Of course, I said there would be no point for me in discourse with you about economics, since I said you were ignorant, not just wrong.
This was shown by your suggested strategy for maximizing profit...by shutting down production.
I actually mentioned a "hard on toward business," which is something different. It's an attitude more than an opinion, a willingness to believe the worst about business because, well, it's business. And in your case, it's borne of ignorance.
This was shown by your assertion that companies were shutting down refineries for market manipulation, not because of an industry practice called 'turnaround.' You dismiss some maintenance as perhaps necessary, but you obviously don't know it's an industry wide practice. You obviously don't know that refineries have been running at higher than normal utilization because of Katrina, and that they're finally catching up on maintenance.
You're obviously also ignorant of the role that low sulphur diesel has played in needed refinery upgrades.
It hasn't occurred to you that from a profit standpoint, it makes the most sense to do turnaround when the refining margin is lowest...it costs the company the least, and the market will miss the production the least.
You assumed the worst when even rudimentary knowledge of the industry and of economics would have given you another answer.
In your ignorance, you assume and assert the worst about business. That's what I wanted to understand. I actually had specific statements I wanted your response to...
Would you want to have surgery from someone who wasn't a doctor, but had really strong opinions about surgery?
Do you believe politicians who pass laws to regulate business should have some knowledge of economics?
Do you believe that voters, who bear ultimate responsibility in our system, should have some knowledge of economics?
Do you believe that all opinions have the same validity?
In case you still don't understand the point...if someone were a plumber, listening to opinions and statements about how to do plumbing by someone with no actual knowledge would be pointless, and at some point actually painful.
Your post scaled that peak, and now stands triumphantly astride.
Isn't at least some knowledge a prerequisite for opining?
You drew a conclusion about my stance toward business without adequate facts. That was your first error due to an inadequate assessment of what was said and quite possibly unsaid. But lacking further facts, you reached a startlingly inaccurate conclusion. That’s not what I would expect from the world’s preeminent internet economist.
Your next error was when you stated, “You obviously don't understand what a commodity market is...and you don't know how little the actions of one relatively small producer can move price. You don't understand that in most cases, any individual producer will harm profits, not increase them, by following your "rationale."”
I’m sure you’ll tell me that your skills in understanding the commodities markets have enabled you to make quite the substantial profit for a life fit for a king. Or maybe just for an internet millionaire. The markets for widgets, wheat and OJ work more efficiently than an energy market restricted by government control of resources (our government and foreign). In a controlled market, like that for energy, manipulations by an entity can affect the pricing. The OPEC cartel was designed to do just that. You rejected that slowing refinery deliveries will constrict supplies thus pressuring prices higher. Those who refuse to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. The California energy crisis of 2001 – 2001 was caused by Enron’s behavior in exactly the same manner of restricting supply. In fact, Key Lay (of Enron) said, "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." The California regulators agreed that the market can be manipulated, because it was manipulated. Sometimes reality just shoots the book stuff all to hell, doesn’t it? Please note, when you make a sweeping declarative statement, a single contradictory item will invalidate your entire thesis. I won’t call you ignorant, although that’s what it is. I’ll just chalk it up to a lack of focus by the world’s preeminent internet economist.
Now, on to your penile juvenilities. One might say that your inability to find any fault in a business’ motives demonstrates a childish innocence on your part. Businesses have a requirement to maximize profits. Sometimes they proceed in an unsavory fashion. But for your blinders you would see that. How else to explain Bhopal? I’d attribute your failing in this area to just another case of too many books, not enough reality.
Finally, the silly questions, designed to demonstrate what? Your first mistake here is equating a soft-science like economics with a hard science like medicine. Really, you take your status as world’s preeminent internet economist much too seriously. I will deal with your interrogatories seriatim.
Would you want to have surgery from someone who wasn't a doctor, but had really strong opinions about surgery?
Of course not, that would be stupid. There is an agreed-upon procedure for removing an appendix. But anybody who thinks economists agree can ask Paul Krugman what he thinks of Ludwig Von Mises.
Do you believe politicians who pass laws to regulate business should have some knowledge of economics?
Of course not. There is no requirement in the Constitution for anything of the sort. Anybody who would agree with a stupid argument like that would undoubtedly agree that only those who have served in the military can take a position on defense concerns.
Do you believe that voters, who bear ultimate responsibility in our system, should have some knowledge of economics?
Again, another untenable, preposterous position. The right to vote requires no requisite skills. Folks who cannot even speak English may vote. A person holding to such a position would place the country in grave danger if their wish were to ever be enacted. At that time, it would be a government test that would assess proficiency in economics. That government might not be on your side, my friend.
Do you believe that all opinions have the same validity?
Of course, all opinions are valid, even yours. Opinions are based on one’s life learning (and other’s book learning). People can only know what they can experience and learn. If you disagree, is it your opinion that if you personally are not adequately familiar with farm subsidies that you should not be able to opine about the wastefulness of the expenditure (if that were to be your position)?
Your conclusion fell back into the trap of equating a hard art like plumbing with the soft-science of economics. If your pipes are clogged, you need a plumber. If your economy is stalling, the last thing you need is four three-handed economists with eleven solutions.
You are probably, normally a very nice person. But for your brusqueness, I might even find you so. But what I have experienced is the remarkable vastness of the World Wide Web. If not for FreeRepublic, I might never have had the opportunity for discourse with the world’s preeminent internet economist.