# Only socialists when a crisis hits...



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

It's kinda funny, you know, that in good times everyone wants to do their own thing, make their own money, and keep the government as far away from their affairs as possible. Then, when the sh** hits the fan, everybody goes commie.

Case in point:

The Canadian Press said Monday a Leger poll suggested 49 per cent of respondents want petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for gas companies.

It's a shame that people can't get it through their heads - strategic, vital aspects of our socio-economic lives need to be controlled by the people, not by business. When the chips are down, businesses (moreso than usual) look out for number one. 

Here in Nova Scotia, many moons ago, the Conservatives were in power and decided that Nova Scotia Power should be privatized, because "business can run it better". So they did (and lots of cronies made out very well on the deal). They took a provincially-owned strategic-sector operation and gave it away for a song. NSP was even <b>making money</b> when it was sold, somewhat negating the argument that it could be <i>run better by business</i>.

What do we have now? An agency that makes ridiculous profits, has to call in linemen from other provinces any time the wind blows above a kid blowing bubbles, and serves no public interest apart from its shareholders (who, by the way, are non-Canadian in the majority, as the NSP is now part of Emera).

When will we learn?

M.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The sell off of PetroCan was another example.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Paul Martin better be ready to steer the ship just a bit left.
Hey macnutt, do you see/hear what Canadians are saying?

Next? Nationalization of SSI water resources.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> When will we learn?


Ol PT Barnum had a comment on that........."There's one born every minute"


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> It's a shame that people can't get it through their heads - strategic, vital aspects of our socio-economic lives need to be controlled by the people, not by business. When the chips are down, businesses (moreso than usual) look out for number one.


Of course businesses are looking our for the profit. That is the main purpose of a business.

By looking out for profits, they are encouraged to lower prices or somebody else will come in and do it instead. This results in lower priced products and better service for consumers.

With electricity, it sounds like your province has given the private sector a monopoly, which can cause problems as it is not a competitive industry. Don't blame business, blame your government for signing a stupid agreement.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Of course businesses are looking our for the profit. That is the main purpose of a business.
> 
> By looking out for profits, they are encouraged to lower prices or somebody else will come in and do it instead. This results in lower priced products and better service for consumers.
> 
> With electricity, it sounds like your province has given the private sector a monopoly, which can cause problems as it is not a competitive industry. Don't blame business, blame your government for signing a stupid agreement.


Oh yeah.
Those privately run gas stations and oil companies are really encouraged to lower prices. Anyone seen lower fuel prices due to competition in say, oh, the last 4 years?

last check in my hometown 1 liter = $1.34


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> last check in my hometown 1 liter = $1.34


Then don't buy it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> With electricity, it sounds like your province has given the private sector a monopoly, which can cause problems as it is not a competitive industry. Don't blame business, blame your government for signing a stupid agreement.


Quebec Hydro is doing very well.
I seem to recall rolling blackouts in California....
Private energy is more expensive, less innovative and usually worse for the population...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Quebec Hydro is doing very well.
> I seem to recall rolling blackouts in California....
> Private energy is more expensive, less innovative and usually worse for the population...


In California, the government prevented a free market by having certain pricing conditions.

When the price went up, business still had to deliver the product at the preset price causing them to lose money for each KW sold.

Normally, in a free market demand will fluctuate with price. In the case of California, the price was held low by law, which caused an artificial amount of demand. 

As would be predicted by economics, it is not in the interest of business to deliver the artificial amount of demand. Therefore, they shut power to their plants on purpose causing the blackouts.

Next time, the government would do good to study supply and demand economics.

A government monopoly is not without costs. Economics term these losses as deadweigh losses. More on this later if you are still interested.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Mugatu said:


> Then don't buy it.


What is my car suppsed to run on?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> In California, the government prevented a free market by having certain pricing conditions.
> 
> When the price went up, business still had to deliver the product at the preset price causing them to lose money for each KW sold.
> 
> ...


I guess Enron did a much better job.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> In California, the government prevented a free market by having certain pricing conditions.
> 
> When the price went up, business still had to deliver the product at the preset price causing them to lose money for each KW sold.
> 
> Normally, in a free market demand will fluctuate with price. In the case of California, the price was held low by law, which caused an artificial amount of demand.


That's rather an over simplification - we could debate that for hours but an ehmac forum is not the place. 



Vandave said:


> As would be predicted by economics, it is not in the interest of business to deliver the artificial amount of demand. Therefore, they shut power to their plants on purpose causing the blackouts.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/california/
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/18/lefevre.debrief.02/



Vandave said:


> Next time, the government would do good to study supply and demand economics.


Supply and demand are only part of the equation - A "for profit industry" is not always the answer. 
Letting the market work does not always work....



Vandave said:


> A government monopoly is not without costs. Economics term these losses as deadweigh losses. More on this later if you are still interested.


I don't think we will agree on this (please note my views are akin to being Libertarian, so it's certainly not political in this case).


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> What is my car suppsed to run on?


The hot air generated from ehMac sounds like a good alternative. 

I remember when there was a gas war in the Maritimes about 6-7 years ago -- I believe it went down to about 35 cents per litre. Those were good times.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> What is my car suppsed to run on?


Sell your car, buy a bike, take the bus, walk, car pool, get a pogo stick, etc.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> A government monopoly is not without costs. Economics term these losses as deadweigh losses. More on this later if you are still interested.


Um.. no, thanks, that's alright, really... I'm no newbie to the study of economics. On more than one occasion during my university days I had headaches from banging my head against the classical economists who didn't seem to know how to subtract. You know the ones, those who see GDP growth as only a good thing, forgetting that, for example, the Exxon Valdes disaster contributed to a growing GDP due to the amount of money that had to be spent cleaning up the mess. Twisted logic.

The market operates (ideally) efficiently in the pursuit of profit. In the real world, markets do not take into account social costs of business, which is why governmental controls are necessary. The problem is in finding a balance that works...

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There are very few pure markets - computers might be in that class as I well know - cheaper faster etc but anything with a restrictive component, regulation, high entry cost, human labour component lends itself to monopoly or as in the case of oil companies oligarchy.

It's not truly competitive.

Even a bakery which CAN be a free market can be controlled by the likes of Loblaws by restricting entry due to high shelf listing costs - few bakers can afford the $150,000 up front for Loblaws shelf facing.

There was good reason at the beginning of the 1900s it was the Feds versus the Robber Barons. Even in laissez faire days there was no real "market" as below cost pricing forced competitors out of business.
You only have to look at the brutalization of farmers by the food industry to see the horrendous costs in social terms of an oligarchy.

A mixed economy with regulation to prevent abuse but enough reward for innovation is a tough balancing act.....and it requires human directing of goals ......no "dead hand" please.
A peaceable prosperous human society is no accident of market forces.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Um.. no, thanks, that's alright, really... I'm no newbie to the study of economics. On more than one occasion during my university days I had headaches from banging my head against the classical economists who didn't seem to know how to subtract. You know the ones, those who see GDP growth as only a good thing, forgetting that, for example, the Exxon Valdes disaster contributed to a growing GDP due to the amount of money that had to be spent cleaning up the mess. Twisted logic.
> 
> The market operates (ideally) efficiently in the pursuit of profit. In the real world, markets do not take into account social costs of business, which is why governmental controls are necessary. The problem is in finding a balance that works...
> 
> M.


Yes, I agree that negative externialities do occur and a free market will generally put profit ahead of managing externialities.

That's where government regulation is required. In my opinion, the role of government should be to set the rules, rather than manage the market. If we were to nationalize gas, that would be an attempt to manage the market, which generally results in a negative outcome for everybody.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There are very few pure markets - computers might be in that class as I well know - cheaper faster etc but anything with a restrictive component, regulation, high entry cost, human labour component lends itself to monopoly or as in the case of oil companies oligarchy.
> 
> It's not truly competitive.
> 
> ...


The presence of barriers to entry does not prevent a free market. Have a look at the automotive sector, which is very competitive, but has a high (read massive) entry cost.

As you probably know, below pricing to force a competitor out of business is illegal in Canada.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I guess Enron did a much better job.


A better job of what?

Breaking accounting rules is against the law. Enron broke the law and got caught. You can't paint the free market as being bad because one company (or a minority of companies) breaks the law.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Oh yeah.
> Those privately run gas stations and oil companies are really encouraged to lower prices. Anyone seen lower fuel prices due to competition in say, oh, the last 4 years?
> 
> last check in my hometown 1 liter = $1.34


Why does every study that a government undertakes always fail to find evidence of collusion in the gas station business? 

I don't buy the argument of price gouging. 

In your own words, you would be willing to pay more for gasoline.

Demand for gasoline is known to be inelastic. In basic terms that means gas stations companies can make a lot more money by raising prices. With elastic demand, companies lose more money by increasing price. 

I would speculate the price point of elastic to inelastic demand would be about $3 per litre (maybe even higher in the short term).

The fact that companies aren't charging that amount is a testiment to competition.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Smoking didn't cause cancer either  and drug companies spend SOOOOO much on research they HAVE to charge high prices.

Any more myths you'd like to trot out.
Why do you think oil companies are moving to income trusts....profit streams are now a "done deal" .....little or in risk in the business in the near term.

Sunset industry that no competitor in their right mind would enter at the moment.

The trick will be the govs and the ENERGY industry teaming up to transition to new fuels with the windfalls of the current profits.

It has to be managed - not left to chance.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

CubaMark,

I doubt your socialist revolution will be lead by disgruntled SUV owners. I think they'd love to see the oil companies punished but I doubt a nationalized company will charge us any less... and then the same people will be crying for privatization.

Much though it hurts at the pump I think the rising prices are a good thing and should help spur the adoption of alternate energy sources. The Europeans are way ahead of us here... probably because gas cost twice as much.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Of course businesses are looking our for the profit. That is the main purpose of a business.
> 
> By looking out for profits, they are encouraged to lower prices or somebody else will come in and do it instead. This results in lower priced products and better service for consumers.
> 
> With electricity, it sounds like your province has given the private sector a monopoly, which can cause problems as it is not a competitive industry. Don't blame business, blame your government for signing a stupid agreement.


If you truly believe that I have some very lovely low tide water front property on the Bay of Fundy I can sell you really cheap so I can make a "tidy" profit.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> CubaMark,
> 
> I doubt your socialist revolution will be lead by disgruntled SUV owners. I think they'd love to see the oil companies punished but I doubt a nationalized company will charge us any less... and then the same people will be crying for privatization.
> 
> Much though it hurts at the pump I think the rising prices are a good thing and should help spur the adoption of alternate energy sources. The Europeans are way ahead of us here... probably because gas cost twice as much.


Q. Why does gas cost more in Europe? 
A. Oooh! Oooh! I know!Government had a hand in it. Many with socialist leanings


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I doubt your socialist revolution will be lead by disgruntled SUV owners.


Heh - very true. Those who can afford to drive an SUV have no great concern over gas prices.


> I think they'd love to see the oil companies punished but I doubt a nationalized company will charge us any less...


Possibly - but the argument goes beyond pricing, it's an issue of national security. Trudeau's Energy plan was all about protecting the resource and the best interests of the Canadian people.


> Much though it hurts at the pump I think the rising prices are a good thing and should help spur the adoption of alternate energy sources.


RIght on the money - and hopefully that will happen. Again, the government needs to be a leader here, putting more money into R&D, grants to homeowners for alternative energy adoption, policy adaptation to encourage the shift that <u>has to occur</u>...

M


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

BigDL said:


> If you truly believe that I have some very lovely low tide water front property on the Bay of Fundy I can sell you really cheap so I can make a "tidy" profit.


What's not to believe?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> It's kinda funny, you know, that in good times everyone wants to do their own thing, make their own money, and keep the government as far away from their affairs as possible. Then, when the sh** hits the fan, everybody goes commie.


You are having a problem with your definitions. Nationalization != Socialism.



CubaMark said:


> "The Canadian Press said Monday a Leger poll suggested 49 per cent of respondents want petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for gas companies."


Polls don't really mean very much. The huge flux in this is the result of emotional reasoning. People are still coming to grips with such a huge surge in the price of gas. Also, was the question "how do you think the government can solve the problems of the oil industry" or was it "should the government nationalize the oil industry to solve the problem?" The nature of the question with determine the nature of the response.

Besides, most people would recommend government intervention to solve problems as large as an entire industry. It doesn't take very much knowledge to say "the government needs to do something!" rather than come up with another alternative.



CubaMark said:


> It's a shame that people can't get it through their heads - strategic, vital aspects of our socio-economic lives need to be controlled by the people, not by business.


Again, you are having a problem, but this time it's your word selection.

What is strategic? What is vital? "Social-economic lives" is a little too vague. My sex life has a socio-economic aspect. I would hard pressed to think of a non-socio-economic aspect of life. I guess that's why truly socialist societies try to run every aspect of life.

And the government is not "the people."

The absurdity? Homeless are sleeping on the streets of Toronto tonight, and they know nothing about any "oil crisis." But their "spokesmen" in the socialist groups will exploit the suburban angst over high gas prices and propose nationalization as a cure. And after all the "strategic, vital aspects" are under state control, and they finally get around to doing something about the homeless, they will do what they always do: dump the homeless in a work camp. Probably in the "vital" industries like oil.

After all, that's what they do with the "work-shy" in Cuba.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ipk you were WONDERFUL in explaining the reserve versus mainstream military......

This post???............... what a completely unintelligible hash and you're dissing CM for language use !!!!!!????
I don't think so.

••

So the military is important enough to be nationalized and energy resources are NOT!!??

Why are you not espousing private armies?? 

You know highest bidder, market forces n all.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

that type of lpmckenna logic is eerily reminicent of the logic used by big tobacco when discussing cancerous affects of their product on users


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> that type of lpmckenna logic is eerily reminicent of the logic used by big tobacco when discussing cancerous affects of their product on users


You'll have to explain that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

as long as it makes money, who cares who gets hurt
i'm just not very good at listening to authority figures

to quote Fox Mulder; "Trust no one"


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> what a completely unintelligible hash and you're dissing CM for language use !!!!!!????


No, I was dissing those who would propose huge gov't expansion to deal with gas prices, but propose little or nothing about the homeless. I really believe tyrants are motivated by a desire to control people, not a desire to help people. "Helping" is an excuse.

Language use is important. The difference between "the people" and "the government" is very important in political discussion. If someone says "the people have the right to free speech," I need to know whether they mean individual private citizens or members of the governing party. (After all, the constitutions of Cuba and Canada both guarantee free speech, but the difference in implementation is immense.)


MacDoc said:


> So the military is important enough to be nationalized and energy resources are NOT!!?? Why are you not espousing private armies??


And which product would they be selling? And let's say I choose not to buy their "product," and we are invaded by Denmark. How are the customers of the CF treated compared to me?

The military isn't nationalized, but organized by the government. Nationalized simply refers to the transfer of private ownership to public ownership. There is no "ownership" of the use of physical force.

The intent of my post was to re-frame the understanding of that poll about the nationalization of the oil industry. A poll is only a snapshot of public opinion at a specific time. It really means nothing.

My other intent was to discredit CubaMark's claim that "we all turn commie in a crisis." While we do push the government "to do something" in an emergency, that isn't the same as "turning commie." Nationalization, regulation, taxation, redistribution - these are all valid types of government action. When the reactionaries call every government expansion "creeping socialism" it is rightly dismissed as paranoia. When the radicals call every government expansion "turning commie" it's basically the same thing. We expect "reds under the beds" from reactionaries, not from their enemies.

I don't happen to think nationalizing oil production will solve anything. But that's neither here nor there. I'm a liberal. I'll entertain any proposal if an argument is lucid and sensible. I haven't heard one here. But given our gov't is already having trouble managing the industries it controls now, I'm not inclined to add to their overloaded plate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> But given our gov't is already having trouble managing the industries it controls now, I'm not inclined to add to their overloaded plate.


Good post but you forget some good examples of very profitable government run industries. Hydro-Quebec, Lotto Quebec, SAQ...and I'm inclined to think I'm forgetting many. Where I see more problems is when the sectors go semi-private...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> as long as it makes money, who cares who gets hurt


I never said this, or anything similar.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'm just not very good at listening to authority figures


But you'll compare me to them, nonetheless. I suppose you weren't listening to what I actually said, either?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Good post but you forget some good examples of very profitable government run industries. Hydro-Quebec, Lotto Quebec, SAQ...and I'm inclined to think I'm forgetting many. Where I see more problems is when the sectors go semi-private...


Nobody seems to read anything here! 

I never said state industries were necessarily bad. I gotta quote Clinton here: "We need to abandon the beliefs that gov't is the cause of all woes, or that gov't is the cure for all problems." (Actually, that's a paraphrase, not a quote.)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

lpkmckenna, you wrote that "our gov't is already having trouble managing the industries it controls now, I'm not inclined to add to their overloaded plate.".
I say, why not? They DO a GOOD job (sorry about the MacNutt bolds). Let them take over a natural resource.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Polls don't really mean very much. The huge flux in this is the result of emotional reasoning. People are still coming to grips with such a huge surge in the price of gas. Also, was the question "how do you think the government can solve the problems of the oil industry" or was it "should the government nationalize the oil industry to solve the problem?" The nature of the question with determine the nature of the response.


That's a very good point. If you reframed the question from the other side you would get an equally favourable response.

Ask something along the lines of, "With the recent rise in gasoline prices, should the government further deregulate the oil industry and/or reduce taxes?"


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Good post but you forget some good examples of very profitable government run industries. Hydro-Quebec, Lotto Quebec, SAQ...and I'm inclined to think I'm forgetting many. Where I see more problems is when the sectors go semi-private...


It's amazing all government monopolies aren't profitable. Think about it, they have a MONOPOLY. It kind of makes it easy.

Everybody should understand that a government run monopoly is not without an economic cost. This is widely accepted economic theory. If you want to learn about it, type "deadweight loss of monopoly" into Google. 

The economic benefit is not transfered back to the government. It is totally lost and is not recoverable. 

That said, I understand that we also must account for other costs, such as social and environmental costs. So, in some situations government run institutions are good (I don't advocate total privatization). But, to suggest nationalization of oil and gas is lunacy in my mind.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> lpkmckenna, you wrote that "our gov't is already having trouble managing the industries it controls now, I'm not inclined to add to their overloaded plate.".
> I say, why not? They DO a GOOD job (sorry about the MacNutt bolds). Let them take over a natural resource.


The oil industry isn't a natural resource. The "oil" part is, but the "industry" part isn't.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It's amazing all government monopolies aren't profitable. Think about it, they have a MONOPOLY. It kind of makes it easy.


Or you have some private companies running something akin to a Monopoly.
No, not all government monopolies are profitable or have to be profitable. Some social concerns should outweigh that.

The problem is that you are saying we live in vacuum where you use terms like "monopoly" but it's not the text book situation.

For example the SAQ is the "official" retail store for all liquor in Quebec BUT you can buy beer or wine at depanneurs and supermarkets. 
Wine and other spirits are sold by importers and resellers. And guess what? For the most part Quebec enjoys some of the lowest prices for alcohol in Canada, the employees get decent salaries (although there is much room improvement, but the quest for MORE profits killed that).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There are very few pure markets - computers might be in that class as I well know - cheaper faster etc but anything with a restrictive component, regulation, high entry cost, human labour component lends itself to monopoly or as in the case of oil companies oligarchy.


An oligopoly is still a free and competitive market. It just means that the market is dominated by a small (2 to 10) number of companies.

I'm not even sure oil companies would meet the definition of an oligopoly as they are quite a number of players in the upstream and downstream sides f the industry. 

There aren't very many monopolies in a free market. When they do occur, the government can intervene. In economics, a measure of monopolistic structure is called the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI). Cutting and pasting from an article from the internet....[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DKI/is_3_2000/ai_67871676]
Despite popular wisdom and an explanation linking concentration to the asymmetry between movements in crude oil and gasoline prices, there does not appear to be much evidence of monopolization in any segment of the gasoline market. The United States consumed 123 billion gallons of gasoline in 1996. The market share claimed by the four largest gasoline refiner/marketers (37.7 percent), as well as a relatively low Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of 650 [on a scale of 0 (perfect competition) to 10,000 (monopoly)], suggests that U.S. gasoline production is competitive when viewed at the national level.

Of interest, a study was done on Microsoft that showed they weren't a monopoly. Each new program or OS they introduce competes against their previous versions. Therefore, the prices are kept in check. The study found that if they really had a monopoly, they could charge 1000's of dollars for Windows.  The fact that they weren't charging these prices was evidence for the lack of a monopoly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The problem is that you are saying we live in vacuum where you use terms like "monopoly" but it's not the text book situation.
> 
> For example the SAQ is the "official" retail store for all liquor in Quebec BUT you can buy beer or wine at depanneurs and supermarkets.
> Wine and other spirits are sold by importers and resellers. And guess what? For the most part Quebec enjoys some of the lowest prices for alcohol in Canada, the employees get decent salaries (although there is much room improvement, but the quest for MORE profits killed that).


Can anybody other business in Quebec purchase and distribute alcohol to businesses? No, only the government can do that, so competition only exists at the retail level. That makes SAQ a monopoly at the point of distribution and it is a perfect textbook example.

The term "Decent Salaries" is very debatable. Studies have shown that high minimum wages reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available, thus hurting lower income people, although the intention was to help them. Supply and demand of labour doesn't really get affected by such legislation, except at the bottom end, where the market with only supply the amount of jobs demanded at that wage. I know this will be very hard for people here to accept.... Believe me, I think everybody that wants to work deserves to make a living. But, I don't think minimum wage legislation is the way to do it though for the above reasons. A better way is for the government to redistribute money to these people in other ways (e.g. tax cuts).


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Of interest, a study was done on Microsoft that showed they weren't a monopoly. Each new program or OS they introduce competes against their previous versions. Therefore, the prices are kept in check. The study found that if they really had a monopoly, they could charge 1000's of dollars for Windows.  The fact that they weren't charging these prices was evidence for the lack of a monopoly.


"A study was done." No kidding?

Microsoft products compete against other Microsoft products. Ergo, there is no monopoly. Unless you want to buy non-Microsoft, I guess.

Whomever did this "study" started it right after flunking an elementary course in logic.

I don't think MS is a monopoly either, but not for these reasons!!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Studies have shown that high minimum wages reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available


Oh G-d, yet another study? Oh wait, this is just the law of supply and demand. Fantastic! A multi-million dollar study to prove the first 10 minutes of economics 101. Can you imagine what a study could prove using the remaining 99% of a course in economics?


Vandave said:


> A better way is for the government to redistribute money to these people in other ways (e.g. tax cuts).


A tax cut on next-to-nothing?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> "A study was done." No kidding?
> 
> Microsoft products compete against other Microsoft products. Ergo, there is no monopoly. Unless you want to buy non-Microsoft, I guess.
> 
> ...


I think you are stuck on the definition of a monopoly. You are suggesting that a company with a large market share is a monopoly (the classic economic definition). The study I discussed instead defined a monopoly by its effect (not market share). 

Imagine, if MS had complete market share and could shut down every OS running 95, 98, ME, 2000 and XP. Consumers would have no choice but to buy their new product (whatever it is now called). In this situation, MS could maximize profits by charging 1000's of dollars per copy. Think about it.... Most businesses would be willing to pay that price. 

But MS can't charge that price because they have to compete against their own products. 

If you are interested, try and find that study on google.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Oh G-d, yet another study? Oh wait, this is just the law of supply and demand. Fantastic! A multi-million dollar study to prove the first 10 minutes of economics 101. Can you imagine what a study could prove using the remaining 99% of a course in economics?A tax cut on next-to-nothing?


Well, if left wingers would accept basic economics, I guess such studies wouldn't be necessary. 

A tax cut was only an example. There are other ways to help lower income people out. I thought Chretien's idea of Guaranteed Annual Minimum Wage had some merit. So, maybe if you hold a job and work more than 1500 hours, you get a bonus cheque from the government instead of a tax cut.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Can anybody other business in Quebec purchase and distribute alcohol to businesses? No, only the government can do that, so competition only exists at the retail level. That makes SAQ a monopoly at the point of distribution and it is a perfect textbook example.


Beer and private imports can be done by anyone passing the Quality Control standards. 
At the retail level, I said that supermarkets and corner stores are points of purchase. Heck, most beer in Quebec does not even go near the SAQ. 



Vandave said:


> The term "Decent Salaries" is very debatable. Studies have shown that high minimum wages reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available, thus hurting lower income people, although the intention was to help them. Supply and demand of labour doesn't really get affected by such legislation, except at the bottom end, where the market with only supply the amount of jobs demanded at that wage. I know this will be very hard for people here to accept.... Believe me, I think everybody that wants to work deserves to make a living. But, I don't think minimum wage legislation is the way to do it though for the above reasons. A better way is for the government to redistribute money to these people in other ways (e.g. tax cuts).


Yes, I see that it has worked very well in the US where the gap between the rich and the poor is barely noticeable (sarcasm? maybe....)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Well, if left wingers would accept basic economics, I guess such studies wouldn't be necessary.


What an odd statement to say to a libertarian....

Basic economics are so far removed from reality that you need a bunch of excuse makers to explain why the theory never works...
Economics never take into account the "human factor" and until you can, will always fail as a precise predictor of any market behaviour.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The term "Decent Salaries" is very debatable. Studies have shown that high minimum wages reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available, thus hurting lower income people, although the intention was to help them.


I can't seem to find those studies, can you point me in the right direction?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Oil and gas prices need to be regulated. Period.
The robber barons that run these companies have bled the Canadian consumer long enough.
De-regulation isn't working. Remember that electricity fiasco here in Ontario a few years ago when you had people knocking at your door every few minutes?

Bell and Rogers are regualted (somewhat) by the CRTC.
gasoline is an essential service
let them justify their increases to a board inquiry and see how fast prices DON'T shoot up

and let's remember it was the gov't that first start playing in the oil sands
oh, and let's cap the gov't tax on oil while we're at it
oh gee, that would almost happen with regulated pricing...
go figure, eh?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I can't seem to find those studies, can you point me in the right direction?


i think they are in a vault on SSI


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I can't seem to find those studies, can you point me in the right direction?


Heard of google?

Try entering "supply and demand" + "minimum wage"

You'll see all sorts of stuff to support what I said.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Oil and gas prices need to be regulated. Period.
> The robber barons that run these companies have bled the Canadian consumer long enough.


You have no evidence to label oil companies as robber barons and you have no evidence of collusion.

I challenge you to read the article I linked above and tell me where you think it is wrong.


----------



## TheAnalyst (Sep 8, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Heard of google?
> 
> Try entering "supply and demand" + "minimum wage"
> 
> You'll see all sorts of stuff to support what I said.


Vandave's passive-aggresive retord seems directed at avoiding certain questions.

This denial is not uncommon and is a commonly used tactic during debates.

Interesting.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

TheAnalyst said:


> Vandave's passive-aggresive retord seems directed at avoiding certain questions.
> 
> This denial is not uncommon and is a commonly used tactic during debates.
> 
> Interesting.


Uhhhh.... nope.....

I'm not avoiding anything. If anything, I am being more open with my argument by suggesting the person I am debating to filter through the information themselves. A common tactic in debates is to pick and chose examples that support the viewpoint. I don't need to do that because what I said above is widely accepted by economists. Have a look yourself. Why should I provide the 358,000 links that google nicely summarizes?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't need to do that because what I said above is widely accepted by economists. Have a look yourself. Why should I provide the 358,000 links that google nicely summarizes?


Well thank you Vandave - the first four links had nothing and the fifth one this:



> The costs and benefits arising from minimum wages are subject to considerable disagreement among economists.
> .....
> For example, they look at the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case, Card and Kreuger present evidence ostensibly showing that increases in the minimum wage led to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs. That is, it appears that the demand for low-wage workers is inelastic. Also, these authors reexamine the existing literature on the minimum wage and argue that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts the availability of jobs.
> 
> ...


So what study where you thinking of exactly?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Why should I provide the 358,000 links that google nicely summarizes?


Heh heh heh... that gave me a chuckle... "Google nicely summarizes". I'm guessing that your university term papers were interestingly referenced....

M.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well thank you Vandave - the first four links had nothing and the fifth one this:
> 
> 
> 
> So what study where you thinking of exactly?


The reason I suggested people reference google was so that I couldn't cut and paste the study that served my needs. 

For every link that ArtistSeries posts refuting my statement, I could post ten more supporting it. I encourage everybody to look themselves. A quick view of most links shows that my previous statement is supported.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Heh heh heh... that gave me a chuckle... "Google nicely summarizes". I'm guessing that your university term papers were interestingly referenced....
> 
> M.


Not too many term papers are done in engineering.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> For every link that ArtistSeries posts refuting my statement, I could post ten more supporting it. I encourage everybody to look themselves. A quick view of most links shows that my previous statement is supported.


So being right requires providing as many links from Google as possible? I mean, providing 10 times as many links as ArtistSeries only proves that you need more hobbies.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Not too many term papers are done in engineering.


i know several engineers and the lack of term papers shows up when they try to put together a few sentences
then there are those few engineers that finish MBAs and eventually learn how to write an essay or two


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> You have no evidence to label oil companies as robber barons and you have no evidence of collusion.
> 
> I challenge you to read the article I linked above and tell me where you think it is wrong.


ok, let's see now..

gasoline was still in the station tanks and "voila" prices jumped by 1/3
so that gasoline that they arlready ordered at a lower price suddenly cost the station more money justifying a 1/3 increase
or
maybe just "highway robbery?"

man, my local loan shark doesn't raise prices like that


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Well by Vandave's account 358,000 proves he is right - no matter what those links contain. 
And when I do look into those links, they had nothing supporting what he said. 
In reality they contradicted his point and actually supported mine.

I still did not find his study... I found some opinions... Vancouver Dave can always post the link to the study and I will gladly read it. Or I can have him type http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=stupid+argument&btnG=Search&meta= into google. There are about 10,800,000 results, so I would be more right than him by his logic...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gasoline was still in the station tanks and "voila" prices jumped by 1/3
> so that gasoline that they arlready ordered at a lower price suddenly cost the station more money justifying a 1/3 increase


I don't want to get too deep into this, but the cost the gas station paid for their fuel and the price they sold it at are completely unrelated. The time period and changing circumstances (in this case, an enormous hurricane in an oil producing region) makes a lot of difference.

I bought my old iMac G3 for almost $3000. I sold it for less than $300. Different time, different price.

The price is dropping again. Get over it.

By the way, I don't care much about the price of gas for the same reason I don't care much for the insecurity of Windows. I take the subway, and I use a Mac.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> The price is dropping again. Get over it.


gee you seem to care so much for those homeless, but what about the working poor that need their cars?

like i said, robber barons
the spike was totally artificial and the boys and girls at [insert name of large oil company here] are just laughing, but when Lou Dobbs [CNN business anchor] starts calling for a formal investigation of oil/gasoline prices, there just may be a hint of trouble

Bell Canada cannot raise rates without first applying for said increase to the CRTC
time has come to put big oil in the same boat


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i know several engineers and the lack of term papers shows up when they try to put together a few sentences


Kind of like your sentences? LOL....



MACSPECTRUM said:


> then there are those few engineers that finish MBAs and eventually learn how to write an essay or two


Yes, some engineers have poor english. I am not one of them. I have seen many arts students with awful english as well. Artsy fartsy courses tend to encourage a lot of verbage and piss poor writing in my opinion.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ok, let's see now..
> 
> gasoline was still in the station tanks and "voila" prices jumped by 1/3
> so that gasoline that they arlready ordered at a lower price suddenly cost the station more money justifying a 1/3 increase
> ...


I guess you didn't want to take me up on ready the essay. 

If the price of a commodity goes up, the owner of the commodity gets all the gain in price, not the consumer. The purchase price is irrelevant because it is a sunk cost. Look at your house.... Would you sell your house below market value because you got a good price on it in the 1960's? No, everybody sells things at market value.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well by Vandave's account 358,000 proves he is right - no matter what those links contain.
> And when I do look into those links, they had nothing supporting what he said.
> In reality they contradicted his point and actually supported mine.
> 
> I still did not find his study... I found some opinions... Vancouver Dave can always post the link to the study and I will gladly read it. Or I can have him type http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=stupid+argument&btnG=Search&meta= into google. There are about 10,800,000 results, so I would be more right than him by his logic...


I don't have time right now to go through each posting. If you don't want to take me at my word (or read a bunch of links to get a feel for it), I will provide as many links as you like later tonight.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I guess you didn't want to take me up on ready the essay.
> 
> If the price of a commodity goes up, the owner of the commodity gets all the gain in price, not the consumer. The purchase price is irrelevant because it is a sunk cost. Look at your house.... Would you sell your house below market value because you got a good price on it in the 1960's? No, everybody sells things at market value.



then why would Lou Dobbs, business anchor at CNN (not exactly NDP HQ) call it "gouging" on air?

perhaps you understand the business world a little better than Lou Dobbs?
i mean, being an engineer and all


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I guess you didn't want to take me up on ready the essay.
> 
> If the price of a commodity goes up, the owner of the commodity gets all the gain in price, not the consumer. The purchase price is irrelevant because it is a sunk cost. Look at your house.... Would you sell your house below market value because you got a good price on it in the 1960's? No, everybody sells things at market value.


my house didn't increase in value by 1/3 overnight
also, my house is not a necessary commodity that is sold many times per day
your analogy is incorrect
housing prices do go up and down but the prices don't fluctuate as radically as gasoline prices and a house doesn't get "used up" after 600 km or so

commodities are hardly "assets"

just which "engineering shcool" do you claim to have completed?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If you don't want to take me at my word (or read a bunch of links to get a feel for it)


I don't agree with your statement at all. It's one that economist even between themselves disagree on. Maybe we can start another thread later on this subject as we are far off the subject at hand?


----------



## PirateMyke (Jul 14, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> By the way, I don't care much about the price of gas for the same reason I don't care much for the insecurity of Windows. I take the subway, and I use a Mac.



 thats the best thing iv ever heard!!!!!!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Yes, some engineers have poor english. I am not one of them. I have seen many arts students with awful english as well. Artsy fartsy courses tend to encourage a lot of verbage and piss poor writing in my opinion.


Since we all seem to like posting broad generalizations, I'm provide one myself. Based on all the postings I've read by engineers (in other words, only Vandave), engineers have a great many opinions about subjects they didn't study, and many more opinions about the people that did.

But that's just my artsy fartsy opinion. By the way, "verbage" isn't a word.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> then why would Lou Dobbs, business anchor at CNN (not exactly NDP HQ) call it "gouging" on air?
> 
> perhaps you understand the business world a little better than Lou Dobbs?
> i mean, being an engineer and all


[SARCASM]Television economists are great sources of information. In no way are they biased or concerned about ratings. [/SARCASM]

Lou Dobbs has been busy lately pushing 'populist' topics (e.g. illegal Mexican refugees).

I'll repeat this again.... Every time a government does a study in an attempt to find price gouging or collusion, they come up empty. Every time. This has been done dozens of times. Read the study I provided a link to.

I'll admit that Lou Dobbs knows more than I do about the business world, but I am not uneducated on the subject of Economics.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> my house didn't increase in value by 1/3 overnight
> also, my house is not a necessary commodity that is sold many times per day
> your analogy is incorrect
> housing prices do go up and down but the prices don't fluctuate as radically as gasoline prices and a house doesn't get "used up" after 600 km or so
> ...


Keep digging that hole. Seriously, are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, or do you actually not believe that goods are sold at market rates (as opposed to purchased rates)?

You are correct that a house is an asset, which is different than a commodity. That doesn't take away from my analogy. 

I went to UBC and graduated in Geological Engineering (top of my class mind you as well).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Since we all seem to like posting broad generalizations, I'm provide one myself. Based on all the postings I've read by engineers (in other words, only Vandave), engineers have a great many opinions about subjects they didn't study, and many more opinions about the people that did.
> 
> But that's just my artsy fartsy opinion. By the way, "verbage" isn't a word.


Feel free to go through my 300 postings and see how many spelling mistakes you can find. I bet there isn't more than a handful and I don't use spell check. BTW...I can see one in your posting above.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Feel free to go through my 300 postings and see how many spelling mistakes you can find. I bet there isn't more than a handful and I don't use spell check. BTW...I can see one in your posting above.


I'll get right on that reading of your 300 posts, just as soon as I'm done reading those 358,000 Google results, and the 4,500 word study you recommended. Do you have any other reasonable requests for me?

(And there are no spelling mistakes in my post, but there is an error in word choice.)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> I'll get right on that reading of your 300 posts, just as soon as I'm done reading those 358,000 Google results, and the 4,500 word study you recommended. Do you have any other reasonable requests for me?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Keep digging that hole. Seriously, are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, or do you actually not believe that goods are sold at market rates (as opposed to purchased rates)?
> gasoline prices are being artificially increased without justification, except profit
> that's called "profiteering"
> 
> ...


ohhh, top of your class.... I guess this is where I am supposed to be impressed?
Let me go work on that and I'll get back to you.

I didn't know the Fraser Institute had a campus that taught engineering at UBC.
You learn something new every day.
Stephen Harper needs people like you. Everyone else is running from a sinking ship.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> [SARCASM]I'll repeat this again.... Every time a government does a study in an attempt to find price gouging or collusion, they come up empty. Every time. This has been done dozens of times. Read the study I provided a link to.


Having the government do study on gasoline price gouging or collusion is like having the tobacco industry do a study to determine is smoking is bad for you...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ohhh, top of your class.... I guess this is where I am supposed to be impressed?
> Let me go work on that and I'll get back to you.
> 
> I didn't know the Fraser Institute had a campus that taught engineering at UBC.
> ...


It's only fair that I swing back when you challenge my education. I don't care if you are impressed or not, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'll stand by my arguments and statements before creditials any day. Some of the smartest and most successful people in the world have no formal education.

Care to get back on topic and refute my statements?

1. Products are sold at market rates in a free market.
2. There is no substantial evidence of gouging or collusion in the oil markets.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> It's only fair that I swing back when you challenge my education. I don't care if you are impressed or not, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'll stand by my arguments and statements before creditials any day. Some of the smartest and most successful people in the world have no formal education.
> 
> Care to get back on topic and refute my statements?
> 
> ...


I didn't discuss collusion, but I did mention "gouging."
Good thing I didn't get an engineering degree at UBC.

And as for "lack of evidence";

========================================


Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Senators condemn oil price 'gouging'
Cantwell wants option to cap costs

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Responding to high-octane suspicions of price gouging at the pump, senators from both parties Tuesday condemned price manipulation but differed over the best way to attack the problem.

The cost of fuel continues to rise as the federal government reported that the price of unleaded regular gas averaged $3.07 a gallon nationwide. The 46-cent-a- gallon spike from a month ago is largely the result of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, but critics pointed out that the price was moving higher even before the massive storm demolished the Gulf Coast.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., is convinced that the oil companies have artificially increased prices and wants President Bush to have the power to cap gas prices if necessary. She likens the conditions to those that caused the Enron fraud of the electricity market in 2000 and 2001.

"Absolutely. I just don't have the document to prove it," Cantwell said when asked if oil companies are price gouging. "It takes a lot to get the document to prove it and there's no way the (Federal Trade Commission) is going to produce that anytime soon."

Prices have increased 19 cents a gallon in Seattle in the last week even though most of Washington's oil comes from Alaska, Cantwell pointed out. The average price per gallon in Seattle is $2.91, an increase of 36 cents from one month ago.

Moreover, she said, the price you pay is as much a function of luck and good timing as market forces. On Sept. 1, for instance, a Unocal 76 station at Denny Way and Broad Street in Seattle was charging $2.97, while another 76 station nearby was charging $2.77.

"We're talking about a 20-cent difference in the same brand of gasoline in two different locations," Cantwell said.

"My constituents are frustrated. Consumers want to know what we're going to do about this. Consumers definitely want to know what's going on."

Cantwell intends to introduce legislation on Thursday that would give Bush power to investigate price gouging and, if necessary, cap price increases. She discussed her proposal Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the hurricane's impact on rising energy prices.

The bill would give Bush the power to declare an energy emergency.

Under such an emergency, if prices rose beyond a predetermined amount, Bush could order the increases to stop. The legislation is needed, Cantwell said, because only 23 states have statutes that forbid price gouging and high energy prices are causing pain and havoc in families nationwide. Washington is not one of the states that forbids the practice.

"I want to give the president all the tools possible," Cantwell said. "...Giving the president power to declare an energy emergency sends a very sharp message to people that we are going to be coming after them"

The oil industry bitterly opposes price caps, arguing they don't work.

Prices, industry officials say, will come down by themselves when the damage from Katrina is repaired.

The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the federal Energy Department, forecasts that gas will come down to $2.60 a gallon this year and $2.40 in 2006.

Cantwell's proposal is modeled on a similar law that was written by former Washington Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson that was passed in 1970. It expired in 1981.

"The energy price and allocation controls of the 1970s resulted in supply shortages in the form of long gas lines," Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, told the Senate Energy Committee.

Cantwell, however, says the predictions of lower prices are imprecise at best. She points out that Wall Street analysts have predicted that crude oil will eventually cost $100 a barrel. It currently costs $67 a barrel.

In addition to Cantwell's bill, other remedies suggested at Tuesday's hearing include a proposal from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to *force oil companies to rebate $80 billion in "windfall profits."*

The Senate is not alone in looking for ways to attack rising fuel costs. Across the nation, states are looking at everything from suspensions of local gas taxes to rebates for motorists as ways to ease the pain. The governor of Georgia has ordered a monthlong moratorium on gas taxes, and similar proposals have been made in other states. State legislatures are considering special sessions to look for ways to curb rising gas and oil prices.

In Washington, an initiative that would void the new 9.5-cent-per-gallon gas tax is already on the November ballot.

Prices were rising before Hurricane Katrina crippled production rigs, refineries, pipelines and transportation hubs in the gulf states. That region produces 26 percent of the nation's fuel and has largely been shut down since Katrina struck.

*"The American people are being victimized more than any free market would warrant,"* said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore, at the hearing.

Smith and other senators said regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission, are not aggressively pursuing price gouging and other market manipulation by energy companies reaping huge profits.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which held the hearing into the recent price spikes, said Congress needs to give agencies the tools to investigate price-gouging complaints.

*"There are growing concerns that oil companies are making too much in profits at the expense of consumers."*

P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or [email protected]i.com. This report includes information from The Associated Press.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/239678_cantwell07.html

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050904/NEWS06/509040504

http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/0/B0C59E1ACA5A481B8525703C005282FF?Open&SP=LN

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/news/energy_hearing/


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I didn't discuss collusion, but I did mention "gouging."
> Good thing I didn't get an engineering degree at UBC.
> 
> And as for "lack of evidence";


Do you actually think that is evidence? Not a single link you provided has any evidence or any study from a reputable economist.

Link 1 - Your evidence includes a Democratic Senator's opinion that price gouging is occuring with no rationale behind such opinion. This very Senator admits a lack of evidence.

Link 2 - Your evidence includes a poll of people that have widespread 'suspicion' of price gouging. Great evidence once again....

Link 3 - You evidence includes complaints of gouging, which convinced yet again, another government study (which you already stated as being biased studies for some reason). Damn.. lost another one hey....

Link 4 - Oh wow.... A panel is going to testify to respond to suspicions of price gouging. The hearing hasn't even concluded. 

Not a single link that you provided has any evidence in it at all!  

BTW.... They wouldn't have let you in.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Well thank you Vandave - the first four links had nothing and the fifth one this:
> 
> 
> 
> So what study where you thinking of exactly?


Oh really? Did you bother to read them?

Link 1 – “While it is true that 5 employed will make more, the other ten will have no job. Overlooking this simple fact is a common mistake regarding the minimum wage.”

Link 2 - Economists have done numerous studies to try to discover the effects of the minimum wage. Most studies suggest that the minimum wage does have some adverse employment results. They find that the minimum wage results in unemployment for some, especially those whose skills and abilities are very low, and higher wages for others. This is what the model of supply and demand predicts will happen.

Link 3 – Crappy link

Link 4 - In any case, this analysis leads the majority of economists to believe that minimum wage laws are a poor policy. Presumably they are intended to help wage-earners, but at least some wage-earners are worse off as a result of the minimum wage laws. While there has been some controversy in all this, and the controversy has been renewed in the 'nineties, it has not shaken the predominant feeling of economists that minimum wage laws have some very undesirable side-effects.

As far as Link 5 goes:

Link 5 – Read the first part of the link that you thought supported your viewpoint. It shows the theory that employment rates drop with higher minimum wages. Link 6 says the following about your cut and paste section, “Although Card and Krueger are reputable economists, equally reputable economists have attacked their data, methods, and results.”

Link 6 – The most significant link provided yet, so pay attention. This is a short essay written by a Harvard economics professor (not a Democratic Senator, or a stupid poll result). He says, “Meanwhile, most research on the minimum wage finds that it reduces employment. Emphasizing the Card-Krueger evidence is like a doctor (that’s you MacSpectrum) prescribing a drug relying on a single controversial study that finds no adverse side effects, while ignoring the many reports of debilitating results.”


I could go on and I am confident most links will support my stated viewpoint. You can go on in denial if you want and cut and paste the odd study that supports your viewpoint. I am sure I can find a study that says the earth is flat as well. But, you might want to first realize I advocate the same end goal that you are. I believe people deserve to make a decent living if they are willing to work a full time job. All I am saying is that minimum wage legislation is a bad way to achieve this. 

You can't ignore supply and demand. If you do, there is an economic cost and irrecoverable loss.

The same would go for gas price legislation. If you cap the price of gas, the gas stations will respond by only providing the amount of supply that would be demanded at that price. Some consumers would be willing to pay more money to get gas, but they wouldn't get it. So, we end up with long line ups and a number of people who can't buy as much as they want. It's your choice.... All I am saying is don't ignore reality in the process of pushing your idea.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm not buying all this stuff about gouging. What's the definition of gouging? A 20% mark up, 100%, 200%. Walk into a jewelry store sometime, you'll see stuff there that's been marked up 1000%.

For better or worse it's called free enterprise. It's not that I don't believe that the oil companies are not making windfall profits, or that oil companies wouldn't figuratively stab their own mother's in the back for a buck, – they would. It's just that this is no different than what has always gone on with oil as well as many other products out in the free market. If there is a shortage, or there is the perception of a shortage, or even a rumour about the perception of a shortage, prices go up.

Politicians are jumping all over this right now, because they can't lose, but for all the wrong reasons. People are screaming because they're getting pinched economically and looking for someone to blame. How about blaming our whole society for not starting to move away from fossil fuels 30 years ago, when the upcoming trends were well known? Like the title of this thread suggests, now all those people that happily voted for leaders that chanted the-free-market-can-do-no-wrong mantra, are now clamouring for regulation of the oil industry because the results of the free market are painful. Total hypocrisy.

This may be a blip in the upward march of the price of oil, but the prices will continue to march on upward in months and years to come, because the world is starting to recognize the truth that they ain't making any more oil.

I would vote for regulation of fossil fuels, and regulation on how much profit a company can make on a barrel of oil, like other necessary utilities that our society absolutely depends on. It should have been done long ago. I believe we'll see rationing of it in many of our lifetimes. 

I would not vote to see prices lowered so that people can go back to wasting it. I would vote for increased dedicated taxes on fossil fuels to start to fund the necessary infrastructure and technology changes that we are going to need. And global warming's costs will need to be mitigated too.

Get used to high gas prices folks, because it's just getting started. And it's still cheaper here than they've been paying in Europe for decades.
[/RANT]


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Pardon the schadenfreude, but I can't help but laugh now when I see SUVs sitting at the curb with "For Sale" signs in them.

Simply Unsellable Vehicle Blues


> In Suwanee, John Kim posted his family vehicle — a 2003 GMC Yukon Denali XL — for sale at Autotrader.com.
> 
> "I've been trying to sell it for a couple of months," Kim said, "but I'm not getting any calls. I thought it'd be faster."
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it's called gouging when you have been artificially increasing prices for a product that is required for the economy to run smoothly
nobody needs diamond
but people NEED fuel for cars and trucks to bring goods to market

i don't hear anyone complaining that bell or the electricity providers need to get approval before raising prices

doctor are regulated in what they can charge or does everyone here want to shell out $50 extra per visit or maybe $1000 ($3000 if you are dying) per hospital visit just because you show up bleeding or have chest pains and the "free market" system says that you should "shop around" for a better priced hospital - that kind of thinking is the extension of your uncontrolled "free market"

when politicians in the U.S. (bastion of free enterprise) start calling for price regulations on oil and gasoline, you know the oil companies have bitten the hand that feeds them

let's fact it - politicians are survivors
they do what they think will get them re-elected and they are starting to see the writing on the wall


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

as for moving away from fossil fuel, the gov't (because private enterprise will only jump when they are pushed) must force car makers to create far more fuel efficient cars
remember how that logic FORCED the car makers to stop making cars that got 8 miles to the gallon? time for round 2 of that logic
hybrid/alternative fuel (ethanol doesn't count) cars should be subject to a tax break - people should be rewarded for buying such a car and not pay more

and while we are at it, let's have a look at some of the patents that were purchased and squirreled away by car makers that could have increased fuel efficiency, produced battery powered cars years ago, and other such "free market" ploys to keep market share and keep their oil bretheren in profit


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, some of the most stupid people I have ever had the displeasure of knowing where at the University level. Waiving your engineering background, trying to impress is like those actors on TV pretending to doctors and selling OTC drugs in commercials.

So what frigging study are you talking about? Really, try to back up your claims. I had an open mind to your point but now, your sophomoric efforts coupled with an amateurish understanding of economics and the real world (you really should get out more often), I'm not so inclined anymore.
What you call a fact, is, in fact disputed - Your dogmatic approach is akin to the sage of SSI. Here a hint, articulate what you are trying to say, layout your points in a logical manner, back them up with real facts...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vandave, some of the most stupid people I have ever had the displeasure of knowing where at the University level. Waiving your engineering background, trying to impress is like those actors on TV pretending to doctors and selling OTC drugs in commercials.
> 
> So what frigging study are you talking about? Really, try to back up your claims. I had an open mind to your point but now, your sophomoric efforts coupled with an amateurish understanding of economics and the real world (you really should get out more often), I'm not so inclined anymore.
> What you call a fact, is, in fact disputed - Your dogmatic approach is akin to the sage of SSI. Here a hint, articulate what you are trying to say, layout your points in a logical manner, back them up with real facts...


Read back into the thread and you will see how discussion of my degree came about. It did not come about to support my viewpoints or to impress anybody. If you think my head is big about having a engineering degree, you are very wrong (take my word for it or not, I don't care). Like I said earlier, it doesn't take away or add to any of my posts or discussions.

I don't know what 'study' you want me to reference. Are you talking about studies on the lack of evidence for price gouging or studies about minimum wage?

Like it or not, the reality is that most economists believe minimum wage legislation lowers the number of jobs available at that wage scale. Read Link 6, which was prepared by a Harvard Economics Professor. Do you really want me to dig out studies, or are you willing to accept my basic premise that MOST economists have this viewpoint? See for yourself. Read all the links you want and you will see that the vast majority back my statement. 

In what way is my understanding of economics amateurish?

Can we move on from this point yet? How about we get to my second question.... The people debating me seem to believe that a commidities aren't sold at the market rate, but should rather be sold at a rate based on production costs.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Read back into the thread and you will see how discussion of my degree came about. It did not come about to support my viewpoints or to impress anybody. If you think my head is big about having a engineering degree, you are very wrong (take my word for it or not, I don't care). Like I said earlier, it doesn't take away or add to any of my posts or discussions.


No your degree should not enter into this. Yes, some artsies are flaky, but not all.




Vandave said:


> I don't know what 'study' you want me to reference. Are you talking about studies on the lack of evidence for price gouging or studies about minimum wage?


You mentioned studies on the evidence of "minimum" wage effect. Have not found them.


Vandave said:


> Like it or not, the reality is that most economists believe minimum wage legislation lowers the number of jobs available at that wage scale. Read Link 6, which was prepared by a Harvard Economics Professor. Do you really want me to dig out studies, or are you willing to accept my basic premise that MOST economists have this viewpoint? See for yourself. Read all the links you want and you will see that the vast majority back my statement.


And a few decades ago the atom was a very different beast. It's time that certain models evolve. MOST used to think the world was flat....




Vandave said:


> In what way is my understanding of economics amateurish?


Using what seems to be a high-school level economics book as a reference point to start...


Vandave said:


> Can we move on from this point yet? How about we get to my second question....


I had let go of this point - you brought it up again....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You mentioned studies on the evidence of "minimum" wage effect. Have not found them.


OK, I'll dig them out I guess. No time right now, but perhaps later tonight.



ArtistSeries said:


> It's time that certain models evolve. MOST used to think the world was flat....


You stole my analogy.



ArtistSeries said:


> Using what seems to be a high-school level economics book as a reference point to start...


Most concepts in our world can be described in simple language. Einstein said that most people could understand General Relativity if it were explained in simple terms. There is no need to make things complicated for a simple discussion on supply and demand. It's a very basic concept that everybody learns on day 1 of economics, including high school students. That doesn't take away from any points I am making.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i don't hear anyone complaining that bell or the electricity providers need to get approval before raising prices


That's because they have a monopoly (on the distribution end), which isn't a good thing. The best thing for the government to do in a monopoly is regulate prices.

With gasoline, nobody has a monopoly. You have a choice to buy from whomever you like. And, as stated earlier, no gasoline company has a monopoly. In fact, they are quite far from having this market structure.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> doctor are regulated in what they can charge or does everyone here want to shell out $50 extra per visit or maybe $1000 ($3000 if you are dying) per hospital visit just because you show up bleeding or have chest pains and the "free market" system says that you should "shop around" for a better priced hospital - that kind of thinking is the extension of your uncontrolled "free market"


My thinking would not have people shop around for an emergency hospital visit or shop around for major surgery. It's been tried in England, with great failure.

I never advocate an uncontrolled free market. If you go back through my posts, you will see that I believe government regulation is often needed in various areas of the free market.  I even believe the government should have a monopoly on some services (e.g. health insurance). 

I don't have a problem with user drop in fees ($50 per visit), nor do I have a problem with people shopping around for some health services (e.g. eye glasses).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

*First post*

I hope I'm doing this correctly, I seem to have lost my original response to VanDave. 

I'm new to this forum, but not to this topic. Sorry if my post seems rude, but I've been through this so many times I seem to have become somewhat frustrated.

Pretty much everything VanDave has posted is correct, from minimum wage research to markets. The minimum wage 'consensus' is like the climate change one. There are a few naysayers, some questionable quantitative results, but it is generally accepted and demonstrated by most studies. The magnitude of the tradeoff is another matter. The real question in the debate is the social one. At what point are higher wages worth losing jobs over? Whether they are doing anything about it or not, policy-makers are constantly making this decision, so estimates of magnitude, even highly uncertain ones, can help.

As for energy prices, I've worked in the industry for the government and private sector. It's still amazing how popular the fallacy of controlled-prices is. There are huge costs of doing this, sometimes obvious, but usually opportunity costs that are dispersed throughout the economy, and therefore of very little use to politicians. 

If the social good is the concern, the best way to achieve social goals is through income supplements and social programs. The 'strategic' argument to energy has limited application (e.g. if China wanted to buy 100% of the oil sands) but is overused as the be-all end-all argument (e.g. if China wanted to buy 1% of the oil sands). 

Again, sorry about the tone of this post, but from my point of view some populist policies are based on the 'bread and circuses' philosophy...we can somehow wealth-transfer and price-control ourselves to happiness and prosperity.

What's the emoticon for frustrated social liberal fiscal conservative with no party to vote for?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, as a social liberal and fiscal conservative, "I feel your pain". In the past three federal elections, I have voted NDP, Conservative and Liberal. I would also consider voting Green, so therein is my dilemma.

However, I would still need someone to explain to me how it is that various integrated oil companies all are able to produce their gasoline at exactly the same price? Or, if this price differs, which I contend, how is it that they will sell it at the same price, even if they are able to undercut their competition and increase their market share? Prices move up and down here in St.John's at the same rate at the same time. I have watched two gas stations across the street from each other, raise their price at the same time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej, like Dr. G., I too cannot help but feel that gas companies are in collusion with one another as prices go up at Shell at the very same time they go up at Esso across the street.

Coincidence? I think not.

By the way, welcome to ehMac. We enjoy having new opinions.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> However, I would still need someone to explain to me how it is that various integrated oil companies all are able to produce their gasoline at exactly the same price? Or, if this price differs, which I contend, how is it that they will sell it at the same price, even if they are able to undercut their competition and increase their market share? Prices move up and down here in St.John's at the same rate at the same time. I have watched two gas stations across the street from each other, raise their price at the same time.


Gasoline is sold at the same price because it is a commodity. If your production costs are lower, you still sell it at the commodity rate and you gain all the economic benefit. It's the same for any commodity (e.g. wheat, lumber, gold).

As far as market share goes, a lot of gasoline station companies have tried to achieve this. In Canada, the number of gasoline stations per capita used to be something around double that of the US! Many of these stations were not profitable operations and the per capita number of stations has dropped dramatically in the past 5 years. Look around your town and see how many vacant corner lots there are.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm also leaning towards Green, if only to signal that the big parties need to change...plus they had some good ideas.

First off, Newfoundland regulates its prices based on, I believe, New York harbour prices. Predictably enough, the regulator has had to adjust prices more frequently than usual due to market volatility. If the government tried to keep Newfoundland prices below market costs, nobody would sell oil to them and they'd either have to use (or financially swap) their Hibernia oil or subsidize directly, both options are the same thing...instead of people who want gasoline paying market price all taxpayers, regardless of if they drive or not, would pay. 

However, prices move the same way in non-regulated gasoline markets because it is a relatively uniform commodity (you'll probably see more variety in the premium fuel prices, which have more quality variety). If the product is the same, different stations can't charge different amounts without losing business to everybody else.

So, why don't they more frequently charge less to take market share? First, that happens a lot, and the result is widespread price declines (which we haven't seen since last time crude oil price consistently dropped). Second, they want to maxmize profit. If they drop prices by a penny, they may pick up a lot of business, but they also lose a penny on all the business they had to begin with...so dropping their price can result in, on balance, lost profit. You still get price wars and other intersting stuff (grocery stores with discount gas to get you into their store), but prices that are generally identical and moving together will exist in a competitive commodity market. 

Unfortunately, that's also how a collusive market would look. As VanDave has pointed out, repeated inspections by regulators in Canada (about 8 I've heard of in Canada) and the U.S. all find the market to be functioning. Keeping in mind, however, that by some people's definition a functioning market is price gouging. To balance supply and demand in extreme circumstances takes extreme prices with the profits flowing to the commodity producer (not the gas station) and government (taxes). 

The cost of production isn't a major factor, just as it isn't for homes that we sell at huge profits (price gouging new home buyers?) and famous artwork. Market price is supply and demand, the production cost of the commodity only matters in two ways: 

1) operating cost: a company will generally not sell its product for below operating cost, except for very brief periods of time when it's not worth shutting down, or for creating a new market like the console video game makers do.

2) full cost: this includes investment costs (exploration, drilling and pipes) and a company won't engage in new investments unless they predict adequate future prices.
If the actual price ends up greatly exceeding the 'full cost' then windfall profits, higher royalties and higher taxes are the result (assuming there are royalties). 

This upside risk is what drives business. The energy industry is investing billions looking for energy in response to the prices. If it couldn't get the prices, it wouldn't be looking as hard. 

Regulated price (to distinguish from, for example, environmental regulations) industries are appropriate for some circumstances, but even then the type of regulation can make a big difference and the true costs of the regulation would generally not be seen for many years...it's an easy voting for a politician: votes now, cost discovery later. 

Can you tell I'm personally interested in the topic? I tend to go on and on and on...and it's sort of neat to be paid for something that I find interesting. You owe me $50...the discount is because the above is a little sloppier than my employers are used to.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You mentioned studies on the evidence of "minimum" wage effect. Have not found them.


OK, I got challenged on this and now I will deliver. Here are a bunch of studies (I tried to stick with university studies and groups that are non partisan) that support the economic futility of minimum wage legislation.

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/minwagbib.html (Read the abstracts)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n1c.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=87&group=mw

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/OP_1099JSOP.pdf

Obviously, all the links I provided are in favour of my viewpoint (what do you expect). Like Beej says, you can just as easily find studies that refute my links above, but not as many. It’s like the global warming analogy… most economists agree with the viewpoint I have presented. I never misrepresented this and that is why I encouraged people to read about it themselves and check it out on google. But, for some reason, I got chastised for trying to be open.

The theory behind this is quite simple, even amateurish in ArtistSeries' opinion. The theory of supply and demand can be seen over and over again in the free market. Labour follows the same rules. 

You can't force supply or demand without paying a price. Sometimes, it is worth paying that price for other reasons, but everybody should know the costs and understand the implications. 

If you think we should regulate the oil and gas industry. Fine... I can understand your viewpoint. Just don't tell me that I (or our society) am going to be better off.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> I'm also leaning towards Green, if only to signal that the big parties need to change...plus they had some good ideas.
> 
> Can you tell I'm personally interested in the topic? I tend to go on and on and on...and it's sort of neat to be paid for something that I find interesting. You owe me $50...the discount is because the above is a little sloppier than my employers are used to.


Great post! You obviously have some background in economics.

I am also a fiscal conservative and lean towards being a social Liberal. I agree the Green Party has some interesting ideas and I like that they have people in their party who acknowledge commonly accepted economic principals. But, that's the way the world is moving and eventually all mainstream parties (even the NDP) will get there. Slowly over time, people are accepting modern economics. To me, its not really a political issue, just reality. 

I still think there are some extreme lefty environmentalist types in their party, who don't sit well with me. But, to be honest, I haven't paid the Green Party enough attention, so I could be wrong.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

One interesting aspect of the industry is that the gas station may be selling product from its competitors. In regions without refineries from each major company, the refined product for Gas Station A may come from Company B's refinery. As is normal in this amiguous field, the end result of identical prices is the same for highly competitive and highly collusive industries (I don't think economists will never be replaced by computers because of the basic uncertainty of the subject). 

Everything I've read and studied (refining margins, marketing margins, regional price comparisons, etc.) shows that the market is operating competitively, although as I mentioned in another post (of a meagre 3 in total) the price needed to balance supply and demand is considered price gouging by some (unless it's their home selling for double what they paid one-year ago). 

The best way to get people to conserve a scarce resource is to make them pay the market price. The worst way is to subsidize the price but use non-price regulation to subsidize conservation (where does all this subsidy money come from?). The most politically pragmatic way appears to be market prices with social support (maybe higher 'GST' rebates) and some regulation to put the most inefficient uses off-limits (vehicle fleet efficiency). 

As a caveat, most of my reading on this has been personal interest and tertiary need, as I haven't worked in the refining/retailing industry, more in the resource end, electricity and natural gas.

Is there a prize for highest average words per post?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thanks. Wow, an engineer with a head for economics...add accounting and law and that's CEO material. I'm an economist with no head for engineering...I still think suspension bridges look like they should fall down any second.

I agree about the Greens. They've got a few too many 'high school wish list' type policies, but they're still finding their niche (if there is one for them).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> The best way to get people to conserve a scarce resource is to make them pay the market price. The worst way is to subsidize the price but use non-price regulation to subsidize conservation (where does all this subsidy money come from?). The most politically pragmatic way appears to be market prices with social support (maybe higher 'GST' rebates) and some regulation to put the most inefficient uses off-limits (vehicle fleet efficiency).


Market price is definately the best way to manage the resource. However, I think government intervention is necessary where negative externialities occur. The price of fuel at the pump doesn't account for all costs and each consumer runs an environmental deficit every time they fill up. So, I think we should tax gasoline and use the funds to manage environmental effects (e.g. air quality, climate research, etc..).

If we regulate inefficient vehicles, we really aren't affecting the price of oil. Canada is only a small percentage of the world oil economy, so cutting demand wouldn't affect price. Now, if every country could agree to doing that, then the effect would be real. But, if we remove inefficient vehicles, the supply of oil all of a sudden is higher and oil prices drop, resulting in greater consumption.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Market price is definately the best way to manage the resource. However, I think government intervention is necessary where negative externialities occur. The price of fuel at the pump doesn't account for all costs and each consumer runs an environmental deficit every time they fill up. So, I think we should tax gasoline and use the funds to manage environmental effects (e.g. air quality, climate research, etc..).
> 
> If we regulate inefficient vehicles, we really aren't affecting the price of oil. Canada is only a small percentage of the world oil economy, so cutting demand wouldn't affect price. Now, if every country could agree to doing that, then the effect would be real. But, if we remove inefficient vehicles, the supply of oil all of a sudden is higher and oil prices drop, resulting in greater consumption.


 You've identified some of the more interesting issues to consider.
1) Externalities, and pricing them into the market: a generally good policy but has been severely abused in the past. Still, consider road costs, policing, greenhouse gases and particulates I'm sure some reasonable level of gas/diesel tax can be devised. The government can then claim the funds will be directed appropriately but it's really a shell-game in terms of their budget.
2) Difficulties with non-market conservation policy. Yes, if the policy works then demand goes down and so does price, which increases the incentive for people to get around the policy. Economics may seem silly to most, but we're like lawyers (poor lawyers): you'll always need us, especially after you follow our recommendations.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Thanks. Wow, an engineer with a head for economics...add accounting and law and that's CEO material. I'm an economist with no head for engineering...I still think suspension bridges look like they should fall down any second.
> 
> I agree about the Greens. They've got a few too many 'high school wish list' type policies, but they're still finding their niche (if there is one for them).


I have a post grad diploma in Business Admin from SFU. It's basically the first half of an MBA. I am contemplating completing my MBA, but it takes a lot of time and money. I have other ideas for investing my money right now.

Also, a transition to the field of Finance or Management would mean starting my career again and hence a pay cut. We'll see...

The Greens have a future. I think much like modern economics, sustainability and the environment aren't really political issues. They are realities we have to deal with. Eventually, all parties will reach this point as well, the Greens just have a head start.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> OK, I got challenged on this and now I will deliver. Here are a bunch of studies (I tried to stick with university studies and groups that are non partisan) that support the economic futility of minimum wage legislation.
> 
> http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/min/minwagbib.html (Read the abstracts)
> 
> ...


VanDave, thank you for your links. I am still waiting for a study from you.
The Employment Policies Institute is front group for a public affairs firm (lobby).
Basically a "think tank financed by business" with vested interest.


> In reality, EPI's mission is to keep the minimum wage low so Berman's clients can continue to pay their workers as little as possible.
> 
> EPI deliberately attempted to create confusion in the eyes of journalists and the general public by adopting a name which closely resembles the Economic Policy Institute, a much older, progressive think tank with ties to organized labor. In addition to imitating the name and acronym of the Economic Policy Institute, Berman's outfit even used the same typeface for its logo. In reality, the two groups have dramatically different public policy agendas. The Economic Policy supports a living wage and mandated health benefits for workers. Berman's organization opposes both and in fact opposes any minimum wage whatsoever.
> 
> In 1995, EPI lashed out at Princeton University professors David Card and Alan Krueger, after they published a survey of fast-food restaurants which found no loss in the number of jobs in New Jersey after implementing an increase in the state's minimum wage.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute

Cato Institute


> Because of their strong libertarian orientation, as opposed to left-wing or right-wing orientation, members of the Cato Institute staff are frequently cited as non-partisan experts on many news programs. Some have criticized this as misleading, as although the Institute is indeed non-partisan it is not non-ideological.
> 
> The Institute may be best known for its advocacy of privatizing Social Security.
> In recent years though, the World Bank and other organizations have found that this system has not been able to provide even a minimum of retirement funds for over half of the Chilean population



You have cited some of the most BIAS and PARTISAN sources.... 
Next....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> As for energy prices, I've worked in the industry for the government and private sector. It's still amazing how popular the fallacy of controlled-prices is. There are huge costs of doing this, sometimes obvious, but usually opportunity costs that are dispersed throughout the economy, and therefore of very little use to politicians.


Price of a barrel of oil goes up 10%, see a 50% increase at the pumps IMMEDIATELY.
We see a natural disaster that that has little influence on our own supply yet affects the prices immediately.
Price of a barrel of oil goes down 5%, we see a 3% decrease at the pumps over MONTHS.
What's there not to understand?

So how well are the oil barons doing? What are the profits like lately? 100%, 200% higher?







Beej said:


> What's the emoticon for frustrated social liberal fiscal conservative with no party to vote for?


Glad I'm not the only one...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You have cited some of the most BIAS and PARTISAN sources....
> Next....


Fair enough, that was a biased link and I didn't know the background of that group. In no way does that support your viewpoint or negate the other four links I posted. 

I am done debating with you because I don't think you are open to an honest discussion. You pick and chose what you want to hear (selective reasoning) and believe things that only support your viewpoint and ignore all evidence to the contrary (inductive fallacy).

The reality is that most economists agree with the viewpoint I have presented. If you were open and honestly considered my viewpoint, you would be forced to agree.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> I am done debating with you because I don't think you are open to an honest discussion.


Truth, or submission?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Fair enough, that was a biased link and I didn't know the background of that group. In no way does that support your viewpoint or negate the other four links I posted.


Well, I am now starting to wonder if you are actually reading or thinking about what you post. Of the five links you posted one was a overview, 2 from the same source and the 4 from another disputed groups. The fifth I had no time as it fell into the above links.

So yes, all your links have been negated.



Vandave said:


> I am done debating with you because I don't think you are open to an honest discussion. You pick and chose what you want to hear (selective reasoning) and believe things that only support your viewpoint and ignore all evidence to the contrary (inductive fallacy).


I have already suggested twice that we move on from this subject. Yet, you insist on continuing. 


> An inductive fallacy is a fallacy where induction goes wrong. Induction means that you are trying to find general principles from known facts.


You have given me a simple definition, not shown any evidence of your point. Economics, like chemistry has to evolve, you are stuck in decade old thoughts that are justly being re-examined. 



Vandave said:


> The reality is that most economists agree with the viewpoint I have presented. If you were open and honestly considered my viewpoint, you would be forced to agree.


And to paraphrase you, must once thought the world was flat. It does not make it so. I have considered your viewpoint and am far from forced to agree. If anything, it has increased the belief in my viewpoints.


----------

