i read about a break through for higher % efficency very recently

i think GE ?

I can't even say that word.

I know what you mean. It is especially a problem trying to prove to people that price controls do not work when they remind us about how well price controls worked in the 1970s.

(That's sarcasm, for any fools who might actually think that price controls worked in the 1970s.)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...il.int.650.jpg

87/89 octane here has been holding steady here at $3.78 for the last 3 weeks. 91-93 octane is $3.98.

I wonder what would happen if a law was instated that all oil sold from foreign nations could only be sold for $50 a barrel to U.S. refineries. According to the constitution congress does have the right to regulate commerce. I mean, the choice would be sell for the government stated price or loose the world's largest market share....

Any ways, just a thought and probably a bad one at that. :D


A better idea is going back to older standards for the content of fuels, that way diesel and gas will be easier and cheaper to refine. And get rid of all state and federal taxes on fuels. And don't have a daily driver that get less than 20mpg city.

A law requiring that imported oil could only be purchased for $50/barrel, would be about as effective as a law requiring that all imported oil had to be "free."

Foreign owners of oil would simply sell to the rest of the world for some price above $50/barrel; no oil would be imported and the price of gas would soar to probably about $50 (yes, that's fifty dollars) a gallon.

Economists use the term "law" in the phase, the "law of supply and demand" for a very good reason; people behave in their economic decisions in certain rational, predictable ways. If the government tries to pass man-made laws that contradict the "natural" (i.e. "human nature") laws of supply and demand, the natural human behavior does not change.

The government cannot pass laws and make people behave irrationally and sell products for less than their "fair" -- market determined -- prices and expect the economy to work "just fine" with such an action.

Just ask yourself, if the government mandated that you start selling the things you own for less than what they are worth, would you "cooperated"?

I am just playing devil's advocate here. But when new emission standards are posed companies scramble to meet them, it's a choice of meeting the standards or making nothing. If price fixing were implemented the choice for oil companies would be, loosing the world's largest market or making a lower profit. OPEC we all know is keeping the prices at an artificially high level. Oil could be sold for considerably less most likely and they would still be making money.

Would this work, probably not but it is an idea. Unfortunately it's not very good :D

There is no "losing the world's largest market" option. We cannot cut off our own noses in spite of our faces.

Hugo may think he's in the catbird seat, but he's not.

Everyone has their favorite piece of pork and this one is mine..

Hillside farmers in rural NY and New England are not making the millions corn and soybean farmers elsewhere are making.. We could get our milk from factory farms employing a few more hundred thousand illegals in Florida and California - or we can preserve rural farms and landscapes in our own back yard..

It is pretty well documented that the established price of anything on the free market is determined by supply and demand. The same goes for any kind of government intervention being ineffectual in lowering prices.

Politicians and governments have no bearing on the price of anything except making it go higher when the try to step in.

Blaming this president or any other for the price of gasoline and oil is much like trying to teach a pig to sing...

At least India is cutting back on subsidies.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/04/business/fuel.php

With no end in sight to high world oil prices, India and Malaysia on Wednesday became the latest Asian countries to risk the wrath of voters by raising the price of subsidized fuel, a highly unpopular measure that could further weaken the governments of both countries made fragile by recent electoral setbacks.

The moves follow similar price increases in Indonesia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and are a recognition by governments that they can no longer shelter their populations from the spike in energy prices

Ron, the trickle-down effects of rising fuel prices is a complicated situation which affects everything, including food costs. I feel justified in my position after finally seeing the predicted $10 loaf of bread.

I personally like the support of small farms, even when it's at the cost of "unequal" tax structuring.
The factory-style grain and meat producers and their suppliers (Monsanto et all) have had enough tax benefits and leveraged bullying to be able to grow inexpensive food to "feed the unwashed masses", but at what cost? Read "The Omnivores Dillema" or see "Fast Food Nation" to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

When non-nutritional food is only available, the nation suffers as a whole:
1. Workers have health problems which are passed on to their corporate health plans.
2. The health plans become too expensive for the corporations (due to deliberate AMA corrupt planning), and the jobs move overseas.
3. The US tax-base and consumer confidence is reduced, and the long-term economy suffers as a whole.

You could argue that the government supporting small farms is "communist".
I could argue that the government supporting monolithic corporations is "communist", and vulnerable.


The FDA has been under a lot of pressure to be quite lax in interpreting the definitions of "organic" and "farm-raised". That's a much bigger scam, IMO.