quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

For one thing, the great depression was considered over by 1939 or 1940, the war created its own problems but depression was not part of it, more men and women were either working or in the military so unemployment was at an all time low.

And all the price controls instituted during the war, and not the depression, were done away with by '46.

Unemployment was still pretty high by 1939 (17.2%) and 1940 (14.6%). Things were getting better, but it was not "over" yet. The price controls were instituted during the war, and that's what helped to catapult our industries into full production. If we waited for the "unseen hand" to kick in, we might have been waiting for a long time, just as we're waiting now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

America has changed for the better.When the US was first formed,slavery was still legal and women were not allowed to vote.Depends on who you ask,is America better now?There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed but on a human level,this country is far better now than it was even 50 years ago.The "good old days" were only for the "good old boys".Anyone else who wasn't a straight,white,male back then were pretty much screwed.So I feel America has improved for the quality of life of everyone now and not just a select few.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

It is better, in the sense that someone with cancer finally loses all that extra weight...

When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, the good old boys went from having it all to being on the losing side of history. I was very optimistic that progress would continue and even accelerate, as when the sun finally comes out and melts the snow away. I figured another set of Dark Ages had come to an end.
Half a century later, I see a massive amount of new problems, while the good old boys go to any lengths to stay on top... even if some of the good old faces aren't white, or male anymore.

Now, instead of the Sheriff dumping the bodies of uppity blacks into the swamp, they are dumped into the enormous prison-industrial complex, and then revolving doored back into the poor side of town upon release.

Instead of blatant expressions of overt racism like the Klan and fiery segregationists, I see Racism 2.0 which plays the game of denying being racist while using sleaze and innuendo to spread the same disease.


Now I'm a cynic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The embargo itself, didn't start until October of 1973.

Further...

quote:

Although price controls on gasoline ended when the Arab embargo was lifted in 1974, the Federal Energy Agency (FEA) continued to maintain price controls on crude oil produced domestically. The price of old oil was controlled at about $5.25 per barrel. New oil from wells put into production after November 1975, plus output from old wells that exceeded the base period output levels, was controlled at a price of about $1 per barrel.
At these controlled prices, shortages emerged for domestically produced oil and refineries relied increasingly on imported oil. Those refiners who had access to old oil had an advantage over refiners forced to pay market prices. The FEA responded with an elaborate system of entitlements and allocations among crude oil refiners. Each refiner was given a certain number of entitlements to domestic oil at controlled prices based on the total purchases of crude oil at uncontrolled prices.
The entitlements program placed a tax on domestic production of crude oil and subsidized refinery purchases of imported oil. The United States, in effect, paid a subsidy of about $3 for every barrel of oil imported. Needless to say, this policy discouraged domestic production of petroleum. By holding petroleum prices below the market price, the entitlements program led to wasteful use of petroleum resources and discouraged the development of alternative energy sources. The market has not solved the energy crisis because the market has not been permitted to operate.[3]

If you're still not convinced, look at the 1973 Oil Crisis Wiki:

quote:

Government price controls further exacerbated the crisis in the United States,[29] which limited the price of "old oil" (that already discovered) while allowing newly discovered oil to be sold at a higher price, resulting in a withdrawal of old oil from the market and the creation of artificial scarcity. The rule also discouraged alternative energies or more efficient fuels or technologies from being developed.[29] The rule had been intended to promote oil exploration.[32] This scarcity was dealt with by rationing of gasoline (which occurred in many countries), with motorists facing long lines at gas stations beginning in summer 1972 and increasing by summer 1973.[29]
In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon named William E. Simon as the first Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, or the "Energy Czar".[33] Simon allocated states the same amount of domestic oil for 1974 that each consumed in 1972, which worked well for states whose populations were not increasing.[34] In states with increased populations, lines at gasoline stations were common.[34] The American Automobile Association reported that in the last week of February 1974, 20% of American gasoline stations had no fuel at all.[34]

quote:


Yeah, the Fed is innocent of all wrongdoing. I couldn't even type that with a straight face!!

A good read Here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

For one thing, the great depression was considered over by 1939 or 1940, the war created its own problems but depression was not part of it, more men and women were either working or in the military so unemployment was at an all time low.

And all the price controls instituted during the war, and not the depression, were done away with by '46.

Unemployment was still pretty high by 1939 (17.2%) and 1940 (14.6%). Things were getting better, but it was not "over" yet. The price controls were instituted during the war, and that's what helped to catapult our industries into full production. If we waited for the "unseen hand" to kick in, we might have been waiting for a long time, just as we're waiting now.

According to you, price controls got us out of the depression.

quote:

In short the price controls did absolutely nothing to end the depression, if anyone had even thought they would work, they would have been started in 31.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
This is part of what's hurting America, in my view. People just want to stick to an ideological status quo just for its own sake.

My two thoughts on that.

The republicans and democrats are basically one party. They have sold a myth that there is some significant different beween them and we ought to care about it... enough so that it distracts us from being sold into slavery.

They have also sold the myth that "voting for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away". Man, just stop and think about that one for a second. So casting my vote according to my own conscience is "throwing my vote away" and instead I must vote for the Republocrats? Oh please.

This is what I mean when I talk about red team/blue team thinking. Every time someone maligns the left or the right or the conservatives or the liberals or the republicans or the democrats (rank & file not the politicians) we are basically shooting our own selves in the foot. We have allowed them to divide us while they loot the country and enslave us. This forum is an excellent example of that.

The neat part about my own position is that it's no-lose. If I am wrong about the whole joint-party, selling out to the bankers, things are going to get much worse scenario then I AM THRILLED TO BE WRONG! If I'm right then it's going to become progressively more obvious to even the dullest bulbs that something is stinky in Washington ... or more accurately... everything is stinky in Washington. I win either either way. I just worry that the voting system will be totally subverted by the time this realization hits people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The embargo itself, didn't start until October of 1973.
Further...

quote:

Although price controls on gasoline ended when the Arab embargo was lifted in 1974, the Federal Energy Agency (FEA) continued to maintain price controls on crude oil produced domestically. The price of old oil was controlled at about $5.25 per barrel. New oil from wells put into production after November 1975, plus output from old wells that exceeded the base period output levels, was controlled at a price of about $1 per barrel.
At these controlled prices, shortages emerged for domestically produced oil and refineries relied increasingly on imported oil. Those refiners who had access to old oil had an advantage over refiners forced to pay market prices. The FEA responded with an elaborate system of entitlements and allocations among crude oil refiners. Each refiner was given a certain number of entitlements to domestic oil at controlled prices based on the total purchases of crude oil at uncontrolled prices.
The entitlements program placed a tax on domestic production of crude oil and subsidized refinery purchases of imported oil. The United States, in effect, paid a subsidy of about $3 for every barrel of oil imported. Needless to say, this policy discouraged domestic production of petroleum. By holding petroleum prices below the market price, the entitlements program led to wasteful use of petroleum resources and discouraged the development of alternative energy sources. The market has not solved the energy crisis because the market has not been permitted to operate.[3]

If you're still not convinced, look at the 1973 Oil Crisis Wiki:

quote:

Government price controls further exacerbated the crisis in the United States,[29] which limited the price of "old oil" (that already discovered) while allowing newly discovered oil to be sold at a higher price, resulting in a withdrawal of old oil from the market and the creation of artificial scarcity. The rule also discouraged alternative energies or more efficient fuels or technologies from being developed.[29] The rule had been intended to promote oil exploration.[32] This scarcity was dealt with by rationing of gasoline (which occurred in many countries), with motorists facing long lines at gas stations beginning in summer 1972 and increasing by summer 1973.[29]
In 1973, U.S. President Richard Nixon named William E. Simon as the first Administrator of the Federal Energy Office, or the "Energy Czar".[33] Simon allocated states the same amount of domestic oil for 1974 that each consumed in 1972, which worked well for states whose populations were not increasing.[34] In states with increased populations, lines at gasoline stations were common.[34] The American Automobile Association reported that in the last week of February 1974, 20% of American gasoline stations had no fuel at all.[34]

So, basically, from the articles you've posted here, the oil companies didn't like price controls (because they were greedy) and decided to take their ball and go home - just so they could manipulate the economy and get their way again.
And these are the kinds of greedy, conniving people we should trust with America's future? Is that your bottom-line argument here?

quote:

quote:

Yeah, the Fed is innocent of all wrongdoing. I couldn't even type that with a straight face!!
A good read Here.

Then why not stick it to 'em where it hurts? That's why I don't understand your position here. You seem to be against the Federal Reserve and the banks, yet you give validation to the arguments of neo-conservative economists who have been nothing more than intellectual puppets for these sleazeballs who are cheating the people and looting America's treasury.
I agree with a lot of what your saying (and many of your posts in other threads), but here's the problem: You and others don't seem to want to hit the bad guys where it will hurt them the most. You seem to want to protect them and let them continue to bleed America dry. That's what I don't understand about yours, VincentML's, and JLF's positions here.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

America has changed for the better.When the US was first formed,slavery was still legal and women were not allowed to vote.Depends on who you ask,is America better now?There are certainly some issues that need to be addressed but on a human level,this country is far better now than it was even 50 years ago.The "good old days" were only for the "good old boys".Anyone else who wasn't a straight,white,male back then were pretty much screwed.So I feel America has improved for the quality of life of everyone now and not just a select few.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Businesses exist to provide a service and - wait for it - make a profit. Yes, there is a bottom line.

quote:


And, yes, it needs to be protected.

quote:


Big Oil was trying to survive. Isn't Big Oil allowed to respond to changes, and adapt?

quote:


Third party stations, imo, do not take precedence over brand named stations. If there were contracts stipulating price and quantity to be delivered, that is one thing, but if only price, then that's completely another.

quote:


What I didn't know until looking these things up, was that it was Federal price controls that actually motivated the vast increase in importing oil.

quote:


The Federal Reserve is not supported by me. That is a position I have had since before I joined CM. I have not wavered in that at all. I am, was, and will continue to be against the bailout of the Financial Sector that started with Bush. I have always taken the position that those who took a risk and failed, should bear the responsibility of that failure. That includes the mortgage lenders, the toxic asset bundlers, and the borrowers. I do have sympathy for those borrowers who were fraudulently sold a mortgage, but those cases aren't the majority. The lenders who participated in the fraud should bear a greater responsibility than the borrower in those cases. And, if you're too stupid to understand what you're signing, is that really the problem of the American taxpayer?

In an effort to clear up an obviously foggy situation (which may only be foggy on my end), please answer these questions:

What part of my position is confusing to you?

quote:


Who are the "bad guys," in your opinion?

quote:


How am I in support of protecting them?

quote:


How would you hit them where it hurts most?

(Edited to fix a formatting error)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Businesses exist to provide a service and - wait for it - make a profit. Yes, there is a bottom line.

Oh, yes, I understand full well that they're in business to make money. My grandfather was a businessman and he told me that all the time (about any business). For the most part, they're not humanitarians, they're not civic-minded, and they have no social conscience. They are what they are, just like the Five Families of New York City.

quote:


And, yes, it needs to be protected.

Protected by whom? What obligations do the U.S. government and taxpayers actually have to the private sector? How much does it cost to protect them and their interests? If the U.S. taxpayers are paying the U.S. military to go to the Middle East and help prop up our oil industry, shouldn't we have a say in how much we should pay at the pump?

quote:

quote:

Big Oil was trying to survive. Isn't Big Oil allowed to respond to changes, and adapt?

It depends on what they do and how they respond to those changes. Big Oil obviously has a great advantage over the individual citizen in our society, so aren't citizens allowed to petition their government to level the playing field? The individual citizen is trying to survive, too. Does Big Oil's right to survive trump the citizenry's right to survive? If there is a conflict between the two, who should the government side with?

quote:

quote:

Third party stations, imo, do not take precedence over brand named stations. If there were contracts stipulating price and quantity to be delivered, that is one thing, but if only price, then that's completely another.

Well, of course, I don't propose that it be done in a vacuum. From the articles you've posted, I can see where price controls have been implemented rather badly (where there weren't any real "controls" at all), but that doesn't mean that the concept itself can't be implemented in other ways.

quote:

quote:

What I didn't know until looking these things up, was that it was Federal price controls that actually motivated the vast increase in importing oil.

It was cheaper to get it overseas.

quote:

I think it could actually help other sectors of the economy, as well as facilitate spending cuts in government without drastically cutting services. If you were running a business and your energy costs were dramatically reduced, you'd suddenly have a lot of extra capital to expand, hire more workers, and/or pump more money into the local economy.
It's the same with rents. I've seen some local businesses go under only because they couldn't negotiate a reasonable rent for their business. And yet, I see so many empty storefronts around town. If only the rents could be lowered, then businesses would move in, hire workers, and help get our economy moving again. (I have an idea as to how this could be accomplished, but I'm sure you'll like that idea even less than price controls.)

quote:

quote:

The Federal Reserve is not supported by me. That is a position I have had since before I joined CM. I have not wavered in that at all. I am, was, and will continue to be against the bailout of the Financial Sector that started with Bush. I have always taken the position that those who took a risk and failed, should bear the responsibility of that failure. That includes the mortgage lenders, the toxic asset bundlers, and the borrowers. I do have sympathy for those borrowers who were fraudulently sold a mortgage, but those cases aren't the majority. The lenders who participated in the fraud should bear a greater responsibility than the borrower in those cases. And, if you're too stupid to understand what you're signing, is that really the problem of the American taxpayer?
In an effort to clear up an obviously foggy situation (which may only be foggy on my end), please answer these questions:
What part of my position is confusing to you?

You seemed to be against the banks but generally in favor of libertarian laissez-faire economics in other sectors (such as the oil companies and your opposition to price controls), so I'm just wondering how you pick and choose which parts of the free market you support and which parts you don't support.

quote:

VincentML made a little jibe against me saying that I "wasn't much of a free-market guy" or something to that effect, but in fact, I am. But I don't believe in anarcho-capitalism or Mafia economics, which is kind of what we're dealing with nowadays.
I tend to agree that banks are a large part of the problem, too, including the Federal Reserve Bank. But I also see an underlying philosophical problem which seems to affect the entire economy, including the banks, the oil companies, and just about everything else.

quote:

quote:

Who are the "bad guys," in your opinion?

Well, in the context above, I think we both agreed that the Federal Reserve would be among them. VincentML said that the system was rigged, so if it's rigged, why not rig it in our favor?

quote:

quote:

How am I in support of protecting them?

You opposed my idea of price controls (and I would presume you're against trade protections as well?). I keep hearing the same laissez-faire arguments that we should leave business alone and so forth, which has led to deregulation, privatization, outsourcing - all of which have proven to be detrimental to our nation's economy and standing in the world. Any time something is proposed to try to rein them in and keep them from doing any more damage, there's always this slew of free-market conservatives who come forth and argue in favor of business as usual, using the same arguments they've always made.

Action: Put a cap on wages.
Effect (desired): Labor costs are kept down to help business.
Effect (reality): Business has difficulty getting the employees it needs because of wage caps.
Response: Business responds by offering non-wage incentives to get the employees they need.
Aftermath: Labor costs still go up for business.

quote:

I've heard the same arguments back in the 1980s, during the Reagan era, and I didn't agree with them back then either. The entire laissez-faire/conservative position sounds like a bunch of mobsters and sleazy politicians got together and decided to formulate some bullshit ideology so they could fool the public into thinking that it's good for America. We the people put our trust in these men to guide and plan for our nation's future, and now everyone is scratching their heads wondering why we're becoming enslaved, why America is falling upon hard times. Yes, the system is rigged, and the bankers, politicians, and corporations are out to fuck us all.

quote:

But the whole reason I started this thread is to bring about discussion as to possible solutions.

quote:

How would you hit them where it hurts most?
(Edited to fix a formatting error)

By challenging the policies which, to them, are sacrosanct and which caused many of the problems we're facing today. We can likewise propose policy changes which seemingly cause the most distress among conservative economists, as that would be an indication that the sleazeballs are worried about something. Remember, these people are greedy, profit-hungry mobsters, so anything and everything they say has to be considered on that basis. As you said above, profit is their bottom line; that's the whole reason for being in business. There is self-interest in what they propose and what they support. I can't just ignore that and pretend that they'll be good citizens when nobody is looking.
I think the way to hit them is to attack their ideals, particularly the ones which are held sacrosanct and have become Sacred Cows to both major parties.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Part of me is thinking that we get what we deserve. We elected these people. We fell for their promises and got suckered in by their bullshit, and now we're paying the price. I don't even think it's a matter of blaming liberals or conservatives, since it may be a sign of a deeper problem within our national psyche. They're both to blame, to a large extent, for not seeing past their own political partisanship and ideological gainsaying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Businesses exist to provide a service and - wait for it - make a profit. Yes, there is a bottom line.

Oh, yes, I understand full well that they're in business to make money. My grandfather was a businessman and he told me that all the time (about any business). For the most part, they're not humanitarians, they're not civic-minded, and they have no social conscience. They are what they are, just like the Five Families of New York City.

quote:


And, yes, it needs to be protected.

Protected by whom? What obligations do the U.S. government and taxpayers actually have to the private sector? How much does it cost to protect them and their interests? If the U.S. taxpayers are paying the U.S. military to go to the Middle East and help prop up our oil industry, shouldn't we have a say in how much we should pay at the pump?

It needs to be protected by the business. Without profits, there is nothing to pay employees. There is nothing with which to expand. The business will not prosper. If a business can't operate profitably, it needs to change it's business model, or cease to exist.

quote:


Our military shouldn't be propping up our oil industry. Our taxpayers shouldn't be propping up any failing/failed business. We need to let those who play with fire get burned. Helps teach a lesson about playing with fire.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Third party stations, imo, do not take precedence over brand named stations. If there were contracts stipulating price and quantity to be delivered, that is one thing, but if only price, then that's completely another.

Well, of course, I don't propose that it be done in a vacuum. From the articles you've posted, I can see where price controls have been implemented rather badly (where there weren't any real "controls" at all), but that doesn't mean that the concept itself can't be implemented in other ways.

What other ways can price controls be implemented? You are either propping a price up above Market level (sugar and farming industries), or putting caps on prices below Market level (Medicare/Medicaid?). Both are going to distort the Market in different ways. Either way, pricing will change the Market, and there will be negative ramifications.

quote:

quote:

quote:

What I didn't know until looking these things up, was that it was Federal price controls that actually motivated the vast increase in importing oil.

It was cheaper to get it overseas.

Not exactly. It was cheaper to get it overseas than to expand drilling. The price cap on oil was set on "old" wells, that is, wells that were already producing. Oil from new wells would not fall under that cap. That was done to give incentive to expand drilling. What it ended up doing was closing some "old" wells (because it wasn't profitable enough to continue pumping) and increasing imports. Had the price control been applied to "old" oil and imported oil, there would have been a mad scramble for increased drilling, but prices would have skyrocketed as importing declined and old wells were closed. It would not have been profitable to continue to produce at those wells, so the shit would have fallen apart, anyway.

quote:

quote:

I think it could actually help other sectors of the economy, as well as facilitate spending cuts in government without drastically cutting services. If you were running a business and your energy costs were dramatically reduced, you'd suddenly have a lot of extra capital to expand, hire more workers, and/or pump more money into the local economy.
It's the same with rents. I've seen some local businesses go under only because they couldn't negotiate a reasonable rent for their business. And yet, I see so many empty storefronts around town. If only the rents could be lowered, then businesses would move in, hire workers, and help get our economy moving again. (I have an idea as to how this could be accomplished, but I'm sure you'll like that idea even less than price controls.)

But, what are the costs of doing that to the energy providers? If you Nationalize (which may not be your idea; I'm just guessing), then taxpayers are still footing the bill and Corporatism will be alive and well, as it is now.

quote:


I am absolutely in favor of limited government regulation (moving a lot closer to laissez-faire economics, but not actually getting to no regulations; regulations are absolutely needed to a certain extent), but in all areas. I'm not necessarily in favor of "Big Oil" because I'm opposed to price controls. I'm opposed to price controls and used Big Oil to show why. I also showed how price controls (in the form of interest rates) had huge implications in leading to the S&L shit mess.

quote:

quote:

VincentML made a little jibe against me saying that I "wasn't much of a free-market guy" or something to that effect, but in fact, I am. But I don't believe in anarcho-capitalism or Mafia economics, which is kind of what we're dealing with nowadays.
I tend to agree that banks are a large part of the problem, too, including the Federal Reserve Bank. But I also see an underlying philosophical problem which seems to affect the entire economy, including the banks, the oil companies, and just about everything else.

I call it "Corporatism" because it sure as Hell isn't Capitalism. What is the underlying problem you see?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Who are the "bad guys," in your opinion?

Well, in the context above, I think we both agreed that the Federal Reserve would be among them. VincentML said that the system was rigged, so if it's rigged, why not rig it in our favor?

Because it won't ever be rigged in our favor. Business will adapt. The only way for it to be in our favor, is to not rig it at all. Put in place the least amount of regulations necessary, and then let the Market work.

quote:


Preventing outsourcing is a form of price control. You prevent business from getting the best price it can get. Shouldn't the labor force compete for jobs/wages? Most of the time things are proposed to rein things in do more harm than the thing they are trying to rein in. Most politicians aren't looking at the responses to the effects. They go to one single step.

quote:


What I hear, up until that last sentence, is that conservatives are evil and the ones in bed with Wall Street. While the latter is true, it's also true of the liberals. IMO, it's not an issue of Left or Right, it's Left AND Right that are the problem.

What is easier to do, end reliance on an entitlement, or prevent the entitlement reliance to begin in the first place? I would err on the latter being easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Part of me is thinking that we get what we deserve. We elected these people. We fell for their promises and got suckered in by their bullshit, and now we're paying the price. I don't even think it's a matter of blaming liberals or conservatives, since it may be a sign of a deeper problem within our national psyche. They're both to blame, to a large extent, for not seeing past their own political partisanship and ideological gainsaying.

Again, my own personal thought on this...

Let's just take a look at this forum right here. Last I checked everyone here valued "honor" very highly. In point of fact pretty much everyone here claims to be both spotless in terms of their own honor and completely intolerant towards any sort of honor failings in others. OK yeah... that's a complete fiction that I call "BDSM honor" but still... it is what people say.

quote:


Now take a look at the politicians they support in P&R. Take a look at the stances they support in P&R.

Money get back, I'm all right Jack
Keep your hands off my stack

Money, it's a hit, Don't give me that
Do goody good bullshit
-- Pink Floyd

In my opinion the root cause is that as a society we have become corrupt and decadent. We no longer care about things like "playing fair". We don't care about lying, cheating and stealing. We care about WINNING and wealth and power. We idolize people I wouldn't allow onto my property. We support them without a moment's thought. We fund their campaigns and we shop in their stores. And worse, we KNOW all of this and just plain don't care.

quote:


You are right, we have gotten EXACTLY what we deserve. The question is whether we will choose to deserve something different in time or not. There is ALWAYS another chance. The fat lady never sings until the nation dies. We could all take a sobering look in the mirror and decide we don't like what we see. As I originally said, perhaps as things get uglier and uglier we will in fact do so.