I have a monopoly for you Kemp!

The Government!

*muwahahahahaha*

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> > ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> "Care to provide an example of this?

Well, as gasoline prices have risen to their highest prices ever, it is clear that any and every gasoline boycott effort has been ineffectual."

Oh, and gasoline is the ONLY fuel out there? You are taking a product that only has a limited production (I am talking refinement here, not raw oil), increase demand (and I would need to look, but since there ARE cars in places like North Korea, and as people get disposable income they can, and at least where I am from, a family will own more than 1 car), and you get a shift in the price of the product. Is this corporate greed? Well since there IS (I noticed this is a point later, so I will cover it more there) competition in the oil industry, you can choose to go to a competitor if you feel like you are being ripped off.

So lets break this down (I hope Zarf will help me out here):

Step 1: Global oil companies (BP and Shell just to name 2) extract oil from many different countries in the world. Certain other countries (I am not sure, but certain middle east countries, Saudi Arabia for example) may even be state-owned enterprises.

Situation: A daily amount of crude oil is produced (this is finite, unless you expand the drilling operations). This supply amount can drop, through warfare, natural disasters, etc, and this affects prices.

Step 2: Refining companies (and this is NOT a monopoly in the US) PURCHASE oil at the going rate (which does fluctuate) and then refines this crude oil down to its various byproducts, one of them being Gasoline.

Situation: A still limited amount of gasoline is produced globally each day.

Step 3: The consumer then buys the finished product. A consumer has the chose to shop at any one of the service stations that they choose, but because this is subject to supply and demand, the refining companies are subject to global markets. This is NOT a monopoly, and at each stage there are other competitors from the supply of crude oil to the refining and as well as the service station that provides the finished product.

Now, I will go further to say, do you NEED fuel for your car? Can you ride a bike? If you do decide you need fuel, do you get priority over others? Lets say that we go "well, the supply of oil is all a farse, and the price is so overinflated that we make sure NOONE profits off oil products". Price drops, which means that more people in the world can now afford fuel. The same amount of fuel is being produced (less if you factor in that unkeep, maintainence, exploration and drilling will all stop since people will have no incentive to), but demand goes up. Do we now start fuel rationing? OR does it go back to the same system where supply and demand dictate prices.

Supply and demand also plays into what I have been saying. A consumer, unhappy with the statis quo, decides not to buy their product. Demand has just dropped (albiet slightly, but demand did drop). Chances are, that you are not the only person unhappy about the cost of that item/business practice/whatever (and if we are talking the price of fuel, it is a fairly standard concern for most people). Supply stays the same (and remember, there is competition every step of the way) whilst demand drops, which leads to a competitive war between suppliers trying to sell of their products.

"Hmmmm....do I need to spell it out to you...I. AM. EMPOWERED. TO. BUY. WHAT. I. NEED. FROM. WHO. I. CHOSE. TO. BUY. IT. FROM!

Wornstrum, what happens if there is only ONE company selling what you need?  How could you possibly be empowered by your vote with your wallet?"

Ok, if it is a need, chances are that more than one company is selling a similar the same product. I am still waiting on an example of a monopoly of the publics needs.

""I do not go down the idealistic path of "the perfect world will be like this..."

You are an idealist in the sense that you think the system we have is the best possible system.  This is idealism if I have ever seen it."

Now you are changing what I have said. Do not equate "I disagree with you" to "the current system is perfect". I raised points and concerns regarding your stance, explained countermeasures, and was met by nothing but statements with no basis AND claims of being an idealist. You have taken any counter argument to the extreme.

""There are anti-monopoly laws designed to stop a monopoly taking over and forcing you to buy price-inflated products"

Products like, oh, maybe GAS?"

Crude Oil producing countries (these are all off the top of my head):
- Iran
- Iraq
- Libya
- The US
- Saudi Arabia
- Russia
- Heck, even Australia has oil rigs.

Refining companies (again, all off the top of my head):
- BP
- Shell
- Chevron

Fuel stations:
- Can be owned by the refinement company, or by small business owners (at least in Free economies...socialist nations, ie China, is still state-owned I believe)

So, you will need to be more specific as to how "GAS" is a monopoly...

""free market"

We don't have a "free market" and never had.  For instance, take a look at the monopoly which is the central banking system and how it clearly supposed to 'manage the economy' with its monetary policy:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-20/bernanke-returns-to-academic-roots-to-justify-fed-s-existence.html   They espouse the free market system out one side of the mouth allowing for unfettered investing in derivatives which spurned the financial meltdown in 2008, and yet espouse managing the economy on through the other vis a vis their trillions paid in bailouts to the banks."

Anyone here happy about the bank bailouts? *asks the audience* Ok, lets leave that aside whilst the audience thinks about it and I will tackle the rest of this. Firstly, that article has nothing about the monopoly of the central bank, but is entirely about the Bernanke giving lectures on its importance. "

I have another monopoly for Kemp. Marriage!

V.Kemp you get an official warning for not respecting the forum rules:
http://www.imperialconflict.com/explain.php?what=forum_rules
Repeated offenses will result in a ban

"With less linking to domain sales with price listings. (rule #9)"

Whoops, my bad...I did close that whole thread for that very reason (as well as the multiple thread for spamming) (I also completely forgot to remove the website, thank you for bringing that to my attention).

"You're doing a good job."

Thank you, your kind words mean a lot

"Consumer demand is of little effect to this price because it is GLOBAL consumer demand.  If the US boycotted oil purchases for a year, how much would the price of oil change, do you think?"

You recognize there is a global demand, yet you refuse to recognize the consumer's role in driving that global demand? There were 3.2 million cars in China in 1985 [1] and over 100 million today [2], you don't think this has affected demand for gas a little bit?

[1] http://www.ecosoc.org.au/files/File/TAS/ACE07/presentations%20%28pdf%29/Deng.pdf

[2] http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2011-09/17/content_13725715.htm

"I don't see what here supports your notion that the consumer demand has any effect on the price.  Consumer demand is perpetually high, constant, regardless of the price.  Why?  Because at the end of the day, people will keep filling up regardless; they'll go into debt before changing their lifestyle.  Companies will go bankrupt rather than change their way of doing things."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/usa-gasoline-demand-idUSN9E7G300X20120403

See link. Your notion that gas is perfectly inelastic is false.

"Any difference in price is regional rather than between different gas-station companies."

Regional differences certainly are true, but within a region, company-company price differences also cannot be denied. My local Mobil is consistently and significantly more expensive than my local Arco. As far as I know, this is true in a radius of at least several hundred miles.

I am very busy today, so I won't go into too much detail about your post right now (will get back to it), but something I want to understand is:

""Let me ask you this Xeno, is there anything preventing you from creating your own company? And if so, please explain what is preventing you, or anyone else, from creating a company (currently, in the US)?"
Nope.  But there are plenty of forces which would prevent me from earning any profits by that activity."

"Are you denying that they will charge as much as they can get away with relative to the larger producer?  That is, if the larger producer is charging a certain amount, the rest will follow with prices more or less the same.  They operate like everybody else: gouge the consumer a little less than the other guy, or at least make it seem that they are gouging less."

So, and these are both taken from the same post, you are saying there are high margins of profit, yet you as a competitor are not able to compete? I find this rather strange. Furthermore, you even mentioned about keeping slightly lower prices with a competitor, but then the other competitors do the same, and that is how prices have found their balance. Furthermore, in Australia, they have the ACCC which actually monitors pricing of products to ensure that companies do not "gouge" customers.

""There are anti-monopoly laws designed to stop a monopoly taking over and forcing you to buy price-inflated products"
Since when did the speed limit stop people from speeding?"

Great analogy When people are caught speeding, they are punished, just the same as when a monopoly is caught they are also punished (as far as I understand monopoly laws). The great thing about this is, you are talking large scale companies, that are usually publically listed, and certainly watched by many.

"I don't see what here supports your notion that the consumer demand has any effect on the price.  Consumer demand is perpetually high, constant, regardless of the price.  Why?  Because at the end of the day, people will keep filling up regardless; they'll go into debt before changing their lifestyle.  Companies will go bankrupt rather than change their way of doing things."

If a company goes "bankrupt" because they refuse to change their ways, then I am sorry, that is their fault. You CANNOT change the way international trade operates to accomodate for poor business planning. Furthermore, and this covers a later topic also, there ARE other options to oil based products, but they are more expensive still (if you need examples of this, ethonol, LPG, Hydrogen). With these examples, the cost of production is actually higher than oil. So what you will see happen, is as the cost goes up (due to demand which you yourself recognised). Also, changing to public transport or riding a bike still uses LESS of the product, which means less money is still going into the product (and since less is being used, it would affect the amount of oil that would need to be imported into that country).

"The point of placing  the article was to show how Bernanke was having to justify the actions of the Fed to both those on the left and the right of the political spectrum who are beginning to see deficiencies with its recent functioning."

If that was your interpretation of that article, great. That article was only about Bernanke giving a lecture at a university (is he giving one at EVERY university? Is he giving them regularly? Is he going on a PR campaign? because none of this was mentioned in that article). I have also had 2 of the Prime Ministers of Australia visit my University, but doesn't mean that they are on a PR campaign trying to win support. I explained to you the need for a system, and you responded with "some people are unhappy with it". I can see how the Federal Reserve would be getting a lot of bad publicity lately, from the big bank bailouts, but is that REALLY the fault of the Federal Reserve? NO! My understanding (and I am limited in my understanding, because frankly, means nothing to me) is that banks (NOT the Federal Reserve) lent money to people who really couldn't afford to pay the interest. This created a lot of bad debt that the banks couldn't recover. In order to protect everyone else from losing their money as the banks close-up, the government stepped in with the bailouts. (If someone could clarify this for me, that would be awesome )

"What I am saying it is inelastic to consumer demand because consumer demand is a CONSTANT, NOT A VARIABLE (except insofar as it rises exponentially with population growth)."

Consumer demand IS a variable, because you can chose to use less of the product by switching to alternatives. "ooooo a bike still takes oil..." doesn't mean that the quantity of oil used remains the same. As the price goes up, people are either forced to look for alternatives, or to use less (public transport, buses). In both cases, it still affects regional demand, which in turn affects global demand.

"Those weren't my points.  If you are going to make veiled accusations as to my ideological slant, this discussion can end right now.  I am right-wing on some issues, left on others.  Do not try and label me this that or the other thing, for I find it insulting."

"I am suggesting the middle class needs to regain its political and financial prominence, for the sake of liberty, justice, equal opportunity (NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL OUTCOME, GOT IT FOR THE LAST [...] TIME?)."

I didn't label you as anything, but brought up one point (my own personal point) in which you happened to call me "ideolistic". I did spin this around on you, but I never once started on subscribing you to any field/group, it is not what I do. I pointed out that a free-market allows people to get rich, but it also is free in the sense that anyone can seek to gain wealth. Furthermore, what you are referring to there is actually a defence towards the comments of my "idealism", sooooooo, yeah...um...ok! Sure, I gave limited options, but part of a free-market is that some people will be richer than others, that is kind of the point. The political prominence, the whole point of liberty is that anyone can register to vote, and have their say in the ballot box. If I am not mistaken, everyone has that option in the US currently (yes?). Now, before you say anything about corrupt candidates, I will explain a little about the last Australian Federal election. The 2 main parties in the election did not gain enough seats to actually win control, simply because the voters confidence in both parties was low. What we did see was the Greens take a large number of seats, and actually held power of who got into government. What this meant, and a lot of people in Australia forget this, is that they are responsible for introducing the Carbon Tax (yes, any further discussion on Carbon Tax needs to end up in another forum) and was actually the complete opposite of the Labour party (which was the party that actually got in). I have no idea if in the US you have minority parties, but when voter confidence is low, often the minorities get votes (Independants, Greens, etc).

You haven't presented a case against my point at all, but instead took one industry, said that we have a dependence on that industry, and even agreed that the price is set on supply and demand (I am not saying the price of oil isn't elastic to other factors such as wars, embargoes, costs of production or shipping, etc..  What I am saying it is inelastic to consumer demand because consumer demand is a CONSTANT, NOT A VARIABLE (except insofar as it rises exponentially with population growth)). I did point out to you options that limit the use of such a product, you didn't want to hear that, and only pointed out that it still uses oil-based products (and since you are getting into the whole thing about money, buying a bicycle for me to ride would cost me maybe 2 weeks of petrol for my car. I think I would use my bike a lot more than 2 weeks). I also pointed out other industries that are alternatives, but then explained that the cost of production is too high to be competitive, which still makes oil the cheapest option. My point remains, that there are options (and I have not seen any monopolies on petrol in Australia, I can buy from many different service-stations, I can buy from different refining companies (about the only thing I can't do is select which country I buy from, but that shouldn't really matter in this discussion).

"That isn't what the global recession was about...it was over poor lending by the banks..."

You didn't mention government involvement, demanding that banks make really stupid loans and guaranteeing them. I hate you.

"yet you as a competitor are not able to compete?"

I am not saying it was the forces of competition that wouldn't allow me to earn profits.  There are other forces at work the revolve around the relatively higher costs of doing business.  The reason the larger company is large is because it can decrease the costs associated with doing business whereas the small company cannot.  Moreover, the larger companies have for years lobbied government to create a climate in which the larger business has the advantage in this regard.  The relative cost of borrowing, for example; the relative costs of licensing; relative costs of construction; the relative costs of virtually every facet of doing business is higher for the smaller company, WHILE the taxes on any profits are the same as if not more than the larger one.   

"in Australia, they have the ACCC"

Again, in virtually all countries they have traffic cops, and yet this doesn't stop people speeding.  The speed limit I could argue is useless, for most people would drive at a speed they are comfortable with regardless of what the speed limit were (that tends to be between 5 and 20 kmph where I am).  They do so because the road conditions and the curvature of the road are such that that speed just happens to be the speed that most people are comfortable driving at in the first place.  Those few who want to drive faster for whatever reason will do so regardless.  How many of all drivers who speed do police actually catch?  Well since virtually EVERYONE technically 'speeds', they catch maybe 0.01% of all speeders (and that is in a YEAR when virtually all drivers speed on a daily basis).  Of those who regularly speed excessively they catch maybe 1% of them (again, once a YEAR) IF they are lucky.  And when they ARE caught, they just pay the fine and continue speeding as they were.  It provides virtually NO deterrence whatsoever.  I would argue that it is more or less the same with all regulatory bodies.

"That article was only about Bernanke giving a lecture at a university"

Read between the lines.  Think about WHY he is having to give lectures at universities, the media, online, etc. His purpose?  Fairly soon, my bet is, he'll be the fallguy for the Fed, and fairly soon, lecturing at business schools will be his full-time gig, and that is IF he'll be able to land one.

"I pointed out that a free-market allows people to get rich, but it also is free in the sense that anyone can seek to gain wealth."

This is the function of a freeish market, yes (I think the term freeish is less a misnomer than the commonly uttered term 'free market' and thus will be using freeish instead of free from now on).   

"but part of a free-market is that some people will be richer than others, that is kind of the point."
Again, for the LAST TIME, I am not arguing that this is a bad thing.  I am arguing that it should be ONLY some that are richer than others.  Simply because I argue that the majority should have most of an economy's wealth in their control is not calling for equality outcome.  The fact that the majority of wealth ISN'T in the hands of the middle class is EVIDENCE of inequality of opportunity, which is antithetical to the values of democracy.

"I did point out to you options that limit the use of such a product, you didn't want to hear that"

It isn't that I don't want to hear potential options that limit the use of oil.  I would like to, of course.  The problem is that the options you presented were unrealistic, or should I say naively idealistic?

"(and since you are getting into the whole thing about money, buying a bicycle for me to ride would cost me maybe 2 weeks of petrol for my car. I think I would use my bike a lot more than 2 weeks)"

Alright.  Let's consider this:  Let's say I go out an get a bicycle for $200.  I drive it to the subway every day (there is no WAY I am going to ride my bike all the way downtown and back everyday), where I have to lock it up for another $30 to $60 / month.  Then, I have to ride the subway that I wouldn't otherwise have had to do before. That costs an additional $100 / month.  There is the cost of the extra time as well.  I spend an extra 1.5 hours in my commute and in loss of convenience factor, which I'll get to later on, and since I am making a decent, liveable salary of 50k a year, that boils down to about say $500 a month lost.  In addition, there are the convenience factors, such as how on the way home I would have been able to pick up the kids from their after school clubs, get groceries, pick up the dry cleaning.  Now, since I am living in the suburbs where public transit is not as regular and as efficient in the city, it takes me far longer and is very much less convenient and comfortable for me to go around the neighborhood running my errands, and picking up the kids and what not.  Also, there are times when we simply need a vehicle anyway - family outings, moving furniture around, Costco grocery shopping day, etc. - and so we still have a vehicle.  The insurance on the vehicle is another $100 / month, and, albeit the gas we spend is less, it still costs $100 a month for that.  We could rent a vehicle on those days, but, that would be even more expensive.  All in all, although we would spend less / month on gas, we would have to spend more per month for public transit, loss in time, convenience, and comfort.  Thus, in essence, because of the nature of suburban life, the choice we have is not either or, but BOTH.  We are required use public transit AND have a car, it actually ends up costing MORE.

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> "I don't refuse the recognize the demand.  I don't recognize that consumers have the power to change the extent of demand as prices rise.  It's not like rice vs potatoes.  If the price of rice gets too high, people switch to potatoes.  When the price of oil gets too high, there is no alternative to switch to.  Consumers will just spend more money on oil and less on everything else, hence the global recession."

That isn't what the global recession was about...it was over poor lending by the banks...also, there are alternatives to switch to when the price gets too high, it is just no longer viable for now since the price of oil is still cheaper than the alternatives.

It was far more complicated than simply poor lending practices by the banks.  That was just a symptom of much more serious issues, issues which are still unfolding.  Think quantitative easing / currency war / peak oil / - I am not going to pretend I have a full grasp on what the full extent of the problem is.  I can recognize some of the serious symptoms of the underlying problem as I've discussed.  When I say, "hence the global recession" I mean it was a signifigant contributing factor, an additional symptom.  The global recession itself is just another symptom.   But I don't think anybody really does see the full picture.  Perhaps, ultimately, that is the problem - everybody just has pieces of the whole, and nobody is putting the pieces together so that leaders, let alone the public, can be informed properly, and thus no one is making the right decisions.

You're asking for a number which has 0 to do with the standard of living of the poor/middle class. Nobody's ever factored a gini coefficient/ratio/index into a suicide decision, directly nor indirectly.

No amount of PR can sell people shit on a bun. Money alone does not determine political influence in a democratic state.

And standard of living "relative" to the elite means absolutely nothing. Unless your principle motivations are greed and jealousy. A nation where people have $30,000 annual income is better than a nation where people have $200. Period. That some people in the $30,000 nation have nice cars, huge houses, and jets means absolutely nothing about the standard of living of the poor/middle class. The "relative" standard of living is absolutely irrelevant and you're only bringing it up out of greed and jealousy. Greed and jealousy do not make good political arguments, and they are not evidence in support of any position.

Simply put: Your greed and jealousy have nothing to do with the fact that we have progressed a great way since 300 B.C. They are in no way evidence that we haven't.