Does 'Big Oil' want four more years?

markrinker

New Member
Jul 19, 2011
325
Lake Union - Seattle, WA
Boat Info
2000 410DA
Engines
Caterpillar 3126
As a small business owner that burns $20K+ annually in #2 diesel, I pay close attention to prices, and try to make sense of the trends that affect price. I have been saying for the last year - "...if big oil wants a new President, all they have to do is run the price of fuel back to $4.50 the summer before the election."

I am happy to report that this spring and summer has seen #2 diesel prices subside and in some isolated cases, swap places with regular unleaded for the first time in many years.


So...if you subscribe to the uber-powerful 'Big Oil' theory (as I do) - then riddle me this:


Why does Big Oil want another four years of Obama?
 
Well. .. one of two options

1) What if they really can't control gas prices? What if they are trying to have $10 gas, but the market just won't let them get to $4.00.

2) What if they can control gas prices, but have decided that Obama and the Dems is the way to go? What that says is that as officers in a big corperation, they have looked at the numbers and concluded that the Democrats are really better for their industry!

You know. . .I bet the auto companies, and all the associated industries also have concluded that the Democrats are more favorable to them than the Republicans (After all. . .the republicans were willing to let them go bankrupt).

You know. . .I bet banking industry, and all the associated industries also have concluded that the Democrats are more favorable to them than the Republicans (After all. . .the republicans have said the Tarp was a bad thing).

Makes you wonder what industries benefit with the Republicans in power. . . .

-

-

-[/total snark mode]
 
Well. .. one of two options

1) What if they really can't control gas prices? What if they are trying to have $10 gas, but the market just won't let them get to $4.00.

2) What if they can control gas prices, but have decided that Obama and the Dems is the way to go? What that says is that as officers in a big corperation, they have looked at the numbers and concluded that the Democrats are really better for their industry!

You know. . .I bet the auto companies, and all the associated industries also have concluded that the Democrats are more favorable to them than the Republicans (After all. . .the republicans were willing to let them go bankrupt).

You know. . .I bet banking industry, and all the associated industries also have concluded that the Democrats are more favorable to them than the Republicans (After all. . .the republicans have said the Tarp was a bad thing).

Makes you wonder what industries benefit with the Republicans in power. . . .

-

-

-[/total snark mode]

When I first saw the original post I was going to reply with a discussion of the impact of a slowing Chinese manufacturing output and the global impact on energy prices. I like yours better.

Crony capitalism at it's finest.

We need to add term limits to the constitution AND half of that amount as a hire limit for congressional staff. (With the elected official term limited; staff would run Washington.)

MM
 
Darn it Mike -> You simply MUST stop saying so many things I agree with!

BTW: My respect for fiscally Republicans as a fiscally responsible party went totally out the window when they demonstrated that they really didn't know the difference between the debt limit and budget deficits.
 
Corporate wellfare! Entitlement is a disease and the cure is very painful.
 
So. . .how do you distinguish "business friendly policy" from "corperate welfare"?
 
You can't. Easily do that. I would say its business friendly when there is a cost benefit from the regulation or policy. On the other hand there are many situations like solara. I'm no expert on these things, I just call it how I see it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,154
Messages
1,427,383
Members
61,060
Latest member
Danileo
Back
Top