View Poll Results: Do oil/energy companies "fix" or manipulate pricing?
Yes - unquestionably.
39
73.58%
Maybe a little.
10
18.87%
No - not at all.
4
7.55%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll
Price-Fixing of Fuels - Does it happen or not?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Turn back the clock 10 years and the opposite was true - liberals thought that the government was the greatest thing possible and our sole protection against evil men (crazy-*** Christianists being the boogiemen back then), and right-wingers were scared that the government had too much power and was coming after them next. Ah, those were the days when it was OK to hate taxes, own some guns, and fear our government 
Perspective in politics is a matter of who's in power at the time. I seem to remember more than one lefty that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, too (Marc Rich, anyone?); life would be a lot easier if only members of one party were guilty of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
With regards to our actions in certain Middle Eastern countries over the past few decades, we'd be better off if we could admit that oil is a huge motivating factor behind our actions. Since we can't, we the public get served a lot of excuses. Oh well, it works out for the government, because we then entangle ourselves in a lot of arguements that totally miss the point.
The idea of a "secret" public policy should be justification for criminal prosecution in a republic democracy. I mean, really - that's just insulting.
Perspective in politics is a matter of who's in power at the time. I seem to remember more than one lefty that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, too (Marc Rich, anyone?); life would be a lot easier if only members of one party were guilty of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. With regards to our actions in certain Middle Eastern countries over the past few decades, we'd be better off if we could admit that oil is a huge motivating factor behind our actions. Since we can't, we the public get served a lot of excuses. Oh well, it works out for the government, because we then entangle ourselves in a lot of arguements that totally miss the point.
The idea of a "secret" public policy should be justification for criminal prosecution in a republic democracy. I mean, really - that's just insulting.
I can throw bullets at Dems too - said that in the post. But IMO the majority of big money swindling is on the other side of the creek. Either way, there's plenty to go round.
And I couldn't agree more on "secret" public policy statement.
What happened to "for the people, by the people"?!?!
Now it's more like "for the people, by the groups that know what you need better than you do but we can't tell you because you can't handle the truth".
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Nope, its turned too political, and especially when dealing with the Iraq War (which is personal to me), I don't want to get into it in this forum. I will say that the reason we care about the Middle East, in general, is absolutely because of the oil. It is not the main reason we went into Iraq.
I will add that I now drive more efficient vehicles for day-to-day commuting, and am building an ICF house that will be heated & cooled with Geothermal. If/when I can afford it, I'll add a wind turbine or two too. IE...I'm going to do my part instead of putting politicians in office that will enhance the nanny state we are quickly becoming.
Have a good one.
Bob
PS....I thank God - literally - that W will be signing my Letter of Appreciation this summer and not Obama or Hillary.
I will add that I now drive more efficient vehicles for day-to-day commuting, and am building an ICF house that will be heated & cooled with Geothermal. If/when I can afford it, I'll add a wind turbine or two too. IE...I'm going to do my part instead of putting politicians in office that will enhance the nanny state we are quickly becoming.
Have a good one.
Bob
PS....I thank God - literally - that W will be signing my Letter of Appreciation this summer and not Obama or Hillary.
FWIW, I too think we are in Iraq because of reasons other than the ones used to justify our going there.
I too am driving more efficient vehicles. The 4-banger/5-spd I wrote about last week. Been in it for almost 2 years now, leaving the 5.0 at home 90% of the time. Diesel truck (18-20 mpg) for work instead of gas burner (8-10mpg).
And I too am investing in alternative energy this year. Wife and I have been shopping solar solutions for hot water and home heating since we have 100% southern exposure year-round. We are currently on LP gas since we are so remote that nobody will pipe nat-gas in to us. Geothermal is cost-provibitive for us as 50% of our back yard is granite 10-12" under the soil surface (living in the mountains has drawbacks). Plan to install July time frame.
So you see - we are not so far apart.
And personally, there's not a soul on the ballot for 2008 that I am pleased with - either side. But I'd not be thrilled to have W sign anything for me. He has lied to me several times, I don't trust him, and I don't respect him any more. I'd be more honored to have John Wayne or Carroll Shelby sign anything I had coming.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
There is indeed "dirty money" everywhere. But there are certainly opinions that differ from left-wing opinions you posted above.
You are welcome to believe that we are solely after the Iraqi oil all you want, if that is what you wish. I don't, and I was there. I served as a Plans Officer on the staff of the Civil Affairs Brigade that ran these sorts of things through most of 2006. The idea that we're trying to take their oil is simply looney-tunes.
On the flip-side, the idea that we'd like to see a steady, stable stream of Iraqi oil on the world market is absolutely true.
Bob
You are welcome to believe that we are solely after the Iraqi oil all you want, if that is what you wish. I don't, and I was there. I served as a Plans Officer on the staff of the Civil Affairs Brigade that ran these sorts of things through most of 2006. The idea that we're trying to take their oil is simply looney-tunes.
On the flip-side, the idea that we'd like to see a steady, stable stream of Iraqi oil on the world market is absolutely true.
Bob
Bob
You seem to be big on 'labels'. I vote either way (left, right) depending on my objective thoughts at the time. One thing that I am not is blinded by loyalty to any party or government entity or any organisation.
That's fair enough, I didn't post the above articles without expecting some derision. But what if the articles were true? Most of the world knows there were never any weapons of mass destruction; that there had to be another reason why the US invaded Iraq. The biggest reason for war is invariably for money.
No matter your opinions, you cannot argue that the US control over Iraqi oil suits the US' economic prosperity... for the longer term. It's free money and the Iraqi invasion costs the US nothing.
And... the oil companies could well be innocent bystanders in the washup.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
Bob
You seem to be big on 'labels'. I vote either way (left, right) depending on my objective thoughts at the time. One thing that I am not is blinded by loyalty to any party or government entity or any organisation.
That's fair enough, I didn't post the above articles without expecting some derision. But what if the articles were true? Most of the world knows there were never any weapons of mass destruction; that there had to be another reason why the US invaded Iraq. The biggest reason for war is invariably for money.
No matter your opinions, you cannot argue that the US control over Iraqi oil suits the US' economic prosperity... for the longer term. It's free money and the Iraqi invasion costs the US nothing.
And... the oil companies could well be innocent bystanders in the washup.
You seem to be big on 'labels'. I vote either way (left, right) depending on my objective thoughts at the time. One thing that I am not is blinded by loyalty to any party or government entity or any organisation.
That's fair enough, I didn't post the above articles without expecting some derision. But what if the articles were true? Most of the world knows there were never any weapons of mass destruction; that there had to be another reason why the US invaded Iraq. The biggest reason for war is invariably for money.
No matter your opinions, you cannot argue that the US control over Iraqi oil suits the US' economic prosperity... for the longer term. It's free money and the Iraqi invasion costs the US nothing.
And... the oil companies could well be innocent bystanders in the washup.
I think the Oil will be the fiancial backbone of that country. I hope it was part of the foresight of a post bathist regeime. At the same time there was very little post war planning. I dont think anyone denies that we hope Iraq turns on the spikets and break OPECs back as Bob mentioned. Maybe even cut us a decent deal. But in the end ist not ours
If that country could sustain itself on its own resources (Oil) it would be a beautiful thing...
To answer the origional question. Yes OPEC is definately manipulating prices through supply, and the oil companies by limiting refinaries. They have a monopoly. They backed off production during the Clinton Administration when they accidently produced too much. Those were the years gas dropped less than $1 a gallon because OPEC screwed up. OPEC said that would not happen again acording to a radio station I was listening to at the time. In additioin to OPEC keeping supply artificially low, the US companies as I understand it are keeping the refinaries at a minimum. I was told they could make more refinaries however that would defeat the purpose of the higher profits. Why would they the demand is the same either way? To that end yes I believe they are definately fixed.
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; Feb 11, 2008 at 07:44 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Are you F*&^in kidding me??? That arguement is so rediculous the US democrats who were shouting we went to war to plunder oil in the first place have done a 180 and are now spouting what Iraq is COSTING the US. In a moronic turn of events in their own(US elected Dem leaders) collapsed logic and total ignorance they took the exact opposite stance that the war is costing the US lives and money because there was no post war stradegy. To say that Iraqi oil is a finacial benefit, would totally destroy the leftist view of what the war has cost us. A view that is not denied by the republicans because they agree, they just feel a democratic stable Iraq will be worth it in the end. If it was true that the US was there to steal oil it would have still been spouted by the Dem party. ESPECIALLY if it would get them elected. It would be a sure fire win to prove thier origional war for oil theory. In stark contrast, they are yelling about the untold dollars it is costing the US hoping the world has A.D.D. on the whole war for oil theory.
I think the Oil will be the fiancial backbone of that country. I hope it was part of the foresight of a post bathist regeime. At the same time there was very little post war planning. I dont think anyone denies that we hope Iraq turns on the spikets and break OPECs back as Bob mentioned. Maybe even cut us a decent deal. But in the end ist not ours
If that country could sustain itself on its own resources (Oil) it would be a beautiful thing...
To answer the origional question. Yes OPEC is definately manipulating prices through supply, and the oil companies by limiting refinaries. They have a monopoly. They backed off production during the Clinton Administration when they accidently produced too much. Those were the years gas dropped less than $1 a gallon because OPEC screwed up. OPEC said that would not happen again acording to a radio station I was listening to at the time. In additioin to OPEC keeping supply artificially low, the US companies as I understand it are keeping the refinaries at a minimum. I was told they could make more refinaries however that would defeat the purpose of the higher profits. Why would they the demand is the same either way? To that end yes I believe they are definately fixed.
I think the Oil will be the fiancial backbone of that country. I hope it was part of the foresight of a post bathist regeime. At the same time there was very little post war planning. I dont think anyone denies that we hope Iraq turns on the spikets and break OPECs back as Bob mentioned. Maybe even cut us a decent deal. But in the end ist not ours
If that country could sustain itself on its own resources (Oil) it would be a beautiful thing...
To answer the origional question. Yes OPEC is definately manipulating prices through supply, and the oil companies by limiting refinaries. They have a monopoly. They backed off production during the Clinton Administration when they accidently produced too much. Those were the years gas dropped less than $1 a gallon because OPEC screwed up. OPEC said that would not happen again acording to a radio station I was listening to at the time. In additioin to OPEC keeping supply artificially low, the US companies as I understand it are keeping the refinaries at a minimum. I was told they could make more refinaries however that would defeat the purpose of the higher profits. Why would they the demand is the same either way? To that end yes I believe they are definately fixed.
I would hope your political views DO NOT cloud your ability to think objectively. This thread is not about about which is the better political party. There could be deeper implications than just the oil companies here... and you, my friend, could be getting swindled from sources you thought you could trust.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
I would hope your political views DO NOT cloud your ability to think objectively. This thread is not about about which is the better political party. There could be deeper implications than just the oil companies here... and you, my friend, could be getting swindled from sources you thought you could trust.
"Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – have already hedged their bets, refusing to promise that, if elected, they would remove American forces from Iraq before 2013, the end of their first term."
Clinton and Obama have hitched their wagons to the "How fast can we get out of Iraq" train. Edwards is no longer in the race. Obama has already said he would give a timeline, where as Clinton was quoted today on CNN as saying she would considering 1 brigade a month leaving Iraq pending being briefed on the situation. I believe they mean it about withdrawing from Iraq and its one of my biggest reasons for voting against them.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dylan Latshaw
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
7
Mar 21, 2015 09:48 AM
armedtrigger
LT1 Based Engine Tech
10
Feb 24, 2015 08:30 PM
Alex Barnes
LT1 Based Engine Tech
16
Jan 24, 2015 10:21 PM