Does anyone here actually think it's good that oil companies have to defend profit?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The word subsidy has been corrupted by modern day politicians...the original use of the word subsidy for economic purposes was the distribution of money to prop up a business or industry. Farm subsidies are a great example of real subsidies. Today htey're not so much subsidies but the name has stuck, even for farmers that are getting tax cuts and not subsidies.

Our family owns farmland. We don't get tax cuts, we get free money from the government, per acre owned....and I can't say I've ever met a "poor" farmer anymore since all the big time farmers have bought out the little ones (we're small time and cash rent ours out).

Not saying I agree with the system, but a bird in the hand...

Fed Up

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

If the government would allow more refineries to be built and for companies to drill for new oil in Alaska, then supply would go up, demand would go down, and oil company profits would go down.

To me, this is much like saying that the solution to a Meth problem affecting a city is to increase the supply of Meth. If a city had a Meth problem, I don't see how increasing the supply would drive down demand or decrease the dealer's overall profits.

We're addicted to oil, and the US Government has been an enabler. The people shoulder a share of the responsibility too. In the seventies we had a huge energy crisis, but we never developed a program or a plan to get off oil and move to alternative energy. 25 years later, we get two oilmen as President and VP. Eight years after that, oil prices (and oil company profits) are at record highs.

In Capitalism, maxing the profits of your business is the name of the game. I don't blame the oil companies for taking advatage of our addiction to oil and doing everything they can to maximize their profits, but they ARE taking advantage of our addiction. It IS ridiculous for the Gov to be lecturing the oil companies on their behavior, since they've set the stage for the oil companies with our infrastructure and taken no action to combat our oil addiction. And again, the people also share responsibility as well.

I don't begrudge any business for trying to make the most that they can, but I clearly see some of the negative results.

A business can make more money by assembling their goods in China, so why not do it? Well, it costs Americans manuacturing jobs here in America. What if that business abandoned their brick and mortar store and only sold stuff online and by phone, outsourcing the ordering processing to India? More profits for the business, yet still more American jobs lost. No retail employees, no deliveries (less business for the companies that deliver the goods to the US store), no work for the construction companies that would build future stores, ect.

I think one would have to admit that unchecked pursuit of company profits is not without negative consequences, yet I rarely if ever hear that issue addressed by those on the Libertarian side. Do the negatives ever outweigh the positives?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

But the Amish would be fine just driving their carriages on roads that were not paved.

And yes, go out and live like the Amish or stfu, because the only argument I have heard that the oil profits are unfair is that our way of life depends on it. But, our way of life is not necessary. Therefore, gasoline is unnecessary.

THat is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. For one, we don't have the land for everyone to revert to agrarian life. If all of the millions of people that now live in cities suddenly required 40 acres of land on which to farm, we would run out of land instantly. So you'd have to extermiante probably half the worlds population for that to work.
Our human civilization has been built up around the idea of specialization. One guy buys a bunch of land and specializes in farming. He can produce more food so we can support more people. But of course his huge farm needs all sorts of things. tractors, combines, some sort of plant to process the food, a factory to make large amounts of bread, etc. All of these things require energy to operate. We need to ship the grain from the farm to the market. People need to drive to and from the farms. And that is just a tiny tiny part of the economy. The entire economy depends on oil. If oil suddenly went away tomorrow, no, we wouldn't all revert to agrarian societies. You would have world famine, riots, wars, you WOULD lose a substantial proportion of the population. If you have no problem with killing a billion people or so... then I guess we don't need oil.
What do you mean our way of life isn't necesary? Necessary to what? the planet? the universe? Our species? What does that even mean?
it's total and utter nonsense on every level.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

They also lived in wood built homes and cement built homes, prayed to the Christian god, and died of old age at 60.

In our current age, there are societies that live in mud huts, pray to the Sun, and die of old age at 30.

So, obviously oil is not the solution. Maybe you should try looking in other places for the solution.



Hmm. I saw a show on this. You buy solar panels to power your house. Use a car that runs on something else besides gasoline (I think they used animal by products). And a bunch of other things. It can be done. You just don't want to because it costs more than gasoline does right now.

Oh you saw a TV show. wow. You know everything about the global energy market then.

Solar panels can't fully power a modern house and they won't work for areas that don't get year round sun. They are not a solution by any stretch. And we don't have the resources to convert every car to run on biodiesel. to do so would curtail half the worlds food production and would result in incredible food price surges, famine, and death on a massive scale.

it's pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

THat is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. For one, we don't have the land for everyone to revert to agrarian life. If all of the millions of people that now live in cities suddenly required 40 acres of land on which to farm, we would run out of land instantly. So you'd have to extermiante probably half the worlds population for that to work.
Our human civilization has been built up around the idea of specialization. One guy buys a bunch of land and specializes in farming. He can produce more food so we can support more people. But of course his huge farm needs all sorts of things. tractors, combines, some sort of plant to process the food, a factory to make large amounts of bread, etc. All of these things require energy to operate. We need to ship the grain from the farm to the market. People need to drive to and from the farms. And that is just a tiny tiny part of the economy. The entire economy depends on oil. If oil suddenly went away tomorrow, no, we wouldn't all revert to agrarian societies. You would have world famine, riots, wars, you WOULD lose a substantial proportion of the population. If you have no problem with killing a billion people or so... then I guess we don't need oil.
What do you mean our way of life isn't necesary? Necessary to what? the planet? the universe? Our species? What does that even mean?
it's total and utter nonsense on every level.

Church!

This thread has gone utterly ridiculous in its arguments - funny how free marketers must always go these insane routes to prove their already flimsy arguments

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Church!

This thread has gone utterly ridiculous in its arguments - funny how free marketers must always go these insane routes to prove their already flimsy arguments

It doesn't need to go to extremes. Life goes on with or without fuel - supposedly we're going to run out anyway.

Fuel won't just disappear. Supply chains will continue to use it even if we don't, and just because we finance some of it through purchasing consumer goods doesn't mean we're 'forced to buy it', as if there was really a demand to buy things that didn't use fuel, people would create them and sell them locally.

It can also be replaced by electrical alternatives. You don't have to give it up completely to bring the price down through other means. There is a balance that can be achieved. Eventually it could go away completely but it would take a long time.

But you personally don't have to buy gas to survive (speaking in general).

[6SpeedTA95]

There's a lot of oil...its just getting more expensive to extract it...I dunno that we'll run out in our lifetimes.

Theres a lot of oil in shale formations here in the states.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

It doesn't need to go to extremes. Life goes on with or without fuel - supposedly we're going to run out anyway.

Fuel won't just disappear. Supply chains will continue to use it even if we don't, and just because we finance some of it through purchasing consumer goods doesn't mean we're 'forced to buy it', as if there was really a demand to buy things that didn't use fuel, people would create them and sell them locally.

It can also be replaced by electrical alternatives. You don't have to give it up completely to bring the price down through other means. There is a balance that can be achieved. Eventually it could go away completely but it would take a long time.

But you personally don't have to buy gas to survive (speaking in general).

Humanity will no doubt survive, I think the push is to reduce the pain and the damage it does to our economic system.
A gradual change is preferred to a violent one. We don't really have any viable alternatives right now. Not that can be readily used on a wide scale anyway.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Humanity will no doubt survive, I think the push is to reduce the pain and the damage it does to our economic system.
A gradual change is preferred to a violent one. We don't really have any viable alternatives right now. Not that can be readily used on a wide scale anyway.

I hope that one thing this does is bring back the home brew people who built their own stuff and did their own experiments

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I hope that one thing this does is bring back the home brew people who built their own stuff and did their own experiments

I think they are still around to some extent. There are the guys who converted thier own cars to run on waste oil from fast food joints. There is that guy who took his Prius and added like 50 car batteries and somehow changed the program so he gets like 100mpg by using the electric motor more often. I was listneing the NPR this morning and some mechanic welded a motor onto his bicycle and he gets 150mpg out of it.

Of course I still see SUV's all over the highway going 80mph and certainly getting 15mpg while doing it.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by motivez

More like their profits have come because their product is a necessity for all aspects of modern society, and it's ridiculous to suggest society regress 100+ years before raising taxes on a company that has benefited from decades of taxpayer investment.

Hey, I am all for them paying their equal share of taxes, and not giving them tax breaks because they are a "special" industry.

Of course I am also all for cutting taxes to about 1% of what they currently are.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yes, we've subsidized the energy industry and the oil companies for decades.

I don't think tax dollars should be going to fund an industry that's wildly profitable.

We do not subsidize the oil industry the same way we subsidize the food industry. We just give the oil industry tax breaks, we do not actually give them funding.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think they are still around to some extent. There are the guys who converted thier own cars to run on waste oil from fast food joints. There is that guy who took his Prius and added like 50 car batteries and somehow changed the program so he gets like 100mpg by using the electric motor more often. I was listneing the NPR this morning and some mechanic welded a motor onto his bicycle and he gets 150mpg out of it.

Of course I still see SUV's all over the highway going 80mph and certainly getting 15mpg while doing it.

Hopefully there will be a market for the do it yourself electronic experimentation magazines that I used to love buying at the grocery store as a kid

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

We do not subsidize the oil industry the same way we subsidize the food industry. We just give the oil industry tax breaks, we do not actually give them funding.

Thats correct.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

To me, this is much like saying that the solution to a Meth problem affecting a city is to increase the supply of Meth.

No, it is like saying the solution to the Meth "problem" is to legalize drugs, just like the solution to the oil "problem" is to legalize oil drilling. And both things would help.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

THat is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. For one, we don't have the land for everyone to revert to agrarian life. If all of the millions of people that now live in cities suddenly required 40 acres of land on which to farm, we would run out of land instantly. So you'd have to extermiante probably half the worlds population for that to work.
Our human civilization has been built up around the idea of specialization. One guy buys a bunch of land and specializes in farming. He can produce more food so we can support more people. But of course his huge farm needs all sorts of things. tractors, combines, some sort of plant to process the food, a factory to make large amounts of bread, etc. All of these things require energy to operate. We need to ship the grain from the farm to the market. People need to drive to and from the farms. And that is just a tiny tiny part of the economy. The entire economy depends on oil. If oil suddenly went away tomorrow, no, we wouldn't all revert to agrarian societies. You would have world famine, riots, wars, you WOULD lose a substantial proportion of the population. If you have no problem with killing a billion people or so... then I guess we don't need oil.
What do you mean our way of life isn't necesary? Necessary to what? the planet? the universe? Our species? What does that even mean?
it's total and utter nonsense on every level.

I never suggested everyone revert to agrarian life. Just the whiners that think gas prices are too high. And if just the whiners reverted to agrarian life, we would not have world chaos.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I never suggested everyone revert to agrarian life. Just the whiners that think gas prices are too high. And if just the whiners reverted to agrarian life, we would not have world chaos.

I understand your point, however, people have a right to be upset about gas prices, the problem is their ill feelings are directed at the wrong people. Hell I work in the industry almost everyone I talk to hates the high gas prices. People are also beginning to see that this could very well be a bubble and when it pops it will pop quickly

[seangone]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I never suggested everyone revert to agrarian life. Just the whiners that think gas prices are too high. And if just the whiners reverted to agrarian life, we would not have world chaos.

I think it's funny that the preferred option here is to set back progress 100 years rather than have a single industry reduce their profits.