Solution to gas prices: Nationalization

You should call this to the attention of all the right wing economists then. I'm sure they would appreciate the warning against any form of misusing words to convey their own special propaganda. I don't repeat war slogans, just economic ones. ;)

Reagan really *did* start the deregulation craze. Not long thereafter the taxpayers bailed out the Savings and Loans (but not before some Bush family members made off with with some chump change). Then they deregulated electricity. Not like Canada's. Real deregulation. Ever heard of Enron?

*Some* people. And the richer they get, the more influence they can buy. The more influence they can buy...........

Absolutely.

Hold fast to dreams For if dreams die Life is a broken-winged bird That cannot fly.

Hold fast to dreams For when dreams go Life is a barren field Frozen with snow

Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.

The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.

No problem, rob social security:

"F.H." wrote in news:tLn5i.8433$TU1.5106@trnddc07:

No, Jimmy Carter did. You could look it up. And in any case, it never even came close to being "laissez faire". Not even remotely.

There are more regulations and government administrations now than ever before in US or Canadian history. So much for "deregulation".

That isn't "laissez faire". that's mercantilist.

Also I seem to recall tax law changes gave rise to the S&L debacle in the first place.

They most certainly did NOT.

California and Ontario did much the same thing when they re-regulated. Enron gamed the Ontario market as well as California's.

ALL people. Every single one without ever an exception.

In a truly "laissez faire" environment, the government would not be in a position to dispense largesse to lobbyists.

The reason lobbyists are so thick upon the ground is because there is either

1) something to be gained by bending the government's ear, or 2) they want preferential absolution from restrictions imposed by the government.

Dreams are your business, not the business of those whose job it is to run the courts and keep the roads paved.

As soon as the government gets involved in "dreams", the lobbyists are in there trying to get some advantage for themselves.

Seems you have built up a considerable personal investment in this topic. Perhaps fantasy is a better word than dream but I think you got my drift. I have a hard time vigorously championing anything thats never been before. No way to gage it. Kind of like heaven. Sounds good. Sounds better to some than others. ;)

There are usually good reasons things never get out of the fantasy/dream stage. In this case the number one suspect seems to be human nature.

Don't make it bad to fantasize/dream but windmills can grab ya and throw ya. Is it true that Senor Quixote spent a lot of time alone and had many bruises.

"F.H." wrote in news:hcq5i.5479$Ud7.4483@trnddc08:

You got it. That's why we'll forevermore see mercantilism, protectionism, favoritism and lobbying, and not "laissez faire".

We've come close to "laissez faire" a few times, notably Hong Kong under Cowperthwaite, and prety much the entire industrialized world in the few decades prior to World War 1.

Our current widespread prosperity is largely due to the afterglow from the pre-WW1 era: Private property rights, innocent-until-proven-guilty, that sort of thing.

I partial to the afterglow between Roosevelt and Reagan. When the wheels come off of this current "widespread prosperity" it is going to be ugly. Very ugly. But then again, if its done slow enough people just keep adjusting and before ya know it there will be a new norm.

We'll no longer have families where both adults work to make ends meet. We'll just morph into families where no one ever leaves and all contribute from their minimum wage jobs to support the family SUV. ;)

Comrade Chavez just pulled the plug on the privately owned TV station in his country.

Are you sure you want to use him as a role model?

Dear oh dear... To what has the educational system come?

DAS

For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling

Don't know about the ecucational system but Usenet apparently has come to telepathy.

Good point. The only model worth emulating is the one who is on the best of terms with the owners of "privately owned" media. That way you can make sure only that which you approve of gets on the airways and promote market forces at the same time. Large campaign contributions help round out the proper example.

And when you decide to invade a country you can put reporters for the free press with the military (for their protection )and of course, your pals in the world of corporate media will help drum up support for your adventure.

When you help set up TV and radio in the countries you conquer you can tap the vast resources in the free market to help you efficiently educate the native population on the many wonderful economic oportunities you have brought from afar. ;)

Damn, and I thought I was cynical.

Richard

Gasoline has always been cheap there. Premium was equivalent to about $0.30 per gallon when I lived there years ago. (There were three grades of gasoline then, and the cheap one was about $0.07 per gallon, IIRC) This does not represent any world economy prices, but is a bone thrown to the people.

Hugo Chavez is a bit left of socialist. He is moving toward communism as quickly as he can, but still calls it socialism. (There is a BIG difference)

The currency today is about Bs2000 to the dollar (roughly) but you can easily get Bs 3500 for your dollars on the black market, maybe even 5000. When I lived there it was Bs 4.27 to one US dollar.

Indeed, but you wouldn't know it from the media portrayal stateside.

Interesting.

In message news:oi07i.9386$ snipped-for-privacy@news02.roc.ny, JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following:

Which is why there are exactly three "front-runners" for the Democratic and Republican nominations, even though not a single vote has been cast, and despite the fact that Ron Paul wins EVERY online or call-in poll.

In message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Robert Reynolds sprach forth the following:

In a free market, once a product rises to a certain level of profitability, other capitalists enter into the business. This increased competition then levels the prices back down.

Of course this doesn't happen in the US gas market because the environuts have opposed EVERY refinery construction plan for the last 30 years.

Wait a second - I thought you said you "demand gasoline absolutely". Are you using E85 or gas?

Because in reality you're buying a result moreso than a product. You need to drive X miles. Gasoline will get you that result, but so will E85 (assuming you have an E85-compatible vehicle). So gas and E85 are really part of the same market. When one price moves, the other will too.

Which is why E85 is very bad news for anyone who eats.

In message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Robert Reynolds sprach forth the following:

You drive a van and put gas in it? Yet you harangue the gas companies? There's a name for you: John "I don't own an SUV - my family does!" Kerry.

In message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Robert Reynolds sprach forth the following:

Uh, yes it is.

Uh, actually they do. This and other statements of yours show that you pretty much have zero knowledge of economics and little desire to learn, so I'm not going to bother educating you.

I'm no big fan of the oil companies, but I always find it interesting that when people critical of them point to their "obscene profits", they never give the profit figures IN TERMS OF PERCENT OF REVENUE. Why is 9 or 10% profit considered bad for a company?

Also, they never discuss the price of gasoline in the U.S. of, say, 25 or 30 years ago in comparison to the INFLATION-ADJUSTED price of today. Why is today's price bad when it is lower than the price of 25 or 30 years ago WHEN ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION?

Anyone want to address those two questions?

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Fair question. Perspectives vary widely especially considering that for most, gasoline is not a luxury but a necessity so it opens up additional considerations besides percentage of profit. Add to that the global considerations and power struggles and oil companies are not your everyday mom and pop trying to make ends meet or Wall Street company trying to pay dividends.

*Is* the inflation adjusted price *really* lower. How much? Certainly the average families buying power is reduced from 30 years ago. Substantially.