how can so many people be so stupid? 31 replies

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,192 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,013 Posts

6 Threads

#21 12 years ago
WarHawk109I'm just saying that we wouldn't need those restrictions if gov't would have just butt-out in the first place. A former gov't monopoly that has been privatized should be split up or completely dissolved upon privatization imo, but I could see that being tricky.

True, but the economics behind market restrictions were developed after many government monopolies were formed.




mcderek3000

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

13th March 2006

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#22 12 years ago

Such a fun idea ... if only it would work. I do however believe that the Canadian government could reduce the taxes they set on petrol rather than restricting the prices that the companies charge (if it is export). Then again, if there is a monopoly in Canada that is exploiting its status ... I have no idea where Canada gets its petrol. I don't think that restricting prices in a monopoly instantly makes you Soviet. The Soviet Union government had complete control over every aspect of every company and failed to pay attention to little things like the quality of goods it produces.




mcderek3000

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

13th March 2006

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#23 12 years ago
WarHawk109The only true monopolies that I am aware of those run by the government, such as our healthcare system. I do not believe there are any market restrictions needed at all since gov'ts are usually the ones who either create them or monopolies are formed as a result of high taxation and gov't intervention that forces companies to band together to survive all the repressive actions of gov't.

Obviously, you haven't heard of an Australian company called Telecom.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#24 12 years ago

Having the government regulate gas prices is no different than having a single monopoly being allowed to operate natural energy. For instance, over here where I live in California, the only company that is in charge of gas and electricity is PG&E by mandate of the government because that is what is best for the energy department; competition would result in too many changes for formating and whatnot. Having the state in charge in the production of gas would only lessen the burden on companies to produce gas with limited refineries to maximize profit. As long as there are limited refineries, the fewer the companies, the better.




Nostradamouse

The Arrogant French Prick

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

4,501 Posts

0 Threads

#25 12 years ago
czech speacial forces^canada can support itself completly on its own oil. its the #1 country that gives oil to america. why shouldnt they do it.

Because it is cheaper for the eastern provinces to get their oil from the Sea of Norway and GB than to get it from Alberta. Most of the oil consumed in eastern canada comes from GB. (well, that was in the 90's at least).

2nd : if costs were to get that low, it would not serve anything to have a well in the bituminous sands since it is about the cost to refine it. Remember, this is not clean oil, its oil in sand. Meaning, it is much more costy to exploit than anything else. Until we get to live in a fully communist country or if oil is nationalized with the torries in power, which both I doubt will happen, it would end up into a massive economic failure for Canada.




Chris

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

20th February 2006

0 Uploads

5,663 Posts

0 Threads

#26 12 years ago

Can.... someone explain this to me? I don't really understand.




GuineaPig

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

505 Posts

0 Threads

#27 12 years ago

"how can so many people be so stupid?" When I saw this title, I thought it was about Bush. Nationalizing gas prices, and subsidizing gas prices in areas where transport is difficult to reach, would prevent exploitation by gas companies that prey on citizens in some areas. In the place I live, are gas price is routinely 10 cents higher then a city 30 minutes away. It would prevent extortion from gas companies on isolated areas. Nationalizing gas prices does not mean lowering them; it means making them the same nationwide. However, now that we have a Conservative government it's unlikely it will happen. Canadians are not stupid for being fed up with corporate games; we prefer that everyone should have equal access to a commodity that has become a near necessity for transportation in the western world. And by the way, you cannot quote Thomas Jefferson on economics or government. He lived in a different time where society and the order of society was completely different. Although his policies did make sense at the time, they are out of date with current realities. Example: It may have made sense not to tax heavily or at all in the 18th century, but today how would society run? There would be no police, health care, fire department, good roads, etc. etc. that are maintained by the various levels of government. I realize that WarHawk109 will likely rip into this for its "blatant left-wing nonsense" but politics and society is constantly being reorganized and being stuck in the past leaves you out of the loop. Congrats to America on being the only industrialized nation without public health care.




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#28 12 years ago
GuineaPig"how can so many people be so stupid?" When I saw this title, I thought it was about Bush. Nationalizing gas prices, and subsidizing gas prices in areas where transport is difficult to reach, would prevent exploitation by gas companies that prey on citizens in some areas. In the place I live, are gas price is routinely 10 cents higher then a city 30 minutes away.

And why do you think that is? Do you think they do that just for the heck of it? Just to rip you off? Boy are you ignorant. It's called supply and demand. Some areas may not have as much demand as others, or the supply may be harder to get to you, meaning higher prices.

It would prevent extortion from gas companies on isolated areas. Nationalizing gas prices does not mean lowering them; it means making them the same nationwide.

Which is stupid since throwing the principles of supply and demand out the window. No matter how you look at it it'll create surpluses and shortages that would not be there otherwise.

However, now that we have a Conservative government it's unlikely it will happen.

Yep! Good thing we have the freedom lovers in power or we'd really be in trouble! :D

Canadians are not stupid for being fed up with corporate games; we prefer that everyone should have equal access to a commodity that has become a near necessity for transportation in the western world.

Corporate "games"? Supply and demand is a "game"? :lol: Gee no wonder you're so left wing, you can't understand simple economic concepts.

"Equal access" comes at the expense of individual liberty, you sir are a totalitarian.

And by the way, you cannot quote Thomas Jefferson on economics or government. He lived in a different time where society and the order of society was completely different. Although his policies did make sense at the time, they are out of date with current realities. Example: It may have made sense not to tax heavily or at all in the 18th century, but today how would society run? There would be no police, health care, fire department, good roads, etc. etc. that are maintained by the various levels of government.

Jefferson knew what would happen in if gov't were to expand, and it's so true today. If you look at all bad governments in the world, or all bad governments throughout history, each one has come about from too much government. So why flirt with the devil?

I realize that WarHawk109 will likely rip into this for its "blatant left-wing nonsense" but politics and society is constantly being reorganized and being stuck in the past leaves you out of the loop.

Sorry If I don't believe change for the sake of change is a good idea. We're going down the wrong road, the road to tyranny.

Congrats to America on being the only industrialized nation without public health care.

Actually they do have public health care, but at least they have choice.

Congrats to Canada on being the only country besides North Korea and Cuba to make it illegal for citizens to purchase private medical care or insurance. :D




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#29 12 years ago

The difference in health care between the US and Canada was best illustrated during the SARS outbreak. Whereas Canada suffered multiple deaths to SARS the US suffered not one single fatality. Private Health Care:1 State Sponser:0 The governemnt all ways operates on the lowest common denominator. why would you pay to have cheap healthcare. and yes Canadians ARE paying for that whack-ass healthcare of theres you ever look at your tax forms?




wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

13th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#30 12 years ago

I'll answer the OP's question. Soldiers in Iraq and around the world are protecting the common idiot's right to say and do stupid things. If everyone weren't so much like pampered little babies (mentally) then maybe these people would do some research, find out it didn't work, or maybe from the beginning KNOW it won't work.