Because the administration didn't meet with other groups that have a direct stake in and are going to be affected by energy policy. If you're interested in being fair (or creating the appearance of fairness), you meet with everyone or you meet with no one. So if you're only going to meet with one group, then you do it secretly...
I was going to respond in similar fashion. I was also going to add that bringing in multiple independent doctoral experts/scientists would be beneficial. Having meetings in secret, refusing to answer anything about what was discussed at those meetings, and dealing only with large oil companies when deciding energy policy reeks of corruption and cronyism.
I think its more groupthink again from the administration rather than corruption. 'Hey, who knows more about energy than us oil guys.' Doesn't mean its not stupid, as groupthink necessarily is - but I don't think its evil intention.
I tend to think the same way. I don't think the admin's intentions are bad a lot of times... i just think they are terribly short-sighted and narrowly-focused and unable to see beyond their one viewpoint.
I agree in part, but the corruption starts coming into play when they didn't also seek advice from other interested parties. I don't think they planned to do something corrupt, but ommitting other groups at some point in the process it was. Of course I will freely admit that this is pure speculation on my part since I don't have a real insight into their motives or thought process. So I'm not trying to argue and say that I am right and you are wrong. I was just stating my thoughts.
I'm not thinking that's it. They had enough premeditation to make the meetings secret. Why not instead meet with other interested parties and then ignore everything they had to say? That'd be a little more work but less opportunity to be criiticized. Are they that lazy they can't have a pointless meeting with the Sierra Club or whoever?
Look, guys and gals, watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room" (or read the book). What Enron and other energy/oil giants did to California is now being done to the United States in general. To wit: the major investment banks that helped Enron in its B.S. geared up for the energy trading business and are now in it. Strange how prices at the pump jumped at about the same time. No, it isn't India's great economy, nor China's. The hurricanes? Meh. Maybe a little. Nope. You want to know why oil prices are so high, look no further than who runs the damned country. We demolish Iraq, the oil companies can step in and Halliburton gets no-bid billions to fix the mess we made. So much for us being the bright shining beacon of the free world.
Right on. I never consider these guys are an innocent bunch, either. Evil bastards, plain and simple. EDIT: make it evil, greedy, lying bastards.
I do not believe that the Bush Admin. is getting bought off. I believe that they are one and the same with the people who are allegedly 'buying them off' - so, in essence, there is no 'buying off' taking place. This is collusion, not salesmanship. The lobbyists and executives involved in this case function as the politicians we didn't elect. Cheney's connections to Halliburton and the long-standing Bush family involvement with oil make these assertions plausible enough to warrant an investigation. Maybe nothing will come of it - but it should be investigated. Clinton, Bush, or otherwise - a campaign 'donation' is a bribe, and the buddy-buddy relationship between big business and government is detrimental to everyone who isn't involved. This is a matter that concerns everyone, and anyone taking a partisan slant on it is doing themselves and the rest of us a disservice.
Oh this is going to be fun! I need some popcorn. Oil company officials accused of lying to Congress By Tom Doggett WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats asked the U.S. attorney general on Wednesday to investigate whether top executives from big oil companies lied to Congress when they said their firms did not take part in Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. Democrats and environmental groups have fought unsuccessfully to find out which energy industry executives met privately with Cheney's group in 2001 as it prepared a broad plan friendly to oil industry interests. Environmental groups said they were mostly excluded from the discussions. At a Senate hearing last week on record oil profits, Democrat Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey asked five executives: "Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy force in 2001?" Each executive answered the question in the negative. However, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday that a White House document showed some firms did in fact meet with the task force. It said the document showed officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco, Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. , whose executives testified at last week's Senate hearing, met with Cheney aides. A Chevron official also testified at the Senate hearing, but the company was not named in the White House document. However, the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that gave recommendations to the task force, the Post reported. In a letter to the attorney general, Lautenberg demanded an investigation, saying the new information "casts doubt on the veracity of some of these (executives') statements." Providing false testimony to Congress is punishable by up to five years in prison, Lautenberg said. SETTING RECORD STRAIGHT Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said the executives should return to Washington and set the record straight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116...2QBOBes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
This is laughable, drawing ridiculous conclusions about markets based on a movie. You say that "prices at the pump" jumped at the same time that invst. banks "helped" Enron gear up for the Energy trading business? This is 100% false. If you're going to make the Enron situation political, you might want to do a little research into the situation. Hint: Start with the term deregulation. Hint #2: deregulation in California. You want to know why oil prices are so high? Hint: Start with the term commodity. Hint #2: Supply and demand. I guess every car-driving American Democrat is now a commodities expert these days. Looks like consumer activism is the new Bush bashers flavor of the month. Did Ralph Nader replace Dean as head of the DNC? If your goal is truly consumer activism, you might want to focus your efforts on the pharmaceuticals industry rather than wasting your time here. If your goal is as I suspect, throwing darts at Bush, you might want to focus on the management of the Iraq situation, i.e. why has it taken so long for an army of 100,000+ troops to defeat an army of a couple thousand radical muslims.
Just to clear up the mess that ROXTXIA created with his ridiculous conspiracy theory, let's chat for a moment about what happened in California in 2001. 1. High natural gas prices due to natural supply and demand determinants -- gas fires many power plants in California, leading to higher costs for power. 2. Drought which reduced hydro power plants ability to operate 3. Inability for utilities to enter into long-term contracts due to flawed legislation. This raised utilities' exposure to spot prices of power -- which are more volatile and generally higher 4. Supply shock due to an El Paso pipeline from Arizona to California exploding 5. Retail power price caps which did not allow prices to rise and thereby reduced demand for power. Demand stayed high b/c retail price caps stayed low, which caused a huge spike in wholesale power prices 6. Transmission lines from N. California weren't operating at full capacity 7. A regulatory structure that created the opportunity for market manipulation on the part of merchant power brokers (Enron, Reliant, El Paso, Dynegy, et al) This series of events truly was a perfect storm which bankrupted California utilities and sent blackouts throughout the region. It was 99% the fault of politicians and environmentalists who discouraged investment in power generating plants in the state and adequate infrastructure. To compare this situation with today's prices for oil (which are set on a global market) is simply demonstrating ignorance. Thanks ROXTXIA for being the ignorant conspiracy theorist who no one takes seriously. Now go chirp and whine until your heart is content. No one is listening.
Good post. My post was referring specifically to your points 3 and 7, which to me were the major issues leading to the end result. Like you said--comparing the 2 situations(esp. in a govt./political context) is ridiculous.
While nycrocket insists that "deregulation" be the main culprit in California energy crisis, the same term is dubiously absent in T_J's post. Nevertheless, nycrokect claims his arguments support those of T_J's, and vice versa. Interesting. What we do know is that Enron, a key player pushing for the deregulation policies, manipulated the energy market with a number of unscrupulous practices, including shutting down power plants to induce blackouts thereby artificially drive up the energy prices, and use of fuzzy accounting to "create" more profits. Whether Enron conspired with the Wall Street, investment banks, and energy policy makers is another story in itself. PS: "The Smartest Guys In The Room" is not fictional -- it's a documentary film. PS 2: The predicted investments in new power plants following deregulation never took place. At the same time, cutbacks in funding for utility energy efficiency programs reduced the surplus of power supplies that existed in the mid 1990s.
T_J, you better tell federal investigators to stop wasting their time and "energy" on the other 1% fault.
Thats at least the 2nd time in this thread someone has changed words to fit their agenda, first in regard to Mulva and now my post. I didn't insist deregulation in and of itself was the main culprit. I implied that the method in which deregulation in Calif. occurred was the main cause of the Enron situation. The Enron situation was unfortunate, and if you're going to blame someone, blame Calif. regulators, or rogue employees trying to take advantage of market conditions. To compare this to current oil prices and the Bush administration is absurd. Your PS #2 is wrong, or at best flawed. Why don't you look up a company like Calpine's increased investment or industry debt issuance during this time frame. Creating conspiracy theories and labeling oil executives as evil, greedy, lying bastards makes you no better than the people you are "attempting" to denounce. You might want to take time to read Trader Jorge's post, you might actually learn something and realize how ridiculous your conspiracy theories sound.
