On 25/04/2011 7:11 AM, BAR wrote:
In articleHs6dnccI4r3x1yjQnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Corporations are not, like any individual, entitled to commit treason
with impunity.... no matter how important profit is, to some self
centered investors...


How unAmerican of you, Gene! :)
Don't you believe in corporations über alles?

I believe we need to "restructure" certain aspects of our society, and
part of that restructuring should be how we handle leases to explore and
drill for oil and natural gas.

There's nothing sacred about for-profit corporations. That model isn't
working anymore for us. It's milking the middle class dry and
accelerating the transfer of wealth to the very rich.

There are any number of oil-producing countries in which ownership of
that asset is retained by the state, and the revenues used to finance
the government. The problem here is that Americans have been brainwashed
into thinking the price-fixing, for-profit private sector that dominates
the energy business is the only way to do that sort of business.

This collectivization thing was tried before and it failed miserable.
Also, government control of all industry has failed miserable too.

Actually, every government before the governments we have today failed
from one or more of corruption, idealistic corrupt socialism, power
greed when government got to big and dysfunction...all resulting in
their disappearing. Roman Empire comes to mind but tons of others too.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

On 25/04/2011 7:44 AM, Harryk wrote:
BAR wrote:
In articleTtudndrW4ch87ijQnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
BAR wrote:
In articleHs6dnccI4r3x1yjQnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@earthlink .com, payer3389
@mypacks.net says...
Corporations are not, like any individual, entitled to commit treason
with impunity.... no matter how important profit is, to some self
centered investors...

How unAmerican of you, Gene! :)
Don't you believe in corporations über alles?

I believe we need to "restructure" certain aspects of our society, and
part of that restructuring should be how we handle leases to
explore and
drill for oil and natural gas.

There's nothing sacred about for-profit corporations. That model isn't
working anymore for us. It's milking the middle class dry and
accelerating the transfer of wealth to the very rich.

There are any number of oil-producing countries in which ownership of
that asset is retained by the state, and the revenues used to finance
the government. The problem here is that Americans have been
brainwashed
into thinking the price-fixing, for-profit private sector that
dominates
the energy business is the only way to do that sort of business.
This collectivization thing was tried before and it failed miserable.
Also, government control of all industry has failed miserable too.


Again, lack of education and deficits in your knowledge base of "current
events" have done you in. As I stated, "There are any number of
oil-producing countries in which ownership of that asset is retained by
the state, and the revenues used to finance the government."

Yeah right. Where is the line Harry, where is the line of good
corporations and bad corporations? When does a corporation go from being
a bad corporation to being a good lackey of the government?

I'm not talking about the failed Communist states here, Bertie. But you
think I am.

Shouldn't the government be running all farming? Shouldn't the
government be running al agriculture? What about fishing? Should we be
paying mother nature in whatever currency she wants to take her bounty?


Reductio ad absurdum.

Although I do believe we need to be much more careful about the
environment so that we continue to have a "nature" that produces bounty
for us.

You mean the flebagger empire where nothing gets done? Everyone shares
having nothing?
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

On 25/04/2011 4:43 AM, John H wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:39:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:25:30 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:41:35 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Holding a big inventory of oil in your tank farm is not without risk
and it takes massive investments in time and money to build the
infrastructure. Not surprisingly, the people who make those
investments expect to earn a profit once in a while.

"A profit once in a while.....?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/business/01oil.html
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-04...ution-while-am
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/29/news...xxon/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...anies/profits/

The oil companies and speculators are almost single-handedly
preventing an economic recovery.... and they are being paid handsomely
to do so..... and you are DEFENDING that?

Incredible.....

It's a very cyclical business and no one feels sorry for Exxon when
they have stagnant growth, or even worse, when they fail to discover
enough new oil to replace what they sold. Unfortunately that is what
is happening. It is probably reasonable to assume that as their
exploration and acquisition costs go up, and as their reserves go
down, they will want a higher price for the product.

In the interest of full disclosure, I own stock in both Exxon and
Chevron-Texaco. Their annual reports make interesting reading and
the future for energy prices is not good.

Somehow, you are missing the reality that when Exxon loses money, the
stockholders are ****ed..... when Exxon continues to make record
profits in an otherwise miserable economy, they are sticking it to all
of the users of gasoline.... one way or the other, the entire
American population.... and to the entire American economy....

Gene, do you not think the drop in value of the dollar has had any affect on oil prices?

Is it a coincidence that oil and gold are both hitting new highs?

Has Obama had any affect on the value of the dollar?

Remember...without corporations, there would be no unions. Then where would all the liberal whining
come from?

Oh wait, I suppose even a socialist government *could* allow unions.

Obama has more influence than anyone else I know on the value of the
dollar. But through his ignorance, and perhaps surrounding himself with
clowns like Bernake and US Treasury idiots and corruption, well, maybe
Obama just be stupid.

In any casee, the more money you print the less money is worth. Money
is just like a stock in a company, it is in fact stock in an economy.
So if like a big company does a 2:1 share split to double the shares,
the individual share decreases to about 1/2 of the previous value.

Currency is no diffferent, you flood the market with more no-value newly
created fiat money in a ponzi scheme, once it hits the market the money
stock drops.

Obama could coheres congress and say this is ponzi banking your up to,
fix it. Problem is it is also why interest rates are so low. As if
government had to borrow real money and not the ponzi fraud money, then
it would have to pay enough yield to attract $1.6 trillion over spend.
Interest rates would be high, 10% or more.

So to keep the fraud low interest rates, government counterfeits its own
currency. Primary cause of oil, gold, silver, copper, flour, other
foods, gas going up...and the value of wages going down.

Simple really, only fleabaggers think it would operate any differently.

And Obama supports it. Right from day one, Obama was happy with the
record debt spend and record counterfeiting going one. They have
pooched the system and like Zimbabwe, I expect hyper-inflation due to
currency devaluation for the next10 to 20 years.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

On 4/25/2011 11:50 AM, Harryk wrote:

Further, many of the state-owned companies are marvels of efficiency.

Where?

In article ,
says...

On 4/25/2011 11:50 AM, Harryk wrote:

Further, many of the state-owned companies are marvels of efficiency.

Where?

I'd like to see a list of them and a report from an independent outside
auditor.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:43:55 -0400, John H
wrote:

Remember...without corporations, there would be no unions. Then where would all the liberal whining
come from?

That's easy. They'd have to look in the mirror and blame the first
person they saw. After all it must be someone's fault that oil is
running out and the primary producing region is politically unstable.
Wait until they start rioting in Saudia Arabia. That's probably
coming at some point.

But for now, let's blame Harry unless it's really you John. You two
guys live closer to Washington than anyone else I know.

On 25/04/2011 9:50 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/04/2011 8:29 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 4/23/2011 7:32 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:33:15 -0400, Lil wrote:


Obama's oufit and Ayers has an agenda to socialize America
regardless of
or in spite of the cost to Middle America. They are in bed with Wall
Street on many issues.

face it. how can obama be BOTH a socialist AND a wall street pawn??

you right wingers are SSOOO stupid

in addition it's the RIGHT that deregulated us into a plutocracy owned
by wall street
How can China be Marxist and Capitalist.
There are many apparent contradictions.
Webster doesn't fit all the scenarios.
The essence is herd the people for the socialist cause.
Manage The People for the benefit of the upper regions of wealth Supply
Side economics/govt. Corporatism.
We seem to be receiving from both camps.
Nothing like poor, discontented, crowded, but well monitored flexible
labor pool for both camps.
is this utopia or what?

It would be better to coin China an Authoritarian-capitalist society.
Not sure there is much Marxism there at all, in fact there is more in
the US as the US owns an auto manufacturer.


And once again you demonstrate how little you know of the real world.
Further, many of the state-owned companies are marvels of efficiency.
That said, the PRC is a communist country and there are continuing
instances of near slave labor factories and other facilities...

As for Marxism, well, a lot passes for Marxism, but isn't and never was,
in China and in other places.

Ya, but you vote for USSR -- United States Socialist Republic. The
first one failed, the second one isn't going to last long either.

--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

On 25/04/2011 11:29 AM, Despot wrote:
On 4/25/2011 11:50 AM, Harryk wrote:

Further, many of the state-owned companies are marvels of efficiency.

Where?

Well run to harryk is a sink hole for money, like GM, GMAC, Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac and others.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 25/04/2011 9:50 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/04/2011 8:29 PM, Lil Abner wrote:
On 4/23/2011 7:32 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 19:33:15 -0400, Lil wrote:


Obama's oufit and Ayers has an agenda to socialize America
regardless of
or in spite of the cost to Middle America. They are in bed with Wall
Street on many issues.

face it. how can obama be BOTH a socialist AND a wall street pawn??

you right wingers are SSOOO stupid

in addition it's the RIGHT that deregulated us into a plutocracy owned
by wall street
How can China be Marxist and Capitalist.
There are many apparent contradictions.
Webster doesn't fit all the scenarios.
The essence is herd the people for the socialist cause.
Manage The People for the benefit of the upper regions of wealth Supply
Side economics/govt. Corporatism.
We seem to be receiving from both camps.
Nothing like poor, discontented, crowded, but well monitored flexible
labor pool for both camps.
is this utopia or what?

It would be better to coin China an Authoritarian-capitalist society.
Not sure there is much Marxism there at all, in fact there is more in
the US as the US owns an auto manufacturer.


And once again you demonstrate how little you know of the real world.
Further, many of the state-owned companies are marvels of efficiency.
That said, the PRC is a communist country and there are continuing
instances of near slave labor factories and other facilities...

As for Marxism, well, a lot passes for Marxism, but isn't and never was,
in China and in other places.

Ya, but you vote for USSR -- United States Socialist Republic. The first
one failed, the second one isn't going to last long either.



I don't have any serious issues with modern European socialism, as
practiced in Scandinavia. I have friends there who are educated, middle
class types. They have jobs, good health care bennies, their kids go to
college for "almost free," and they have a decent retirement.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:00:31 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 06:43:55 -0400, John H
wrote:

Remember...without corporations, there would be no unions. Then where would all the liberal whining
come from?

That's easy. They'd have to look in the mirror and blame the first
person they saw. After all it must be someone's fault that oil is
running out and the primary producing region is politically unstable.
Wait until they start rioting in Saudia Arabia. That's probably
coming at some point.

But for now, let's blame Harry unless it's really you John. You two
guys live closer to Washington than anyone else I know.

I keep calling 'Bama and asking him to make the government bigger. I'm thinking he could take over
the Lawn Maintenance and Landscaping services nationwide. Once he unionized them, he'd have more
ardent followers.

I'm not sure I follow the rationale that says we attack Kaddafi because he's attacking his people.
What would our government and military do if a bunch of us started shooting soldiers? Would we get
shot, or would 'Bama say we shouldn't be hurt?