cassfurst

Cuzimrite: I cannot tell if you are just joking around and pulling my leg or you really believe those things you wrote. Greed is good. It motivates and rewards people who engage in providing subjective value to others. ANWR would work....but multiple locations in continental US would be most cost effective if allowed. I believe they provide very socially responsible service by producing what they do, even in the face legislation, and the limited $48 Billion profit is more than just. Beyond that, the last time there was a society based on doing the 'socially responsible' thing 40+million people were killed, all property was confiscated and managed by the Gov't and the society collapsed. I still have no idea what Cheney has to do with anything. Michael C Furst

Excellent LInk

These United States • Mar 10, 2009 11:43 AM

kbushwaker: Some Anti-Union (Right to work states) unemployment rates are as follows according to the BLS. Alabama 6.5% Tennessee 7.6% Arkansas 5.7% Texas 5.6% Miss. 7.8% Louisiana 5.0% vs. Mich.: 10.2% The issue is not organizing as a union: the issue is using the FORCE of government to protect unions. Not allowing the owners of capital (business owners) to operate as a non-union firm, hire employees who chose not be members of the union, or re-negotiate contracts based on individual performance leads to an inflated labor price. This has two outcomes: 1. Higher costs of production(It costs Toyota $45/hour vs. GM $75/hour to make a car) 2. Higher unemployment because wages are too high to hire people competitively and the firm cannot raise its final price to offset because no one would buy the good. If individuals freely organize and the business owner agrees to those terms freely, I have no issue. That is the justification of a valid contract. What we currently have is LAWS that FORCE business to engaged in a self-destructive unionization policies at the expense of the owners/providers of capital. The employees of a firm, with the exception of EOC's, have no rights or ownership of the organization. They are paid based on the individuals marginal return of productivity or subjective value to the firm at its discretion. As far as your ignorance in assuming that I'm am a racist, and that the quality of life in Michigan is higher than that of Alabama. The fact that President Obama is black, I am indifferent too. Liberals are the only people who think that the color of someones skin, the persons sex, or creed matters. To me he is acting as a socialist and he embodies the dangers of economic ignorance combined with the force of government. His policies (as well as many of Bushes policies) led to massive redistribution of wealth, artificial hyper-inflation, and the destruction of individual property rights. I would encourage you to educate yourself. Obviously we have an ideological differences on property rights, the correct role of government, and economics. Here is a rhetorical question: If a man cannot negotiate his own wage with his employer and believes he is incapable of keeping his job without joining a union who has to pay off a politicians to keep it active, dose that make him a COWARD who is AFRAID to compete in an environment where he will be judge and compensated for his abilities? I drive a 2008 Toyota Rav4 and love it. P.S. I have a socialist president who a bunch of dumb ass government educated union members and hippies voted for because they are cowards who are afraid to compete in an environment where they are held accountable for there actions, who happens to be black. Get over your own ignorance, sack up, and argue facts. Michael C Furst

Granholm Graduated Gas Tax

These United States • Mar 9, 2009 10:13 AM

Cuzimrite: I have to Disagree that the Oil companies have the ability or intentionally 'price fix', or that they were to blame for prices rising to 4/gallon. I would argue that Government barriers to entry in the refinery market, and laws regulating domestic supply of crude directly lead to the rises in prises. Gasoline has relatively inelastic demand so Supply has a more direct influence on price levels. The fed did not allow oil refineries to be made in the US from the late 70's until 2005. So Federally imposed barriers to entry existed for around 30 years. If the refinery market was allowed to operate freely, Oil refineries would sprout up everywhere it was speculated they could turn a profit. I think you need to look at the 30 years of not being allowed to build a new refinery + Drilling/domestic regulations contrstricing supply + the investment cost of a new refinery + the time lag to produce one to justify the rise in gasoline prices: not some Exxon conspiracy. Beyond that, if you were an oil company and every time you made a profit the Fed made you justify your earnings to congress, would you fee safe making that investment?? I would be afraid of the Fed nationalizing refineries (my 100 million dollar investment) in there own interest. There is nothing criminal about earning a profit but these guys get a terrible rap for providing a very high demand product that is heavily regulated. Michael C Furst

More

Favorite links

Signature