Gas Prices -- Help at last?

"Newps" wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Agreed, OT, and just another win for BIG OIL. I hope the senate has a
better handle on what subsidies look like and what profits are for...


Did you READ the article?

Of course he didn't, the facts might get in the way of a preconceived
notion.

Boom!

Dammit. Another irony meter blown to smithereens.

Sylvain wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

Yes, has anyone an example of a government run business or anything else

for that matter that ever turned a profit?


I could try to dig up some numbers, but I believe there
are (or at least were) a couple of examples of post offices
(gvt run administrations in a few countries) that actually are
doing reasonably well.

I believe the context here was the USA so that limits it to the American
government. Although, international examples would be interesting to
see if they really made money, or made money because they had a
monopoly. Most postal services don't have any across the board
competition (at least in the USA, last I knew, only the Federal Postal
Service could carry letters).

Matt

Peter Duniho wrote:

The article, which neither of you apparently read, pointed out that not only
have no new refineries been built, oil companies have CLOSED refineries
already built. If they need refineries so badly, why did they close the
ones they had?

They close them because it reduces supply and allows them to charge more. Of
course, they really prefer it if they can force *another* company to close
*their* refineries (as Mobil Oil did in California) rather than closing their own.

The rest of Pete's post matches the report of the vote on "All Things
Considered" (NPR) the other day.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

The answer is: There aren't any. The closest you've come is diesel,
and THAT is an alternative fuel ONLY because your governments haven't
taxed it as much.

Diesel's been around for over 100 years. And the only reason most European
governments keep the taxes low on it is that it's the primary heating fuel. Tax
diesel, and lots of people would start pumping their heating oil into their cars.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Bottled water in America is a very effective I.Q. test.

Maybe where you live, but not around here. Run the normal series of tests that
any keeper of marine fish runs on his tank on my tap water and then tell me it's
dumb to pay $1/gallon for bottled water. Next Wednesday I have a job replacing a
toilet. Different water company. The old one clogged up with iron and other
deposits within two years of installation. The plumbing salesman asked "and she
drinks that?"

Good question.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Jay Honeck wrote:

I didn't realize that you, Martin, of all people, would be suckered,
er, I mean, "influenced" into paying more for a bottle of *water* than
for a gallon of milk!

You've *very* obviously never been to Europe.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

(that's 75 meters for you idiots on the metric system) into pure snow

You have got to be kidding me. Do you actually think some arbitrary
measurement scheme is superior to something which actually makes SENSE?

And you dare claim to be an "engineer". Amazing.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:TLZ1f.1668$Uj2.1379@trndny03...
They close them because it reduces supply and allows them to charge more.

The question was rhetorical. The point is, it's a bit disingenuous for the
oil companies to claim they need to build new refineries when they are the
ones who have chosen to close the ones they had.

[...]
The rest of Pete's post matches the report of the vote on "All Things
Considered" (NPR) the other day.

I guess whether that's a good thing or not depends on the person considering
that coincidence.

Pete

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Boom!

Dammit. Another irony meter blown to smithereens.

Maybe you and Jose can get a bulk-rate discount on replacements.

I read that the proposal was the gov't was going to basically give away
some old "military bases" to build refineries on, if that is not a subsidy
then nothing is.

I see that as an eminently logical attempt to offset the "Not In My Back
Yard" problem. We're abandoning military bases in droves, leaving behind
toxic waste dumps, old firing ranges, and devastated local economies.
Allowing a new refinery to be built on that land is just about the only
quick way to get one built nowadays, with all the crazy "environmental
impact statements" that must be filled out every time someone farts, and
take years to compile.

Face it, we've "regulated" ourselves into much of this mess. And don't fool
yourself -- this oil/gas price situation is a mess that could ultimately
lead to a world-wide economic downturn. It's high time Congress does
something to level the playing field.

If you want to go back the old black skies Pittsburg steel mill balls to
the wall screw the environment way of doing business, then you might as
well go to China. I personally want the USA to stay nice for my kids.

Somewhere down the road, when you're complaining that the only jobs for
American kids anymore is flipping burgers at Mickey D's, remember this
discussion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"