Gasoline Prices

What? And with all those speculators, still unrestrained by congress, running roughshod over grandma? Shocking.

It must be all of those "generous" oil companies!

Well, I mean if they are "greedy" when prices go up, it must be that they are "generous" when prices go down.

A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading

I fill up my fuel efficient cars and I don't feel very free. I pretty much have no other choices. The car for some is an expression of freedom. For me it feels more like a form of dependence.

At the link the area under the curve from 3/1/2008 to the most recent data point represents pure speculative profit and a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the oilarchy.

The voice in back of each of your heads every time you fill up should say, "Are my actions those of a truly free man? Do I have a real choice here?"

I for one will break my dependence as soon as other options in the form of plug-in hybrids or full on lithium ion battery electric cars make themselves available.

Reasonable electric cars WERE available in California in the 1990's. They were reclaimed from their protesting leasors and all destroyed.

Free market? No such thing.

I love it, but the price of oil is suddenly up six dollars a barrel today. Apparently, the fat lady is still singing.

muirgeo,

You have options like public transport and walking, but they may not be convenient for you. You can ride a scooter or something for short trips. I'm thinking of that.

The irony of your ire over speculators is that they are driving our economy toward electric vehicles and similar options. If oil were trading at thirty or forty dollars a barrel, GM would be shutting down the Volt too.

I found this very interesting comment in one of the threads on the mises blog

People who talk about how the government is this beneficial, benevolent master have no idea what really goes on.

For the moment, let's disregard the mafia-style wars that governments start (both internecine and imperialist -- just go read Smedley Butler and you'll see how long this has been going on). And let's disregard the pernicious, veiled tax known as "inflation," engendered by our central bank and its fraudulent currency.

Even when we focus strictly on the various forms of domestic economic regulation at the local level, there is a VAST web of control by the State that 99.9% of people never see or even think about.

The roads are a perfect example. Governments (from local to federal) control the placement and location of all of the roads. This means that the State controls where EVERYONE lives and works.

The State controls the location of all buildings, both business and residential. Zoning is only one small part of that control mechanism. There are things called "comprehensive development plans," mandated at the state level, and implemented at the county and local level.

These plans, obviously, are affected to a large extent by the placement and construction of various kinds of government roads. Just ask a "Land Use attorney" about what he does all day and you'll get an inkling of how much control governments have over our lives.

The ordinary person sees the strip mall, the freeway and the quickie-mart going up on the corner, and doesn't give it another thought. People never think about all the other possible economic uses that this land could have been used for -- the businesses that will never be started because they will never be built there.

Consider the money that we all spend on cars to travel around these government-designed cities. Think of all the things that are NOT bought because this money is spent on cars and tires and gas and repairs and insurance, etc. The oil, car and tire industries bought off local governments a long time ago to destroy light rail service and build ever-larger roads, and ever-expanding cities. We are now 100% dependent on cars, and therefore dependent on the oil, car and tire industries as well.

Government has such a pervasive control over our physical space that most people don't even see it. Most people alive today grew up in a time when all there was were subdivisions, and you went to your suburban schools, drove your cars on your artery 8-lane highways to get to your megaplax grocery store and thought that this way of life is perfectly normal.

It's not normal. It's by design. There is a whole other way of living -- ways of living that people would build voluntarily, if they could.

How is it remotely possible to claim that government creates wealth through its various forms of control, subsidies and land use regulation? To do so, you would have to account for what is UNSEEN -- the things that never exist because government decreed that they wouldn't exist.

Link here

Oilshock,

I find I agree with you on the basics. the problem again is who's rnning the government... it's the corporations.

Years ago in California there were active successful street cars and train systems in all our cities. Goodrich Tire Compannym Standard Oil and I believe GM bought them all up and destroyed them to make roads for cars. They controled our plcitians and they control us. They did the same thing with the electric car in California.

I'mall for companies making a profit. I'm not for companies controlling my democracy and the markets themselves. It's not paranoia when they really are after you.

I just think the average person is mind-be-numbed into the consumer cult they've created. Nice little frogs all comfortable in their warming pot.

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

Shock,

Government is no beneficial, benevolent master, but no bright line separates the "good guys" in the private sector from the "bad guys" in the public sector, because no bright line separates the private sector from the public sector. Lockheed Martin and SAIC are nominally "private sector" companies, but they do most of their business directly with the state and are practically state agencies in all but name. Huge, heavily regulated, politically sensitive corporations like Exxon/Mobil are also very tightly integrated with the state. The idea that these corporations are "outside the state" is a largely arbitrary and not very meaningful linguistic convention.

Reasonable electric cars WERE available in California in the 1990's. They were reclaimed from their protesting leasors and all destroyed.

Reasonable if you call $80,000 a reasonable price. That's why they were being leased.

You can be certain that GM lost money on that deal.

Oh yeah, and the lead acid batteries made up a large part of the vehicle's weight.

Oddly enough, hybrid technology was available at the time, but no, congress had to mandate ALL electric vehicles.

The voice in back of each of your heads every time you fill up should say, "Are my actions those of a truly free man? Do I have a real choice here?"

The voice in the back of your head should be saying: "I'm kind of overweight. Maybe it would be better to ride a bike and free myself from both the weight and the buying of the gas. Plus, I would contribute less to pollution and be more in line with my idol's (John Muir) philosophy".

[not picking on your weight, mind. I'm the only person in my immediate family who escaped morbid obesity, so I know it ain't easy.]

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

To use your words: No such thing.

I'mall for companies making a profit. I'm not for companies controlling my democracy and the markets themselves.

Well then, we'll have to reduce government power so that power is not for sale to corporations. This is only the 110th time you've heard that response on this blog to the 110th time you've brought it up.

It's not paranoia when they really are after you.

But it is when they're not.

Government is no beneficial, benevolent master, but no bright line separates the "good guys" in the private sector from the "bad guys" in the public sector, because no bright line separates the private sector from the public sector.

There are only "Self Interested Guys" in both public and private sector.

"Years ago in California there were active successful street cars and train systems in all our cities."

I grew up in San Jose and there was never any street cars or train systems moving people around. In fact you can go back to the 1950's urban planning maps and see the plans for all the freeways that exsist there now. You revising history again to fit your template?

Of course, George is all for the Diet Nazirati telling us what we should be able to eat. Or for the FDA telling experts in his own profession what drugs they should be allowed to prescribe. Perhaps he could tell us his professional, informed opinion of off-label prescriptions or even medical marijuana. That would be enlightening.

"I'm kind of overweight. Maybe it would be better to ride a bike and free myself from both the weight and the buying of the gas. Plus, I would contribute less to pollution and be more in line with my idol's (John Muir) philosophy".

It does say all those things. And when I don't have to coach my soccer team, ref a soccer game, go to a meeting or run my girls to Cross Coutnry, Swimming, Water Polo I DO ride my bike 28 miles round trip to work.

On those days I feel free! I love those days. I would/ will do it almost everyday like some of my partners who's children have already left the nest when I can.

My dependence is far less then most ever since 1994 every car I've bought was the most effecient in its class.

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

To use your words: No such thing.

Posted by: Methinks

You may be right but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet.

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

It is a figment of your imagination. No such thing. Only self interested people. Even those who do charity wouldn't continue to do so if it weren't for the joy, happiness and satisfaction it brings, or the hope that it would.

Well then, we'll have to reduce government power so that power is not for sale to corporations. This is only the 110th time you've heard that response on this blog to the 110th time you've brought it up.

Posted by: Methinks

And no one has been able to explain how that would look or how we would get to there from here.

Again I don't fear a government of the people. Mkae lobbying illegal. Make any company that has any links to government funding fully compliant with associated rules for that funding. Allow others to operate in complete unregulated fashion as long as the consumers are aware which is which. If possible set up the regulated systems to be self funding.

Buying FDA inspected drugs would have a slight surcharge to pay for the oversight. Buying "free market" drugs would have no surcharge but if you die or harmed from using them you get no recourse but via government courts ect...

Want to drill for oil with out regulations then sure drill all you want if its on your own personal property otherwise drill on public property with only the greatest of restictions and fees.

But the corporatist don't want such a system thats why they lobbied and lobied to get at governement money by recalling the Glass-Steagall Act.

It is a figment of your imagination. .

Posted by: Oil Shock

We used to have Theocratic goverments. We made them illegal. I think we can make Corporacratic governance illegal just the same.

It does say all those things. And when I don't have to coach my soccer team, ref a soccer game, go to a meeting or run my girls to Cross Coutnry, Swimming, Water Polo I DO ride my bike 28 miles round trip to work.

George, you do realize that you choose to do all of those things. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. And because you choose to have kids and choose to have your kids participate in all those activities and they require you to drive and the driving requires gas, you're a free man making free choices. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to go to soccer practice.

You may be right but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet. - Muirgeo

Oh. well then you probably completely understand why we're not ready to give up on the free market. Right?

There are only "Self Interested Guys" in both public and private sector.

Agreed.

We used to have Theocratic goverments.

We still do.

do you know why so many people fill up our prisons? Because they break the law. For every crook in prison, very plausibly, there could be more than 1 roaming the streets, law enforcement agencies, corporate board rooms, bureacracies, media, hospitals, schools, sports teams etc.

And no one has been able to explain how that would look or how we would get to there from here.

Countless people have exhausted themselves countless times trying to explain this to you. Don't mistake your inability to comprehend with the lack of effort on their parts.

But the corporatist don't want such a system thats why they lobbied and lobied to get at governement money by recalling the Glass-Steagall Act.

Oh DO tell us how the "corporatists" got at "government money" by recalling the Glass-Steagall Act. First, explain the Glass-Steagall Act. What was it's intended purpose? Did it have the intended effect? What were the arguments for repealing it? What are the arguments against repealing it? How has it become easier to "get at government money" since it has been repealed. I just love when you talk truth to power, Muirpid. I'm so glad that you've suddenly gained such expertise in the subject since last night.

You know that repeating your idiocy on every single thread is what makes you both an idiot and a troll, right?

'Coz on the other thread, you were asserting the road to hell was paved with derivatives. But, it turns out, you don't know what a derivative is. When I gave you a basic explanation, you were too ignorant on the topic even think of a question to ask about them. But now, a few hours later, you're an expert again.

So, please....lay your wisdom on us humble students at the cafe.

We used to have Theocratic goverments. We made them illegal. I think we can make Corporacratic governance illegal just the same

We used to have Monarchies. We made them illegal. We can limit the power of government so that it is not for sale to corporations.

"If possible set up the regulated systems to be self funding"

Make government a profit center? You figure that out and you have solved all that ails societies. I believe this was the goal of Oskar Lange and others in the 20-30's. Their defense of socialism vs Mises' socialist calculation critique led them to try and develop a market socialist economy. It was junked then and won't work now. The only way to stop the influence peddelers in Washington is to shrink the size of the government and restrict it's powers to those originally enumerated by the Constitution.

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

To use your words: No such thing.

Posted by: Methinks

You may be right but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet.

Calling you on your assertion that there can be no libertarian society because there has never been one (to our knowledge).

We libertarians do think the incentives present in a free market would provide for its functioning without the necessity of describing it in every detail.

OTH, we also think the incentives present in political governance preclude having a government of, by, and for 'the people'.

If you desire a government that the people can unite behind, then its function should be restricted to those that can be nearly universally agreed upon.

Prohibition of fraud, aggression, and similar rights violations...likely to garner near universal support.

Organize defense against invasion...likely to garner near universal support.

Provide welfare entitlements...you're going to get a fair amount of dissent.

Likewise for totalitarian medical care.

And empire building.

You can't get what you want because you desire contradictory goals.

A large, powerful government that does all those wonderful things you want it to do, managed by a unified people.

The one precludes the other.

Why?

Because people disagree on what those wonderful things should be and will disagree on many particulars of their provision. And you have us libertarian types who vehemently disagree on having government provide all those wonderful things.

And that's without getting into the economic aspects of it.

In at least one city, there was a successful private transit system, though its rates were regulated by the municipal gov't.

Requesting a rate increase to keep up with inflation, the gov't refused the company's request.

The company went out of business, the gov't bought the assets, and promptly raised fares.

In SF, there are/were private jitneys providing service along Mission St.

The gov't didn't allow them to advertise in any way.

A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading

Wait, how is the market vast yet be dominated by so few true player/speculators? Surely this has got to be poor wording by choosing to include the word "vast" in that sentence. And where is George Soros' grubby little fingers in the speculation game? You've got to know that that ass is somewhere.

I pretty much have no other choices. The car for some is an expression of freedom. For me it feels more like a form of dependence.

This pretty much sums up all our differences that we've ever had in the past. You first do not see obvious things such as alternative -- alternatives that involve some kind of tradeoff but that, nonetheless, exist. You recognize that freedom is an individual thing and each individual may (or, rather, do) have differences. That your feelings on the matter trump those of other individuals. You could have pushed past this trifecta by adding "Therefore I am in favor of _____ federal government policy"

The voice in back of each of your heads every time you fill up should say, "Are my actions those of a truly free man? Do I have a real choice here?"

The voice in back of my head says, "Does muirgeo's plan really increase liberty? Is he a free man and does he think that he'll even be more free with more restrictions and government mandates? How in the world does he keep all this conflicting ideas straight in his own head? Is this guy for real here?

Free market? No such thing.

Why no true free market? Too many muirgeos in the world who disdain it.

I find I agree with you on the basics. the problem again is who's rnning the government... it's the corporations.

Didn't you just write an earlier statement that it was the people that run the government? "For the people, by the people" is what I you wrote IIRC.

I'mall for companies making a profit. I'm not for companies controlling my democracy and the markets themselves. It's not paranoia when they really are after you.

If your patients only knew. And politicians control YOUR democracy. Tell me again how giving them [politcians] more control increases liberty?

I just think the average person is mind-be-numbed into the consumer cult they've created. Nice little frogs all comfortable in their warming pot.

Are consumers too stupid to shop for themselves without being exploited by the evil bastards who compete for their loyalty by trying to satisfying them? I mean, seriously, If they're too mind-numbed to not notice things, maybe they should be stripped of their rights to do something as complex as picking their own doctor. Best curry some favor with your favorite Lefty politicians so that your name get put on the approved physician list, Dr. B.

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

A limited and representative republic, you're fired...well, at least demoted!

You may be right but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet.

So, then do we call this a discrepancy or a diparity?

And no one has been able to explain how that would look or how we would get to there from here.

There's a solid answer but there's no telling if we're getting warmer or colder while we search for it. We just may find in 5000 years from now...in the path of a receeding ice sheet.

Again I don't fear a government of the people.

Except when your least favored politician was selected by the people.

I just think the average person is mind-be-numbed into the consumer cult they've created. Nice little frogs all comfortable in their warming pot.

Hang on. You think this little of the average person, yet you want to give them more power over you?

I just think the average person is mind-be-numbed into the consumer cult they've created. Nice little frogs all comfortable in their warming pot.

This reminds me of Al Gore's (the chicken hypnotist) book. He used to hypnotize chickens as a kid and he basically said the average American is hypnotized by the media the way his chickens were hypnotized by him. Presidential stuff, that.

Personally, I enjoy the consumer cult—all these corporations brimming to satisfy my wants, but then again I am not one of those folks that finds poverty “quaint.”

Having done business with speculators, I am still trying to find out what is wrong with them. Supply and demand is a complicated thing; it encompasses today, tomorrow, and yesterday. Thank goodness for speculators, perhaps it is the information they provide that will dissuade Israel from attacking Iran. Perhaps it is them who will encourage conservation today and production tomorrow. May God bless speculators! The information they bring to the market is invaluable. Or perhaps, like Lamar Hunt, they will make poor decisions and crash and burn terribly. Somehow, I don’t think anyone will weep for those who will pay $147 a barrel and have to deliver at $120 or $113. Then again I cannot blame anyone for looking for something other than the dollar, when the Fed insists on devaluing it.

I suggest we hug the speculator—he is doing more for our welfare than any do gooder could possibly hope. No, evil albatross is going to speculate by only buying a few gallons of gas, because he believes it It will come down further , which it will. The Pundits and cranks will declare that (lower gas prices) are/is to get McCain elected, but reasonable people (who are not idiots) will see beyond this. Gas will devolve after September 15th, when the boutique fuels mandated by law appear to emerge the fall emerge

"This reminds me of Al Gore's (the chicken hypnotist) book."-methinks

What's scaring me is you read a book by Al Gore!!!!LOL-just kidding...

Having done business with speculators, I am still trying to find out what is wrong with them.

Posted by: The Albatross

I wonder if you'd still be saying that if the government hadn't bailed them out so many times and their whole house of cards came down.

From The Big Picture, "WTF? $90 Trillion dollars derivative exposure for JPMorgan ? No wonder the Fed "rescue" of Bear Stearns was via JPM -- it was their own derivative exposure that was at risk."

I liked this post,

1) We are all subprime now

2) We are all derivatives now


3) We all are subjected to the massive ponzi financial scheme that's needs to perpetuate to keep the increasingly fake and bullshit US economy going.

Posted by: km4

Is everything really A-OK as with our economy and it's inner workings Albatross? It's not a free market system in any way that I can see. I honestly think it's a ponzi scheme .... I sense dread where you see free market competitive business practices going on just fine.

Hey now, Methinks!

Be careful mocking His Holiness, The Divine Prophet Algore I. That's heresy! One of His acolytes was just recently welcomed back to the Cafe. Watch your back!

It should be a capital offense to say a negative word about his holiness AlGore.

"Is everything really A-OK as with our economy and it's inner workings Albatross? It's not a free market system in any way that I can see. I honestly think it's a ponzi scheme .... I sense dread where you see free market competitive business practices going on just fine."-muirgeo

Of course you do. I'm sure you are a delightful little man-child. But I think it's time you go spend more time with your patients and practice your coloring book skills. Let the adults talk.

It's not a free market system in any way that I can see.

Ok since the NON free market system had a failure recently, how about trying the free market for a change?

Folks, when you respond to muirgeo, you only encourage him to post more drooling vacuities. He is incapable of learning (the ultimate conservative), so don't waste your breath.

As for the death of trolleys, they were losing money long before the bus / tire / oil companies bought them out. This is the conclusion of the experts at railroad.net

Regarding LA streetcars...from WIkipedia...

Throughout their existence, the Pacific Electric and its predecessor railroads frequently lost money on passenger operations. There were few years when the company's income statement showed a profit, most notably during World War II, when gasoline was rationed and automobiles were not manufactured. Huntington's involvement with urban rail was intimately tied to his real estate development operations. In the pre-automobile era, electric interurban rail was the only way to connect outlying suburban and exurban parcels to central cities. Real estate development was so lucrative for Huntington and Southern Pacific that they could use the Red Car as a loss leader. However, most of the company's holdings had been developed by 1920. As the company's major income source began to deplete, profitability required that the least-used Red Car lines be converted to cheaper buses as early as 1925.

Although the railway owned extensive private rights-of-way, usually between urban areas, much of the Pacific Electric trackage in urban areas was in streets shared with automobiles and trucks, and virtually all street crossings were at-grade, and increasing automobile traffic led to decreasing Red Car speeds on much of its trackage. At its nadir, the busy Santa Monica Boulevard line, which connected Santa Monica and Hollywood, had an average speed of 13 miles per hour, similar to the average speed today on Los Angeles area freeways.

Traffic congestion was of such great concern by the late 1930s that the influential Automobile Club of Southern California engineered an elaborate plan to create an elevated freeway-type "Motorway System," a key aspect of which was the dismantling of the streetcar lines, to be replaced with buses that could run on both local streets and on the new express roads.

Of course you do. I'm sure you are a delightful little man-child. But I think it's time you go spend more time with your patients and practice your coloring book skills. Let the adults talk.

Posted by: maximus

So talking about $90 trillion of derivatives exposure or the very real bailout that protected kept it taped together is child's play? Insignificant?

The right to talk anything about modern market successes was lost on the day the Fed bailed out Bear-Stearns as if that was the only governmental action that allowed for Wall Streets "success" .

Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said: “Simply stated, the bright new financial system – for all its talented participants, for all its rich rewards – has failed the test of the market place.”

Ok since the NON free market system had a failure recently, how about trying the free market for a change?

Posted by: Oil Shock

Because there's no such thing. if you deregulate these guys who are using public money and credit to manipulate markets it's a little like giving the baby a gun to play with. They've shown themselves to be irresponsible children not to be left unattended. It's worse yet because these deregulating them doesn't just let them do what theywant it pretty much means letting them run the show. The guys at JPM or Goldman Sachs are the same guys running the Fed.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson,

So talking about $90 trillion of derivatives exposure or the very real bailout that protected kept it taped together is child's play? Insignificant?

Muirdiot, Do explain to us (IN YOUR OWN WORDS) what derivatives are, how they threaten the financial system, and what Glass-Steagall has to do with it.

I know you think that everyone here is as stupid as you are and that's why you insult our intelligence by repeating your inane word vomit ad infinitum in the hopes that we will fall over and agree with you from shear exhaustion. However, you're on the wrong blog for that. We require you to make a cogent argument and we don't tire easily.

Dazzle us! Go!

Folks, when you respond to muirgeo, you only encourage him to post more drooling vacuities. He is incapable of learning (the ultimate conservative), so don't waste your breath.

Posted by: Russell Nelson

Just BS. If you have such great ideas defend them instead of preaching to the choir.

I've read no less then 4 books that have been recommended here. I have listened to over 20 of the EconTalk interviews start to finish. Some of them I've listened to 2-3 times.

I've just listened to the most recent EconTalk where Russ interviewed John Taylor from Stanford on Monetary Policy. It's glaringly clear that no one has a "good" understanding of how the economy runs and how best to run it when al factors are considered. It is your lack of desire to consider alternatives that is truly set in concrete. My mind is also of a biased human being but itis far from being a closed book.

Yes Russell I have drooling vacuities but of course YOU have the truth. Coward!

Just BS. If you have such great ideas defend them instead of preaching to the choir.

Are you effing kidding me? I've never seen you defend anything here - nor are you discouraged when ignored. You blather about Glass-Steagall, opitons, Wall Street, Bankers, "corporatists" and assorted other garbage you don't have a clue about. When asked to defend your position you morph from Muirdiot to Muirduck and pretend you didn't see the post. And you call Russell a coward? This is humour, right?

I've read no less then 4 books that have been recommended here. I have listened to over 20 of the EconTalk interviews start to finish. Some of them I've listened to 2-3 times.

You did all that and still learned nothing? I fear for you patients.

It's glaringly clear that no one has a "good" understanding of how the economy runs and how best to run it when al factors are considered.

Sadly, that realization taught you nothing and proves Russell's point.

methinks,

Derivatives are financial tools used to minimize risk to a given of various underling financial products. Their "success" or popularity seems intimately associated with and dependent on massive credit expanding policies of the Fed, massive degrees of overleverging principle with a good a top heavy inverted pyramid scheme that also requires is helped along by the complex nature of the instruments themselves that effectively allows them to be traded and valued in opaque.

From Russ Roberts recent Econtalk, a Stanford Econ expert expresses some concern as well... I'm not alone methinks but I bet in a year or two you will likely be even more in isolation if you continue to defend the practices on Wall Street that have brought us to this brink. You want to derivative on it... I mean do you want to bet on that.

" Under the surface, some unusual happenings that would make anyone worry. Look at financial system, at 3-month bank lending to each other, unusually high. Suggests banks are worried about lending to each other, unusual risk factor. Due to the fact that there are unusual securities out there, mortgage obligations that people don't know how to assess their value. If housing prices continue to fall, those securities will seem even more suspect. But how will that spread to the rest of the economy? So far, though economy is weak, it could be worse."

from EconTalk John Taylor interview.

methinks, what does he mean by, "there are unusual securities out there"?

if you deregulate these guys who are using public money and credit

THat is the definition of a "deregulated" regulated non-free-market.