F... gas prices

Can I ask you something? Why is it wrong for companies like Exxon to make boatloads of money?

B/c they're making at my expense [j/k].

B/c they're making at my expense [j/k].

Even though you're joking, that's pretty much the crux of their argument.

Why do middle class citizens (and poor and affluent citizens for that matter) have more right to pay low gas prices than Exxon does to charge higher ones?

I don't that is entirely correct. The U.S. government has a great deal of influence over middle eastern countries and, by extension, OPEC. For example, many middle eastern countries rely on the U.S. to supply their militaries with arms. Guess who gets to approve or reject the sale of those weapons? The United States Congress. Moreover, if the U.S. ever manages to create a semi-stable security environment in Iraq, the U.S. could pressure the Iraqis to flip the bird to OPEC and start pumping out boatloads of oil. Obviously our influence over OPEC's member countries wasn't great enough to convince them to up their oil quotas, but I think it's inaccurate to say that we don't have any negotiating power.

All true and all examples of things that would bring even greater hatred of America in the middle east unfortunately. Our power there is directly offset by their unreasonableness(word?) towards our actons and their willingness to do awful things when we piss them off.

Even though you're joking, that's pretty much the crux of their argument.

Why do middle class citizens (and poor and affluent citizens for that matter) have more right to pay low gas prices than Exxon does to charge higher ones?

Well, I think oil is one of those resources where gov. may have some legitimate involvement (not just in taxing its use). To the extent there are monopolistic tendencies or market collusion among the companies, these should be regulated.

I haven't seen any allegations of collusion among oil companies other than "they are charging more, therefore they must be colluding".

In order to work, the free market does require everyone to "play fair", and govt. can legitimately investigate the oil companies actions to determine if they are indeed doing so. I agree, however, that the mere fact that they are making profits does not, in and of itself, mean they are cheating the system. (In a fight, does the fact I won mean I started it?)

While I haven't fully thought through this next point, given the nature of the US economy, some level of govt oversight of oil/gas prices may be appropriate. The US economy, given the size of the country, is reliant on the transport of items over long distances. Radical increases in oil/prices effect markets well beyond oil/gas as an individual commodity. In this way, and even though sold through multiple companies, oil seems to me to have similar market characteristics of a monopoly (i.e. electric, phone and BGE). In such situations, even if no collusion is shown, govt has a role in ensuring that the pricing and profit levels are "fair". (I guess, however, that if Exxon attempted set its price way over market, then everyone would buy from one of the other providers - That appears to me to be the crux of the question - is there enough competition between oil providers to ensure that the price is a true market price).

Also, I think 70Chips point of regulating speculation in the oil/gas market is appropriate. Again, given the effect that increases in oil prices have on other markets, it seems to me speculation in the oil market should be pretty much prohibited. Removing specualation from the picture may ease the growth, hopefully create a more straight forward "supply/demand" equation, and limit the effect of radical price increases on other markets.

The bolded part seems to say something along the lines of "we just disagree."

That's great, but you still haven't posted one single argument that holds any water.

Can I ask you something? Why is it wrong for companies like Exxon to make boatloads of money?
if its fair, then why does the government regulate the price of milk, or cigarettes? when is enough, enough?

the given in this whole thing is, we need gas. this pretty much constitutes a monopoly. until there are other choices, this should be semi controlled/ watched by the government. this is a big difference between the Dem's and the G.O.P the republicans think that big business is above playing fair. while the Dem's think there is a point where you have enough of a profit margin

the given in this whole thing is, we need gas. this pretty much constitutes a monopoly

No. By definition, the universal need for a product does not create a monoply. It is the control of the production by a single source that creates the monopoly. If multiple oil companies are in competition with one another, and lacking collusion, then oil will find its market value.

until there are other choices, this should be semi controlled/ watched by the government.

They are regulated out the wazoo which is one of the reasons gas prices are high.

this is a big difference between the Dem's and the G.O.P the republicans think that big business is above playing fair. while the Dem's think there is a point where you have enough of a profit margin

That's a pretty sweeping indictment and one that goes to the fundamental aspects of both the free market system and of our form of government. I also think it is pretty naive. "Playing fair", in my mind, means don't collude - compete. It does not mean - "Gosh jeepers don't make too much money."

You don't like how much the oil companies make? Buy a prius - get a job closer to your home, work with one car, ride mass transit. When those options are not practically available, work towards having the government create incentives to create alternative energy choices, increase mass transit, etc. Telling oil companies to stop profiting avoids your responsibility in the market system and in the democratic republican (i.e. government by popularly elected officials) form of government we have.

When you start injecting socialist controls into the free market based solely on the concept that some group is profiting too much from the system, you inject artificial elements into that system which are fundamentally opposed to and work against the system's basic structure, i.e. incentive to maximize your own gain - whether you be buyer or seller. In doing so, you destroy not just the incentive for oil companies to compete with one another, you also destroy the incentive for alternative energy forms to compete with oil.

Oversight is fine, but destruction of incentive by artificially capping profits is not the answer. In our government/economic system, you, I and others have the power, if we mobilize, to almost completely destroy the oil industry profits in the US economy by both decreasing demand and by finding alternatives to the internal combustion engine. But it OUR responsibility to do so.

Looks like I won't be driving to work much longer. My employer just jacked our monthly parking fee to $175. When you add gas into the mix that's almost $275 a month just to drive to and from work. Compare that to a subsidized $50 flex bus pass for an entire year taking the bus is no brainer.

Looks like I won't be driving to work much longer. My employer just jacked our monthly parking fee to $175. When you add gas into the mix that's almost $275 a month just to drive to and from work. Compare that to a subsidized $50 flex bus pass for an entire year taking the bus is no brainer.

Less oil needed. JoeRedskins argument in action. If we all took the bus more we'd be better off in so many ways in our country.

No. By definition, the universal need for a product does not create a monoply. It is the control of the production by a single source that creates the monopoly. If multiple oil companies are in competition with one another, and lacking collusion, then oil will find its market value.



They are regulated out the wazoo which is one of the reasons gas prices are high.



That's a pretty sweeping indictment and one that goes to the fundamental aspects of both the free market system and of our form of government. I also think it is pretty naive. "Playing fair", in my mind, means don't collude - compete. It does not mean - "Gosh jeepers don't make too much money."

You don't like how much the oil companies make? Buy a prius - get a job closer to your home, work with one car, ride mass transit. When those options are not practically available, work towards having the government create incentives to create alternative energy choices, increase mass transit, etc. Telling oil companies to stop profiting avoids your responsibility in the market system and in the democratic republican (i.e. government by popularly elected officials) form of government we have.

When you start injecting socialist controls into the free market based solely on the concept that some group is profiting too much from the system, you inject artificial elements into that system which are fundamentally opposed to and work against the system's basic structure, i.e. incentive to maximize your own gain - whether you be buyer or seller. In doing so, you destroy not just the incentive for oil companies to compete with one another, you also destroy the incentive for alternative energy forms to compete with oil.

Oversight is fine, but destruction of incentive by artificially capping profits is not the answer. In our government/economic system, you, I and others have the power, if we mobilize, to almost completely destroy the oil industry profits in the US economy by both decreasing demand and by finding alternatives to the internal combustion engine. But it OUR responsibility to do so.

The energy market is free market? That's news to me. These guys have very deep pockets and will crush anyone that attempts to subvert their flow of income. If the government won't step in no one can because they have too many people in their pockets and any new startup/ventures will get crushed ala Microsoft style (bought and shelved, blacklisted, undercut, or pounded into nebulous existence). Anyone that really thinks the "free market" can solve our problems is either naive or utterly stupid.

As for mass transit being an alternative, it could but only if the government actually invested in a decent transit infrastructure. As it stands, it takes way too long to catch a bus and we don't have any trains to speak off. If we actually invested money like the Europeans have we'll be in a good shape. Alas, their is no interest from our political leaders to do anything meaningful, and why should they, their money comes from lobbyists whose sole job is to fuck you over.