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

[Viv]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Maybe because we live in the United States of America, where we're supposed to be a free country?

Lol...nothing is free. If you adhere to the concepts of capitalism, they do include the suggestion that you put something back into society.

Andrew Carnegie, who more or less invented/began formalising the idea of capitalism, was the richest man in the world but recognised his duty to use that money in order to improve the lot of the whole of society.

Fact that you happen to have an innate ability to rake in money does not mean you are entitled to everything and those around you can be stepped on for you to have that. We are all in this together.

If you were a doctor, would you only treat yourself? You have a skill, make your money but also expect to contribute to the society you live in.

It is also a little extreme to suggest the government wants to take everything from business, it is only pushing accountability.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

Food? Really? You wouldn't want the government to step in at some point even if there was some kinda of severe food crisis?

The only reason we would have a "severe" food crisis is if the government "stepped in" in the first place!

Being that you claim to be a libertarian, have you studied Austrian economics? If not, you should check out mises.org.

I agree, the government is terrible at doing most things, but I still think it has a role to play here. While its not ideal that government invest in it as opposed to private firms, right now there simply isn't much incentive for private firms to research alternatives. Sure people bitch about the gas prices, but until it gets REALLY bad they're still gona drive SUVs and run to the mall for no reason etc... The bad part is that once the situation gets bad enough to really force a change it may be too late and significant damage to our economy may already have been done.

I did read something today that seemed like an excellent idea to me though, from Andrew Sullivan (The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan)
This is the best idea I've heard so far, it just serves as a guide or to jump start the market, but it doesn't really try to control it.

Wow, that is an aweful idea. First of all, global warming is a GLOBAL problem. Increasing the cost for U.S. citizens to emite carbon is not a solution in any way whatsoever. Second of all, the evidence that global warming is a human cause is extremely weak. The ONLY result of this kind of policy is to make our lives more difficult.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

The difference is pretty obvious.

And there is no evidence that natural monopolies harm the economy or can be sustained. They can only continue to exist so long as the offer the best product at the lowest price.

Cartels act just like a monopoly they control the market.
Opec controls the flow of oil in their Cartel in doing so they control the price by keeping the flow lower than it would be without them being together. That is how a monopoly works. The oil companies monopoly is not natural if they truely competed like in the old gas war days their pofits would be what they should be. They do not really compete so they can have higher profits, but they are not the only bad guys you have to include Opec, speculators, and higher demand and other things but don't let the oil companies off the hook, and they don't need the profits to look for oil either with the price of oil where it is now they are looking to borrow, steal or buy any rigs they can get to look for oil.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Cartels act just like a monopoly they control the market.
Opec controls the flow of oil in their Cartel in doing so they control the price by keeping the flow lower than it would be without them being together. That is how a monopoly works. The oil companies monopoly is not natural if they truely competed like in the old gas war days their pofits would be what they should be. They do not really compete so they can have higher profits, but they are not the only bad guys you have to include Opec, speculators, and higher demand and other things but don't let the oil companies off the hook, and they don't need the profits to look for oil either with the price of oil where it is now they are looking to borrow, steal or buy any rigs they can get to look for oil.

Are you suggesting this is why the price of gasoline has doubled in the last few years?

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

The only reason we would have a "severe" food crisis is if the government "stepped in" in the first place!

While the government stepping in certaintly could cause a severe food crisis, (ethanol) its far from the only reason a crisis could emerge

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Being that you claim to be a libertarian, have you studied Austrian economics? If not, you should check out mises.org.

I read a lot of the stuff from Cato and Reason, I've read a few things from Mises, but I'm not particularly well versed on the economic end of things yet, and that seems to be what they focus on. I'm also not a "pure" libertarian, I do think there are times where the government should step in, create laws, etc. But I feel there should be much much less government than both the Democratic and Republican parties want.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Wow, that is an aweful idea. First of all, global warming is a GLOBAL problem. Increasing the cost for U.S. citizens to emite carbon is not a solution in any way whatsoever. Second of all, the evidence that global warming is a human cause is extremely weak. The ONLY result of this kind of policy is to make our lives more difficult.

I'm skeptical of the whole global warming end of that particular argument as well, but don't you agree that being so dependent on oil weakens us as a nation? Isn't it in our best interests not to have to suck Saudi Arabia's dick every time the price of oil goes up? If a better and alternative source of fuel was found I believe it would benefit us as a nation (not being beholden to foreign interests). The market alone doesn't really take into account all of the hoops we jump through to get oil as cheaply as we do, it just sees that people at the pump are willing to pay 4$ a gallon, and while that sucks, no alternative has proven to work better. But those alternatives might be much more marketable if we had to pay the same prices Europeans do for oil, or if it took into account all of the diplomatic headaches it causes us. Therefore I see no problem with government encouraging the development of these alternative fuel sources, and using taxes to encourage quicker innovation seems like a reasonable way to achieve this.

To sum it up I guess my favorable views of the government acting on this one comes from more of a geopolitical viewpoint as opposed to an economic viewpoint which is what yours seems to be considering.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

I'm skeptical of the whole global warming end of that particular argument as well, but don't you agree that being so dependent on oil weakens us as a nation?

Not if we had a free market economy.

Isn't it in our best interests not to have to suck Saudi Arabia's dick every time the price of oil goes up?

Americans don't, just the U.S. government, since politicians like to get votes and the public is uneducated.

But again, I think it should be legal to build more refineries and to drill for oil on our own soil. The government does not allow more refineries to be built and restricts oil drilling.

If a better and alternative source of fuel was found I believe it would benefit us as a nation (not being beholden to foreign interests).

You "believe"? This is why an uneducated populace in our country is so dangerous. Do you know what a cost/benefit analysis is? I am sure you do. You do one EVERY time you spend your money. Businesses do one every time they spend their money. But governments do NOT!

Again, you "believe" it would benefit us. How would it benefit us if we spent one trillion dollars on something that only saves us one billion dollars? But you have no idea how much benefit there would be to the cost, yet you are willing to throw tax dollars at it. That is just great. Sounds like the kind of people we currently have in office.

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Not if we had a free market economy.

We don't, you should probably get use to this.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

But again, I think it should be legal to build more refineries and to drill for oil on our own soil. The government does not allow more refineries to be built and restricts oil drilling.

No problem here, but I'm pretty sure these measures won't solve the problem, though they will definitely help

Originally Posted by Spideynw

This is why an uneducated populace in our country is so dangerous.

A structural drawback to democracy I'm afraid

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Americans don't, just the U.S. government, since politicians like to get votes and the public is uneducated.

Americans aren't hurt by us being dependent on oil?

Originally Posted by Spideynw

How would it benefit us if we spent one trillion dollars on something that only saves us one billion dollars? But you have no idea how much benefit there would be to the cost, yet you are willing to throw tax dollars at it. That is just great. Sounds like the kind of people we currently have in office.

How does it benefit us to be held at the mercy of a foreign and possibly hostile government? Why would you not want to get out of that situation? Do you realize that the top five oil exporting countries are Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran, and Venezuela? That isn't exactly a list of our closest allies. These are countries that could use our dependency on massive ammounts of foreign oil to exploit us. Should they decide to, for whatever reason, stop giving us the cheap gas that we've become so addicted to, it could cause economic turmoil in the US. I do feel that once this occurred the market would quickly work to find a suitable alternative, but that takes time, and during that time we would be hurting economically, and weakened as a nation. Rather than allow this to happen it would be preferable for us to encourage a change now. Not through any type of top-down government mandate, just by adjusting taxation to encourage more innovation. How do you justify not taking this step (or some similar step) to decrease our dependency on foreign oil?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

We don't, you should probably get use to this.

What? I shouldn't try to make things better? I should just suffer and accept it? WTH?

How does it benefit us to be held at the mercy of a foreign and possibly hostile government?

OMG! You obviously did not read the whole thread. We do not need fuel. We did not need it for thousands of years. We do not need it today. We only "need" it if we want to maintain our current standard of living. But our current standard of living is NOT needed.

Second of all, the prices they are charging are COMPLETELY REASONABLE. The only reason the price of fuel has gone up so much in the last few years IS BECAUSE THE FED PUMPED SO MUCH MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY. Have the government reduce the supply of money in the economy and guess what! GAS PRICES WILL FALL TO THEIR LEVELS FROM A FEW YEARS AGO.

Lastly, the benefit of purchasing from these countries is obviously worth the cost, otherwise the market WOULD ALREADY BE INVESTING IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESEARCH! So no, there is no reason for the government to invest in energy research!

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

We do not need fuel.

If this is the crux of your argument then fine, I concede that we could revert back hundreds of years and pursue an agrarian based lifestyle where fuel is unnecessary, in order to avoid a tax hike. I wish you luck convincing your congressman to vote in favor of this legislation.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

If this is the crux of your argument then fine, I concede that we could revert back hundreds of years and pursue an agrarian based lifestyle where fuel is unnecessary, in order to avoid a tax hike. I wish you luck convincing your congressman to vote in favor of this legislation.

My argument is that there is no way to know that spending tax dollars on energy research is worth the cost, and that since the market is not currently doing it, that it is not worth the cost.

Let me try responding to your post again for clarification.

Originally Posted by Smull

How does it benefit us to be held at the mercy of a foreign and possibly hostile government?

Let's see, if they charge us too much, it could ruin our economy, at the same time ruining theirs. So they HAVE to produce enough oil at a reasonable price to continue their lifestyles. So they are just as much at our mercy as we are theirs.

The REASON for our high gas prices is NOT because of the oil cartel. It is because OUR government pumped TOO much money into the economy. Gasoline just happens to respond to a new money supply much quicker than most parts of the economy.

As to congressmen, most of them know about as much about economics as you do, so convincing them of the smart thing to do is just as impossible as convincing you.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Are you suggesting this is why the price of gasoline has doubled in the last few years?

All four of those reasons plus the value of the dollor is why.

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

What? I shouldn't try to make things better? I should just suffer and accept it? WTH?

Its one thing to advocate change but the system which you favor is so far removed from what we have. The changes which would need to take place in order to make a completely free market are huge and radical changes, that at this point simply aren't realistic. Aren't we better served to try to push things incrementally in the right direction and support realistic solutions that our government and populace might find agreeable rather than talk down to them and claim that the only way is to completely rework the structure of our society?

Originally Posted by Spideynw

My argument is that there is no way to know that spending tax dollars on energy research is worth the cost, and that since the market is not currently doing it, that it is not worth the cost.

Not all costs can be quantified in dollars and cents.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Let's see, if they charge us too much, it could ruin our economy, at the same time ruining theirs. So they HAVE to produce enough oil at a reasonable price to continue their lifestyles. So they are just as much at our mercy as we are theirs.

How much do you think they could charge before we stopped buying? 5$ a gallon? 10$? 15$? How far do you think we can be pushed, all the while enriching our enemies and draining money from our economy. How bad would things get before somebody found a preferable alternative fuel sources, and how long would this condition of economic and geopolitical weakness last before its found? There is no way to quantify the cost of this scenario in simple dollars and cents (though I'm sure the economic drain would be much more costly than a carbon tax which encourages innovation)

Originally Posted by Spideynw

The REASON for our high gas prices is NOT because of the oil cartel. It is because OUR government pumped TOO much money into the economy. Gasoline just happens to respond to a new money supply much quicker than most parts of the economy.

I agree that our government has recklessly pumped way too much money into our economy, causing inflation. But gas prices NOW aren't the problem, its what could happen to our gas prices, or worse what our government will do to prevent anything happening to our gas prices.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

All four of those reasons plus the value of the dollor is why.

The value of the dollar is by far the greatest cause. Look at the price of gold and tell me why its price has skyrocketed.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Smull

Its one thing to advocate change but the system which you favor is so far removed from what we have. The changes which would need to take place in order to make a completely free market are huge and radical changes, that at this point simply aren't realistic. Aren't we better served to try to push things incrementally in the right direction and support realistic solutions that our government and populace might find agreeable rather than talk down to them and claim that the only way is to completely rework the structure of our society?

No.

Not all costs can be quantified in dollars and cents.

Do you know of a better way to do a cost/benefit analysis? If so, the world would love to know. Every single business in the world does cost/benefit analysis' using currencies. But I guess you know something they do not, right?

How much do you think they could charge before we stopped buying? 5$ a gallon? 10$? 15$? How far do you think we can be pushed, all the while enriching our enemies and draining money from our economy. How bad would things get before somebody found a preferable alternative fuel sources, and how long would this condition of economic and geopolitical weakness last before its found? There is no way to quantify the cost of this scenario in simple dollars and cents

Let's see. Currently, gasoline is $4 per gallon. Your "solution" to this problem is to then force Americans to pay, not only for gasoline, but for research that no one knows if it will have any worthwhile benefits, because a cost/benefit analysis is apparently impossible (it is, but for different reasons than you have suggested). So, let's say we add just $1 to the cost of gasoline to fund this garbage research. Now, people are paying, using your figures, $6, $11, and $16. How much sooner do you think this will cause the economy to fail?

(though I'm sure the economic drain would be much more costly than a carbon tax which encourages innovation)

Are you god? Or do you have this cost/benefit analysis I keep asking for? Or do you just like to see yourself post garbage?

I agree that our government has recklessly pumped way too much money into our economy, causing inflation. But gas prices NOW aren't the problem, its what could happen to our gas prices, or worse what our government will do to prevent anything happening to our gas prices.

Again, simply reduce the supply of money in the market, and prices would go right back down to where they were before.

Lastly, the U.S. is hardly dependant on OPEC. We provide 40% of our own oil, and get another 40% from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria, all non-OPEC countries. EIA’s Energy in Brief: How dependent are we on foreign oil?

SO QUIT CLAIMING THAT WE ARE BEING HELD AT THE MERCY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS!

[David Octavius]

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

I see nothing wrong with it..a company that makes tens of billions a year affects tens of millions of people, their actions, good or bad, reverberate loudly. So it's only prudent to question where the profits comes from to ensure it is ethical and not harming the people. Moreover questioning can provide a check to those companies that make billions and do indeed fleece the people. Just like it's prudent to question government leaders since their decisions affects us all.

Now I am not saying that a company does not have a right to make money, of course they do, but no company has a right to violate anyone else's rights. It may seem unseemly to you to question them because you view capitalism as a god, but it actually enhances it as it instills more confidence in the market, knowing we can inquire to the nature of their business (accountability - its not just some black box) and stop the unethical ones from ruining it for the good companies.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I see nothing wrong with it..a company that makes tens of billions a year affects tens of millions of people, their actions, good or bad, reverberate loudly. So it's only prudent to question where the profits comes from to ensure it is ethical and not harming the people. Moreover questioning can provide a check to those companies that make billions and do indeed fleece the people. Just like it's prudent to question government leaders since their decisions affects us all.

Now I am not saying that a company does not have a right to make money, of course they do, but no company has a right to violate anyone else's rights. It may seem unseemly to you to question them because you view capitalism as a god, but it actually enhances it as it instills more confidence in the market, knowing we can inquire to the nature of their business (accountability - its not just some black box) and stop the unethical ones from ruining it for the good companies.

Every time inquiries have been made throughout the past century, every time regulations have been passed, it's been to the detriment of the people who actually do right.

This line of thinking is what led to the troubles people like James J. Hill had to deal with as they built this nation. It's punishing the motor of your country instead of rewarding it as it should be.

And they aren't inquiring as to the 'nature of their business'. They have been openly threatened by Senators who want to nationalize the oil industry. I still haven't seen but a couple of people say that would be wrong, too, which is scary as hell to me.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Every time inquiries have been made throughout the past century, every time regulations have been passed, it's been to the detriment of the people who actually do right.

This line of thinking is what led to the troubles people like James J. Hill had to deal with as they built this nation. It's punishing the motor of your country instead of rewarding it as it should be.

And they aren't inquiring as to the 'nature of their business'. They have been openly threatened by Senators who want to nationalize the oil industry. I still haven't seen but a couple of people say that would be wrong, too, which is scary as hell to me.

Every time? I doubt it - where is your evidence? Injurious is relative, yes it sucks for the people who do it right, but that is the fault of the people who don't do it right. It sucks that airport lines are so long and innocent people get searched but its a consequence of assholes who want hijack planes. Certain precautions just need to be made - of course there is a boundary where it becomes destructive.

Also I didn't say regulations, I said inquires, and its perfectly fine to do it. Of course there are limits and when the pendulum swings too much to one side (too much regulations) its a determent just like when it swings too much to the other side

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

The value of the dollar is by far the greatest cause. Look at the price of gold and tell me why its price has skyrocketed.

It is the number one reason but the other reasons also contrubute to the high cost of gasoline.

[Smull]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

No.

I suppose I'll agree to disagree with you, on that. Your solution is more idealistic, mine is more feasible.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Do you know of a better way to do a cost/benefit analysis? If so, the world would love to know. Every single business in the world does cost/benefit analysis' using currencies. But I guess you know something they do not, right?

Of course there are more costs than simple dollars and cents, to take an admittedly extreme example: Assassinating the President wouldn't have much of an economic impact on our country but we feel he's still worth protecting.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Let's see. Currently, gasoline is $4 per gallon. Your "solution" to this problem is to then force Americans to pay, not only for gasoline, but for research that no one knows if it will have any worthwhile benefits, because a cost/benefit analysis is apparently impossible (it is, but for different reasons than you have suggested). So, let's say we add just $1 to the cost of gasoline to fund this garbage research. Now, people are paying, using your figures, $6, $11, and $16. How much sooner do you think this will cause the economy to fail?

Perhaps I'm simply not articulating my case well, heres Thomas Friedman, a man much smarter than myself, on the same issue.

The failure of Mr. Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world — the U.S. economy — to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states — from Russia to Venezuela to Iran — that are reshaping global politics in their own image.
If this huge transfer of wealth to the petro-authoritarians continues, power will follow. According to Congressional testimony Wednesday by the energy expert Gal Luft, with oil at $200 a barrel, OPEC could “potentially buy Bank of America in one month worth of production, Apple computers in a week and General Motors in just three days.

Feel free to do that math and figure out what the exact economic costs could be in that scenario.

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Are you god? Or do you have this cost/benefit analysis I keep asking for? Or do you just like to see yourself post garbage?

you got me, I just love the garbage

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Lastly, the U.S. is hardly dependant on OPEC. We provide 40% of our own oil, and get another 40% from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria, all non-OPEC countries. EIA’s Energy in Brief: How dependent are we on foreign oil?

SO QUIT CLAIMING THAT WE ARE BEING HELD AT THE MERCY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS!

If global oil prices were driven up you think ours would remain where they are? This strikes me as a naive statement from someone who has based his entire argument on economics.


Look, I enjoy discussing these sorts of things, its why i joined these boards, but I don't feel this discussion is going anywhere, and its becoming more and more bitter. I think our most basic disagreement stems from what i said at the top of this post, which is that you pursue more or less a complete overhaul of how our government functions and while in theory this may work, the changes it requires (I feel) simply aren't feasible right now. It would take at BEST a generation to accomplish these goals. I (try to) pursue the policy which has the best chance of doing this country good, but are also politically feasible, I like to think of myself as a realist. If you think there are further points to be made or things to be said, then I'll continue this discussion, but I feel we may have to simply agree to disagree.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Lastly, the U.S. is hardly dependant on OPEC. We provide 40% of our own oil, and get another 40% from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria, all non-OPEC countries. EIA’s Energy in Brief: How dependent are we on foreign oil?

SO QUIT CLAIMING THAT WE ARE BEING HELD AT THE MERCY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS!

We are totally dependant on them. If you can't figure out a way to cut our oil consumption by 20% right now, then our dependancy is hard to get around. Even a small interuption in supply could have disasterous consequences.