Support NeoGAF

[PrivateWHudson]

They truck it as little as possible... At least where I grew up the corn/grain/soybeans were put on water transport (river barges) in the most direct line possible.

Obviously it's not possible to completely eliminate the gasoline engine from the distribution chain but the idea is to limit the distance travelled by that expensive method as much as possible by constructing an extensive enough network of depots and ports.

This isn't some radical new idea for America. We were at one time the largest rail-serviced country in the world. Our rail network was of gigantic importance in effecting the rise of the US from a middling power of coastal settlements abutting a vast wilderness into the economic powerhouse that dominated the 20th century. If we could connect this huge nation together with rail in the 1870s why can't we do it today?

All of the tracks have been torn up and replaced with highways. We have a freight line running through our town, but only a handful of trains come through each day, ten of thousands of trucks go by on the highway though.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

I've never understood this view. do you honestly think that gas prices are a factor of increasing and decreasing benevolence on the part of the oil companies? Do you honestly think that Shell's CEO sat down a few monthsd ago and said, "holy shit, let's start doing some profiteering!" The oil companies have always and will always set prices at the level where they'll reap the most profit.

Maybe you didn't notice, but the price didn't start to skyrocket until Bush stacked the Supreme Court with people that will never find an oil company guilty of an antitrust violation.

 

[NewLib]

Maybe you didn't notice, but the price didn't start to skyrocket until Bush stacked the Supreme Court with people that will never find an oil company guilty of an antitrust violation.

I dont really that was the cause and effect. Anti-trust legislation is always more effective of dealing with competition law violations.

 

[Slavik81]

That's not how the law of supply and demand works, but to be fair, gas company collusion means that we don't get the benefits of competition either - which is why you never say, "I'm going to Shell because it's cheaper."

You ever think about that little gem? That there is literally no such thing as a cheaper brand? Because there is for everything else. Cars, jeans, pies, ice cream, soda, - but not gasoline.

Sure, there might be a local gas station that is typically cheaper - but that's because the owner or franchise pays less rent, or is more desperate.

Why would branding make a difference? The ONLY way to compete is on price; there's no product differentiation. Without that, you're unable to sustain price differences over an extended period of time.

The reason why you see different prices on cereal in a grocery store is because the products are differentiated and the competition is therefore imperfect. However, ounce of gold A sells for the same amount as ounce of gold B.

Maybe you didn't notice, but the price didn't start to skyrocket until Bush stacked the Supreme Court with people that will never find an oil company guilty of an antitrust violation.

The price of gas went up in every country in the world, each with their own set of anti-trust regulations and their own court system. And no other country in the world has Bush as their leader. Your conspiracy theory is flawed by a lack of world-view.

So when do the oil companies ask for bail outs corporate welfare?

And when do they get it in the name of "economic stability"?

Never. They're some of the largest contributers to government revenues around.
For example, the Mexican NOC contributes 40% of the annual federal budget of Mexico.

There's no way in hell that they'll ever be net dependants. Every IOC in the world is investing their windfall in long-term research and growth strategies to ensure that long after the world has abandoned oil, that they will still be the largest energy companies in the world.