• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A Gentle Reproof for Bill O'Reilly

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
February 25, 2012
A Gentle Reproof for Bill O'Reilly
By James G. Wiles

Litigation isn't poker. It's chess. You have to think three or four moves ahead.

Economics is like that, too.

Nothing is ever actually ceteris paribus. All the little economic variables are always moving and changing. The world's largest economy (ours) is all interconnected. Touch one gizmo, and you affect several other gizmos. All the little widgets talk to each other.

It's even more so with our even larger, globalized economy.

As the Heritage Foundation said in a recent debate over tax policy, "mall decision changes create feedback effects that can snowball and change the path of the entire economy." And, in a globalized economy, corporations can -- over time -- simply take their assets and go elsewhere.

The most recent opinion-leader to fall into this trap of thinking statically, rather than dynamically, is Fox News's Bill O'Reilly.

There he was on The O'Reilly Factor on Thursday night, singlehandedly solving the gasoline price spike. No problem. O'Reilly's on the case. He even said his plan is how the GOP presidential candidates could show leadership and seize the initiative from Mr. Obama.

What, there's actually no shortage of petroleum or petroleum products in the United States? Or on world markets, either? Wait, this price spike isn't the result of the law of supply and demand?

To the contrary, sez Bill O'Reilly to "the largest audience in cable news," what's really going on here is good old-fashioned greed. The American oil companies -- saddled with excess supply after a warm winter -- are selling their products overseas (especially to China) where they can make more money.

No problem, sez O'Reilly. I'll see your $4.00-a-gallon gasoline and call you. You brought a knife, Mr. Oil Executive? Fine. We'll bring a gun.

"Hey, I can fix this."

Bill O'Reilly knew just what to do. Invite Big Oil's CEOs down to the White House for a little chat -- rather as President Obama once did the Big Three automakers and the Wall Street bank CEOs. And just give them, so to speak, the Full Chicago Treatment.

Get out the baseball bats.

Slap an export tax on petroleum products. Capture Big Oil's extra profits, so the incentive to sell foreign rather than domestic is eliminated. Mention that all of Big Oil's drilling permits -- especially future ones -- are subject to the whim of the U.S. secretary of the interior.

"Nice drilling permit you have there. I wouldn't want anything to happen to it."

Strong medicine?

Yes. And it won't work, either.

O'Reilly, I believe, is honestly mistaken. Unlike Charlie Rose, who had Daniel Yergin (author of The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World) on the other night and generated neither heat nor light, Bill O'Reilly took a hard whack at the ball. Indeed, Bill O'Reilly's arguing, in effect, that President Obama should put this latest crisis to use by taking even greater control over yet another sector of the American economy.

But he's thinking of the wrong analogy -- drawn from a different time and a very different American economy. He's remembering President John F. Kennedy and Big Steel.

Back on April 10, 1962, America's major steel companies (all but one [USX] now extinct) decided to raise the price of steel by the same amount. Big Steel's price increase lasted four days. JFK brought the power of his office to bear -- call it the O'Reilly Solution -- and Big Steel backed down. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, by all reports, did a credible imitation of Al Capone disciplining a wayward capo with a baseball bat.

That's not today's global economy.

Today's global economy is American companies doing their IPOs overseas to get out from under Sarbanes-Oxley and foreign corporations foregoing listing on American stock exchanges. It's British companies moving out of the City of London to Singapore, Dubai, and Hong Kong to get away from high taxes on executive bonuses. It's French investment bankers commuting to the City of London to avoid working under onerous EU regulations.

The other analogy -- which I'm sure Bill O'Reilly remembers -- is Richard Nixon's August 1971 announcement of wage and price controls. They didn't work, either.

So, Bill: you wanna slap export controls on refined petroleum products?

Do you have any idea where this leads?
There won't be another refinery built in the United States. We will end up importing all our refined products to escape the controls. If the only way U.S. oil companies can reap the world price is to sell overseas, then you'll see this entire industry migrate out of the United States.

And almost all the high-paying jobs will go, too.

In twenty years, the U.S. petroleum industry will have moved overseas, corporate headquarters included, because the U.S. laws and regulations which Bill O'Reilly is suggesting will handicap them vis-à-vis their competitors. Their American shareholders will support these moves. All the high-paying jobs which used to be in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma -- not just the headquarters jobs, but also technical services as well -- will be in Dubai, Singapore, Holland, and all sorts of havens.

Maybe Brazil.

Natural resources is a global industry. The natural resource companies headquartered in the United States don't need to be headquartered in the United States. It's that simple. Controls always have this effect.

Bill O'Reilly is a thinking man, a well-educated man, and a highly intelligent man. Last night's Talking Points Memo was not his best effort.

I'm sure Bill O'Reilly will think this through.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/a_gentle_reproof_for_bill_oreilly.html
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
4,365
Reaction score
0
Location
Heart of Texas
OReilly is wrong on this one. His solution is just a wee bit short of recomending nationalization of the industry. Someone need to sit him down, put duct tape over his mouth and then give him a beginner's lesson in how the free market works.... like it or not.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TexasBred said:
OReilly is wrong on this one. His solution is just a wee bit short of recomending nationalization of the industry. Someone need to sit him down, put duct tape over his mouth and then give him a beginner's lesson in how the free market works.... like it or not.


Sometimes I think he says things "tongue in cheek" in an attempt to show how ridiculus some of the ideas from the "Left" are.


But his "tongue in cheek" on this one was not so obvious, if that is what he was doing.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
I thought maybe Charles Krauthammer, a man Bill O'Rielly respects had talked some sense into Bill last night but as soon as Lou Dodds came on he was right back making the same stupid remarks and Lou was eating up everything he said. Nothing Charles said about Oil companies paying for leases, permits, royalities and expenses to produce gas soaked in. Charles asked him if he would like it if he bought a apartment building, paid for the permits to fix it up paid all the expenses to fixed it up and then the President called him to the Oval Office and told him he couldn't set the rent so he could make a profit. Same thing, the Oil companies pay for the crude, pay all the expenses to get it to a useable product GAS then Bill thinks they should not expect to make a profit from the product they produced. :roll:

I do have to say though at least he never went after Charles like he did the Oil Executive the night before. That guy couldn't get a full sentence out without Bill jumping in and scolding him like he was a child. Rude was an understatement. :roll:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I stopped watching O'Reilly years ago.. it is like listening to O'T

you know they were once both good conservatives, but it now conflicts with most of what they advocate for..

as sad as it may be, Fox news is moving left and fast. not as fast as O'T or O'Rielly but enough to get noticed..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
I stopped watching O'Reilly years ago.. it is like listening to O'T

you know they were once both good conservatives, but it now conflicts with most of what they advocate for..

as sad as it may be, Fox news is moving left and fast. not as fast as O'T or O'Rielly but enough to get noticed..


Ever think it might be because O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and myself could be right about the oil industry ripping off the country :???:
Just because you don't support an industry thats taking all time record corporate profits off the misery and backs of the public doesn't necessarily mean you are not conservative....

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Oldtimer said:
Ever think it might be because O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and myself could be right about the oil industry ripping off the country :???:
Just because you don't support an industry thats taking all time record corporate profits off the misery and backs of the public doesn't necessarily mean you are not conservative....

NOPE not at all!!!! Unlike you and a few others we do THINK!!!!!!and are capable of doing just that!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I stopped watching O'Reilly years ago.. it is like listening to O'T

you know they were once both good conservatives, but it now conflicts with most of what they advocate for..

as sad as it may be, Fox news is moving left and fast. not as fast as O'T or O'Rielly but enough to get noticed..


Ever think it might be because O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and myself could be right about the oil industry ripping off the country :???:
Just because you don't support an industry thats taking all time record corporate profits off the misery and backs of the public doesn't necessarily mean you are not conservative....

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt



The only elected official in the past few years that has taken on "big oil" was Palin.


Why didn't you include her in your little group?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I stopped watching O'Reilly years ago.. it is like listening to O'T

you know they were once both good conservatives, but it now conflicts with most of what they advocate for..

as sad as it may be, Fox news is moving left and fast. not as fast as O'T or O'Rielly but enough to get noticed..


Ever think it might be because O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and myself could be right about the oil industry ripping off the country :???:
Just because you don't support an industry thats taking all time record corporate profits off the misery and backs of the public doesn't necessarily mean you are not conservative....

I believe in corporations. They are indispensable instruments of our modern civilization; but I believe that they should be so supervised and so regulated that they shall act for the interest of the community as a whole.
~Theodore Roosevelt


Otimer, How dare you, don't you know that O'Reilly is an idiot,(now I guess we canadd Lou Dobbs) that's why so few people watch him. Darn idiot Americans.

I do have a few questions though.

"No more refineries built in the US." And I'll tell you I have no idea, but anyway, when was the last refinery built,not expanded, but built?
When can we expect O'Reilly and Dobbs to recant what they said? I kinda feel like they might crawfish a little bit but only after pressure from the higher ups at FOX. To say say something for 3 days means you've pretty well thought about it,especially if you're watched as much as O'Reilly. You know I'm gonna e-mail him and nominate him as a Patriot and the oil co.'s as the pinheads.

Finally, who are the serious competitors for American oil companies. Which ones are giving them stiff competition that are totally foreign owned?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
"No more refineries built in the US." And I'll tell you I have no idea, but anyway, when was the last refinery built,not expanded, but built?

built, why build one when the regulations and lawsuits would set you back million if not billions?

why build one when they are actually closing existing refineries due to heavy losses?

Chilly Climate for Oil Refiners

Only a few years ago, a cry went up that the United States needed more oil refineries. The perceived shortage was so acute that George W. Bush, president at the time, even offered disused military bases as sites for building them.

Not only did that never come to pass, but the reverse is now happening. The business of oil refining is mired in a deep crisis, with five refineries having shut down this year, including plants in Delaware, New Jersey, California and New Mexico.

The recent closings signal the end of a period from roughly 2004 to 2008, when demand soared, refineries operated near capacity and profits swelled.

Plagued by boom-and-bust cycles of rapid expansion followed by sharp belt-tightening, refining companies have often struggled to operate at a profit. That is a contrast to the production side of the oil business, long a road to riches.

“Oil production creates wealth, but oil refining has often destroyed it,” said Costanza Jacazio, an analyst at Barclays Capital in New York.

Refineries, especially smaller ones, have been closing for many years. The number of refineries in the United States fell to about 150 in recent years from more than 300 in 1982. At the same time, the nation’s refining capacity grew by about 13 percent, as companies expanded their most efficient refineries.

But the shutdowns are now coming so fast that the United States is losing capacity as refiners struggle to match their output to falling demand

That leaves refiners with difficult choices: cut costs and hope to survive the downturn; try to sell plants; or shut down unprofitable refineries. “The industry is on its collective knees right now,” said Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/business/energy-environment/24refining.html

yep have them take another cut..

are you guys really that uninformed?

Back in June, ConocoPhillips announced that it had identified five of its US refineries as non-core assets that could be divested, but denied reports that its Trainer, PA and Bayway, NJ facilities might be sold. At the end of September, ConocoPhillips announced that while it has no plans to divest its Bayway facility, the 185,000 BPD Trainer, PA refinery was for sale. At the time of the announcement, ConocoPhillips went on to say that the company would begin idling the refinery immediately and would permanently close the plant if a buyer could not be found within six months. The Trainer refinery is now idle

Earlier in September, Sunoco had announced plans to sell its Marcus Hook and Philadelphia, PA refineries, noting that the refineries had been profitable for only two of the last 10 quarters, and stating that both refineries would be idled in July 2012 if buyers have not been found. However, in an early November conference call with analyst, Lynn Elsenhans, Sunoco's CEO and Chairman, stated that "...if at any point we believe it's in the best interest of the shareholders to either stop operating (Marcus Hook and Philadelphia)

Valero exited the refining business on the US East Coast when it sold its Paulsboro, NJ and Delaware City, DE refineries in 2010.

Many in the industry believe that all three east coast refineries will eventually close, although local governments are following the lead of the Governor of Delaware and are working to find a buyer(s), hopeful that a packaged sale of the refineries (two of the refinery properties are contiguous) will prove attractive enough to generate interest.

If these three refineries are idled, there will be significant changes to US East Coast supply patterns.

refineries are closing or being idled..

if we had additional US crude production we could be using them to export and actually make a profit.. which would create jobs and real demand..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Finally, who are the serious competitors for American oil companies. Which ones are giving them stiff competition that are totally foreign owned?

I assume you meant competition for Worldwide oil reserves.....



oilcompanies.png
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Where did you go TSR?

Don't you want to discuss how the US oil companies are ripping off the American people by controlling the World price of oil anymore?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Once Bill gets Obama to pull in the Oil Executives and mandate they stop exporting any fuel into the higher priced markets, just how many more refineries will close ?

Competitive Structure.
The U.S. industry is made up of integrated international oil companies, integrated domestic oil companies, and independent domestic refining/marketing companies. Like the oil business in general, refining is dominated by integrated internationals, specifically a few large companies such as BP Amoco, ExxonMobil Corporation, and Chevron Corporation.

Of the nonintegrated refining companies, which are made up of independents that focus exclusively on refined goods production and marketing, Marathon Ashland and Tosco stood out as major players. However, no independent companies competed on the same level as any integrated international in terms of net profits or refined goods sold.

Capacity also distinguishes leading refiners as arms of integrated oils. ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, and Chevron have a capacity of more than 1 million barrels a day, with Marathon Ashland and Tosco trailing them closely. In 1999, the top 10 refiners controlled an estimated 58 percent of U.S. capacity. This proportion was expected to rise when announced mergers and joint ventures were factored in. At that time, around 30 U.S. companies had capacities of 100,000 barrels or more per calendar day (b/cd).

As the costs of upgrading refineries escalates, the difficulties of small refining operations will probably intensify. Existing refineries can remain viable only with mass infusions of capital, and only large integrated oils have cash flow to divert. Even the majors struggled. Shell, once the largest U.S. refiner in terms of capacity, has allied nearly all of its U.S. refineries in joint ventures with Texaco and others. Upgrading and compliance costs are expected to continue to shift the competitive structure of the U.S. refined petroleum products market toward an oligopoly by integrated internationals.

WHO is making the regulations that are making the expensive upgrading nessesary. The Federal Government is my guess. So are the US consumers going to elect the Dems again so they can put even more expensive regulations in place driving even more refineries out of business and prices higher? Obama has already admitted he is willing to bankrupt the energy industry to force his Green energy agenda down everyones throats, so now is the time to decide if 4 more years of Obama's agenda is worth Higher and Higher Gas Prices.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
hypocritexposer said:
Where did you go TSR?

Don't you want to discuss how the US oil companies are ripping off the American people by controlling the World price of oil anymore?

Perhaps I need to clarify. Who are the chief competitors, at the consumer/retail level for US oil co.'s? I know when I buy diesel or gas its always at Shell, Conoco, BP, Amoco,Exxon. Who are these guys competition,the totally foreign owned ones? I think Tam in her posting somewhat answered the question.

BTW as I posted, Shell is expanding its refinery operation in the Gulf pending approval by US Congress and Mexico's. This according to a Houston Chronicle reporter on C-Span the other day.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Where did you go TSR?

Don't you want to discuss how the US oil companies are ripping off the American people by controlling the World price of oil anymore?

Perhaps I need to clarify. Who are the chief competitors, at the consumer/retail level for US oil co.'s? I know when I buy diesel or gas its always at Shell, Conoco, BP, Amoco,Exxon. Who are these guys competition,the totally foreign owned ones? I think Tam in her posting somewhat answered the question.

BTW as I posted, Shell is expanding its refinery operation in the Gulf pending approval by US Congress and Mexico's. This according to a Houston Chronicle reporter on C-Span the other day.



To a degree smaller companies can't compete. They cannot afford the cost of all the regulations.


That's why larger companies advocate for additional regulations.

I've been mentioning Regulatory Capture for a couple years now.


It's the same in the beef industry, is it not?


think of it this way......if you have a regulation that it will cost $250,000 to comply with....will the larger company that sells 1 million gallons of fuel be in better shape than the one that sells 250,000 gallons.

that regulation just added 25 cents per gallon for the larger and $1 per gallon for the smaller
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
TSR said:
hypocritexposer said:
Where did you go TSR?

Don't you want to discuss how the US oil companies are ripping off the American people by controlling the World price of oil anymore?

Perhaps I need to clarify. Who are the chief competitors, at the consumer/retail level for US oil co.'s? I know when I buy diesel or gas its always at Shell, Conoco, BP, Amoco,Exxon. Who are these guys competition,the totally foreign owned ones? I think Tam in her posting somewhat answered the question.

BTW as I posted, Shell is expanding its refinery operation in the Gulf pending approval by US Congress and Mexico's. This according to a Houston Chronicle reporter on C-Span the other day.

Shell, once the largest U.S. refiner in terms of capacity, has allied nearly all of its U.S. refineries in joint ventures with Texaco and others
Why is Shell the once largest refiner partnering up with others?

Because of new EXPENSIVE regulations.

Who is putting those new regulations in place?

Obama

Why is he putting them in place?

To bankrupt conventional energy sources so people will buy into his GREEN AGENDA.

Is his Green energy ready to replace the bankrupt conventional energy sources?

NO and will not be able to for DECADES

What is the true result of Obama's expensive new regulations?

Less and Less competition in the Oil Industry and HIGHER AND HIGHER Gas prices bankrupting not only competeing smaller refineries but those who rely on it to get to work.

Does Obama care?

No as the higher gas prices go due to his EXPENSIVE regulations, the faster his agenda will be push by those that have no idea what he is up to. Which is most of his base.


Can the US and world afford 4 more years of Obama's forced Green Energy agenda and the Billions he will, as long as he is president, pour into yet more Bankrupt Solyndra type companies?

NO Congress needs to tighten the DC purse strings around Obama neck and let the free market dictate what they are willing to spend on green energy. Obama needs to stop dictating from the oval office what the so called free market has to support when the technology in not there yet and let Oil companies do what they do best and the market demands. Drill and produce the only viable energy sources the world has to any great extent. :x

Yes we need to explore Green energy sources but not at the expense of bankrupting the only sources that can supply our needs NOW.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
0
Lets just turn the oil companies loose then. I'm sure they will be alright just like BP was in the Gulf, darn regulations. :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
TSR said:
Lets just turn the oil companies loose then. I'm sure they will be alright just like BP was in the Gulf, darn regulations. :wink:

All the expensive regulations in the world will do no good if the Administration in charge of enforcing them knows nothing about them or allows everyone to look the other way.

BP acknowledged in a recent letter that it has routinely failed to comply with a federal regulation requiring drilling companies to certify that their blowout preventers are able to block a runaway well.

But that's because the Minerals Management Service, the government agency charged with overseeing offshore drilling operations, never asked the company to comply, officials wrote.

The blowout preventer is a 450-ton, four-story stack of valves, pistons and slicers that is supposed to be the final fail-safe to close a well at the seafloor if it starts spewing oil and gas. That device failed to operate properly April 20 when the Macondo well off the Louisiana coast blew out of control, and it hasn't worked in several attempts to activate it since.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday that he became concerned when he read a Times-Picayune article last month that said the MMS official in charge of reviewing BP's application for the Macondo well was unaware of a regulation requiring oil companies to certify that their blowout preventers can cut drill pipe to shut off a flowing well under specific conditions.
Grassley asked BP in May to show that it is in compliance with the federal regulation that requires oil companies to provide MMS with proof that the massive safety devices they use to close off wells are "capable of shearing the drill pipe in the hole under maximum anticipated surface pressures."

The company responded that it applies for permits to drill oil wells "in accordance with the process prescribed by MMS officials," but it goes on to say that it was not "MMS practice" to require anyone to comply with the particular section of the federal code in question.

"I find it very disturbing that BP asserts that the 'practice' in oil drilling is to avoid current laws designed to keep our beaches safe," Grassley responded in his letter Thursday. "And I am outraged that MMS is looking the other way."

Frank Patton, the MMS official who approved the BP application to drill at Macondo, already testified that he wasn't familiar with the law he was supposed to enforce.

Also, in his letter Thursday, Grassley called attention to an internal BP document his investigators obtained that showed the company knew the leak could be as bad as 60,000 barrels a day, even while BP's public estimates were far lower, Grassley said. Only recently did government scientists get enough data to determine the spill could be 60,000 barrels a day.

Grassley said he didn't know the date of BP's private estimate, but he demanded to know when it was created and added that "Americans have a right to know that BP made these estimates, the date these estimates were determined and why they were not disclosed at that time."

Establishing the flow rate is critical, not only for understanding how much oil is gushing out and needs to be contained or cleaned up, but also because fines BP would have to pay under anti-pollution laws are based on how many barrels are spilled.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
TSR said:
Lets just turn the oil companies loose then. I'm sure they will be alright just like BP was in the Gulf, darn regulations. :wink:


BP paid a "fine", and you are still purchasing from them, correct?

Was the "fine" less expensive than being part of those that are regulated, compared to losing all their business, if there was additional competition.

Without the excessive regulations, there would have been comptition within the industry, which would have allowed consumers to take their business eleswhere, which would have shown BP that consumers care and respect safety and responsibility.


"Regulatory Capture"
 

Latest posts

Top