Looks Like Mid Westerners Can Blame Big Oil after All

[glenn1]

<< glenn1 - I can't believe you blurted out something so foolish. The oil industry is an oligopoly (relatively few suppliers), not a market with adequate competition. Go back to your ECON 101 text. >>



You might wish to do some reading yourself. Unless contracturally obligated to do so, or unless an emergency situation exists (say, a hospital providing emergency medical treatment), no company has any legal obligation to sell a product or provide a service. That holds despite any economic environment - ogliopoly, monopoly, or any other situation. Now, what is illegal is for multiple companies to act in an organized fashion to control supply, and thus prices (i.e. collusion, covered by US Code Ch 15, Monopolies and Trusts in Restraint of Trade, here is a link for you), or a company in a monopoly situation to do so without business justification for the express purposes of creating a price differential. Ashland Petroleum does not need to sell a single drop of oil if it so desires. While it might raise a question of business ethics, it is NOT illegal. Stop asserting otherwise, or provide a statute to show otherwise. Your anti-big business bias is starting to be tiresome.

 

[jjm]

glenn1 - Show me exactly where I stated or even implied these companies did anything illegal.

 

[glenn1]

My apologies, i had thought that you either thought it illegal, or thought that some sort of legal action should be taken against the company....

 

[Tominator]

I've not only read it, but most of it two times....get with it. When I attempt to stay on topic in another thread, you do not want to be anywhere near it, but when I make a statement that indeed IS is on the exact topic...or maybe because I can see, feel, and reason myself and do not have a formal education, that is not allowed...I'm not disputing their findings, but do you really believe Federal Regulators know EVERYTHING that happened? Not only do I doubt it, but would bet good money against it.

The Family Farm is on the way out. The average age of today's Farmer is about 57 years old...however, the trend in consumer buying is toward the family farm and not away. The popularity of 'Farmer's Markets' and organic farming are enjoying a resurgance. Many large chains will buy produce from local farmers in some volume. They will be around for many more years. As for subsidies...have you seen the typical farmer's tax bill? They just are recouping...

They are getting fewer, but if Government rules are applied such as OSHA, and workers unionize you will see how inefficient Corporate Farming really is.

 

[Ferocious]

hahaha...I think writing a book dealing with Republican hypocracy would take anybody a lifetime to do.

 

[glenn1]

Sorry to drag the thread off topic again, but i wanted to chime in about this statement...



<< And who needs inefficient, small farms anyway? Large, corporate-owned operations are the bane of small farmers. They are more efficient and produce more than we need to feed the US population and have plenty left for export. >>



Without having any data to support the assertion, i would wager that small family-owned farms are more efficient on an yield per-acre productivity basis than corporate-owned farms, if for no other reasons than the dynamics of ownership (family farm) vs. stewardship (corporate farm). However, the corporate farms, due to economies and efficiencies of scale, are likely more productive on an absolute and overall basis than smaller farms across the entire overall cost structure of the business despite a lower yield per acre, and are thus in an economic sense more efficient.

 

[jjm]

Tominator, I don't think I failed to respond, but if a thread gets out of sight while I am away from the computer, I don't always try to find it again.

I don't see where I went off topic here either. You started the discussion on farms. And you started citing other problems with supplies, regulations, etc. I just pointed out they were all in the report already. The bottom line is that there is plenty of blame here, including the profit motives and poor management of Big Oil.

 

[Tominator]

<< the profit motives and poor management >>



Ok, profit motives are bad and management is supposed to have excess capacity so they KNOW what Clinton would do next and spend the dollars to make sure they are not surprised....it's perfectly clear now...

 

[jjm]

In their own best interests, they used their oligopoly powers to extract more profit from customers who were already suffering. Perfectly legal. But the fact that they did it might have been enough to get Congress mad enough to add new regulations.

And what does Clinton have to do with anything here? Did you have a blackout? That report states that the oil companies themselves underestimated market demand, partly due to their own errors in making certain assumptions. Wow, I did not know Clinton had such influence on this stuff! He was a pretty powerful guy!

 

[Tominator]

Yes, he was as it was under his direction the EPA forced another formulation of fuel down the city's throats or risk Clinton holding back much needed funds. It was the city's money to begin with.

Remember the term 'Unfunded Government Mandate?' Where the Government forces citizens to adopt regulations or laws that will cost more, but do not take into account that there is no money to implement.