> Olin wrote:
>>> Bing, bing, bing.....business and government collusion is not the
>>> free market. This is a complex equation but here's a question for you.
>>> Do you think that anybody has a right to cheap gasoline? If you think
>>> that government can control the prices, I invite you to observe what a
>>> stunning failure every attempt at price control has ever been.
>>>
>>
>> Who said anything about price control? Look, even the hardest of the
>> greed is good crowd is raising an eyebrow at what the futures traders are
>> doing now in the oil futures markets. More than anything else,
>> speculation is driving up the price of crude oil. I read one piece
>> recently that indicated at least thirty dollars a barrel has been tacked
>> on due to this segment's driving force.
>
> Not doubting that somebody said that, but I'd like to read your
> information. It really does not pass the common sense test though.
>>
Check the Fort Worth Star Telegram's web site, because I believe that's
where I read it. They've had a couple articles on futures trading
recently... one claiming it'll be the salvation of the economy... the other
outlining just how much of a driving force that particular market can be.
And, it makes absolutely perfect sense. Do recall the program trading
scandal of the '80s that was pretty much credited with crashing the market.
Investors can and do drive the price where they want it to go... large
enough investors anyway. And the futures market is an order of magnitude
more volatile than the conventional stock market.
>> In the stock market issue of the '80s, program trading was identified as
>> a problem, and IMHO, reasonable regulation was put in place to curb it
>> somewhat. Futures markets have always, again IMHO, played games with
>> other peoples' finances and futures. And, it's at least, and likely far
>> more, dangerous than program trading on a very large scale.
>
> To me, the price of oil and gasoline is just an indicator of the
> relative value of the dollar. IMO, this is the overriding issue. If
> the price of oil on the world market is going up in U.S. dollars it
> indicates that the monetary policies of the Fed to fund Bush's wars
> is having a real effect on the cost of goods in the U.S.
>
No argument about that. Add to it, the vultur... er, futures traders and you
get what you have... a price point that's squeezing everybody and one that
drives the cost of literally everything consumed up... including the cost of
delivering the crude oil and refined products.
>>>> No, California reserves the right to decide for us all what's best.
>>> How do you figure that? It's a pretty broad statement at best.
>>>
>>
>> Read the papers much? The emissions controls were pretty much a
>> California mandate. California has led the nation in impacting auto
>> systems design for many years and now has a lawsuit filed to force the
>> ferals to significantly up the mileage goals for new vehicles.
>
> One need not read the papers to know about California's lead in
> social engineering. Having spent a good bit of time out there,
> mostly in the Bay Area, I still marvel at how much those folks put
> up with in their politicians. The point I was trying to make is that
> it's not really a legitimate power of government, especially at the
> federal level, if one uses even the low bar of constitutionality.
>>
Doesn't have to be. California is still a driving force for change, good,
bad or indifferent. As for putting up with their politicians, maybe more
than any other state, they ARE their politicians.
Just like the State of Texas, along with the infamous Gabler family, used to
pretty much dictate what textbooks would be published for education
purposes, California has dictated, and tried to do so even more, auto design
and fuel standards to the point of absurdity.
That ingenuity, research and development has caught up with them eventually
is a delightful accident. You recall the early efforts at emissions
controls? They barely worked at all, you could actually get better overall
performance, including the crap that spewed out of your tailpipe, by
removing them and uber-tuning your engine. And, catalytic converters on even
farm vehicles almost proved to be a disaster with the grass fires they
started.
Both California incentives, foisted onto the rest of the nation whether the
technology was ready or not.
>> Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but you made the
>> statement that it's not up to the PoUS to mandate those mileage figures,
>> and there's evidence that California believes it IS up to them.
>
> See above. I was stating that it's not a legitimate power of
> the PotUS, or of the government of California. Frankly, I believe
> if it ever happens it will be because consumers demand it. You
> can already see the effects on the Big Three of ignoring the will
> of consumers.....
>
And I countered with who cares about the PotUS. California is trying now to
get the feds into federal court to force much higher fuel economy standards
than the highest ones put forth by ANY member of Congress. They've either
already filed their lawsuit or are about to.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. California thinks it knows and is
ready to go to court to prove it.
>>>> The modern political version of free market advocate is, I'm free to do
>>>> what I please and you're free to go suck an egg if you don't like it.
>>> I'm having a tough time parsing this statement. A free market
>>> advocate, regardless of time in history, is an individual who advocates
>>> a free market...free of government intervention, free of collusion
>>> between business and government...free. It's the market equivalent
>>> of freedom of choice for individuals....like freedom to choose what
>>> to ingest, who to associate with, what to think etc. In a free
>>> market, monopolies like the big oil companies would not exist.
>>
>> In a completely unfettered market place, we got the old robber barons,
>> some of which became the big oil companies.
>
> Not even close to a free market Olin. Two of the "robber baron"
> industries that you talk about were railroads and big oil. Both were
> heavily subsidized by the federal government and colluded. You are
> going to have to try a bit harder than that.
>
Joseph, you know as well as I do that they saw themselves as the free
market, and their heirs have complained loud and long about being fettered
by regulation, wishing fervently for those halcyon days.
I lost count of the allegedly free market advocates who came on my old radio
show to argue against this measure or that one, this regulation or that one,
when the essence of their argument was they wanted to be free to money whip
their competition and drive 'em into bankruptcy, much like the guy who sits
down at a no-limit Holdem table with a hundred grand while everybody else
there has about five hundred bucks.
>> And now, we have the FCC about to allow ownership of newspapers, radio
>> and television in a single market again, this after totally unreasonable
>> rules regarding media ownership were totally thrown out the window which
>> has led to the greatest concentration of information flow I can recall
>> even ever having read about. Right now, it's not about Uncle Sugar
>> controlling what you think. That's already been taken over by media
>> ownership, and their "free market" is about to get even bigger. Some
>> years back, there in Austin, there were folks who wanted competition to
>> the local paper. It never happened simply because it was too expensive to
>> mount effective competition.
>
> Newspapers, I'm happy to say, have become largely irrelevant. Radio
> and television are not far behind. The market that you are remarking
> about is also not a free market. To have the FCC doling out airspace
> is pretty much the antithesis of free markets.....
>
Except for the simple fact that broadcasters do not and have never owned the
frequencies over which they broadcast.
It's easy to say that newspapers have become irrelevant, but it's hardly
true. Most of them are online and finally offering their content mostly for
free now. And they're still driving the content of even the largest and best
funded blogs in the fight to see who gets to disseminate the most
information and disinformation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, Joseph.
> As always, thanks for your input....
>
Alas, I fear most input these days is generally a waste of time. On a rerun
of Jay Leno, one of his "jokes" had to do with the Shrub explaining his Iraq
policy, with viewers saying to hell with that... what about Brittany Spears.
Did you see those love handles. What's up with that?
Pogo was right. ;^)
