Solution to gas prices: Nationalization

Page 3 of 5  



What "laissez faire"? You do know what that term means in English, don't you?
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tegger" ...

I think he probably meant "bourgeois" (middle class)
Laissez-faire means the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs. (dictionary.com)
Natalie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that's sort of true, but the literal translation from the French is "leave us alone".
How many governments in recent memory have actually done that? None to my count. Some have been worse than others, but nobody's ever been "laissez faire".
Probably the closest we've come in modern times to true "laissez faire" is Hong Kong under John Cowperthwaite. No US president could ever be accused of being "laissez faire".
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

Since you wrote:
"You cannot artificially lower the price of a commodity without the costs squirting out somewhere else. Ever wonder why Venezuela has always been so poor?"
Why pretend you don't know what I was referring to?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I'm afraid that, quite honestly, I'm not following your connection. Can you elaborate for me? Not kidding here.
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

Laissez faire is often used to describe Reaganomics supply side theory, "a rising tide lifts all boats," etc.,etc.. The evidence suggests otherwise. It should say *some* boats. ;)
As for "Venezuela always being so poor" *always* is a long time. Some people claim that offers of help in the form of loans have been part of the problem, that borrowing from the World Bank can turn out to be like borrowing from the Mafia. ;) And like with the Mafia, people can wind up dead. Try the New York Times bestseller, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, it might change your perspective a tad on poverty in some South American countries.
http://www.johnperkins.org/Article%20of%20Interest.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heres another term for you: "red herring".
You can give any old name you like to things, but just any old name is not always going to be accurate. Reagans' economic policies may be more accurately described as "less mecantilist" than some of the other presidents'. It was certainly not "laissez faire".
Another example of an inaccurate term affecting people's view of a subject: When California and the Canadian province of Ontario altered their regulatory framework for electricity, it was instantly dubbed "deregulation", even though the market remained heavily regulated in a slightly different manner than before. The term was inaccurately used, but you'd never have known that from what you read in the papers.
The indisputable fact is that people are never richer as when their governments leave them alone. The best things a government can do for its population are 1) to recognize and support private property rights, 2) to provide a fair and honest dispute resolution system, 3) to obey its own rules, 4) and to otherwise go away.
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Tegger


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

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. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In message 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In message 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In message 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In message 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In message Scott in Florida sprach forth the following:

From the annual report:
Expenses: $2.4 million Fares: $0.5 million
Operating deficit (expenses minus fares): $1.9 million
Average number of unique riders per day: 541
This is insane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:
> ...However, gasoline prices started up, not down, all the way to the > present $3.50, while crude hovers in the low $60s. Refinery shutdowns > and increased consumption? No. Increased profits? Yes!
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')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F.H. wrote:

Bread is a necessity. Toilet paper is a necessity. Housing is a necessity. You're going to tell me that inflation does not apply to those necessities? People would be really dumb to believe that kind of stuff, and perhaps they are that dumb. But you're pushing something you know not to be true.

Umm - but inflation is the conglomerate results of individual price increases. On average, you're paying more for a given commodity today based on inflation - not your buying power. Geeze! That's how inflation is defined. Yet people want to single oil out and say that it's price should be based on our decreasing buying power and not on inflation. That double standard with oil vs. the average of everything that goes into inflation figures is exactly the dishonesty I was talking about.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.