Since there is no evidence of a conspiracy, it obviously exists! :eek:
This lack of evidence demands an investigation! 
Repeated coincidence. No possible other explanation. Oil companies are our friends and only wish to serve.
What “repeated coincidence”? That somebody made a projection that came out correct? 
Two. One that gas would drop for the election. One that it would go up after. Both just coincidence,there can be no other explanation. Busted 2.30 today
Again, gonzo, gas isn’t going up everywhere. Here it is steady or down a cent or two.
Your theory that there was price manipulation to benefit the GOP has absolutely no support in fact. I’m glad you’ve given up trying to defend such an absurd theory.
You hop from the ridiculous to the absurd. No one is saying this. No one is THINKING this. Companies are out to make money…plain and simple. If they drop rates, its to their own benifit. If they raise rates, the same.
You have yet to show anything remotely resembling proof that Big Oil™ is adjusting their rates in order to get Republican’s elected. Several people have told you flat out that the rates in their neck of the woods have NOT changed…despite the fact that the election is OVER. Unless you figure that Big Oil™ has simply not noticed that fact and are keeping the rates down on the off chance that the elections were all a big mistake and we will be re-rolling them sometime soon. :rolleyes:
If you would bother taking your fingers out of your ears and saying LALALLALALA in a loud voice, you’d see that there ARE other reasonable explainations for why the price of gas dropped…and why its pretty sure to go back up again sometime soon. And they have nothing to do with an attempt to get the Pub’s re-elected.
-XT
My world is not plain and simple. Nuances abound. You just keep repeating the same mantra and claim I do it. I don’t deny a healthy dose of skepticism when I deal with our benevolent corporations.They will cut your heart out in a second for a few bucks. We used to regulate them.It evolved into a regulatory system because it was needed.
Right…its because your world is nuanced ehe? Not because there is no frickin evidence for your tin foil…but because you just see deeper.
Oh yeah…and you have this reading comprehension issue too (i.e. who is saying anything about corporations being ‘benevolent’ or anything of the kind?).
BTW, how’d that regulatory system work out for us in the 70’s? Just curious…
-XT
Is there some sort of “honor among thieves” that corporations practice, which causes them to cut out the hearts of consumers for a few bucks, but refrain from undercutting each other on prices for a few bucks?
And serious lol-age at “used to” regulate them–have you looked at the federal register lately? There’s more government regulation than ever.
The first thing a corporation does,if we permit it is to eliminate competition. This is why we developed laws against monopolistic practices. Competition is the enemy of unfetterered capitalism. When Reagan and Bush said they wanted to remove the yoke of regulation from the necks of the poor corps ,he told you this is what he they were after. The corps swollowed each other up with huge mergers. That was not so long ago.
What we have in place is not an accident of the market place.
We are returning to the exciting days of the late early 1900 when corporate abuse ran rampant and the trust busters came in.
There is no honor, just a common goal to maximize profits. They are doing that now.A den of theives is in charge.
That’s a ridiculous statement that has absolutely no basis in fact. A corporation cannot “eliminate competition.” Sure, any company – down to your local mom n’ pop hardwar store – wants a world where it is free from competitors. However, no company can simply “eliminate” competition. Sure, companies try all the time to undercut their competition by selling items at lower prices or offering different products/services to lure people away from their competitors. But guess who benefits there? Consumers. Businesses only stay in business by giving consumers what they want. That’s a good thing, right?
No, it’s not. The free market prevents monpolies, not our laws. There is no instance of a natural monopoly in our country’s history. Any monopolies that have evolved have done so only because government has given them protection to do so.
Again, this is a quote that shows a serious ignorance of economics. Competition is the basis of unfettered capitalism.
So no mergers happened before 1981?
And which mergers have produced the monopolies you so fear?
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1542145.php Are you living in a vacuum ?
Great post, gonzo. That cite said absolutely nothing informative. How about actually answering my questions instead of posting an anti-corporate screed that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Do you find this a credible claim?
Mostly. http://archives.cjr.org/owners/ We are under consolidation like never before, This is so fundimental I hate to say it. Competition is a help to the consumer. If they fight for our dollars they have to compete in price,quality and price. This lowers price and profit. It then is logical for companies to get together to end competition. Their cost goes down and the price goes up or stabilizes. Corporations hate a volitile market. We went into Iraq because we cared about the plight of the Iraqis. …lIf you believe that we are done here. What other reason WMD. Get real. They want a controlled market and Iraq with potentially more oil than the Saudis was not going to sit back forever. Wars are about money.
That site was the first I picked. I can get a hundred schollarly sites explaining hpw corporations want to eliminate government intervention. competition and volitility. When they control the government it is possible.
Cult is a nasty term. But they certainly are in cahoots.
From the indymedia link it would appear Rich Zubaty does not like corporations and makes 10 assorted claims, but what does that have to do with mergers and monopolies and living in a vacuum?
Standard oil many years back almost certainly had a monopolistic position in the refining markets, but today it would be a stretch to say any of the western major oil cos have a monopoly position in general gasoline and other distilate sales (barring local issues and some speciality petrochemicals). Saudi Aramco most probably has a monopoly on the spare crude production and has some price setting capabilities.
I would expect to see a continued desire by the western oil cos to merge in an attempt to offset the exposure generated by the high risk deep water/frontier exploration they are getting into now they find access to easier resources is barred by national oil cos.
It may be interesting to note that the two high profile mergers (BP with Ammaco and Exxon with Mobil) occured in 1998, with a democrat in the white house, so I suspect the evil encroachment of the corporate cult is not entirely a republican thing.
cheers
nbc
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/courses/geog100/WhyCorpsSubvert.htm There are so many articles from which to choose.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned the consolidation and merging in the oil companies.
Enron is a sympton of what they will do if allowed to.
Ok so 2 links on why some people think corporations are evil and one on consolidation in the media industry, but how does this relate to how the oil companies tried to swing a republican victory or how this oil company consolidation is a bad thing or a specific evil generated by the repuplicans.
On the other hand I may just have lost the plot, track and direction of this thread.
cheers
No, it is not logical nor has this happened. Companies do not get together to drive up prices. Companies compete against each other to serve consumers and make money. Please provide an example where companies banded together to drive up prices.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf Like I said there are hundreds of links ,news stories and government papers.
When I took econ many years ago monopolies and restraint of trade were heavily covered. Do they not teach that anymore.?Regulation is simply the government intervening on the side of the citizens to keep them from getting exploited by the powerful. We need it now like a century ago. Difference is it is more international and complicated now to fight. We bump into separate national problems that sometimes require variations to comply with