A thought for today. If those riots in France were actually happening here in the United States, National Guard units would by now have been nationalized and had the authority of marshall law, and the situation would have been "lock and load" and "FIRE."

Are the French just plain stupid or more civilized?

---

Account frozen...

A thought for today. If those riots in France were actually happening here in the United States, National Guard units would be now have had the authority of marshall law, and the situation would have been "lock and load" and "FIRE."

Are the French just plain stupid or more civilized?

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, Our National Guard Guard units cannot "Lock and Load" or "Fire" upon US Citizens. But individual Governors can Utilize State guard units for Marshall Law. Of course Kent state and Gov Wallace come to mind....

As far as the French Government I don't think they are stupid but they are in a dammed if they do and dammed if they don't situation. The rioters are minorities
that have 2nd class status and The French aristocrat government have suppressed them forever.

---

A thought for today. If those riots in France were actually happening here in the United States, National Guard units would be now have had the authority of marshall law, and the situation would have been "lock and load" and "FIRE."

Are the French just plain stupid or more civilized?

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, Our National Guard Guard units cannot "Lock and Load" or "Fire" upon US Citizens. But individual Governors can Utilize State guard units for Marshall Law. Of course Kent state and Gov Wallace come to mind....

As far as the French Government I don't think they are stupid but they are in a dammed if they do and dammed if they don't situation. The rioters are minorities
that have 2nd class status and The French aristocrat government have suppressed them forever.

What you said is quite true, but on the other hand, if they don't like the treatment in their host country, they could just go home. I personally think it is the height of huberous to expect your host country to pander to your cultural values, rather than the other way around. Remember the old mantra, "Love it or leave it."

---

Account frozen...

What you said is quite true, but on the other hand, if they don't like the treatment in their host country, they could just go home. I personally think it is the height of huberous to expect your host country to pander to your cultural values, rather than the other way around. Remember the old mantra, "Love it or leave it."

And while I agree that if someone doesn't like where they are they can always move/leave, however, the United States is expected to act just the opposite.

The NyQuil. It contains 25% alcohol by volumn.
They'll get you for trying to get the litlle fluzzy drunk.

---

Account frozen...

OK, let's just nationalize all the oil company assets. Whoopee!

And do you think that would drive prices up, or drive them down?

Taking in consideration that the oil companies are refining crude which they purchased 6-12 months ago, you do the maths.

You still haven't addressed the obviuos, yet, i.e. price gouging.

As I said, I really don't think any of the large oil companies refine their own crude anymore, but regardless, they still have to buy oil/gasoline. While they may be selling/refining product that they bought more cheaply 6-12 months ago, the market price has gone up. So, they raise the price on what they are presently selling in order to make enough to pay the much higher price of the raw materials they are presently buying. That accounts for the price increase on products that they presumably paid less for.

As far as "price gouging," it depends what you mean by that. Economically, no matter what the masses and the politicans cry about, there is no such thing. For example, gasoline, or ice, or whatever. Katrina comes and does damage, and therefore the market price goes up. The RATIONAL thing for a gas station owner to do is raise the present selling price higher. Why? Two reasons:

A) He needs the higher present income to buy future supplies, as the price for them has gone up.

B) He should do it because it stops people for whom the gas has a lesser value from buying too much and hoarding it. In this case, there will be no supply for a few weeks because Katrina did some damage to refineries and the trucks can't get through. Everyone knows this, but if the price remains the same (or only rises slightly), people buy all that they can, and the gas station quickly runs out of gas.

However, in any given situation, there are people that value the product more. If the gasoline were say, $5.00 a gallon, people will only buy what they need. They would buy two gallons instead of a full tank, betting (correctly) that the gas price will come back down. Conversely, the ambulance company and the police and fire vehicles will pay the $5.00 to keep their vehicles running because the price of gasoline is significantly less important to them. The problem here is that they can't. The stations are out of gas. NO ONE can buy any gas because people bought more than they needed.

You can substitute ice, water, whatever you wish. Can the stations gouge? No, because all of this stuff is, for the most part, democratized. People don't care what brand of gas they buy, as long as it is cheap. So while BP may try to sell gas @ $10.00 per gallon (price gouging), the public will simply go to Exxon and pay the cheaper price.

Don't forget to add this: Geebus! I'm not sure what your point is! and Pfffft!

This is just sad.

Initially, your response was a list of general terms I had used in previous posts that, while not directed at you, seemed to caused you offense. Of course, as I demonstrated from your previous posts, you seemed more than willing to do the same thing that you complained that I did. If you can understand why it is OK for you to use those types of terms, you can understand why I am of the mind that it OK for me to use them as well.

But, because you did seem to take them personally, I apologized and said that I was sorry, as I didn't intend for you to take my posts personally.

Yet, instead of acknowledging my apology, your response was the above. It almost seems as if it is more important to you to battle about who can use what relatively mild pejoratives, instead of the discussion at hand. And I do say "mild perjorative," as much worse is often bandied about this list.

Forgive me if I find your position incomprehensible.

You can substitute ice, water, whatever you wish. Can the stations gouge? No, because all of this stuff is, for the most part, democratized. People don't care what brand of gas they buy, as long as it is cheap. So while BP may try to sell gas @ $10.00 per gallon (price gouging), the public will simply go to Exxon and pay the cheaper price.

You seem to forget that these companies are working as a tag team and not against each other. That would be bad for business. They if fact have very little competition, and if you have been living on Alpha Centari and haven't noticed, they been merging like crazy in the past year or so. There are only a few giant corporations out there that control the vast market share in the petroleum industry.

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

You seem to forget that these companies are working as a tag team and not against each other. That would be bad for business....

I'm not sure what this has to do with what you called "price gouging." But see the below.

They if fact have very little competition, and if you have been living on Alpha Centari and haven't noticed, they been merging like crazy in the past year or so. There are only a few giant corporations out there that control the vast market share in the petroleum industry.

While this may be your opinion, they don't work as a tag team. Each would like nothing better than putting the others out of business. Along with the large, familiar firms ExxonMobile, BP, et cetera, there is Sinclair, Sunoco, Getty, ConocoPhillips, and others. They compete handily with the big names. There are also the Russian companies, Gazprom, LUKoil, and Yukos, and South American ones, and other companies around the rest of the world. All would like to crush the others, but they cannot. Off the top of my head, that is TEN oil companies, and that is plenty for competition.

But as I said, it really doesn't matter that a few of them control the "vast market share in the petroleum industry," because gasoline is democratized. If those few try to jack prices up, the others can and do undercut them, simply and easily. No one really cares what they put into their tank, be it Shell (11) or BP (12).

Marathon, Occidental, that Saudi firm. There are lots.

Marathon, Occidental, that Saudi firm. There are lots.

There are lots of countries which belong to OPEC, but they act more or less as one; just like the oil companies do to the exclusion of anyone outside their sphere of influence. So what's your point, that the oil companies use only fair market practices. They are beyond Economics 101, and in many cases, beyond the law. Market manipulation is a science which they have perfected outside of any normal market dynamics. They already owned GWB before 2000; who do you think were his number one contributors (soft money). I forget who was in second place, but the pharmaceutical companies were in a close third.

---

Account frozen...

There are lots of countries which belong to OPEC, but they act more or less as one; just like the oil companies do to the exclusion of anyone outside their sphere of influence....

Odd that they fight like cats and dogs to "act as one." Odd that the Saudis often do whatever the hell they please. Odd that the Russian countries aren't in OPEC.

So what's your point, that the oil companies use only fair market practices.

The point was clear: gasoline is democratized. No one gas company can control price. No "few giant corporations" can control price. Your use of the term "price gouging" does not apply.

They are beyond Economics 101, and in many cases, beyond the law. Market manipulation is a science which they have perfected outside of any normal market dynamics.

You would have to be more specific here. Especially since, for example, consumers in the U.S. pay about the lowest prices on earth for gasoline. Which is, simply put, enough evidence that oil companies have little to no control over retail prices.

They already owned GWB before 2000; who do you think were his number one contributors (soft money). I forget who was in second place, but the pharmaceutical companies were in a close third.

Sure. And IIRC laywers and lobbyists were Kerry's biggest, heathcare/pharms were 5th or 6th on Kerry's list. Companies are free to donate as they wish. Just as Moveon.org is free to donate as they wish. It's a free society. Money buys access.

Odd that they fight like cats and dogs to "act as one." Odd that the Saudis often do whatever the hell they please. Odd that the Russian countries aren't in OPEC.

It's true that they aren't in complete sync with each other and that some cheat. Sound familiar. But for the most part they are a formitable organization in the world market place.

The point was clear: gasoline is democratized. No one gas company can control price. No "few giant corporations" can control price. Your use of the term "price gouging" does not apply.

No one company has control of anything, but together they creat a market trend. When a critical commodities price is manipulated to the advantage, and when their costs haven't risen appreciably, that is price gouging. Remember, there is a 6-12 month time lag in that market. I suppose you forgot all about 1974; I just can't wait to hear your excuses for Big Oil on that one.

You would have to be more specific here. Especially since, for example, consumers in the U.S. pay about the lowest prices on earth for gasoline. Which is, simply put, enough evidence that oil companies have little to no control over retail prices.

US consumers pay less for fuel because our taxes are some of the lowest in the world, although I must admit that Americans are the biggest cry babies when it comes to taxes. And don't zing me about Democracts being tax and spend, the Republicans are borrow and spend. When the prices were forced up because of Katrina, the oil companies jacked up there prices accordingly all over Europe. I didn't know the hurricane was that big to take out British refineries.

Sure. And IIRC laywers and lobbyists were Kerry's biggest, heathcare/pharms were 5th or 6th on Kerry's list. Companies are free to donate as they wish. Just as Moveon.org is free to donate as they wish. It's a free society. Money buys access.

I have to concur with you on this one. As they say, "business as usual." It is going to be very interesting this week when the CEO's of the five largest peutoleum corps testify in Congressional hearings. Never mind that they've lined the pockets of their very inquisitors. We shall see; one of us is going to be eating perhaps a little crow.

---

Account frozen...

It's true that they aren't in complete sync with each other and that some cheat. Sound familiar. But for the most part they are a formitable organization in the world market place.

As are the rest of the oil producing nations. When OPEC was the biggest by far, in the 60's and 70's, it STILL couldn't control the market, and in the late 70's it was outpaced by the other oil producers.

No one company has control of anything, but together they creat a market trend.

You have to be more specific. The price of gasoline has continued to fall in real dollars; it gets cheaper. This is why consumption goes up. So, if the big companies/OPEC are manipulating the market trend, they are failing. Miserably.

When a critical commodities price is manipulated to the advantage, and when their costs haven't risen appreciably, that is price gouging. Remember, there is a 6-12 month time lag in that market.

Every single oil company and every single refiner buys oil on the open market nearly every single trading day. When prices spike instantly (as in over a few days or a week) say, for example, over Katrina and Rita, their costs have risen appreciably, and more importantly, what they are selling now needs to match those price increases in order to continue to procure what they need. That is not price gouging. Their costs do rise appreciably, and they can do so in the course of a few hours or days.

I suppose you forgot all about 1974; I just can't wait to hear your excuses for Big Oil on that one.

What excuses? From what I remember, OPEC said "Kram it, Klowny," to nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur(?) war, and refused to ship oil. OPEC no longer is on top, and real gas prices are lower than they were 30 years ago. Further evidence that no one can control prices, and further evidence that the "market trend" you think they control has trended towards lower real prices.

US consumers pay less for fuel because our taxes are some of the lowest in the world, although I must admit that Americans are the biggest cry babies when it comes to taxes.

Right, but again, the low price (minus the taxes) is a result of prices trending downward. Not evidence of oil companies having control.

And don't zing me about Democracts being tax and spend, the Republicans are borrow and spend.

Politicians are politicians. They beg, borrow, lie, and steal to pander to their voting base. If one supports using gov't force for meddling, as you seem to with direct price controls and nationalization, you should be thrilled.

When the prices were forced up because of Katrina, the oil companies jacked up there prices accordingly all over Europe. I didn't know the hurricane was that big to take out British refineries.

Of course they did. Because they buy billions of gallons a year. When something affects refineries anywhere, prices on the WORLD market go up. And they go up nearly instantly. Since their costs appreciate instantly, sellers have to raise prices instantly.

I have to concur with you on this one. As they say, "business as usual." It is going to be very interesting this week when the CEO's of the five largest peutoleum corps testify in Congressional hearings. Never mind that they've lined the pockets of their very inquisitors. We shall see; one of us is going to be eating perhaps a little crow.

Those CEO's have been in front of Congress easily five or seven times in the last 30 years, and many times that in states. This time will be no different than any other time. No charges will be filed, regardless of the rhetoric.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.