Greatest thread to human civilization : capitalist greed - Stephen Hawkin

[Programmer]

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.

How does restricting oil exports benefit U.S. refineries?

This promotes localizing refinement of our oil to the United States in the first place. There's always going to be competition for U.S. refiners, but there's always going to be a market. Essentially this makes BP a US refinery when they want to exploit our resources. Before this Rabbi guy got all crazy, I made the point that consumer economies (of which energy we are) favor contrary trade policy to export driven economies.

You failed to explain how it benefits refineries. What do they care if the oil they refine is domestic or imported? They make the same amount of money in either case. How does "making BP a domestic refinery" benefit BP? The distinction between "consumer economies" and "export driven economies" is entirely superfluous. Some countries have high tariffs. Some countries have low tariffs. Consumers in the former have to pay higher prices on imported goods. That's the only distinction.

Well the theory is........... If we allow oil to be exported, then refineries will lose business because people who buy US oil, will no longer be forced to use US refineries to refine it, because they are now able to export the raw oil.

So a tanker load from Alaska for example, right now, can't go to a refinery in China to be refined. It must come to a US based refinery.

If we allow oil to be exported, then a tanker load of oil from Alaska could be purchased by say... China, and sent to a Chinese refinery, instead of to the US.

Quite frankly, if that were really a big issue, the oil companies would not be pushing to end the ban.

And beyond that even...... crap guys... I've heard for 10 years, people screaming about how we have a trade imbalance with China, and how horrible and awful, and doom and gloom over trade deficit with China. Chicken little screaming in circles about trade with China, the sky is falling, we're all doomed.

To all you fruits out there, well here you go..... shut up and sell them some oil. That will change the trade imbalance for sure.

I know we like new ideas, but sometimes it is a good idea to look at why some of our economic strategies already work. Why we don't do everything the same as Norway and China and why we are better for it.

By far, the currency, national security and energy policies that rely on the crude export restriction are the reasons why it is in place, overshadowing protections businesses are lobbying for. The oil crisis 40 (!) years ago will require an apocalypse now because of this policy. What y'all should understand is that smaller refiners and retailers support this ban, while multinational crude producers would prefer to drill here and export the crude, then bring it back. This concept of big oil/little oil was publicized in the 2008 presidential election, but there's no coincidence why Dallas and Dynasty were about oil tycoons in the 80s, right after lil' oil hit it big here again. People can tend to think that all companies in an industry look at their competitiveness the same way, but that's not how it works.

Re: energy prices: Because dom. crude producers will find higher crude prices internationally, but they can't make those sales, we have an unnatural market when it comes to selling crude here, even imported international crude. We regulate the whole oil world with our reserves. Our trade relations with Saudi lately, really locks this in. Remember having to beg for more production out there? Not lately. They're on board with our glut strategy. Remember chickenshit oil exporters like mexico looking so promising? Not lately. Not at these prices. As idealistic it is to think that laissez faire makes realities like that, it's the State Department and energy independence (superiority) policy kickin ass. Mexico has to laissez faire the consequences on the floor of our 'open' oil market.

As far as benefitting BP, as above, this was designed to benefit the US, so BP having to set up shop here and make investments helps our economy. We have the decency to demand that international businesses grow our economy, rather than what's going on under Nigeria's less fettered energy policy. BP shows up because we have a reliable, lucrative market for drill/refine/distribute operations like them. They're not crying even though they'll spend a billion on lobbying.

Regarding trade deficit panic. We would be at a disadvantage by literally fueling China or Europe, instead of our own economy. If the energy is that valuable for this and that reason, why not see to your constituents and their businesses having first dibs? Energy is for making trillions in GDP, not just selling for billions in one industry. Leave this oil exporter BS to economies run by idiots.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Roads are paid for by everyone so that cars can benefit the common good. Research is done in Universities to provide better crops more resistant to disease and insects, for the common good.

There is this bizarre need for conservatives to believe they don't get help from, or are part of, any society. They live outside a population. You can only exist if other people do things both for profit and to benefit other people without profit.

The U.S. Senate is the embodiment of social socialism. Equal voice and power for the many and for the few. The House of Representatives represents political capitalism, the Senate political socialism. The founders understood the balance needed.

Naked capitalism is like a nuclear reactor, without control rods it quickly melts down because of the unbridled greed of the few. Hence we have laws against monopolies and anti-trust laws.

And if you think you pay for your part of the roads, please research how much it costs to pave 1/4 mile of road, then tally up all the taxes you've paid in your life. You won't be close.

Road, and all the materials in them, only exist because someone somewhere wanted to make a profit. Without profit, there would be no roads. There would be no machines to make the roads. There would be no supplies of sand, dirt, gravel, asphalt to make the roads with.

And quite frankly, without profit, you wouldn't need roads, because there would be no cars and trucks that need them.

Research is done everywhere. Last year, $675 Billion dollars was spent by companies into research and development for all kinds of things, from health care, to food crops, to energy, to transportation, and on and on and on.

Now that isn't to minimize, or ignore the benefits that do come from Universities. But this idea that somehow no one would do research if not for them, is garbage.

Further, you should look at how much money is blown on absolutely useless research. Try the Ignoble Awards for endless laughs of infuriating waste.

And lastly, even the research that does happen there..... still doesn't contradict my point. All of the research is placed into commercial.... read profitable products. Without which, you wouldn't benefit from any of the research.

Secondly, you are freaking nutz on your math. According to Ohio Department of Transportation, it cost about $60,000 to pave 1/4 of a mile of two lane road.

In my life time, I've paid about $80,000 in taxes in my life.

And by the way.... that's with expensive, wasteful, high cost Union contracts through the government.

You go with a private firm, you can get a 1/4 mile of two lane road built for about $26,000.

You people..... you say the most wacky stuff sometimes.

Nah, you are just entrenched in the narrowest of view of life. Every person on Earth participates in work, buying, paying bills.

It is just conservatives who think themselves heroes for it because it makes you feel good. And that is so sad.

Nothing of what you said, even came close to contradicting, or even addressing the points I made.

Of course that's not surprising because.... you can't. I'm right, and I know it.

Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.

You declare yourself 'the winner', where do you get your trophy? LOL

Turn the computer off and go outside now and then. There is real life out there.

There is a real life out there. Many people, through capitalism, have made very lucrative livings by participating in it and providing things that has benefited the common good. Those who have benefited have educated themselves, taken chances, and took risks that paid off. Others have not. Now, those that did not see those who did reaping the rewards of that effort and think part of that is owed to them.

Give an example of your Horatio Alger character who did all of what you posted all by his or her self. Explain, for example, how the owner of a business is able to operate without government build roads, power, water and sewage?

 

[Programmer]

I'm not surprised a bunch of socialist aren't willing to admit what they support is socialist.

If a vast majority of people said 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it so?

It's not morally defensible to force one person to support another yet you defend it daily?

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

Capitalism provides for the common good. Your problem with it doing so it that someone might get rich doing it and you can't have that.

Do you consider Social Security as providing for the common good?

Capitalism restrained by the GOVERNMENT provides for the common good. Make all taxes voluntary and see what happens.

The insurance companies collect money from many people and pay it out to those in need. Did you ever hear anything more socialistic?

100% stupid since insurance is competitive. If you don't do it well you go bankrupt according to the rules of capitalism. Govt is a monopoly , it has no competition so there is no incentive to do things well, cheaply, or efficiently. Now you know why 120 million slowly starved to death in the USSR and Red China.

Do you understand why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure and deadly ignorance?

California is the most liberal state in the Union and its economy is twice the size of the next closest state, Texas. Not bad for a bunch of liberals eh.

And California did go into debt during the Bush Great Recession like many states did but California is now running a 5 billion dollar surplus and is well on its way back, as are many states. We all survived the 2008 Republican recession.

And those liberals in Hollywood make some great movies yes? Or do cons not watch 'liberal' movies? lol Where is the con movie industry? You'd think Mel Gibson and Rupert Murdoch would have started a con movie industry to offset Hollywood. Or is it that conservative movies have no market.

Ahhhh, the capitalist market, it does work doesn't it.

Yeah, given the fact that every aspect of that California economy is only due to Capitalism.

oh no. A peerless, unemployed professor draws curves that makes him conclude that protection doesn't include exports, no matter what reality says.

Protection doesn't include exports because of the definition of protection, nimrod. Who does limiting exports "protect?"

I'm referring to the trade restriction on exporting crude oil. This policy benefits US refiners and is part of our energy and national security policy. It's a very significant player when it comes to the price of energy. Our strategic oil reserves play roles from national security to currency here in the U.S.

How does restricting oil exports benefit U.S. refineries?

This promotes localizing refinement of our oil to the United States in the first place. There's always going to be competition for U.S. refiners, but there's always going to be a market. Essentially this makes BP a US refinery when they want to exploit our resources. Before this Rabbi guy got all crazy, I made the point that consumer economies (of which energy we are) favor contrary trade policy to export driven economies.

First off, if everything you said was true, then all of the major US based oil companies wouldn't be calling for the oil export ban to be lifted.

Second, exporting oil, would bring money back into the US economy. Everyone screams about how the Saudis are rich off of us buying their oil. Why should we not get rich off selling our own oil?

Third, many of our refineries are foreign owned. So protecting refineries that are sending money back to their own countries anyway, isn't very compelling to me.

This isn't how nearly any of this works. It has been around for decades, so there's math they'll do regarding how much their infrastructure and sales is in the US as far as how much they support it. There are winners like domestically established multinationals and native oil producers, refiners and retailers. Especially if you do all 3.

Secondly, oil contributes more to our economy through its use, that's why we buy and produce so much. You should see Saudi Arabia and how we're making money out there on them selling us, europe and asia all their oil. It's all sold on exchanges we set up and our engineering firms dominate aramco's contracts.

Third, if multinationals have to set up shop here, we win. If you work for Royal Dutch Shell at a plant in Alabama or the top floor of their US headquarters, how do they send your paycheck back to their own country? If they made decent profit, wouldn't it stand to reason they'll invest further here?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Capitalism: You have 2 cows, sell one to buy a bull

American Progressives: Someone has 2 cows, the government takes the cows and kills them so Bernie and Hillary can have a BBQ while the stupid, low information base starves to death

Idiot-Gram ^^^

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberals hate it because capitalism is for grown ups.

Idiot-Gram ^^^

^^^Confirmation.

 

[Wildman]

You have to be the world's biggest idiot...

he and several others, i will not name them, we all know whom they are, here on USMB are in contention for first place, we need to set up a voting poll to see which one gets the most votes for the worlds/forums biggest idiot.., would the admin. allow us to have this poll????

 

[Wildman]

What a giant load of horseshit.

and a bigger load of

 

[Arizona Willie]

Do you understand why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure and deadly ignorance?

========
Yes because you are a dumbfuk.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes must be mandatory so the people who don't care don't get off the hook.

No shit Sherlock. Now what's that have to do with capitalism?

I answered your question:

"why would a mandate be necessary for such programs to be covered?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.” Hawking continued, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

We have been warned.

Stephen Hawking Warns About The Greatest Threat To Humanity | Zero Hedge

Idiots. It is amazing how some of the smartest people can be so dumb.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. IT's benefits are literally without precedence.

Hawking didn't condemn capitalism.

He warned of the dangers of greed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Road, and all the materials in them, only exist because someone somewhere wanted to make a profit. Without profit, there would be no roads. There would be no machines to make the roads. There would be no supplies of sand, dirt, gravel, asphalt to make the roads with.

And quite frankly, without profit, you wouldn't need roads, because there would be no cars and trucks that need them.

Research is done everywhere. Last year, $675 Billion dollars was spent by companies into research and development for all kinds of things, from health care, to food crops, to energy, to transportation, and on and on and on.

Now that isn't to minimize, or ignore the benefits that do come from Universities. But this idea that somehow no one would do research if not for them, is garbage.

Further, you should look at how much money is blown on absolutely useless research. Try the Ignoble Awards for endless laughs of infuriating waste.

And lastly, even the research that does happen there..... still doesn't contradict my point. All of the research is placed into commercial.... read profitable products. Without which, you wouldn't benefit from any of the research.

Secondly, you are freaking nutz on your math. According to Ohio Department of Transportation, it cost about $60,000 to pave 1/4 of a mile of two lane road.

In my life time, I've paid about $80,000 in taxes in my life.

And by the way.... that's with expensive, wasteful, high cost Union contracts through the government.

You go with a private firm, you can get a 1/4 mile of two lane road built for about $26,000.

You people..... you say the most wacky stuff sometimes.

Nah, you are just entrenched in the narrowest of view of life. Every person on Earth participates in work, buying, paying bills.

It is just conservatives who think themselves heroes for it because it makes you feel good. And that is so sad.

Nothing of what you said, even came close to contradicting, or even addressing the points I made.

Of course that's not surprising because.... you can't. I'm right, and I know it.

Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.

You declare yourself 'the winner', where do you get your trophy? LOL

Turn the computer off and go outside now and then. There is real life out there.

There is a real life out there. Many people, through capitalism, have made very lucrative livings by participating in it and providing things that has benefited the common good. Those who have benefited have educated themselves, taken chances, and took risks that paid off. Others have not. Now, those that did not see those who did reaping the rewards of that effort and think part of that is owed to them.

Give an example of your Horatio Alger character who did all of what you posted all by his or her self. Explain, for example, how the owner of a business is able to operate without government build roads, power, water and sewage?

The USA: the only nation with roads, power, water and sewage.

Do Progressives even wonder why Detroit and IL are such failures?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Capitalism: You have 2 cows, sell one to buy a bull

American Progressives: Someone has 2 cows, the government takes the cows and kills them so Bernie and Hillary can have a BBQ while the stupid, low information base starves to death

Idiot-Gram ^^^

Can't even understand that what's so unique about American roads, power, water and sewage is that -- they're in America! Once the land of opportunity and freedom

 

[Iceweasel]

Taxes must be mandatory so the people who don't care don't get off the hook.

No shit Sherlock. Now what's that have to do with capitalism?

I answered your question:

"why would a mandate be necessary for such programs to be covered?"

When did I ask that?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Medicine predates capitalism Ed.

100% stupid it was not until the 20th Century that medicine could be helpful at all. Before that there was very very little

Ed Jenner invented the vaccines in 1776. Waaay before 20th century.

:"the vaccines." The Salk Vaccine was invented in 1776? The papillomavirus vaccine was invented in 1776? Or do you mean one specific vaccine, namely smallpox, that was invented then? Because you are committing a fallcy here.

The first vaccine. That established the base work for the rest of the vaccines, more were created during the XIX century and further development was made during the XX century.
Timeline of vaccines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

capitalism created the wealth and population that made medical research possible on a huge scale!! In the Civil War for example if you got wounded you died. Simple

Capitalism already existed during the Civil War.

 

[Wry Catcher]

“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.” Hawking continued, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

We have been warned.

Stephen Hawking Warns About The Greatest Threat To Humanity | Zero Hedge

Idiots. It is amazing how some of the smartest people can be so dumb.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. IT's benefits are literally without precedence.

Hawking didn't condemn capitalism.

He warned of the dangers of greed.

Facts never get in the way when the crazy right wing joins in a circle jerk; nothing of substance is produced, only echos and Idiot-Grams*.

*An Idiot-Gram is a foolish phrase or single sentence post developed by CrusaderFrank, and used by him and others incapable of posting a refutation, a rebuttal, or creating an expository response to a post which challenges far right dogma.

 

[Wry Catcher]

100% stupid it was not until the 20th Century that medicine could be helpful at all. Before that there was very very little

Ed Jenner invented the vaccines in 1776. Waaay before 20th century.

:"the vaccines." The Salk Vaccine was invented in 1776? The papillomavirus vaccine was invented in 1776? Or do you mean one specific vaccine, namely smallpox, that was invented then? Because you are committing a fallcy here.

The first vaccine. That established the base work for the rest of the vaccines, more were created during the XIX century and further development was made during the XX century.
Timeline of vaccines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

capitalism created the wealth and population that made medical research possible on a huge scale!! In the Civil War for example if you got wounded you died. Simple

Capitalism already existed during the Civil War.

And regulations to control the abuses of Capitalism began during the Gilded Age.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nah, you are just entrenched in the narrowest of view of life. Every person on Earth participates in work, buying, paying bills.

It is just conservatives who think themselves heroes for it because it makes you feel good. And that is so sad.

Nothing of what you said, even came close to contradicting, or even addressing the points I made.

Of course that's not surprising because.... you can't. I'm right, and I know it.

Thanks for stopping by. Have a nice day.

You declare yourself 'the winner', where do you get your trophy? LOL

Turn the computer off and go outside now and then. There is real life out there.

There is a real life out there. Many people, through capitalism, have made very lucrative livings by participating in it and providing things that has benefited the common good. Those who have benefited have educated themselves, taken chances, and took risks that paid off. Others have not. Now, those that did not see those who did reaping the rewards of that effort and think part of that is owed to them.

Give an example of your Horatio Alger character who did all of what you posted all by his or her self. Explain, for example, how the owner of a business is able to operate without government build roads, power, water and sewage?

The USA: the only nation with roads, power, water and sewage.

Do Progressives even wonder why Detroit and IL are such failures?

The USA, a nation with a crumbling infrastructure, the work of the Republicans.

Detroit? You really what to discuss the failure of CEO's, and how their foolish disregard for reality (OPEC for Example) opened the door for foreign imports?

Of course not, you want to blame unions, 'cause hourly workers are the problem, not management.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Socialism has saved civilization. Socialism has reined in capitalism. That had to be done.

How did socialism save civilization? Precisely the opposite is the case.

Socialism provides for the common good that capitalism has no interest in.

The reason we have automobiles, isn't for the common good. It's for profit, and yet automobiles provide for the common good.

Farmers do not farm for the common good, and yet their food results in the common good.

Everything that exists..... does not exist for the common good. It exists because someone profited. And yet those things all provide for the common good.

Yes, cotton was a good business with slaves doing the work. Very profitable.

Profiteering during a war or a natural disaster is lucrative, when the country and the people are desperate for the means to survive.

Michael Munger, They Clapped: Can Price-Gouging Laws Prohibit Scarcity? | Library of Economics and Liberty

In 1996, hurricane Fran hit North Carolina.

Raleigh was hit, among other cities, and had shortages of all kinds of material including ice.

While there was a shortage of supplies in Raleigh, there was a surplus in Charlotte, which had expected to get hit, but was largely spared.

Question.... did supplies in Charlotte move to Raleigh? You know... for the common good?

Answer: No it did not. No attempt was made by the vast majority of the public to move supplies from where they had a surplus, to where they had a shortage and desperate need.

Why? To illustrate why, we look at four guys from Goldsboro, that rented a freezer truck, chainsaws (to clear downed trees on the roads), and drove into Raleigh, where they sold the ice, at $8 a bag on the side of the road.

Guess what happened? People got mad, called the police, who arrested the men, and impounded the vehicles. North Carolina has anti-gouging laws.

The ice melted away, when the police turned the trucks off and left them in the impound lot. And of course no one ever brought anymore ice or supplies of any kind, into Raleigh again.

Tell me, which situation would you consider the better one? People with ice, but possibly expensive (after all they rented trucks, bought gas, rented chainsaws, and bought the ice)? Or no one charging $8 for a bag of ice, and.... no ice?

Between the two options.... which did more for the common good? No greedy people, supplying nothing? Or some guys making a quick buck while selling much needed ice?

I've heard similar stories from other events. For example in 2005, after Katrina hit, I read about a store owner who sold power generators. After Katrina, he contacted stores outside the area which still had generators and bought them, and hired trucks to deliver them to his store, where he sold them at 10% under cost. So he was losing money on each generator he sold. But after the first dozen generators were sold at $100 over sticker, people were so angry at his good deed, that he canceled all other orders, and later said he'll never do anything like that ever again during an emergency. He'll just close the store, and go on vacation until the crisis is over.

Tell me.... which result did more of the common good? Selling generators at $100 over sticker? Or just closing the store.... which of course isn't a greedy action?

You people on the left always talk like you are the more caring, but in fact your policies are the least caring, and do the most harm.

Leave it to a conservative to be pro- price gouging and war profiteering.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taxes must be mandatory so the people who don't care don't get off the hook.

No shit Sherlock. Now what's that have to do with capitalism?

I answered your question:

"why would a mandate be necessary for such programs to be covered?"

When did I ask that?

You didn't, my bad. In post 572 the quote string looked like you did.

 

[Arizona Willie]

The USA, a nation with a crumbling infrastructure, the work of the Republicans.

Detroit? You really what to discuss the failure of CEO's, and how their foolish disregard for reality (OPEC for Example) opened the door for foreign imports?

Of course not, you want to blame unions, 'cause hourly workers are the problem, not management.

========

Yep the right wingers always want to blame the Union workers for Detroit's and the auto companies troubles.

Somehow they fail to recognize that it was not the workers who ordered the sheet metal to be thinner and thinner.

It was not the workers who ordered the paint to be applied so thin that it didn't hold up to sunshine and winter weather for more than 2 - 3 years.

It was not the workers who ordered cars that wouldn't even start to be shipped to the dealers.

It was " EXECUTIVES " that made those decisions that damn near destroyed the industry and put the auto companies into bankruptcy AND THEY STILL GOT THEIR MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR BONUSES.
=====

Welcome to the United Corporate States of America

Democracy is dead

Long live the Corporation