Anyone think large companies

[bctbct]

Republicans in control seems to be to the benefit of big business, is it absurb to think that oil companies have positioned themselves to get the price of oil down to help with the mid term elections?

yes I know that they do not set the price at the pump :roll:

but they absolutely control inventory.

 

[Strk]

How do they control inventory?

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Strk
How do they control inventory?

pump more or less, shut downs etc.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk
How do they control inventory?

pump more or less, shut downs etc.

That would be supply and, as a whole, they control very little (I.e. of the 80-85 million barrels a day, most of it isn't them).

 

[xeemzor]

Of course they do. As a means of production for a segment of the economy, it is critical for them to be involved in politics. Without their input, politicians attempting to pass legislation effecting that segment of the industry would only have a 1 sided view of how their regulations would effect a major company, and thus consumers. This is of course, the ideal situation. What's happening now involves a revolving door in congress where large companies essentially buy legislation and manipulate economic and social situations in order to get favorable candidates elected. This isn't anything new, it just seems more blantant and prevelant nowadays.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk
How do they control inventory?

pump more or less, shut downs etc.

That would be supply and, as a whole, they control very little (I.e. of the 80-85 million barrels a day, most of it isn't them).

well unused supply would become inventory? right?

But enough semantics, surplus should reduce price so if they decide they want surplus they pump more or do not do a shut down.

 

[techs]

The scheduling of shipping, the leasing of pipeline space, fractional yields from crude, etc are all under control of the oil companies.
I seem to remember the power companies manipulating the amount of electricity in California to steal tens of billions of dollars.
Ask yourself this. If you owned a business don't you have control over how much or little of your product you produce and offer for sale.
Of course you do.
And why was it back about few months ago gas was going up for no apparent reason? No disruptions of supply reported, etc. And now gas is going down for no apparent reason?
Obviously the oil companies were hoarding some oil to release it before the election.

 

[BrownTown]

Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

 

[fitzov]

you are forgetting campaign contributions.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk
How do they control inventory?

pump more or less, shut downs etc.

That would be supply and, as a whole, they control very little (I.e. of the 80-85 million barrels a day, most of it isn't them).

well unused supply would become inventory? right?

But enough semantics, surplus should reduce price so if they decide they want surplus they pump more or do not do a shut down.

Who pumps more? OPEC? Is OPEC owned by a US company?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[TravisT]

*puts on tinfoil hat*

But yes, I agree with you... it is possible, but not likely.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

actually, they are all full of crap and should be banned. Lou Dobbs was right.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

actually, they are all full of crap and should be banned. Lou Dobbs was right.

1st amendment

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk
How do they control inventory?

pump more or less, shut downs etc.

That would be supply and, as a whole, they control very little (I.e. of the 80-85 million barrels a day, most of it isn't them).

well unused supply would become inventory? right?

But enough semantics, surplus should reduce price so if they decide they want surplus they pump more or do not do a shut down.

Yep, supply has been at record levels for over 5 years yet prices and profits skyrocketed.

Pretty Black & White that Gas prices have nothing to do with supply & demand.

You new here bctbct???

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Strk
How do they control inventory?

pump more or less, shut downs etc.

That would be supply and, as a whole, they control very little (I.e. of the 80-85 million barrels a day, most of it isn't them).

well unused supply would become inventory? right?

But enough semantics, surplus should reduce price so if they decide they want surplus they pump more or do not do a shut down.

Who pumps more? OPEC? Is OPEC owned by a US company?!?!?!?!?!?

A lot more domestic gas is refined in the US than crude is pumped. So US suppliers have more control on the price of gas than they do the price of crude. Yes scheduling outages, shut downs, fractional yields, pipeline usage etc are tools in the control of domestic US oil companies.

 

[Kwaipie]

We are in a bad situation. Government is pounded by lobbyists 99 to 1 compared to normal joes. Our constitution guarantees access to government representatives, therefore, lobbying is legal. Lobbyists are hired to present the views of a large group of people. We are so overwhelmed by this that our government is now of, by, and for the corporation. The founding fathers would say it is time to re-write the constitution. The idea has merit and I stand behind it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are in a bad situation. Government is pounded by lobbyists 99 to 1 compared to normal joes. Our constitution guarantees access to government representatives, therefore, lobbying is legal. Lobbyists are hired to present the views of a large group of people. We are so overwhelmed by this that our government is now of, by, and for the corporation. The founding fathers would say it is time to re-write the constitution. The idea has merit and I stand behind it.

No it isnt time to outlaw lobbyists. If the issues piss the people off they still have the last say. They can vote to elect another representative. The problem comes down to the apathy of the avg voter. You cant change that through legislation.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are in a bad situation. Government is pounded by lobbyists 99 to 1 compared to normal joes. Our constitution guarantees access to government representatives, therefore, lobbying is legal. Lobbyists are hired to present the views of a large group of people. We are so overwhelmed by this that our government is now of, by, and for the corporation. The founding fathers would say it is time to re-write the constitution. The idea has merit and I stand behind it.

No it isnt time to outlaw lobbyists. If the issues piss the people off they still have the last say. They can vote to elect another representative. The problem comes down to the apathy of the avg voter. You cant change that through legislation.

The problem comes down to the apathy of the avg voter. You cant change that through legislation
Make it mandatory to vote. That would fix it.
If we can require citizens to sit on jury duty we can require them to vote.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are in a bad situation. Government is pounded by lobbyists 99 to 1 compared to normal joes. Our constitution guarantees access to government representatives, therefore, lobbying is legal. Lobbyists are hired to present the views of a large group of people.

We are so overwhelmed by this that our government is now of, by, and for the corporation.

The founding fathers would say it is time to re-write the constitution.

The idea has merit and I stand behind it.

If this does not occur the Country will cease to exist.

Et Tu Brute?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are in a bad situation. Government is pounded by lobbyists 99 to 1 compared to normal joes. Our constitution guarantees access to government representatives, therefore, lobbying is legal. Lobbyists are hired to present the views of a large group of people. We are so overwhelmed by this that our government is now of, by, and for the corporation. The founding fathers would say it is time to re-write the constitution. The idea has merit and I stand behind it.

No it isnt time to outlaw lobbyists. If the issues piss the people off they still have the last say. They can vote to elect another representative. The problem comes down to the apathy of the avg voter. You cant change that through legislation.

The problem comes down to the apathy of the avg voter. You cant change that through legislation
Make it mandatory to vote. That would fix it.
If we can require citizens to sit on jury duty we can require them to vote.

How does requiring one to vote change the apathy? All you will get is larger voter turnouts with people who have no idea what they are voting for.

Besides what penalty do you propose if one doesnt vote? Sounds oppressive if you ask me.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

actually, they are all full of crap and should be banned. Lou Dobbs was right.

1st amendment

The problem isn't directly the lobbyists, which the first amendment protects; the problem is the erroneous legal status of corporations as people giving them 1st amendment rights.

We need to get rid of that legal error so that corporations can no longer use their vast wealth to compete against citizens for the attention of legislators.

When the corrupt corporate money is removeed the system, the legislators will no longer be forced to listen much to the lobbyists as they do now for the funds *needed*.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: TheAdvocate

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Every major company hires lobbyists to argue their point of view to political leaders. The problem is that there are so many lobbyists in Washington that its hard to tell who is supplying you with good information and who is only looking after their own interests.

actually, they are all full of crap and should be banned. Lou Dobbs was right.

1st amendment

Where does the 1st amendment state "thou shalt be able to purchase and write legislation provided you have the deepest pockets. Govt is for sale."

You exercise your 1st amendment rights when you vote, not when you buy off the system.

 

[Craig234]

No it isnt time to outlaw lobbyists. If the issues piss the people off they still have the last say. They can vote to elect another representative. The problem comes down to the apathy of the avg voter. You cant change that through legislation.

This is wrong. Large sums are basically *required* to get elected, and the huge concentration of wealth in our nation gives the power to spend that money to a very few people.

When the drug industry stands to make hundreds of billions by the new drug law not allowing the government to negotiate the drug prices, they'll spend a lot to get the congress people who will vote for their interest - they can spend a billion and make a 1000% return on their investment. You expect the American people to spend that same billion to compete? Not going to happen. And yes, the elections *are* that controlled by the money now.

You have to look at how the problem can be fixed, not just spout platitudes about how the voters have the last say which does nothing to fix the situation.

As it stands, the American people are constantly defeated by corporate interests.

There's a saying - politicians have to look good to voters and DO good for donors.

 

[TheAdvocate]

The idealogues trumpeting the 1st amendment as the justification for lobbyist dollar$ buying favorable legislation are meanwhile overlooking the rest of the constitution's provisions for establishing equal representation. That simply cannot and does not exist in our present system, in violation of this constitutional standard. It is broken when money rather than votes are the currency of change.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Republicans in control seems to be to the benefit of big business, is it absurb to think that oil companies have positioned themselves to get the price of oil down to help with the mid term elections?

yes I know that they do not set the price at the pump :roll:

but they absolutely control inventory.

First off both political parties are funded by large companies. To say that companies have more to gain from Republican control is a farce. Many companies have lots to gain from protectionist policy (typical of Liberal mindset) as they cannot compete with foreign competition. For example the lumber, steel, automotive industry.

See donors here
Even some of the strongest Republican donors are 60% Rep, 40% Dem.

That being said, while I do tend to support corporate interests (always striving to serve the customer efficiently as possible); individual companies in the US have too much power. They limit trade and create monopolies to prevent free markets.

The governing Conservatives in Canada have implemented some good legislation on this front. This helps politics become more grassroots and about the people rather than who has the most money.

But Harper said things would change under his leadership, beginning with the introduction of a "Federal Accountability Act," as soon as the Conservatives form a government.

Highlights of the proposed legislation include:

* more powers to independent officers of Parliament, including the auditor general and ethics commissioner;
* measures to ensure federal grants and contracts "provide value for taxpayers' money;
* "real protection" for whistleblowers;
* reform of access to information laws
* merit-based appointments to public office;
* a complete ban on corporate and union donations, and an annual cap of $1,000 on individuals' donations to federal political parties; and
* a mandatory five-year break before former ministers and other senior public officials can lobby government.

"We must clean up corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to flourish," Harper said, promising to "replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability."