Government, rich people, little people, and business
 

Apaprently, a bill in Congress is being opposed by democrats, with some calling it a get rich quick scheme for oil companies. The primary focus of the bill is to help relieve the vulnerability of energy supplies by allowing and encouraging construction and expansion of existing refineries and power plants. There are probably some provisions that could be eliminated, such as relaxed environmental regulations, and I think it is possible to eliminate those whether in debate or committee.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/07/D8D3903O1.html

We have not built a new refinery since the 70s. When a hurricane can damage supply and cause 40% jumps in gas prices in a matter of weeks, perhaps we should look at addressing the issue. Helping the rich oil companies? I have no doubt profits for them will be involved, but considering every person in the country is affected by increasing energy prices, with the poor paying a higher percentage of their income for it, I think that argument falls flat. Maybe it's just me.

Then we have this story. Apparently it's OK to look out for an industry where the average salary is well over a million dollars.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0902-5838r.htm

It makes me sick that the government decides it's OK to build a ball park where people own property and then use eminent domain to evict them. I don't think a baseball stadium is of such high national importance that it's OK to kick people off their property. Some government officials are complaining about the owners not negotiating in "good faith". Why the hell should they have to negotiate at all if they don't want to sell? Oh - I forgot...the supreme court says it's OK for government to take the property.

So in conclusion, it's OK to take property from the little guy if it benefits the government and baseball. It's not OK to allow for private industry to build oil refineries and expand their own facilities because they will get too much profit, even though increased refining capacity benefits everyone.

That's what it's really all about. Taxes and regulations are not really about money or public safety....it's all about punishing those who dare to be sucessfull.

Go talk to your buddy Dubya about the abuse of eminent domain laws and baseball stadiums. Texas, circa 1991.

Sac, sac, sac.....why do you think I support everything he does? I clearly don't.

While I am not familiar with the case you cite, it happened here in AZ with the building of the Bank One Ballpark (Chase field now). Literally kicked an 80 year old woman out of her home when she had lived there since she was 7 YEARS OLD.

It sucks. I am so sick of hearing about rich, private companies making profits when this kind of crap goes on.

Actually, it is the Constitution that says it is ok for the government to take property. It isn't like eminent domain was a creation of the Warren court. The current argument is simply about when the government can take property.

If urban renewal and blight mitigation is ever a justification (and I'm not saying it is, then the neighborhood in question is a good candidate. With only four residential structures, probably not tenant owned, the specter of forced evictions isn't that bothersome since they'd be equally evicted if the owners sold willingly. The majority of the area is ramshackle industrial use or the type of commercial use that tends to border industrial areas.

This site has good photos of what the D.C. city planners are trying to clean up. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain and think it is overused, but a city-owned ballpark is a public use (even if they then allow themselves to be raped on the leases and concessions) and I can't put this into the category of one of the extremely bothersome cases (as in Kelso where there wasn't even a solid plan for re-use of the seized property).

scaeagles, are you saying that since there's some unfairness and corruption in the world, we should allow all unfairness and corruption until all of it can be vanquished?

Who actually believes oil companies are being prevented from building refineries?

Oil companies can build refineries and improve the ones they already own IF THEY FOLLOW REGULATIONS.

But the oil companies don't want to do that, do they?

They'd rather piss and moan about government regulations holding them down and trust the public to be ignorant enough to buy that argument, even when the oil companies are pulling down record profits.

Looks like it's working quite well for them, doesn't it?

I guess I don't see the oil company profits as unfair. I'm sorry if this make me some sort of fascist.

And the have deemed that the regulations reduce their profits too much. This is their decision to make, no one elses. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to make a profit.

I believe businesses of all types are over regulated. Some regulation, is of course, required. However, most of it gets ridiculous.

As an example, since the Enron scandal and others, I now spend between 40-50% of my time estimating how long a certain project will take, documenting actual time, filling out forms, blah, blah, blah. I have had program changes requested of my by users (I program accounting software for a defense contractor) that are simple and would literally take 15 minutes to do. However, the bureaucracy involved of estimation and tracking and filling out of forms turns this 15 minute task into about a 4 hour one. Simply insane.

Show me collusion or price fixing between the oil companies, or some illegal activity, and then we can take action on that. A private company making a profit is not illegal in the least.

And Alex, I know that eminent domain has always existed. I simply doubt it was ever intended to allow private property to be confiscated for uses such as a ballpark. Perhaps the property should be condemned, I don't know. I will admit to being hyper sensitive to eminent domain issues, but rightly so because of a recent ruling.

I fear the government much more than I fear private enterprise.

Some might argue that big business (including oil companies) essentially "runs" government anyhow.

I fear/trust them both in about equal amounts...but the fear part seems to be the one that gets multiplied when they start working together.

If use for publicly owned ballparks bothers you, then you'll really want to keep an eye on Oakland. The new owner of the Oakland Athletics is dedicated to keeping the team in Oakland (there have been years of talk of moving elsewhere in Alameda County or even the Bay Area). He is even willing to forego public financing of the stadium and pay for it himself (as was done in San Francisco for SBC Park) but he wants the cities help in acquiring the necessary land (in a thoroughly blighted part of Oakland). If negotiations fail I expect to see an attempt at an eminent domain seizure for the purposes of building a <i>privately</i> owned stadium (though surrounded by other city-sponsored redevelopment).

Condemnation wouldn't directly result in a transfer of ownership in the property (though it might make the owners more eager to sell). It is a tough issue. I'm pretty strong on private property rights, but there are social responsibilities and unfortunately minor "failures" of the market and regulatory systems will produce pockets that can't easily be reclaimed through standard development.

As for refineries, I'm not sure building more of bigger/better is really going to do much about the price of gas. It's a limited resource and world wide demand is on the increase. We still have it cheap - (I read an item yesterday that pegged the cost at $7 a gallon in France right now). Furthermore I don't see why the refining process has to take place here - do it on the cheap elsewhere and ship gasoline instead of crude

But I agree the simplistic notion that corporations are evil, leads to many unfavorable outcomes. I've personal experience in how California's reaction to degregulation has created numerous disincentives to build more plants when we know more are needed. That's not likely to change until a Summer of Balckouts forces the issue. Politics is almost always reactive and seldom proactive.

As for Ballparks and eminent domain, yeah what a sad waste, though I suppose they can be used as emergency shelter in the event of a disaster - as long as the roof doesn't leak. I rarely go to ballparks so, it's not something I'd support - though I am a big fan of public spaces. Turning out people to create them though just doesn't seem right even if it does happen all the time.

I have tried to find a definitive answer on the shelf life of gasoline. Estimates I've seen are from a year to as little as a month. If it is closer to the latter, that might explain why it can't be shipped.

Again though, the numbers vary pretty wildly. You would think someone would actually know. :)

Gasoline has a shelf life? Who knew?

Sure does. It used to live on a shelf in my parents garage until the mower ran out.

A co-worker of mine is an ardent conservative, and constantly rails against welfare. He is also a major sports nut. I ask him how he reconciles his anti-welfare sensibilities with the corporate welfare now going on with such things as Safeco Field in Seattle, and he just sputters something about how it's okay for the public to subsidize (and be taxed for) the support of sports arenas and the like, as they enhance our quality of life and bring revenue to Washington state. :rolleyes:

I will never be one of those, WB - take my word for it. And i love sports.

I actually did a little research a few weeks ago because I was pondering the idea of gas as an investment. Why not build a huge storage facility, store a million gallons of gas, and wait a few years (or months, as it were) for the price to quadruple, then sell it?

Much to my disappointment, I found out about the shelf-life thing which killed my dreams of enormous wealth. Eh, it happens. :)

So what you're saying is that you're just as evil as the oil companies but not as smart? :)

Hmmm - but if you can find a preservative for gasoline....

If they can do it for the Twinke it must be possible!

Nah, only a republican could afford to do something like that. I was just wondering why they were too stupid to think of it. ;)

I think the entire Twinkie itself is a preservative. Hmmm.....Merge the two and we can call it 'Twinkaline'!

Sounds like the name of a gay stripper or something. :)

(or, maybe I'm just tired)

Oh man, and just when I was going to request a change in my screen name to twinkaline :D

How about Gwinkie?

Gasinkie?

Tasolinky?

Gay russian stripper

MBC, do you need a night out on the old town?

I think Matthew has some work to do. ;)

We're in a disturbing in-between state right now.

We're seeing an increasing number of short-term issues due to the fact that refineries are running at capacity. In times of emergency (from things as major as Katrina to as minor as a small chemical fire that causes one refinery to shut down for a few days), there's no way to pick up the slack. So every little disruption in refinery output casues pretty immediate upward fluctuation in pump price. Some of it is real, some of it is paranoia, and some of it is the companies taking advantage of the situation. So from that perspective, more refineries seems to be a good answer.

But I think that only works if those refineries exist now. If it's going to take, what, 10? 20? years, not so much. Most likely, by then, crude supply will be the limiting factor, and if there's any intelligence left in this world, alternate fuels sources will start erroding demand for petrolium. In that case, if they start opening shiny new refineries with no rude to refine and no customers to for the product, we're going to look pretty stupid.

So we're kinda screwed either way for a little while, the way I see it. There's not quick bandaid for the refinery capacity problem, and any long-term solutions will take so long as to be obsolete once they're ready for prime time. So we're just going to have to suck it up and deal with it for a while.

Well at least Public Transportation is getting some use here in So Cal. Me, I'm thinking of buying a vespa.

I'm feeling much better now. ;)