Opposition to strip clubs make for strange bed-fellows

Same with Holland. But liberal European democracies that have a greater sense of responsibility to their citizens seem to manage the problems just fine. Katrina was about a big storm for the Mississippi Gulf coast. It was about negligent public policy, faulty emergency response, and longstanding IDIOTIC systems based on the idea that the profit-motive alone would lead to adequate national protection.

But then, I agree, rebuilding on a flood-plain is a bad plan. I think the Lower Nine is gone forever.

The USA needs a port at the mouth of the Mississippi, both for grain going out and for oil from the Gulf coming in. And the smaller city of New Orleans that will eventually cluster around the French Quarter may be an interesting new model of urban rearranging, a type of North American Venice perhaps. There are plenty of high areas, and lots of high-value homes in those areas, all with people who want to be at home and who are willing to work with the difficulties long enough to wait out the interim period until something stable arises.

The problem will be the gutted zones. Block after block of half-flooded homes, un-rebuilt, waiting to decay into crack houses. Houston can keep our dealers; but what will we do with the houses they used to live in?

The oceans may be rising due to global warming. But, also, New Orleans is below sea level and sinking. A double-whammie, if you ask me.

Book Guy, I have a good friend who is working with FEMA in New Orleans. He says that the destroyed areas aren't being rebuilt and probably never will be. Banks won't lend the necessary money until the owners first obtain insurance, and the insurance industry isn't about to take on that risk again. I think it's kind of sad - NO used to be one of my favorite cities to visit. But I also think it's probably bad public policy to rebuild in coastal areas, especially in areas where hurricanes are fairly common, if you believe that the oceans are rising. I think we can expect to see hurricane damage to continue to increase.

Huge, public schools are losing public support because they're no longer under local control. And as long as public schools are run by the US Department of Education, that loss of support will continue. I con't know about your area, but around where I live teacher salaries are high and rising rapidly. The Catholic schools do a better job at about half the cost per pupil. More money isn't the answer for what's wrong with public schools, returning them to local control is. We used to have the best schools in the world until the federal government got involved. The exact same thing is happening to our health care system.

And if it's the Catholic Church doing the teaching I want to run FAR FAR away from that curriculum. Let's see women are second class citizens who can't ascend the papacy, homosexuality is a mental illness (which the APA finally dumped) and that condom use not to mention all out of wedlock sex is immoral. They juss got around to pardoning Galileo right?

Lots of good stuff. Of course I don't believe anyone was denigrating people that work hard and own small businesses. They certainly are entitled to the fruits of their labour. It serves society exceptionally well that these entrepreneurs are out there and go-getters are succeeding. They make all of our lives easier.
What any of this has to do with opposition to strip clubs (long past talked about) or more recently the obscene profits made by oil companies is a bit beyond me. Again it was a nice tangent but as far as relevance to the topic.....?
Not to open up a whole new can of worms but wouldn't it seem to be a goal to deprive public schools of funds diverting them to religious outfits? Since it seems to be that more and more people are comfotable with the encroachment of religious indoctrination in everyday life it's the public schools where there is still SOME relief from having someone's religious dogma shoved down your throat (full disclosure I am a rampant secularlist). More and more Americans believe in a deity of some sort and I believe atheists score somewhere below trial lawyers and pimps on the respectability scale. As FONDL hints at earlier when are people going to wake up to the deterioration of certain public schools and demand that attention be given (we can start at teachers salaries)

Another thing to note about flood-prone areas (and other disasters striking people's homes) is whether or not the neighborhood is an old, established one or just the invention of some Hallmark-minded developer. What I've seen of Houston, for example, is all development, no history.

In New Orleans, some of the Lakefront areas that got wrecked because they're on low land, are neighborhoods that weren't developed until the 1970s and are full of architecturally unremarkable new homes. Nobody can claim, "my family has been here umpteen generations" or "we have our roots here." They "invested" only the same way I invest in the stock market via the internet. Everyone there was nouveau riche and engaging in white flight to move there. So, I have little sympathy for them. Their modus operandi was to opt out of their community, so they don't get to claim they had community ties. And their houses were butt-ugly ranch contractor-cookie-cutter brick-fascia crap.

On the other hand, the Lower Ninth Ward has been a "home-owned slum" for over a century. Poor (black) folks in New Orleans have been able to afford a place of their own -- rather than getting on the back of the government in housing projects -- unlike in many other major US cities because of neighborhoods like the Lower Nine. There, they were indeed in poor surroundings, but they owned them and therefore had incentive to maintain if not highly attractive and expensive-looking properties, at least highly attended community services and lower crime rates because of their investment in the land there. During the Civil Rights movement, fewer riots happened in New Orleans because, though the blacks lived often in slums, they OWNED their homes. Those neighborhoods need to be rebuilt, if not in exactly the same place, then in the same spirit.

So, just taking subjective intangibles, I'd have to say that the Lower Nine trumps Lakeview. IMNSHO.

What kills me are all the midwesterners saying we should never build a city near such a potential disaster as flooding. What next? San Francisco needs to be abandoned because of earthquake potential? New Yorkers shouldn't congregate in large groups in small areas because that makes them easy terrorist targets? And the midwesterners, I hope they don't ask for help when their house gets hit by a tornado.

Book Guy, I wasn't thinking about New Orleans, I was thinking about recent floods in my own state. Seems like every year or so we get flooding and it's always the same areas, and the places that are destroyed are always rebuilt in the same location. Seems to me there's a big difference between a natural disaster that occurs every century or two vs. on that occurs every year or so in the same place.

Well, flood plain questions not withstanding (given that most of the Netherlands remain lower than all of New Orleans ...), the thing that gets me, is that I thought that I DID get with "wise" people who would help. While all around me people were being (what I considered) "irresonsible" with their instant-gratification lifestyles, I was taking the hurt BACK THEN in order to take a gain LATER. Turned out, in my life at least, that when LATER came around, all those "irresponsible" people had partied their ways to the top and were on the other side of the table deciding whether or not to hire me as their secretary.

Won't argue the flood plain here. Unless you can claim to live in a region that has literally no potential for natural disaster that is nevertheless geographically quite significantly necessary for the wellbeing of the entire country's economy. :)

I also meant to comment earlier on the Opec Cartel and forgot. Of course they engage in price fixing, that's why cartels are formed, that's what they do. But let's not forget that market allocation and price fixing are standard business practices in much of the world, juust as they used to be here. About 80 years ago we decided that such preactices were wrong and made them illegal, but the rest of the world doesn't always agree with us.

Suppose that we had much of the world's oil and were exporting most of it. Would we be selling it cheaply to the rest of the world to accomodate the rapid increase in consumption, or would we raise the price to increase our revenues and to preserve more of it for future generations? I think we all know the answer to that one. Why should they be any different?

Book Guy, I agree that it's very difficult to know what's important and what isn't when you're young, it really helps if you can find and are willing to listen to some good advice along the way. Ours is a society that doesn't place much value on experience and wisdom, and our society promotes instant gratification. Those values make it more difficult for people to get ahead. The successful people that I know have rejected those values.

The other thing that seems to be missing in our society is the understanding that actions have consequences. When the consequences inevitably occur too many people expect someone else to foot the bill. Like living in a flood plain and expecting taxpayer help when the flood occurs.

That "value isn't difficulty, it's marketability" quote is exactly how I'm re-tooling. It's been a painful, long, difficult come-uppance, but damn I wish I'd figured it out before I was in my forties. I don't disagree with the statement at all. I simply disagree with the way I personally was so stringently, effectively, misled about it consistently across the whole course of my life until I started to figure out ... "Hey, that's not working!"

I am all for an "enlightenment" type of experience in our education. I think that people ought to have an opportunity to do things that are not training-oriented. I think "general" educations that have no business applicability ought to be things that we value, simply in themselves. They "enlarge the soul" and other wiffly-woffly crap. People need to engage in that type of activity UNDER DIRECTION and AT A FORMATIVE STAGE OF LIFE. In fact, whenever I've done hiring, I've generally found that people with a good, general, truly liberal-arts education (not "I majored in liberal studies because I couldn't handle a real major") are more capable of readily integrating themselves into a new work environment. They have "self-adaptation" skills.

But when the directors of that type of education -- the professors, college administrators, etc. -- claim that it is "marketable" or "more useful" in the strictly utilitarian sense? No. They're lying. They might be creating people who have a good undergraduate degree in a broad base of language, literature, art history, music, very many basic sciences from geology and math to psychology and political science. But those people need A CERTIFICATE or A PROFESSIONAL DEGREE (law, medicine, engineering) after their BA or they will find out (as I did, the hard way) that their society won't pay them shit.

The only problem I have with this system is the hypocrisy of the school administrators themselves. If they would have just ADMITTED that their school was not useful for employment even though it was good for enlightenment, then I wouldn't be in the fix that I'm in. But they lied. The lie is the part that bugs me ...

The difficulty of your work isn't what determines what you get paid, it's the value of your work to who is doing the paying.

Book Guy, you'll get no argument from me about the failure of our public school system. In many parts of the country the Catholic Church is becoming the educator of the middle class and only those who can't afford it go to public schools anymore. It will be interesting to see how much longer the public is willing to keep seeing school taxes rise at twice the rate of inflation while their schools deteriorate. We're already seeing a backlash in my state. I think the federal takeover of the public school system is an outrage.

Just two other examples of wealthy people. One of my closest friends never went to college, went to work for a small specialty retail store, learned the business, borrowed money and bought it from the owner when he retired, and has owned it ever since. It's open 7 days a week for at least 10 hours a day and he's almost always there, and his wife and kids are often there too. For years he never took a vacation and has never owned an upscale car or an expensive home. When he's not at work he spends a lot of time reading about investing. He's very wealthy today.

Another friend dropped out of college because he didn't like it, went into the service and learned a skill, got out and got a good job in that field, bought a house that needed work which he did, rented that one out and bought another etc., quit his job and is now a full-time landlord. I'm sure his net worth is in the millions but he lives simply. He's fairly young.

In both of the above cases the wife worked full time, so they had two incomes but lived on one of them and invested the other. Neither of these people started out with any special help, both were from pretty average backgrounds.

I've read all the "Millionaire Next Door" titles. They're very good. And it is true, that for true "millionaires" (in the book, it's people who are rich enough to retire now at their current rather comfortable standard of living), most are small-business owners who work a lot and like it, have wives who clip coupons, and have a basically frugal, straightforward attitude about finances. The guy who begins as a plumber, moves on the plumbing contracting, and eventually runs a chain of plumbing stores, for example. Paul Fussell called them "high proles."

There are also the filthy-rich who inherited it. They're basically a statistical out-lyer, because they're so small in number. Sure, the children of the Dupont and Carnegie fortunes don't have to work. But I wasn't speaking of them.

Another segment, of people who "have enough" but aren't literally millionaires -- America's large upper-middle-class -- is generally (in my opinion) a set of people who had more advantages as children than did someone who had to grow up in a ghetto. There are SOME stories of people who, by dint of courage, hard work, American opportunity, common sense, and persistence, did indeed succeed to escape the ghetto. But there are SO MANY stories of children of the middle class who, themselves, end up middle class, that it's basically not news. Went to college? Got a decent job? Raised a family? Got a house in the suburbs? So what. So did their parents, so will their children.

It's a DREAM and an EXCITING PROSPECT for people who CAN'T get there -- like so many that I'm surrounded by, here in the South, who are "victims" of the high schools they had forced on them. They're illiterate. They can't read the financial pages, they can't even read the FUNNY pages. How the hell are MOST of them going to get a decent job and a safe home in the suburbs? Some will, sure. They're heroic. But America shouldn't be about requiring massive amounts of heroism merely to attain a level of normalcy. Normal effort ought to yield average results. For them, it won't.

Likewise for me. I've dug myself into a hole. I had a "privileged" upbringing but a lot of psychological issues, won't go into them, but suffice it to say I believed a lot of the business about "meaningful" careers and so forth. Now I'm having to re-tool. For me, the effort level and the time expended will be greater, than for a large number of people who had better counseling and coaching when they were children. Is that "my fault"? No. But I'm the one who "gets punished" anyway.

So in some sense or other, the playing field is not necessarily level at all. I certainly don't claim that people should be excused for their consistent bad choices -- mothers of umpteen children out of wedlock, drug dealers and users who choose to live the "cool" lifestyle of bling bling and crappy but flashy cars rather than invest longer-term, dying early and penniless: these people are reaping the wind after sowing it. Nuts to 'em! It's good that some aspects of the system work.

But other aspects? Well, we're still perfecting it. There's a long way to go yet ...

Huge and Bookguy, there was an interesting book called something like "The Millionaire Next Door" written about 10 years ago or so. The authors set out to interview a large number of rich people across the country and find out what they were like. They were astounded by what they discovered. Most of the wealthy people that they found had two things in common: they spent far less than they earned their whole lives, and they carefully invested the difference. The amount of money that they earned wasn't much of a factor, some of the people had fairly low paying jobs all their lives. But they always spend much less than they earned. A lot of these people were small business owners who worked very long hours and spent little on themselves.

I personally know several wealthy people. Most of them live fairly simply and don't spend very much. Most of them also work much harder than most of us would be willing to do. I used to work for a guy who is now a top executive for a very large multinational firm and who is very wealthy. He didn't inherit anything and came from a middle-class background. The thing that most distinguished him from others was that he worked his ass off. I'd bet that for the past 30 years he has averaged working at least 80 hours a week. That's all he does is work. I know several small business owners who do virtually the same thing.

I used to have neighbor who was a retired postal worker. He lived in a small run-down house and drove an old junker. Everyone thought he was poor because he never spent a dime. When he died it was discovered that he had an investment portfolio worth $10 million. Not even his wife knew it.

We're fortunate enough to live in a society where nearly anyone can become wealthy. All you have to do is work your ass off, spend very little and invest the difference. Most of us aren't willing to live that way, I'm certainly not. But I don't begrudge those who do, and I think they have earned the right to pass their fortune along to their children if they wish.

Indeed. If only the playing field were level at our births, then we could all be laissez-faire about the market "fairly" distributing wealth. But some backgrounds come with a slanted playing field; and other backgrounds mis-slant it because of mistaken assumptions. The oil companies? Can't blame 'em, since they're just playing the game the way it was set up when they came into it. But we've reached a point in our society in which oil is something that the REST of the economy depends on, to the degree that maybe it shouldn't be as fungible as it currently is. Regulations? I dunno, I'm no economist, but I sympathize with the people who THINK that they're being "gouged at the pump" (they aren't; the free market has precluded that; the highh prices are "fair") because they HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy gas at whatever price it currently sits. A truly "free" market would presume CHOICE -- but, seein's as we all thought living in the suburbs (too far to bike; no decent public trans.) was what we were SUPPOSED to do to support our society, I feel sorry for the folks that now can hardly afford (because our culture is set up the way it is) to do exactly that which they were most encouraged to do by our culture. Oops. Pulled the rug out. PSYCH!

But then, nobody said life would be fair. I'm one of those dudes who had the "wrong assumptions" inculcated into me in such a way that my "formerly level" playing field was deliberately tipped AGAINST me be people whom you'da thunk would have my best interests in mind. Professors saying "Do what you love and the money will follow," parents saying "Don't get training, make sure you get a good general education, employers know the difference," society as a whole saying "Do well in school and contribute." All these (and more) are ways we mislead our rank and file, just so that we can KEEP a mislead rank and file...

Let's not forget the inherited wealth which is so plentiful as how those people have worked hard for it. Who works harder than people that work out in fields picking fruit or those that inspect meat and separate it from the animals? I don't see those people getting too rich, or even fabulously middles class. Teachers? Can we drop the canard that investment bankers and CEO's of most companies work "hard". These are quite smart, industrious people at one point but after awhile not much expertise is needed to excel (course that's true about alot of jobs, they juss don't pay as exorbitantly)

TACO--- I'd be absolutely shocked if lower classes drive anywhere near as much as upper classes. One need only look at the cost of automobiles and insurance for an easy indicator, as well as who is taking public transportation buses (In major metro areas on the East Coast municipal train service is quite popular with all classes)

ABBIE: I wouldn't disagree with much of what you said in your recent post regarding what you think my characterisation of obscene profits would be.

TacoGoblin, if you mean OPEC, I absolutely agree that they collude and fix prices, and I think it is a crime that our government has acquiesced for 30 years. Yes, the Sauds pump oil for $5 a barrell and sell it for $70, but not all of that is price fixing, some of the increase in price is due to demand increasing faster than supply, but OPEC has done its best to see that that supply stays scarce.

The question is simply one of DISTRIBUTION of wealth. Dudes who work harder, or have put in more ground-work (education, experience in a field) tend to believe they are within their moral rights to get more than dudes who haven't accumulated that background. Large organizations, on the other hand, sometimes get lucky and position themselves for huge profits and have a captive market; sometimes don't. The question is whether we want to run a society on the basis of such caprices.

My definition of obscene profits would partly entail when there are families unable to heat their homes adequately because of the high price of oil and yet companies continue to establish record revenues, an out and out refusal to pay a one time windfall profit tax lobbying their cronies er congressmen on the hill to rebut such a maneuver when there were Democrats pushing for it. Not giving back rebates on a license fee which was mistakenly put in an energy bill back in 1997 when oil was about $28 a gallon. Now that oil has enjoyed $68 plus a barrel prices for over a year they STILL WANT THEIR BILLIONS IN TAX BREAKS. Meanwhile people are hurting at the pump and oil apologists talk about how it may be un-american to even talk about hindering the free spirit of capitalism. Do I need to continue?

I ride my bike to and from work everyday (It's only a mile each way) So I'm doing my part to give less of my money to the oil companies. Of course, if I wanted to go to a strip club, then I'd have to drive. I fill my tank up about every two months.

Just to clarify.. when I talk of gouging and collusion, I'm not referring to the pumps themselves and the cost per gallon of gas. What I'm talking about starts right around when the oil gets pumped out of the ground. The whole industry from top to bottom is based on gouging and collusion. (dont get me wrong, from a strictly capitalist point of view, EVERY industry is based on gouging.. I mean, you're trying to maximize profits so the goal is to charge as much for something as possible). What has OPEC been all these years but one big collusion. Supply and demand yes.. but with the oil industry its too easy to artificially control the supply and play it off against the demand. (See: Enron, California power industry). Typically in a real competitive industry, if supply dips, new suppliers come out of the woodwork to join in the fun, keeping prices stable or even reducing them.. and the consumers get more choices. Do we see this in the oil industry? Nope! Do you remember when there used to be 10-15 big players in the oil industry? Now they've all merged and taken over each other.. There's what, 2 now? 3 maybe, I forget. That can't be good for Mr. Consumer.

And yes, those gas taxes are certainly regressive. I'm not sure who drives more, the upper class or the lower class or whether that's a moot point. But the lower class does drive.. and they'll be much more likely to be driving an '88 Hooptie getting 12 miles to the gallon and not a nice fuel efficient '06 model.. so by common sense its GOT to hurt them.

I'll finish with profit.. I read an article last year after oil hit $60/barrel. The article noted that this was a 40 percent increase, but meanwhile the cost to pump each barrel remained unchanged. So that was pure profit! I'd call that an insane profit. So what happens with this profit.. I'm betting a buttload goes to insane executive bonuses. Are they funding new refineries with these profits? Nope.. no new ones built for 30 years.. Are they funding finding new sources for oil? I haven't heard of anything recently.. Are they funding research into alternative fuels? Perhaps, but if they were truly interested in doing it, they would have already done it. They're tinkering right now.. and what's their biggest achievement? Some fuels that are merely 85% based on oil.. which doesn't seem like much of an achievement. (Oh and by the way, high gas prices will NOT force people to work on alternative fuels. No one will seriously work on a real alternative until all the oil is GONE.) So where's all this profit going, beyond some very deep pockets?

Anyhoo.. that's my last major comment on this oil discussion, tho I find it very interesting, I know its off-topic. Yes, I'm admittedly cynical in my views of the oil industry.. No, I'm not anti-capitalist. I love capitalism, it makes the world go 'round. But I'll always speak up for something I call compassionate capitalism.. and the concept of "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD". Gouge and play games with the supply all you want with Xbox 360's.. but don't hit the poor where it hurts on the essentials.. water.. food.. power.. gasoline.. heating oil.. etc.

Huge, it may well be that low income people drive less than higher income people do, but the cost of fuel still represents a larger portion of their total income, so any tax on fuel is regressive. Just like any other sales-based tax, they're all regressive because low income people spend a higher percentage of their current earnings than do higher income people. So any tax on their spending is a higher percentage of their income than it is for higher income people. And that's the definition of a regressive tax. But I agree with you that lotteries and other forms of gambling are also regressive taxes. They may be voluntary but so is every other tax.

Huge, what is your definition of obscene profits? And do you have any concept of where profits go? Are you aware tht in growing industries most profits are reinvested in business, and that the only industries and companies that can grow and increase employment are those with high profitability? That's why the US auto industry is shrinking and laying off workers, because they're profits are too low. Is that what you want the oil industry to do?

Well, the lottery is voluntary, sometimes driving isn't in the poorer rural communities, so I'd differ with you there.

Calling profits obscene pretty much summarizes your argument. Obscene implies moral condemnation and can be pretty flexable.

Obscene profits and ridiculous salaries. It isn't juss record profits and high salaries that led me to my answer.

Poor people drive less than people that aren't poor, therefore the amount of gas tax that they pay is less than people that drive more. Not only do I not SPECIFICALLY say that poor people don't pay gas tax I don't even hint at it. Thx for confirming that for me. The lottery is perhaps more regressive and sin taxes are wholly regressive. Without having a mountain of stats in front of me I would posit that any gas tax is severely less regressive.

hugevladfan, you said "More indigent people ride public transportation or find alternate means than pay much in gas tax." While you don't specifically say "poor people don't buy gas" you do state that the less fortunate do not pay much in gas tax, thus making the tax not regressive.

So in other words, no. Record profits and high salaries are proof something must be crooked as far as you are concerned and there is essentially no way to convince you otherwise.

FONDL if you can find where I typed that poor people don't buy gasoline I'd appreciate you pointing it out and I will quickly disavow such a statement.
As far as there being an authoritative pronouncement that gas companies aren't price gouging? Well when Lee Raymond can take a $400 million dollar golden parachute and Exxon/Mobil can take the largest profit ever in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD, I don't think there is anytime soon sumpin that'll be able to be declared that says these companies are on the up and up until maybe the stock price declines and their market cap is significantly lowered where the top execs aren't making nearly 400 times the lowest rung workers.

I'm glad prices are high too, but mostly because it forces people to look at real alternatives and realize that at this point our choices are coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. Windmills and solar pannels are not viable alternatives in anything like the timeframe we need to get serious about energy alternatives. Right now electrical power comes from 50% coal, 20% nuclear, and the rest oil, natural gas, hydro, etc. Of those only oil and natural gas can power cars. If we want to expand our electrical capacity without driving the price of natural gas (which many people use to heat their homes) and oil (cars and transportation) through the roof our realistic alternatives are coal and nuclear. Of those one is, despite the hysteria, much cleaner and creates much less waste.

Now I'm really confused. Hugevlad says that poor people don't buy gasoline, they all take public transportation (conveniently ignoring the fact that a lot of poor and low income people live in areas not served by public transportation) and that we should raise gasoline prices through higher taxes. But I'm not at all clear why. It can't be to reduce air pollution since AN correctly points out that buses raise highly polluting and in addition most of them cruise aroiund nearly empty most of the time. Taco says that gasoline is a basic necessity that we can't get along without, so oil companies should lower prices even though the price of the oil coming out of the ground is going up. Who's right here? Sounds like they're saying that prices should go up but that the extra money should go to government not to the oil industry. I don't understand that argument at all.

Personally I'm glad that oil profits are high, otherwise the industry wouldn't have enough capital to increase their investment in looking for oil, building refineries, and creating alternative fuel sources. If you really want to know who to blame for higher prices (other than political turmoil in the Middle East and rapid growth in consumption in developing economies), the major environmental groups who restrict domestic sources of supply would be a good choice. Their ideas may be good public policy but they never-the-less leads to higher prices. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Or a free stripper.

hugevladfan, I was sort of addressing my argument to TacoGoblin since you'd expressed a desire not to engage in political discussions anymore, but since you raise an interesting point let me ask you a question. What would it take to prove to you that the gas companies weren't engaging in collusion, gouging, and price fixing? If you say something like Ralph Nader pronouncing them honest, well we know that won't happen. Is there any authoritative pronouncement that anyone not "ideologically tainted" could make that would make you change your mind?

I am sure that the same industry that gets billions of dollars in tax breaks will one day ever get seriously condemned by a Congress that is pretty much an extension of a local Chamber of Commerce.

Correction. I misremembered some of my stats. The oil companies have a profit margin of about 5%, they make about $0.10 per gallon.

Here is a link to the most recent costly government report at the conclusion of a multimillion dollor exhaustive study to find the exact same information that the previous exhaustive multimillion dollar reports brought on by complaints that gas costs too much found.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/katrinaga…

The first page basically states that the only thing driving price increases is the basic law of supply and demand.

TacoGoblin, we go through the regular kabuki dance of investigating oil company profits about every summer here in DC. Oddly congress has never uncovered any evidence of price fixing, gouging, collusion, or profiteering, not I would contend for lack of trying. What politician wouldn't be pimping the slightest evidence of corruption all over every news channel and Sunday show if they had any whatsoever? The gas companies make something around $0.05/gallon on gasoline. The prices are close precisely because of competition. If Shell tried to charge an extra $0.25 per gallon nobody'd buy their gas. The price of gas is determined by two main factors, the price of oil, and refining capacity. Oil is $75 a barrell because India and China are now competing with us to get some oil. The US hasn't built a new refinery in 30 years, and all the specialty gasolines require different production runs at the refineries, thus effectively reducing refining capacity.

I apologise for veering off into a discussion about politics. As an avowed liberal this isn't the place to really launch into political diatribe and I will refrain from going into it much. I juss took offence that the author of this thread decided to tie leftwingers as being similar to rightwingers in their opposition to stripclubs. I'll leave it at that.

Oil companies compete. I guess it's juss such an amazing coincidence that prices are within juss a few cents of each other in each particular locale. They don't compete in any realistic sense of the word. They are pretty much price-fixers worried strictly about the same thing that Abbie Normal is, the bottom line. In a capatilist society that is the primary goal, the bottom line i.e. stock price. Companies and private business exist for no common good, they exist for one reason and one reason only. PROFIT.

I guess one public bus carrying several dozen people is much more a of a public nuisance than 15-20 cars with one passenger in them, not to mention all of the dangers associated with juss one vehicle LIKE a bus.

The oil companies are as close to being one big conglomerate without actually being a conglomerate. Can you say "collusion"? If there was actual competition out there, you'd see wild fluctuations in pricing as they competed. Sure, Skippy and Peter Pan compete for the peanut butter dollar.. Some weeks Skippy is 3 bucks a jar.. other weeks its 2 bucks. Some weeks Peter Pan is 3 bucks a jar.. other weeks its 2 bucks. Sometimes I can get a coupon for one or the other. And if I'm strapped for cash, I always can choose the generic or store brand for a buck fifty. That's competition in the marketplace, with profits and fair to consumers who get choices. Notice it doesn't work that way at the pumps. And yeah, I understand about the gas tax issue too, but I was addressing just the one bit.

"Why should Exxon and Chevron be able to clear 30 billion in profits per year?"

I have a better question, why shouldn't they? When they make $30 billion it isn't because they hold a gun to someone's head, it's because they sell something everyone wants. Are we going to now decide what companies can produce and how much they can charge and profit? It's been tried you know. Also I want Exxon and Chevron to make trillions if possible. I plan on having a very comfortable retirement based on their profits and stock price, so when you talk about taking away their profits or limiting them you are talking about taking money away from me, not the cartoon Monopoly millionare lighting gigantic cigars with $100 bills.

Ethanol would be great except for one thing, it has to be subsidized because it is a money loser and an energy drain. It takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it, and it costs more than gasoline by far. The best thing we could do to help both polution and gas dependancy right now is expand our nuclear program so we aren't burning oil and natural gas for electricity that could be generated much cheaper by nuclear power. It has the advantage of being a solution we could use now (OK, 10 years from now) rather than dreaming of windmills and solar pannels and hoping that if we wish hard enough we'll find a way to produce energy with only flowers and Evian as emissions.

As for public transportation a city bus actually polutes more per passenger mile than cars do, so if you are worried about polution busses should be restricted.

More indigent people ride public transportation or find alternate means than pay much in gas tax. As I am sure you can figure I am one of the liberals that would love a higher gas tax. Why should Exxon and Chevron be able to clear 30 billion in profits per year?

Hugevladfan...I say pass legislation requiring the oil companies to develope alternative fuels like ethanol, lessoning the demand and increasing the supply. But, I don't know what any of this has to do with strip clubs.

Both the states and the feds make more per gallon that the oil companies do. Also you seem to think of all the oil companies as one big conglomerate. They aren't. They compete. We also need food and clothing but we let Kraft compete with Nabisco and they make a lot more profit than the oil companies.

The main reason there's so much outrage against the oil companies and not the car manufacturers is because gasoline is one of those staples of life, it is not a luxury. You HAVE to have gas in that tank, so you HAVE to pay that three bucks a gallon.. or four bucks a gallon or whatever it finally reaches. The average automobile nowadays runs about, what 28K-30K? Right, but the consumer has CHOICES. The consumer isn't forced to pay 28K if he wants a car, he can still go out there and buy a stripped down brand new car for around 12K or even less. Or he can buy a good used vehicle for well under 8K. The consumer can't go out and find gas for 2 bucks a gallon right now, and so the oil companies have us by the juevos. This is one of the downfalls of capitalism, and one of those times when just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*. So do I begrudge the oil companies those 30 billion dollars in profit? Yeah a little bit. I think they'd do just fine with 15 billion in profit and gas back down around 1.75 where its fair.

Abbie, you said their profits are justified because they make something everyone wants? I disagree. They make something everyone NEEDS. There's a difference. If the oil companies were making 30 billion off cabbage patch dolls, I wouldn't begrudge them one penny of that profit. Gas, however, is a necessity and they're taking advantage of it because they know people don't have any other choice. That sounds like gouging to me and I believe that's where the outrage comes from.

And what does this have to do with strip clubs?! Well, there's a really great one I just discovered but its 100 miles to the south and by golly I'd rather pay 12.50 for the gas to get there and back over the 25 I had to pay last week! THE BIG OIL COMPANIES COST ME A LAP DANCE & A BEER! CURSE THEM!

I must admit I don't understand the anger sometimes expressed at the oil companies. The cost of a car has risen just as much as the cost of gasoline over the last 20 years or so, and the cost of the car is often much higher per mile than the cost of the gasoline. So why aren't people mad at the car companies instead?

I'm all for ending corporate welfare, you'll get no argument from me on that one. But I am opposed to regressive taxes, and taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are two of the biggest ones. Along with the huge tax on gasoline, which may be the most regressive of all. Some Liberals, of course, want to raise them further. That'll sure help the poor.

Are you aware that the only tax that has declined over the last 20 years or so is the federal income taxe on busines? And how come businesses are only taxed on their net income while you and I are taxed on our gross? I'd gladly be in a 50% tax bracket if I could deduct all my expenses first.

proofreading is your friend. It's conscience. Oy how did I screw that up?

I think a standardised education system has alot of merit to it and since we're all under the same system there should be one major clearinghouse(?) for policies.

Hugeladfan, here's several: I think the US Dept. of Education should be shut down because they cost a ton of money and don't add any value, in fact they've made our schools worse. I'm opposed to most federal welfare programs on similar grounds, they've destroyed our inner cities at great cost. I'm opposed to the federalization of what used to be state programs for education and welfare, plus many others, because they've added cost without adding value. I'm opposed to the continual raising of sales and excise taxes and government sponsored gambling programs like lotteries because they're regressive and hurt low income people the most. I've never heard a decent liberal argument that makes any sense in favor of any of these liberal programs.
You'll get NO argument whatsoever from me about lotteries. Govt's aren't even trying when they decide that they can raise revenue by taxing more heavily on those that may be able to least absorb it (which ostensibly is where a lottery generates alot of its monies). I don't mind taxes on items that have a heavier social cost like alcohol, cigarettes and gigantic SUV's. Unfortuantely it's the latter of the three that is the beneficiary of a huge tax BREAK (hmmmmmmmmm wonder why?)
I am opposed to sales tax increases when they go to support welfare for billionaires (see sports stadiums and infrastructure for two big examples), I REALLY despise hotel taxes and rental car taxes for the same cause. The local populace wouldn't support such a measuree but as long as its someone else paying I guess it's OK to soak them right?
Since we're abolishing the Dept of Education can we also dramatically scale down the corporate welfare we hand to military defence contractors? Billions and billions and MORE billions spent and all I got was a camoflauge t-shirt and a heckuva lot of wounded and dead bodies on my conscious. If these companies really want to enrich themselves via the fruits of war is it too much to ask that maybe a few of their offspring fight in a cause that has raised their stock price sometimes four and five fold?

Hugeladfan, here's several: I think the US Dept. of Education should be shut down because they cost a ton of money and don't add any value, in fact they've made our schools worse. I'm opposed to most federal welfare programs on similar grounds, they've destroyed our inner cities at great cost. I'm opposed to the federalization of what used to be state programs for education and welfare, plus many others, because they've added cost without adding value. I'm opposed to the continual raising of sales and excise taxes and government sponsored gambling programs like lotteries because they're regressive and hurt low income people the most. I've never heard a decent liberal argument that makes any sense in favor of any of these liberal programs.

Yank: Like I replied to FONDL already, I didn't question anything about relevance or anybody's right to post. I'm asking what purpose it serves to rebut the arguments of groups who aren't present here, preaching to an audience of the already converted. I'm asking why you and the others here are not addressing your case to these groups or to the same authorities they are appealing to, somebody who can actually make a difference. You guys complain about what people do to advance their agenda. Could it be that they're able to because you aren't advancing your own cause?

Not much would please me more than to see a principled conservative argument about anything but they seem to be lacking at the moment.

What's the point of this post anyway? I live in Vegas, a rather conservative city and never see anyone from either side lamenting the next strip club to open. I think liberals and leftwingers have more important things to concern themselves with than flag burning, gay marriage and the new opening of a club where women are scantily clad.

Chandler... I was under the impression that anything having to do with, or affecting, strip clubs was welcomed on this board. What am I missing here???

Casualguy and giveitayank, I've never been able to see any correlation between where a place lies on the conservative-to-liberal scale and it's friendliness toward or opposition to strip clubs. Strip clubs have been shut down in both liberal and conservative areas. And new ones have been opened in both types of place. I don't think religion or political leanings have much to do with it.

I've been a fairly regular church goer for 60 years in several different states and regions and including several different denominations, and I have never, not once, heard a minister or priest mention strip clubs. Nor were any of those churches ever involved in trying to shut a stip club down. Nor have I ever seen an article about strip clubs in any of their publications. It's a very low priority concern of the religious community in most areas.

And in 40 years of going to strip clubs, only once have I ever encountered a religious group protesting the place, and that was a little club in the boonies that I would have voted to shut down too, it was terrible. The couple of protesters there were clearly a wacko fringe group and not a part of any mainstream religion. Nobody would call them typical conservatives, any more than you would call a wacko women's libber a typical liberal. Yes they do make strange bedfellows but they deserve each other. There's not much difference between the wackos at one end of the politial spectrum and the other, they're all wackos.

FONDL, I wasn't raising a point of order about relevance. Are you? I was hoping for a response to my suggestions.

Chandler, if you don't see the point of this thread, why are you posting on it? I happen to think that the topic is both relevant and interesting.

CG...That's an arguement that never seems to be an issue with the 'against clubs' people. But, you did make a valid point, nonetheless. It seems as though they will advance thier agenda any way they can. And it usually means painting the strippers as victims is thier least path of resistance.

I am an ultra leftwinger and have ZERO problems with strip clubs.

and if you can find me one ultra leftist that stands outside taking pictures of patrons exiting seedy establishments I'd appreciate knowing about it, since it's the family values crowd that want to impose their one world order on their worldmates.

It's my belief the people on the left who want to close strip clubs are women who make you glad strip clubs exist in the first place. As for the right, I do know various local religious groups opposed the opening of the local club I visit, but I found it bizarre because it's a relatively isolated area of the county where few people live and the only industry really close is a grain elevator.

I don't see the point of this thread. If you're so convinced that these groups have it wrong, why not address your arguments to them? Or organize to advance your own agenda.

99.5% of everyone gets taken advantage of/degraded in strip clubs.

as far as the degrading to women goes, they haven't really studied the situation. It's the men who are getting taken advantage of. The men get charged left and right for almost everything in a strip club. Paying a girl 10, 20, 30 or even 40 dollars for 3 or 4 minutes of dancing must be so degrading that hundreds or thousands of girls have decided to do it. Of course for the stubborn, you can't seem to change what's in their heads.

Thanks to all of the relatively recently enforced restrictions against strip clubs like 1000 feet or more away from all kinds of things, more clubs were closed down using the law. If a club has been operating relatively peacefully for years in a location, I didn't see a problem with it continuing to operate. In some places in the south (actually many), there is a church, school or something restricted on every street corner. Since churches and strip clubs don't usually operate at the same time of day, I didn't see what the problem was if a low key club parking lot was located across the street from a church. However the club I'm thinking about got closed down thanks to the law. It was a religious group trying to enforce their belief on everyone else using the law to shut down a club.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. In the case I'm most familiar with, where a club was closed down due to community pressure, the opposition was a coalition of people from many different segments of society. Yes it included the two groups you mentioned, but it also included much more. For example, the religious community that was part of the coalition included not only conservative protestant groups but Jewish and Catholic ones as well, neither of which is usually considered a part of the religious right. It also included many educational and other non-religious groups.

This was perhaps an unusual situation because the place was located right across the street from a large church and a high school and was in a fairly upscale neighborhood. So because of their location they were doomed almost from day one. It had been a night club and then switched to being a strip club. That didn't last long.

it may well be true that in many parts of the South the main community opposition to strip clubs comes from the religious right. But that isn't true in the Northeast and perhaps elsewhere. Opposition comes from do-gooders across the board. Minding other people's business has become a way of life in the US, regardless of one's political philosophy.

FONDL... I know of one church that pressured the local city to impose ordinances on the one strip club within the city limits. The new restrictions were a failed attempt to shut down the club.