| re: Paying too much for petrol? | |
|
Posted by: |
Keljeck 07:08 am UTC 06/17/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Paying too much for petrol? - Pudding 11:56 pm UTC 06/16/08 |
| "> > It seems to me I'm being too subtle for you. > > On the contrary, you're not too subtle at all, I just > don't think you're explaining yourself properly." Then we can go with that. "> The good is scarcer because there are more people > who want it, not because there's a shortage. Can you please explain to me what the difference is between scarce and shortage? because I'm struggling to find a real difference between how something can be scarce but there can't be a shortage http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scarcities" I'm talking about things that one can't simply open a dictionary "let alone a free online one" and make the distinction. I'm talking about stuff out of an economics textbook. What I mean is, there is no shortage of oil. An oil shortage is what happened in the US in the 70's during the OPEC ban and Carter's dumb decision to fix prices. People would wait in line for hours to get the oil because it wasn't there. That's a shortage. I'm talking about the demand side. The good is scarce because, all goods are scarce. As your free online internet dictionary says: "Insufficiency of amount, or supply." To quote Westley from the Princess Bride "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." Economics is defined as an attempt to find an efficient means to exchange scarce goods. There is NEVER enough of something to go around, save the essentials. So let's assume everyone needed oil on the planet earth right now, and we were giving it away free. Well, we would see a demand side shortage would we not? This is what prices do, they make sure that the scarcity on one end (which is always there) does not result in a shortage on the other end (which is only there during drought, famine, blockades, or communism). If there is less of a good on the supply side then the price goes up, to ensure that there isn't a shortage on the demand side. Did I do a better job that time? I do admit I need to work on being more succinct. "> If, say, we nationalized the gasoline industry > and dropped prices to 15 cents a gallon, then > we'd see a shortage. This is what the market > does, prevents shortages on the demand side. Of course you'd see a shortage because the price would be ridiculously low and people would use their vehicles a lot more. I'm trying to keep the discussion in realms of reality. And no one said anything about nationilising the gasoline industry." Of course. That's what I'm saying. By the way, the article you linked to us, from some socialist group, advocates nationalization at the very end. In case you didn't bother to read that far. That's what I was referencing. Also, the price of oil in Venezuela is 15 Cents, in American dollars. Once again, a reference to the end of the article you posted. I was giving that as an example. "But the oil companies can prevent the need to raise prices and they do have control. When you fill up your car at a Shell petrol station, that price rises and falls on Shells say so. I'll agree that the price of oil is rising due to speculators investing in oil which raises the price and the only way people can see to reduce the price is to increase oil production, which is" Well, the price of oil is not simply to speculators. You keep skipping this point and I believe it's crucial to understanding the current crisis. There is greater demand. That's why prices are rising. The oil companies are raising prices to deal with the greater demand, this is how economics works, basic economics, economics 101. The speculators only arrive after this fact, and I don't think either of us know how much effect they are having on the price of oil. The only way to deal with this problem is twofold, increase oil production, and get more refineries. Both of which require money, and increasing oil production isn't sustainable. This is why Europe's gas is so expensive, they artificially inflate it with taxes in order to stave off the inevitable. Which is peak oil. Which, by the way, most oil companies are now admitting is true. The true answer is alternative energy sources, something we have little lead on yet. Something that will require some money to research for. And whoever discovers it first is remembered for years to come, and makes a shitload of dimes. Besides, one does not simply walk into increased oil production. "I'm remembering Enron in the 90's claiming that there was a shortage of electricity in California (which there wasn't) which increased prices which made the stock price increase. Speculators then jumped on the bandwagon and stocks then went through the roof." If I recall correctly, there was a electrical shortage in California in the late 90's and early 2000's. A lot of grids collapsed because they couldn't handle it. Much of the energy business in California is government controlled. "These greedy bastard mother fuckers are driven by profit and profit alone, and I'm not against anyone making a profit, but ridiculous profit like what they're making is something completely out of order." Then back to the question in my first post, how much money would you be fine with them making? We seem to have gone around in circles until we reach one fundamental disagreement, I think businesses have a right to their profits, and you don't. Which, I suppose, is a point upon which we would have to agree to disagree. Which brings me to Jimmy! "In general, people on both sides of the aisle can throw technical terms back and forth to manipulate the public to follow their respective agendas, but in the end it all comes down to the basic philosophical standpoints we support rather than which pragmatic reality we help to create by supporting a certain philosophical standpoint." Amen brother. "I agree with Jakob von Uexkull, founder of The Right Livelihood Award, on most social- and political issues: http://www.rightlivelihood.org/jakob.html" I'm afraid I haven't heard of him. I'll be sure to read more! This stuff interests me in some perverse way. "One of his best quotes: "Markets should be our servants, not our masters". The main point is not whether markets are controlled by the government or "private interests" (often two sides of the same coin), the point is WHICH markets we support, and why....as opposed to market fundamentalism where any market is supported simply by the merit of being a market...." I don't quite understand. First off I completely agree the interests of the government are hand in hand with the interests of business. The last president who got elected who snubbed business was Reagan, and he turned around fast. (Yes, believe it or not, at the beginning of his 1980 campaign he snubbed business interests and went straight to the people. Then once he made headway he turned around and started collecting their cheques. You have to remember, back then, as now, businesses were deathly afraid of the free market and lower regulations. It wasn't until the realized he couldn't accomplish it, and that they'd keep more of their money that they supported him) But what do you mean which markets we support? Are you saying that market fundamentalists are okay with the black market simply because it's a market? ... well ok, many of them are. Ok, most of them are. But, is that what you're trying to say? Or are you talking about economic systems? "I'd vote for Obama if I was a U.S citizen - if there's any person in this country who can make more than 60% of the population vote this fall, he's the guy...." I'm going to have to be contrarian and say I disagree. For a multitude of reasons, but to mention the major ones, the American people are still pretty damn conservative. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. McCain's a war hero. Many people don't remember, but Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote. Obama may be charismatic, but he is not the public speaker many people think he is. He reads from a teleprompter and has been known to make a lot of big mistakes that Dan Quayle was crucified for (he's been to 57 states evidently). What he does have on his side is McCain being boring, old, and a bit of a flipflopper, as well as Bush. I'm inclined to say Obama will win, but I don't think it'll be by a 60% landslide. Sorry for the long post, but I love this stuff. I'm having fun, no hard feelings. Hope ya'll are too. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Paying too much for petrol? - Pudding 11:56 pm UTC 06/16/08 |
| Next: | re: Paying too much for petrol? - John_Galt 10:43 pm UTC 06/17/08 |
| Thread: |
|