Shell to Demolish Refinery to Drive Up Prices

[Jeanette X]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=114-04062004

Evidence Shows Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery, Drive Up Gas Prices; Consumer Group Seeks Intervention of Bush, Kerry, CA Attorney General

4/6/2004 9:30:00 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National and State Desks, Consumer Reporter

Contact: Jamie Court, 310-392-0522, ext. 327 or Tim Hamilton, 360-495-4941, both for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights today released internal Shell documents showing the oil refiner is set to close and demolish its Bakersfield refinery despite the fact the site had the biggest refinery margins, or profits per gallon, of any Shell refinery in the nation as of yesterday.

Shell had claimed it was not economically viable to keep the refinery open and has refused to put it up for sale. Bakersfield supplies 2 percent of the state's gasoline and only 13 refineries feed California's tight gasoline supply (down from 37 in 1983).

An April 5th internal Shell document released today by FTCR shows that Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation. That means, for example, that margins are 36 cents per gallon higher in Bakersfield than in Port Arthur, Texas. The internal document comments under the category of refinery margins "Wow."

"Only an oil company that wants to short the market and artificially drive up the price of gasoline would demolish a highly profitable refinery rather than sell it," said Jamie Court, president of FTCR and author of the book Corporateering (Tarcher/Putnam). " Shell has deceived the public about Bakersfield and must be forced to keep this refinery open or sell it to a competitor. This evidence should also spur a national moratorium on all further domestic refinery closures."

In a letter sent today, FTCR called upon California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to file suit under the state's Unfair Business Competition Law to force Shell either to sell the refinery or to keep it running. The consumer group said it could seek such legal relief itself should the Attorney General not act. The letter can be read at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/util.../fs004156.php3 and the Shell documents can be viewed at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/rp/

FTCR also wrote President Bush and US Senator John Kerry to ask both candidates to support a national moratorium on refinery closures throughout the United States, stating that the recent run up at the pump "has little to do with OPEC but is a result of the deliberate restriction of supply by the highly consolidated domestic refining industry." The letter can be viewed at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/util.../fs004155.php3

Among the documents released today by the consumer group is an end-of-2003 memo from Shell manager Jeff Krafve to fellow refinery employees that describes Bakersfield's refining operation this way: "(W)e turned in excellent operational performance this year. We are the most reliable US Shell refinery in 2003, and achieved world-class performance two years in row now. We have made quantum step improvements in our environmental compliance, finishing well under target again for the second straight year. We have reduced the expense we control 15-plus percent year over year, and have been one of the few Shell U.S. refineries to turn a profit... We've done this with the lowest personnel index in Shell refining in the country, making us comparatively the most productive and effective workforce in the system."

FTCR's letters to Lockyer, Bush, and Kerry also reveal, "Refinery workers in Bakersfield told FTCR that Aamir Farid, General Manager of Shell's refinery, stated to hundreds of employees at an employee meeting that the company would never sell the refinery because it did not want the competition. This suggests the real motivation for the company to close the refinery is to insure its production does not stay on line and to further decrease competition for the company's remaining two refineries in California."

In addition, FTCR uncovered a timetable showing decommissioning and demolition are set to begin immediately after the refinery's shut down date. Court and petroleum consultant Tim Hamilton -- both members of the Attorney General's Gasoline Pricing Task Force -- wrote to Lockyer, "As the bulldozers are apparently on their way to Bakersfield, time is of the essence."

The letter to Lockyer also states: "This market obviously functions like no other. If there were a computer shortage, would any computer maker close computer factories? At last, we believe there is an opportunity for you to act under the state's Unfair Business Competition Law to stop Shell's plan to demolish its refinery and to prevent gasoline prices from spiking once again."

The letter to Bush and Kerry ends: "Together you have an opportunity to stop Shell from closing this refinery and to maintain the nation's refining capacity by calling for a moratorium on all refinery closures in the United States. It's the right thing to do not only for Americans' bank accounts, but also for our national security."


http://www.usnewswire.com/

[Preechr]

Good stuff...

[mburbank]

HEY! It's just the free market in action, which is the highest form of Patriotism! What's good for Business is good for America! It's THEIR refinery, if they want to shut it down it's nobodies damn business! You big government people MAKE ME SICK!! What the hell is wrong with a company looking to increase profit margins by shortening supply! Is it THEIR fault the world relies on oil and that we're poised on the brink of a an all out Religous war? Is that some reason to ignore the potential for massive profits? Don't they OWE it to their stockholders?!?

[Preechr]

Veeeery lineal logic. You can hardly call energy a free market when it's one of the most regulated industries in existence. Additionally, isn't driving up gas prices a Green thing? Don't the regulations imposed on energy companies require a bunch of their dirty, dirty profits go toward conservation and ecological efforts?

Ok... so I'm not going to go all the way with that and suggest this is good, but is it simple corporate fat-cat "greed?" No. Why do we need so many refineries anyway? Boutique Blends. In America, the regional requirements for what gas is remains the biggest driver of price at the pump. Politicians, not corporate fat-cats, are responsible for the corn in midwest gas and the aromatherapeutic benefits you receive from huffing gas in Hollywood.

You cannot expect civic responsibilty from a company that is subject to constant civil threat. Sorry. The idea that Shell should sell off it's most productive refinery to it's competition is just silly. If they've decided it's got to go, for whatever reason, then it's their option to demolish it. Maybe their decision is based on more than simply driving the pump price up by shorting the supply. There's definitely more to it than the article suggests...

[mburbank]

I'm just fucking around.

I'm a public transportation guy, and I favor the Apollo Project, a plan to invest heavily as a country in alternative tech (like we did to get men to the moon before the Rooskies) and get off the oil teat.

That being said, there's so much illogic and greed to go around in All Bidness it makes your head spin, and concidering the worlds addiction to this finite resource, it's really dangerous.

[Preechr]

I wasn't thinking you were being 100% serious... I was just waiting for somebody to say something about it, though... I have a soapbox to stand on here, y'know!

I'm very pro-capitalism, but I also don't believe most major industries are run as purely capitalistic enterprises anymore. We'll likely disagree when I say governmental regulation is the cause of the shift away from capitalism and that that's a bad thing. It's my view that the only thing government should ever be allowed to protect us from is itself. I don't need government protection from evil corporations, because those evil entities are how I earn my income. The government is an expense to me, and an involuntary one at that... and it's never proven that it can do the job of regulation effectively, either.

Government regulation never accomplishes what it intends to do, and only ever raises consumer costs. In some instances, these costs have produced desireable results, which indicates A value to the approach, but not necessarily the best value. Government regulation is never the only option, and never the best one, either.

That being said, I agree that a monumental effort needs to be made toward alternate energy, and a national project would be a great approach. This will only happen when we extract business interests from governmental decision making. A wall needs to be erected dividing commerce and state, similar to the one we have fooled ourselves into believing we've constructed between church and state. That "wall" needs to be strengthened and built higher to make any interaction impossible.

Commercial transactions are those of money. Those of government are exchanges of power. The province of religion is truth. There is no satisfactory exchange rate between these forms of currency because these exchanges always produce corruption. When truth is sold in exchange for power, such as the Kevin's Catholic Church taking a political stance to satisfy partisan needs, both the church and the politicos gain unfair advantage... but both institutions lose integrity and value. Similarly, we would never accept the idea of Jesus endorsing Nikes or "Sabbath© brought to you by Walmart," just as it's obviously wrong for Microsoft to use it's money to buy power in government regulation.

Yet the US Senate runs on deeply discounted versions of MS Exchange Server, set up and maintained by Redmond. The dividends of these sorts of arrangement obviously involve mountains of dirty money and ill-gotten influence, but we're not supposed to question matters of "National Security." There just was no anti-trust case to be made against Bill Gates, right?

I'm rambling... and probably waaay off topic. I suppose I'm trying to say that crap like that found in this article is exactly we should expect to see when money mixes with power and truth. Let each of the three pillars of our society (govt, commerce and religion) do their jobs for us alone, not polluting each other with their inexchangeable currencies. By not building the walls necessary to keep them separated, we are only inviting corruption and weakening our society. Those that would trade the currencies of their domain for that of another are intentionally and knowingly damaging society for personal gain.

By building this extra wall, we'll necessarily end the ability of government to manipulate, compete with and regulate private enterprise. I know that's scary to a lot of you guys, but it's something that can be discussed and eventually successfully implemented to our great benefit. Talking about it won't cause the moon to crash into New York City, as I'm sure many folks superstitiously believe the end of government regulation would accomplish if implemented.

*attempts to launch lead balloon filled with church farts*

[conus]

It's my view that the only thing government should ever be allowed to protect us from is itself. I don't need government protection from evil corporations, because those evil entities are how I earn my income.

Unless you want to go back to the days when children put in sixteen-hour days in the factories and workers were treated little better than slaves, you really do need the protection. Decent conditions for American workers didn't just happen. The system didn't naturally evolve, and capitalists didn't one day decide to treat people like valued human beings. It happened after American workers, over a period of about 70 years, went to the streets and fought and in many cases sacrificed their lives for the cause.

If you want to experience the good old days of unrestricted capitalism, go to Manila and work for a year in one of their factories. You'll have as much fun as any garment industry worker in 1870 New York. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go polish my Jimmy Hoffa bust.

[Preechr]

Living in caves was great when compared the hassles and death associated with camping out in the woods... FOR CAVEMEN.

Let India learn from the mistakes we made and the solutions we found back in the 20's. There's no reason for us to live in the past, acting like trade unions are useful to us. Pretending that children will be scooped out of their beds in the middle of the night and forced to work on road crews because Uncle Sam is no longer "protecting" them is just hysterical idiocy.

Not to say you're a hysterical idiot... There is, however, not much room in theoretical discussion for hyperbole and strawmen.

[conus]

Hyperbole? You really believe that, given the chance, corporate decision makers wouldn't turn back the clock if they thought it would increase profits? Do you really believe they care about the people whose labor creates for them all of that surplus value? How many American "temps" are there now? How many mid-size to large companies hire "independant contractors?" American corporations bend rules whenever possible, no matter how well they're doing. If some of these people had it their way, you would spend your lunch hour waiting in line at the company store to buy a sack of flour. That's not hyperbole. I mean it literally. It happened before and, as far as I know, none of these people experienced any spiritual epiphanies. The difference between now and then is government regulation.

[Preechr]

Yes, of course, because no real people actually run companies. CEOs are pod-people that are raised to be mean and cruel, like pit-bulls, in the backyards of major Republican supporters. It's a little known fact that the scene in Lord of the Rings where they showed the Uruk Hai being bred in snot pods that that was just a How-To video produced by the RNC that was just edited in to the movie. Those weren't guys in Orc suits. Those were businessmen without their latex people suits on.

By your logic, treating people well produces no dividends. Humanity is non-profitable. Social liberalism is anti-capitalism. Work is war and profit is only ever blood-money. That says more about you than it does about life in 2004. Reality is as it is. While it may be very true that the Prussian education model that dominates our government (read: Democrat) run skool system is designed to produced brain-dead followers, the reality of our society has evolved.

Eliminating government regulation won't suddenly make people stupid. The rules of business willnot change back to what they were at the turn of the last century. Did you notice that I DID NOT say there would be no regulation at all? No, you didn't. At even the suggestion of removing Momma Gubbermint from it's position of power in Business, your moon crashed into your New York. The fact that you cannot even consider other options should wake you up to the fact that you're too heavily invested in the status quo.

Here's a rough draft of a system that could replace government regulation, or part of it anyway. If you can stand to read through it, I'd be happy to flesh the guild thingy out a bit better for you if necessary. That's just one idea, and I'd be happy to argue it with you. Maybe we could work together and come up with a system that would work perfectly... if you can overcome your superstitious fears of corporations, that is, of course...

[Preechr]

If you need proof, by the way, of a liberally run company that has found some magical way to balance humanity and profit, check out Progressive insurance. Not only do they treat their employees and customers with respect, they are the top performing Fortune 500 company in America. Their liberal policies are THE REASON for their success. That's reality.

You can lead a horse to water, and you can hold his head under the water until he drinks, but you're just not gonna make any money like that. You get more bees with honey than you do by treating your employees like shit.

[AChimp]

Your essay is junk. Not only is it rife with spelling and grammatical errors, it stoops to insulting critics.

@ "guilds"

There are already guilds and professional associations that establish standards between competition. You're about 500 years too late with that idea.

Pray tell, what happens when everyone in the guild collectively decides to raise prices together? Do you even understand how a guild works? They only serve to stifle competition. Guilds come down hard on shit-disturbers who decide to undercut their brethren by charging less than the agreed upon amount.

[Preechr]

Yes, yes... that was a compilation of posts in a thread on a message board. I could sit down and write out the entire idea, and check it closely for spelling and grammatical errors, but why waste my time for folks that haven't proven themselves receptive to the idea?

I'm using the word "guild" because it's accessible, so I don't really care if you have a preconceived idea of what I'm talking about based on a "500 year old" definition of a placeholder name. That's kinda your problem, if you choose to have one.

It's funny, though, to watch you assume you could instantly poke more holes in an idea that's been floating around in the back of my head for a few years now than those I've already poked myself. Gee, I never thought of casually dismissing it and laughing at myself for being stupid before! The spelling errors should have tipped me off! Thanks!

Here's another funny part: You seem to think there's no way to avoid a "guild," as I'm using the term, turning into a cartel, which is what you're thinking of... yet you think regulations can keep corporations from fucking over society when you are so obviously wrong. Look around you.

There are perfectly valid arguments against the idea. You haven't even started looking for them yet.

[FartinMowler]

OH brother ! this guy is steaming with pompus gas bullshiteous

[AChimp]

OH HO! So we have to show interest in the drivel that flows forth from your fingertips before you can put two coherent sentences together about it?

Preach, brother, preach!

If "guild" is the wrong word for what you're trying to communicate, then don't use "guild." Make up a metaphor rather than picking a word ad hoc from the dictionary that has an established definition and twisting it to your own fringe views. Better yet, make up your own word for it.

Personally, I'd call your ideas "craptacularism."

It's been shown time and again that regulations work, but only if they are enforced. Rather than comply with reasonable demands, corporations instead bitch and moan about how government is stifling them and it's going to do this and that to the economy. Government backs off and the corporations put their piggy heads back into the trough. A few of those pigs would have to be slaughtered before the rest of them woke up.

[Preechr]

It's been proven to be good conversation starter on biased boards, and I figure it's better to be picked on by you than it is to... umm... Not? I dunno. This is I-mockery, right? I came here expecting to be mocked. Wear yourself out. If all you've got is "PTHPTHPPTH!" to offer, though, don't expect a particularly developed response.

You could have attacked the guild idea (I didn't call it that originally, preferring instead to describe it rather than name it, but Gator wanted to call them "guilds") on a number of valid points, but you chose instead to nitpick my spelling and act confused over an arcane and thus generally undefined word... and you call that an argument?

Here: An association of people with similar interests or pursuits. If you wish to use the "definition" you picked up playing D&D, you pick a word for it. Then engage the argument or STFU and leave me to wait on someone that can add something to the discussion.

How are our regulations enforced? Is it working? Are you happy with the system as it is? Give me some examples where government regulation of private enterprise has improved the economy and Joe-Six-Pack's position in it, and I'll tell you the historically obviated formula that firing government regulators produces jobs on the order of one to ten. Explain to me how 1,000,000 pages of federal criminal laws restricting your personal freedom to do stuff makes you safer and more productive.

You can get all red-faced and pretend I'm suggesting we pack it all up and live in anarchy if you want. You can also make the logical assumption that I'd like to see the situation improved and provide me with the benefit of your amazing AChimp brain to either explain to me how I'm wrong and the status quo is just fine and dandy or how my theory is flawed, so I might improve upon it.

Mock/challenge me as you wish. You're the one on stage here. I'm the n00b and you're the regular. Show me you're more than just a post count.

[Jeanette X]

Boy, did I manage to open a can of worms!

[Preechr]

Sorry... didn't mean to crap on your thread.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Sorry... didn't mean to crap on your thread.

Eh, don't worry about it. In fact, I'm usually delighted when something I post ignites a shitstorm of controversy.

[AChimp]

Here, I can sum up all your arguments: "Government bad! Free market good! Government bad! Fore-fathers!"

Since when is "guild" arcane? I suppose it could be if you spend all of your time thinking about how hard done by you are, and how much you're oppressed by the iron fist of government. And who is Gator, and why the fuck should I care?

Do you expect us to know the whole backstory behind your "I posted it on a ranting website so it has to be cool" essay? If Gator wanted to use "guild" when what you really meant wasn't 100% "guild" then why did you use it?

Here's another definition for you, wad.

An association of persons of the same trade or pursuits, formed to protect mutual interests and maintain standards.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guild

You don't even address the issue of guilds abusing their powers, and ignore the fact that THEY ALREADY EXIST. Pick an industry, from chimney sweep to plumber to grocery store owner. There's a national and international association for all of them.

They already do what your "awesome" idea suggests and a lot more things that are less than commendable.

Give me some examples where government regulation of private enterprise has improved the economy and Joe-Six-Pack's position in it, and I'll tell you the historically obviated formula that firing government regulators produces jobs on the order of one to ten.

Health codes. Building codes. Stricter controls means better training and better quality which translates into more money. Now what were you saying about regulations not improving anything?

Oh wait... the guilds would self-regulate and the government would just oversee it all with disconnected hand-waving from a distance... don't want to oppress, interfere or stifle now, do we? So Bob and Bill are in a "guild," which is really just a loose term for an association of people with similar interests or pursuits, but not really, because Gator just wanted to call it that. Really, Bob and Bill are in the business of making money, along with a few dozen other guys that are also part of their "guild."

This "guild" self-regulates in order to provide a consistent level of service across the board. Hooray! Consistent levels of service mean that everyone puts one pickle in the burgers that they sell. Bob does a little bit of market research and finds out that consumers in his area would probably be willing to pay a little more for an extra pickle; it won't cost much more because he can find some new efficiencies in the pickle placing process that will save in the long run.

But now there's a problem. Bob isn't just meeting expected and agreed-up pickle levels... he's exceeding them and making everyone else look bad! People are lining up around the block for Bob's two-pickle burgers, and only a few loyal customers are still frequenting Bill's establishment.

So, the guild gets together to discuss this. A few people see the benefits of Bob's plan and think that it would be a good idea to meet the consumer demand for more pickles. But hold on! Bill has looked at the figures, and it'll cost him MORE to put two pickles on burgers. Well, I guess Bill is just shit out of luck, huh? It's a free market, and he can't compete!

If Bill goes out of business, then that means more business for the rest of the guildmembers, right? Everyone gets to cannibalize Bill's fetid corpse, and to hell with the consumers that still like Bill's brand name. They can free market themselves over to a different burger joint. It works like that on paper, see?

Uh oh... more guildmembers are admitting that they're on Bill's side. It just costs too much have two pickles. There's a vote on the proposed pickle amendment... the verdict is in... 70% is against upgrading to two pickles at this time. But this means Bob will have to downgrade... not likely, because Bob's rolling in moolah.

Bob refuses to back down, so the guild has another vote. This time it's to blackball Bob and kick him out of the treehouse. Well would you look at that! 90% in favour of booting Bob's ass. I guess everyone else likes money, too, and if Bob is gonna make them look bad and steal customers, then they can't have as big a piece of the burger business pie.

No problem, says Bob. I have a superior product and I exceed the service levels that the guild has laid out. Bob's not allowed to claim that he's guild-certified anymore, though, so the little stickers come off the windows.

Enter Betty. Betty wants a burger, but notices that the little sticker is gone from Bob's window. "What up, yo?" she asks. "Oh, nothing," says Bob. "I'm not in the guild anymore, but my product is superior and I charge more, and I offer the Bob Guarantee."

"Okay," says Betty. "Since it's a free market, I'm going to shop around before I spend my hard-earned dollars." Betty goes to Bill's restaurant and immediately notices that the price is CHEAPER!

"You must have an inferior product if you are charging less than Bob!" she exclaims, displaying the textbook view of the average consumer that is not usually taken into account by "the current system sucks" theories.

"Not inferior, ma'am," answers Bill. "This product has been certified as meeting the standards by these 12 other guys."

"Purchasing the industry-standard burger easily resolves my cognitive dissonance," says Betty with a smile, opening her purse. Bob promptly goes out of business because of a little sticker and a slimy pickle.

The moral of the story is that the phat industry standard guarantee always trumps the extra pickle. Marketing 101 prevails and Bob's store is turned into a bingo hall.

Explain to me how 1,000,000 pages of federal criminal laws restricting your personal freedom to do stuff makes you safer and more productive.

Oh, you poor baby. How do you ever survive without being allowed to run naked through the streets, smearing syrup on your body while on your way to burn down a public library?

Don't go turning the tables and demanding I explain how government could do a better job; that's the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" I think the current system works for the most part, because I don't see the sky falling. Sure it could be better, but it could be a helluva lot worse.

You explain how your "guilds" won't abuse their powers. I'm the regular, as you stated. I have nothing to prove because I've read your old, tired arguments here for the last few years.

[FS]

Wasn't Gator a guy on Newsfilter that faked his own death, and then when Vince posted about it here and I visited their forum, he was online there?

[Preechr]

LOL. See? That wasn't so hard! I think you enjoyed it even...

Ok... So basically what you are saying is that these guilds would have to be based on a minimum standard of service asnd quality rather than a maximum level of service and quality. Good idea! Guys like Bob would be free to innovate and improve market conditions, while remaining restricted from using horsemeat to cheap out their product at the consumer's expense.

You mentioned that industry associations already exist, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. In fact, in fields too complex for government to understand, there are actually REGULATORY associations that fill the void left by federal ignorance. For the most part, however, the existing associations serve the purpose of lobbying the government. They protect their members from government heavy-handedness and industry specific ignorance. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Another good idea you had though: lack of government (third party) oversight. I'm addressing my responses in order of interest and importance, by the way, and this one was already addressed. I never indicated the government role would be reduced to distant, disconnected hand waving, did I? No, you invented that to lend credibility to your end of the argument.

Just as the guilds are initiated by adoption of minimum standards and a corresponding break in the punitive portion of the tax (more than required to obviate the move into guilds) to which thy're subject, that waving hand is also able to press that big red button that turns that extra tax back on. THAT's oversight, not management or regulation. That's a direct, punitive response to bad faith, like carpet bombing rather than regime change followed by a puppet-government. Companies still get to run themselves, but they do so at a forced loss of profits due to their inability to do so well.

Now, moving on to me running naked through the streets, smearing syrup on my body while on my way to burn down a public library... Not my bag, baby, but other than the library part (which I haven't actually done yet, and stupid ideas shouldn't really be against the law, should they? I mean, how am I gonna pull that off with syrup?) Laws limit freedom ONLY. You lean authoratarian while I trend libertarian, and I can't change that. Laws aren't about what only I or you can do. You like laws because they limit what everybody else can do, and I prefer the maximum levels of choice for everyone. I would rather lower our "social safety net" down a bit from the level of a couch one can sit on instead of being productive to a level just above death due to legitimately falling through the cracks. I'd put some bounce in the thing, to help "the unfortunate" get back on track. No, this doesn't mean I'd shoot those truly incapable of production... that should be privatized as well...

"Health codes. Building codes..." I didn't ask for examples of government regulation. I know those exist. Are they working as well as they could? No. The difference between third-party oversight and third-party regulation is that oversight has one negative response and regulation sets limits across the board which discourages innovation. Regulators are not experts. Experts in any industry won't take the pay cut to work for government. Regulators, in general, limit the innovation of professionals. Limitation is the sum total of their job. The knowledge gap is huge. By arranging thigs so that the experts from companies A-F are seting the limits for the guy at company G, the threshold for innovation is lowered, and safety/quality is managed by those actually qualified to do the job.

You can choose to live in a fantasy world where regulators get government jobs because they're accomplished experts in their fields, but that's your choice, not reality. This is just another area where power can override knowledge, and I'd like to see that reversed.

Finally, you made another intentional misunderstanding when you brought up Bob and Bill and their twelve friends. I said NATIONAL groups, which doesn't preclude statewide or regional sub-groups, but definitely leaves out Bob, Bill and the gang functioning as a "guild." As I said before, there's a lot of questions you could be asking, and many more valid holes you could be poking at. One notable example is the internal structure of a guild. It would have to be divided in levels, likely according to market-share and regional penetration, to avoid Microsoft being able to use monopolistic tactics to drive lesser companies out of business. Leveling could also, if done well, force fair play on the largest corporations in a way federal anti-trust laws are obviously incapable of doing. Again, look at Microsoft.

I think I've addressed your issues. If I missed something, let me know. I didn't really give you the background on Gator or 4-ranters or that other stuff... I figured you weren't acually interested. If you feel it's pertinent, I could explain more. You keep pointing out the hole you find, and I'll keep helping you fill them in.



Oh, and FS: Me and another poster were the one's that killed Gator. It was an ill-conceived attempt to prove a mostly moot point. I do dumb things sometimes... :/ It got a little out of hand when Vince and a few other folks didn't realize we were pulling a prank. We took it a bit too far which crossed the line between funny and mean. I think Vince's still pissed at me... Well, that and he thinks I got him "fired" from Newsfilter. Since the original scheme was to prove to folks like Vince that the people on the other side of his screen are real, and not just toys for his amusement, I guess maybe it served it's purpose to a point...

[Preechr]

No. I take that last bit back. Our "prank" was self-defeating, using the same methods we were trying to bitch about... Anyhoo... Gator's fine. He healed up well and recently got a job.

[Preechr]

Just to throw this into the mix: I'd use the analogy, unfairly in your mind I assume, that this discussion is like me pointing out we have all shit in our pants, all at once. To me, you're denying this obvious fact and adjusting to the smell and stickiness you pretend not to notice. I picked this article to start this in for a reason. You guys can stand around bitching about corporate greed and contradictorily acting as if the system is fine, or you can set about fixing the system which is built to cause this kind of crap.

[AChimp]

You still haven't addressed the issue of guilds abusing their power. Stating that they would maximize service levels is one thing, showing how it would happen in place of merely adhering to an acceptable minimum is another.

Your system only works on paper. You're leaving human nature by the wayside by thinking that businessmen will all rush out do their best to be the best when it's easier to do half as good and still make as much money with half the effort.

Laws limit freedom ONLY. You lean authoratarian while I trend libertarian, and I can't change that. Laws aren't about what only I or you can do. You like laws because they limit what everybody else can do, and I prefer the maximum levels of choice for everyone.

Ah yes... the important choices, like who should I murder today, or which company should I defraud this time? Laws are designed to be for the good of everyone. If some serve to inconvenience you, that's just too bad. Write letters to your elected representatives and have them change the law. Very few laws are so entrenched that they cannot be changed.

Regulators are not experts. Experts in any industry won't take the pay cut to work for government.

Ha, maybe on your side of the border. Regulators here all work closely with industry (not to the best results all the time) and most inspectors have worked in the industry for many years.

Regulators, in general, limit the innovation of professionals. Limitation is the sum total of their job.

What? By requiring professionals to publically show that they know what they're doing and it's being done safely? Is it really bad to limit a house contractor from experimenting a totally new and awesome method of building cheap houses out of straw and glue, only to have them fall apart when it rains?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Everyone who bought a straw house would be allowed to sue the bastard after the fact. What a great system.

As I said before, there's a lot of questions you could be asking, and many more valid holes you could be poking at.

This just goes to show just how crappy your essay really is. If you've thought of holes, it's your responsibility to state them outright and make the necessary amendments, not to wait for someone else to find it while you sit stroking it and cackling.