Greatest thread to human civilization : capitalist greed - Stephen Hawkin

[The Rabbi]

I took some econ. This doesn't change our policy, how it works, what it is and that it works exceptionally for our economy, where you're wrong and failed in refuting.

LOL! You took "some Econ." Yeah, you blew an Econ major in the bathroom is probably what you meant.
Your posts indicate deep ignorance of the Bernouli Curve and Stromboli Theorem.

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?

It increases prices for average Americans and benefits cronies of the government. You had to ask?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My myth? Our culture is much different than those in India and China. I've never been to either, I have traveled in Western Europe, South American, Central America, the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada. So most of my personal experience is within cultures much different than those in Asia. I've seen abject poverty in my travels, nothing in the States compares to what I've seen in other countries. We can thank the New Deal for that.

I've also traveled to most States, missing only the Dakotas, New Mexico, Alabama and Maine in the lower 48, and Alaska and Hawaii.

translation: I'm too stupid for the subject so I'll try to change the subject by telling you about my travel history!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

-+

. We live in a consumer driven society, low wages mean reduced commerce; no wages result in closures on main st. and foreclosures in neighborhoods.

100% stupid and liberal. If I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Do you know what a strawman is????

I know what a Straw Man Argument is, and I even know how it's spelled.

translation: I'm too stupid for the subject so I'll try to change the subject to spelling and hope no one notices!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BTW Andy L, compare our form of Capitalism with that practiced by China and India.
Shall we compare how well the poor, working and not, exist in America vis a vis India or China?

obviously they live better here because we have had more capitalism for a longer period of time.

Now do you understand?

 

[The Rabbi]

My myth? Our culture is much different than those in India and China. I've never been to either, I have traveled in Western Europe, South American, Central America, the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada. So most of my personal experience is within cultures much different than those in Asia. I've seen abject poverty in my travels, nothing in the States compares to what I've seen in other countries. We can thank the New Deal for that.

I've also traveled to most States, missing only the Dakotas, New Mexico, Alabama and Maine in the lower 48, and Alaska and Hawaii.

translation: I'm too stupid for the subject so I'll try to change the subject by telling you about my travel history!!

Like the US was a poverty stricken third world country before FDR.

 

[bripat9643]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100% stupid and liberal!!! for the 1000th time you can't drain one end of the pool , use the water to fill the other end ,and expect the water level to go up.

If that worked you idiot liberal economics would be over and we'd never worry about recessions or depression again!!

Now do you understand??

I understand you're full of shit and too dumb to know it. We live in a consumer driven society, low wages mean reduced commerce; no wages result in closures on main st. and foreclosures in neighborhoods.

Then explain the rise of China and India. They had wages that were a tiny fraction of the wages you call low.

They don't seem to have closures all over main st, and foreclosures in neighborhoods. In fact, people are claiming they are going to take over the world economy.

How does that fit with your myth?

My myth? Our culture is much different than those in India and China. I've never been to either, I have traveled in Western Europe, South American, Central America, the Caribbean, Mexico and Canada. So most of my personal experience is within cultures much different than those in Asia. I've seen abject poverty in my travels, nothing in the States compares to what I've seen in other countries. We can thank the New Deal for that.

I've also traveled to most States, missing only the Dakotas, New Mexico, Alabama and Maine in the lower 48, and Alaska and Hawaii.

No, we can't thank the new deal. In fact, the New Deal made us poorer. The United States was the wealthiest country in the world before the New Deal.

 

[Contumacious]

“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

I seriously doubt that humans will be entirely be removed from the equation

But meddling governments and their gazillion regulations have forced employers to speed up the process.

Will a robot ever complained that the boss grabbed her ass and/or made a derogatory comment in front of her thereby creating "an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment"

The government has created an extremely expensive healthcare marketplace. Robots do not get sick and when they malfunction their repair is relatively inexpensive.

So as per usual , when things go wrong , look for government intervention.

 

[Programmer]

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.

I can't think of any policies or security that 'rely on oil export restrictions'. Nor is asking for a ban be lifted, a protection of business. If anything, the ban on exports itself would be the protection. So business is asked to have a protection removed.

I'm ok with that.

The oil crisis was created by government. Government regulation caused the problem. It was not a solution to it.

It's not the Saudis or the State Department, that has reduced oil prices. It was laissez faire Capitalism, with a profit motive that developed fracking which drastically increased our domestic oil production.

Funny how when we buy stuff from china, you say we're fueling their economy.

Now we want to sell stuff to China, and you say we're fueling their economy.

No matter what we do, buy or sell, import or export, you claim we're hurting us, and benefiting them.

These are contradictory positions. They can't both be true.

Here's the bottom line.....

If we get to a point where we have more oil than we need.... companies will have zero motive to explore and drill for oil they can't use, or export. Investment into the US will fall, not go up.

As a result, trillions of dollars will be invested outside the US, creating jobs for everyone but Americans. When that happens, these companies will have a high motivation to build refineries outside the US, closer to where their production is.

Before Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil industry in Venezuela, Exxon had planned to build the largest refinery in south America, in Venezuela. But because of protectionist policies by Chavez, and the nationalizing of most of the oil production, Exxon canceled those plans. Oil production, and nearly the entire economy of Venezuela has fallen since Chavez got power.

Far from creating all this benefit to the country, it ruined it.

At least look into reality before replying.

 

[Conservative65]

Why do Republicans hate "infrastructure"?? LOL

Does this have anything to do with Josh Duggar?

Good question, I don't know, but you may. Why did you oppose the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

Not Josh Dugger, likely John Galt.

It wasn't designed for recovery and reinvestment.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

So your morals are OK to force on others?

My morals? You don't get it at all. Callous disregard for the poor, aged, young and invalid is by its very nature immoral. It's not my morals, it was true and old when Socrates walked on the earth.

It's the left that has a callous disregard for the poor, not the right.

Conservatives routinely are more generous and charitable than the left-wing. The left wing assumes that government should help the poor, not them. Thus they rarely give to charity, or anyone.

Moreover, you don't see left-wingers ever saying that they themselves should pay more tax to fund these programs, but instead claim that "the 1% should pay more!".

So not only do they not support charity directly, but they don't even support the programs they claim are there for the poor.

In short, left-wingers are routinely, and consistently the least caring people on the planet.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Funny ain't it, liberals are called "bleeding hearts" out of one side of the mouth of crazy right wingers, and callous out of the other.

You're bleeding hearts because many of you demand others be forced to fund things you admit you can't do yourself, the I would IF I could crowd, and callous because failing to do what you think others should be forced to do results in thing for which you blame the rest of us for not wanting to fund.

If you believe so much in something when it comes to "helping" those you see in need, write a check. If you aren't willing, as a group, to fund what you think needs to be funded, expecting others to accept being forced to do it lends no credibility to your claims that you're compassionate. Compassion doesn't come from thinking something should be done then going about seeing how much the government can force others to do it. Compassion comes from the giver doing what he/she says needs to be done not from them getting the government to mandate it. If you truly believe that someone is in need and that they should get help, the government isn't needed for that to happen. YOU doing what YOU say needs to be done can be accomplished on your own. If you can't for whatever reason, you're the last person to say someone else should do it.

If you see a need, meet it. If I see one, I'll meet it. I won't tell you who to and who not to help as long as you return the favor.