Its (still) the economy, stupid.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by volinbham

And the "shenanigans"?



I'm asking this sincerely but was this different under the previous administration? What actions did they take?

There's a clear implication that oil company profits are up because Bush/Cheney are oil men and they used some shenanigans to benefit big oil to the detriment of the common man - is that your view?

What I see as the WH's generalized deliberate inaction to prevent exploitation of the situation by business interests, others might perceive to be specific affirmative interference to enhance it.

Ergo, in some people's minds, "shennanigans."

Its a question of degree, really. And fundamentally of the role of government in economics. I mean, I would assume that you have no problem with the government outlawing price-fixing via anti-trust laws, correct? Where does that proper governance end and being overly regulatory begin?

If you are making money from it, then its natural to perceive governemnt interference that might diminish that as unjustified. If you are losing money because of it, then its natural to see lack of government involvement as responsible for your plight.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

What I see as the WH's generalized deliberate inaction to prevent exploitation of the situation by business interests, others might perceive to be specific affirmative interference to enhance it.

Ergo, in some people's minds, "shennanigans."

Its a question of degree, really. And fundamentally of the role of government in economics. I mean, I would assume that you have no problem with the government outlawing price-fixing via anti-trust laws, correct? Where does that proper governance end and being overly regulatory begin?

If you are making money from it, then its natural to perceive governemnt interference that might diminish that as unjustified. If you are losing money because of it, then its natural to see lack of government involvement as responsible for your plight.

I can't help but get the feeling you believe it is shennanigans but won't admit so.

I certainly see a role for govt regulation of economic actions. I think a WFPT is a terrible approach. Govt regulations should be aimed at activities across industries (for the most part) rather than punitive actions against specific industries. Price fixing laws are relatively universal as are anti-trust laws. If they want to do something to regulate futures' trading then it should be all futures trading not just oil. Quite frankly, the futures stuff is a pretty recent issue with oil prices so the lack of action by Bush Co is not surprising. Likewise, the previous administrations did nothing about it.

I get the feeling that people want to punish oil because they are feeling a pinch and oil is highly profitable. Where were the calls for government intervention when oil was sucking wind from a profit stand point?

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

What I see as the WH's generalized deliberate inaction to prevent exploitation of the situation by business interests, others might perceive to be specific affirmative interference to enhance it.

Ergo, in some people's minds, "shennanigans."

Generalized, deliberate inaction? Wow.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Generalized, deliberate inaction? Wow.

Yes, meaning that their intentional inaction and failure to intervene allowed a vaccum to exist, and grow, and into which stepped those who are now cashing in big on the oil game.

They failed to act, on purpose, but legally there is nothing untoward about it.

I note that today GM finished below $10 per share for the first time in 54 years. That is astounding. This country is in deep, deep trouble.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Yes, meaning that their intentional inaction and failure to intervene allowed a vaccum to exist, and grow, and into which stepped those who are now cashing in big on the oil game.

They failed to act, on purpose, but legally there is nothing untoward about it.

I note that today GM finished below $10 per share for the first time in 54 years. That is astounding. This country is in deep, deep trouble.

This is astounding!

They failed to act so that big oil would be more profitable? What were they trying to achieve with this intentional inaction? (there must have been a goal if it was intentional)

Was any lack of action the fault of Congress? Where they passively inactive or intentionally inactive.

So the Clinton admin is likewise guilty of intentional failure to act to prevent:

1) Enron and Arthur Anderson
2) Global Crossing
3) Healthsouth
4) The Tech Bubble and resulting NASDAQ meltdown.
5) a general decline in manufacturing and rapid growth of outsourcing
6) a huge market share loss for GM, Ford, Chrysler

or perhaps these were examples of unintentional inaction.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by volinbham

This is astounding!

They failed to act so that big oil would be more profitable? What were they trying to achieve with this intentional inaction? (there must have been a goal if it was intentional)

Was any lack of action the fault of Congress? Where they passively inactive or intentionally inactive.

So the Clinton admin is likewise guilty of intentional failure to act to prevent:

1) Enron and Arthur Anderson
2) Global Crossing
3) Healthsouth
4) The Tech Bubble and resulting NASDAQ meltdown.
5) a general decline in manufacturing and rapid growth of outsourcing
6) a huge market share loss for GM, Ford, Chrysler

or perhaps these were examples of unintentional inaction.

Actually, 1 and 2 were criminal activity, so not quite the same. I don't know much about 3, really. They could have and should have done a lot more about 4 and 5, I'd agree, though I don't think it was cronyism at work there. I think 6 was inevitable.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Actually, 1 and 2 were criminal activity, so not quite the same. I don't know much about 3, really. They could have and should have done a lot more about 4 and 5, I'd agree, though I don't think it was cronyism at work there. I think 6 was inevitable.

1 and 2 were criminal activity but facilitated by the lax regulatory environment. 3 fits that mode as well. Isn't that worse? Inaction allowed criminal activity to florish and destroy the financial well being of millions of people? Terry McAuliffe made a killing on Global Crossings - was that intentional inaction or coincidence?


The cronyism comment is where you lose me. What actions were willfully, intentionally avoided and why? How does Congress fare in this analysis? Why is the Tech Bubble and general decline in mfg not cronyism but our current situation is?

Could it be that the policy (actions/inactions) were in fact enacted in good faith and not as a grand attempt to help the oil industry?

[myrobbins7]

Hey LG, it's not that bad man. I mean, Rush Limbaugh just got a $400 mill. deal today. CCU must be doing ok eh?

[droski]

Commentary: Your gas money for a flat screen? - CNN.com

[lawgator1]

I usually find Beck to be a whining simpleton, and I note that he throws in a useless dig at his favorite target Bill Clinton (in summary, "had he allowed drilling in 1995, we wouldn't be in this mess"), but overall this article wasn't bad at all and is food for thought.

[oklavol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I usually find Beck to be a whining simpleton, and I note that he throws in a useless dig at his favorite target Bill Clinton (in summary, "had he allowed drilling in 1995, we wouldn't be in this mess"), but overall this article wasn't bad at all and is food for thought.

I'm not a big fan of Beck either. He seems to complain about the problems the country faces, rather then offer analysis and ideas in how to change things. He comes on the radio against the flat tax guy and I usually listen to him instead.

[Business]

Originally Posted by Vol Mania 21

i'm not saying that the world is about to end at this very moment, but i do think it's interesting that in the end the bible doesn't name America as one of the super powers left. this doesn't necessarily mean military wise, but maybe economic.

It's very well known that Russia, India, and China are going to be Super Powers in the future.

India has a market of One Billion people. Think about that. 1 billion.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by Business

It's very well known that Russia, India, and China are going to be Super Powers in the future.

India has a market of One Billion people. Think about that. 1 billion.

how is india headed that direction? I can see China and Russia, but just don't with the Indians.

Look at the great superpowers throughout history and they all had enormous access to natural resources and room to grow. China has that to some limited degree and Russia in spades. I know China appears to be the next big thing, but IMO, Russia will be dominant again. Their economy moves forward and it's Katy bar the door for everyone else.

[Business]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

how is india headed that direction? I can see China and Russia, but just don't with the Indians.

Look at the great superpowers throughout history and they all had enormous access to natural resources and room to grow. China has that to some limited degree and Russia in spades. I know China appears to be the next big thing, but IMO, Russia will be dominant again. Their economy moves forward and it's Katy bar the door for everyone else.

With a market that big people are going to shape it. There's a bunch of stuff holding it back but once the old blood is out of power and younger Indian's take over it's going to boom.

Not as fast as China and Russia but a market that big will not be ignored without someone trying to make use of it.

[VolinArizona]

I'm a fan of Beck, and that article was better than expected.