total nonsense.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Actually, as a purist I all ready stated that the U.S has never enjoyed a truly free and unregulated market. The U.S. has, however, had plenty of experience with fraud and other abuses for quite some time. Bush's policies did not create Jay Gould, or the Tweed Ring - as corrupt a politician as one can imagine and of course, his government office and corruption had nothing at all to do with free markets but the fraud was real - there was, of course The General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy and the fact it was a conspiracy between GM, Standard Oil and Firestone makes clear this fraud had nothing at all to do with free market principles.

These are just a very few examples of early American fraud by men who had nothing at all to do with free market principles, and you can be rest assured adored the idea that government could be used to quash markets and competition. My friend, you pointing fingers and declaring denial is oddly tragic in its own denial.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually, it was free enterprise, giant corporations who carried out the scam. They bought from cities, not the fed gov, and that is the reason they push for state rights, because states are easier to bribe than the federal government.

Again, I see giant corporations as the biggest problem, and free market economics as something that probably would have made the matte worse. There is no invisible hand the will regulate markets, and keep the crooks from making off with their ill-begotten gains.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
When they limit production to raise prices I wonder how it is done. Does the King of Saudi Arabia have a big switch in his office that is connected to the pumps and he puts it on low? A free market would keep the switch on high.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually, it was free enterprise, giant corporations who carried out the scam. They bought from cities, not the fed gov, and that is the reason they push for state rights, because states are easier to bribe than the federal government.

Again, I see giant corporations as the biggest problem, and free market economics as something that probably would have made the matte worse. There is no invisible hand the will regulate markets, and keep the crooks from making off with their ill-begotten gains.


Still lying I see poet1b...Sigh. According to you Free Enterprise does not exist and never will. Yet something you do not believe exist is to blame for the problem... Amazing you can contradict yourself and lie so blatantly with a straight face...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Actually, it was free enterprise, giant corporations who carried out the scam. They bought from cities, not the fed gov, and that is the reason they push for state rights, because states are easier to bribe than the federal government.

Again, I see giant corporations as the biggest problem, and free market economics as something that probably would have made the matte worse. There is no invisible hand the will regulate markets, and keep the crooks from making off with their ill-begotten gains.


Still lying I see poet1b...Sigh. According to you Free Enterprise does not exist and never will. Yet something you do not believe exist is to blame for the problem... Amazing you can contradict yourself and lie so blatantly with a straight face...


Poet is saying there is no magical invisible hand - that is why you guys are so goofy throughout
this thread, you are thinking in terms of ideology, religion and the mystical... What you keep
forgetting is that neither Poet, LErickson or myself believe in it. I have provided many examples
based upon real scenarios and not one of you have explained of refuted my points as they pertain
to the argument I presented. Why? because my arguments are made based upon observation
while your observational skills are turned off because you see this as a sacred religious matter.

The world was born as free as possible, the free market was the law of nature, yet in all your
zeal you don't recognize that all these laws and controls were put here as a reaction to the
invisible hand not working. If the invisible hand worked the criminal concept of fraud and
corruption would have never be substantiated in the first place. There would have been no need
for it because it would have been self rectifying. You words are just that, words

This even extends to policy, For example Herbert Hover believed that the invisible hand and
"freedom" would fix the situations caused by the depression, hunger, poverty and poor
education... Well it didn't... Had Hover have dealt with that situation (the actual situation)
not the theory and ideological side of it, ( do nothing it will sort it self out, which is passive
and has nothing to do with the material world) FRD would have never had the reason or the
support to propose his policies. America rejected the Invisible hand in the 30's because it
was actually tried for once and people starved even though they were free to dust themselves
off and all that good stuff, they still starved and suffered for several years. Now Poet and myself
could have told you that Hovers policies were going to fail because we apply logic and cause and
effect thinking. We don't believe in theory or magic, we believe in doing and what is happening
in reality, not what is happening in some disembodied spiritual sense.

So the lies are your own, you are lying to yourself. If you did not have such affinity for the doctrine of
your beliefs you could see the truth.

edit on 5-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
19
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join