On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:01:18 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

As an example, and as something in addition to a national energy policy
which we do not have, we could easily form an international consortium
of *Non* Oil Producing Nations (even though we and others who might sign
up still produce some oil).

By doing so, the new consortium could peg the price of food, medicine,
technology, exports, et cetera, to the price of oil. Oil goes up a
dollar a barrel? Wheat goes up $2 a bushel. A Saudi wants some
life-saving drug made in Canada? Instead of $50 a a dose, it is priced
at five times the price of a barrel of oil...for Saudis.

History has repeatedly shown that governmental attempts to regulate
prices are largely an excercise in futility. The most frequent
outcome is that market dislocations and shortages develop. That's why
I maintain that expensive oil is better than no oil. Over time,
market forces on both products and currencies get the job done.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:33:24 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:45:16 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:55:18 -0700, wrote:

You read it right... Big Oil made $18B in three months and nearly $1T
in 10 years

Next time you fill up your car/truck/boat/whatever, you should thank
them for investing countless billions of dollars in exploration and
drilling.

It's a high stakes, very risky business and expensive oil is a lot
better than no oil at all. Think about it. After you get done
complaining about prices here, do some traveling in Europe.


We should all feel sorry for the oil companies, according to Wayne, and
we should bend over even further as they relieve our wallets of cash.

You (and D'Plume) have your personal, political and social agendas
confused with the facts. My advice to you is keep your cash and do
without the oil. It's a win-win situation - more cash for you, more
oil for everyone else.


Really, so when the right-leaning Supreme Court rules that big
companies like ATT can essentially cheat people in mass numbers out of
small amounts and have a sentence in 4pt type buried in the agreement
about arbitration being the only avenue for reimbursement, that's ok
with you.

Wayne you are delusional if you think that big oil isn't licking their
collective chops at the prospect of subsidies, tax breaks, and an $18B
profit (and that's IN THREE MONTHS).

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:51:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:40:27 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

As I have stated previously, we need to restructure how we
allow our depletable natural resources to be extracted...and consumed.

That certainly worked well for Saudia Arabia when they did it in the
1970s. Unfortunately we are importers not exporters.

We are both importers and exporters. We're a net importer. Try and get
your facts straight. Oil is a world-market commodity. Why don't you
chant "drill baby drill" if it makes you feel better.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:01:35 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:01:18 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

As an example, and as something in addition to a national energy policy
which we do not have, we could easily form an international consortium
of *Non* Oil Producing Nations (even though we and others who might sign
up still produce some oil).

By doing so, the new consortium could peg the price of food, medicine,
technology, exports, et cetera, to the price of oil. Oil goes up a
dollar a barrel? Wheat goes up $2 a bushel. A Saudi wants some
life-saving drug made in Canada? Instead of $50 a a dose, it is priced
at five times the price of a barrel of oil...for Saudis.

History has repeatedly shown that governmental attempts to regulate
prices are largely an excercise in futility. The most frequent
outcome is that market dislocations and shortages develop. That's why
I maintain that expensive oil is better than no oil. Over time,
market forces on both products and currencies get the job done.

That's only partially true. While price controls themselves don't do
much, regulation does. Actually, that's what OPEC is all about.. price
controls. While not perfect, they do have a stabilizing effect.

On 4/29/11 9:33 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:45:16 -0400,
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:55:18 -0700, wrote:

You read it right... Big Oil made $18B in three months and nearly $1T
in 10 years

Next time you fill up your car/truck/boat/whatever, you should thank
them for investing countless billions of dollars in exploration and
drilling.

It's a high stakes, very risky business and expensive oil is a lot
better than no oil at all. Think about it. After you get done
complaining about prices here, do some traveling in Europe.


We should all feel sorry for the oil companies, according to Wayne, and
we should bend over even further as they relieve our wallets of cash.

You (and D'Plume) have your personal, political and social agendas
confused with the facts. My advice to you is keep your cash and do
without the oil. It's a win-win situation - more cash for you, more
oil for everyone else.



Wayne, do you remember when Harry thought any boat larger than 23'
should have a large surcharge tax, since they were burning gas
needlessly? Now Harry wants everyone to believe that he purchased a
large Sports-fisher Boat

In article , says...

On 4/29/11 9:33 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:45:16 -0400,
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:55:18 -0700, wrote:

You read it right... Big Oil made $18B in three months and nearly $1T
in 10 years

Next time you fill up your car/truck/boat/whatever, you should thank
them for investing countless billions of dollars in exploration and
drilling.

It's a high stakes, very risky business and expensive oil is a lot
better than no oil at all. Think about it. After you get done
complaining about prices here, do some traveling in Europe.


We should all feel sorry for the oil companies, according to Wayne, and
we should bend over even further as they relieve our wallets of cash.

You (and D'Plume) have your personal, political and social agendas
confused with the facts. My advice to you is keep your cash and do
without the oil. It's a win-win situation - more cash for you, more
oil for everyone else.



Wayne, do you remember when Harry thought any boat larger than 23'
should have a large surcharge tax, since they were burning gas
needlessly? Now Harry wants everyone to believe that he purchased a
large Sports-fisher Boat

And did you notice that he's taking pictures of his boats for bragging
purposes, and there isn't one of his alleged new one?