idrankwhat 0 #26 May 15, 2008 Quote 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. You mean like $2000 tax credits for hybrids and $100,000 for Hummers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #27 May 15, 2008 Quote ?? 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. Ah, but the Govt (courtesy of the DoD) is syphoning off an additional 6 times as much oil as goes into the SPR (mostly for the USAF), and just the EXTRA oil used on account of Bush's Iraq Misadventure considerably exceeds the amount being put into the SPR. So the government truly is a major factor in setting the price.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #28 May 15, 2008 ? WHen the removal of the benefit equates to an additional required expenditure, it's a burden.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #29 May 15, 2008 It is a significant contributor to the DEMAND.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #30 May 16, 2008 Quote ? WHen the removal of the benefit equates to an additional required expenditure, it's a burden. I hadn't pegged you as an entitlement proponent. I guess you learn something new every day Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #31 May 16, 2008 >WHen the removal of the benefit equates to an additional required >expenditure, it's a burden. I'll remember you said that when people propose "burdening" solar manufacturers by removing their subsidies! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #32 May 16, 2008 Hello Mr. Apple, meet Mr. Orange. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #33 May 16, 2008 Quote Hello Mr. Apple, meet Mr. Orange. Fruit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #34 May 16, 2008 Hey, you said it, not me - "when the removal of the benefit equates to an additional required expenditure, it's a burden." So if, for example, we removed affirmative-action financial assistance from a school, by your definition we are placing a burden on minorities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #35 May 17, 2008 you've gone from apples to oranges to apples to watermelon Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #36 May 17, 2008 Quote you've gone from apples to oranges to apples to watermelon apples=fruit oranges=fruit watermelon=fruit Yea, I see what you mean. COMPLETELY unrelatedI guess maybe the difference is more along the lines of dollars and cents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #37 May 17, 2008 Pehaps Apples to antelope might be a better analogy... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
