big oil greed is destroying the U.S. economy

This is the first time you've put supply and demand and cost-plus pricing and incompatibility in the same sentence.

Was that hard?

Maybe I will give an argument, now that it actually exists, fair thought.

It still requires more deciphering though. I'm already riddled with misinformation in one sweep of browsing. And I haven't run into anything about their incompatibility yet.

Speaking of incompatibility you've never written a research paper before have you? Citation would be second-nature to you after only a few.

 

And hopefully the last, one is a basic violation of the other.

You can hold a shred of your ideology in tact though, cost-plus pricing isn't strictly market failure, we see the same result frequently in government contracts. Moreover, cost plus pricing reduces costs to the firm in regards to decision making regarding price.

 

I don't see any violation, in fact in many definitions demand curves are cited as how to determine what the markup is. And that it's merely a tool to determine the most effective amount of production, where marginal revenue is equal to marginal cost. How can they be in violation of eachother if they use eachother?

Finally profits and the variables of supply and demand (price and quantity) are completely exclusive of eachother. That is if you're talking about gross profits.

 

Yes, because governments have not collapsed the european continent which now relies on and open door policy of endless dollar swaps to prevent runs on their banks.

Political stooges everywhere, and not one ounce of ability to predict future events through regulation.

 

In terms of neoclassical theory of the firm, its certainly market failure!

 

Then GTF on with it already. We're tired of waiting for these mythical lower classes to rise up. Either put up or shut up.

The "haves" have more and better guns than the "have nots" and have the legal right to protect thier property with deadly force in America.

I'd just love to see some leftist abortion of a revolution. It would be a laughingstock.

 

really, look at the past. Russia, France had revolutions, and even Rome fell because they stopped caring for the poor. even the best guns fall against large enough numbers. Im just saying that we need to be careful, and at this moment we are being reckless and unreasonably greedy

 

That's too narrow and fails to appreciate the same phenomenon happening elsewhere. We can apply different terminology, but the end result is the same, cost-plus pricing certainly exemplifies market failure, but isn't unique to the market.

 

It describes market power or bounded rationality. Either way its a market failure

 

We are seeing it right now. It is called the "Occupy" movement.

And other then laughing a the fools, most of the country has given it a big yawn.

 

No, Rome fell because of a combination of many things. Included in them are the apathy of the common people, barbarian invasions, growing expenses with a lowering tax base (remember "bread and circuses"?), and increasingly having others handle their own national defense.

And you can add the deviding of the Empire into 2 seperate Empires as also having a lot to do with it.

You have to realize, that there were multiple classes in rome, the most important of which were the plebes. Then you had the next group, which made it hard often times to find work. And that was the slaves.

After all, why pay some pleb to do a job, when you can simply buy slaves to do it for you?

One thing a lot of slave owning nations have in common is high unemployment. This should be obvious, because the lower clases have very little to "rent", somebody has already bought somebody to fulfill that job.

Then you have the influence of "Guilds", a kind of proto-union. Unless you were a member of a Guild, you were not working in that field.

 

And when applied to government contracts it is called what?

 

You seem to think it has to be specific to the market. It doesn't. Does asymmetric information lead to market failure? Yes. Does it lead to government inefficiencies? Yes.

Government is more likely to suffer from the consequences of shadow pricing though

 

I thought it'd be a prerequisite for the term.

I don't understand why one would plague either the market or government more than the other. I've seen practical applications of shadow pricing in the business world and have been involved in contracts for public jobs that. I realize this is anecdotal, but is the cause for my confusion.

 

A war zone?

 

Nope.

Think the Coasian stuff into 'islands of planning in the market sea'. We get economic planning which cannot be neatly labelled as being 'the market'. Its more akin to government action. We just get more of it in the public sector for obvious reasons

 

in terms of reality it is currency, central bank and legal tender failure.

 

Because the market apes aspects of the public sector in order to reach efficiency goals within the firm, does that necessarily place it outside of 'the market'? Yes it's planning but market forces still drive these decisions.

 

yup.......you can blame the rising price of gasoline on Bernacke and the fed!

 

Yeah right, the greed of $100 billion profits every three months by oil corporations is Bernanke's fault, sure. And you're gonna tell us that it's Bernanke's fault that big oil gets billions of dollars in subsidies from tax payers too. And I bet you're one of them that say tax cuts for millionaires creates jobs. Well after ten years of those tax cuts there shouldn't be any unemployment then. Truth be told, it's your fault. That $3 trillion given to millionaires, would have payed down the $5.5 trillion national debt in 2001 and cut the debt by more than half. That means the national debt would only be $2 trillion today instead of $15 trillion. That means the interest on the debt would only be $100 billion instead of $750 billion per year. Assuming that Bush didn't waste another $3 trillion of the Iraq war and didn't destroy the economy. That's $650 billion less in taxes for everybody, not just millionaires.

 

the oil companies get to write off exploration costs for searching for more oil....how is that a subsidy? And yes its Bernacke's fault.....if he stopped monetizing the debt and raises interest rates I could guarantee you lower oil prices within a few short months!

 

How about cut the national debt by cutting spending on frivolous expenditures instead of raising taxes?

And if you want less subsidies for large corporations, why are you advocating more government and not less? It's counterintuitive. As long as the federal government is large & powerful enough, the people who can afford millions of dollars annually for lobbying purposes will continue to influence legislation so as to benefit themselves. Concentration of wealth isn't something that is cured by big government - it's a symptom of it.

 

Correct....plus our constant meddling in the affairs of middle eastern countries doesn't help the situation and allows for it to become the SOLE reason behind a presidents energy policy when in reality it is the currency it is priced in.

It is quite simple actually....

 

not to people that are fixated on star search and Jerry Springer

 

The oil companies are making record profits, fair enough, stop giving the tax write-offs. The price of gas is set by the speculators, though. Iran says it will close the Straits of Hormuz. They know they cannot even hope to achieve this but what they can do is this, give the speculators a reason to manipulate the oil commodities market by buying and selling futures. They do this not because they believe the Iranians, but because it is plausible cover to fool the American people and then rake in huge profits for themselves and their hedge funds. I say manipulate not just trade, because this is not capitalism but fraud. This makes them not only thieves, but traitors as they harm the vested interest and security of the United States. It's time we looked at it this way.