ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,707
- 245
uh, free market judges?
i'll give you one more guess since you are probably a govt. worker...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
uh, free market judges?
Don't try to split hairs. There's no big difference between "for" the product as opposed to "as" the product. Whether in whole or in part one is still using natural resources. Bottom line, natural resources are natural resources and many, many, many (if not all) companies use natural resources. Some consider the human mind and ingenuity a natural resource
Yes, the government can control oil in the public spaces such as under parks, offshore, etc. That is what leases to drill are all about .the government has control of those .but not the company itself. The fact is, the government is not in the business of drilling for oil and thus should neither be in the business of stealing a company's profits. If the government wants to rescind its leases and run the oil companies itself (and keep the profits) that is called Socialism. Kinda like what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.
You are using the same socialist arguments for oil and food that are being used for health care. You think that anything that is a necessity to survive must be socialized. Guess what? That could include almost anything in this world
If you want America to be turned over to a bunch of Socialists who want to control your life then vote for a Democrat Socialist .uh, that would include either Hillary or Obama....and other friends of Hugo...
There is nothing in the world wrong with a government of the people, by the people, for the people to look out for the best and just interest of the people!
This is what we, in a Democratic republic, expect with our sovereignty.
There is no relationship to Socialists in a Democracy.
Do you mean "we the people" as a nation of individual Americans or "we the people" as a collective like the Democrat Socialists think?
Do you mean "we the people" as a nation of individual Americans or "we the people" as a collective like the Democrat Socialists think?
fyi....I don't play those games Screaming Eagle....
(I argue the argument from my individual point of view, and I don't play... with "play on words", such as "Democratic Socialists"....it's meaningless and does an injustice to the possible, decent and honest debate of ideas.)
surely you can understand this....
Care
which party does the democrat socialists of america identify more closely:
democrats, or
republicans
And which party does the KKK identify with more closely?
That doesn't mean Republicans are the same thing as KKK.
which party does the democrat socialists of america identify more closely:
democrats, or
republicans
actually, many dems were also KKK, so your analogy doesn't fit. further, the republican party platform does not even come close to KKK beliefs.
actually, many dems were also KKK, so your analogy doesn't fit. further, the republican party platform does not even come close to KKK beliefs.
actually, many dems were also KKK, so your analogy doesn't fit. further, the republican party platform does not even come close to KKK beliefs.
i am not saying they are the same, however, when considering political ideologies, which party to you think more resembles or identifies with the democratic socialists? its a simple question.
Employment is an indicator of the strength of the recovery. Recovery is usually accompanied by strong job growth. Bush's weak recovery produced little job growth because it was based on expanded purchasing on credit, rather than stimulus of production.
Yurt, the tax rebates may have contributed, but the tax cuts for the Wealthiest, which is what jreeves said pulled us out of the recession, is simply not the case and this is what I was responding to....
jd
Neither Coke nor Microsoft are a necessity to get back and forth to work or to the grocery store
and neither microsoft nor coke are natural resources collected from the earth and much of it in the usa, from OUR LAND....we the people's land, nor did the oil and gas companies create oil...
why is it you can't answer the question? is it because you know the dems identify with democratic socialists and this bothers you?
I do agree the increasing demand from developing nations (China) is part of the problem. But that is an increasing demand on foreign oil.
The oil wells I refer to are not closed and reopened based on how much money the corportions can get. They are capped, with at least a third of the raw oil still in them. Oil is lower grade the deeper into the well they go, and more costly to pump and refine.
No new refineries were the oil company telling the EPA/govt to shove it. Gasoline was not dirt cheap anywhere I remember. The Fed implemented 55 mph speed limit to conserve gas, and we sat in line every other day for up to an hour to purchase a max $5. It cost less by today's comparison, but not relative to what we made back then.
Much of the shortage was due not to a lack of oil, but a lack of refineries.
In both cases, corporate greed drives the train. As previously stated, I have no problem with capitalism ... within reason.
Look at it now. We're catching up to the rest of the world in paying for gas and it's killing us. Maybe not short term, but it will have the same effect on us as Clinton's tax policies did long-term.
Something's got to give and I can only wonder how many people struggling as it is have to be put out on the street before someone figures out it's corporate greed that needs to be the one.
jrCan you read where did I ever say tax cuts for the Wealthiest pulled us out of recession? Tax cuts did help us out of the 2001-2002 recession. Try to read my post before you tell me what I said.
Oil is a global commodity, you can't really isolate one country from another. Especially in a country as big as China. Besides, both China and the US get loads of oil from the same sources.
Your second statement kinda contradicts your first. If they start getting into low-grade oil which is expensive to pump/refine...their costs go up. And if their costs go up, they are making less money.
So why shouldn't they cap the poor-performing, unprofitable wells? "Unprofitable" is really just another way of saying "a poor, inefficient use of resources".
To put it another way: if gas supplies are tight, which is the smartest way to remedy the problem:
A) Use steel piping, pumps, valves, compressors, drills (all with expensive anti-corrosive construction), manpower, trucks, electricity, etc. to pull up meager amounts of high sulphur crude mixed in with nasty salt water;
B) Let gas companies charge what the market will bear--thus changing consumer behavior, getting them interested in alternatives, and attracting startup capital to alternative energy industries who are hungry to steal away a slice of oil's giant profits.
Eh? We had plenty of refineries in the 70's. Prices went up for the same reason then as now: inflated money. I bet you remember the word "stagflation". You're going to be hearing it a lot more.
And anyway, I was talking about the 80's and 90's, back when gasoline was hovering around a dollar a gallon, and never getting over $1.30 or so (in Houston, anyway). It made no sense to build refineries then. However, they have managed to expand capacity at existing locations, so this is all somewhat misleading.
Also, you know why you were standing in gasoline lines? Because of price controls. Do you know why they ended? Because of deregulation started late in Carter's administration, and continued by Reagan.
Prediction: There will be calls for price controls on gas here pretty soon. If they pass, we WILL see shortages. I'm especially afraid someone will get the same idea for food.
But corporations are always "greedy". Ten years ago, when gasoline was $1.00 a gallon--and sometimes less--were corporations being kind and generous? No. Or how about gold miners, silver miners, copper miners, corn growers, rice growers, cattle ranchers, etc. Are they all greedy now too, after a couple decades of generosity?
And what of greedy consumers? Should we not blame them for purchasing SUV's and driving them 80 mph? Should we not blame them for living 45 minutes from work?
We aren't catching up to europe and japan's gas prices. They still lead us by a comfortable margin.
It sucks that the price hikes have been relatively sudden, yes. However the reason, aside from China, is government.
* We pay high taxes on gasoline;
* We pay through the nose for adding ethanol, which is a crap fuel;
* Our dollars are inflated by the government and thus buy less gasoline;
* Our government has invaded a major oil producing nation, and is threatening another;
* Local, State, and Federal officials have mandated and subsidized car-centric development patterns;
* The EPA has mandated dozens of different fuel blends;
* The feds have restricted drilling in the gulf of mexico, off the coast of california, and in the arctic;
* The EPA has passed regulations such that the price of gasoline has to be rather high before opening a new refinery becomes profitable;
And probably some others I've forgotten.