Google sponsored links
Weekend Edition Sunday, October 9, 2005 · As President Bush encourages Americans to conserve fuel, some speculate that the nation might see a renaissance in bike commuting. Andy Clark, executive director of the League of American Bicyclists, discusses the prospects with Liane Hansen.
The program can be listened to here.....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4951898
It's an old story, yes, but doods! I'd really like to hear what you think!
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Well the increasing gas price may indeed motivate some folks to go two wheels vice four.
I know my son has expressed new found interesting in cycling.
While I don't think I'm seeing an uptick in bike commuters, this winter, I have had the odd feeling that drivers are being nicer to me. I have to cross a busy street on my commute, and I'm finding that cars are slowing more and sooner when they see me to make it a bit easier to get across. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I have wondered if the drivers were seeing me as someone actually doing something to reduce demand for gas, and so worthy of a break.
It would be nice if it was real and common.
Speedo
Who's Serge?
/slips away quietly like a ninja
Weekend Edition Sunday, October 9, 2005 · As President Bush encourages Americans to conserve fuel, some speculate that the nation might see a renaissance in bike commuting. Andy Clark, executive director of the League of American Bicyclists, discusses the prospects with Liane Hansen.
The program can be listened to here.....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4951898
It's an old story, yes, but doods! I'd really like to hear what you think!
Did they raise the question of why the president cycles around his private cycle track, yet refuses to help out any other cyclists not going to school? Because that would be a great way the president could have over the last seven years find a solid way to reduce demand.
Who's Serge?
/slips away quietly like a ninja
Serge Savard - used to play for the Montreal Canadiens
Serge Savard - used to play for the Montreal Canadiens
A&S deserves its own Serge. Hmmmm....
At least it wasn't spelled "Sarge"... then I'd think it would be a cop or soldier trying to enforce bike commuter rules.
At least it wasn't spelled "Sarge"... then I'd think it would be a cop or soldier trying to enforce bike commuter rules.
Wasn't there a Sergeant Lunker who used to post here at one time?
Although he may have been here to go fishing...and mistakenly thought a reel was a wheel.
East Hill
LOL
Best internet misspell ever!
Either that or the most adept play on words, especially for A&S. Woulda even been better in VC
-D
Well, of course, "serge" is phonetically correct, and it's likely to even pass a spellcheck (it does on my computer).
Plus, it's been a few years since the soda pop called Surge left the market (it's supposedly been repackaged and renamed Vault), so that example of correct spelling & usage is gone.
*edit* okay, NOW that I check the link, I see that NPR spelled it correctly.. ;)
Another story that was on the same page:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5372121
"What Constitutes Price-Gouging in the Oil Industry?"
"With gas prices passing $3 a gallon, accusations of price-gouging are common. But what exactly is price-gouging? How is it defined? And are the oil companies guilty of it?"
Another story that was on the same page:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5372121
"What Constitutes Price-Gouging in the Oil Industry?"
"With gas prices passing $3 a gallon, accusations of price-gouging are common. But what exactly is price-gouging? How is it defined? And are the oil companies guilty of it?"
I happened to be thinking about this last night and got to wondering... the oil companies are telling us that they have raised the price of gas to reflect the cost of buying high priced oil... yet they then post record high profits. Profits are what is left after you pay for the cost of raw materials from the revenue you bring in based on the goods sold.... If the price of gas reflects the high cost of oil, there should not be a "record profit" as the goods out price is only reflecting the change in materials cost... so there is no net change. But apparently that is NOT true for oil companies... as the result has been "record profits."
I lost all -- and I mean ALL -- trust in the legitimacy of pump prices when I saw them jump 20 cents in one day in the mid-1990's simply because of some bad news from Iraq.
I thought to myself, "There's no way in hell that the oil supply got that much tighter and affected the drillers and refineries and distribution channels and the gas station itself in less than 24 hours. There's a buffer zone somewhere, but these jackholes are just hoping to make a buck off of the panic."
Here I thought we were going to discuss new Commuter clothes made from Serge- a durable twilled fabric having a smooth clear face and a pronounced diagonal rib on the front and the back. :(
Plus, it's been a few years since the soda pop called Surge left the market (it's supposedly been repackaged and renamed Vault), so that example of correct spelling & usage is gone.
Not quite the same stuff. http://www.savesurge.org/ www.vaultkicks.org.
I think the price of fuel is not going to change much about the way Americans use motor vehicles. It will have some effect on the types of new vehicles purchased, but won't generate any new surge in bicycle commuting. Most people would rather pay more and kvetch, and kvetch with the nozzle in hand, than make any positive changes.
I lost all -- and I mean ALL -- trust in the legitimacy of pump prices when I saw them jump 20 cents in one day in the mid-1990's simply because of some bad news from Iraq.
I thought to myself, "There's no way in hell that the oil supply got that much tighter and affected the drillers and refineries and distribution channels and the gas station itself in less than 24 hours. There's a buffer zone somewhere, but these jackholes are just hoping to make a buck off of the panic."
The free market economy depends on everyone charging as high a price as the market will bear for everything that is bought and sold.
It's true for everything from paper clips to New York real estate, from a pound of apples to a pound of gold. From an hour of a plumber's time to an hour of George Clooney's time to an hour of Bill Gates' time. Why should oil/gas be any different?
Seriously. Can someone please answer this question? I know you want to ignore it, but please don't. Give it some thought. Give me an answer. What's wrong, morally or economically, in oil companies, refineries, gas deliverers and gas stations from charging as much as they can possibly get at every step along the way?
How are pump prices any less "legitimate" when they reflect the highest price the market will bear?
If anything, if the pump prices are anything other than the highest price the market will bear is what would make them "illegitimate".
I think gas would have to get pretty expensive. To save money bike commuting you have to actually do it a lot, or already own suitable equipment. Most people have a bike, but they lack:
1. A way to carry their crap.
2. Clothing to deal with heat, rain, and cold.
3. Lights.
They quickly realize they need these things and that bike commuting is somewhat difficult (just like exercise), then decide they'd rather stay home on friday night than bike commute all week.
That's my guess about it. Of course, some small percentage will start bike commuting. Maybe even a quarter of a percent! So we'll pretty much double the number of bike commuters ;).
A discussion with HH:
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
:rolleyes:
I lost all -- and I mean ALL -- trust in the legitimacy of pump prices when I saw them jump 20 cents in one day in the mid-1990's simply because of some bad news from Iraq.
I thought to myself, "There's no way in hell that the oil supply got that much tighter and affected the drillers and refineries and distribution channels and the gas station itself in less than 24 hours. There's a buffer zone somewhere, but these jackholes are just hoping to make a buck off of the panic."
The free market economy depends on everyone charging as high a price as the market will bear for everything that is bought and sold.
It's true for everything from paper clips to New York real estate, from a pound of apples to a pound of gold. From an hour of a plumber's time to an hour of George Clooney's time to an hour of Bill Gates' time. Why should oil/gas be any different?
Seriously. Can someone please answer this question? I know you want to ignore it, but please don't. Give it some thought. Give me an answer. What's wrong, morally or economically, in oil companies, refineries, gas deliverers and gas stations from charging as much as they can possibly get at every step along the way?
How are pump prices any less "legitimate" when they reflect the highest price the market will bear?
If anything, if the pump prices are anything other than the highest price the market will bear is what would make them "illegitimate".
A discussion with HH:
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
:rolleyes:
No, it isn't. :p
I was wondering how you would dodge the questions.
I guess you don't like to be questioned about the assertions you make, no matter how ridiculous they are. Why do you even bother making them then?
Well, of course, "serge" is phonetically correct, and it's likely to even pass a spellcheck (it does on my computer).
Well sure it will. Because Serge is a real word, if you are talking about fabrics.
-D
The free market economy depends on everyone charging as high a price as the market will bear for everything that is bought and sold.
It's true for everything from paper clips to New York real estate, from a pound of apples to a pound of gold. From an hour of a plumber's time to an hour of George Clooney's time to an hour of Bill Gates' time. Why should oil/gas be any different?
Seriously. Can someone please answer this question? I know you want to ignore it, but please don't. Give it some thought. Give me an answer. What's wrong, morally or economically, in oil companies, refineries, gas deliverers and gas stations from charging as much as they can possibly get at every step along the way?
How are pump prices any less "legitimate" when they reflect the highest price the market will bear?
If anything, if the pump prices are anything other than the highest price the market will bear is what would make them "illegitimate".
Free market also means competition without collusion, manipulation, price fixing etc..., but in the case of certain industries we have natural monopoly or oligopoly in the case of the oil companies. In the past they have tried to collude with each other to limit the refining capacity to increase their profits which would be morally, ethically, and legally wrong to do... do a search.
If you look at their 10Q you'll notice the refining profit margin increased 50% when the oil price was actually going down in the past which was explained away by import of gasoline and lack of refining capacity. So basically we are getting higher gasoline prices no matter if oil goes up or down due to increased demand and artificial supply constraint.
"The global fundamentals of the refining industry remained strong during 2007. Continued demand growth in developing areas such as India and China and global political concerns supported high prices for crude oil and refined products. In the U.S., refining margins remained above historical levels during the first half of 2007 in part due to the following:
• continued gasoline and diesel demand growth coupled with limited production capacity;
• lower refinery utilization due to heavy industry turnaround activity and unplanned outages;
• low product inventories;
• a continuing reliance on gasoline imports; and
• new lower sulfur standards for non-road diesel, which went into effect on June 1, 2007. "
Free market also means competition without collusion, manipulation, price fixing etc..., but in the case of certain industries we have natural monopoly or oligopoly in the case of the oil companies. In the past they have tried to collude with each other to limit the refining capacity to increase their profits which would be morally, ethically, and legally wrong to do... do a search.
If you look at their 10Q you'll notice the refining profit margin increased 50% when the oil price was actually going down in the past which was explained away by import of gasoline and lack of refining capacity. So basically we are getting higher gasoline prices no matter if oil goes up or down due to increased demand and artificial supply constraint.
"The global fundamentals of the refining industry remained strong during 2007. Continued demand growth in developing areas such as India and China and global political concerns supported high prices for crude oil and refined products. In the U.S., refining margins remained above historical levels during the first half of 2007 in part due to the following:
• continued gasoline and diesel demand growth coupled with limited production capacity;
• lower refinery utilization due to heavy industry turnaround activity and unplanned outages;
• low product inventories;
• a continuing reliance on gasoline imports; and
• new lower sulfur standards for non-road diesel, which went into effect on June 1, 2007. "
You only hear this stuff when prices are rising.
Yet oil/gas prices do drop from time to time. Why would those colluding *******s ever do that?
Look, the problem is the difference between "what the market will bear" and a company -- or worse, a collection of companies in the same industry -- taking advantage of a situation.
Saying "what the market will bear" had not a flippin' thing to do with that 20¢/gal overnight increase. That was a load of crap. You walk into any other store and see a price jump like that, and you'll ask the clerk WTF happened.
Oil companies ***** and moan about how they're screwed, how they can't do this or that, how they need to drill into your backyard to get to that last drop of oil, and yet they're reaping record profits. They're even able to throw away money for certain executives' retirement packages (what'd that Exxon pig get, $250 mil? *google* oh damn, $400+ million...).
They know that people will buy gas no matter what. They know that people can't shop around very easily; and even if they try, all the station owners are in cahoots anyway.
It's completely anti-consumer.
What hypothetical scenario can I use...
Okay, I own a bike helmet company. My other helmet company-owning buds -- "competing" companies, mind you -- get together for golf & beers every weekend. One day, we learn that every jurisdiction in the country has declared that all cyclists must wear a helmet.
We decide the next day that we'll raise our prices by 30%. But, we agree, it'll look suspicious if we all go up by the same amount. So, we play rock-paper-scissors, and the loser has to raise his prices the least -- he'll bump his by 28%. I luck out and get to raise mine by 35%.
Cyclists (especially the ones with names rhyming with "Helmet Head") whine. They say we're gouging them. We say that we have to increase production, .. um, we have to retool for new regulations, uh... we have to pay increased prices for raw materials... um... yeah, that's right. It's just going to cost more, so HTFU.
Our price increases, from then on, will work like the NFL draft. Next year, the guy who lost rock-paper-scissors gets to bump his prices by the largest amount, while I rotate down to second-largest. This way, we're all doing uneven jumps, although everybody still gets to make a ton more money.
You do remember Standard Oil, right?
You only hear this stuff when prices are rising.
Yet oil/gas prices do drop from time to time. Why would those colluding *******s ever do that?
To keep from looking like they're fixing prices, that's what.
Oh, gas dropped 4 cents a gallon this week, I heard... :rolleyes:
I think gas would have to get pretty expensive. To save money bike commuting you have to actually do it a lot, or already own suitable equipment. Most people have a bike, but they lack:
1. A way to carry their crap.
2. Clothing to deal with heat, rain, and cold.
3. Lights.
They quickly realize they need these things and that bike commuting is somewhat difficult (just like exercise), then decide they'd rather stay home on friday night than bike commute all week.
That's my guess about it. Of course, some small percentage will start bike commuting. Maybe even a quarter of a percent! So we'll pretty much double the number of bike commuters ;).
I think you're right, I've noticed more people riding on the MUP this winter then anytime in the past.
...and artificial supply constraint.
Search around some more and you'll see that this same principle applies to diamonds.
Hey, if your company controls the entire supply of a gem, you'd hype it up beyond belief too, right?
Well sure it will. Because Serge is a real word, if you are talking about fabrics.
-D
All the talk about dri-fit, Merino wool, and who-knows-what-else, and the new commuter fabric of choice is...
serge?
;)
Gee, record profits in the oil business! The scandal! :rolleyes:
What is "reasonable" profit? Who is it that sets the price in a competitive market?
Since when has the cost of production had any relationship to the price fetched except to provide a floor by which the product is no longer produced? What is the production cost of a Microsoft operating system? :eek: Or that bottled water packaged in a 16 ounce container? Who is holding a gun to their customers heads, anyway? In both of these examples they have competition that is offering a similar product for FREE! What kind of profit margin do you suppose Microsoft and water vendors have?
It is the purchaser that sets the price, every time. The buyer has decided that the product in question is worth the price asked, given his alternatives. If he feels the price asked is too dear, he simply refuses to buy it.
If gasoline is too expensive, don't buy it. If you choose to buy it, you are agreeing it is a fair price by your actions, so stop your whining! (This comment is only directed at the whiners. You know who you are.;))
I don't see anything wrong with raising gas prices, they should be raised until profits go down. As much as they can get. If you don'y like it,use less, or use none. If enough people do it, prices will come down.
I've never heard it, but I wonder if when most of the little independent gas stations went out of buisness in the late 90's, mostly due to the cost of EPA mandated double walled tanks, if an important type of price control was lost at that point?
What is "reasonable" profit? Who is it that sets the price in a competitive market?
That's the trick, though -- it's not even a "competitive" market.
It is the purchaser that sets the price, every time. The buyer has decided that the product in question is worth the price asked, given his alternatives. If he feels the price asked is too dear, he simply refuses to buy it.
If gasoline is too expensive, don't buy it. If you choose to buy it, you are agreeing it is a fair price by your actions, so stop your whining!
The buyer has no alternatives. They've got whatever they're driving, and they have to keep making that 40-mile commute so that they can put food on the table. No matter what gas station they choose (ironically, too, the ones nearest the highway -- thereby the easiest to support with fuel supplies -- cost the most), it's going to cost no different than maybe a nickel compared to the other station down the street.
It's like you're lying there on the hospital bed plugged into a dialysis machine, except that every day, it costs more and more to run the machine. What are you going to do, get another machine? Oh, sorry, that one costs just as much to run.
You only hear this stuff when prices are rising.
Yet oil/gas prices do drop from time to time. Why would those colluding *******s ever do that?
Because they don't control oil prices, the oligopoly OPEC does. Gasoline they do control and you have to ask them why they move the price the way do.
You do remember Standard Oil, right?
Well, that was a timely example! :p:p
BarracksSi, were you even born by the time Standard Oil was broken up?
Well, that was a timely example! :p:p
BarracksSi, were you even born by the time Standard Oil was broken up?
I don't have to be BORN back then to know about the history. You're not so much of an idiot that you can't understand that, are you?
To reiterate (and it's true, you'll notice):
A discussion with HH:
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is."
"No it isn't."
:rolleyes:
While I don't think I'm seeing an uptick in bike commuters, this winter, I have had the odd feeling that drivers are being nicer to me. I have to cross a busy street on my commute, and I'm finding that cars are slowing more and sooner when they see me to make it a bit easier to get across. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I have wondered if the drivers were seeing me as someone actually doing something to reduce demand for gas, and so worthy of a break.
Funny you say this . . . I've been thinking the same thing. Who knows, maybe one day it will be "cool" to ride a bike (in others' eyes).
Gee, record profits in the oil business! The scandal! :rolleyes:
What is "reasonable" profit? Who is it that sets the price in a competitive market?
Since when has the cost of production had any relationship to the price fetched except to provide a floor by which the product is no longer produced? What is the production cost of a Microsoft operating system? :eek: Or that bottled water packaged in a 16 ounce container? Who is holding a gun to their customers heads, anyway? In both of these examples they have competition that is offering a similar product for FREE! What kind of profit margin do you suppose Microsoft and water vendors have?
It is the purchaser that sets the price, every time. The buyer has decided that the product in question is worth the price asked, given his alternatives. If he feels the price asked is too dear, he simply refuses to buy it.
If gasoline is too expensive, don't buy it. If you choose to buy it, you are agreeing it is a fair price by your actions, so stop your whining! (This comment is only directed at the whiners. You know who you are.;))
I don't care about the oil companies making tons of money from oil, they don't control oil prices. It would be nice to remove the 12billion subsidy though when the price has gone from $10 to $100 when it was set up.
The problem is how they manipulate the gasoline market which they do control.
That's the trick, though -- it's not even a "competitive" market.
Gee, how many companies does it take to make a market competitive? Would 400 be enough? That happens to be how many petroleum companies are operating in the USA.
The buyer has no alternatives. They've got whatever they're driving, and they have to keep making that 40-mile commute so that they can put food on the table. No matter what gas station they choose (ironically, too, the ones nearest the highway -- thereby the easiest to support with fuel supplies -- cost the most), it's going to cost no different than maybe a nickel compared to the other station down the street.
No alternatives? What planet do you live on? He can switch to propane/natural gas, alcohol or electricly powered vehicle. He could roller-skate, bicycle or use a scooter. He could ride a horse. He could locate closer to work. He can drive down the block and save a nickle a gallon.
This imaginary fellow you have constructed may decide that the price of fuel, given his available alternatives, is reasonable. We can know that this is true if he actually buys some. It does not mean that he has no alternatives, it means that the alternatives are perceived by him to be more costly than the prevailing price of fuel.
If everyone in town purchased their fuel at the lowest price station exclusively, would that not drive down the price at the other stations? Let's turn it around. If you owned 10,000 gallons of gasoline, would you rather sell it for $4 a gallon or $3 a gallon? If folks are buying your gas for a nickel more than the fella down the street, why should you lower your price?
It's like you're lying there on the hospital bed plugged into a dialysis machine, except that every day, it costs more and more to run the machine. What are you going to do, get another machine? Oh, sorry, that one costs just as much to run.
:p Gasoline is equivalent to a life sustaining medical procedure? You can do better than that, surely!
What does "manipulate the gasoline market" mean?
Even if there is only one oil company do you think it would set the price at $100/gallon? No, because people would start carpooling, bike riding, bus using, working from home, and buying electric/hybrid cars so much and so fast that they would have to lower the price to make more money.
The optimum price for anything is that price that produces the greatest profits. If they charge more than the optimum amount, then they lose money because they don't sell enough. If they charge less, then they lose money because they sell everything that is available too quickly.
This is true whether there is "true competition", a monopoly or an oligopoly.
Oil/gas prices more or less reflect what the market will bear, just like anything else.
And the higher the price, the more economically feasible alternatives becomes.
I'm surprised some of you aren't blaming the oil companies for colluding on keep gas prices low in order to keep alternatives-to-oil economically infeasible.
All this whining about oil/gas prices amounts to nothing more than justification for even more worthless and highly expensive government regulation which can do nothing but make matters worse.
Because they don't control oil prices, the oligopoly OPEC does. Gasoline they do control and you have to ask them why they move the price the way do.
Why would you ask? They obviously move the price they way they do for the same reasons lanyone else would do: in order to maximize profits.
Would you expect them to do otherwise?
I really don't get it.
I don't see anything wrong with raising gas prices, they should be raised until profits go down. As much as they can get. If you don'y like it,use less, or use none. If enough people do it, prices will come down.
I've never heard it, but I wonder if when most of the little independent gas stations went out of buisness in the late 90's, mostly due to the cost of EPA mandated double walled tanks, if an important type of price control was lost at that point?
It's the independent refiners that got bought out and merged in the 90's that is the problem, thats where the famous memo of oil companies trying to limit refining capacity by colluding with each other.
If you noticed each time regulators fail to act on lack of evidence we seem to be getting gouged even harder. This was in 2004 ... $1.78 ;)
""To date, we have identified no instances of collusion between petroleum companies," said William Kovacic, general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission, in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.
"That does not mean that collusion cannot occur, which is why the agency continues to be vigilant in pursuing its enforcement mission," Kovacic added.
The Senate panel held a hearing on rising gasoline prices, which the Energy Department said hit a record high this week of $1.78 a gallon.
Kovacic said the FTC is monitoring wholesale and retail gasoline costs in cities throughout the United States looking for "pricing anomalies."
In a related matter, the FTC said it is evaluating Royal Dutch/Shell Group's decision to shut down an oil refinery in California, but has not implemented an official investigation.
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon had asked the agency in February to look into the matter after raising concerns that closing the Bakersfield, Calif., refinery would hurt competition and boost the price of gasoline on the West Coast."
It's the independent refiners that got bought out and merged in the 90's that is the problem, thats where the famous memo of oil companies trying to limit refining capacity by colluding with each other.
If you noticed each time regulators fail to act on lack of evidence we seem to be getting gouged even harder. This was in 2004 ... $1.78 ;)
""To date, we have identified no instances of collusion between petroleum companies," said William Kovacic, general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission, in written testimony to the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.
"That does not mean that collusion cannot occur, which is why the agency continues to be vigilant in pursuing its enforcement mission," Kovacic added.
The Senate panel held a hearing on rising gasoline prices, which the Energy Department said hit a record high this week of $1.78 a gallon.
Kovacic said the FTC is monitoring wholesale and retail gasoline costs in cities throughout the United States looking for "pricing anomalies."
In a related matter, the FTC said it is evaluating Royal Dutch/Shell Group's decision to shut down an oil refinery in California, but has not implemented an official investigation.
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon had asked the agency in February to look into the matter after raising concerns that closing the Bakersfield, Calif., refinery would hurt competition and boost the price of gasoline on the West Coast."
Why the heck is the FTC evaluating a private company's decision to shut down its own private facility??? It's their responsibility to make the decisions required to maximized profits for that company, including whether to shut down a refinery, for whatever reason (or no reason) they want.
Why would you ask? They obviously move the price they way they do for the same reasons lanyone else would do: in order to maximize profits.
Would you expect them to do otherwise?
I really don't get it.
No I don't expect them to do anything else, moral and ethical behaviour is out of fashion in the business world, the problem I have is with our regulators and President Bush's lack of leadership.
I don't have to be BORN back then to know about the history. You're not so much of an idiot that you can't understand that, are you?
I see that sarcasm is lost on you. Pity.
The thrust of my comment was that citing an example of monopolistic behavior from 80 or so years ago to support your contention that monopolistic price fixing is a current phenomenon undercuts your argument. You would agree with that wouldn't you?
Secondly, it is a historical fallacy that Standard Oil was abusing it's monopoly. After the government intervention to protect the general population from Standard Oil, prices paid did not decline. I agree one need not to have observed the event to know about it. One should, however, know something about the event if he were to cite it as an example. Too bad you don't know much about Standard Oil.
Why the heck is the FTC evaluating a private company's decision to shut down its own private facility??? It's their responsibility to make the decisions required to maximized profits for that company, including whether to shut down a refinery, for whatever reason (or no reason) they want.
That's a dumb question. if you can prove they did it to increase profits then it would probally be illegal. FTC like our other regulatory body is inept in consumer protection.
No I don't expect them to do anything else, moral and ethical behaviour is out of fashion in the business world, the problem I have is with our regulators and President Bush's lack of leadership.
What do you expect the regulators and Bush to do? Tell them they can't do whatever it takes - as long as it is legal - to maximize profits?
Do you think they are violating any laws? Like what? If they are, that's a law enforcement matter, not a regulation matter.
We'd be better off if we fired all the regulators and kept Washington's eyes and noses out of the oil business.
Then the lobbyists would have no reason to descend on D.C. to bribe half of them to pass mutually contradictory laws that ultimately do little if anything but add a whole bunch of unnecessary cost to the system.
I know one Serge that doesn't do nearly enough bicycle commuting...
:p
That's a dumb question. if you can prove they did it to increase profits then it would probally be illegal. FTC like our other regulatory body is inept in consumer protection.
WTF? It's illegal to make a business decision in order to increase profits?
Huh. I better return that new stove I just replaced in the condo we're renting and get that old one back from the junkyard. After all, I spent $500 so I could increase the rent by $50 and thus increase my profit. According to you that's illegal. :rolleyes:
Know what I love about this crap --
I can now just sit back and let the real idiots expose themselves.
Same thing is still happening in a VC thread.
Lets hope that the new administration collects better and more timely data on bicycle commuting and ways to increase bike use. Right now the best data comes from bike sales, which where way up last year. Lets hope that we get more infrastructure built long before they start cranking out "green" Hummers. Most commuters have less than 6 mile commute. Not very difficult, with a bit of practice and minor commitment.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.