Re: Why aren't gas prices dropping?

Why aren't fuel prices dropping like expected?

Because your president was and is screwing you.

-------------------------------------------
MH
'72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96
http://go.to/saab96

On 6/28/03 7:47 AM, in article 3EFDAA77.65A14D8D (AT) zzzzsizefitterzzzz (DOT) com,
"Johannes H Andersen" <johs (AT) zzzzsizefitterzzzz (DOT) com> wrote:

As always, big business wins. That's been true for 5,000 years.

By force if necessary?

Actually if you change this to "big government" instead of "big business" I
will agree!

On 6/28/03 3:37 PM, in article 005sfvk812u89ql3n4bri7poltb31mjasl (AT) 4ax (DOT) com,
"'nuther Bob >" <<none (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote:

from a prewar price of about US$2.30 per gallon of premium (hey, I drive a
Saab Aero, so premium it is) to about US$2
now.

That's because you live in a state where they pump oil. You have to
move to a state where they import all their oil (like MA) to get a
lower price, $1.63 to $1.79 for premium. Of course, if I want
really low prices you can drive 200 miles inland from the port to
Vermont, where the gas is about $1.50 for premium. It all makes
sense, as long as you look at it in a mirror.

I know a lot of businesses charge different rates for their products
depending upon competitive conditions and the general wealth of the area
codes or zip codes they market in. IN the SF Bay area, we are used to this
and call it is "Bay Area Premium" - since prices for just about everything
are at least 10% higher than in the rest of the nation. Gasoline appears to
be 15% or higher than even Southern California.

As always, big business wins. That's been true for 5,000 years.
Well, not 5000 years - try 150 years.

Naw, it started in the biblical times. Take some land, steal some
key trade routes, etc. Big business and government were in bed
together then, their in bed together now. It's just more formal
these days.

I think that government and religious organizations had most of the money
and kept it that way. I suppose if you slightly modify your statements to
"the elite" or "those in power" then I would agree wholeheartedly!

Well, before the limited liability ownership rules created in the mid-19th
century, there weren't particularly large firms and concentrations of
capital anywhere - the "big" in "big business" did not exist until the
railroad companies were founded in the 1800's (first use of the new rules).

True, but (as a US example) why do you think we even had a
Revolutionary War ? Take a look at the signers of the
of the Declaration of Independence. Businessmen mostly.

Small frys compared to governments and equivalent interests. They were all
plantation owners - farmers.

Or, you
can apply the same model to the King of England... you don't take
land and property for philosophical reasons, you take it for
business reasons. How about all those explorers in the late
1400 & 1500's. All financed as part of a business/government
venture. Go back to the Romans, etc.

I see your point. I was assuming 'big business' was 'big corporations' -
but clearly you didn't mean that at all! Mea Culpa!

Yup - just like any company will never willingly drop their profits. Oil
isn't special in this regard.

Yea... I have to laugh when I hear people claim that we *need* to
drill for oil in Alaska. They've been seriously brainwashed into
thinking that somehow *they* will benefit from the oil companies
drilling for oil in Alaska. LOL. You can be for or against the
drilling, but please don't think that any oil company will ever
sell barrels of oil below market rates just because they pumped it
on US soil.

Just read an article in "the Economist" magazine [online site] - they talked
about the tarry sand in Canada that has reserves in refinable, extractable
oils nearly as large as Saudi Arabia - only problem is that the extraction
process (I assume it is a cheaper variation of the oil shale stuff in the
1970's) will set their price floor to about $12 per barrel. Saudi base
production prices are lower than that, so this would be a good hedge of
prices going much above $25 or so per barrel.

On 6/28/03 3:17 PM, in article jt4sfvsfste82f4s93g29g47ei0cjc29tr (AT) 4ax (DOT) com,
"'nuther Bob >" <<none (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:05:41 -0700, B&D <NO_SPAM (AT) ALL (DOT) COM> wrote:

On 6/28/03 7:47 AM, in article 3EFDAA77.65A14D8D (AT) zzzzsizefitterzzzz (DOT) com,
"Johannes H Andersen" <johs (AT) zzzzsizefitterzzzz (DOT) com> wrote:

As always, big business wins. That's been true for 5,000 years.

By force if necessary?

Actually if you change this to "big government" instead of "big business" I
will agree!

big business == big government

I AGREE! See, didn't hurt a bit for either one of us! :-P

On 6/29/03 8:59 AM, in article b12ufv84ij9bmuo66e5k6omans07tkrria (AT) 4ax (DOT) com,
"'nuther Bob >" <<none (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote:

The US President and 90% of his Admin are oil people - taken
straight from the oil industry. They don't need to be persuaded
to favor oil companies either.

Of course not, but they do want to get re-elected, and if their major
corporate constituents are oil companies, donations to the re-election
campaign are in that companies' best interest...

On 6/29/03 9:51 AM, in article 456ufv0keit20gor36fdv10r40rtfl3kv1 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com,
"'nuther Bob >" <<none (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:22:03 -0700, B&D <NO_SPAM (AT) ALL (DOT) COM> wrote:

On 6/29/03 8:59 AM, in article b12ufv84ij9bmuo66e5k6omans07tkrria (AT) 4ax (DOT) com,
"'nuther Bob >" <<none (AT) none (DOT) com> wrote:

The US President and 90% of his Admin are oil people - taken
straight from the oil industry. They don't need to be persuaded
to favor oil companies either.

Of course not, but they do want to get re-elected, and if their major
corporate constituents are oil companies, donations to the re-election
campaign are in that companies' best interest...


I hear that ! The public is too ignorant of what really goes on and
easily brainwashed. Corporate donations rule the day.

I don't think that the American public is brainwashed - in fact I think that
the population is given enough credit to see through the rhetoric and the
over-simplifying of the media. In fact, I think there is a great deal of
tolerance for the financial mess and cris-crossing of interests.

It has also been shown that in many cases, large coffers do not always
assure election (though it always helps an awful lot). It might mean that
the candidates have to be acceptable to the wealthy interests (such as
corporations) as well as the population at large (the votes themselves) in
order to have the best chances at election. Now I do think the system as it
has evolved has room for reform, and that a lot of sleaziness goes on due to
this high cost of campaigning, but I do not think for one minute that the
American public is duped like a bunch of sheep.