Skip to main content

View Diary: Republicans refuse to swear in testifying oil execs (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  DennisBoz, would you be so kind (none)
    as to explain to me YOUR definition of price gouging/excessive profits? Do you believe there is such a beast? Do you have an overiding economic philosophy? laissez, free market etc.

    I am curious to see if their is ever too much.

    '
    '
    Btw if airlines execs weren't incompetent they wouldn't need the bailout, right? If you were going to bail them out would you ask about their competence?

    "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

    by buhdydharma on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:03:47 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I R so kind (none)
      'I' have no definition of price gouging. I just go by the dictionary definition. i found this which seems reasonable...

      pricing above the market when no alternative retailer is available

      So a market where there are multipl retailers (like the energy industry) it would seem the price gouging can't/won't happen. If you price over the market, people will go to other retailers. Looks like you need a local monopoly to produce gouging.

      WRT the airline execs, it depends. It is possible that disaster could strike from extraordinary non-market forces. But most likely requests for bailouts are the results of business failures. And not all failures are from incompetence...just lesser competence.

      The cost of the bailout could be less than the cost of letting the industry go belly up...with all the ripple effects. That's the public policy angle.

      •  En Garde! M'sieur.... (none)
        'Pricing above the market when no alternative retailer is available.' Since it appears to my biased eyes that you are unwilling to actually defend an idea and instead wish to defend a sentence, we shall commence  to parse this sentence in a context that we will disagreee upon and that you will find some part of to latch on to and not actually talk about the actual issue.

        In an effort to skip all of that drama including the Rovian cascade to the bottom where you result to some sort of personal attack to yet again change the subject from the truth, I shall instead issue a declarative edict. At least it will be something I have thought through and considered. Something of my own to defend and fight for.

        The Oil companies will break laws and ethical codes in order to make money for their stockholders. They are doing this eveyday all around the

        "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

        by buhdydharma on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:06:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  world. ...snicker (none)

          "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

          by buhdydharma on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:08:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  was this a subject change? (none)
            'Pricing above the market when no alternative retailer is available.' Since it appears to my biased eyes that you are unwilling to actually defend an idea and instead wish to defend a sentence, we shall commence to parse this sentence in a context that we will disagreee upon and that you will find some part of to latch on to and not actually talk about the actual issue.

            Not really sure what all that meant. I think I defend ideas that I hold. I see no need/purpose to attempt to defend ideas that I don't hold.
            I can't wait to find out what the actual issue is. I'm guessing that this is something that you get to decide; not me. This sounds like when my wife says `The point is...' meaning Her point and ignoring My point.

            In an effort to skip all of that drama including the Rovian cascade to the bottom where you result to some sort of personal attack to yet again change the subject from the truth, I shall instead issue a declarative edict. At least it will be something I have thought through and considered. Something of my own to defend and fight for.

            Yes, less drama. More comedy...and maybe some singing. :) You got me, I am Mr. Personal attack. Methinks you not know me to well.  You'll be waiting a looooong time before you see any of that from me.  What did I change the subject from/to? Or is that changing the subject again to ask?

            The Oil companies will break laws and ethical codes in order to make money for their stockholders. They are doing this eveyday all around the world.

            If that is so, then they should be prosecuted for the former and castigated for the latter.  The ethical part being more subjective of couse as people have different perspectives on what is ethical.

            •  Yo, good post! (none)
              Let me wake up a bit and i'll get back to you!

              "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

              by buhdydharma on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  First the meat (none)
              Who is in charge of prosecuting them?
              Who is in charge of investigating them?
              When we have seen the influence of the Administrations secrecy, political pressure, and agenda at every level of government. Down to forest rangers taking loyalty oaths.
              Who controls and appoints the heads of the regulatary agencies that are alleged to have punitive powers?

              I also will not resort to personal attacks and merely urge you to research the bush family history from any even relatively balnced source.

              The Side Dishes; First an apology! I initially underestimated you as simple apologist (stockholder? snark)for big oil and the admin. I see (assumption) now that we have a difference of opinion over how the world works and the validity and veracity of the system itself.

               I respect the power of the market. I have told my fellow radicals for years that if they want change (ecology etc.) to make it pay. Nothing except an idea is valid if it doesn't grow corn.

              I am not an economist but have a slight knowledge of history. If you go back before T. Roos. and look at an unregulated free market economy (relatively),
              you can see the instability inherent.

              Trying to corner the GOLD market, for heavens sake! How is that being responsible to anything but your own greed.

              IMHO one of Govts. prime functions in a capitalistic system is to regulate business, god knows we won't regulate ourselves where money is concerned. Balances. Yes make all the money you want. But legally and at least to Some extent socially responsibly. I readily admit that Govt. regulation becomes something to fight against and this erodes the need for personal responsibilty.

              But my new respect for you makes me think that you know there must be a regulation line somewhere, an intersection of corporate and societal good. We have seen time after time; S&L, enron, world.com, junk bonds, etc. etc. etc.

              This destabilizes society and the economy and puts a huge undo burden on those just trying to live their lives. The decisions of an incredibly small (relative to world population) amount of people affect the world ENORMOUSLY and they are not accountable except financialy, to the stockholders. I have done you the courtesy of reading your other posts on this page and assume you have done the same for me so I will wrap up here.

              The dessert; Again i apologize. I readily admit to being a dramaqueen, I only wish I could sing and dance without emarassing and or hurting myself!

              It is my hope that discussions/arguments between intelligent truthful people are what define the issue. For me I guess it boils down to transparency and accountability. People are going to seek power, riches tc. and that's fine. When people in power stack the rules, hide what they are doing and buy/have influence, I want to know what they are doing. When what they are doing in secret affects the entire world, politicaly, economicaly, and yes militarily. I want them to be responsible for their actions. Currently they are not.

              ps lets hope our wives never get together! who knows what WE would end up doing, LOL

              "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

              by buhdydharma on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:57:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  now the potatoes (none)
                Who is in charge of prosecuting them?
                Who is in charge of investigating them?

                Government/FBI them sorts. I'm sure the State folks have a role too.

                When we have seen the influence of the Administrations secrecy, political pressure, and agenda at every level of government. Down to forest rangers taking loyalty oaths.
                Who controls and appoints the heads of the regulatary agencies that are alleged to have punitive powers?

                The administration does. You know the names

                I also will not resort to personal attacks and merely urge you to research the bush family history from any even relatively balnced source.
                The Side Dishes; First an apology! I initially underestimated you as simple apologist (stockholder? snark)for big oil and the admin. I see (assumption) now that we have a difference of opinion over how the world works and the validity and veracity of the system itself.

                Sounds reasonable...lots of unreasonable people around here. Mockery is OK..for the mockable.

                I respect the power of the market. I have told my fellow radicals for years that if they want change (ecology etc.) to make it pay. Nothing except an idea is valid if it doesn't grow corn.
                I am not an economist but have a slight knowledge of history. If you go back before T. Roos. and look at an unregulated free market economy (relatively),
                you can see the instability inherent.

                I suspect that we have opted for lower growth rates as the price paid for a more stable growth pattern. Avoiding the crashes that used to occur every 20 years seems like a decent bargain.

                Trying to corner the GOLD market, for heavens sake! How is that being responsible to anything but your own greed.

                luckily the markets today are so huge that I doubt any individual would have the ability to pull off a stunt  It wrecked the Hunt brothers. The libertarian in me thinks that it is OK/legal. The Catholic finds it greedy/immoral.

                IMHO one of Govts. prime functions in a capitalistic system is to regulate business, god knows we won't regulate ourselves where money is concerned. Balances. Yes make all the money you want. But legally and at least to Some extent socially responsibly. I readily admit that Govt. regulation becomes something to fight against and this erodes the need for personal responsibilty.

                OK, business is not immoral. It is amoral. Capitalism unfettered by morals will harm many(monopolies etc). Since some people will always be immoral, a role of government is to implement and enforce rules of fair play.

                But my new respect for you makes me think that you know there must be a regulation line somewhere, an intersection of corporate and societal good. We have seen time after time; S&L, enron, world.com, junk bonds, etc. etc. etc.

                agreed.

                This destabilizes society and the economy and puts a huge undo burden on those just trying to live their lives. The decisions of an incredibly small (relative to world population) amount of people affect the world ENORMOUSLY and they are not accountable except financialy, to the stockholders. I have done you the courtesy of reading your other posts on this page and assume you have done the same for me so I will wrap up here.

                It also erodes the confidence of the little guy to join the game. Money is more productive in the bank than under the mattress.

                The dessert; Again i apologize. I readily admit to being a dramaqueen, I only wish I could sing and dance without emarassing and or hurting myself!
                It is my hope that discussions/arguments between intelligent truthful people are what define the issue. For me I guess it boils down to transparency and accountability. People are going to seek power, riches tc. and that's fine. When people in power stack the rules, hide what they are doing and buy/have influence, I want to know what they are doing. When what they are doing in secret affects the entire world, politicaly, economicaly, and yes militarily. I want them to be responsible for their actions. Currently they are not.

                No fun here...nothing to disagree about. A paradox is the the increased regulatory power of the government makes it a prime target of influence peddling/purchasing. Can we make it illegal for companies to make political contributions? Let people give all they want...fully disclosed.

                Judging from the businessmen we've seen go to jail, there sure looks like accountability.

                ps lets hope our wives never get together! who knows what WE would end up doing, LOL

                the dishes

                •  I'll wash you dry! (none)
                  Good to meet you, see you around the site.
                  '
                  '
                  '
                  ps It still wouldn't hurt to do some research on rigged oil company practices and the Bush family(DUCKING!)

                  "The pen is mightier than the sword, but only at a range of greater than five feet" Malaclypse the Younger

                  by buhdydharma on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 07:12:59 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site