Um….not always.
When a refinery shuts down, whether for scheduled maintenance, necessary repairs, or strategic supply and demand price rigging, gas prices just go up instantly. The oil and gas company doesn’t lose money from the down time, often they make more money because of it.
Look at Enron, that’s exactly what they did for years, intentionally created planned energy shortages and price gouged.

Somehow I feel like the information she’s relaying is not the reason for the post….or votes.

Biden is using the SPR which has lower prices. by stopping its use prices will go up.
There is no long dissertation needed. It is simple supply and demand -little man



So what do you think?
When the SPR is depleted or stopped being used what do you think will happen to gas prices?

1) in the 50’s, the time period MAGA wants to return to, colleges were often free with higher admission standards. Do you advocate free college for anyone qualified?

2) there’s a shock

3) that goes for abortions too, if you really want it you’ll find a way, but the “ways” left are all dangerous.

4) you said he was successful despite the fact that he left high school to support his family before…but ok, now he graduated public high school, and is the smartest man you know. Telling.
My mother graduated Rice university Suma Cum Laude then returned for a masters in English. Dad graduated in the top 1% of his class from Stanford with a chemistry major, then started a highly successful international high tech insulation company making insulation for nuclear power plants in the 70’s. (Your dad may have worked for my dad. Is his name Frank F?)

5) Neither could have succeeded as they did if they had to pay today’s rates for college, or if each had hundreds of thousands in debt to pay back. Both scored 1590 on their SAT. Neither got scholarships or loans (Rice was free, dad’s parents and part time jobs paid for Stanford). Neither “fucked around”.

6) Colleges charge more because people will pay it, because a degree is an absolute necessity to be successful in the business world (unless you inherit tens of millions). If you drop the amount people can borrow for school, they’ll just accept intellectually poorer students (like you) that CAN pay. Supply and demand….that doesn’t mean you discount your in high demand product because your preferred customer can’t afford it so long as someone can. Duh.

Truly there should be a helping hand to bright students who can't get a scholarship, loans to to to higher education.


I was poor student , didnt care about it got low grades. -- A year of washing dishes made me think find a white collar job. Dad refused to pay / help. I ended up getting student loans.

Dads motto -
IF you want something bad enough you will find a way.

Dad was a HS grad and was writing quotes for Navy Nuclear and many other million $ bids. Smartest man I know.

Paid my way through Penn State, slept on the floor, no heat 1/2 year ---- but I did it . Paid back my student loans and I am a better person for it.

higher education should place a finical burden on you - You will work harder because you can't afford to fck around.

That being said college / universities are over charging and raping students more and more every year.

? do college charge more because they know that the student can get the loan? I think so.

I think If you drop the amount a student can get in loans I sure tuition will drop to that level --- Supply and demand.

Noooo….you still don’t like Biden. You still think self serving narcissistic Trump was a leader, but a lifelong frugal public servant isn’t. Nooooo! (I know there’s no breaking through your fantasy, bob. You are a lost cause, totally divorced from reality and totally uninterested in honesty).

No bob, I mean the Union…as in the United States of America. As in the Union vs the Confederacy. Trump nearly dissolved the Union, so much that Republican platforms now include secession as their goal. Derp. Another “L” for your column. Another dunce cap for your collection.
Republicans want to erase America out of infantile spite, but have no idea what to do afterwards. Better learn Chinese or Russian, red states can’t afford to defend themselves, you are all welfare queen states with the highest murder and crime rates.

Side note: But, this means you are anti union, so 100% anti worker? Really? What favors has Biden handed unions? Most unions (all you oppose) lobby for workers, blue collar employees. You would limit lobbiests to to those lobbying for billionaires and huge corporations (including religious corporations) that actively lobby against workers rights, pay, safety, ecological responsibility, hours, etc. Think about that.

You fucking moron, it went from 3.08% (higher than Trump ever reached) in 2015 under Obama to -3.5% in 2020 (the lowest ever in history). Who the fuck told you .2%? Who told you Trump left it at 2.5%? Overall Obama’s growth rate was actually 50% higher than Trump’s, and Obama inherited a deep recession, Trump inherited a boom. They outright lied to you, and you just lapped it up without ever looking. They’re feeding you poo pie bob, not chocolate. I really wish I didn’t have to spend so much time correcting your obviously fabricated statistics, especially since you only spout them to force a correction, getting you attention, not because you believe or even understand them. So you understand, printing 50% more money while your economy is in the worst contraction ever causes inflation, and that’s what Trump did in 2020 while focusing on the election he lost in a landslide and ignoring the pandemic and economy.

Jobs?!? Obama job growth was near 8% adding 12.5 million jobs, Trump was the only president ever to lose jobs, losing 3.2 million. Another 100% break from reality, buddy. I’m telling you, you need professional help.

Yes, Trump did turn us around, from a massive recovery and booming economy to massive economic losses, job losses, absolutely insane deficits and trying to double the debt, huge money printing in 2020 (magic wand waiving) that creates massive inflation (that he now blames Biden for), undreamed of losses of life, and teetering on the brink of depression and pandemic. He made us madder. For libs that means angry, for cons that means totally bat shit crazy with no ties to reality at all.

Far from it, lots of positive, but so much negative left from the previous one we are still in the red.

They have made policies that help the American pocketbook, Trump robbed it blind to hand to billionaires (and fake billionaires).

Who told you that lie. The Democrats have done everything they legally can to force oil companies to increase production and stop price gouging, Republicans all voted against doing anything, then claim “Biden’s fault”. No fossil fuel production has been cut. You’ve been lied to, and you aren’t intellectually honest enough to investigate for yourself…you don’t want to hear the truth.

Republicans are to blame for high fuel prices, Democrats are responsible for the recent lowering. Democrats are making efforts to lower them further, Republicans are 100% opposed to any actions.

Trump benefited on fuel costs thanks to the economic collapse he caused by denying and ignoring Covid for months, dropping the demand for fuel to nothing…not a good policy overall, or do you suggest killing another million and shutting down another year to lower gas prices?


Lol. You are claiming reports say the average American spends $500 more on fuel and goods per month than under Trump? What reports? Glen Beck, AON, or Rush Limbaugh’s ghost? Only if you are a trucker using hundreds of gallons of gas a month. Even in California, fuel cost has gone up less than 1/5 of what you say.

Trump cost you SO much more than $6k per year, over $60k per taxpayer on the official debt alone…and these extra expenses (probably $100-$200 per month tops) are thanks to Trump printing 1/3 of every dollar in circulation (inflation) and fuel supply and demand being out of hand intentionally because oil companies make more money by producing less, and aren’t nationalized so the government can’t force them to stop gouging.

Such nonsense bob. Your facts are all wrong, and since you won’t investigate you are just going to continue to believe the lies you were fed. The people you listen to are making money off your beliefs, bob, and they see you as a huge sucker they can convince of anything and get your money or support for their America destroying “get me richer quick” schemes.

🤦‍♂️

Summary, since I don’t think you can read that much.
Union = United States Union, not unions
Gdp- Obama 1.59% rising consistently during his presidency Trump 1% falling precipitously to the worst ever in history. Also never beat Obama’s high.
Jobs- Obama added 12.5 million, Trump lost 3.2 million
Debt- Obama added $9 trillion, ending a recession and creating a boom over 8 years. Trump added $8 trillion on the books (and trillions more off the books) in 4 years ending a boom and creating a recession
Deficit- 2020 was the biggest budget deficit ever by >200% at $3.13 trillion and added well over $4.2 trillion to the debt that year, way more than 2021 at a still horrific $2.7 budget deficit but ending adding only $1.5 to the debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Oil/gas price - all cost cutting measures opposed by Cons.

http://archive.is/4CVqH

10 year plan. Twice as effective as the USSR's 5 year plans

...Fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems (needed), dramatically expanding renewable power generation (needed, but it also doesn't mean we should be throwing money away on stupid shit like solar roadways), overhauling our entire transportation system (regional flights, which sort of make up around 70% of total flights, would be targeted for elimination and massively expensive (slower) electrical trains would be put in their place), upgrading all our buildings (most businesses are already moving to green solutions) , jumpstarting US clean manufacturing (see highly expensive and non-competitive with cheaper overseas mfg), transforming US agriculture (forcing a move from cows/pigs/chickens to plant based proteins)...

While we are at it, might as well do the following:

A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security (Nice, but you can't just make these jobs available. They are supply and demand.)

High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools (Needed)

High-quality health care (Needed)

Clean air and water (Needed)

Healthy food (Subjective, is meat considered healthy?)

Safe, affordable, adequate housing (because this works, ie Projects...)

An economic environment free of monopolies (Technically this exists already, except in countries outside of the USA and EU)

Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work (SWEET! SIGN ME UP FOR THAT CHECK!!!)

I get that his spiel is comedy based, but the GND is about half reality and half looney tunes.

Supply and demand, my friends.

1)don't forget supply and demand, particularly when a certain year just turned out great and wins a bunch of awards... price goes up.

2)and for categories, the way the wine was aged(not just duration) makes a huge difference, even type of barrel used (french/american oak).

that study doesn't seem too accurate as I, a virtual wine lay-person, can tell the difference between white and red blindfolded. And I can certainly pick out my favorites from a selection of reds, they are my favorites because they taste better to me... has nothing to do with the bottle or the price.

I get her point about how women are represented in many games, but certainly not all games. There are also many strong, intelligent female characters out there, and a good dose of ineffective, whining, useless male characters too.
If she and other women feel under represented, they need to buy more games like 'The Last of Us' and support realistic characters in gaming. If games like that sell, game companies will make more of them...guaranteed. It's a supply and demand issue, they just need to create more demand and what they want will be supplied.
On another note, she and others need to keep in mind that most gaming is FANTASY, and as such does not realistically represent men or women. Asking it to do so is akin to asking sci-fi writers to be less inventive and more down to earth in their stories, or movie makers to be more realistic when making movies about the Matrix. It's kind of missing the point.

yeah but less assholes means less you It's a supply and demand thing.

I wouldn't blame history as it relates to gender dominated careers as a reason for why some jobs pay less. Veterinary medicine used to be completely dominated by males, and then starting ~40 years ago, it became completely female dominated. I would sooner blame poor pay for vets based on economic supply and demand of healthcare for animals!

As Jerykk said, the reasons for less women choosing to go into science and engineering is indeed complex, and has been a longstanding hot topic for intense academic study. Many people blame societal reasons, and the way we bring up our kids. Maybe you should let your girls play with trucks and power tools!

Simply by having the same education level does not grant you equal pay (unless you're working in government). You're paid for the supply and demand of your skills. There are by far MANY more men than women in engineering and physical sciences, and those fields pay rather well. There are by far MANY more women than men in veterinary and educational fields, and those fields pay atrociously.

It is indeed unfortunate if any discrimination occurs, and even if women achieve 99% of men, it is still not nice. However, recognize that nobody is particularly certain about these numbers. I see numbers ranging from 87% to 103% in this video, so our certainty is horrible. Inequality is bad, but if you're going to get particularly opinionated about it, crunch the numbers for yourself instead of letting other boneheads skew the numbers for you.

The statistics can be pulled either way by horrible analyses, and trying to compare 'equal jobs' can be hard...particularly when you factor in cost of living differences, seniority, relative success of different companies, etc. The most compelling evidence was the Yale study where identical resumes with different names were awarded different amounts of speculative money. That was the only real telling evidence that, at least among the people in that study, there is a bias towards paying women less for exactly the same job. However, the statistics can be pulled either way in a study like that as well; what is the uncertainty of the pay level for that poll? Is it random chance and statistical noise happened to end up with the woman paid less in that study? If they surveyed an order of magnitude more people, would the average salaries converge to the same value? In most polls and studies like this, the sampling size is usually quite poor, and getting such an exact dollar figure difference with high certainty is nearly impossible. It would be great to see that study to make an assessment of how much uncertainty was present for myself.

capitalism only really functions well (with regulation) in a world where resources are limited and a lot of manpower is needed to get things done. Thanks to technology, it's only a matter of time before resources are so easy to come by and manufacture into needed things that the supply and demand model will be obsolete.

I suspect that within 100 years, if not sooner, manual labor will be a thing of the past...unless you're an artist or something. Robots will be able to do virtually everything..and better than humans are capable of.

The only people who will still need to have jobs are engineers and maybe technicians, but even then, eventually robots will be able to repair themselves so maybe not even technicians will be needed. Hell, given enough time, nurses and many health care jobs won't be needed anymore because basic healthcare could be delegated to robots.

It's just a matter of time. We're already starting to see the effects of automation in the workforce, we just don't need as many people to get things done. Hell even technical jobs aren't safe because as computers get better and better, They'll be able to analyze certain things better than humans.

The question just becomes what do you do about it? A whole new economic model will be needed. Because we'll eventually be living in the world where unless you're in the academic top tier, you're just not going to be needed in the workforce. At the same time, again, because of technology, we're going to have the ability to feed and clothe AND shelter you for a minimal amount of effort so the prospect of being able to being born, living, and dying without ever NEEDING to work is a real possibility in the not so distant future.

Isn't that what you would call...a utopia? You want freedom? there it is. You'll be able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do instead of what you HAVE to do just to survive. I suspect at some point, there will have to be SOME procreation laws put into place to keep the population growth in check. But hell, even that won't be so bad once we have the ability to colonize other planets.

People will still work, they'll just do it because they want to do it, but they'll be jobs where they're not a necessity or anything. even in an age where a replicator can make all your food, people will still want to cook, or do other artisan style jobs.

But hey, we'll still need defense, gotta blow up or deflect any stray asteroid that comes near us. or just send a bunch of robots up to mine the rock to smitherines so we can use the resources to build our mighty space fleet and our other grand works That Dyson Sphere won't build itself after all

In other words, the human race....has won. isn't that a good thing?

@newtboy said: "Equality [...] means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity."

Much of income inequality is due to supply and demand.

The engineers at Twitter who are being paid millions are valued at that much on the market because there are very few humans alive who have the experience they have, and the temperament to enjoy studying stuff that most humans find "boring."

If you point out to people how they can have greater financial security in their lives, most will argue against you. The default human is like the grasshopper in the classic Disney short.


(But you do make a lot of good points.)

There is a flaw in your premise which suggests that somehow a capitalist system is susceptible to the "evils of man," but a "government" (no matter how limited) is not. Man is either evil or Man is not evil, regardless of the system in which Man functions. A system of government regulation can either be exploited or not, so a government imposed regulation thus becomes a mechanism for that manipulation.

Capitalism, by contrast, does not require the governmental oversight to impose the regulations that the market imposes upon itself. Such a system (despite the prevalent perception, of late) does not, in and of itself, generate the kinds of crony, kleptocratic monopolies that we have seen on the rise for the past 30+ years. That is, sadly, the effect of government -- the original monopoly -- whose regulations and hybridized (private/public) contractual agreements with the private sector create these imbalances and inequities throughout society. As far as I can tell, only the implicit competitions of the free market present the kinds of price restrictions that cannot be circumvented.

Note that capitalist competition does not mean a system of 'survival of the fittest' and it does not entail the strong surviving at the expense of the weak. In fact, the pattern seen throughout a competitive market is that of a "leader" challenged by a "second-place" (Coke then Pepsi), followed by a more distant third (other colas) and then a variety of many others (Sprite, 7-Up, A&W, etc.) Competition in capitalism differs considerably from that seen in the animal kingdom because humans, unlike animals, can increase the supply of what they need to survive, while animals cannot (with possible exceptions like bees making honey). In fact, capitalist competition does the opposite, it allows those who would otherwise not survive (because they cannot produce for themselves, or those too weak to compete) to survive by partaking in the market of increased supply. Even if those people are unable to hunt or farm for themselves, they can still feed themselves with the abundance of food produced by capitalist competition, which is a competition to produce more and better of whatever the market needs (with an accurate reflection of supply and demand in the price, which is very different from the kinds of "blind" economic calculations necessary in a centralized system of government). And to have such an abundance of production/supply, you need capital investment. There's no other alternative.

In any case, read the article I posted. Let me know what you think.