On Oct 28, 11:54*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 28, 12:39*pm, "
wrote:









On Oct 28, 2:23*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 7:01*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 27, 11:01*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 27, 4:38*pm, "

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:01:00 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 1:54*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:06*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 25, 12:26*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 25, 1:48*pm, "
wrote:

On Oct 25, 2:02*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:16*am, harry wrote:

On Oct 24, 2:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:26*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

We're in a nasty state with control shifting back and forth between
elections, Supreme Court decisions of 5-4 inviting future (and now it seems
inevitable) reversal. *We're acting like a poorly designed thermostat that
rapidly switches on and off when the set temperature is reached instead
The technical term is hysteresis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis#Control_systems

A factor in all control systems. Mechanical, electrical, electronic
and even political. Though hysteria might be nearer themark for the
latter.

You should know, you being the resident expert on hysteria.

There is no single correct place for a thermostat in a domestic house.

No, but there are a whole bunch of wrong ones.

And therein is your major malfunction. *You're looking for perfect,
I'm looking for rational compromise and the least-bad solution.

Also, do try harder with your quoting. *You gave me an attribution,
cut everything I wrote, and yet still responded to it. *Such lax
habits are less than ideal.

R

My newsreader does a lot of cutting on it's own. (Google)

I mean that each room needs a thermostat to work properly. Even then
it needs to be carefully sited. *A single thermostat per house *will
never be much good.- Hide quoted text -

You know about as much about houses as you do politics
and economics. *I have lived in many houses where one thermostat
worked perfectly fine. *I'll bet lots of others here have had
similar experiences. *In fact, the standard here for the
majority of homes is one thermostat per heating SYSTEM..
That's what's done in most new construction as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This because you are so primitive/backward in America. *Each heat
source in UK/Europe is individually thermostatically controlled. There
may be more than one heat source in each room. *It ii seasily possible
to knock 25% off the heating bill by doing this.
It has been so for about thirty years. *American heating systems are
fifty years behind European ones in terms of economy.
You have a lot of catching up to do.

Right, we are all looking forward to going back to having a window
unit in every room to cool and a heater in every room in the winter.

Example.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermos...radiator_valve

I have had a look round domestic house contsruction sites in America.
Absolutely appaliing standards. Primitive, poor workmanship, designed
by morons.

Most of the construction problems frequently brought up on this group
never exist in Europe. *I read them and marvel.-

Total BS!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gee, if everything is built so fine in Europe, why is it that
everytime
there is an earthquake in Greece, so many buildings just fall apart
killing tens of thousands of people?

As for one thermostat per room being essential, I've been to
Europe and can tell you that there is no noticeable positive
difference in comfort there vs the USA. *IF anything, it's
worse in Europe. *In Italy, for example, the AC sucks, hotels,
restaurants, etc tend to be hot and
you can't even get a cold beverage at a convenience store.

Harry talks about one thermostat per room as if that is
all that's needed. *When you have a residential AC
system, having a thermostat in each room would
require an automated damper system that would add
significantly to the cost, complexity and maintenance
of the system. *Would it be nice to have? *Sure.
Would most people here want it given what it adds
versus the cost? * I think not. *Nor do I think they would
want it or have it in the UK.

What you do have in Europe are more mini-splits.
Here in the USA we tend to avoid them because one
central unit is more cost effective and architecturally,
it's ugly having mini-splits hanging around everywhere.
And in most cases you can balance a central system close
enough that it's fine with one thermostat per system.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Everything sucks in Italy. *Haven'tyou seen the news?

s/Italy/Europe/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now you understand the reason why hot air systems will always be
inefficient. I haven't seen a domestic one in the UK for decades.
We only use wet systems.

Things are moving on again. The future appears to be ground source
heat pumps. *Our socialist gov will be subsidising their installation
soon.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Heat_Incentive
So you will be left even further behind.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heat pumps, including ground source heat pumps are already in use in
the states and have been for a number of years. *Guess it's hard for
you to know seeing as how you have your head in the sand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have been here too. *The government is trying to get more of them
installed in domestic houses.
It's been usual only to install them where gas was not available but
electricity was. (Not that many over here and propane competes)
They are quite a bit more expensive than a gas heaating system over
here with all the digging/hole boring.
They are not supporting air source *or ground source that are
reversible.

So much for the claimed *technical advancements and smarts of
Britts. *According to the above, they are putting in heat pump systems
that only heat, not cool? *How dumb is that?

Gas was in the past very cheap, it came from off-shore wells but they
are nearly exhausted. Hence all the excitement.- Hide quoted text -

It is an energy saving thing, not technical. *They don't want people
running cooling here. It is unneccesary for 99.999% of the time.
The whole business is about reducing energy imports

99.999% of the time. Ah, I see - you reject my point that maintaining
an arbitrary heating number to a ridiculously narrow range, at one
point in every room, but believe that air conditioning is
'unnecessary'* in a country that has extremes of climate. Sure. Why
didn't you say so? Nothing could be more logical.

I live in NY - the place where a lot of British came to get away from
your ancestors, and in a typical year a temperature swing of -5F to
105F is not at all unusual. We're lucky here - other parts of the
country that have tough weather.

* Unnecessary...you drive a car, BarcaLounger Boy? Fly to exotic
lands to look at birds (yeah, that's _necessary_) so you can feel that
you understand the entire world from the comfort and vantage point of
your couple of weeks holiday?

R

On Oct 27, 4:36*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 26, 6:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:

You do understand that the human heating apparatus is far more
variable, and its sensing mechanism far more sensitive to perceived
temperature, than a thermostat, right? *You do know that a person's
heat output and sense of temperature varies by time of day, when food
is consumed, and the thoughts they are thinking, right? *You do know
that only an idiot looks at a thermostat to see if they are warm or
cool, right? *Oops. *Sorry.

Don't revert to drivel. *You mean you go leaping for the heat control
every time you eat a hamburger?
If i want, I can buy a thermostat accurate to1/10 of a degree well
outside human perception.. *As for your remark about perception, this
is a case for the use of thermostats.The temperature needs to be
controlled by objective means not subjective means

"Outside of human perception"...yeah! I want one of those! I also
want the speakers I can't hear, and the TV I can't see. You are a
funny, funny man.

"Subjective means"...of course. Here's how mine works:
"Are you cold?"
"No, I'm kind of warm."
"Okay, I'll put on an overshirt."

And this is how yours works (assuming someone could bear to share a
room with you for more than five minutes):
"Can I turn up the heat?"
"Are you cold?"
"I'm asking, aren't I?"
"The thermostat is at the same optimized setting it is always set at.
You're not touching it!"
{leaving the room muttering} "Yeah, and I ain't touching you, either,
fat boy."

I don't dither with things. *If I am a bit cool, I put on a long
sleeve shirt. *If I'm a bit warm I roll up the sleeves. *No technology
can possibly sense where on my body I am cool/warm and adjust just
that area. *I have arms, legs and a brain and I use them to temper my
environment to suit me. *I don't see a need to lay about waiting for
it to be done for me. *That way lays obesity and sluggish thinking.
Oops, again. *Sorry.

More drivel. *So y'all sit about the house in overcoats if it happens
to get cold. *Is this some American cult thingI haven't heard about?
The object of the exercise is to maintain each room at the set
temperature regardless of weather and activities within the house.
The closer temperature is maintained to set temperature the better
comfort will be and the more energy saved.

You are without doubt one of the funniest fat men I've ever run
across! You really make me chuckle. "The object of the exercise",
indeed! Forgetting the fact that you and exercise are not exactly on
speaking terms, the real point of the exercise is human comfort, no?

You still haven't answered my question about what you do when there
are two or more people in a room. What does having a thermostat(s) in
_any_ location(s) do for people that share a space and have a
different idea of what comfort is?

I can see the reason you personally would need a thermostat within
reach of your LaZboy, as there's little doubt you spend most of your
time alone, but for people with less highly evolved alienation skills,
we learn to compromise. This includes the thermostat setting, and
even, gasp!, rolling up sleeves, taking off a layer, putting on a cap,
etc., to allow people to comfortably share a space.

R

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Price of labor has not been a means of production since when?

Oh I don't know, maybe forever.

From Wikipedia:

be careful of the attributions above

Classical economics distinguishes between three factors of production
which are used in the production of goods:
€ Land or natural resources - naturally-occurring goods such as soil
and minerals. The payment for land is rent.
****€ Labor - human effort used in production. The payment for labor
is a wage.**** (emphasis mine.
€ Capital goods - human-made goods (or MEANS OF PRODUCTION) which
are used in the production of other goods. These include machinery,
tools and buildings. In a general sense, the payment for capital is
called interest.
I would take the word of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart
Mill over that of Wikipedia. But I could be wrong.

And the above says exactly what I quoted from Wikipedia. From you:

"
Capital goods - human-made goods (or means of production) which
are used in the production of other goods. These include machinery,
tools and buildings. In a general sense, the payment for capital is
called interest.
"

I emphasized and capitalized "MEANS OF PRODUCTION" after all that's
where the disagreement lies. Note that "factors of production" are not
the same as "means of production". If you look at the Wikipedia "Means
of production" entry you'll find it also discusses factors of
production. Note that your quote (I presume it is a quote from
somewhere) supports my position. IOW it's you who are apparently
unwilling to accept the word of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John
Stuart Mill (presuming that you're quoting them accurately which I
doubt).

I love it when people deride Wikipedia and then fail to note that most
of the entries (and all relevant ones in the case of "Means of
production") are supported by textbooks, original scientific works,
and the like. It's not exactly "Fox news says".

However I suspect that your quote is from nothing original as the
entry into common parlance of "means of production" probably did not
occur until Karl Marx who of course is a far better source for
something that is related to socialism than your three above.

snip

I'll repeat the exchange from the previous post:

One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

Socialism as both a political and economic system focuses only on
the means of production and not the price.

Nonsense. Don't you scream "socialism" when the government tries to
raise the minimum wage (price of labor)?

Price of labor has not been a means of production since when?

And reply slightly differently: Since "Classical economics..." as
asserted by Kurt Ullman.

I guess you've been hung by your own jockstrap ... or something like
that.

In article ,
wrote:



I emphasized and capitalized "MEANS OF PRODUCTION" after all that's
where the disagreement lies. Note that "factors of production" are not
the same as "means of production".

NOW you tell me. Sometimes I am wrong with great vigor by forgetting
about context sensitivity.


One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

Getting away from my earlier mispronouncement (and how that allowed
the conversation to go off on tangents that had nothing to do with the
original discussion--my bad), how is what you suggest socialist? . I can
find no requirement that everybody pay the same. Also, there certainly
is no plan on the part of the pharm to invest control of anything in the
community as a whole.


Nonsense. Don't you scream "socialism" when the government tries to
raise the minimum wage (price of labor)?
Actually I don't. I often think it is not a good idea because of
disruptions that impact especially hard on younger people. But the last
one I had no problem with since at the time even McD's was paying more
for people than the wage was going to be. It was just a reflection of
the current market.

I guess you've been hung by your own jockstrap ... or something like
that.
Happens from time to time. Most of the time I am right (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

I emphasized and capitalized "MEANS OF PRODUCTION" after all that's
where the disagreement lies. Note that "factors of production" are not
the same as "means of production".

NOW you tell me. Sometimes I am wrong with great vigor by forgetting
about context sensitivity.

One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!

Getting away from my earlier mispronouncement (and how that allowed
the conversation to go off on tangents that had nothing to do with the
original discussion--my bad), how is what you suggest socialist? . I can
find no requirement that everybody pay the same. Also, there certainly
is no plan on the part of the pharm to invest control of anything in the
community as a whole.

I'm not suggesting that it's something controlled or even engineered
by the drug companies; just that what they're doing (funding one drug
from an earlier one) will eventually cause all of us whether we suffer
from a "cheap" illness or an "expensive" one to pay the same for our
drugs. Isn't the idea of one premium (and this is just the drug part)
at the heart of the objection to the one-payer health care plan which
the right labeled as socialist?

I guess you've been hung by your own jockstrap ... or something like
that.
Happens from time to time. Most of the time I am right (grin).

Well, big of you to admit it. There's hope for the world yet.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 10/30/2011 12:17 AM, Robert Green wrote:
(snip)

Precisely. Big Oil and Big Pharma have learned to plead poverty all the
way
to the bank as they lobby for even more tax breaks. Big Oil constantly
forgets they are extracting something that doesn't belong to them, but
to
every US citizen and yet we pay more everyday for our own mineral
wealth.
Where's the money going?

If the Feds can run the largest military organization in the world,
they're
perfectly capable of hiring everyone and everything they need to extract
our
oil for us. Deregulation for some necessities of life has been pretty
bad
for the consumer and much better for the stockholder instead of a public
trust. Business has been slowly infiltrating many previously
government-run
institutions with less than stellar cost savings or results.


I won't bother addressing some of the other points I don't find
plausible, but could not let this one go unremarked. I've worked for DoD
for over 30 years. They have trouble finding their ass with both hands,

There's a singular problem with your assessment. As part of the
infrastructure you are criticizing, we then have to assume that *you* can't
find your ass with both hands and that your criticism should be viewed in
that highly suspect light. (-:

Aside from biting the hand that fed you for 30 years, is it really fair to
condemn one of the world's largest organizations (the US Federal Government)
from your experience with one end of it? Particularly an end that can cover
all of its many sins with secrecy that makes it impossible to determine
where, exactly, our tax dollars are going? One tasked with developing new
military technologies that can't benefit from competitive bidding nearly as
well as other entities because of the secrecy involved?

and probably waste one dollar out of three.

Wow. Does that means you're getting paid three times what you're worth? Or
that you work one third as hard as private sector employees? Or if there's
not 100% chance of success, we shouldn't undertake the effort or risk?

We've gone from the can-do spirit of the post WWII world that put a man on
the moon (a Federal government effort, as was creating the A-bomb) to the
"we can't do that it, it might fail." Now, other countries succeed at what
we've failed at. They have universal health care, faster and more reliable
internet access, cheaper gas, longer life spans and their citizens, unlike
ours, have some feeling that if they worked hard all their lives to help
build a country, they won't get kicked to the curb when they're too old or
too sick to work.

They succeed in the field by
throwing money at problems till they are overcome. Nationalizing the
oil production infrastructure would, within a decade, give us $10 gallon
gas.

You'd probably be surprised to learn how many countries have nationalized,
either fully or partially, their petroleum industries and *lowered* the
price of gasoline in their countries. They did it because they were always
at the ends of onerous contracts that they (rightly) believed did not
compensate them fairly for the value of the resources. Take out the
incredible billions of of profits that multi-nationals earn from oil that
belongs to everyone in the US and perhaps gas prices would drop. Do you
think those billions in profit going more and more to overseas investors
helps as much as keeping those dollars, jobs and revenues within the
country?

Even the allegedly incompetent Feds could manage to provide gasoline to its
citizens far more cheaply than the Big Oil companies once you subtract the
billions in profits they take. Apparently the Arabs are smarter than we are
when it comes to striking shrewd deals with the petroleum companies for
national resources. Even the Canadians are smarter than we are.

Following the OPEC oil embargo in the early 1970s, Canada took initiative
to control its oil supplies. The result of these initiatives was
Petro-Canada, a state-owned oil company. Petro-Canada put forth national
goals including, increased domestic ownership of the industry, development
of reserves not located in the western provinces, that is to say, the
promotion of the Canada Lands in the north and offshore, better information
about the petroleum industry, security of supply, decrease dependence on the
large multinational oil corporations, especially the Big Four, and increase
revenues flowing to the federal treasury from the oil and gas sector.

The first country to successfully nationalize after the structural change of
the industry was Algeria, who nationalized 51% of the French companies only
ten days after the Teheran agreement and later was able to nationalize 100%
of their companies. The nationalization of Algerian oil influenced Libya to
nationalize British Petroleum in 1971 and the rest of their foreign
companies by 1974. A ripple effect quickly occurred, spreading first to the
more militant oil producers like Iraq and then followed by more conservative
oil producers like Saudi Arabia.

Stephen J. Kobrin states that "By 1976 virtually every other major producer
in the mid-East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America had followed nationalizing
at least some of its producers to gain either a share of participation or to
take over the entire industry and employ the international companies on a
contractual basis." [9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...f_oil_supplies

I suppose it's only fair that other countries now get to profit from every
dollar US citizens pay at the pump since it was the other way around for so
long. One after the other, oil-producing countries realized they weren't
getting top dollar for their valuable oil. How long will it take for us to
wake up and realize that Big Oil will still drill wells without outrageous
deductions thrown their way? They'll just threaten and cry more, but like
BoA will eventually back down on whatever threats they make.

There's a reason for small, backwards countries to sign concession
agreements with Big Oil. They are too technologically backward to drill and
refine their own oil. We're not. We created the A-bomb and put men on the
moon. Yet we're too stupid to negotiate to our advantage the way so many
smaller countries have.

Read the list below and figure out who has nationalized petroleum and who
hasn't?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis...bal_gasprices/

(as of 2005)

Nation | City | Price in USD Regular/Gallon

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94
Luxembourg $4.82
Croatia Zagreb $4.81
Ireland Dublin $4.78
Switzerland Geneva $4.74
Spain Madrid $4.55
Japan Tokyo $4.24
Czech Republic Prague $4.19
Romania Bucharest $4.09
Andorra $4.08
Estonia Tallinn $3.62
Bulgaria Sofia $3.52
Brazil Brasilia $3.12
Cuba Havana $3.03
Taiwan Taipei $2.84
Lebanon Beirut $2.63
South Africa Johannesburg $2.62
Nicaragua Managua $2.61
Panama Panama City $2.19
Russia Moscow $2.10
Puerto Rico San Juan $1.74
Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78
Egypt Cairo $0.65
Nigeria Lagos $0.38
Venezuela Caracas $0.12

In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi
Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline
prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens.

In America, citizens pay high gas prices to multi-national oil-companies
with investors profiting all over the globe from our need for gasoline. I'd
rather keep those dollars in American, helping Americans.

So I very much doubt your ten dollar a gallon scenario as a result of
nationalization will come to fruition unless you believe we're vastly
inferior to Nigeria, Venezuela, Egypt, etc. and can't accomplish things that
they have done. The oil and mineral wealth of the US belongs to all its
citizens but in reality benefits mostly those in the upper tax brackets.
Ask the poor residents of W. Virginia: they can tell you about the state's
coal wealth and how it benefits a very small number of people.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
wrote:



I'm not suggesting that it's something controlled or even engineered
by the drug companies; just that what they're doing (funding one drug
from an earlier one) will eventually cause all of us whether we suffer
from a "cheap" illness or an "expensive" one to pay the same for our
drugs. Isn't the idea of one premium (and this is just the drug part)
at the heart of the objection to the one-payer health care plan which
the right labeled as socialist?

Just so I understand, you are suggesting that someday soon, I will
be paying the same for my generic, OTC allergy medicine, as my kid pays
for her Humira? Or even, to bring things a little closer to a possible
reality, those with schizophrenia will be paying the same for generic
thorazine (probably the oldest antipsychotic around) as they do for
their Seroquel (one of the newest ones?) Heck they don't even the same
for generic Zyprexa and they do for the branded version and Zyprexa just
came off patent last month.
Socialism only happens when the governmental units make the
decisons on pricing and distribution.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Nov 2, 4:19*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message

...





On 10/30/2011 12:17 AM, Robert Green wrote:
(snip)

Precisely. *Big Oil and Big Pharma have learned to plead poverty all the
way
to the bank as they lobby for even more tax breaks. *Big Oil constantly
forgets they are extracting something that doesn't belong to them, but
to
every US citizen and yet we pay more everyday for our own mineral
wealth.
Where's the money going?

* If the Feds can run the largest military organization in the world,
they're
perfectly capable of hiring everyone and everything they need to extract
our
oil for us. *Deregulation for some necessities of life has been pretty
bad
for the consumer and much better for the stockholder instead of a public
trust. *Business has been slowly infiltrating many previously
government-run
institutions with less than stellar cost savings or results.

I won't bother addressing some of the other points I don't find
plausible, but could not let this one go unremarked. I've worked for DoD
for over 30 years. They have trouble finding their ass with both hands,

There's a singular problem with your assessment. *As part of the
infrastructure you are criticizing, we then have to assume that *you* can't
find your ass with both hands and that your criticism should be viewed in
that highly suspect light. *(-:

Aside from biting the hand that fed you for 30 years, is it really fair to
condemn one of the world's largest organizations (the US Federal Government)
from your experience with one end of it? *

Not fair to condemn it from just one data point. But anyone who pays
attention, knows there are plenty of other data points. How about
all
the trillions spent in the war on poverty, started in the 60's by LBJ.
It helped create a perpetual class of people talking the public
handout
and slums, unwed mothers with 3 kids, to go with it. The poverty
rate?
Well today it's still the same.




Particularly an end that can cover
all of its many sins with secrecy that makes it impossible to determine
where, exactly, our tax dollars are going? *One tasked with developing new
military technologies that can't benefit from competitive bidding nearly as
well as other entities because of the secrecy involved?

and probably waste one dollar out of three.

That ratio is better than some other parts of govt. The Obama
stimulus cost
about $300K for each job created. Solyndra ring a bell?




Wow. *Does that means you're getting paid three times what you're worth? *Or
that you work one third as hard as private sector employees? *Or if there's
not 100% chance of success, we shouldn't undertake the effort or risk?

We've gone from the can-do spirit of the post WWII world that put a man on
the moon (a Federal government effort, as was creating the A-bomb) to the
"we can't do that it, it might fail." *Now, other countries succeed at what
we've failed at. *They have universal health care, faster and more reliable
internet access, cheaper gas, longer life spans and their citizens, unlike
ours, have some feeling that if they worked hard all their lives to help
build a country, they won't get kicked to the curb when they're too old or
too sick to work.

Really? If its so peachy keen in other places, why are there riots in
the
streets in Greece and the UK? Why are there Occupy Wall Street and
tear down the system rallies going on all over Europe?




They succeed in the field by
throwing money at problems till they are overcome. *Nationalizing the
oil production infrastructure would, within a decade, give us $10 gallon
gas.

You'd probably be surprised to learn how many countries have nationalized,
either fully or partially, their petroleum industries and *lowered* the
price of gasoline in their countries. *They did it because they were always
at the ends of onerous contracts that they (rightly) believed did not
compensate them fairly for the value of the resources. Take out the
incredible billions of of profits that multi-nationals earn from oil that
belongs to everyone in the US and perhaps gas prices would drop. *Do you
think those billions in profit going more and more to overseas investors
helps as much as keeping those dollars, jobs and revenues within the
country?

When you are the one who knows how to get oil out of the ground,
refine it, and deliver it and when it's YOUR money that's at risk
doing it, then you can bitch.




Even the allegedly incompetent Feds could manage to provide gasoline to its
citizens far more cheaply than the Big Oil companies once you subtract the
billions in profits they take. *Apparently the Arabs are smarter than we are
when it comes to striking shrewd deals with the petroleum companies for
national resources. *Even the Canadians are smarter than we are.

Sure they could fool. Instead of taking the commie view of "billions"
in profit, how about looking at it in a rational way, which is as a
percent
of the selling price. In which case, the oil industry profits are
within
the norm of other industries and the taxes on gasoline are far more
than the oil companies profits.





Following the OPEC oil embargo in the early 1970s, Canada took initiative
to control its oil supplies. The result of these initiatives was
Petro-Canada, a state-owned oil company. Petro-Canada put forth national
goals including, increased domestic ownership of the industry, development
of reserves not located in the western provinces, that is to say, the
promotion of the Canada Lands in the north and offshore, better information
about the petroleum industry, security of supply, decrease dependence on the
large multinational oil corporations, especially the Big Four, and increase
revenues flowing to the federal treasury from the oil and gas sector.


Yes, and at that same time, Jimmy Carter, who thinks like you,
put a excise tax on oil profits. The result was long gas lines and
Cartet getting booted to the curb.

To this day, we are not doing what Canada is doing. And the reason
is NOT that it needs to be done by government. IT's that govt is
BLOCKING it. We have oil in ANWR that could be extracted, but
the govt is blocking it. Instead of supporting shale extraction,
opening more areas to drilling, we have Obama halting drilling
in the Gulf.




The first country to successfully nationalize after the structural change of
the industry was Algeria, who nationalized 51% of the French companies only
ten days after the Teheran agreement and later was able to nationalize 100%
of their companies. The nationalization of Algerian oil influenced Libya to
nationalize British Petroleum in 1971 and the rest of their foreign
companies by 1974. A ripple effect quickly occurred, spreading first to the
more militant oil producers like Iraq and then followed by more conservative
oil producers like Saudi Arabia.

The first country to successfuly nationalize the tourist industry was
Cuba. How well has that worked for them?


Read the list below and figure out who has nationalized petroleum and who
hasn't?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis...bal_gasprices/

(as of 2005)

Nation | City | *Price in USD Regular/Gallon

Netherlands Amsterdam $6.48
Norway Oslo $6.27
Italy Milan $5.96
Denmark Copenhagen $5.93
Belgium Brussels $5.91
Sweden Stockholm $5.80
United Kingdom London $5.79
Germany Frankfurt $5.57
France Paris $5.54
Portugal Lisbon $5.35
Hungary Budapest $4.94
Luxembourg $4.82
Croatia Zagreb $4.81
Ireland Dublin $4.78
Switzerland Geneva $4.74
Spain Madrid $4.55
Japan Tokyo $4.24
Czech Republic Prague $4.19
Romania Bucharest $4.09
Andorra $4.08
Estonia Tallinn $3.62
Bulgaria Sofia $3.52
Brazil Brasilia $3.12
Cuba Havana $3.03
Taiwan Taipei $2.84
Lebanon Beirut $2.63
South Africa Johannesburg $2.62
Nicaragua Managua $2.61
Panama Panama City $2.19
Russia Moscow $2.10
Puerto Rico San Juan $1.74
Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91
Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78
Egypt Cairo $0.65
Nigeria Lagos $0.38
Venezuela Caracas $0.12


You think just maybe the fact that Europe has a heavy tax on
gas has something to do with it? Or that countries like
Venezuela are subsidizing it way below the cost of production
in yet another socialist scam to fool the people? Also, last
time I checked, the USA does not have the reserves of
Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. So, we have to buy most of the
oil at market prices. Tell us where in the world anyone is
doing that a selling gas at $.12





In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi
Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline
prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens.

No **** Sherlock, so why put it on the list then?




In America, citizens pay high gas prices to multi-national oil-companies
with investors profiting all over the globe from our need for gasoline. *I'd
rather keep those dollars in American, helping Americans.

As always, all emotion and never a look at even the most basic facts.
The profit on a gallon of gasoline is a whopping 8%. BFD. On $4
gas, that's $.32.




So I very much doubt your ten dollar a gallon scenario as a result of
nationalization will come to fruition unless you believe we're vastly
inferior to Nigeria, Venezuela, Egypt, etc. and can't accomplish things that
they have done.
*The oil and mineral wealth of the US belongs to all its
citizens but in reality benefits mostly those in the upper tax brackets.


You really are pig ignorant. How much money has the govt taken
from those companies for leases and taxes?



Ask the poor residents of W. Virginia: *they can tell you about the state's
coal wealth and how it benefits a very small number of people.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I suppose you want to nationalize that too....

wrote in message
" wrote:

This is one of the stupidist things the resident commie has posted
yet.

Our resident "stupidist" strikes again, and while trying to insult someone
who's simply explaining why a constant diet of red herrings and bad rhetoric
is bad for the mind. It boggles that same mind in this case because KD's
taken a seriously ANTI-communist stance, saying that all of us don't need to
subsidize the creation of new drugs that would have no benefit for them.

It's Trader's bizarre fear of all Big Bad Government regulation of business,
in this case the imaginary Big Bad Price Controls, which are non-existent in
your example. Deciding you won't buy a drug on behalf of your insured if
you don't get a good price is as simple a free market concept as you can
find. Somehow, we've gotten so used to having pre-written, non-negotiable
contracts shoved down our throats by cable companies, phone companies and
others every day that the thought of someone saying "wait, we don't like
your terms, let's come to new ones" shocks some people.

The drug companies aren't being forced at gunpoint to sell drugs cheaper
than it costs them to make them anymore than banks were forced to make so
many bad loans via CRA that it collapsed the economy. It's just part of the
"All Government is Bad" mythology some people As you pointed out, they
willingly give high discounts to Europe not out of altruism, but because
they are STILL MAKING MONEY! Just not as much as they are by gouging
American customers. (-: It sounds to me like some of KD's detractors don't
understand marginal costs and how Big Pharma can deeply discount its often
horribly inflated end-customer pricing and still make a buck. It's easy
when the highest price you charge is stratospheric. Coming down to sea
level still generates a profit for them, albeit a small one per unit sale.

Give Trader a chance and he can connect any set of unrelated dots by using
ink made from the dozens of decayed red herrings in his well-stocked and
very stinky fish tank. When that fails, he'll reach for the poison puffer
fish and call you a commie, a socialist, a fu&wit or whatever the "epithet
of the day" happens to be.

To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand)

I've never seen re-explanation in simpler terms ever provoke the "dawn of
comprehension" in a Trader discussion. He just made the same mistake with
"stupidist" and clearly doesn't learn from the past. I'd feel badly (sic)
for him, but part of the reason most people come to the web is to learn
something.

manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time
-- i.e., they sell it for a lower price than it normally is sold for
-- but in doing so they actually make more money

This is supported by the incredibly large and complex "free sample" network
of "detail men" from the big Pharma houses. They give away diabetes meters
free to sell test strips at a $1+ each. That's a totally outrageous cost
for something I once read costs well under 1 cent to produce.

Should Big Pharma make a one thousand percent profit on what is for many a
medical necessity? It doesn't sit well with me but it does confirm the "we
don't want cures, we want something customers have no choice about buying
for whatever outrageous price we can charge" policy of Big Pharma. Again,
it's so odd that even with multiple strip manufacturers, there isn't very
much price difference at all between strip makers. It's a gentlemen's
agreement between the makers of that product to keep the profits beyond
reasonable and into the stratospheric. Eventually the profit motive will
have to be removed from medical care because it's in so severe a conflict
with the goal of making people well.

"For the general welfare" gives Congress the power to simply take that
business away from all of the gougers and bring it under Medicare. It's
going to end up happening because it's the only way to keep health care
costs down. Eliminating the collusion between manufacturers and making the
creation of drugs a governmental function, not a private industry one, could
provide enormous health care cost savings. It will take a serious retooling
of people's thinking and will involve a ferocious battle against those who
would be losing all the "easy money" that can be made selling drugs, licit
and illicit.

What's even more interesting about the crocodile tears Big Pharma cries
about R&D costs is that much of the research that leads to blockbuster drugs
is done at NIH and paid for by everyone's tax dollars. I say if they keep
crying much longer, the Feds should restructure things so that NIH does ALL
the research. Then, Big Pharma would get a license to produce the drugs NIH
and others develop after competitive bidding against other manufacturers.
That would have the added benefit of putting the "blockbuster" mentality to
pasture where it belongs.

As the drug companies have proven by cutting back on essential medicines for
which the profit is too small, they have a conflict of interest. Curing and
treating disease should be the primary motive of drug development. The "for
profit" mode means that the preference is for high-priced "blockbuster"
drugs for long term care, not cures or lower-priced drugs that would bring
health care costs down for everyone. Our health care costs are skyrocketing
because it makes Big Pharma richer. Study after study shows that many of
the newer drugs cost 4 to 10 times as much as earlier versions, but never
deliver 4 to 10 times the therapeutic values.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 4, 7:37*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message
" wrote:
This isoneof thestupidistthingstheresidentcommiehas posted
yet.

Ourresident"stupidist" strikes again, and while trying to insult someone
who's simply explaining why a constant diet of red herrings and bad rhetoric
is bad for the mind. *It boggles that same mind in this case because KD's
taken a seriously ANTI-communist stance, saying that all of us don't need to
subsidize the creation of new drugs that would have no benefit for them.

Let's stick to the facts. What was claimed was that profits from
existing
products do not routinely fund the development of new products. That
is
indeed stupid as even a kid running a lemonade stand knows. Do you
disagree?




It's Trader's bizarre fear of all Big Bad Government regulation of business,
in this case the imaginary Big Bad Price Controls, which are non-existent in
your example.

It has nothing whatever to do with that. It's simple economics 101,
which
you can't grasp.




Deciding you won't buy a drug on behalf of your insured if
you don't get a good price is as simple a free market concept as you can
find. Somehow, we've gotten so used to having pre-written, non-negotiable
contracts shoved down our throats by cable companies, phone companies and
others every day that the thought of someone saying "wait, we don't like
your terms, let's come to new ones" shocks some people.

Of course none of that has anything to do with profits from current
products funding the development of new ones. Amazing how you
can spew forth unrelated nonsense.




*The drug companies aren't being forced at gunpoint to sell drugs cheaper
than it costs them to make them anymore than banks were forced to make so
many bad loans via CRA that it collapsed the economy.

I never said they were.




*It's just part of the
"All Government is Bad" mythology some people * As you pointed out, they
willingly give high discounts to Europe not out of altruism, but because
they are STILL MAKING MONEY! *Just not as much as they are by gouging
American customers.


Uh huh. But if the American customers were not paying those higher
prices, the whole picture obviously changes. IF everyone were to pay
the same price, then the world pricing outside the USA would have
to rise.



(-: *It sounds to me like some of KD's detractors don't
understand marginal costs and how Big Pharma can deeply discount its often
horribly inflated end-customer pricing and still make a buck. *It's easy
when the highest price you charge is stratospheric. *Coming down to sea
level still generates a profit for them, albeit a smalloneper unit sale.

The reality is that KD doesn't understand that profits from current
products have always been a major source of funding for the
development of new products. Simple yes or no question, is
it true or not?



Give Trader a chance and he can connect any set of unrelated dots by using
ink made from the dozens of decayed red herrings in his well-stocked and
very stinky fish tank.

Me? Go back and read the crap you just posted. You've dragged in
cable and phone contracts into a discussion about new products
being funded by profits. Good grief! Stick to the topic.



*When that fails, he'll reach for the poison puffer
fish and call you acommie, a socialist, a fu&wit or whatever the "epithet
of the day" happens to be.


Those fit you nicely.




To beat a dead horse (apparently that's the only way you'll
understand)

I've never seen re-explanation in simpler terms ever provoke the "dawn of
comprehension" in a Trader discussion. *He just made the same mistake with
"stupidist" and clearly doesn't learn from the past. *I'd feel badly (sic)
for him, but part of the reason most people come to the web is to learn
something.

You're the idiot that told us that wealth can only be measured by
selling
everything, ie if I own 1000 shares of MSFT and 100 ounces of gold,
my wealth cannot be measured. That if the price of MSFT goes up
in my portfolio, that it has not increased my wealth. And some
bizarre
stock market example that shows you don't have a clue about that
either.




manufacturers put their product on sale from time to time
-- i.e., they sell it for a lower price than it normally is sold for
-- but in doing so they actually make more money

This is supported by the incredibly large and complex "free sample" network
of "detail men" from the big Pharma houses. *They give away diabetes meters
free to sell test strips at a $1+ each. *That's a totally outrageous cost
for something I once read costs well under 1 cent to produce.

Should Big Pharma make aonethousand percent profit on what is for many a
medical necessity? *It doesn't sit well with me but it does confirm the "we
don't want cures, we want something customers have no choice about buying
for whatever outrageous price we can charge" policy of Big Pharma. *Again,
it's so odd that even with multiple strip manufacturers, there isn't very
much price difference at all between strip makers.

That's exactly what you;d expect in a market with perfect
compettition.
Prices reach a market equilibrium point where supply meets demand.
Once again, your ignorance of economics 101 is remarkable. What
everyone who has taken a course in economics knows is that what
you see as price fixing is in fact what you get in free markets.


*It's a gentlemen's
agreement between the makers of that product to keep the profits beyond
reasonable and into the stratospheric.

Of course if you bothered with even the most basic facts, you'd know
the reality is that if you look at drug industry profits they are
within the norm of other industries, about 20%. Compare that to say
Apple, at 25%. Stratospheric? LOL




*Eventually the profit motive will
have to be removed from medical care because it's in so severe a conflict
with the goal of making people well.



"For the general welfare" gives Congress the power to simply take that
business away from all of the gougers and bring it under Medicare.

And that's why you're the resident commie.




*It's
going to end up happening because it's the only way to keep health care
costs down. *Eliminating the collusion between manufacturers and making the
creation of drugs a governmental function, not a private industryone, could
provide enormous health care cost savings. *It will take a serious retooling
of people's thinking and will involve a ferocious battle against those who
would be losing all the "easy money" that can be made selling drugs, licit
and illicit.


What's even more interesting about the crocodile tears Big Pharma cries
about R&D costs is that much of the research that leads to blockbuster drugs
is done at NIH and paid for by everyone's tax dollars. *I say if they keep
crying much longer, the Feds should restructurethingsso that NIH does ALL
the research. *Then, Big Pharma would get a license to produce the drugs NIH
and others develop after competitive bidding against other manufacturers.
That would have the added benefit of putting the "blockbuster" mentality to
pasture where it belongs.

For someone who can't grasp the most basic economic concepts you
sure have a vivid imagination about how to transform the economy.




As the drug companies have proven by cutting back on essential medicines for
which the profit is too small, they have a conflict of interest. *Curing and
treating disease should be the primary motive of drug development. *The "for
profit" mode means that the preference is for high-priced "blockbuster"
drugs for long term care, not cures or lower-priced drugs that would bring
health care costs down for everyone. *Our health care costs are skyrocketing
because it makes Big Pharma richer. *Study after study shows that many of
the newer drugs cost 4 to 10 times as much as earlier versions, but never
deliver 4 to 10 times the therapeutic values.

--
Bobby G.

Gee, if they are making such extraordinary profits, why have not all
the
drug company stocks gone through the roof? Hmmm? If even half of
what you claim is true, they would be priced like the internet stocks
were
in 1999. The fact that they are not is perhaps the best evidence that
you're clueless, all commie emotion and no facts.