Big Oil

Originally posted by steve645
If more people would carpool and only drive when necessary, the demand for oil would drop, causing a surplus and lower prices. But we won't do that because we are all selfish.

Pick me up at 0730 tomorrow. No country or hip-hop on the radio. I insist.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The inflation-adjusted gold price is vastly higher now than it was in 1961.

Here's a thought. If some paranoid raving lunatics tell you something, perhaps it is a good idea to verify if it's actually true before you believe it.

No kidding. Is it due to "Big Gold" speculators or the INFLATION of the dollar?

Originally posted by steve645
If more people would carpool and only drive when necessary, the demand for oil would drop, causing a surplus and lower prices. But we won't do that because we are all selfish.

Try riding your bike to work and you won't even need to "bikepool".

I think that is part of Obama's energy policy. His plan is to extract bikes from China as they become mechanized and learn to drive cars.

Originally posted by whodey
Wow. The Associated State press and a UC-Lefteley professor and even Time.moveon.org? Impressive.

Perhaps, instead of mocking the half a dozen or so perfectly reputable sources I have posted, you would like to provide some sources of your own, which explain how eliminating the subsidies will cause some sort of doomsday scenario of price increases or job layoffs? In particular, I'd like to see a source that describes any sort of proportional increase in oil industry employment to match the industry's skyrocketing profits.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Perhaps, instead of mocking the half a dozen or so perfectly reputable sources I have posted, you would like to provide some sources of your own, which explain how eliminating the subsidies will cause some sort of doomsday scenario of price increases or job layoffs? In particular, I'd like to see a source that describes any sort of proportional increase in oil industry employment to match the industry's skyrocketing profits.

It is just common sense. If you are in a business and costs go up, what do you do? Is it not the usual practice to pass the costs down to the consumer? If not, are you going to eat the added costs? If so, how much can you eat?

Conversely, thinking that prices may drop makes no sense to me. Can you explain it?

As for news sources, this site is rife with debates as to which ones are credible. All I know is that I'm painfully aware of how information can be skewed based upon ones one persepctive or ideological objective. None of us live in an objective bubble like we pretend exists.

Originally posted by whodey
It is just common sense. If you are in a business and costs go up, what do you do? Is it not the usual practice to pass the costs down to the consumer? If not, are you going to eat the added costs? If so, how much can you eat?

Conversely, thinking that prices may drop makes no sense to me. Can you explain it?

As for news sources, this site is rife ...[text shortened]... ctive or ideological objective. None of us live in an objective bubble like we pretend exists.

As one of the articles I posted mentioned, the consumer-level price increase would be miniscule--an average increase of $2 per person per year. I find it hard to work up a sweat over paying an additional $0.0055 per day. So again, I agree, that prices probably won't go down after eliminating the subsidies, but I don't see how they're going to skyrocket, either.

Originally posted by whodey
It is just common sense. If you are in a business and costs go up, what do you do? Is it not the usual practice to pass the costs down to the consumer? If not, are you going to eat the added costs? If so, how much can you eat?

Conversely, thinking that prices may drop makes no sense to me. Can you explain it?

As for news sources, this site is rife ...[text shortened]... ctive or ideological objective. None of us live in an objective bubble like we pretend exists.

Well its all good. if oil prices go up as a result maybe it would benefit the producers of greener transport options like:- buses, trains, tube, bikes, dual fuel and electric cars. not to mention the producers of sensible walking shoes. Or possibly, they will allow the cost to impact on their mega profits in order to stay competitive.

Originally posted by wittywonka
As one of the articles I posted mentioned, the consumer-level price increase would be miniscule--an average increase of $2 per person per year. I find it hard to work up a sweat over paying an additional $0.0055 per day. So again, I agree, that prices probably won't go down after eliminating the subsidies, but I don't see how they're going to skyrocket, either.

So we both agree that prices will not go down and that they probably will go up.

Good.

So what is the benefit if Obama ending the oil subsidies? Do you think he is fiscally mindful enough to increase revenue by a few billion dollars or is he just playing the fiddle as he leads the rats down the street, so to speak?

As a side note, I find ALL corporate welfare to be unacceptable. However, not even Obama is targeting that, rather, he seems only interested in playing to the anger out their that is generated with the words, "Big Oil". He is savy enough to know that there is no hope of ending the subsidies this year. It is simply an election ploy.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well its all good. if oil prices go up as a result maybe it would benefit the producers of greener transport options like:- buses, trains, tube, bikes, dual fuel and electric cars. not to mention the producers of sensible walking shoes. Or possibly, they will allow the cost to impact on their mega profits in order to stay competitive.

Now see, this confuses the hell out of conservatives. At first we are told how rising oil prices are causing people to die in the streets under "W", but now we are told that riising oil prices are "good"?

I don't know any politician worth their salt who thinks that high oil prices are good come Novemeber, granted, they may think it good December through Octoboer. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
So we both agree that prices will not go down and that they probably will go up.

Good.

So what is the benefit if Obama ending the oil subsidies? Do you think he is fiscally mindful enough to increase revenue by a few billion dollars or is he just playing the fiddle as he leads the rats down the street, so to speak?

As a side note, I find ALL corpo ...[text shortened]... know that there is no hope of ending the subsidies this year. It is simply an election ploy.

The whole point of his policy proposal is to reinvest the revenue from the oil subsidies elsewhere, into alternative energy industries, so that in the long term energy prices might indeed actually go down.

Originally posted by wittywonka
The whole point of his policy proposal is to reinvest the revenue from the oil subsidies elsewhere, into alternative energy industries, so that in the long term energy prices might indeed actually go down.

So why he is saying this after the 2010 elections again? Do you think this proposal has a snow balls chance to get through the House? Of course not.

So how many more Solyndra's must we endure? There are "good" investments and "bad" investments ya know. When, if at all, should we expect results, or is it just enough to know we are trying?

And lastly, why only penalize the oil industry? Why not do away with all corporate welfare? We can even start with GE and Goldman Sachs, two of Obama's favorites. In fact, I think Goldman Sachs deserves to be targeted far more than "Big Oil" due to its dealings in the mortgage crisis.

Originally posted by whodey
So why he is saying this after the 2010 elections again? Do you think this proposal has a snow balls chance to get through the House? Of course not.

So how many more Solyndra's must we endure? There are "good" investments and "bad" investments ya know. When, if at all, should we expect results, or is it just enough to know we are trying?

And lastly, ...[text shortened]... erves to be targeted far more than "Big Oil" due to its dealings in the mortgage crisis.

Clearly you find no reason to stop shouting from the rooftops about Ron Paul's pet policy platform, even though enacting it is even less likely to happen. Why should Obama quit calling for a policy proposal he thinks is important? He argued for it to pass when Democrats held Congress, too.

I always find it ironic that the strongest supporters of free-market capitalism are the ones who most ardently criticize the failed Solyndra investment. As you say yourself, some investments turn out to be good, some turn out to be bad. (Mitt Romney knows this first hand.) The only way to eliminate the risk of some government spending going astray to corruption, or bad investments, or drug-abusing lunatics, or Medicare-scamming doctors, is literally to stop all government spending everywhere.

Originally posted by wittywonka
[b]Clearly you find no reason to stop shouting from the rooftops about Ron Paul's pet policy platform, even though enacting it is even less likely to happen. Why should Obama quit calling for a policy proposal he thinks is important? He argued for it to pass when Democrats held Congress, too.

Really, I must have missed that. So the Democrat majority did not agree with his plan? Were there too many "conservative" democrats to oppose it?

What I don't get is how conservatives can champion any form of welfare, including corporate welfare.

Originally posted by wittywonka
[I always find it ironic that the strongest supporters of free-market capitalism are the ones who most ardently criticize the failed Solyndra investment. As you say yourself, some investments turn out to be good, some turn out to be bad. (Mitt Romney knows this first hand.) The only way to eliminate the risk of some government spending going astray to cor ...[text shortened]... lunatics, or Medicare-scamming doctors, is literally to stop all government spending everywhere.[/b]

Why? It is because you have buraucrats using OUR money to invest in things when their butt is not on the line. So Solyndra fails, so what? What does Obama care? I would feel much more comfortable if Obama had a personal finacial stake in the matter instead of using my money. My guess is that if that were the case, Solyndra would not have happened.

Originally posted by whodey
Why? It is because you have buraucrats using OUR money to invest in things when their butt is not on the line. So Solyndra fails, so what? What does Obama care? I would feel much more comfortable if Obama had a personal finacial stake in the matter instead of using my money. My guess is that if that were the case, Solyndra would not have happened.

Obama cares because his reelection chances suffer. Elections are the means by which the population keeps political representatives in check. I don't criticize that philosophy, but I do criticize the unrealistic idea that government investments should somehow be free of the same errors and risks that affect the private sector. Sure, let's hold the government to a high standard, but let's not pretend that we can or should hold it to a perfect standard. Do you have any other examples of major investments that have failed? How does that compare to its record of successes?