Unintended Consequences.

[kaz]

We should be charging oil companies the kind of royalties they have to pay around the world,

fuck the subsidy, that's where we're really losing money.

what would the consequences be?

You think the consequences would be that they would just raise prices to make up for it.

You wrongly assume that market forces and competition have no effect on price.

So, nice try.

Right, if the cost of steel goes up, the cost of refrigerators don't. There's no correlation between cost and price. If you take econ 101 and learn about the supply and demand curve then you'll sound a lot less ignorant when you don't post nonsense like this.

 

[8537]

Oil is an inelastic good, so when the price rises, oil companies profit.

Or when the price falls big oil profits.

Nope, when price falls for an inelastic good, the firm decreases their total revenue.

This is basic economics.

True, but if the price increase is due to a tax both parties lose.

 

[NYcarbineer]

what would the consequences be?

You think the consequences would be that they would just raise prices to make up for it.

You wrongly assume that market forces and competition have no effect on price.

So, nice try.

so you are on record as "there will be NO consequences" is that right?

I'm on record marveling at the fact that you can't read.

 

[WillowTree]

Do you know what a tax loop hole is? It would have no affect on profit because they set their own prices. The excess would be passed to consumers to pay at the pump. The result would be Americans waking up to why they are being gouged, but at least they would know the true cost of a gallon of gas and stop the smoke & mirror game. They might even decide it is time to go to National Oil to pay a $1.00 a gallon for gasoline & fuck big oil.

go communist!

it's rather ironic that a strident defender of government financial support for industry would call another poster a communist.

whatever duz you mean?

 

[kaz]

First of all, a tax credit is a subsidy

Yes comrade, not taking a company's money is the same as giving them money. All money is the people's money.

Not taking people's money? What are you talking about?

Sorry, I was under the apparently false assumption you were reading your own posts

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oil is an inelastic good, so when the price rises, oil companies profit.

Gas price hikes eventually produce demand decreases.

 

[WillowTree]

You think the consequences would be that they would just raise prices to make up for it.

You wrongly assume that market forces and competition have no effect on price.

So, nice try.

so you are on record as "there will be NO consequences" is that right?

I'm on record marveling at the fact that you can't read.

what would the consequences be? list them

 

[shintao]

We should be charging oil companies the kind of royalties they have to pay around the world,

fuck the subsidy, that's where we're really losing money.

Where we are losing money is letting Big oil sell us our own oil, instead of instituting National oil, running it ourselves, and paying about a $1.00 gallon for it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

As I sat listening to the debates yesterday the liberal talking points were adhered to by each and every single member of the dimocrat party. One of their main issues stated is that "The Republicans want to give tax loopholes" to big oil companies.. okay so supposing that is correct, what would the consequences be if such loopholes were closed?




I know the answer. Do you?

Higher oil prices, more jobless and government dependents which is exactly what the democrat authoritarian communists want.

.

Let me guess: you call yourself a capitalist, right?

Yes, its the only model that works.

 

[WillowTree]

We should be charging oil companies the kind of royalties they have to pay around the world,

fuck the subsidy, that's where we're really losing money.

Where we are losing money is letting Big oil sell us our own oil, instead of instituting National oil, running it ourselves, and paying about a $1.00 gallon for it.

duz you have the infrastructure to extract, refine and deliver? duz ya? if ya duz why did your presidente close down the gom and give 20 billion to brazillle and then promise to buy all they oil?

 

[Cuyo]

Just think, if we subsidized everything we could drop all prices! I recommend starting with beer subsidies - but only for craft brewers, none of that mass-produced crap.

Is this one of those "we have to abandon capitalism in order to save capitalism" conservatarian canards?

Well said. Why not have the government pay all the oil companies operating expenses? Hey, after all, that would permit them to lower their cost to the consumer were they so inclined, would it not?

And that is what we're talking about here... Giving public money to a corporation, and defending that position by arguing that they'll otherwise raise prices. No different whatsoever than having the general fund pay their expenses directly.

 

[shintao]

Oil is an inelastic good, so when the price rises, oil companies profit.

Or when the price falls big oil profits.

did you tell us what the consequences of closing the tax loopholes would be? or did you knot?

I didn't tie any knots with my loose ends.

 

[auditor0007]

Oil companies in the U.S. are set to have a record Q1, with earnings surging by 50% year-over-year at the world's biggest company, Exxon Mobile, according to the Wall Street Journal

pay attention dim wit,, the question at hand is "what would the consequences of closing tax loopholes for big oil be?" did you write that down?



we will await your illustious answer.

You would have to pay a bit more for gasoline. So what? Look at it this way; you always scream that you should not have to pay to support one program or another because you don't receive a direct benefit from it. So what about those who don't drive? Why should they have to pay taxes that go to subsidize companies from which they receive no direct benefit? And why should someone who drives minimally have to pay the same amount in taxes to support big oil companies as someone who drives a great deal?

You use this argument all the time for welfare that you don't like or don't receive a benefit from, but you will support others paying for things that you do benefit from even if they don't.

 

[WillowTree]

Just think, if we subsidized everything we could drop all prices! I recommend starting with beer subsidies - but only for craft brewers, none of that mass-produced crap.

Is this one of those "we have to abandon capitalism in order to save capitalism" conservatarian canards?

Well said. Why not have the government pay all the oil companies operating expenses? Hey, after all, that would permit them to lower their cost to the consumer were they so inclined, would it not?

And that is what we're talking about here... Giving public money to a corporation, and defending that position by arguing that they'll otherwise raise prices. No different whatsoever than having the general fund pay their expenses directly.

what we izzz talking about here is answering the question.. what would be the consequences of cutting tax loopholes to big oil. did you write that down?

 

[kaz]

We should be charging oil companies the kind of royalties they have to pay around the world,

fuck the subsidy, that's where we're really losing money.

Where we are losing money is letting Big oil sell us our own oil, instead of instituting National oil, running it ourselves, and paying about a $1.00 gallon for it.

So you think the profit margin on oil is about 70%? Clueless is as clueless does...

 

[Seawytch]

pay attention dim wit,, the question at hand is "what would the consequences of closing tax loopholes for big oil be?" did you write that down?

we will await your illustious answer.

Hey douchenozzle, how about we close 'em and find out?

So shit-for-brains, how come people on unemployment get cut off when they get a job?

How about we stop subsidizing oil companies and start subsidizing alternative energies more? Just imagine what we could do with those billions in oil subsidies...Solar power for all federal buildings? An electrical car grid? Hydrogen and solar power for public agencies? The possibilities are endless...

Seriously, you think taking less of what an oil company makes is equivalent to cutting off someone's government check of someone else's money? And you libbies always get upset when I keep pointing out your ideology is Marxist. Which it is. The Communist manifesto is exactly what the Democrats advocate. Read the planks and it's the Democratic party platform. That doesn't mean Soviet Union who did a lot of things that weren't in the Communist Manifesto. But your ideology is dead on Marxist.

Sorry, just not seeing the difference between welfare and corporate welfare. It should stop if you are making money, period. How are these subsidies "free market principals"?

 

[Mr.Nick]

What subsidies does Apple get?

What subsidies do big oil get? I could be wrong, but they receive tax credits, which is different than subsidies.

I am interested in big oil subsidies, so please support your claim.

First of all, a tax credit is a subsidy.

Secondly, the oil companies also receive a direct subsidy - a certain amount per barrel extracted from high-cost sources, for example.

No its NOT...

The only possible way for a tax credit to be a subsidy is to believe the government ALLOWS individuals and corporations to keep their money.

These individuals are creating the fucking wealth dummy - its their money not the governments money...

The government doesn't own our wealth as a nation..

This is why democrats are fucking stupid and communists.

 

[Antiderivative]

Oil is an inelastic good, so when the price rises, oil companies profit.

Gas price hikes eventually produce demand decreases.

Gas price hikes eventually produce QUANTITY demand decreases, but not as great as the price the increase.

Whenever the price of a good changes, the QUANTITY Demanded changes, not DEMAND.

 

[WillowTree]

Oil companies in the U.S. are set to have a record Q1, with earnings surging by 50% year-over-year at the world's biggest company, Exxon Mobile, according to the Wall Street Journal

pay attention dim wit,, the question at hand is "what would the consequences of closing tax loopholes for big oil be?" did you write that down?



we will await your illustious answer.

You would have to pay a bit more for gasoline. So what? Look at it this way; you always scream that you should not have to pay to support one program or another because you don't receive a direct benefit from it. So what about those who don't drive? Why should they have to pay taxes that go to subsidize companies from which they receive no direct benefit? And why should someone who drives minimally have to pay the same amount in taxes to support big oil companies as someone who drives a great deal?

You use this argument all the time for welfare that you don't like or don't receive a benefit from, but you will support others paying for things that you do benefit from even if they don't.

define "a bit more"

 

[Cuyo]

Just think, if we subsidized everything we could drop all prices! I recommend starting with beer subsidies - but only for craft brewers, none of that mass-produced crap.

Is this one of those "we have to abandon capitalism in order to save capitalism" conservatarian canards?

Well said. Why not have the government pay all the oil companies operating expenses? Hey, after all, that would permit them to lower their cost to the consumer were they so inclined, would it not?

And that is what we're talking about here... Giving public money to a corporation, and defending that position by arguing that they'll otherwise raise prices. No different whatsoever than having the general fund pay their expenses directly.

what we izzz talking about here is answering the question.. what would be the consequences of cutting tax loopholes to big oil. did you write that down?

What? Why izzzz you getting upset? I'm agreeing with you. We should pay all their expenses. That way they can lower the price of gas.