In article <1179456667.192914.321730 (AT) h2g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com>, Jay Honeck wrote:

But only in that it keeps new companies from entering the business. Big
oil likes it this way just fine. In fact, they made it this way.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/pr/?postId=5110

The world is awash in oil. Sure a lot of it takes a little more to turn
into gasoline, but if we are willing to pay $US40 a barrel, and we
obviously are, there are at least 3 saudi arabias worth of reserves in
the americas. It's just not light sweet crude.

On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:37:44 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
(Brent P) wrote:

It's Al Gore and his ilk who have pushed for the restrictions in order
to save the environment.

In article <0q8q435t1gh4corq5m57ivd9hbjb5sgs5u (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Spike wrote:
It makes for a great scape goat, but regulation is a great form of
market protection. Look what giant agri-business is lobbying for
regulation wise right now. Various animal tracking regulation that would
be impossible or very expensive for the small farmers and ranchers to
comply with while they can.

In article <phj3i.3070$y_7.1752 (AT) newssvr27 (DOT) news.prodigy.net>, Paul wrote:

PROFIT.

On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:12:51 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
(Brent P) wrote:

and another conspiracy raises it's ugly head.... and fire can't melt
steel... right Rosie?

In article <d1rr43t1fpf2nnok88tdenogh3ek0e5pvk (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Spike wrote:
I see, just deny and insult. Typical.

It's just so unbelivable that oil companies would act to maximize their
profits and not care about the people that get stepped on in the process.
I take it you believe Bill Gates didn't use Microsoft marketshare to
strong arm computer makers from offering competitor's products? You
think all business is done in a sweet and nice and fair way I suppose?
Afterall, for this idea to be kooky, you have to believe that big oil
companies would go 'we shouldn't do that because it cause gasoline to cost
too much for many good americans'.... yeah right.

On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:50:07 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
(Brent P) wrote:

It would seem that the entire cycle of life is a consopiracy out to
get you.

Oil corporations, like any other corporation has no legal
responsibility to the consumer other than to provide a safe product.
The only fiduciary responsibility any corporation hasto anyone is to
the shareholders who expect as great a return on their investments as
the corporation can supply. In other words; that responsibility is to
generate profits. The same applies to food corporations like Beatrice
Foods and RJ Reynolds, to appliance corporations like General
Electric, etc.

Believe it or not, they do consider what price is too high for the
consumer to bear. Bump it up too high and consumption actually does
drop (we saw that in the mid 70s oil crisis). Cunsumers curtail travel
plans and such. Which leads hotels, resorts, etc to have lower fill
rates, so they lose money. The domino effect rolls on....

You probably think unions go on strike because they care about their
members. That it is fair to force employers to pay employees more. And
yet, employers don't pay more even when they raise pay. They simply
pass the extra costs to the consumers... who, in many cases, just
happen to be those very same union members who now need more money....
and the cycle continues.

Spike wrote:
Give the man a cigar. I don't like it any more than any of you, but
he's dead on. Price elasticity of demand for gasoline is marginal at
best. Is that their fault, or the drug cartels', or the tobacco
companies? Nope.

I will say that the fact that no refineries have been built in 30 years
is ... troubling. ;-) But do we have lines at the pumps? Nope.

--
Jason

In article <p5bs43tkcprf3nllb5dmaagv6ja0sig3e0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Spike wrote:
WTF? Are you mental? I research something, I find information. You
refuse to read it, and insult me instead of having even a bit of an open
mind or even addressing what was presented.

Gee wally, did I say anything different? NO. I just said what they did
to maximize profits. Didn't say it was good, bad, legal, illegal, or
otherwise. Just said this is what they did. But you have to go off the
deep end insulting me, talking about conspirsy and making up things to
assign to me....

That's nice. This century they raise the price up, get people used to
it, drop it a little, then rinse and repeat.

Why not just say that I believe GW Bush is reptilian space alien since
you're all about making up bullshit to assign to me?

Dammit, what the fuck is wrong with you?

You research something. That was your choice. Nobody held a gun to
your head. Just because someone does or doesn't read your research,
and does or doesn't accept it as the final authority, shouldn't upset
you so. Al Gore provides people with all kinds of research to back up
his position on global warming, and he does the same thing you do when
someone doesn't agree with his research. I recall when he was saying
the same things about the coming ice age and it's causes. Why should
I, or anyone else, put more store in his position simply because he
does the research?

You mean the same way you insult anyone who doesn't simply swallow
your views without question?
Apparently you can dish is out but you can't take it....
Gee? Reptillian space aliens have unions too? Who would have thunk it?
Bet their Great Lizzard probably rips off the membership, too. I sure
didn't know that you believed in that too. Thanks for pointing that
out to me.
Not a thing? What's wrong with you that you get sooooo upset because
anyone questions your views?