Who are the fools buying into more drilling?

Hmmm... responsibility of government is to create the law, and enforce it... preventing against monopolies is like preventing against socialism (one being private total control versus elitist government total control)... to keep totalitarianism out of a governmental system based on liberties and freedoms and the rights of all...

Ok, so the government should do something about what the oil companies are doing to us. And the media being bought up by a few powerful corporations. And the mortgage companies predatory lending to us. And probably a bunch of other shit I can't think of right now.

Being a monopoly isn't bad. It's what the monopoly does to us that is bad. And the corporations are doing things that are bad to us.

So you understand that monopolies are bad. Do you understand why they are bad? What do monopolies do to us? I bet if I wikipedia it, a lot of what is bad about monopolies will be what corporations are doing to us today. Let me see.

In political discourse, the term monopoly is frequently invoked as a blanket generalization in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what is perceived as "fair" competition.[3]
The latter usage of the term is more predominant among non-economists than economists and while its assertions may hold true, it is not based upon the definition of "monopoly," used by economists.

A monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.

BINGO. We may not have a problem with a Monopoly today dave. But the same problems you get with a monopoly, we are seeing on a grand scale. It's more COLLUSION!!!!

No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product.
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.


Some argue that it can be good to allow a firm to attempt to monopolize a market, since practices such as dumping can benefit consumers in the short term; and once the firm grows too big, it can be dealt with via regulation. When monopolies are not broken through the open market, often a government will step in, either to regulate the monopoly, turn it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly break it up (see Antitrust law). Public utilities, often being natural filiations and less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated or publicly owned. AT&T and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the breakup of a private monopoly. When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market and began to take phone traffic from the less efficient AT&T server.
 
Yo Diamond,
Pay attention, what would it cost if the nuclear power operators had to pay for the refinement and storage of the fuel?

Oh that's right, you are one of the duped so you never have to answer the pertinent questions, just simply assert that "Nuke is not more expensive".

By the way PV is commonly known as the direct conversion of sun light into electrical energy even thought it is the radiant energy in the sunlight which is actually converted. Again this quibble is nothing but a diversion from my point, a typical righty tactic.
 
Ok, so the government should do something about what the oil companies are doing to us. And the media being bought up by a few powerful corporations. And the mortgage companies predatory lending to us. And probably a bunch of other shit I can't think of right now.

Being a monopoly isn't bad. It's what the monopoly does to us that is bad. And the corporations are doing things that are bad to us.

So you understand that monopolies are bad. Do you understand why they are bad? What do monopolies do to us? I bet if I wikipedia it, a lot of what is bad about monopolies will be what corporations are doing to us today. Let me see.

In political discourse, the term monopoly is frequently invoked as a blanket generalization in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what is perceived as "fair" competition.[3]
The latter usage of the term is more predominant among non-economists than economists and while its assertions may hold true, it is not based upon the definition of "monopoly," used by economists.

A monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of a product or service; a monopoly may also have monopsony control of a sector of a market. Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods.

BINGO. We may not have a problem with a Monopoly today dave. But the same problems you get with a monopoly, we are seeing on a grand scale. It's more COLLUSION!!!!

No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolised product.
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.


Some argue that it can be good to allow a firm to attempt to monopolize a market, since practices such as dumping can benefit consumers in the short term; and once the firm grows too big, it can be dealt with via regulation. When monopolies are not broken through the open market, often a government will step in, either to regulate the monopoly, turn it into a publicly owned monopoly environment, or forcibly break it up (see Antitrust law). Public utilities, often being natural filiations and less susceptible to efficient breakup, are often strongly regulated or publicly owned. AT&T and Standard Oil are debatable examples of the breakup of a private monopoly. When AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bell" components, MCI, Sprint, and other companies were able to compete effectively in the long distance phone market and began to take phone traffic from the less efficient AT&T server.

Companies... hmm... not a monopoly... 1 oil company, I would scream monopoly... many companies... nope... sorry... even if your conspiracy theory feeble mind wants it to be to justify your control system.... and funny, we have no control over the OUTSIDE entity called OPEC and the global oil market that determines the worldwide price....

You can compete against the oil companies... get the capital together (if you actually earn money), pool it with others with your vision... spearhead it up...

You want to spearhead the alternatives that will eventually, far down the road, replace oil... go for it... do it up... research, invest, create the company to bring the oil companies down...


nah... you would rather scream your ridiculous conspiracy theories and shout great words to rile up those who think everyone owes them something except for themselves, like "collusion"... it's so much simpler for you... does not force you to understand the real world, the concept of a free society, and anything except a socialist control system
 
Yo Diamond,
Pay attention, what would it cost if the nuclear power operators had to pay for the refinement and storage of the fuel?

Oh that's right, you are one of the duped so you never have to answer the pertinent questions, just simply assert that "Nuke is not more expensive".

By the way PV is commonly known as the direct conversion of sun light into electrical energy even thought it is the radiant energy in the sunlight which is actually converted. Again this quibble is nothing but a diversion from my point, a typical righty tactic.


Hmmm... much like a gas station does not refine the gas itself... various companies/corporations along the way provide different stages of the process to supply the final product...

or is that too hard for your little mind to understand?
 
Companies... hmm... not a monopoly... 1 oil company, I would scream monopoly... many companies... nope... sorry... even if your conspiracy theory feeble mind wants it to be to justify your control system.... and funny, we have no control over the OUTSIDE entity called OPEC and the global oil market that determines the worldwide price....

You can compete against the oil companies... get the capital together (if you actually earn money), pool it with others with your vision... spearhead it up...

You want to spearhead the alternatives that will eventually, far down the road, replace oil... go for it... do it up... research, invest, create the company to bring the oil companies down...


nah... you would rather scream your ridiculous conspiracy theories and shout great words to rile up those who think everyone owes them something except for themselves, like "collusion"... it's so much simpler for you... does not force you to understand the real world, the concept of a free society, and anything except a socialist control system


OPEC isn't practicing COLLUSION or MONOPOLISTIC practices? So you are cool if a couple companies fuck us, just as long as they don't go under one name?

Standard Oil was a monopoly and the government broke them up. They are still all owned by the same men. So yes, they are in COLLUSION, IMO. More than OPINION. I'm not blind.
 
Hmmm... much like a gas station does not refine the gas itself... various companies/corporations along the way provide different stages of the process to supply the final product...

or is that too hard for your little mind to understand?

Gas stations are getting fucked by the oil companies too. They say they don't make shit on oil anymore. Only on the products they sell inside. Not good when many put gas on their credit card at the pumps.

"various" companies dave? Do you mean like Haloburton, KBR and Blackwater type "various".

LOL. Same company Dave.
 
OK Desperate Dianond,

I'll put it in easy to understand terms, it's mot companies or middle men who refine the nuclear fuel, it's our government. We subsidize the nuclear energy business to the tune of billions every year.

Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in a future of clean sustainable inexpensive and abundant energy rather than expensive and dangerous energy?

Oh, that would mean admitting you are wrong, one of the duped, so go ahead tell me about how photovotaics is not technically direct conversion of sun'light' into electrical energy.
 
Here is what I learned on Randi Rhodes (NOVA M RADIO) the other day. The Democrats have introduced 4 bills that would have created immediate relief for Americans, but the GOP blocked all 4. No to ending the enron loopholes, no to ending speculation, no to windfall profit taxes and NO to a compromise where we let the oil companies drill offshore and they sell some of that gas to America, rather than on the world market.

The only solution the GOP says is to let the oil companies have all our land/oil.

The Democrats need to speak up though. Why do they consistently let the GOP make them look foolish?

The oil companies get our oil cheap. The GOP congress 00-06 assured that by limiting how much the oil companies would ever have to pay for a barrel of oil. So the oil companies want to sell the oil on the world market, not to us. The oil companies also buy oil for us on the world market. That's why they are able to say their costs have gone up. So the reason the oil companies are making record profits is because of the GOP law that said the oil companies never have to pay more than $56 a barrel.

So they don't lie to us when they say their costs have gone up. They have. But that they just pass on to us. They just don't mention that America isn't getting any more per barrel since oil prices have gone up. We get 1999 prices. I say we need to renegotiate with the oil companies.

Oh, but the GOP will say that prices will go up if that happens. And that's probably true. That's why these industries need to be heavily regulated. It's our oil. If the oil companies won't sell us our oil for cheap, fuck them. I'm sure we can get someone else to do it. How about Hugo Chavez? He socialized Venesuela's oil and seems to be doing alright.

But pay attention to the fact that he says Chaney and Bush tried to assassinate him. After everything we've learned, is there any doubt?

Who killed the battery car? In fact, who killed the guy who figured out how to get a car to run on h2o? google it.

Republicans want to socialize losses and privatize the profits.

It is a mathematical impossibility to learn anything from Randi Rhodes. Unless you're dumb as dirt yourself, in which case you might learn some new cuss words.
 
And there you have what passes for an argument by a righty, just say "you're dumb as dirt"
 
It is a mathematical impossibility to learn anything from Randi Rhodes. Unless you're dumb as dirt yourself, in which case you might learn some new cuss words.

i'd like to see that math.

ive never heard of the guy so cant comment on him, but with the hatred being thrown his way i should check him out
 
What the hell is photovotaics?????

And wind generation isn't practical. They either make too much energy and blow out their computers or they don't make enough and back up sources have to be tapped into.
If we could only harness that wind tunnel between your ears.
 
Randi is a woman, and I've found her to be quite accurate. She has to be, she's on the radio against the whole right wing propagana arm of the Repubs.
 
OK Desperate Dianond,

I'll put it in easy to understand terms, it's mot companies or middle men who refine the nuclear fuel, it's our government. We subsidize the nuclear energy business to the tune of billions every year.

Wouldn't it be smarter to invest in a future of clean sustainable inexpensive and abundant energy rather than expensive and dangerous energy?

Oh, that would mean admitting you are wrong, one of the duped, so go ahead tell me about how photovotaics is not technically direct conversion of sun'light' into electrical energy.

Admitting I am wrong... only if I were....

To put it in easy to understand terms... I don't support subsidizing anything...

In terms of true cost and with all the research seen... nuke is one of the most expensive to build... but the total costs (even in OTHER countries that use it much more than we do) in the long run, are cheaper than other technologies AT THIS POINT...

What would be smarter, and what ones like you don't seem to understand, would be to deal on both parts of the spectrum... dealing with the technologies we must use today and in the near future (oil, coal, nuke, etc) ALL THE WHILE researching into making the other forms of energy production viable in the scale that we will need them for in the future....

And I am not here to lecture you on energy or electric production... but you seem to want to lecture people on things such as photovoltaics, even though you cannot use the correct terms when trying to explain it
 
Randi is a woman, and I've found her to be quite accurate. She has to be, she's on the radio against the whole right wing propagana arm of the Repubs.

Share. What has she been accurate about? Give us an example, and some proof to back it up.
 
Randi Rhodes is a loon. Not in Coulter's class, or even Rushbo's, but a loon nevertheless.

Give me an example of something she said that makes her a loon. I could tell you many positions Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly have that make them nuts. So tell me what makes Randi a loon.

The other Air America and Nova M Radio hosts are good, but they don't tell me anything I don't already know. They just give Progressive's a voice. Randi & Rachel Maddow tell us stuff the mainstream/drive by/Corporate Media's won't tell us.

What do you think of Rachel Maddow? She's not "over the top", which might be why you don't like Randi.

I think this is why even some Progressives/Liberals don't like me. I fight back. Most liberal are pussies. They are smart, but pussies.
 
Give me an example of something she said that makes her a loon. I could tell you many positions Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly have that make them nuts. So tell me what makes Randi a loon.

The other Air America and Nova M Radio hosts are good, but they don't tell me anything I don't already know. They just give Progressive's a voice. Randi & Rachel Maddow tell us stuff the mainstream/drive by/Corporate Media's won't tell us.

What do you think of Rachel Maddow? She's not "over the top", which might be why you don't like Randi.

I think this is why even some Progressives/Liberals don't like me. I fight back. Most liberal are pussies. They are smart, but pussies.
Over the top, certainly. Most of the time she sounds like she's drunk. I'm not saying she never makes some good points, but she's a nut.
 
Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history:
1. There is no such thing as a "free market."
2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).
The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.
In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.
Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.
And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government.
Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush.
The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself.
Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business.
If you want to play the game of business, then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.
Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs."
The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws.
 

Forum List

Back
Top