BajaNomad

up goes the price of Pemex gas

 Pages:  1  

bacquito - 2-1-2014 at 06:53 PM

http://www.ensenada.net/noticias/nota.php?id=32997

It is hard to believe Mexico is raising the price of gas when the price is falling in the USA and will probably continue to fall.

David K - 2-1-2014 at 07:11 PM

Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic, and they will nearly if not totally destroy something before returning control to the people that know better.

While it is 'popular' to talk smack about oil corporations in the USA, it is because of them we have fuel in our cars and homes everywhere in the country... and if not for our government's greed by profiting off the oil (more so than oil companies), the price would be close to $2/ gal.

price fixing

akshadow - 2-1-2014 at 07:19 PM

Since the price was "fixed" at an artificially low price we should all expect it to go up with no relationship to competition. It is and will be a money maker for the government.
need to expect the "bad" with the "good"

Ateo - 2-1-2014 at 07:25 PM

I know a couple gas station on the USA side that are reaping the benefits of lower priced USA gas lately!

J.P. - 2-1-2014 at 07:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic, and they will nearly if not totally destroy something before returning control to the people that know better.

While it is 'popular' to talk smack about oil corporations in the USA, it is because of them we have fuel in our cars and homes everywhere in the country... and if not for our government's greed by profiting off the oil (more so than oil companies), the price would be close to $2/ gal.






For years the Government of Mexico kept the price Low to advance the working People of Mexico. This new Regime don't care about the People.:?::?:

Howard - 2-1-2014 at 08:17 PM

Today, going South, filled up twice, El Rosario and Vizcaino and it was the same, 12.4 pesos per liter and at 13 pesos to the $ that comes to approx. $3.61 a gallon. Everybody is in a different financial situation but for me, no sniveling and happy that it is not much higher. It's not going to keep me from Baja but feel sorry for the local people.

DENNIS - 2-1-2014 at 08:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by akshadow
It is and will be a money maker for the government.



Not to mention the great tax collector, the government, and only purveyor of gas an fuel, will raise taxes on it's one and only commodity as need for money dictates.
What's wrong with this picture? :?:

Bajaboy - 2-1-2014 at 09:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic, and they will nearly if not totally destroy something before returning control to the people that know better.

While it is 'popular' to talk smack about oil corporations in the USA, it is because of them we have fuel in our cars and homes everywhere in the country... and if not for our government's greed by profiting off the oil (more so than oil companies), the price would be close to $2/ gal.


David, difference between US and Mexico is that Mexico subsidized the cost of gasoline to the benefit of the people. The US subsidizes Big Oil for the benefit of big oil:fire:

willardguy - 2-1-2014 at 09:31 PM

mexico amended their constitution to allow private investment in pemex this year, does this make you, uh, aficionados happy?

Sandlefoot - 2-1-2014 at 09:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic, and they will nearly if not totally destroy something before returning control to the people that know better.

While it is 'popular' to talk smack about oil corporations in the USA, it is because of them we have fuel in our cars and homes everywhere in the country... and if not for our government's greed by profiting off the oil (more so than oil companies), the price would be close to $2/ gal.


David, difference between US and Mexico is that Mexico subsidized the cost of gasoline to the benefit of the people. The US subsidizes Big Oil for the benefit of big oil:fire:



The U.S. subsidizes big oil to maintain their own interest in it.
"Big Oil" makes $.062 on each dollar I spend for gas, U.S. taxes takes in only $.495! Big oil get 6 cents on every dollar I spend and government get 49 cents on that same gallon!!! :fire: This is one reason the price is high. The breakdown can be found @:https://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fenergyansw ered.org%2Fquestions%2Fhow-much-do-oil-companies-make-on-each-dollar-i-spend-on-gas&ei=LsrtUqbPNaf52wXPuIHoDg&usg=AFQjCNFv09ytJZdISnWwQWT9xnIQ 6GWtJg&bvm=bv.60444564,d.b2I

(Copy the entire address and paste in to your browser and it will work)

Happy Trails

[Edited on 2-2-2014 by Sandlefoot]

[Edited on 2-2-2014 by Sandlefoot]

[Edited on 2-2-2014 by Sandlefoot]

luv2fish - 2-4-2014 at 01:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bacquito
http://www.ensenada.net/noticias/nota.php?id=32997

It is hard to believe Mexico is raising the price of gas when the price is falling in the USA and will probably continue to fall.


I wonder if this has anything to do with the price hike?? Sounds like maybe Pemex is in need of more revenue, but if that were the case why not drop the price a bit and that would boost sales ?? http://www.afntijuana.info/informacion_general/24977_pemex_v...

pemex

captkw - 2-4-2014 at 01:43 PM

The extra cost is so they can fix up the bathrooms...LOL..want to buy a bridge ??

CortezBlue - 2-4-2014 at 01:50 PM

It doesn't matter, Pemex will soon be flying free and we will start seeing Exxon, BP and other gas stations popping up in Mexico.

:o

pacificobob - 2-4-2014 at 02:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic, and they will nearly if not totally destroy something before returning control to the people that know better.

While it is 'popular' to talk smack about oil corporations in the USA, it is because of them we have fuel in our cars and homes everywhere in the country... and if not for our government's greed by profiting off the oil (more so than oil companies), the price would be close to $2/ gal.


David, difference between US and Mexico is that Mexico subsidized the cost of gasoline to the benefit of the people. The US subsidizes Big Oil for the benefit of big oil:fire:
well said, and quite correct.

DENNIS - 2-4-2014 at 02:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CortezBlue
It doesn't matter, Pemex will soon be flying free and we will start seeing Exxon, BP and other gas stations popping up in Mexico.

:o



Maybe not. PEMEX is more to Mexico than an oil company. It's a national icon expropriated from the greedy hands of foreigners, and remains a symbol of independence and freedom.
PEMEX won't be quietly surrendered by the rank and file to foreign interests in the future without cloaking the investments in so many layers of constitutional gibberish as to make it indecipherable.

What would Mexico do with Expropriation Day if Standard Oil bought out PEMEX?

mtgoat666 - 2-4-2014 at 02:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic,...


the socialists use logic, youjust happen to disagree with their logic!

there is nothing wrong with government using taxes or pricing to shape public policy.
what's wrong with mexico setting gas at high prices to accomplish their own goals?
you probably benefit from government freebies like mortgage interest tax deduction and dependant tax deduction and health care expense deductions,... those tax deductions are just government social engineering disguised as tax deductions!

mtgoat666 - 2-4-2014 at 02:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mexico vs. USA:
Pemex is the Mexican Government Monopoly on fuel production, distribution and pricing. Socialism uses no logic, and they will nearly if not totally destroy something before returning control to the people that know better.

While it is 'popular' to talk smack about oil corporations in the USA, it is because of them we have fuel in our cars and homes everywhere in the country... and if not for our government's greed by profiting off the oil (more so than oil companies), the price would be close to $2/ gal.


David, difference between US and Mexico is that Mexico subsidized the cost of gasoline to the benefit of the people. The US subsidizes Big Oil for the benefit of big oil:fire:


dk does not understand how we the people truly subsidize big oil in the USA! big oil has bought every politician in wash dc, and has rewritten tax code to suit it's special interests... dk: you pay higher taxes because big oil does not pay fair share of taxes!

chuckie - 2-4-2014 at 02:56 PM

Thanks Goat, now I understand...

[Edited on 2-4-2014 by chuckie]

Pescador - 2-4-2014 at 05:25 PM

When the goat speaks about economic matters, it is certain that you are about to be enlightened in a socialistic way. I can only imagine what the country he would design would look like. Let's see, China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc., and the list goes on.

David K - 2-4-2014 at 07:56 PM

Funny how some people think wealth comes from government... when it is just the opposite. People create wealth and government takes it away.

Capitalism creates the most opportunity and socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Up with ALL Business (big and small) and down with Big Government!:light:

chuckie - 2-4-2014 at 08:02 PM

+10

mtgoat666 - 2-4-2014 at 08:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Capitalism creates the most opportunity and socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.


if capitalism is so great, why does the ultimate capitalist country, the USA, have such high murder rates, such high poverty rate, so many children poor and malnourished, so many unavailable to afford health care, etc.
do you measure success in terms how how the top 30% of population can easily succeed, or do you measure success in how the least fortunate survive or fail?
i see eurpopean socialism has created success for all classes, and seems to create more opportunity for more people, just saying!
seems like the percentage of poor and starving is quite high in USA relative to europe, eh?

David K - 2-4-2014 at 09:05 PM

We are not the ultimate capitalist country. Your side needs poor and uninformed voters to keep their jobs.

UMM BOYS !!

captkw - 2-4-2014 at 09:16 PM

The highest rated country to live in the world is New Zealand !! the usa is not top dog by any means...keep watching that TV..Canada blows the USA away in almost all social aspects and way of life...I know 10 hrs a day hearing that the usa is the best fogs your brain..but the hay ride is over in the USA !! sorry fact of life !!

mtgoat666 - 2-4-2014 at 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captkw
The highest rated country to live in the world is New Zealand !! the usa is not top dog by any means...keep watching that TV..Canada blows the USA away in almost all social aspects and way of life...I know 10 hrs a day hearing that the usa is the best fogs your brain..but the hay ride is over in the USA !! sorry fact of life !!


A lot of places do it better than the USA. But we got the most and biggest bombs! :lol::lol:

MR Goat !!

captkw - 2-4-2014 at 09:44 PM

LOL,,I would have beer with you !! your points have valid notions and thoughts !!! Myself would like to see a day where this planet was run by people and not govs,armys,,weapons,,BANKERS.....but,, sadly I don't see that coming soon enough!! I'm beginning to have a heavy heart on the crap that's happening in the world as we homosapeians are wrecking it.... everyday I just keep reading about sealife dieoff around world and its being reported more and more daily !!! I ask ??? Can we change for the next GEN ?? or are we past the point of no return ???

mtgoat666 - 2-4-2014 at 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captkw
are we past the point of no return ???


We are Fuuccked. Our species is doomed by our own selfishness. It's too late. Every man for himself. Eat or be killed. Dog eat dog. This is the end. We will fry under global frying pan climate, and the seas will run over our coasts and wash away the few scraps of our corpses left behind by the jackals.

Or perhaps scientists are all just liars and Obama is an Indonesian sleeper agent of Kenyan birth and the boy wonder Paul Ryan will save us from certain doom under Hillary.

chuckie - 2-5-2014 at 12:53 AM

Take it to OT

DENNIS - 2-5-2014 at 08:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
We will fry under global frying pan climate,



I could use some of that right now. I've been freezin' my butt off. :fire:

MitchMan - 2-5-2014 at 11:08 AM

We the people, in the aggregate, have the ultimate political power. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be.

The problem is that we the people haven't exercised our power properly, and, that is the case around the world and in the USA today. The power is completely in our own hands, but we aren't using it properly because we keep voting for the wrong people and for the wrong legislation.

The founders of this country intended that "good government" was to be chosen to be run by elected people that we would select by we the people employing "truth" and "reflection and choice" in order to elect those people that govern according to the "true interest" of the community for the "public good".

Instead we the people have allowed certain powerful moneyed "factions" amongst us to influence our society to vote for and support many things and people that are against our own best interest.

It is unfortunate that we the people (and those that we have elected) do not know enough about macro and microeconomics to vote intelligently.

If we the people, collectively, were truly focused on the "true interest of our community" and "the public good", we have all the ability in the world to vote for those candidates that would conduct "good government" and affectively address our environment and our economy.

The finger of blame for our government falling short is squarely pointed at us, i.e., "we the people" and not our leaders as it is "we the people" that have elected them...they didn't elect themselves.

[Edited on 2-5-2014 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 08:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
When the goat speaks about economic matters, it is certain that you are about to be enlightened in a socialistic way. I can only imagine what the country he would design would look like. Let's see, China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc., and the list goes on.


Socialism and Capitalism are both recognized economic philosophies, both have their own validity and shortcomings; there are truths and falsehoods and strengths and weaknesses found in both. If you want to consider yourself knowledgeable enough to cast your opinions on either, it behooves you to sufficiently understand their principles and both the weaknesses and strengths of each. Otherwise you will wallow in folly. Therefore, I appreciate being “enlightened” when enlightenment is presented, and you should be too.

BTW, I don’t think there is any one person (certainly not any member of this forum) who could “design” any country, and that list of persons who cannot goes on and on.

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Funny how some people think wealth comes from government... when it is just the opposite. People create wealth and government takes it away.
Capitalism creates the most opportunity and socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.
Up with ALL Business (big and small) and down with Big Government!


Please! More “talking points”? Everything you wrote was a pure talking point, that is, phrases that someone else wrote verbatim before you copied them here. I have heard each and every one of them many, many times recited by many other people. If you would compose your own original thoughts and share them with sufficient and adequate logic/support, that might constitute “enlightenment”.

Capitalistic systems have failed many times, and, it’s an ongoing experience. In fact, every time a business fails, that is a capitalistic failure. Ever hear of the Great Depression, the Dot Com Bubble, the Great /Recession of 2007/8? A characteristic of capitalism is recurring boom and bust cycles where many people are severely hurt financially. Also, there is the ever present lopsided and inequitable disparity of income and wealth that is severely plaguing the world and this country at its worst. Disparity itself is one of the most significant factors that is hurting our market based capitalistic systems around the world and particularly in this country right now.


Geesus man, open your eyes! A blind one-sided and errored Pollyanna perspective serves no one and certainly isn’t “enlightenment”.

The worst part of socialism is that it doesn’t benefit from the information embedded in markets and market prices (Hayek). One of socialisms failures is that it has been too difficult to know how much of which commodities to produce or not produce and where to deliver it, let alone how much resource to invest is the option level of product quality. Huge failure. HOWEVER, since our current technology of data bases, networking, internet and other ubiquitous communication, the ability to gather info quickly and analyze it even quicker is making this defect less and less an issue.

Briefly stated, capitalism’s problems are many, the most obvious is that markets are not perfect;, almost never are, and our market based capitalism relies greatly on its markets. Also, our markets have been subjected to the corrupting influence of excess greed and political manipulation. Furthermore, the more unregulated and purely unfettered markets are, the more bad side effects (called by economists as “externalities”) that horribly hurt society come about. FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, THE ONLY THING THAT CAN TAME EXTERNALITIES EFFECTIVELY IS PROPER REGULATION BY AN “APPROPRIATELY SIZED” GOVERNMENT…WHATEVER SIZE THAT IS.

Now, DavidK, I you have any “original” ideas to cure everything, please let us know. And, please, no talking points. Just your own original logic and info if you don’ mind.

David K - 2-6-2014 at 09:14 AM

Failures in capitalism often are due to both government interference (over regulations and taxation) and labor union demands... less work, more pay... can't fire bad workers...

Capitalism doesn't fail as it is the natural method for people to do business.

What I type here are my thoughts, that's all... I already know there is no convincing people who are stuck in their thinking. They will need to figure it for themselves. What is truly sad is that they are taking America down the drain by sticking to those failed ideologies.

More Americans on Food Stamps than ever before is not a good thing.

People loosing their health care or the doctor they want to keep is not a good thing.

People wanting full time work with one company but can only get part time is not a good thing.

Wake up!

mtgoat666 - 2-6-2014 at 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Capitalism doesn't fail as it is the natural method for people to do business.


all systems and nations fail eventually, history tells us so. no system or nation can persist indefinitely.

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 11:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Failures in capitalism often are due to both government interference (over regulations and taxation) and labor union demands... less work, more pay... can't fire bad workers...


After the Crash of the Stock Market and the onset of the Great Depression, the thing that all governments did was to impose regulation and great policy change to cure and reign in that Catastrophe, the same for the Financial Crisis of 2007/8…not deregulate further. Virtually all economists agree that it was lack of adequate regulation and lack of implementation of existing regulation that was the great basic factor of the 2007/8 debacle. Even Greenspan admitted that in congressional hearings. Did you know that both Greenspan and Bernanke could have single handedly issued policy to prohibit subprime loans…but didn’t? Did you know that Bush II refused a request by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to reign in and regulate derivatives before the Crash of 2007/8? During the prosperity of decades preceding the Reagan Administration labor unions were at their pinnacle and at the time of the 2007/8 Crash Unions were in a state of decimation…with greater income and wealth disparity and more people in poverty.

Your claim that gov interference and over regulation and labor unions are often the cause/reason of failures in capitalism is unbalanced, one sided, overly simplistic, excessively myopic and absolutely more often than not, wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Capitalism doesn't fail as it is the natural method for people to do business.

Captialism doesn’t fail…are you BLIND, man? Cite the failures that I mentioned in this thread and then tell me how what I wrote is wrong. I dare you. Prove it.

This “natural method” you speak of is an ideal…that doesn’t exist and has never existed and will never exist. There will never be an instance in time that ideal will ever exist in any large society. In short, you are dreaming and you have swallowed hook line and singer another talking point. In order to have pure unfettered capitalism, there has to be a lack of corruption, total and equal knowledge of all facts surrounding a product and pricing, and completely rational judgment each and every time and at all times that deals/purchases/contracts/sales occur. There was a Noble Prize awarded this century on the basis of “Assymetries of Knowledge” spelling out and proving the impossibility and imbalance of knowledge in the market place.

“Capitalism doesn’t fail” statement is quite naïve, easily disproven…and very vulnerable. I can go to prominent right wing leaning economists and draw plenty of proof material from them to show the folly of your statement. Heck, history disproves your statement.

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
What I type here are my thoughts, that's all... I already know there is no convincing people who are stuck in their thinking.


Are you “stuck in your thinking”, DavidK?

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
They will need to figure it for themselves. What is truly sad is that they are taking America down the drain by sticking to those failed ideologies.
More Americans on Food Stamps than ever before is not a good thing.
People loosing their health care or the doctor they want to keep is not a good thing.
People wanting full time work with one company but can only get part time is not a good thing.
Wake up!


I encourage you, DavidK, to do some (any) reading on the causes of the Great Depression and the Great Recession. You will find that virtually all such material by prominent recognized authorities will tell you it was lack of proper regulation and lack of proper implementation of existing regulation that caused both together with greed and corruption in business…not the answer your statements imply. What is sad, DavidK, is ignorance of the facts and macroeconomics by those who put out their ideologies and talking points as though it was universal uncontested truth.

BTW, You would be hard put to find a majority of economists and recognized literature that ignore the trend from the beginning of the Reagan Administration to the Crash of 2007/8 of declining salaries, wealth and income disparity, the rise of too big to fail out of control corporations all of which increased with the decline of collective bargaining, lack of will to implement anti trust regulation, decline in tax rates at the top brackets, and lack of business regulation promoted by the Reagan, Bush I and II administrations and Conservative thinking. Increase your actual knowledge and look up the graphs of trends of real wages, income and wealth disparity, Income tax revenues and rates, attacks and undermining of government agencies and removal of regulation that even Conservative economists said led to the Crash of 2007/8.

If you don’t like the current poverty in this nation, look to pre 2008 years to explain the cause. If you don’t like the current ACA, maybe you like the fact that health care cost have been rising by over 10% a year for some time and many people were prohibited from getting coverage at all and around 50 million Americans had no health ins and most personal bankruptcies were related to healthcare costs and that without ACA none of those things were being addressed at all. Talk about going down the drain.

The most heinous of preconceived notion is to believe that a nation’s economy at any one point in time is only affected by the current administration at that point in time and not by preceding administrations’ policy or preceding trends. Virtually all economists know that the last 6 years of economic woes in this country and abroad are a direct result of what went on before 2008. Economies are continuums. WAKE UP!

Still need some original ideas from you, DavidK.

[Edited on 2-6-2014 by MitchMan]

mtgoat666 - 2-6-2014 at 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Capitalism... it is the natural method for people to do business.


who is to say there is not a better way?

a classless, stateless, communal society may be a good way to live.

i would rather have a system for the 100% instead of a system for the 1%.

the industrial revolution led to our current system, and it's unbalanced income distribution.

why do you think the system of mega-corporations with a small elite and a large toiling populace is the best we can do?

dk: think outside the box! don't settle for status quo!
the politicians are selling you pablum to keep the entrenched special (large corporation) interests in power - perhaps there is a better way!

Mexitron - 2-6-2014 at 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Capitalism... it is the natural method for people to do business.


who is to say there is not a better way?

a classless, stateless, communal society may be a good way to live.

i would rather have a system for the 100% instead of a system for the 1%.

the industrial revolution led to our current system, and it's unbalanced income distribution.

why do you think the system of mega-corporations with a small elite and a large toiling populace is the best we can do?

dk: think outside the box! don't settle for status quo!
the politicians are selling you pablum to keep the entrenched special (large corporation) interests in power - perhaps there is a better way!


Communism, per se (the real thing, not the political system of Russia et al) works fine with tiny settlements but it doesn't pan out to the macro scale. Cooperativism may pan out better and has a few corporate models. As Mitch man so eloquently said---Capitalism is an ideal, its a north pole to be balanced out by a south pole...some blend of government and free markets is necessary. No system is perfect nor ever will be though. Except Star Trek's Federation and they haven't actually said how they worked out the details yet:lol:

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 12:55 PM

You got that right, Goat.

To go from our current system to a classless, stateless, communal society would involve and "evolution" that would require a cultural change, education, and spiritual enlightenment of one and all.

In the meantime, we could improve our ostensible market based capitalism considerably by melding a balance of communal concepts and market based concepts to arrive at a balanced economy where the bottom 95% get their fair share of compensation for what they do. Right now, the systemic problem is that our and other current market based capitalistic systems over reward/compensate the top 1% or 2% and under compensate the rest. I do believe in an economy that has some disparity as it will then suit the work ethic of individuals and provide incentives, but what we have now and around the world is way, way out of whack. The disparity is so enormous that it itself is hurting the economy.

It would be possible to achieve an economy where income was more balanced and the working class would get its fair share (which it is not), then there would be more income in the hands of all people and they wouldn't need government assistance, they could afford necessities and education and healthcare, and even have enough to pay some income taxes.

In the absence of a balanced economy, the only major way to even things out is to have a highly graduated income tax and a lot of means testing. I would prefer the former, that is, a balanced economy that paid the fair compensation to the very people that actually use their hands and minds to make all of our goods and services. Right now, the majority of people can't afford to buy the things they produce with their own hands and minds and the top 1% is making more money than they can spend or consume...proof positive of an imbalance.

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 12:59 PM

Well said Mexitron.

Wow, there are enlightened people in this forum. I know you are there. We just have to be more "vocal".

Cisco - 2-6-2014 at 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MitchMan
Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
When the goat speaks about economic matters, it is certain that you are about to be enlightened in a socialistic way. I can only imagine what the country he would design would look like. Let's see, China, Venezuela, Cuba, etc., and the list goes on.


Socialism and Capitalism are both recognized economic philosophies, both have their own validity and shortcomings; there are truths and falsehoods and strengths and weaknesses found in both. If you want to consider yourself knowledgeable enough to cast your opinions on either, it behooves you to sufficiently understand their principles and both the weaknesses and strengths of each. Otherwise you will wallow in folly. Therefore, I appreciate being “enlightened” when enlightenment is presented, and you should be too.

BTW, I don’t think there is any one person (certainly not any member of this forum) who could “design” any country, and that list of persons who cannot goes on and on.

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Funny how some people think wealth comes from government... when it is just the opposite. People create wealth and government takes it away.
Capitalism creates the most opportunity and socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.
Up with ALL Business (big and small) and down with Big Government!


Please! More “talking points”? Everything you wrote was a pure talking point, that is, phrases that someone else wrote verbatim before you copied them here. I have heard each and every one of them many, many times recited by many other people. If you would compose your own original thoughts and share them with sufficient and adequate logic/support, that might constitute “enlightenment”.

Capitalistic systems have failed many times, and, it’s an ongoing experience. In fact, every time a business fails, that is a capitalistic failure. Ever hear of the Great Depression, the Dot Com Bubble, the Great /Recession of 2007/8? A characteristic of capitalism is recurring boom and bust cycles where many people are severely hurt financially. Also, there is the ever present lopsided and inequitable disparity of income and wealth that is severely plaguing the world and this country at its worst. Disparity itself is one of the most significant factors that is hurting our market based capitalistic systems around the world and particularly in this country right now.


Geesus man, open your eyes! A blind one-sided and errored Pollyanna perspective serves no one and certainly isn’t “enlightenment”.

The worst part of socialism is that it doesn’t benefit from the information embedded in markets and market prices (Hayek). One of socialisms failures is that it has been too difficult to know how much of which commodities to produce or not produce and where to deliver it, let alone how much resource to invest is the option level of product quality. Huge failure. HOWEVER, since our current technology of data bases, networking, internet and other ubiquitous communication, the ability to gather info quickly and analyze it even quicker is making this defect less and less an issue.

Briefly stated, capitalism’s problems are many, the most obvious is that markets are not perfect;, almost never are, and our market based capitalism relies greatly on its markets. Also, our markets have been subjected to the corrupting influence of excess greed and political manipulation. Furthermore, the more unregulated and purely unfettered markets are, the more bad side effects (called by economists as “externalities”) that horribly hurt society come about. FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, THE ONLY THING THAT CAN TAME EXTERNALITIES EFFECTIVELY IS PROPER REGULATION BY AN “APPROPRIATELY SIZED” GOVERNMENT…WHATEVER SIZE THAT IS.

Now, DavidK, I you have any “original” ideas to cure everything, please let us know. And, please, no talking points. Just your own original logic and info if you don’ mind.



http://www.globalresearch.ca/imperial-conquest-americas-long...

BajaLuna - 2-6-2014 at 01:18 PM

DavidK, you don't seem to mention a lot of the reason why more people are on food stamps. I guess they are all just those lazy people, eh? What about big Corporations shipping manufacturing jobs overseas which equals more people on food stamps. This is why we see record numbers today not to mention because the economy tanked. The South where a lot of those manufacturing jobs used to be are the States with the most on food stamps. And those jobs weren't all union jobs! I'm personally a victim of this corporate greed. Bye bye went my job overseas! and it wasn't a union job either. And you can bet just like all the other Corporations do, they hide their money overseas yet reap the benefits of doing business in the USA. Something very wrong with that picture!

Aww yes and what about corporate welfare?
Corporations not paying workers a living wage= more food stamps and subsidized healthcare. IE Walmart among MANY others.
But you don't seem to mention the Corporate welfare that we are all subsidizing via food stamps, healthcare, subsidies to those employees...umm the fast food industry for one example, and big businesses everywhere! Are you ok with the corporate welfare that you pay into?

Corporate welfare starts by fixing the federal IRS tax code.

I don't have a problem with the food stamp program, yes there are too many on food stamps I totally agree with that, but I don't want to see a child or anyone go hungry. I do have a problem with people milking welfare for a long time, it is only suppose to be for a leg up.

And what IS the solution to less food stamps, besides more jobs, and better paying jobs? One layer to the solution of food stamps is that more food banks are needed. Donating to or volunteering at local food banks, is helping to be a part of the solution of hunger in this country! We need more food banks! The number of people going to the food banks is through the roof! They cant keep up with the demand. People who are under-employed, and the working poor, who don't make a living wage, OH and the elderly, it's not just the lazy, ya know. Perhaps take a step inside a food bank sometime and listen to their stories, of those on food stamps and/or having to receive food from the food banks...and connect with the reality of hunger in this country. I volunteer at the food bank and grow food for one in town, I see the reality of hunger and it's not a pretty picture. To most these people are just a number and lumped into THOSE people, the us vs them mentality. When in fact they have a story of how they got to be where they are and most are just in a difficult situation and just an FYI they are those who live in YOUR neighborhood too.

Mothers etc coming in there to get food, do you know that most I talk to receive on average 200 bucks a month for food stamps?, hence why they are at the food banks...I don't know about you but I could barely feed my kids on 200 bucks a month. Should we let the kids starve? Yes, perhaps getting better educated is one of the solutions, yes perhaps better paying jobs is another answer, yes perhaps fulltime work is one answer, yes perhaps changing careers is important, yes perhaps more jobs in this country is what is needed, and perhaps stop giving rewards to those corporations who took all the jobs overseas is one solution, and yes cleaning up the loop holes is another, and yes perhaps firing ALL the worthless Politicians (both parties) is necessary....but in the meantime people are hungry and kids deserve to be fed.

Food banks rock! Be a part of the food stamp problem/solution instead of growling about it! Your karma will love you! If there were more food banks and people like you and me donating food, perhaps the number on food stamps would go down!

I wonder since you gripe ALL the time about healthcare on BN if anyone in YOUR family has ever had to get free, or subsidized healthcare, or get a grant from a hospital or anything like that because of a health issue/emergency? Perhaps if you had ever experienced that situation you'd be darn glad there was some system in place so your loved one could get back to be healthy. Did they have to receive from the system, Is it ok for your loved one but not for mine or your neighbor's?

where is the compassionate Conservatism?

failed ideologies is what got us into this predictament, several Administrations ago, IMHO!

Corporations are taking this country down the drain! Notice I didn't say the left or the right...because it is ALL of them! Including the most liberal-owned Corporations too!

BTW I am very much awake!

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 05:09 PM

Brilliant post, Bajaluna.

Quote:
BajaLuna
Corporations are taking this country down the drain! Notice I didn't say the left or the right...because it is ALL of them! Including the most liberal-owned Corporations too!


Couldn't agree with you more. And, the reason it is "All" of them is because the economic problem in this country and others is "systemic". The moneyed interests in this country have coopted our politics, hence legislation and policy that have allowed the imbalance in our economy to increase to such an extent that we have the very few at the top enabled legally to taking the compensation, income, and wealth that should have equitably flowed thru a balanced economic system to the people that do the work.

The stacked US Supreme Court has made things even fatally worse. Also, the paradigm of the Democrat party has even shifted to the right over the last 25 years which has abetted and even assisted the Conservative ideologies that are the foundation for the imbalance itself.

[Edited on 2-7-2014 by MitchMan]

vgabndo - 2-6-2014 at 05:49 PM

People are on Food Stamps because the current government is ANTI-BUSINESS, ANTI-ENERGY.


That is just stunningly ignorant and undeniably false, and I guess because you don't engage in fact free political outbursts on the forum, you'll have to delete post thirty-nine thousand one hundred and twenty-two also.

Ateo - 2-6-2014 at 05:54 PM

George W. Bush did his best to destroy our country. Ok, I'll get back on topic. What was the topic?

Sandlefoot - 2-6-2014 at 06:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo
George W. Bush did his best to destroy our country. Ok, I'll get back on topic. What was the topic?


Mexican gas prices!!!!! we are still really close Ato!!!!!
:lol::lol::lol::?:

Happy Trails

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
People are on Food Stamps because the current government is ANTI-BUSINESS, ANTI-ENERGY.

Wrong again, DavidK, wrong again, still. Please, do some reading.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
People want to be productive and honest, and not take from their neighbors what they need to live.

If you are talking about the working class in general, I agree. But if you are talking about those certain "makers" such as certain heads of industry, particularly in the financial industry and oil industry and the Conservative politicians that support them, I disagree with you. The examples of such "makers" that have exhibited greed has been all over the news since 2008. Again, please do some reading.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
They also want America to not be slaves to fuel rich emirates when we have fantastic supplies of energy and safe methods of extracting it... to hold us over until Star Trek technology finds a new energy source or we master cold fusion production.

Funny you don't mention conservation and a promotion of alternative sources of energy. You do realize that those "fuel rich emirates" are exercising pure unfettered unregulated capitalism by forming a cartel. Funny that you would call us "slaves" to them, but not characterize the working class underpaid Americans as slave employees to big business (or small business, for that matter). See any weaknesses or flaws in your thinking yet, DavidK?
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
People keeping more of what they earn grows the economy. People buy things, and that is what puts other people to work.
When people have less, they spend less, and fewer people benefit.

That is the only and coherent and economically correct thing you have written so far with one enhancement needed: working people would have even more to keep if they got their just compensation. Furthermore your statement correctly recognizes that more money in the hands of the "people" (working people) grows the economy by buying things that puts people to work. You just described the workings of the demand side perspective of economics, a principle that your buddies on the right disagree with. Your final sentence immediately above says it all. You've just summarized beautifully demand side economics which is what your conservative buddies absolutely deny.

Quote:
Originally posted by David K My business flourished until about 2008, when liberal policies enacted by the new democrat congress majority, elected in 2006, eliminated property investments, new home purchasing, and more.

Well, you got it wrong again. You really do have to make a trip to the book store.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Can we get back to Baja now?

Now you can get back to Baja, DavidK

David K - 2-6-2014 at 06:20 PM

Mitch, I don't care... if you think I got anything political wrong. I am 56 years old and know what happened to me and America, as I lived it, raised two kids as a single father, and dealt with a lot of issues. I have many contacts and friends in the home improvement industry and they ALL have been affected by the democrat's actions from 2007+. So, I know it isn't 'personal' as to why business is down.

Just how much worse do you want America to become before you do something about it, instead of rewarding failure? If anyone needs a reality check, it has to be people who think America is on the right track.

Bajaboy - 2-6-2014 at 06:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Mitch, I don't care... if you think I got anything political wrong. I am 56 years old and know what happened to me and America, as I lived it, raised two kids as a single father, and dealt with a lot of issues. I have many contacts and friends in the home improvement industry and they ALL have been affected by the democrat's actions from 2007+. So, I know it isn't 'personal' as to why business is down.

Just how much worse do you want America to become before you do something about it, instead of rewarding failure? If anyone needs a reality check, it has to be people who think America is on the right track.


David, companies such as Lowes and Home Depot, also in home improvement have done outstanding since 2007 and before. Feel free to check out the number of Home Depot here: http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Home-Depot-Inc...

Why do you suppose Home Depot has done great and you have not? Could you make a living working at Home Depot? Could you make a living at WalMart for that matter? David, it's been said plenty of times here and to you....big business controls the deck of cards.

When will you wake up and figure it out?

MitchMan - 2-6-2014 at 06:58 PM

It is obvious that you don't care about getting the politics wrong. Your economics are just as wrong. In fact, while you did "live it", your and your contacts and friends got it wrong too. THAT is the real problem with our economy, that is, people like you and your friends and contacts habitually and persistently getting the economics and politics wrong.

That is why, beginning with Reagan, you and other voters like you kept voting in people that also got it wrong and it all culminated in the 2007/8 Great recession. Like I said to you before, look at all the stats beginning in 1970 on tax revenue, national debt and deficits, public household debt, household real income/wages, household net worth, tax rate reduction effects, lack of will to implement anti trust law, net worth and income disparity between the top and the rest of us (including you). There are plenty of graphs available so that you don't have to summarize the data yourself. Once you see those trends, couple that with some macroeconomic basic principles and the conclusions/results/causes are unmistakable. Such fact gathering will show you that your reasoning is absolutely faulty/wrong.

Above, you recited demand side economics beautifully, now put it together with the facts that are easily retrieved in minutes on the web and some basic macroeconomics and you tell me what you conclude. If you need some guidance, study some basic economics and stop listening to those stupid sound bites and talking points you keep reciting.

You have posted over 39,000 posts to this forum alone, don't tell me you don't have time to do some on point study. You owe it to yourself and you have an obligation to us on this forum to actually know what you are talking about and not just make accusations and accept all those Conservative talking points at face value.

The question to you, at this point, is just how much worse do YOU want America to become before you do something about it, invest some time in yourself, and get yourself on the right track?

Just to entice you to do some research, you aught to ask yourself why you support demand side economics but still quote Conservative talking points that are based on supply side economics? Explain that.

BajaBoy, point well made.

[Edited on 2-7-2014 by MitchMan]

Bajaboy - 2-6-2014 at 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Zac, Home Depot is suffering, however Lowes is okay. If a business-friendly government was in the majority, both would be doing fantastic and so would us private citizens not taking taxpayers' money.

The country is crashing and Obamacare is going to be a huge killer of jobs, as well. It was pushed upon us because of 30 million uninsured. Obama numbers show that 10 years AFTER Obamacare there still will be 30 million + uninsured! That is insane...

Mitch, I am here because of my nearly 50 year love of Baja. I have the ability to assist people and to share things about Baja... and I do like coming here for the enjoyment of exchange ideas and travel dreams with my amigos.

I am not here for political research and what I say on politics is personal from first hand life experience. It isn't from the DNC talking points forum or conservative web sites (I don't read any).

When I read some outrageous comment about why something is that way, I tend to want to comment back (my bad). I ask again, we have beaten this up enough (like the bike na-zi threads) that it goes nowhere and we all believe the same.


David, the FACTS speak differently....Home Depot is making lots of money. Since 2009, their stock is up 224%: http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=HD

Please, please, please...do us all a favor and do some research....:?:

[Edited on 2-7-2014 by Bajaboy]

vgabndo - 2-6-2014 at 10:20 PM

Thanks Mitchman for your level headed and knowledgeable response.
As I questioned again why it is that conservatives seem to vote against their own self interest, and how this appears to apply to David, I Googled the question and was rewarded with more than a page of responses by scores of people trying to get a handle on the same idea.

Conservative poor and middle class people, at least since Reagan, have consistently voted for policies which have financially devastated them in the end. David says he doesn't care if he is on the wrong side politically, and I wonder if there may be some clue there as to why it is so easy for conservatives to just not remember the 8 horrific years of GW Bush.

David, your bank account might look better if Reagan and Bush had been LESS business friendly with your money, and certainly the run-away get-it-at-any-cost scramble for the last of the oil was made legal and exceedingly lucrative by the US energy policy secretly negotiated by Dick Chaney and his oil buddies. Remember? Name any significant reversal of those energy friendly policies by this administration if you can. Washington Democrats are pretty energy friendly when compared to rational leaders who would be paying attention to conservation and renewable resources development.

Google: Pogo, enemy. :coolup:

David K - 2-6-2014 at 10:25 PM

Perry: I never did so well, than when we had conservative leadership in Congress, and that doesn't mean Republican.

Zac: I do plenty of favors here, but only if Baja related.

Bajaboy - 2-6-2014 at 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Perry: I never did so well, than when we had conservative leadership in Congress, and that doesn't mean Republican.

Zac: I do plenty of favors here, but only if Baja related.


David, so do you still stand by your claim that Home Depot is not doing well:?: I have no problems admitting when I am wrong. It happens quite often. You seem to just blow it off.....kind of reminds me of how Faux News handles things:lol:

LancairDriver - 2-6-2014 at 11:51 PM

The key to a thriving economy is a strong manufacturing base. This was apparent on the founding of the country over 200 years ago as the British tried to keep the colonies out of the manufacturing business. All involved recognized the critical importance of this. The US went on to become the powerhouse of the world based on its manufacturing strength, enabling the building of the country and winning of two world wars. Unfortunately, through decisions shared by all administrations in the past 40 or 50 years, this capability has been allowed to be given away.( you can argue forever assigning blame here)
Mexico is now in the process of getting their share of the manufacturing business and it is apparent in the rising standard of living for the skilled worker.
When you have more tax dollar parasites than tax dollar producers, the only way to go is down. More need to be involved in creating wealth than absorbing it. Just look around and see where you stand in this scenario to understand why the situation is becoming critical. We have passed the stage where the next generation will automatically enjoy a higher standard of living.

David K - 2-7-2014 at 12:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Perry: I never did so well, than when we had conservative leadership in Congress, and that doesn't mean Republican.

Zac: I do plenty of favors here, but only if Baja related.


David, so do you still stand by your claim that Home Depot is not doing well:?: I have no problems admitting when I am wrong. It happens quite often. You seem to just blow it off.....kind of reminds me of how Faux News handles things:lol:


No, my information source is from a Home Depot vendor I am friends with... not a web site.

Mexitron - 2-7-2014 at 05:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LancairDriver
The key to a thriving economy is a strong manufacturing base. This was apparent on the founding of the country over 200 years ago as the British tried to keep the colonies out of the manufacturing business. All involved recognized the critical importance of this. The US went on to become the powerhouse of the world based on its manufacturing strength, enabling the building of the country and winning of two world wars. Unfortunately, through decisions shared by all administrations in the past 40 or 50 years, this capability has been allowed to be given away.( you can argue forever assigning blame here)
Mexico is now in the process of getting their share of the manufacturing business and it is apparent in the rising standard of living for the skilled worker.
When you have more tax dollar parasites than tax dollar producers, the only way to go is down. More need to be involved in creating wealth than absorbing it. Just look around and see where you stand in this scenario to understand why the situation is becoming critical. We have passed the stage where the next generation will automatically enjoy a higher standard of living.


Excellent point. I wonder how the 3D printing/manufacturing will affect this outflow of jobs---that is, we can make things here in our home or business instead of China shipping it to us.

SFandH - 2-7-2014 at 08:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bacquito
http://www.ensenada.net/noticias/nota.php?id=32997

It is hard to believe Mexico is raising the price of gas when the price is falling in the USA and will probably continue to fall.


Once you understand what's happening, it's clear why Mex gas prices are going up.

The prices are going up because Mexico is transitioning from a state owned oil monopoly to a market driven model. Recent changes to the constitution allow for foreign investment in the oil industry that was not allowed before. Also, Mexico is decreasing the gasoline subsidy thereby allowing prices to better reflect cost.

As stated in the article linked below.

Nonetheless, the oil monopoly remains a huge importer of gasoline and diesel fuel from the U.S., which it then sells at subsidized prices set by the government, costing Pemex billions of dollars a year. The government has been increasing fuel prices each month with the goal of bringing them in line with costs.

In other words, slowly removing the government monopoly and letting market forces control the price is hurting both citizens and travellers alike. But especially the citizens who are paying a larger and larger share of their mostly meager income to fuel their cars and trucks to get to work.

Wall Street Journal

Ateo - 2-7-2014 at 08:55 AM

Thanks for the link SFandH. Any way to post the article here? I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Oh wait......that would be you subsidizing me in a way. Ha ha ha ha.

SFandH - 2-7-2014 at 09:25 AM

From The Wall Street Journal

Pemex Raises Gasoline Production, Lowers Imports, on Refinery Upgrades

Company Said Gas Output Grew 5% From 2012 to 437,000 Barrels a Day

By LAURENCE ILIFF
Feb. 5, 2014 6:33 p.m. ET

MEXICO CITY—State-owned oil company Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, is seeing the benefits of refinery upgrades through a notable increase in gasoline production and a drop in imports that had shot up in recent years to around half of the nation's consumption.

Pemex said in a release Wednesday that gasoline output at its six refineries grew 5% last year from 2012 to 437,000 barrels a day on average.

The increased production, along with a decline in consumption, allowed the firm to reduce gasoline imports by 10% in 2013 to 359,000 barrels a day, Pemex said. That put total imports at about 45% of consumption, compared with 52% of consumption in 2012.

A Pemex spokesman said a series of refinery upgrades over the last several years was behind the higher production of gasoline.

Diesel fuel also benefited from the upgrades, with production increasing by 5% last year versus 2012, and imports down 20% year-over-year, Pemex said.

Nonetheless, the oil monopoly remains a huge importer of gasoline and diesel fuel from the U.S., which it then sells at subsidized prices set by the government, costing Pemex billions of dollars a year. The government has been increasing fuel prices each month with the goal of bringing them in line with costs.

Pemex has plans to build its seventh refinery near an existing one in the central city of Tula, Hidalgo, but the project has seen constant delays since it was announced in 2008, and some industry analysts think it may never be built given its $10 billion price tag.

Since the announcement of the second Tula refinery, a new government took office in December 2012, and an overhaul of energy laws in December now allows private companies to build and operate refineries for the first time in 75 years, although the business isn't seen as attractive in the short-term.

--------------------------------------

emphasis added

Stories about last year's changes to the Mex Constitution concerning the oil industry are all over Internet.


[Edited on 2-7-2014 by SFandH]

Ateo - 2-7-2014 at 09:33 AM

Thanks SF&H. Interesting.

Wonder what the US energy market will look like in a few years, say if Mexico stops it's imports and successfully meets it's own needs from Mexican sources?

vgabndo - 2-7-2014 at 09:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Perry: I never did so well, than when we had conservative leadership in Congress, and that doesn't mean Republican.

Zac: I do plenty of favors here, but only if Baja related.


David, so do you still stand by your claim that Home Depot is not doing well:?: I have no problems admitting when I am wrong. It happens quite often. You seem to just blow it off.....kind of reminds me of how Faux News handles things:lol:


No, my information source is from a Home Depot vendor I am friends with... not a web site.


Question: ...so do you still stand by your claim...

Answer: NO, my information source...

EXACTLY! No you don't stand by your claim, but rather than admit that you've been spouting BS, you simply cite your source. (An individual anecdotal case of "someone you are friends with".

Here is what Home Depot says about their remarkable record of paying decades of uninterrupted dividends to their shareholders.

Now I'll admit that more than one person was likely involved in creating the reports that generated this bar graph, but I am of the opinion that corporate dividend reports are generally more dependable than what I might expect of your "friend".

The folks who generated this report ARE business friendly, so I assume you'll give their data the credit it deserves.

home depot.png - 11kB

SFandH - 2-7-2014 at 09:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo
Thanks SF&H. Interesting.

Wonder what the US energy market will look like in a few years, say if Mexico stops it's imports and successfully meets it's own needs from Mexican sources?


I'm bullish on the US economy largely because of the current energy situation. Oil and natural gas production are on the rise because of new extraction technologies and conservation measures are increasing. Also alternative energy sources are becoming more prevalent.

I've read that Mexico has large oil and gas reserves but PEMEX lacks the ability to get at all but the easiest to extract. Hence, the Mexican government is bringing in foreign companies that have the technology.

DianaT - 2-7-2014 at 10:13 AM

It appears that overall the construction industry in California is moving forward. Housing starts for 2013 were up 40% over 2012.

http://www.cbia.org/go/newsroom/press-releases/statee28099s-...

BajaOkie - 2-7-2014 at 10:47 AM

Just to add another number to this debate.

Bajaboy stated Home Depot stock had increased 224% since 2009. I just did a quick check and on Dec. 31, 2009 the Dow jones closed at 10428.05 and closed on Dec. 31, 2013 at 16576.66. I believe that is an approximate increase of 589%.


KC

willardguy - 2-7-2014 at 10:55 AM

hmmmm... sounds like somebody needs to get off the internet and start running sprinkler pipe!:lol:

Bajaboy - 2-7-2014 at 01:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaOkie
Just to add another number to this debate.

Bajaboy stated Home Depot stock had increased 224% since 2009. I just did a quick check and on Dec. 31, 2009 the Dow jones closed at 10428.05 and closed on Dec. 31, 2013 at 16576.66. I believe that is an approximate increase of 589%.


KC


Thanks for more supporting evidence...BIG Business has been doing great! I wonder how many of those companies passed long any of that market value to their employees in the form of lower insurance costs, higher wages, or increased retirement contributions:light:

BajaOkie - 2-7-2014 at 02:27 PM

Not to be drug into this big business vs big government argument. The numbers show that Home Depot is not keeping up with the market average. That is all.

KC

Cisco - 2-7-2014 at 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BajaOkie
Just to add another number to this debate.

Bajaboy stated Home Depot stock had increased 224% since 2009. I just did a quick check and on Dec. 31, 2009 the Dow jones closed at 10428.05 and closed on Dec. 31, 2013 at 16576.66. I believe that is an approximate increase of 589%.


KC


Thanks for more supporting evidence...BIG Business has been doing great! I wonder how many of those companies passed long any of that market value to their employees in the form of lower insurance costs, higher wages, or increased retirement contributions:light:


What's an "employee"?

LancairDriver - 2-7-2014 at 03:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by BajaOkie
Just to add another number to this debate.

Bajaboy stated Home Depot stock had increased 224% since 2009. I just did a quick check and on Dec. 31, 2009 the Dow jones closed at 10428.05 and closed on Dec. 31, 2013 at 16576.66. I believe that is an approximate increase of 589%.


KC


Thanks for more supporting evidence...BIG Business has been doing great! I wonder how many of those companies passed long any of that market value to their employees in the form of lower insurance costs, higher wages, or increased retirement contributions:light:


That would depend on the proportion of their investment in the company in the form of a stock dividend, or how highly management valued their effort. Unless they show a high turnover it is a good indication the employees are happy.

chuckie - 2-7-2014 at 03:18 PM

How many of the experts making statements about how companies should be run own companies?

msteve1014 - 2-7-2014 at 03:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaOkie
Just to add another number to this debate.

Bajaboy stated Home Depot stock had increased 224% since 2009. I just did a quick check and on Dec. 31, 2009 the Dow jones closed at 10428.05 and closed on Dec. 31, 2013 at 16576.66. I believe that is an approximate increase of 589%.


KC


I think you have the decimal point in the wrong place.

bacquito - 2-7-2014 at 04:21 PM

It seems that the new method of extracting oil from shale and sand extraction could be revolucionary and reduce our dependency on foreign oil-I hope so because I was working for a company in New England area in the '70s and remember the embargo and the pain and insecurity it caused.
However, if pet. products become real cheap what happens to companies such as Shell, Chevron and all the employees? Surely we will continue to need pet. products but they will be more likely produced in our "backyard" and we will not need so many workers.

David K - 2-7-2014 at 04:29 PM

"...but they will be more likely produced in our "backyard" and we will not need so many workers."

??? I am missing the logic here.

If WE produce our own oil supplies instead of importing, it would mean MORE workers here in a growing local industry. Have you heard about North Dakota?

micah202 - 2-7-2014 at 07:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
It appears that overall the construction industry in California is moving forward. Housing starts for 2013 were up 40% over 2012.


...whaaa,,,they built -4- houses!?:wow::wow::wow:

mtgoat666 - 2-7-2014 at 08:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaOkie
I just did a quick check and on Dec. 31, 2009 the Dow jones closed at 10428.05 and closed on Dec. 31, 2013 at 16576.66. I believe that is an approximate increase of 589%.


People believe all sorts of things,...

I happen to believe the basic arithmetic skills of Americans are abysmal.

Bajaboy - 2-7-2014 at 09:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaOkie
Not to be drug into this big business vs big government argument. The numbers show that Home Depot is not keeping up with the market average. That is all.

KC


market is up 58.9% based on the numbers you provided.....:lol:

bacquito - 2-7-2014 at 09:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
"...but they will be more likely produced in our "backyard" and we will not need so many workers."

??? I am missing the logic here.

If WE produce our own oil supplies instead of importing, it would mean MORE workers here in a growing local industry. Have you heard about North Dakota?


Yes, I am familiar with N. Dakota, "fracking" and Canadian oil sand The feeling is that there is an immense amount of oil available in N. Dakota and Canada to the extent that perhaps we no longer need to rely on Saudia Arabia or other foreign countries for pet. products-good for us!
But the result could be very cheap fuel. My Dad was a Tuna Fisherman and in his early fishing experience diesal was considered a misc. expense; also I remember when I was young gas was about $ .20/gal.
Today an oil worker can make a lot of money because the price for pet. products is high, but if it becomes a "misc. expense" will the demand for high paying jobs remain?

SFandH - 2-8-2014 at 08:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bacquito
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
"...but they will be more likely produced in our "backyard" and we will not need so many workers."

??? I am missing the logic here.

If WE produce our own oil supplies instead of importing, it would mean MORE workers here in a growing local industry. Have you heard about North Dakota?


Yes, I am familiar with N. Dakota, "fracking" and Canadian oil sand The feeling is that there is an immense amount of oil available in N. Dakota and Canada to the extent that perhaps we no longer need to rely on Saudia Arabia or other foreign countries for pet. products-good for us!
But the result could be very cheap fuel. My Dad was a Tuna Fisherman and in his early fishing experience diesal was considered a misc. expense; also I remember when I was young gas was about $ .20/gal.
Today an oil worker can make a lot of money because the price for pet. products is high, but if it becomes a "misc. expense" will the demand for high paying jobs remain?


If your thinking that a large supply will bring down prices, you're forgetting that the oil industry is a global industry controlled by cartels with much collusion between the producers. They'll keep the prices as high as the market will bear. I've read that one of the reasons energy prices are removed from one of the inflation indices is because the prices have nothing to do with the free market and the particular index is used to measure the health of the free market.

MitchMan - 2-8-2014 at 10:18 AM

Another thing to know about prices is that the cost of a good/commodity/service is not the determining factor of the price, especially when you have a cartel and/or big business with relatively few competitors.

The only time prices get low enough to be close to cost to produce is if there is adequate competition to produce the good or if there are cost effective alternatives/substitutes available that provide competition.

When you have a price controlling cartel, they can arbitrarily set the price high and set it at a level that optimizes profits for them, all things considered.

From one perspective, if America produces at least as much oil as it consumes, one could say that America is energy independent of the foreign production finally, but, that doesn't mean that oil prices will go down (since the price of oil is set by cartels and global pricing), so, what relief is there to the American consumer from high prices of fuel? Probably none.

The best that we could hope for in that circumstance is that American production would reduce the market for foreign produced petroleum, thereby reducing the cartel's influence on the market itself, creating the effect of more competition and thereby have a downward pressure on global pricing.

But, then again, what is to stop American producers from engaging in the same kind of behavior practiced by the cartel and manipulate production and price setting to achieve the same optimal pricing as the cartels to maximize their (American producers) profits? During the past decades, American oil producers have been making windfall profits by enjoying the benefits to them of high global oil prices rising well beyond the cost increase to produce. Keep in mind that price setting by businesses is not a humanitarian endeavor, but an endeavor ultimately set by self interest. THAT is market based capitalism, and, markets are quite often not perfect enough to successfully reduce prices close to cost to produce yet high enough to provide enough profit to warrant staying in business which would be ideal...but in market based systems, markets are rarely if ever ideal. Economics 101.

bacquito - 2-8-2014 at 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MitchMan
Another thing to know about prices is that the cost of a good/commodity/service is not the determining factor of the price, especially when you have a cartel and/or big business with relatively few competitors.

The only time prices get low enough to be close to cost to produce is if there is adequate competition to produce the good or if there are cost effective alternatives/substitutes available that provide competition.

When you have a price controlling cartel, they can arbitrarily set the price high and set it at a level that optimizes profits for them, all things considered.

From one perspective, if America produces at least as much oil as it consumes, one could say that America is energy independent of the foreign production finally, but, that doesn't mean that oil prices will go down (since the price of oil is set by cartels and global pricing), so, what relief is there to the American consumer from high prices of fuel? Probably none.

The best that we could hope for in that circumstance is that American production would reduce the market for foreign produced petroleum, thereby reducing the cartel's influence on the market itself, creating the effect of more competition and thereby have a downward pressure on global pricing.

But, then again, what is to stop American producers from engaging in the same kind of behavior practiced by the cartel and manipulate production and price setting to achieve the same optimal pricing as the cartels to maximize their (American producers) profits? During the past decades, American oil producers have been making windfall profits by enjoying the benefits to them of high global oil prices rising well beyond the cost increase to produce. Keep in mind that price setting by businesses is not a humanitarian endeavor, but an endeavor ultimately set by self interest. THAT is market based capitalism, and, markets are quite often not perfect enough to successfully reduce prices close to cost to produce yet high enough to provide enough profit to warrant staying in business which would be ideal...but in market based systems, markets are rarely if ever ideal. Economics 101.


Good point but when I was an Agric. inspector it was very obvious that when there was an excess of supply of a particular commodity the price of the commodity fell.
This is true with many agricultural products throughout the world-coffee, cotton, rice and many other agricultural products.

Perhaps your right with pet. but what I have read there could be an excessive amount of pet. products available with this new system of pet. extraction in the USA and Canada. We are not the Middle East and it is my experience that when there is an excessive supply of a commodity in the USA the price of that commodity will fall. I hope for lower gas prices as I am sure you also have this hope.

MitchMan - 2-8-2014 at 11:29 AM

Good point, baquito. Interesting thing about world wide petroleum production is that the amount of monthly production/sales of barrels of oil follows worldwide consumption almost exactly. The marginal mismatch from month to month gives rise to short term over/under supply, but in the long run, the petroleum producers have a pretty good 'longer-than-short-run' handle on deliberate production.

I just hope that technology will soon achieve cost effective energy alternatives to petroleum together with increase in our social will to conserve energy. That will be so good for the world and our future in so many ways.

Mexitron - 2-8-2014 at 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bacquito
It seems that the new method of extracting oil from shale and sand extraction could be revolucionary and reduce our dependency on foreign oil-I hope so because I was working for a company in New England area in the '70s and remember the embargo and the pain and insecurity it caused.
However, if pet. products become real cheap what happens to companies such as Shell, Chevron and all the employees? Surely we will continue to need pet. products but they will be more likely produced in our "backyard" and we will not need so many workers.


Extracting from shale and tar sands is cost effective only while oil is as high priced as it is now---very energy intensive to extract that stuff.

bacquito - 2-8-2014 at 01:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Quote:
Originally posted by bacquito
It seems that the new method of extracting oil from shale and sand extraction could be revolucionary and reduce our dependency on foreign oil-I hope so because I was working for a company in New England area in the '70s and remember the embargo and the pain and insecurity it caused.
However, if pet. products become real cheap what happens to companies such as Shell, Chevron and all the employees? Surely we will continue to need pet. products but they will be more likely produced in our "backyard" and we will not need so many workers.


Extracting from shale and tar sands is cost effective only while oil is as high priced as it is now---very energy intensive to extract that stuff.


technology will improve (hopefully!) and the cost will go down

mtgoat666 - 2-8-2014 at 04:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by soulpatch
I haven't seen anywhere is this ongoing ******* contest a mention of the body subsidy..... how many soldiers' and civilians' lives have gone into maintaining fuel supplies?
Boy, if we had such huge resources available in the USA what would happen to the massive military complex?


If we all conserved, rode bikes, walked to the store, kicked our obesity and drove fuel efficient cars, we would need less fuel and the cheney's of the world would send fewer of our children onto the battle field to be canon fodder to fulfill our addiction to petroleum.

tripledigitken - 2-8-2014 at 05:24 PM

Goat,

Please posts photos from your next bicycle trip to Baja.



Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by soulpatch
I haven't seen anywhere is this ongoing ******* contest a mention of the body subsidy..... how many soldiers' and civilians' lives have gone into maintaining fuel supplies?
Boy, if we had such huge resources available in the USA what would happen to the massive military complex?


If we all conserved, rode bikes, walked to the store, kicked our obesity and drove fuel efficient cars, we would need less fuel and the cheney's of the world would send fewer of our children onto the battle field to be canon fodder to fulfill our addiction to petroleum.

Pescador - 2-8-2014 at 08:06 PM

The Goat is headed for a commune, where they drive lawnmower powered mini cars, ride bicycles, and set around all day singing Kumbaya.

Great philosophical idea but it has never worked and probably won't but I sure wish he would try and then report back to us.

mtgoat666 - 2-8-2014 at 09:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pescador
The Goat is headed for a commune, where they drive lawnmower powered mini cars, ride bicycles, and set around all day singing Kumbaya.

Great philosophical idea but it has never worked and probably won't but I sure wish he would try and then report back to us.


Hey, sounds like you gave up in life and settled for chit.

I won't settle for the USA sending teenagers to die for oil, when there are alternatives to using children as cannon fodder to get our fix of oil.

If you support our troops, the don't waste petroleum. If you waste petroleum, you DO NOT support our troops!

Do you drive a gas hog? How many kids died for your oil? I lost count of how many died for you in Iraq.

David K - 2-9-2014 at 08:20 AM

Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country... :rolleyes:

mtgoat666 - 2-9-2014 at 09:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country... :rolleyes:


Dk:
Stanland was not the subject, please stay on topic!

But since you already changed topic, what the hey. Tell us why many 10s of thousands of civilians and coalition forces have died in Stanland, I really want to know.

To me it seems like such a pointless quagmire, and no one remembers why we entered or what we are fighting for, and pity the afghanis that have had their country destroyed and have lost another generation and learned to hate another occupier. I don't see our occupation was any better than the soviet occupation,... Just same result, more people dead, and another generation of kids resentful toward an occupying force.

Peace, love and fish tacos!

Shawndy - 2-9-2014 at 09:49 AM

Boy this thread went off the rails :rolleyes:

DENNIS - 2-9-2014 at 09:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shawndy
Boy this thread went off the rails :rolleyes:


They have a tendency to do that after five pages of repeated redundancies. :lol:

chuckie - 2-9-2014 at 04:02 PM

10-4 Dennis....

KurtG - 2-9-2014 at 05:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country... :rolleyes:


No but 60% of their GDP is from the Heroin trade as opposed to almost zero before we went in. So instead of fighting for oil we have supported the drug trade. Unintended consequences and all that. Here is one veteran who doesn't believe either of our recent wars was worth the costs.

David K - 2-9-2014 at 07:21 PM

I think the intent was to fight the terrorists where they were based, instead of here in America. Of course, things don't always go as planned by the government.

So, why hasn't the 'great leader' pulled the U.S. out, yet???

Cisco - 2-9-2014 at 07:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by KurtG
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Afghanistan isn't an oil producing country... :rolleyes:


No but 60% of their GDP is from the Heroin trade as opposed to almost zero before we went in. So instead of fighting for oil we have supported the drug trade. Unintended consequences and all that. Here is one veteran who doesn't believe either of our recent wars was worth the costs.


How do you tell a mother that her son died for the protection of the world's leading heroin business?

CIA

captkw - 2-9-2014 at 08:12 PM

Cocaine International Avation ....The Us Gov doesn't care if you do drugs !! But cares about about Whos drugs your doing!! The"war on drugs" is Such a Sad,,Bad crime against the folks of the USA...I HAVE SEEN PICS IN NICKY" OF MARINE PLANES BEING LOADED (OLYS point)... AFTER 4/5 MONTHS OF GETTING TO KNOW THE LOCAL BOYS !! if I NEVER POST AGAIN.....YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPEND TO ME !! k&t

Cisco - 2-9-2014 at 08:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I think the intent was to fight the terrorists where they were based, instead of here in America. Of course, things don't always go as planned by the government.

So, why hasn't the 'great leader' pulled the U.S. out, yet???


As Hillary said in Mexico City regarding legalizing drugs in the U.S. so Mexico would not have it's drug related problems "No, there's too much money in it".

She was referring to the money made in the U.S. through all sources.

Capt. talked again of "Ollie's Point" on a post above.

I was turned back in Mexico City on the same TJ airplane I had come in on by a rep of American Consulate and escorted back to La Linea with my camera equipment denied transfer to Managua then.

captkw is right-on. Goes on all the time. I saw it while in SEA (Laos) coming out in American aircraft.

Drugs, their origin, transfer, sale, control, is a big part of war, as is oil.

vgabndo - 2-9-2014 at 08:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I think the intent was to fight the terrorists where they were based, instead of here in America. Of course, things don't always go as planned by the government.

So, why hasn't the 'great leader' pulled the U.S. out, yet???


Assuming you voted, and didn't vote for Gore, we can safely say that "things don't always go as planned" by the despicable piece of crap YOU VOTED FOR. To the President's credit he has managed to get us out of one of George W Bush's and your unfunded wars. I'll put Obama's leadership up against that abject failure you supported any day. By every objective measure Obama will be recorded as a superior president to every Republican since Eisenhower.

As it stands now, Obama is ranked 15th. best, your boy Bush is 39th. out of 43. Great leader you voted for. :lol::lol:

mtgoat666 - 2-9-2014 at 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by vgabndo
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I think the intent was to fight the terrorists where they were based, instead of here in America. Of course, things don't always go as planned by the government.

So, why hasn't the 'great leader' pulled the U.S. out, yet???


Assuming you voted, and didn't vote for Gore, we can safely say that "things don't always go as planned" by the despicable piece of crap YOU VOTED FOR. To the President's credit he has managed to get us out of one of George W Bush's and your unfunded wars. I'll put Obama's leadership up against that abject failure you supported any day. By every objective measure Obama will be recorded as a superior president to every Republican since Eisenhower.

As it stands now, Obama is ranked 15th. best, your boy Bush is 39th. out of 43. Great leader you voted for. :lol::lol:


GWB, Americas foolish experiment with nepotism. How did that turn out for you? 100s of millions of people in the USA and you could only find one candidate, the c-student, alcoholic son of the former president?

David K - 2-9-2014 at 11:00 PM

You two love socialism so much that the constitution being trashed doesn't bug you at all? I just have a higher regard for people over government. You just can't let W. go either, can you?

Bajaboy - 2-9-2014 at 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
You two love socialism so much that the constitution being trashed doesn't bug you at all? I just have a higher regard for people over government. You just can't let W. go either, can you?


David, it bugs me that you don't hold the Constitution in higher regard....if you don't understand my statement....maybe ask a school teacher...aka socialist employee/union thug....:P

 Pages:  1