what exactly do you want to accomplish as president

most people already know what the parties want.

if you could accomplish things that

you wanted to see done,

what would these things be?

the parties can get you to sing
and dance for their 'issues'

and you will look more like
a spinning clown than a
real, actual person

no matter how they, the
parties feel about it all.

so, what exactly is your motivation for
placing yourself at the head of the
all the party gags?

not; what is their motivation for
exploiting you to their purpose

or, more correctly, -its- purpose?

saying that you het to make about a
one percent contribution to what
goes on in your term in office,

what will that one percent be?

that's a reasonable thing to want to know.

if i scratch all the way down to your 'real' intent,

is there anything there to find?

or are you entirely, a, --- Figurehead

what do =YOU= want to see done
with the stroke of a president's pen?

there. now i asked that several times.

and, as it stands now,

i'm still asking it,

because all of teh wrangling seems to be party 'issues'

and not at all, what =YOU+ want to see happen

that will be your own personal little
contibution to american democracy.

why you?

not "why the party?"

why =YOU=?

> why =YOU=?

when i feel that i've gotten an answer,

i'll be sure to tell you.

as of right now,

this is unclear.

what do =you= want to accomplish as president?

saying something like;

"i want to be the next head of the party if i lose the race"

isn't quite sufficient.

> isn't quite sufficient.

spare all the double talk triple talk and etc...

what is it, like;

"if elected president;

i'll see that all schoolchildren

get milk for breakfast"

or whatever...

> what is it, like;

> "if elected president;

> get milk for breakfast"

> or whatever...

"if elected president, i'll give
two speeches a day and three
on sundays"

spare me, killer.

> spare me, killer.

"that's what -she- wanted to do,

that's what -he- wanted to do,

what do =you= want to do?"

see, it's obvious that you
can't say something like;

"i want to legalize maryjauner"

cuz that probably won't help you win an election,

so, you totally bury that and never
again address it with any seriousness

even if it deserves serious attention.

so, we're still back to your identity

being lost entirely to the party.

you're just a cog in a mechanical device.

we don't want a mechanical device for president

and i mean, we really should not -have-
a mechanical device for president.

a resolute farmer would be better than
a highly "eduicated" piece of machinery.

show me...

"LEGALIZE MARYJAUNER????

is you kwazee?

ay bub, yer not -that- popular"

> "LEGALIZE MARYJAUNER????

> is you kwazee?

now you can say;

"oh, nevermind, i musta lost my head"

> > "LEGALIZE MARYJAUNER????

> > is you kwazee?

> now you can say;

and i still got unca sam defining reality for me...

gee thanks

and if it never becomes obvious to -any- one else,

they playin' yer a$$ like a violin.

chum...P

gee thanks ........ again

> gee thanks ........ again

but you =may=

have this one chance

to be a person

and stand up for -something-

and rip them strings offn yer back.

do it,

for your self

let's see

f$%^ the party

stand up and be a martian

for olde time sake...

of course, you can say;

"tim just wants me to lose"

not exactly,

i want -someone- to =win=

of course,

nuthin' you do will change my life much.

i just like the action...

> of course,

maybe it is true;

"the next best thing to playin' and winnin'

is

playin' and losin'"

of course, maybe it's not...

i will never, ever, believe in no jive time politician

i can't possibly be 'disillusioned'

i ain't got none of those...

Establish a new energy policy based on quantum physics and possible
zero point energy,
establish improved diplomatic relations with ideologically friendly
cuntries,
lay down some smack down, mostly covert, on those cuntries leaders
that don't comply,
reestablish a monopolar world vis-a-vis economic titanic domination by
the re-construction of hyper industry, re-edumacate older amerkins vis-
a-vis televisual stimulation of brain-gland areas
(hey it's the SMART sway of doing it) and later on stimulate vis-a-vis
individualized,
personalized triggers the need to actually accomplish something other
than being a meat puppet fuck buddy mouth-anus clocky jocky dub-worm
(not that theres anything intrinsically wrong with that, it's just not
the time for it, and it's fucking boring),
develop new edumacation protocols for the youth, increasing both their
imaginations, their person ambitions and their loyalties to their
collectives,
based mostly on their immediate enviornments, but side tracked
outwards (like classical ambition only more tailor made, supercomputer
loving kindness and tender care for each person, both giving them the
maximum genuine independence and the maximum genuine interdependence,
thereby screwing the pooch of selfishness gone mad and selfless
totalitarian craziness).
I'd also protect the fucking enviornment, as destroying one's planet
of residence (lets give it up for personal experience) is a BAD thing,
generally and specifically unadvisable for any consciously aware three
to five brained being. Plus I'd like to kick it with the Mahdi a bit
and discuss some old timey things.

I'd also make it so some Pirates actually got to do things. Sitting on
ones ass one day isn't the most fun thing in the universe, and nenslo
says it's really hell to be sitting on one's ass one day.

By the way I'm not afraid of losing, I'm a martian it's not like I can
even really "lose", although I admit I'm a wee bit attached to this
boddhi right now. Nevertheless it would be more fun to get past the
stasis and recreate the world for it's own people, that xenochrony
stuff seems to work and the global brain can essentially, and
diplomatically fix, most of our problems for us, it's just it should
seem like, almost miraculously that the people that are in positions
to do the right thing somehow miraculously do so. For their legacies,
and posterities.

It's a Character Building Experience I'm aiming at here, giving the
Big One's an idea of potential of humanity to explore the universe for
them, to colonize and build independent worlds that won't compete with
their original ambitions, to diversify life.

Notice the extra gorillas? Nice touch aye. Possibly less genocide now
in Africa mebbe?

I take a swim, lets discuss cool ideas. I like these ones, but
presently I'm open for discussion.

Ciao, Tim.

Episkopos J.J. Jubilee wrote:

"zero point energy" is not some source of 'unlimited energy'

which can just be plugged into to make industry operate

so, basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

basically what "zero point energy" describes

is a -lack- of laboratory 'true' -vacuum- space.

i.e. in any vacuum attempted in some
earthly laboratory, some tiny amount
of energy is still present emanating
from the container and plates/detectors
themselves.

i.e. "zero point energy" is -not- =zero=

it is some number.

it doesn't really say;

"energy is everywhere,
all we have to do is plug into it
and we can run out toaster ovens
on the 'ethereal' miasma"

it says;

"we can't establish a 'true vacuum' in our labs."

where "true vacuum" is empty space.

a 'virtual particle' is a =photon= that
is ejected from the material formulating
the evacuated presence itself

and this =photon= establishes some of
the behavioral qualities of a solid object,
or electron type thing.

i.e. the flip side of the 'wave/particle duality'

it is a photon which is behaving as particle

i.e. 'virtual' particle, not -real- particle.

just like an electron exhibits some
wave type behavior with regards to
its angular momenta etc...

basically

it's sort of like the detector detecting itself.

that's the 'zero point energy'

you have to have some sort of detector

and when you try to pull a vacuum onnit,

it, the detector, still detects

its own energy presence.

'zero point'

Did, by any chance, someone pour AUM into your tranquilisers?

As for cool ideas, I propose the death penalty for non-married persons
not running around naked.

--
(c) this sig last receiving data processing entity. Inspect headers for
past copyright information. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying,
hiring, renting, public performance and/or broadcasting of this
signature prohibited.

stock at the pump

see, some will agree that gasoline prices
-behave- in the same manner as taxation.

the gas price is, more or less, arbitrarily set.

it could be 70 cents, and still profitable,
but it would undervalue teh commidity itself,

it could be 10 dollars a gallon but
this would cripple certain economies.

so, 'they're searching for this perect price
to set so that it corrctly values an
importatnt commodity.

important, and different.

so anyway,

inasmuch as teh pricing
can behave as taxation,

the pricing could also involve
the consumer and behave as
an investment.

so, or this one strange commodity,

the consumer is an investor.

and that's what they keep saying when
they say that they intend to use the
exhorbitant profits for 'exploration'

even if they already know where most of teh oil is.

so, yo uissue teh consumer of gasoline

a percentile stock holding at the pump.

and in this way, the consumer becomes involved.

no longer just "taxed" without any representation,

teh consumer

is not issued a form of stock sghare holding at the pump

which the consumer may trade and even
remit or redeem for some sort of immediate rebate.

or, keep it, and take a holding in the corporation
and maybe even get a vote on how the monies are spent.

this of course, would have to be
instituted by the oil companies themselves

as a 'proactive' self initiative

cuz, mosty people know that if you
place the oil in the hands of the gubberment,

the price will rise to 15 dollars a gallon.

and it is not a charity at all

-because- it already appears as if
the consumer is being -taxed-
to pay for 'future' oil pricing

sensitivities but only, without
any say in the matter at all.

meaning, teh consumers payment is already
behaving as an investment in future helath
of the oil companies would behave.

so, behaves -like- a tax

but also, behaves -like- an investment

only as of right now

the consumer is not -seeing- any sort of
investment scheduling in his or her
grubby little hands.

but if you place such a 'chit' in his or her,
the consumer/investor's hand

he and she will in all likelihood

shut up about gas prices

because he and or she

will be -involved-

in teh total outcome

and will therefore be 'empowered'

-and- it sort of places a self regulation in
the so-called 'volatility' of the commodity itself,

-and- the oil companies would be free to show
their assistance for hevay industry that is
heavility indebeted to oil pricing indices.

like, for instance, paint manufacturers could show
up front how they may benefit from hevy investment in oil

inasmuch as they use petroleaum
products to make their own products, etc.

stock at the pump,,,etc.

teh problem with "windfall profits tax"

is that it looks -punitive-

as if you are out to -punish-
the spark plugs of your engines.

when all you want is for the consumer
to have some sort of representation
for his or her -virtual- taxation.

and then you ask the Saudis to work
on aleviating poverty in the middle east, ect.

and nobody gets to say that the 'mullahs'
in iran are no better than the shah

inasmcu as they sit on piles of bread,
and still much poverty exists in iran.

etc. etc. etc.

> stock at the pump

but it would undervalue the commidity itself,

to set so that it correctly values an
important commodity.

important, and different.

so anyway,

inasmuch as the pricing
can behave as taxation,

even if they already know where most of the oil is.

so, you issue the consumer of gasoline

the consumer is now issued a form
of stock share holding, at the pump

and dividends etc.

cuz, most people know that if you

meaning, the consumers payment is already
-behaving- as an investment in future health

the consumer/investor's, hand

will be -involved-

in the total outcome

their assistance for heavy industry that is
heavility indebted to oil pricing indices.

heavy investment in oil

stock at the pump,,,etc.

the problem with a "windfall profits tax"

on aleviating poverty in the middle east, etc.

oh, all that, and of course, hydrogen engines.

if you could get hydrogen engines to work
in jet aircraft, you'd be on to something,

both pollutionwise and maybe even pricewise.

> > stock at the pump

obviously, you;'d never be willing
to pay more for a car

and have part of teh price of the car
go towards stock in a car company,

and it wouldn't be necessary anyway.

but for this one very strange commodity

which is seeing a very arbitray price
indexing in searhc for that perfect price,

you already are paying more for the
commodity that can be aggreably
maintained as this perfect price.

so, it's partly tis ambiguity
in the pricing structure

that recommends this sort
of consumer//investor routine.

and the details are left
to you as an exercise...

but it does have merit.

and this would be for the now,

with oil

and not for the twenty years
from now with who knows what.

oil isn't an evil.

it needs regulation,

and better self regulation

than some sort of bureuacratic nightmare

and we get stuck with 15 dollar a gallon gas

and broken legs.

it grows on you if you'd consider it...

four words,

"stock at the pump"

> four words,

> "stock at the pump"

cuz it has a built in regulatory
factor against arbitrary price gouging

cuz consumers would then,
get more stock at the pump.

and it avoids the dampeniong on
the economies that taxation offers.

and some are using oil price
indexing -as- a 'tax'

whether they ever admit this or not.

no, not a gubbment tax, a corporate tax...

etc...

blah blah blah

and either yo believe taxation
dampens your economies or you don't,

but if you do,

then gas prices that behave like a tax

dampen the economies

etc..

why do i care?

i don't.

even if nobody else cares,

it's still action,

to me

> it's still action,

> to me

but vilifying heavy industry while
you suck away at modern convienience

and instigating class warfare which
is just plaun unamerican,

is all hypocritical

etc.

not to mention for a moment

legalizing mary jauner...

yeah yeah yeah, "is you kwazeee?"

oh, and for the oil companies to include the consumer

in the 'equation' as a de facto investor

would just be good bizness.

as of now, the consumer is being left out

of the 'equation' but still paying a premium

for which they see no return.

That was great thanks!

mk5000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gov2v_jACYg

Yay!

mk5000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd88tHmh4Zg

That's so cool. I really liked working with consumers. They're the ones I
was telling about at dinner where I had to arbitrate the guard issue between
the consumers and oil companies.

mk5000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIIIgYEQL0I

marika wrote:

> That's so cool.

yes, it can be called, "cool"
and it isn't "demagoguery", either,
which i would consider all talk
pertaining to any "windfall profits tax"

marika wrote:

you may even be one.

marika wrote:

what would you consider a "fair price"

for a gallon of gasoline?

what is a gallon of gasoline worth, to you?

one might suggest that a gallon of gasoline
is worth a different amount for different uses.

marika wrote:

> That's so cool.

marika wrote:

marika wrote:

/

in other words,

all of the;

"i'm fighting for the little guy
against the great big monster conglomerate"

is basically just classis demagoguery

with no real substance

because teh senate has already had ample
opportunity to invoke a "windfall priofits tax"

in the not to distant past

and has chosen not to do so

beecause it really will only result in
the price of a gallon of gasoline
increasing well beyond what it is now.

governments have necessary
and intentional redundancies
and these duplications tend to
'run up the bill' as it were.

so, it will never get done,

but just talking about it makes one
look like they are championing the
cause of the "little man"

i.e. demagoguery

i of course don't mean that speaking
about a "windfall profits tax" as a
futile effort in demagoguery
is, itself, demagoguery.

marika wrote:

> Yay!

define; "jive time politician"

but,

there is still teh issue of gasoline
prices being intentionally used

in much the same way as a government tax is used.

and, the far problematic issue here

is teh chance that some people, who
took losses in the "mortgage crisis"

went directly to the gasoline commodities market
to drive up prices and extract monies from the
sector to pay for their losses in the
mortgage lending areas,

ie. a -true- tax

and -if- taxation is -good- in this
area for a quick boost in cash

you make uiit -good- for governments
to raise taxes to 'pay for'

its little pet programs

but some of you have already
almost established as how taxation

beyond certain points, tends to
dampen the free economy

etc,.etc.etc.

so,

if taxes are bad then even
corporate taxes are bad

corporate taxes in the form
of increased gasloline prices

etc.

so, in the effort to amass quick cash
to gain back losses in your mortgage sectors

you dampened out other major sectors
and =lost= money a la 'voodoo'

albeit, this is a worst case scenario
and not entirely -proven- with actual evidences.

it could be just idiots who see driving
up gasoline prices as a way to make a quick buck
little realizing that the overall economic
structure is taking a powerful hit.

so,

"stock at the pump"

etc.

some of the details in events as they stand
may have shown out how the window is findable.
the "window of elasticity" that is.

-----
<dead url>
Consequently governments look for goods with low elasticity to tax.
Otherwise if high elasticity quantity demanded diminishes (people
switch to cheaper products) and the government might not achieve its
revenue objective. Governments target-Gasoline, Alcohol, Tobacco
whose demand is highly inelastic.
------

just a description of gasoline's 'elasticity'...

> on a mundane note;
> spiking gas prices just
> for the labor day holiday
> is rather cynical.
> it's an artificial supply decrease.

see, in 1998 the gas prices went
down below a dollar a gallon,

so, the _oil companies_ decided to reduce
production so as to decrease supply
and raise the prices.

[go find an old washington post from 98.]

not unfair at all because gas
prices were very very low,

but, 3 years later, some were trying to blame
OPEC for the lessened production and a big
jump in gas prices, and then it was clear
that gas prices were being used as a form
of corporate taxation.

fine, people will agree that
gas price spikes amount to taxes.
a "corporate tax"

no one suggests that gas at or
about around $2.00 is unfair,
-but- taxes are taxes and
this -is- a form of taxation

but people do not have a V-O-T-E
on how these monies are spent.

and that borders on the
tyrannical use of power.

-will- you use those monies to
maintain highways in Mississipi?

no one will be able to mandate that you do so.

clear interstates and bridges and all
that infrastructure stuff is what gubbment
is -mandated- to maintain properly.

you'll lose your arguments about lowering
taxes if you see fit to raise them on a
whimsical gouge time after time after time.

one last bit;

-----
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/aswani/2g32x3/LR.htm
Consequently governments look for goods with low elasticity to tax.
Otherwise if high elasticity quantity demanded diminishes (people
switch to cheaper products) and the government might not achieve its
revenue objective. Governments target-Gasoline, Alcohol, Tobacco
whose demand is highly inelastic.
------

what i want you to see here is that
they call Gas demand "highly inelastic"

and that means that of you raise the
price of gasoline, consumption does
not decrease.

this sort of nullifies any claim that
gas prices are raised to bring consumption down,
as this is not what is seen in actual
practice nor in theory.

on the contrary, people will line up
at the pump and wait for hours to buy
the precious stuff even if you jack
up the prices by double.

but look, this may even be representationless
taxation for some big people who have no sayso
in the price of gasoline wbut who are just as
attached to gasoline as the common everyday
driver to work type individual.

and so, one arm of Megaglobucorp INC. LTD
is twisting another arm of Megaglobucorp INC. LTD.

so, it's not just to the
detriment of the tiny
little guy

but to the detriment of
the big fat cat as well.

oh, and the fact is that these conglomerates
do owe a great deal to the benefit that
they reap thru American Soverignty so they
can't just say that they are -supranational-
and owe no allegiance to the U.S Gubberment.

they use dollar bills and are
suppported by american military.

within a certain window, the price of
gasoline does not signifcantly
affect consumption.

like, if you raise the price of corn,
people will buy less and lower it
people will buy more,

but basically, within a window, raising
and lowering gas prices has a rather
negligible effect on consumption rates.

i say, "within a window" because of this,

if you were to raise the price to a level
where the increase cut a significant gouge
out of the so-called "bottom line" of the
various ancillary businesses, they wouldn't
be able to buy the gas at all anymore and
there would be a downturn in consumption.

and by "ancillary" i mean just
about everything other than
the oil business.

so, the market itself simply will not
stand up to tremendous increases in gas prices
into that area where bottom lines are reduced to red ink.

having said that, in america, gas
under $2.00 is still quite a bargain.

*but* there's no room to suggest that anyone
is being a benevolent despot with gas prices,
because so much of the economy is dependant
upon what we'll call, "cheap affordable gasoline"

having said all this, you now can demonstrate that
this "window" does exist and that the price of
gasoline can be varied within this range with
no significant increase nor decrease in consumption.

so then, this window, at times, will
represent something of a corporate tax.

if people think the tax is being used
to purchase new steam shovels, they
can see that this is a necessary thing,

-but- if it becaomes obvious that the tax is
being used to buy gold toilet seats and luxury
billion dollar homes for the owners of dummy
fold up concerns that serve no purpose and
provide no product to market, confidence
will fall dramatically and you will be doing
a betrayal to your own concerns by virtue
of your own "greed"

in other words, you don't have the luxury
to be avaricious with oil prices because
such behavior will retun to haunt
you down the road.

seems obvious, that's probably why
i can understand it to a certain extent.

and also, i'd suppose that constructive engagement
with the oil producing nations other than the united states
has worked to such an effect that they are just as
dependant upon american/western goods and services
as we are somewhat dependant upon their production of oil.

so, it's not like those producers can just
fold up their tents and eat date palms
and turn their backs entirely on the west.

the industrialized nations still
dominate heavy machinery and the like.

anyway, i just wanted to mention that cuz
i gotta crappy e-mail wanting me to buy
junk bonds or something and telling me
that gas prices would continue to rise,
and that would make it a good place
to toss money down the toilet.

there's a window of variability in
gas prices that "they" can't go
beyond an "they" know it.

all that really matters is that the perception
of corporate taxation being wasted on gold
toilet seats doesn't become pervasive.

shiny new jack hammers and steam shovels are
a lot easier to swallow than billion dollar
luxury castles to keep up with the Joneses.

and the Pippen-Smythes.

anyway, the problem with "corporate taxation"
is that people have no vote in how those
corporations spend their windfall 'tax' monies.

it makes it difficult for anyone to suggest
that taxes are bad for the economy when
corporate conglomerates are skimming
the cream and spending the money
on who knows what.

the claim is that people know best
how to spend their money, but here you are,
raising gas prices in an artificial
manner so as to levy a tax of your own.

it's not that no one believes that you will
pump the money back in to the economy but
seeing as how no one has any sort of voting
ability as to how you do so, there is no
mandated authority to see that you
re-invest your windfall profits.

i'm not a fan of big government

neither am i a fan of taxation
with no representation.

and -i- am not represented on the board
of directors of MegaGlobuCorp INC LTD.

and that point is, that when someone says
that europeans pay more for gasoline per
gallon, they are neglecting to mention
that europeans pay a much higher rate
of -government tax- on that
gallon of gasoline.

look carefully;

===
http://www.s-t.com/daily/07-00/07-01-00/a07bu047.htm

European motorists are long accustomed
to paying as much as four times what
Americans shell out for a tankful of gas,
due to fuel taxes that can add a staggering
80 percent to the retail gas price in the region.

<..>

The difference from one country to the next is due
mostly to government taxes, which in Britain and
France account for more than 80 percent of the
price of gas. Finland had the next highest
fuel tax, at 78 percent, followed by Belgium
and Poland at 75 percent each, the AA said.

This tax bite has left some motorists feeling
passive and powerless. "We can't really do anything
about it. It's in the hands of the government," said
office worker Norah Lydon, who spoke as she filled
her tank in the London suburb of Edgware. An average
27 cents of every dollar that Americans spend at
the pump goes toward tax.

Thus the tripling in world oil prices since
December 1998 has caused gasoline prices to
spike more dramatically in the United States
than in Europe. "It's just not the big deal
here that it is in the U.S. because the price
is masked by tax," said Jeremy Elden, an oil
and gas industry analyst at
Lehman Brothers in London.
===

just to make it clear, if anyone is
intent on making such comparisons
between the US and european gasoline prices;

in a country with an 80% government tax burden
as compared with the US having a 30% government
tax burden we get this:

at $5.00 a gallon with 80% tax

it is $1.00 a gallon for the gasoline

and $4.00 a gallon in government tax

in the US, at $3.25 a gallon and
30% government tax burden

it is $2.28 for the gasoline and $.98 in tax.

so, the european country is actually providing the
gasoline at less than half the price, before taxes,
than the US is providing the same gallon.

but that's not all.

if you say that the lower price before taxes
provided by the eurpean country is the 'market value'

then, the price per gallon for gasoline
in the US should average rougly $1.45

this suggests that the $3.25 per gallon
price being charged is nearly 60% -private- =tax=
when compared to the european country.

meaning, basically, at $1.00 a gallon 'market value'

with 30% governemnt tax raising it to $1.30

the extra $1.95 per gallon is all tax
being levied -by- the industry itself,

for which the US citizenry gets zero in real value.

so, comparing to european gasoline prices does
not favor the oil industry's case for higher prices.

in ffact, it makes it look more
like a private corporate taxation.

so, you can see that the higher price per gallon
for gas in europe is largely a government tax burden.

so, as the United States price per
gallon rises to those levels
of a government tax in europe,

the united states gets no -representation-
for that higher expense.

just a slight update to 2005;

the US federal tax burden on
a gallon of gasoline on average is;

==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_tax

The U.S. federal gasoline tax as
of 2005 was 18.4¢/gal (4.86¢/L)
---
compared to;

As of 2005 fuel duty in the United Kingdom is:
47.1 pence per litre (83 ¢/L, US$3.13/USgal)
50.9 pence per litre (89 ¢/L) for conventional unleaded petrol
53.27 pence per litre (94 ¢/L) for conventional diesel
==

so, you can see how much of the higher gas price
in britain is directly attributable to government tax.

and that's today.

so, in effect, britain is bringing their
gasoline to market, before taxing at a
much lower cost than is the US.

and so, the higher US prices -function-
in much the same way as a taxing would function.

thing is, in britain the governemnt does stuff
with the taxes and in the US, ...well, it must
be somewhat more obvious by now.

but you can be sure, uncle sam will be paying
for rerigging the oil derricks in the gulf of mexico.

not to worry, there'll be plenty
of whipped cream for your desserts.

but, your vocal cords will be muted.

etc...

Walter wrote:
> Fitting, because they are the ones affecting future
> availability the most. Also fitting for a RICO inquiry.

so, your contention is that the US government
is responsible for higher gas prices.

feel free to support it with any facts.

Walter wrote:
> Damn, I hope someone less obvious buys the executive branch next.

here's some funny things from 1997;

before the fact, it basically says that
claims of the cost of oil -production-
rising, are bogus;

===
http://www.businessweek.com/1997/44/b3551001.htm

The progress already achieved through technology is mind- boggling.
The average cost per barrel of finding and producing oil has dropped
about 60% in real terms over the past 10 years, while proven
reserves are about 60% higher than in 1985 (charts, page 140).
And these official figures far understate the amount of accessible
oil in the ground. Smith Rea Energy Associates Ltd., a London-based
researcher, figures that the world's oil producers could add
350 billion barrels to their proven reserves if they counted
all the oil that has become affordable to recover because of
the latest breakthroughs. That sum is equal to nearly 14
years' worth of worldwide consumption.
===

this tends to indicate that technological advances
have made the cost of finding and refining oil lower
and not and never higher.

another strike against higher prices being
-market driven- and in favor of calling it
a corporate taxation of consumers for
whatever reason.

so, if 'gross manipulation'
of markets is to be denied

then,

the only real alternative is;

'fear driven economy'

and a 'fear driven economy' is not
a spectacle of strength and
'proactive' judgement.

and is more suggestive of

reactionary paranoia.

and paranoia is a disorder which requires attention
for the health and well being of society at large.

Corporate policy is a threat to itself and society.

'fear driven economy'

but also,

the case has been made that the
american consumer is addicted to petrol

drug dealers do not intervene
on behalf of drug addicts.

it still does not look good.

it's still possible to turn a
'taxation' into an 'investment.'

but i can't twist your arm to do it.

of course it could be like
T-bills or what-have-you

where there is a maturity period
]
and if you try and get an instant return

you don't get as much as if you
waited for the bill to mature etc.

but, the pricing structure already looks
like teh consumer's monies are being
used in an investment stratgy

only, the consumer is left out of the equation.

i still don't see any harm in -trying-
to fit the consumer into teh equation.

and there's nothing punitive about it.

etc.

<vulgar humor about 'pissing' on spark plugs>

even if you could establish
that some people's livelyghood

is so directly dependant on

that they could be allowed
to see a quicker return.

and i mean,

above a certain dollar amount per gallon,

the consumer

is awarded what amounts to a promissory
return on the 'investment'

where the high end pricing

-may- very well pay for making 'canadian sand oil' look attractive

but the consumer should not just be
gouged unmercifully and simply asked to grin and bear it.

and tenn you never really go after the sand oil

cuz it's so much easier to pump it out
of Saudi Arabia and nice and sweet.

so, it looks like a scam.

because se,

-this- is one of the arguments,

"raise gasoline to five bucks a gallon

and canadian sand oil looks attractive
cuz -it- will definitely cost upward
of five a gallon just to get it out of
the sand and processed to the pumps,

so, -if- you raise to five bcks

you are already using teh price of gasolibe
in a de facto invetstment strategy for future
oil production from a difficult source

-so- it mayonly be 'fair' to include
the consumer in the investment strategy

etc.

and i say 'fair' with all the trepidation it deserves.

but if you're -forcing- the consumer
to 'invest' in your scheme, you really
sort of -owe- it to them to include
them in the scheme all the way.

even though we all know and realize

that "whatever you can get away with"

is some people's way of life.

you have several 'corporate' blocks

A B C D and E

and each of these invest
heavily in 'oil companies'

so, by virtue of share holdings

the oil companies are 'owned'
by these 'corporate' interests

and the oil company becomes
something of a phantom.

and then,

these 'corporate' blocks, with heavy,
profit sharing, investment in oil companies

manipulate teh price of gasoline to fit
-their- needs during the course of
a given year.

and there are certain times of the year

when teh price may be effectively raised

with no reduction in consumption at all,

and the 'excess' profits is skimmed directly
off the top as a form of 'corporate taxation'

actually, inasmuch as the 'corporate'

blocks A B C D and E

possess controlling profit sharing
interest in the oil companies,

much of the revenues from gasoline
pricing serves 'their' purposes

in very much the same way as government
taxation serves the interests of
the government.

if any of that makes sense to anyone.

it's not exactly illegal

in fact it's probably perfectly legal.

but it still functions and behaves
in very much the same way as government
taxation functions and behaves.

only -you- don't get any say