Those Complex Issues

[TheAnvil 0]

Lovely article from Tom Sowell

Clicky

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

But wait, I'm confused. Rush Limbaugh say's it's all the Dem's fault


"through six years of the Bush administration, oil was low, gas was low for the most part. Only when the Democrats got in there did the world markets panic and start going through the roof."

(source, MediaMatters)

[TheAnvil 0]

Don't listen to the man very often - can't remember the last time actually - but if that's his take, he's dead wrong.

Won't be the first dumbassed thing he's said, and won't be the last I'm sure.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Agreed, and so as not to get away from the thread your article does make some good points. Issues are typically a lot more complex than people will admit. They often want to pick out a portion of the story that either backs their strongest feelings or distracts from their own culpability, or both. A lot of our problems today are stemming from the realization that the rest of the world is actually doing what we've been saying that we want them to do. We try to export our personal and economic lifestyle which is essentially based on unsustainable consumption. People want to live like us, and we claim that we want them to. But when they do, it cuts into the resources and cramps our lifestyle.
Things aren't going to change either. We're slated to increase our world population by 50% within the next 50 years. If people don't get a grasp on the concept of sustainability then we're in for some serious suffering.

[TheAnvil 0]

That's why it's hilarious to see an idiot talking about Federal intervention to get relief at the gas pump. Evil oil companies, oil company profits (no mention of profit margin), windfall profits taxes and the like dominate the rhetoric there - anyone hearing it should automatically think 'fucking idiot' about whomever is spewing it. Suppy and demand are driving those prices - two small [sic] countries called India and China are having a great effect right now on that market. Of course, most of the fucktards who believe the federal government should have an active role in setting commodity prices probably can't find either China or India on a map and have never heard of Adam Smith.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Supply and demand is only part of it and trying to blame it all on that segment is deliberately omitting other inconvenient facts. Also, Adam Smith would not approve of the current relationship between government and the oil industry.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

That's why it's hilarious to see an idiot talking about Federal intervention to get relief at the gas pump. Evil oil companies, oil company profits (no mention of profit margin), windfall profits taxes and the like dominate the rhetoric there - anyone hearing it should automatically think 'fucking idiot' about whomever is spewing it. Suppy and demand are driving those prices - two small [sic] countries called India and China are having a great effect right now on that market. Of course, most of the fucktards who believe the federal government should have an active role in setting commodity prices probably can't find either China or India on a map and have never heard of Adam Smith.

The last analysis I read suggested that speculators had a greater role in driving oil prices than demand or refinery capacity.

And the Federal Govt. already intervenes, by syphoning off about 0.3% of the supply and burying it in the ground, and also by having a Department of Defense which is the world's largest single institutional user of oil. So the Fed's intervention helps drive UP the price of gas at the pump right now.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The last analysis I read suggested that speculators had a greater role in driving oil prices than demand or refinery capacity.

I guess the question is:

When will the oil bubble burst?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

?? What other inconvenient facts? When it comes down to it, price is ALWAYS a function of supply and demand. Refining capacity and other factors affect the supply, siphoning of 0.3% of crude has a SMALL effect on supply, but when it comes down to it the price will always be a function of supply and demand, each of which has other subordinate dependencies.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I guess the question is:

When will the oil bubble burst?

I don't know but when it happens, at least one country will be ready for it. The Saudis are using our money more responsibly and forward thinking than we are. For the cost of a couple of months in Iraq they're building this:
http://www.masdaruae.com/text/news-d.aspx?_id=47

Looks like we're determined to be their bitch in the next energy revolution as well.

[billvon 3,120]

>Of course, most of the fucktards who believe the federal government
>should have an active role in setting commodity prices probably can't find
> either China or India on a map . . .

Would you include the fucktards who want to extend billion dollar tax breaks to oil companies in that list?

[TheAnvil 0]

That's in the UAE, not Saudi Arabia. Right peninsula, wrong country. UAE is a far more forward thinking and western friendly nation.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Perhaps. Do you believe that shareholders would allow the companies to absorb those tax breaks out of the goodness of their hearts and have no subsequent increase in the price of their product? I don't.

I'd have to look at them more closely - in particular see the magnitude of the tax break, reason for it, profit & profit margin of the companies getting the breaks, and the predicted impact of their repeal. From what little I know my general opinion is that the breaks are too generous, but that's a very uneducated opinion that might change if I took a closer look.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

?? What other inconvenient facts?

Subsidies and tax incentives that end up being paid by the taxpayer through the Treasury, leaders who favor using the military to manipulate foreign governments in order to insure a steady flow of resources to certain companies (tab once again picked up by the taxpayer), and legislation that generally keeps a populace addicted to their product.
That's a partial list.

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you believe that shareholders would allow the companies to
>absorb those tax breaks out of the goodness of their hearts and have no
>subsequent increase in the price of their product? I don't.

Huh? A tax break increases (rather than decreases) a company's bottom line, all other things being equal.

[TheAnvil 0]

All of which affect either supply or demand.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

That's in the UAE, not Saudi Arabia. Right peninsula, wrong country. UAE is a far more forward thinking and western friendly nation.

Sorry, you're right. But they still got a lot of their money through petroleum exports.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

All of which affect either supply or demand.

What's the name of the thread again?

[TheAnvil 0]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Do you think if the tax breaks were removed, thereby increasing the tax burden on the company, that there would be no subsequent increase in prices of the company's products to cover that additional tax burden? I don't think so...actually, I KNOW there would be a cost increase. Same for the case if some moron got a windfall profits tax passed.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>Do you think if the tax breaks were removed, thereby increasing the tax
>burden on the company, that there would be no subsequent increase in
>prices of the company's products to cover that additional tax burden?

Ah, I see. You are correct. Products would move from their subsidized cost back to their free market cost. As a secondary effect, non-subsidized products might become more cost effective by comparison, requiring the originally subsidized company to reduce prices a bit - but that's a free market effect at that point.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Do you think if the tax breaks were removed, thereby increasing the tax burden on the company, that there would be no subsequent increase in prices of the company's products to cover that additional tax burden? I don't think so...actually, I KNOW there would be a cost increase. Same for the case if some moron got a windfall profits tax passed.

Sure. Kill the subsidies, make them pay their taxes, and let the people decide how much of their product that they want to buy at the market price.

By the way, IMO windfall profits taxes are a stupid idea for numerous reasons. Cutting the subsidy makes perfect sense. If they want to subsidize something let them subsidize our DZ. We need a new plane.

[TheAnvil 0]

I read an interesting bit in the last few days about how the taxpayer subsidizes energy costs. Apparently electricity costs are subsidized - even nuclear. Didn't see geothermal on the list though. Didn't know that and it surprised me - I don't like it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

?? What other inconvenient facts? When it comes down to it, price is ALWAYS a function of supply and demand.

They are, indeed, two independent variables in the function that determines the price. They are not, however, always the two dominant variables in that function. Fuel is an excellent example of how, in the short term, an increase in the price of gas can have very little effect on the quantity demanded. In the long term, as people are able to make significant adjustments to their fuel requirements (e.g. relocate their residences closer to work, find jobs closer to home, purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, etc.), price has a greater effect.

Many other things can affect market prices besides supply and demand. Is the market perfectly competitive, monopolistic, or somewhere in between? How easily can new firms enter the market? How easily can quantity demanded be adjusted by consumers? Are there price floors, price ceilings, or other forms of government intervention (some of which is good, some of which is not so good)? Just a few other things that need to be taken into consideration.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TheAnvil 0]

Perhaps...I don't like the idea of placing a multi-billion dollar tax burden immediately on a critical industry. If they were phased out over a five to ten year period, that sounds like a better plan. Again - I'd need more details to really state so definitively. Some tax breaks serve a purpose and these might be some of them.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

>I don't like the idea of placing a multi-billion dollar tax burden
>immediately on a critical industry.

Now, Vinnie, you are one of the first to howl when someone defines a slowdown in increase as a 'reduction.' Removing a benefit is not the same as burdening someone.

>Some tax breaks serve a purpose . . .

Yes, they do! They serve to influence behavior in the free market, and are not always bad. It takes some wisdom to decide how to use that governmental tool to 'steer' the economy in a constructive direction.