| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 798.1 | New Formulation of gas | CONSLT::DALRYMPLE | | Mon Dec 05 1994 13:44 | 5 |
| 798.2 | Can you spell "collusion"? | NAC::14701::ofsevit | card-carrying member | Mon Dec 05 1994 14:22 | 7 |
| re .1
So why would they all come out with it over a month early, with no
accompanying publicity/explanation/blame-shifting, and all the companies at
exactly the same time?
David
|
| 798.3 | | 12368::michaud | Jeff Michaud, UC1 | Mon Dec 05 1994 15:14 | 12 |
| > A big across-the-board increase in energy prices like this could
> have repercussions for the economy, yet I haven't seen it mentioned
> anywhere.
You should get out more :-) It's been in the newspaper several
times the last couple of weeks, and on CNN HN.
I believe I first read it in the paper over the summer.
In any case, it's not the whole country, the Feds are only
requiring it in a limited number of places. Other places
are doing it that aren't [yet] required.
|
| 798.4 | Let's all do it at once and be efficient | EVMS::HALLYB | Fish have no concept of fire | Mon Dec 05 1994 19:28 | 12 |
| > So why would they all come out with it over a month early, with no
The price rise was brought to you by the U.S. "we don't care how much
it costs you" Environmental Protection Agency, and was announced well
ahead of time. The penalties for being even one day late can be
really huge, while there is no penalty for being 30 days early.
I can't say for sure whether there was collusion or not, but you seem
to be under the impression that the higher price represents profit to
the oil companies. It does not.
John
|