Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish has
gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every trip
to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd wrote:
>
>>> The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
>>> But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
>>> Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
>>
>> I thought the subject of this thread was about the price of solvents.
>> If you want to have a discussion on the Iraq war, start a new thread.
>> As for the increasing cost of petroleum-based products, my belief is
>> that it has more to do with supply and demand than a global
>> conspiracy.
>>
>
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
You seem to have trouble sticking to the topic. The topic is about the
price of solvents, which are directly related to the price of petroleum.
The price of petroleum isn't set by what some hand-wringers decide is a
"fair" price. It's set by a worldwide market. A large part of the market
price depends on the current state of supply and demand (among other
factors). If you don't believe that's the case, I don't know what else to
say.
As for your widgets, you can sell them for whatever price you want. You can
operate as a charity if you wish.
todd
>
> > It's called making sure the petroleum products stay 'controlled' in
> > production by invading an oil-producing country which was threatening to
> > sell lots of oil, cheap, for Euros.
> > Oil companies want it that way...that is... if you want their campaign
> > contributions....
>
> All controlled by the Trilateral Commission. Or is it the Illuminati?
> Sorry, I'm a little behind on current kook theory. Why would it have been
> in Iraq's interest to sell at below the going rate? And wasn't Iraq still
> under UN sanctions on sale of oil at the time of the start of hostilities?
> Not counting the UN oil-for-bribes program, of course. You're sure it
> couldn't be that a) the supply of petroleum is finite and b) worldwide
> demand is increasing?
>
> todd
The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency, the more dollars
there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in
American assets, the more the rest of the world has to provide the US
with goods and services in exchange for these dollars.
If OPEC or Iraq were to decide to only accept euros for its oil then
American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not
need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its
oil from the Middle East, not to mention China, would think it wise to
convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets. America
itself would also have to invest heavily in Euros in order to purchase
oil.
Locutus wrote:
> "damian penney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >
> >> > It's called making sure the petroleum products stay 'controlled' in
> >> > production by invading an oil-producing country which was threatening
> >> > to
> >> > sell lots of oil, cheap, for Euros.
> >> > Oil companies want it that way...that is... if you want their campaign
> >> > contributions....
> >>
> >> All controlled by the Trilateral Commission. Or is it the Illuminati?
> >> Sorry, I'm a little behind on current kook theory. Why would it have
> >> been
> >> in Iraq's interest to sell at below the going rate? And wasn't Iraq
> >> still
> >> under UN sanctions on sale of oil at the time of the start of
> >> hostilities?
> >> Not counting the UN oil-for-bribes program, of course. You're sure it
> >> couldn't be that a) the supply of petroleum is finite and b) worldwide
> >> demand is increasing?
> >>
> >> todd
> >
> > The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency, the more dollars
> > there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in
> > American assets, the more the rest of the world has to provide the US
> > with goods and services in exchange for these dollars.
> >
> > If OPEC or Iraq were to decide to only accept euros for its oil then
> > American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not
> > need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its
> > oil from the Middle East, not to mention China, would think it wise to
> > convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets. America
> > itself would also have to invest heavily in Euros in order to purchase
> > oil.
> >
>
> This is the must absurd thing I have ever heard...... the US doesn't even
> get the majority of it's oil from the Middle East.
Who we buy our oil from isn't really important. The reason other
countries choose to save in dollars, to a far greater extent than in
any other currency, is very much influenced by the fact that oil is
sold in dollars. I'm no conspiracy nut, I'm really not sure what the
underlying reasons for going to war were but I'll be glad when it's
over.
To say that it isn't important in what denomination the most important
commodity is traded in is simply not true though. Anyway, as you were,
this is a woodworking group after all :)
why would you include something as non-esensial as food or energy in the
core inflation rate it would just fuck up the calculation then the govments
figures would look bad
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's the CORE inflation rate. It excludes both food and energy costs.
>
> -Doug
>
> ====================
>
> "Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:n%[email protected]...
>> If the Cost of Living is only going up 3-4% annually tell me where the
>> products are that are dropping drastically in price so that that kind of
>> average can be true.
>> In my life the cost of fuel and hospitalization are major fixed expenses.
>> They've been rising more like 3-4% biweekly!
>>
>> TomNie
>>
>
>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Sailaway <[email protected]> writes:
>Have you noticed what the price of diesel fuel has gone up to? Yesterday
>I saw it at $2.97/gal. Thats the fuel the trucks and trains use to bring
>you all those goods. And it ain't getting cheaper...
Where are you that diesel is up to $2.97 a gallon? $2.53 here in
Minnesota and our diesel prices have been pretty high compared to the
rest of the USA for the past six months.
They say high cost of oil has made gasoline prices skyrocket the last few
weeks, but oil prices haven't gone up as much as gasoline has.
Brian Elfert
"damian penney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
>> > It's called making sure the petroleum products stay 'controlled' in
>> > production by invading an oil-producing country which was threatening
>> > to
>> > sell lots of oil, cheap, for Euros.
>> > Oil companies want it that way...that is... if you want their campaign
>> > contributions....
>>
>> All controlled by the Trilateral Commission. Or is it the Illuminati?
>> Sorry, I'm a little behind on current kook theory. Why would it have
>> been
>> in Iraq's interest to sell at below the going rate? And wasn't Iraq
>> still
>> under UN sanctions on sale of oil at the time of the start of
>> hostilities?
>> Not counting the UN oil-for-bribes program, of course. You're sure it
>> couldn't be that a) the supply of petroleum is finite and b) worldwide
>> demand is increasing?
>>
>> todd
>
> The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency, the more dollars
> there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in
> American assets, the more the rest of the world has to provide the US
> with goods and services in exchange for these dollars.
>
> If OPEC or Iraq were to decide to only accept euros for its oil then
> American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not
> need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its
> oil from the Middle East, not to mention China, would think it wise to
> convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets. America
> itself would also have to invest heavily in Euros in order to purchase
> oil.
>
This is the must absurd thing I have ever heard...... the US doesn't even
get the majority of it's oil from the Middle East.
todd wrote:
>> The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
>> But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
>> Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
>
> I thought the subject of this thread was about the price of solvents.
> If you want to have a discussion on the Iraq war, start a new thread.
> As for the increasing cost of petroleum-based products, my belief is
> that it has more to do with supply and demand than a global
> conspiracy.
>
I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
synonym for greed.
If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
producing?
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Seeker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
>> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
>> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
>> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish has
>> gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every trip
>> to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
>>
>>
>
> I buy my solvents in bulk so I haven't seen the price increases. Haven't
> had to buy any for a while. You really might want to consider buying your
> lacquer thinner from autobody supply houses. I don't know what regional
> pricing difference may prevail, but around here a gallon on lacquer thinner
> was selling at around $9 at places like Ace Hardware and I was buying it in
> 5 gallon cans for $20-25 depending on which supplier I used. There is a big
> savings to be had by buying even as small a quantity as a 5 gallon can,
> versus buying it by the gallon.
>
Thanks for the advice I will check Ace hardware and auto paint supply
houses.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd wrote:
>
>>> The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
>>> But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
>>> Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
>>
>> I thought the subject of this thread was about the price of solvents.
>> If you want to have a discussion on the Iraq war, start a new thread.
>> As for the increasing cost of petroleum-based products, my belief is
>> that it has more to do with supply and demand than a global
>> conspiracy.
>>
>
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
I didn't have to look at your headers to tell that you are not from the
United States.
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
>
You should price your product so your production capacity meets demand.
Otherwise you are just giving away money. You are certainly free to do that,
but if you are a public corporation, you should be fired if you do that.
More profit also means you can expand capacity, therefore reducing your
product cost long term while maximizing your profit.
Making money is not a bad word. Make all you can, life is short. If you are
trying to make too much, someone else will come in and sell your widget for
less. That is the beauty of capitalism.
Leon wrote:
>> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
>> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
>> producing?
>
> So do you "not" have any money set aside for a rainy day or are you
> greedy?
Did it not cross your mind that savings might have been included in that
$100 price?
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Tom Nie wrote:
> How does Supply & Demand account for the rate of Medical cost increases? How
> do you justify the fuel situation following Katrina? Contrived collusion?
> Opportunistic pricing? Blaming SUV's is simply simplistic.
Actually, supply & demand exactly accounts for medical cost increases
and fuel costs.
Companies are mostly amoral, and they have limited production capacity.
Therefore, the way to maximize profits is to jack up the price until
the (profit_per_unit * units_sold) reaches a maximum. There is a demand
for petroleum products and high-priced advanced medicine (wonder drugs,
MRI, specialists, etc.), so the "price_per_unit" can be staggeringly
high without driving people away.
If you're willing to settle for a lower level of medical care, the costs
drop substantially.
If fewer people drove cars, the price of gas would likely be lower.
(Now at some point you'd lose the advantages of economies of scale, so
there is a lower limit.)
I suspect the only reason gas isn't *more* expensive is fear of
political backlash from the consumers. Note that in europe it's easily
2-2.5 times as expensive as in North America, while in Venezuela they
pay around 5 cents a litre because the oil wells are state-owned.
Chris
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>>> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
>>> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
>>> producing?
>>
>> So do you "not" have any money set aside for a rainy day or are you
>> greedy?
>
> Did it not cross your mind that savings might have been included in that
> $100 price?
>
> --
> It's turtles, all the way down
So when does "savings" become "greed"? If you have savings you are obviously
making more than you need right?
"Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Explain this one to me. Diesel is poorly refined gasoline - sorta. Why
> have I been paying so much MORE for diesel, an inferior product?
>
> Could it be that user group has the least control over its consumption
> (trucks & commercial users)?
>
>> (willing to bet your gas price is less than our $2.63, too)
>
Actually I have heard it depends on your area, where I am at, diesel is
quite frequently cheaper than regular gasoline. Or at least slower to
respond to price increases (and decreases).
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Sure, get greedy and set the price and $200 each
> and see what happens? Some other person makes
> them and sells them $150, then a little price war
> continues and eventually you sell them for $70
> each just to stay in business.
> How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't
> he just decide to not buy it, buy something else,
> or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't believe I was
> ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of
> taxes if I want to own and live in my house though.
From the above two posts, George, you're obviously a believer in the
classic theories of capitalism. Unfortunately, corporations have found
ways around those theories.
1. To prevent somebody else from making them cheaper, all you need is an
industry whose cost of entry is extremely high. Refineries are a good
example. Failing that, there's restrictive regulations promulgated by
your bought and paid for congressman. And those are just some of the
legal possibilities :-).
2. Few people are in a position to give up gasoline, prescription drugs,
telephones, home heating, etc.. If you are in that position, you're
very lucky. Food and water prices have remained relatively low due to
fears of a general insurrection, but that's an exception.
I'm sorry I brought this topic up. Apparently there will always be
those who ardently defend the people responsible for grinding their
faces in the economic dirt. I've had my say - the rest of you can
continue the topic or drop it as you wish.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Tom Nie wrote:
> Explain this one to me. Diesel is poorly refined gasoline - sorta. Why have
> I been paying so much MORE for diesel, an inferior product?
>
> Could it be that user group has the least control over its consumption
> (trucks & commercial users)?
>
>
>>(willing to bet your gas price is less than our $2.63, too)
>
>
>
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=108465
dave
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Companies are mostly amoral, and they have limited production capacity.
> Therefore, the way to maximize profits is to jack up the price until the
> (profit_per_unit * units_sold) reaches a maximum.
Limited production capacity "by design". Have you noticed that most of the
major oil companies in the US have merged? Literally 1/2 the competition
has been eliminated. With less competition there is less incentive to keep
the prices low. Many of the refineries have been closed down as a result of
the mergers and then there is the greater need of more "designer gasoline
reformulations".
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Seeker wrote:
>
>> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
>> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
>> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
>> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish
>> has gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every
>> trip to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
>>
>>
>
> It's called capitalism. :)
They're called petroleum products.
>
> Dave
"Sailaway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Have you noticed what the price of diesel fuel has gone up to? Yesterday I
> saw it at $2.97/gal. Thats the fuel the trucks and trains use to bring you
> all those goods. And it ain't getting cheaper...
Bought some for the tractor this morning. Thankfully, it's a lot cheaper
here, especially in OTR.
"damian penney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If OPEC or Iraq were to decide to only accept euros for its oil then
> American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not
> need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its
> oil from the Middle East, not to mention China, would think it wise to
> convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets. America
> itself would also have to invest heavily in Euros in order to purchase
> oil.
>
Of course you'll never trouble the conspiracy theorists with reality, but we
import most of our oil from our hemisphere, or Africa....
Think that would devalue the dollar enough to make use competitive again?
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:tfUWf.11517$f21.3753@trnddc01...
Look forward to $20 McDonald's hamburgers...
>
I remember 12 cent burgers and seven cent fries. No wonder my kids call me
old....
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
It would help if you understood that what you demand is not what counts.
When someone offers $105 for one of those scarce widgets she's just got to
have ... that's the one that counts.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> It would help if you understood that what you demand is not what counts.
>> When someone offers $105 for one of those scarce widgets she's just got
>> to
>> have ... that's the one that counts.
>
> That's naive.
> What counts is the 'short-'n-curlies' syndrome. AKA greed.
Nope, not so. Big new players in the demand side, cartel on the supply with
oil, and all kinds of new risks.
It might help you to reflect on the fact that the US is the "greediest"
nation in terms of use of all resources. It's US who are offering the $105
per widget, a sum Brazil and Burma (Myanmar) cannot begin to pay for them.
If you seek the face of greed, you shave it every morning....
"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Nie wrote:
>> How does Supply & Demand account for the rate of Medical cost increases?
>> How do you justify the fuel situation following Katrina? Contrived
>> collusion? Opportunistic pricing? Blaming SUV's is simply simplistic.
>
> Actually, supply & demand exactly accounts for medical cost increases and
> fuel costs.
>
SNIP
>
> If you're willing to settle for a lower level of medical care, the costs
> drop substantially.
>
Back in the USSR, a medical doctor's worth to the system was the determinant
in computing their pay. They made less than second-level supervisors in
factories, whose purchased diligence could be measured in output.
Of course, even before Levis and Marlboros, the Soviets I traveled with
wanted OTC antihistamines, aspirins, decongestants. Or if female,
cosmetics.
"Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Explain this one to me. Diesel is poorly refined gasoline - sorta. Why
> have I been paying so much MORE for diesel, an inferior product?
>
> Could it be that user group has the least control over its consumption
> (trucks & commercial users)?
Fleets and airlines buy diesel (or jet fuel) on long-term contracts, so the
oil refineries have to raise the price of the market stuff to try and
recover something during cost increases.
All refining is the same, just depends on how high up the column you tap.
Of course, if you "crack" the heavy stuff to meet the demand for gas,
there's less available for heavier fractions.
Note that, as with gas, the greatest profit goes to the tax man who invests
nothing, risks nothing, does nothing except collect. Then back to you as
highways, if your congresscritter has pull ....
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Why would it have been
>> in Iraq's interest to sell at below the going rate? And wasn't Iraq
>> still
>> under UN sanctions on sale of oil at the time of the start of
>> hostilities?
>> Not counting the UN oil-for-bribes program, of course. You're sure it
>> couldn't be that a) the supply of petroleum is finite and b) worldwide
>> demand is increasing?
>
> The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
> But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
> Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
I thought the subject of this thread was about the price of solvents. If
you want to have a discussion on the Iraq war, start a new thread. As for
the increasing cost of petroleum-based products, my belief is that it has
more to do with supply and demand than a global conspiracy.
todd
Hello,
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
Because it is the duty of a Corporation to maximize the shareholders
investment.
Greed (profit maximization) is the Corporate DNA and only intrinsic rule,
all the other rules were imposed on the corporation by goverments who soon
discovered that left to it's own, this "legal entity" would act as a
sociopath and destroy everything around it.
rent the movie: "The Corporation" for more information.
cyrille
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:23:26 GMT, "Cyrille de Brébisson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>> --More revenue means growing capital more quickly in order to expand,
>> something most businesses want to do.
>
>> --More revenue means more that you're able to give away to your
>> favorite cause.
>
>Yeah Right...
>I hear the same things from conservative who say "let non profit take care
>of social issues, if I paid less taxes, I would give more"...
>
>in reality, if you made, let's say an extra 10%, you would give only 5%
>more, (in best case scenario), but in the end, you get more money... Greed.
[shrugs] I said *able*. Where I live, I'm (mostly) free to decide
for myself what to do with my own money, even if I choose to indulge
my greed.
--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/
"Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:n%[email protected]...
> If the Cost of Living is only going up 3-4% annually tell me where the
> products are that are dropping drastically in price so that that kind of
> average can be true.
COMPUTERS, Printers, Electronics in general, Automobiles,
"Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "
>
> Yeah. Like Big Pharma.
Good example.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "George" <George@least>
> wrote:
>
>> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Seeker wrote:
>> >
>> >> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon
>> >> of
>> >> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS=
>> >> $8/gal
>> >> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
>> >> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish
>> >> has gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every
>> >> trip to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > It's called capitalism. :)
>
> It's called ' a population being harvested for their money'. IOW,
> screwed out of their earnings..aside from tax.
>>
>> They're called petroleum products.
>> >
>
>
> It's called making sure the petroleum products stay 'controlled' in
> production by invading an oil-producing country which was threatening to
> sell lots of oil, cheap, for Euros.
> Oil companies want it that way...that is... if you want their campaign
> contributions....
All controlled by the Trilateral Commission. Or is it the Illuminati?
Sorry, I'm a little behind on current kook theory. Why would it have been
in Iraq's interest to sell at below the going rate? And wasn't Iraq still
under UN sanctions on sale of oil at the time of the start of hostilities?
Not counting the UN oil-for-bribes program, of course. You're sure it
couldn't be that a) the supply of petroleum is finite and b) worldwide
demand is increasing?
todd
Sailaway wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >> How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't he just decide to
> not
> >> buy it, buy something else, or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't
> believe I
> >> was ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of taxes if I
> want to
> >> own and live in my house though.
>
>
> Leon wrote:
> >Well that all depends on what your threshold is as to what you consider
> >being forced is. If you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle
> >you
> >are probably being forced to pay more for the fuel than you did 2
> years >ago.
> >Its all relative.
>
> One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that weather you think about fuel
> this way or not, the fact remains that it has become more than *just* a
> commodity - it is an otherwise unavailable, absolutely necessary (at
> this time) utility similar to electricity in respects. Our utility
> companies are heavily regulated and, at least in this state, have to ask
> the state regulators permission to raise prices. We the sheeple have no
> alternative to obtain electricity (other than those few who can do it
> with wind, etc) and we have no alternative to obtain fuel for our cars
> and trucks if we want to work. The difference is that the oil companies
> in concert with commodities investors, are the ones who set the price -
> and they want it as high as possible - as any profit-driven company
> would. We *have* to buy it at whatever price they set, and no way are
> the sheeple in this country are gonna band together and force (through
> boycotting, pressure on congress, etc) the price lower. And for those
> ethanol enthusiasts, the price of that I am led to believe is up
> somewhere over $3.00/gal and has its own problems, so that doesn't help.
> And as for the idiots across the big pond, they just accept, like we do
> here, whatever price is set by the oil companies. They just have a much
> higher tolerance for self-inflicted pain.
We don't have to buy it at all, it is just a choice.
A recent news programs indicated that Brazil would
be free of petroleum dependency within one year
using their engineered sugar cane to produce
alcohol (they have been working on it for years).
Cars can be switched from an alcohol/gas mixture
(currently required for cars) to straight alcohol.
They said their alcohol could compete
economically at any gasoline price over $2.50 per
gallon.
"damian penney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If OPEC or Iraq were to decide to only accept euros for its oil then
> American economic dominance would be over.
Not likely as only 10% of our oil comes from the Middle East although the
Middle East sets the prices for oil pretty much world wide.
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
>>Sure, get greedy and set the price and $200 each
>>and see what happens? Some other person makes
>>them and sells them $150, then a little price war
>>continues and eventually you sell them for $70
>>each just to stay in business.
>
>
>
>>How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't
>>he just decide to not buy it, buy something else,
>>or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't believe I was
>>ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of
>>taxes if I want to own and live in my house though.
>
>
> From the above two posts, George, you're obviously a believer in the
> classic theories of capitalism. Unfortunately, corporations have found
> ways around those theories.
>
> 1. To prevent somebody else from making them cheaper, all you need is an
> industry whose cost of entry is extremely high. Refineries are a good
> example. Failing that, there's restrictive regulations promulgated by
> your bought and paid for congressman. And those are just some of the
> legal possibilities :-).
>
> 2. Few people are in a position to give up gasoline, prescription drugs,
> telephones, home heating, etc.. If you are in that position, you're
> very lucky. Food and water prices have remained relatively low due to
> fears of a general insurrection, but that's an exception.
>
> I'm sorry I brought this topic up. Apparently there will always be
> those who ardently defend the people responsible for grinding their
> faces in the economic dirt. I've had my say - the rest of you can
> continue the topic or drop it as you wish.
>
Classical capitalism has nothing to do with the
"force" comment; no one forces you to do anything
in a relatively free society, you just make
choices.
You are right about what screws up capitalism.
High entry cost may be important but there are
plenty of people with lots of money that would
like to compete. The main force that screws up
capitalism is government. A little screwing
around by government can change the system (or a
section of the system) from capitalism to
something else. Once the government introduces
incentives (they are always "beneficial" don't you
know) you have derailed capitalism to some extent.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't he just decide to not
> buy it, buy something else, or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't believe I
> was ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of taxes if I want to
> own and live in my house though.
Well that all depends on what your threshold is as to what you consider
being forced is. If you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle you
are probably being forced to pay more for the fuel than you did 2 years ago.
Its all relative.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd wrote:
>
>>> The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
>>> But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
>>> Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
>>
>> I thought the subject of this thread was about the price of solvents.
>> If you want to have a discussion on the Iraq war, start a new thread.
>> As for the increasing cost of petroleum-based products, my belief is
>> that it has more to do with supply and demand than a global
>> conspiracy.
>>
>
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
>
> --
> It's turtles, all the way down
"Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So when does "savings" become "greed"? If you have savings you are
> obviously making more than you need right?
That is the point I was trying to make. ;~) I'll take all that I can get
but more than needed is not greed. IMHO greed is forcing your customers to
pay more than they are comfortable with when your profit margin is high.
Hello,
> --More revenue means growing capital more quickly in order to expand,
> something most businesses want to do.
> --More revenue means more that you're able to give away to your
> favorite cause.
Yeah Right...
I hear the same things from conservative who say "let non profit take care
of social issues, if I paid less taxes, I would give more"...
in reality, if you made, let's say an extra 10%, you would give only 5%
more, (in best case scenario), but in the end, you get more money... Greed.
cyrille
Seeker lamented:
Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish
has gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every
trip to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
Have you noticed what the price of diesel fuel has gone up to? Yesterday
I saw it at $2.97/gal. Thats the fuel the trucks and trains use to bring
you all those goods. And it ain't getting cheaper...
Seeker wrote:
> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish
> has gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every
> trip to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
>
>
It's called capitalism. :)
Dave
Sailaway wrote:
> George E Cawthon wrote:
> >We don't have to buy it at all, it is just a choice.
> >
> >A recent news programs indicated that Brazil would be free of
> petroleum >dependency within one year using their engineered sugar cane
> to produce >alcohol (they have been working on it for years). Cars can
> be switched >from an alcohol/gas mixture (currently required for cars)
> to straight >alcohol. They said their alcohol could compete
> economically at any >gasoline price over $2.50 per gallon.
>
>
> For all *practical* purposes, it is not a choice. We have to work, our
> jobs are more often than not way past walking distance, public
> transportation is scarce in most of the country, etc. That's just
> scratching the surface. Unless of course you want to suggest we just lay
> down and starve to death by choice.
Then say the only practical choice is to buy it,
don't say you have to buy it.
>
> My point was about today, not ten years from now. There are all kinds of
> technologies out there that will *one day* be useful, but in the U.S.,
> today, none of these are ready for widespread market, or at least not
> cheaper than oil. Since people are driven by the concept of "What's in
> it for me", you would find people abandoning oil in a heartbeat for
> something cheaper/better. Brazil may have something, but here in the
> U.S. you would have to have it in place and sell it at least as cheaply
> as gas for it to fly. Ya think that's gonna happen? Don't care what it
> sells for in Brazil, when it hits here, (if it ever does) it'll probably
> be a buck higher than gas, or will bring on a double whammy of bringing
> gas prices up because some government idiot mandates it to be added to
> gas. And that doesn't even solve the problem of replacing diesel.
> Biodiesel is still not commercially practical. If you want to run it
> exclusively, you will fork out a mountain of cash to convert your truck,
> and even more for maintenance.
My discussion of Brazil was just for information.
And it isn't that Brazil MAY have something,
they DO have a program, have been working on it
for years, and will fully implement it by the end
of this year. If Brazil can become independent of
gasoline, we sure as hell can reduce our oil
consumption. Alcohol production may not be the
solution in the U.S. but standing around wringing
your hands sure as hell isn't the solution.
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Tom Nie wrote:
>
>> If the Cost of Living is only going up 3-4% annually tell me where the
>> products are that are dropping drastically in price so that that kind
>> of average can be true.
>
>
> Computers, electronics, appliances, are all dropping in price.
>
> Chris
Woodworking equipment is going up, up, up.
Compare prices in LV catalogs from the past few years. check the prices
on the planes. At the rate they are going up, a little apron plane is
gonna cost $150 soon.
Dave
Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Where are you that diesel is up to $2.97 a gallon? $2.53 here in
> Minnesota and our diesel prices have been pretty high compared to the
> rest of the USA for the past six months.
Per the DoE, you're 3 cents below the national average (for last
week, the DoE's numbers are always a week out of date). So you
might want to rethink "pretty high compared to the rest of the
USA" :-)
$2.97 sounds like New England somewhere, or perhaps Cal. Here
abouts (S Fla) it's $2.70 something.
John
(willing to bet your gas price is less than our $2.63, too)
Leon wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Woodworking equipment is going up, up, up.
>>Compare prices in LV catalogs from the past few years. check the prices
>>on the planes. At the rate they are going up, a little apron plane is
>>gonna cost $150 soon.
>
>
>
> IMHO wood working tools are still a bargain. Wood working equipment is
> cheap compared to other equipment. Try to buy an air conditioning
> replacement part that is built with the precision of an LV plane and you
> will spend tons more. I think ww equipment is simply catching up.
>
>
yeah, but...room a/c's cost a heck of a lot less now than they did say
30 years ago. I just got an a/c for my shop of $139. One a bit bigger,
back in 1971 was more than double that price. Plus, the new one has a
remote. :) After my PG&E rebate, my out of pocket for my a/c was a mere
$89+tax.
Dave
Leon wrote:
> "Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>So when does "savings" become "greed"? If you have savings you are
>>obviously making more than you need right?
>
>
>
> That is the point I was trying to make. ;~) I'll take all that I can get
> but more than needed is not greed. IMHO greed is forcing your customers to
> pay more than they are comfortable with when your profit margin is high.
>
>
How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't
he just decide to not buy it, buy something else,
or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't believe I was
ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of
taxes if I want to own and live in my house though.
Sailaway <[email protected]> writes:
>>Have you noticed what the price of diesel fuel has gone up to? Yesterday
>>I saw it at $2.97/gal. Thats the fuel the trucks and trains use to bring
>>you all those goods. And it ain't getting cheaper...
>Where are you that diesel is up to $2.97 a gallon? $2.53 here in
>Minnesota and our diesel prices have been pretty high compared to the
>rest of the USA for the past six months.
>
>They say high cost of oil has made gasoline prices skyrocket the last
>few
>weeks, but oil prices haven't gone up as much as gasoline has.
>
>Brian Elfert
I'm in The Soviet Socialist Republic of New Jersey. Along with a bevy of
new state taxes, our new governor has promised a new additional fuel
tax of at least 15 cents/gal to come. Diesel a few years ago was about
10 or so cents lower than the cost of regular gas. Now it is higher than
high-test in many places, and yet it is the cheapest fuel to manufacture
and has the lowest tax rate applied. Makes ya wonder...
The truck drivers and railroads have no choice to buy diesel, so the
price of all our goods are going up. And oil would have to go well over
$100/barrel to justify the present cost of fuel at the pumps. This is
usury, pure and simple. There is a federal law on the books, the
Windfall Profits Act, that was passed to punish and fine the oil
companies for doing just this. No fed prosecutor has ever had the balls
to use it.
"Seeker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish has
> gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every trip
> to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
>
>
I buy my solvents in bulk so I haven't seen the price increases. Haven't
had to buy any for a while. You really might want to consider buying your
lacquer thinner from autobody supply houses. I don't know what regional
pricing difference may prevail, but around here a gallon on lacquer thinner
was selling at around $9 at places like Ace Hardware and I was buying it in
5 gallon cans for $20-25 depending on which supplier I used. There is a big
savings to be had by buying even as small a quantity as a 5 gallon can,
versus buying it by the gallon.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Leon wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't he just decide to not
>>buy it, buy something else, or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't believe I
>>was ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of taxes if I want to
>>own and live in my house though.
>
>
>
> Well that all depends on what your threshold is as to what you consider
> being forced is. If you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle you
> are probably being forced to pay more for the fuel than you did 2 years ago.
> Its all relative.
>
>
Maybe it is just semantics, but people seem to get
the idea that "have to do" something. So they
don't even consider not doing it.
You get out on a long stretch of road with a
nearly empty tank (stupid you) and the only gas
station charges twice the going rate for gas. You
still don't "have to" buy the gas. But it is
probably the cheapest and best option. When
people realize all things are an option, sometimes
the desires change and may change for the better.
George E Cawthon wrote:
>We don't have to buy it at all, it is just a choice.
>
>A recent news programs indicated that Brazil would be free of
petroleum >dependency within one year using their engineered sugar cane
to produce >alcohol (they have been working on it for years). Cars can
be switched >from an alcohol/gas mixture (currently required for cars)
to straight >alcohol. They said their alcohol could compete
economically at any >gasoline price over $2.50 per gallon.
For all *practical* purposes, it is not a choice. We have to work, our
jobs are more often than not way past walking distance, public
transportation is scarce in most of the country, etc. That's just
scratching the surface. Unless of course you want to suggest we just lay
down and starve to death by choice.
My point was about today, not ten years from now. There are all kinds of
technologies out there that will *one day* be useful, but in the U.S.,
today, none of these are ready for widespread market, or at least not
cheaper than oil. Since people are driven by the concept of "What's in
it for me", you would find people abandoning oil in a heartbeat for
something cheaper/better. Brazil may have something, but here in the
U.S. you would have to have it in place and sell it at least as cheaply
as gas for it to fly. Ya think that's gonna happen? Don't care what it
sells for in Brazil, when it hits here, (if it ever does) it'll probably
be a buck higher than gas, or will bring on a double whammy of bringing
gas prices up because some government idiot mandates it to be added to
gas. And that doesn't even solve the problem of replacing diesel.
Biodiesel is still not commercially practical. If you want to run it
exclusively, you will fork out a mountain of cash to convert your truck,
and even more for maintenance.
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <George@least>
wrote:
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> > synonym for greed.
> >
> > If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> > than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> > producing?
>
> It would help if you understood that what you demand is not what counts.
> When someone offers $105 for one of those scarce widgets she's just got to
> have ... that's the one that counts.
That's naive.
What counts is the 'short-'n-curlies' syndrome. AKA greed.
Drug dealers operate on the same principle. Get the user dependant then
jack up the price. IOW.. it's the oil company shareholders who want a
better ROI. Greed. Artificial shortages. Hoarding.
As soon as supplying nations like Iraq, Iran or Venezuela want their
fair share of profits to supply the demands of the SUV addicted, they
get black-listed via the propaganda machines owned and operated by the
cartels/PACs/campaign contributors. Especially when they chose to change
their fiat currency to the Euro, in fact sinking the very thing that is
holding up the US dollar.
Then again, what-the-hell do I know.
r
In article <[email protected]>,
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> All controlled by the Trilateral Commission. Or is it the Illuminati?
> Sorry, I'm a little behind on current kook theory. >
I can see that an intelligent discussion with you is highly unlikely.
> Why would it have been
> in Iraq's interest to sell at below the going rate? And wasn't Iraq still
> under UN sanctions on sale of oil at the time of the start of hostilities?
> Not counting the UN oil-for-bribes program, of course. You're sure it
> couldn't be that a) the supply of petroleum is finite and b) worldwide
> demand is increasing?
The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
"Sailaway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes! I did miss that, and agree, although the point remains, the sheeple
> on that side of the pond seem happy as pigs in slop with their level of
> pain, and like us show no signs of revolt (at least about the price of
> gas). In fact, many of them just piss and moan about the U.S. not paying
> "a fair price" for fuel. Stupidity and timidity seem to be spreading...
>
> I am convinced that if this had happened to an earlier generation here,
> and unless there was one hell of a good excuse, there would have been some
> hell to pay.
You need to read up on a seventy-year experiment in command economy in a
country with natural resources of all sorts so abundant they still haven't
been properly cataloged - which couldn't heat water for a shower, if there
_were_ a shower, for the "sheeple".
Be careful of what you wish for.
"Sailaway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So what my point was about our "sheeple" here, and in Europe, was that few
> are willing to do anything at all to force - through the marketplace, and
> through our government prosecuting the crimes that are committed according
> to Federal law, like with the Windfall Profits Tax Act which was enacted
> to prevent or punish for this very thing. That ain't socialism. Its just
> common sense and it protects the country, the economy, and us - the
> sheeple.
>
> I apologize if I may be imprecise in my ability to get my argument across
> clearly, been running on little sleep for the last week.
Once again I see you use the word force. Force is not freedom. Be careful
what you wish for.
You see, in socialist economies it's not so much that there is no way to
succeed (windfall profits?) that holds good people back, as it is that no
one can fail. That's what makes a sheep, the protection of the shepherd,
the dog and the fold, all of which confine, though they may comfort.
George wrote:
>Once again I see you use the word force. Force is not freedom. Be
>careful
>what you wish for.
>
>You see, in socialist economies it's not so much that there is no way
>to succeed (windfall profits?) that holds good people back, as it is
>that no one can fail. That's what makes a sheep, the protection of
the >shepherd, the dog and the fold, all of which confine, though they
may >comfort.
Once again I'll agree with you, but it was a poor choice of a word. I do
not mean force as in make them comply through *actual* force when I was
referencing using the marketplace. I meant getting together in some way
that changes the dynamics of that marketplace in our favor, such that
the result would be the oil companies would not try to take advantage of
us without resulting in lower or stagnant profits or unrecoverable
higher costs for them. This is not socialism, any more than unions are
socialism. It is our right to change the marketplace.
On the other hand, governments exist to protect its people. And to do
that they enact laws. And when the law is broken, the government has the
obligation to apply the appropriate jurisprudence. Once again, this is
not socialism. In the case of which we have been discussing, several
laws were broken. Windfall profits, in this case, refers to
illegally-obtained excess profit garnered by breaking the law. And they
did that during a time of crisis, that's just plain un-American. (well,
ok, maybe todays *new* America might like it - greed, corruption, etc.)
Whew! And I thought I was finished with this thread...
George wrote:
You need to read up on a seventy-year experiment in command economy in a
country with natural resources of all sorts so abundant they still haven't
been properly cataloged - which couldn't heat water for a shower, if there
_were_ a shower, for the "sheeple".
Be careful of what you wish for.
If you are referring to socialist/communist societies, that is not at
all what I was getting at, George, nor is it what I wish for at all.
What I was lamenting was the fact that we have a system in which free
markets are a very good thing, but that some products that have gone
beyond just being a luxury into being a necessity, have fostered such
greed by the companies, that they have entered into collusion to force
artificially usury-high prices on the public. I have no qualm at all
with making a good honest profit, after all that is precisely what a
business is in business to generate and rightly so. But if there were no
shady deals going on I believe completely that we would not have had
much if any higher price on any fuels due to the relatively small hike
in price per barrel recently, and none at all during Katrina. There was
simply no shortage here. Maybe in the Gulf region, but not here. Here in
the Northeast during the Katrina aftermath, our fuel prices were going
up daily, and even sometimes several times per day. Yet if you find out
where our Northeastern oil supplies come from it would not be from the
Gulf region. California's gas prices were even more out of control - do
you think they get gas from the Gulf? NO. It was usury, pure and simple,
to take advantage of Americans during a crisis. They did it again during
both Gulf (that *other* gulf) wars. Sorta makes that economic terrorism,
doesn't it?
So what my point was about our "sheeple" here, and in Europe, was that
few are willing to do anything at all to force - through the
marketplace, and through our government prosecuting the crimes that are
committed according to Federal law, like with the Windfall Profits Tax
Act which was enacted to prevent or punish for this very thing. That
ain't socialism. Its just common sense and it protects the country, the
economy, and us - the sheeple.
I apologize if I may be imprecise in my ability to get my argument
across clearly, been running on little sleep for the last week.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
One thing you miss here is the fact that "across the pond" the main
contributor is not the price "the oil companies set", but the "price in
taxes the government decrees". Taxes can make up to 75% of the cost of
a gallon of gas in those countries.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Yes! I did miss that, and agree, although the point remains, the sheeple
on that side of the pond seem happy as pigs in slop with their level of
pain, and like us show no signs of revolt (at least about the price of
gas). In fact, many of them just piss and moan about the U.S. not paying
"a fair price" for fuel. Stupidity and timidity seem to be spreading...
I am convinced that if this had happened to an earlier generation here,
and unless there was one hell of a good excuse, there would have been
some hell to pay.
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:11:50 -0500, Sailaway <[email protected]> wrote:
>"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't he just decide to
>not
> >> buy it, buy something else, or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't
>believe I
> >> was ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of taxes if I
>want to
> >> own and live in my house though.
>
>
>Leon wrote:
> >Well that all depends on what your threshold is as to what you consider
> >being forced is. If you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle
> >you
> >are probably being forced to pay more for the fuel than you did 2
>years >ago.
> >Its all relative.
>
>One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that weather you think about fuel
>this way or not, the fact remains that it has become more than *just* a
>commodity - it is an otherwise unavailable, absolutely necessary (at
>this time) utility similar to electricity in respects. Our utility
>companies are heavily regulated and, at least in this state, have to ask
>the state regulators permission to raise prices. We the sheeple have no
>alternative to obtain electricity (other than those few who can do it
>with wind, etc) and we have no alternative to obtain fuel for our cars
>and trucks if we want to work. The difference is that the oil companies
>in concert with commodities investors, are the ones who set the price -
>and they want it as high as possible - as any profit-driven company
>would. We *have* to buy it at whatever price they set, and no way are
>the sheeple in this country are gonna band together and force (through
>boycotting, pressure on congress, etc) the price lower. And for those
>ethanol enthusiasts, the price of that I am led to believe is up
>somewhere over $3.00/gal and has its own problems, so that doesn't help.
>And as for the idiots across the big pond, they just accept, like we do
>here, whatever price is set by the oil companies. They just have a much
>higher tolerance for self-inflicted pain.
One thing you miss here is the fact that "across the pond" the main
contributor is not the price "the oil companies set", but the "price in
taxes the government decrees". Taxes can make up to 75% of the cost of a
gallon of gas in those countries.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sailaway wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> One thing you miss here is the fact that "across the pond" the main
> contributor is not the price "the oil companies set", but the "price in
> taxes the government decrees". Taxes can make up to 75% of the cost of
> a gallon of gas in those countries.
> Yes! I did miss that, and agree, although the point remains, the sheeple
> on that side of the pond seem happy as pigs in slop with their level of
> pain, and like us show no signs of revolt (at least about the price of
> gas). In fact, many of them just piss and moan about the U.S. not paying
> "a fair price" for fuel. Stupidity and timidity seem to be spreading...
>
> I am convinced that if this had happened to an earlier generation here,
> and unless there was one hell of a good excuse, there would have been
> some hell to pay.
They are also recipients of the benefits for which those taxes were
intended.
er
--
email not valid
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <George@least>
wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Seeker wrote:
> >
> >> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
> >> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
> >> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
> >> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish
> >> has gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every
> >> trip to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > It's called capitalism. :)
It's called ' a population being harvested for their money'. IOW,
screwed out of their earnings..aside from tax.
>
> They're called petroleum products.
> >
It's called making sure the petroleum products stay 'controlled' in
production by invading an oil-producing country which was threatening to
sell lots of oil, cheap, for Euros.
Oil companies want it that way...that is... if you want their campaign
contributions....
In article <[email protected]>, "George" <George@least>
wrote:
> If you seek the face of greed, you shave it every morning....
I only shave my *own* Canadian/Dutch face.
Who'd let me near them with a razor...especially a straight razor?
I have been called lots of things in my life...but greedy?
Nope.
That's the CORE inflation rate. It excludes both food and energy costs.
-Doug
====================
"Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:n%[email protected]...
> If the Cost of Living is only going up 3-4% annually tell me where the
> products are that are dropping drastically in price so that that kind of
> average can be true.
> In my life the cost of fuel and hospitalization are major fixed expenses.
> They've been rising more like 3-4% biweekly!
>
> TomNie
>
Diesel has more BTUs per gallon. There are also other reasons.
-Doug
=====================
"Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Explain this one to me. Diesel is poorly refined gasoline - sorta. Why
> have I been paying so much MORE for diesel, an inferior product?
>
George Cawthon Wrote:
Snip
If Brazil can become independent of gasoline, we sure as hell can reduce
our oil consumption. Alcohol production may not be the solution in the
U.S. but standing around wringing your hands sure as hell isn't the
solution.
I agree. But until more people are aware that they *can* make a
difference, and are also willing to do so, then there will be no
difference. My self-appointed job in this life is to educate people that
they can make a dent.
FWIW, I'd switch to Alcohol or any other fuel if my diesel would run it.
And BTW, I do write my elected rep's frequently and am active in trying
to get others to stay active in making positive changes in our
governments. Hand wringing is just a sideline.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> So when does "savings" become "greed"? If you have savings you are
>> obviously making more than you need right?
>
>
> That is the point I was trying to make. ;~) I'll take all that I can get
> but more than needed is not greed. IMHO greed is forcing your customers
> to pay more than they are comfortable with when your profit margin is
> high.
Yeah. Like Big Pharma.
Max
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> IMHO wood working tools are still a bargain. Wood working equipment is
>> cheap compared to other equipment. Try to buy an air conditioning
>> replacement part that is built with the precision of an LV plane and you
>> will spend tons more. I think ww equipment is simply catching up.
> yeah, but...room a/c's cost a heck of a lot less now than they did say 30
> years ago. I just got an a/c for my shop of $139. One a bit bigger, back
> in 1971 was more than double that price. Plus, the new one has a remote.
> :) After my PG&E rebate, my out of pocket for my a/c was a mere $89+tax.
>
>
I understand what you are getting at but, let me give another example. My
wife has a relative inexpensive long arm sewing machine. Nice piece of
equipment but no where near the labor or materials to manufacture it than
say a stationary planer. The sewing machine cost $7,000.00. Other sewing
machines in its league easily top $20,000.00.
Is viewing the movie "The Corporation" better than an
understanding of basic economics?
Movies ALWAYS tell the truth. Don't they?
Jack
--
I'm not a complete idiot - several parts are missing.
"Cyrille de Brébisson" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
| Hello,
|
| > I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and
demand" - just a
| > synonym for greed.
| >
| > If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100
each, why, other
| > than greed, should I increase my price if people
want more than I'm
| > producing?
|
| Because it is the duty of a Corporation to maximize
the shareholders
| investment.
| Greed (profit maximization) is the Corporate DNA and
only intrinsic rule,
| all the other rules were imposed on the corporation
by goverments who soon
| discovered that left to it's own, this "legal entity"
would act as a
| sociopath and destroy everything around it.
|
| rent the movie: "The Corporation" for more
information.
|
| cyrille
|
|
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> How do you force a person to pay anything? Can't he just decide to
not
>> buy it, buy something else, or go somewhere else? Gees, I don't
believe I
>> was ever forced to buy anything. Have to pay lots of taxes if I
want to
>> own and live in my house though.
Leon wrote:
>Well that all depends on what your threshold is as to what you consider
>being forced is. If you drive an internal combustion powered vehicle
>you
>are probably being forced to pay more for the fuel than you did 2
years >ago.
>Its all relative.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that weather you think about fuel
this way or not, the fact remains that it has become more than *just* a
commodity - it is an otherwise unavailable, absolutely necessary (at
this time) utility similar to electricity in respects. Our utility
companies are heavily regulated and, at least in this state, have to ask
the state regulators permission to raise prices. We the sheeple have no
alternative to obtain electricity (other than those few who can do it
with wind, etc) and we have no alternative to obtain fuel for our cars
and trucks if we want to work. The difference is that the oil companies
in concert with commodities investors, are the ones who set the price -
and they want it as high as possible - as any profit-driven company
would. We *have* to buy it at whatever price they set, and no way are
the sheeple in this country are gonna band together and force (through
boycotting, pressure on congress, etc) the price lower. And for those
ethanol enthusiasts, the price of that I am led to believe is up
somewhere over $3.00/gal and has its own problems, so that doesn't help.
And as for the idiots across the big pond, they just accept, like we do
here, whatever price is set by the oil companies. They just have a much
higher tolerance for self-inflicted pain.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
> Maybe it is just semantics, but people seem to get the idea that "have to
> do" something. So they don't even consider not doing it.
>
Exactly,
Doug,
That may be but has nothing to do with the dollars and cents of production
which if simpler means less. Or put another way, as soon as they have to do
or add anything they use that for price justification - the reciprocal would
be less is cheaper.
TomNie
Diesel has more BTUs per gallon. There are also other reasons.
>
> -Doug
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> todd wrote:
>
>
>>>The finger points at those who profit most. It always does.
>>>But I suppose you have your own ideas why Iraq was invaded?
>>>Please don't share them... I've heard them already.
>>
>>I thought the subject of this thread was about the price of solvents.
>>If you want to have a discussion on the Iraq war, start a new thread.
>>As for the increasing cost of petroleum-based products, my belief is
>>that it has more to do with supply and demand than a global
>>conspiracy.
>>
>
>
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
>
Sure, get greedy and set the price and $200 each
and see what happens? Some other person makes
them and sells them $150, then a little price war
continues and eventually you sell them for $70
each just to stay in business.
Or would you prefer the choice where somebody (the
government) sets the price? Maybe they set the
price at $60 each but they cost $70 each and of
course to make up for it they sell gas at $11 a
gallon. Wonderful option!
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:19:05 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
>synonym for greed.
>
>If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
>than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
>producing?
Among other reasons...
--More revenue means growing capital more quickly in order to expand,
something most businesses want to do.
--More revenue means more that you're able to give away to your
favorite cause.
--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/
Snip
John McCoy wrote:
>$2.97 sounds like New England somewhere, or perhaps Cal. Here
>abouts (S Fla) it's $2.70 something.
>John
>(willing to bet your gas price is less than our $2.63, too)
Actually, the same station where I saw that diesel price (about 20 miles
from home) had gas priced at $2.69/gal, but that is generally a bit
higher than in my neighborhood.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I get a little tired of hearing about "supply and demand" - just a
> synonym for greed.
>
> If I can make a good living selling widgets at $100 each, why, other
> than greed, should I increase my price if people want more than I'm
> producing?
So do you "not" have any money set aside for a rainy day or are you greedy?
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:49:00 -0400, Sailaway <[email protected]> wrote:
>George wrote:
>You need to read up on a seventy-year experiment in command economy in a
>country with natural resources of all sorts so abundant they still haven't
>been properly cataloged - which couldn't heat water for a shower, if there
>_were_ a shower, for the "sheeple".
>
>Be careful of what you wish for.
>
>
>If you are referring to socialist/communist societies, that is not at
>all what I was getting at, George, nor is it what I wish for at all.
>What I was lamenting was the fact that we have a system in which free
>markets are a very good thing, but that some products that have gone
>beyond just being a luxury into being a necessity, have fostered such
>greed by the companies, that they have entered into collusion to force
>artificially usury-high prices on the public. I have no qualm at all
... snip
>
>So what my point was about our "sheeple" here, and in Europe, was that
>few are willing to do anything at all to force - through the
>marketplace, and through our government prosecuting the crimes that are
>committed according to Federal law, like with the Windfall Profits Tax
>Act which was enacted to prevent or punish for this very thing. That
>ain't socialism. Its just common sense and it protects the country, the
>economy, and us - the sheeple.
>
>I apologize if I may be imprecise in my ability to get my argument
>across clearly, been running on little sleep for the last week.
Before you lay this all at the feet of the "greedy" oil companies, you
need to lay some of that blame on the so-called sheeple who are ready to
jump at every whim of the environmental whackos, the NIMBY crowd, and other
anti-growth, anti-capitalism crowd who have been responsible for assuring
that no new refineries have been built in this country in the past 30
years, who are assuring that it is so costly and expensive to explore and
drill for new oil, and who are shutting out entire oil fields for
development. That same crowd is responsible in large part high prices due
to the seasonal "cafe" blends of gasoline required by each and every large
municipality and region. Which means that just because there is plenty of
gas in one region, because of those blending requirements, it can't be
shipped to a different region that has had its supply disrupted because a
refinery has had to be shut down since the gas in region A doesn't meet the
blend requirements of region B. Monopolies are bad, but effectively
throttling growth via legislative and judicial fiat is just as bad and
causes equivalent upsets.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark and Juanita wrote:
> Before you lay this all at the feet of the "greedy" oil companies, you
>need to lay some of that blame on the so-called sheeple who are ready >to
>jump at every whim of the environmental whackos, the NIMBY crowd, and
>other anti-growth, anti-capitalism crowd who have been responsible for
>assuring that no new refineries have been built in this country in the
>past 30 years, who are assuring that it is so costly and expensive to
>explore and drill for new oil, and who are shutting out entire oil
>fields for development. That same crowd is responsible in large part
>high prices due to the seasonal "cafe" blends of gasoline required by
>each and every large municipality and region. Which means that just
>because there is plenty of gas in one region, because of those
blending >requirements, it can't be shipped to a different region that
has had >its supply disrupted because a refinery has had to be shut down
since >the gas in region A doesn't meet the blend requirements of region
B. >Monopolies are bad, but effectively throttling growth via
legislative >and judicial fiat is just as bad and causes equivalent upsets.
Actually, that is a part of what I was getting at. If people don't
actively do something to stop all the whacko's as well as the
price-gouging companies then we end up in the same boat, just by 2
different paths. But that is still no excuse for oil companies to take
advantage of the public through price-gouging, period. Bureaucrats and
politicians can be reigned-in through strong grass-roots response. But
the only way to stop and oil company is to either not buy that one
company's products, or get the government to apply the law as written to
stop them from breaking it. We can't actually get anywhere by singling
out one company, because they have been working in collusion to force
artificially high prices across the board, and which also means they
have broken several Federal laws. This in effect makes them (all the oil
companies who are participating) a monopoly, and should be regulated as
such, just as the Feds/states, etc. regulate the power companies. If
they didn't regulate the power companies, it wouldn't be long before
only the rich could afford to have electricity. Any time a company can
drastically reduce costs, and at the same increase profit by raising
prices, it will most likely do that. The oil companies have no incentive
to flood the market with fuel, because that would represent a large
increase in manufacturing and related costs, and would result in lower
prices per unit sold. What is the incentive? Instead, they raise fears
about so-called "shortages" and drastically raise prices. You may
remember that after a gas station purchased a truckload of fuel just
before Katrina and priced the gas at the pump accordingly, then
immediately after learning about the storm the same fuel he just paid
for was suddenly priced higher at the pump, and just kept going up. If
it an independant station we can boycott that station (as I do now). But
when all the stations do it, including the company-owned ones (the
independents usually just follow along, cause they can) then we have a
problem.
If you don't agree with Federal law, then you can write your
congressman to get it changed. I happen to agree with that one law I
referenced, just as I agree with the original purpose for unions. Unlike
what most unions have done recently, when unions were originally formed
in this country it was because the workers were being unfairly taken
advantage of. There was no protection for them when all they wanted was
a fair deal. And now we have Federal laws that protect people's right to
have union protection. Here I am talking about the same thing, just a
fair price for a necessary utility.
So I am not at all talking about throttling growth. Exxon had a ten
billion dollar profit in just one quarter - three months, of last year.
Yes, you read it right, ten Billion (I believe they had an even larger
quarter than that since). That was net profit, not gross - is that
throttling growth? Did they use that profit to open new refineries?
Nope! The shareholders got some, and the rest (and quite a large chunk)
went to the people who run it. And trust me, I have no problem with
people getting wealthy. I DO have a problem with people breaking the law
to get wealthy, and hurting us at the same time. The law was enacted to
protect us from manopoly-like behavior, and the resulting illicitly
gained excess profits.
Oil companies have been in no hurry to open new refineries because they
have been busy raising prices instead to get profit. They understand
that they can make more pure-profit by charging more per-unit without
the expense of manufacturing and selling more units at a lower price
per-unit. The Feds have been pushing the oil companies for years to open
new ones. But as long as they keep feeding them huge taxpayer dollar
subsidies and almost total tax relief, they aren't gonna change.
I did cover something in a previous post about the price of fuels being
affected by idiotic government mandates like additives. And yes, I could
rant on about all the rest of the whacko's out there, (which most people
aren't aware that New Jersey has nearly as many as California and DC)
but that is still not the problem, its the whacko's in our governments
that we need to deal with, and unfortunately, there are too many
European-thinking individuals in our country for us to really have much
chance of changing anything.
And my point about the sheeple in Europe was that they seem have a
much larger pain threshold than us. They seem to actually *want* their pain.
Rant mode off, I'm through with this thread.
Seeker wrote:
> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS=
> $8/gal LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish has
> gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every trip
> to Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
Can't help you with LT but buy paint thinner instead of mineral
spirits...it's about half (or less) the price of MS where I am.
As for inflation in general, you can thank the federal government for
that...dollars no longer have any backing (FDR removed gold, Nixon
removed silver), feds can print as much as they want, feds are world's
biggest debtors, inflation is good for debtors because payback is with
still cheaper dollars. Look forward to $20 McDonald's hamburgers...
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
How does Supply & Demand account for the rate of Medical cost increases? How
do you justify the fuel situation following Katrina? Contrived collusion?
Opportunistic pricing? Blaming SUV's is simply simplistic.
Computers, etc. can drop 90% and their effect would be miniscule compared to
the insiduous multiple effects of medical and fuel. Aside from what is
personally spent on these two there are the hidden expenses within any
product's price for these two. Look at the corporations, even
municipalities, that are escaping from including medical benefits for
retirees, even present workers.
We have anti-trust laws because Supply & Demand works fine - only to a
point. We had price controls in the past because the market got out of
hand.
Our Balance of Payments has been out of whack for so long that the world has
purchased the U.S. with their excess dollars instead of conquering it. What
American "named" company is actually owned by an American company any more?
Politicians are influenced by Big Money and the BM isn't ours anymore. We're
like the dog carrying ticks around. Doesn't that also make it convenient
that we're supposed to be the world's watchdog? Run up still more debt to
pay for that role? And if that role is opposite your position then it makes
us a handy scapegoat for you to hate and protest. That way you're burning
our flag instead of someone else's.
Son, this ain't your daddy's WWII world anymore.
"Seeker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Went to our local Lowes/Home Depot yesterday to purchase a gallon of
> mineral spirits and lacquer thinner, WOW! what sticker shock MS= $8/gal
> LT= $13/gal, I bought last year at MS=$4, LT=$8.
> That's not all of it, went to Sams and again was hit with SS, fish has
> gone up 50% since one month ago, toilet paper seems to rise every trip to
> Sams at the tune of $1/bundle.
>
>
Chris Friesen <[email protected]> writes:
[... Market explained]
So for all the market advocates: learn german and read:
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!...
Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
"Tom Nie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Explain this one to me. Diesel is poorly refined gasoline - sorta. Why
> have I been paying so much MORE for diesel, an inferior product?
"Was" poorly refined.
Now because the diesel fuels are having to be reformulated just like the
process that gasoline has been going through over the last several years.
IIRC the diesel has to be reformulated to reduce or eliminate the sulfur
emissions.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Woodworking equipment is going up, up, up.
> Compare prices in LV catalogs from the past few years. check the prices
> on the planes. At the rate they are going up, a little apron plane is
> gonna cost $150 soon.
IMHO wood working tools are still a bargain. Wood working equipment is
cheap compared to other equipment. Try to buy an air conditioning
replacement part that is built with the precision of an LV plane and you
will spend tons more. I think ww equipment is simply catching up.