What a disappointment
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Big oil would just pass the taxation on to the consumer as an added cost
Or just move the business out of the country.
Rob Graham wrote:
move the business out of the country.
They could, and consumers would then still be stuck with paying any import fees imposed by Big Oil. Consumers lose either way.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Obama's solution to energy problems: Under Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax, the government would tax some of the profits from big oil corporations and use it to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs.[^] Tax and spend will fix everything... Oh, and while we're at it, lets pump oil out of the strategic reserve to drive down prices (which would require congress to change the law that established the reserve as high costs at the pump don't quite qualify as a trigger for releasing the supply). I'm really tired of politics and polemics instead of actual plans and programs.
Great. The Republican solution is to open up more land for drilling and hope the oil companies feel grateful or something. The Democrat solution is to burn off our strategic reserves and when that doesn't work tax the oil co. profits and hope they feel sufficiently chastised or something. If congress owned a puppy, the capitol would smell like piss... :rolleyes:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Obama's solution to energy problems: Under Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax, the government would tax some of the profits from big oil corporations and use it to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs.[^] Tax and spend will fix everything... Oh, and while we're at it, lets pump oil out of the strategic reserve to drive down prices (which would require congress to change the law that established the reserve as high costs at the pump don't quite qualify as a trigger for releasing the supply). I'm really tired of politics and polemics instead of actual plans and programs.
Christ. Why don't they take oil off the speculative market? Marc
-
Great. The Republican solution is to open up more land for drilling and hope the oil companies feel grateful or something. The Democrat solution is to burn off our strategic reserves and when that doesn't work tax the oil co. profits and hope they feel sufficiently chastised or something. If congress owned a puppy, the capitol would smell like piss... :rolleyes:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
If congress owned a puppy, the capitol would smell like piss...
Don't forget about the puppy shit all over the place :rolleyes: The aroma X|
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Christ. Why don't they take oil off the speculative market? Marc
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market". The cause of the high price is simple supply and demand, and the supply is never going to catch up again (but could really fall behind if potential supply is artificially placed off limits like we are doing today). The long term fix is clearly to get off of fossil fuels, but that will require a carefully orchestrated transition, during which we need to remain economically sound enough to make the change. All approaches need to be on the table, including making the most of any supplies we have in our own back yard, aggressive transition to nuclear for mid term, and aggressive research on fusion for the future. Biofuels that divert food crops or arable land should NOT be part of the plan, but alternatives like algae, switchgrass and other not food competition sources of alcohol should be part of the mix. We had windfall profit taxes and strict fuel conservation in the 70's. The result was painful, and they were quickly abandoned when the supply constraints vanished. We should learn from that history, not repeat it. I wonder if politicians are convertible to biodiesel...
-
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market". The cause of the high price is simple supply and demand, and the supply is never going to catch up again (but could really fall behind if potential supply is artificially placed off limits like we are doing today). The long term fix is clearly to get off of fossil fuels, but that will require a carefully orchestrated transition, during which we need to remain economically sound enough to make the change. All approaches need to be on the table, including making the most of any supplies we have in our own back yard, aggressive transition to nuclear for mid term, and aggressive research on fusion for the future. Biofuels that divert food crops or arable land should NOT be part of the plan, but alternatives like algae, switchgrass and other not food competition sources of alcohol should be part of the mix. We had windfall profit taxes and strict fuel conservation in the 70's. The result was painful, and they were quickly abandoned when the supply constraints vanished. We should learn from that history, not repeat it. I wonder if politicians are convertible to biodiesel...
Rob Graham wrote:
All approaches need to be on the table, including making the most of any supplies we have in our own back yard, aggressive transition to nuclear for mid term, and aggressive research on fusion for the future. Biofuels that divert food crops or arable land should NOT be part of the plan, but alternatives like algae, switchgrass and other not food competition sources of alcohol should be part of the mix.
Does that mean we're heading for Titan, huh? Huh? Please?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Rob Graham wrote:
All approaches need to be on the table, including making the most of any supplies we have in our own back yard, aggressive transition to nuclear for mid term, and aggressive research on fusion for the future. Biofuels that divert food crops or arable land should NOT be part of the plan, but alternatives like algae, switchgrass and other not food competition sources of alcohol should be part of the mix.
Does that mean we're heading for Titan, huh? Huh? Please?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Well, I did say all approaches should be on the table...:rolleyes:
-
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market". The cause of the high price is simple supply and demand, and the supply is never going to catch up again (but could really fall behind if potential supply is artificially placed off limits like we are doing today). The long term fix is clearly to get off of fossil fuels, but that will require a carefully orchestrated transition, during which we need to remain economically sound enough to make the change. All approaches need to be on the table, including making the most of any supplies we have in our own back yard, aggressive transition to nuclear for mid term, and aggressive research on fusion for the future. Biofuels that divert food crops or arable land should NOT be part of the plan, but alternatives like algae, switchgrass and other not food competition sources of alcohol should be part of the mix. We had windfall profit taxes and strict fuel conservation in the 70's. The result was painful, and they were quickly abandoned when the supply constraints vanished. We should learn from that history, not repeat it. I wonder if politicians are convertible to biodiesel...
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market".
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good, especially one that's so tightly bound to its economy. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon (with annual adjustments for inflation)?
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market".
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good, especially one that's so tightly bound to its economy. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon (with annual adjustments for inflation)?
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
Al Beback wrote:
What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon
China and India would applaud.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market".
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good, especially one that's so tightly bound to its economy. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon (with annual adjustments for inflation)?
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
We'd soon be limited to what we produce internally (who would export to us?), which is a rather small part of the total. And a substantial part of that would disappear onto the black market (where it would be sold to the highest bidder). In the end there would be no legal gas available at any price, much less $3. Price capping is always a failure, and always results in supply vanishing. Sorry, but that is the stupidest idea I've heard today.
-
Well, I did say all approaches should be on the table...:rolleyes:
Rob Graham wrote:
Well, I did say all approaches should be on the table
I knew my Tom Corbett space decoder ring would come in handy if I kept it long enough! There's more natural gas sitting around in lakes on Titan than there is on all of the planet earth. If I had my druthers we'd spend our R & D money on going after it than trying to figure out how to run cars on celulose without having both the car and the fuel cost an arm and a leg.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Obama's solution to energy problems: Under Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax, the government would tax some of the profits from big oil corporations and use it to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs.[^] Tax and spend will fix everything... Oh, and while we're at it, lets pump oil out of the strategic reserve to drive down prices (which would require congress to change the law that established the reserve as high costs at the pump don't quite qualify as a trigger for releasing the supply). I'm really tired of politics and polemics instead of actual plans and programs.
-
It depends on what your budget looks like. I doubt the Goracle has a problem with his energy budget despite flying all over the world and living in a house that guzzles more power a month than the average household does in a year. :rolleyes: Getting a bit more down to earth, my current roundtrip commute is only 1 gallon of gas and my landlord pays the heating bill, so it only directly significantly affects me when I go on vacation.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market".
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good, especially one that's so tightly bound to its economy. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon (with annual adjustments for inflation)?
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Christ. Why don't they take oil off the speculative market? Marc
-
It depends on what your budget looks like. I doubt the Goracle has a problem with his energy budget despite flying all over the world and living in a house that guzzles more power a month than the average household does in a year. :rolleyes: Getting a bit more down to earth, my current roundtrip commute is only 1 gallon of gas and my landlord pays the heating bill, so it only directly significantly affects me when I go on vacation.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Hope this link isn't too late, but the democrats tried to stop oil speculation but were stopped by the republicans in the Senate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy[^]
Since the democrats control the Senate, and can determine what gets voted on and what doesn't, that article is pure partisan BS. The democrats themselves pulled the measure, because they were unwilling to risk amendments that might have allowed off-shore drilling. Not to mention that this would only subject US speculators participating in the London markets to "some scrutiny", not speculators from any other country. The bill was a joke designed to trick us into believing they were doibng something, but in reality, since commodity speculation is an international business, it was worhtless political posturing. Just what I complained about to begin with. Don't let these idiots fool you. It was just more junk politics. We need to kick ALL the incumbents out, and start clean.
-
Great. The Republican solution is to open up more land for drilling and hope the oil companies feel grateful or something. The Democrat solution is to burn off our strategic reserves and when that doesn't work tax the oil co. profits and hope they feel sufficiently chastised or something. If congress owned a puppy, the capitol would smell like piss... :rolleyes:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
and hope the oil companies feel grateful or something
Wrong. The price of oil has dropped by $20+ per barrel since Bush rescinded the Whitehouse ban on offshore drilling - the fact that someone in government decided to actually do something has already had an impact. And, yes, consumption has also slackened but the initial drop was within a day or days of the Bush announcement. Interestingly enough the Congressional ban expires in September and has to be reauthorized - the news will be fun since the Dems will try to attach the reauthorization to a spending bill.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
We'd soon be limited to what we produce internally (who would export to us?), which is a rather small part of the total. And a substantial part of that would disappear onto the black market (where it would be sold to the highest bidder). In the end there would be no legal gas available at any price, much less $3. Price capping is always a failure, and always results in supply vanishing. Sorry, but that is the stupidest idea I've heard today.
Rob Graham wrote:
who would export to us?
Right, that's why Walmart has no suppliers. :rolleyes: You're implying oil companies, which are making a killing off of us, would prefer to make nothing than to make less. Less money is always better than no money. And we're their largest customer. So no, you're wrong. The price of oil would plummet because the oil companies would do what Walmart does to its suppliers.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Al Beback wrote:
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good
No... they shouldn't.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No... they shouldn't.
I meant that they should when it's a product that has no substitute and affects the whole economy. I don't care if Ferrari charges $200,000 for their cars as long as I can buy a Kia and accomplish the same objective. Unfortunately with gas, we don't have the same choices. It's either $4.17 at this pump or $4.27 at the other. Hurray for the free markets! And if tomorrow they decide to charge us $5.17, hurray for the free markets! :mad:
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");