Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[littlefallsmets]

When a given business gets too large and occupies too much of its market space, it supresses competition to protect itself... there is a tipping point where the innovative power of competition eats itself and the free market goes cancerous.

Oil is definitely past that tipping point. That is where government regulation is supposed to break up these cancers but... can't... because the government is unduly influenced by energy interests.

[Arachno-capitalist]

When a given business gets too large and occupies too much of its market space, it supresses competition to protect itself... there is a tipping point where the innovative power of competition eats itself and the free market goes cancerous.

Oil is definitely past that tipping point. That is where government regulation is supposed to break up these cancers but... can't... because the government is unduly influenced by energy interests.

Last I checked "oil" isnt a single company. BP is competition with Exxon is in competition with Citgo, etc.
Again, what alternative are you proposing? What competition was eaten? What is government not doing that would make you happy?

Energy interests? yes, were all interested in energy. We need energy. Im glad government isnt suppressing energy.

[littlefallsmets]

Are you saying that you actually believe that the aforementioned companies aren't largely in collusion and only "competing" in the most peripheral and surface of manners?

The way that prices move in those markets, like the traffic at the beginning of "LA Story", you really want to believe that?

Oh man. There is the awesome bridge that I own in Brooklyn.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Do you actually believe a company wouldn't lower their prices to gain a greater market share than the other guy if they could?
Youre telling me you actually believe that one company is giving up billions in potential profit just to keep up some conspiracy to gauge the consumer?

[theinevitable]

yes. The RIAA has gotten in trouble in the past, I believe, for doing exactly that. They all agreed with each other to keep prices above a certain level. They continue to complain about CD sales going down, but do not lower prices. This seems like the same thing, to me.

[Arachno-capitalist]

yes. The RIAA has gotten in trouble in the past, I believe, for doing exactly that. They all agreed with each other to keep prices above a certain level. They continue to complain about CD sales going down, but do not lower prices. This seems like the same thing, to me.

The RIAA is a government supported union. Unions are notorious for forcing members to install price floors.

[Doc]

Could I take OPEC for 1000 alex?

[Arachno-capitalist]

Could I take OPEC for 1000 alex?

OPEC is a collection of governments, not companies. Some of you are advocating more government activity in the economy, OPEC is the kind of stuff that results. I am in favor of less government action and more market freedom.

[Doc]

Yeah but I thought this was a discussion about whether or not oil companies have a responsibility to pursue alternative energy research, if these companies are associated with governmental organisations that has to be taken into account. I know there is an ideal of how a purely profit-focussed capitalistic corporation should work and it doesn't sound too bad to me but we shouldn't confuse the ideal with the reality.

[lprkn]

Oh no, it is not beneficial to us so far as I can tell. I think the Saudis have us by the balls. But I don't blame "oil" as a substance. I'm really glad I can drive my car and I thank the oil companies that bring it to my corner of the globe in Farmville, VA for a couple bucks a gallon. I'm amazed at how cheap it is.
If there was some substance we could all grow in our closets for free that would run our cars, ambulances, buses, planes, and ships, then I'd be all for it.
I just don't think its fair to criticize something without offering any kind of practical solution at all.

I think that there was this one guy at hempfest this one time who was trying to tell me about that...I'm pretty sure it made a lot more sense to him than me.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Yeah but I thought this was a discussion about whether or not oil companies have a responsibility to pursue alternative energy research, if these companies are associated with governmental organisations that has to be taken into account. I know there is an ideal of how a purely profit-focussed capitalistic corporation should work and it doesn't sound too bad to me but we shouldn't confuse the ideal with the reality.

Oil companies have a responsibility to lose money? I thought oil companies have a responsibility to pursue cheap, efficient oil.
Alternative energy companies have a responsibility to pursue alternative energy.
Beef companies dont have a responsibility to pursue chicken, coal companies dont have a responsibility to pursue nuclear power, beer companies dont have a responsibility to pursue liquor.
hoss and buggy companies didnt have a responsibility to pursue cars, whalers didnt have a responsibility to pursue oil, the post office didnt have a responsibility to pursue email.

[Doc]

I was merely saying what I thought the topic of conversation was, I think was pretty clear here:

Ideally they could be instrumental in getting us to that next stage since they have more money and expertise than anyone else in the energy sector but I'd settle for them not tearing down the people they choose to see as their opponents too.

that I don't think it is their responsibility but it would be productive (and probably profitable) for them to do so. In any case it is certainly irresponsible and immoral of them to interfere with research that is a threat to their business.

The only reason I brought it up at all is that I'm not quite sure what you're arguing anymore. Concerns were brought up about corporations conspiring to create artificially high prices, you said:

Do you actually believe a company wouldn't lower their prices to gain a greater market share than the other guy if they could?
Youre telling me you actually believe that one company is giving up billions in potential profit just to keep up some conspiracy to gauge the consumer?

But when we bring up the RIAA and OPEC they somehow don't count? Like I said earlier, I know you have an ideal of how capitalism should work but you have to accept that (at current at least) it stops acting in an ideal manner as soon as these big companies realise they have the power to ensure their profits using marketing and political influence rather than by providing value to their customers.

[Carlos del Vaca]

A couple of articles for you:

This guy makes powerful cars that run on alternate fuels--something Detroit's always told us is impossible--using standard parts.

Here's one on an X-prize style competition to build a car that gets 100 MPG.  Sounds like some of these guys might just pull it off.

Have our big automaker friends been unable to bring us these innovations previously because they couldn't?  Or because they didn't want to?

[AlohaDawg]

earlier, I know you have an ideal of how capitalism should work but you have to accept that (at current at least) it stops acting in an ideal manner as soon as these big companies realise they have the power to ensure their profits using marketing and political influence rather than by providing value to their customers.

They have these powers due to government interventions in the forms of protections, permissions, tax breaks, etc.  Get the government out of the market and you may find that it works a whole lot better.


That said: It looks like along the way the word DEPENDENCE fell out of this argument. The issue in my mind is DEPENDENCE on foreign oil. We should be looking for alternatives to DEPENDING on foreign oil. That may mean continued development of our own resources, such as better and cheaper methods for extracting oil from shale, or coming to an agreement on developing a minimally environmentally impacting plan for tapping into the oil fields under the ANWR.

As for the 'oil companies' not selling chicken or whatever the hell that was...in a market, a rational actor will look to the future to assess risk to the business from competition, rising costs or dwindling resources. That is why several of the biggest companies are not 'oil' companies anymore. They call themselves 'energy companies' and they are looking to the future, as any rational actor in a market would do. You can't argue market, market, market and then not acknowledge that successful companies are acting and will continue to act in their best long-term interests.

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7010
http://www.conocophillips.com/social/energy_tomorrow/index.htm

[Arachno-capitalist]

As for the 'oil companies' not selling chicken or whatever the hell that was...in a market, a rational actor will look to the future to assess risk to the business from competition, rising costs or dwindling resources. That is why several of the biggest companies are not 'oil' companies anymore. They call themselves 'energy companies' and they are looking to the future, as any rational actor in a market would do. You can't argue market, market, market and then not acknowledge that successful companies are acting and will continue to act in their best long-term interests.

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7010
http://www.conocophillips.com/social/energy_tomorrow/index.htm

Im well aware of the "energy company" trend. I was responding to the idea that oil companies have a "responsibility" to provide alternative energies. They do not. They may choose to pursue alternative technologies because they are acting in rational self interest, but they don't have some altruistic responsibility to the world to do something they may not be good at. Oil/Energy Company investment in alternative energy solutions comes out of their own self interest, not a "responsibility"