|
0 registered (),
9
Guests and
1
Spider online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
#19873 - 05/01/06 06:59 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: Kevin]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4232
Loc: Poughkeepsie
|
Quote:
I love it when they (be it any politician righty or lefty) comes out these ideas and does not really think about who will really benefit... Not the consumer by a long shot.
Oh I think Bill Frist and the other members of Congress know exactly who will come out ahead as a result of this...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#19874 - 05/01/06 07:16 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: Smike]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
|
exploration, extraction and delivery
Have these costs increased 48% over the last 3 months?
Fair question.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#19875 - 05/01/06 07:19 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: Smike]
|
journeyman
Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 99
|
No, they haven't. But you didn't put the capital at risk, so why should you get the reward ?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#19877 - 05/01/06 07:57 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: Daniel]
|
old hand
Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
|
Quote:
What we should not do is subsidize that benefit. Instead of using an excess profits tax to fund alternative energy development, I think we should stop the subsidies to the oil and gas industries and put that money into alternative energy development. I just don't see any public policy reason why these companies should be supported with tax dollars. And I think smart politicians should expand that argument to the pharmaceutical industry (how many billions are wasted because Medicare is prohibited by law from bargaining for prescription drug prices?),
I agree, but there are some things to think about. We pay off the drug companies for two reasons:
1) They are large campaign contributors - if you aren't for them they are against you! 2) If we don't help them out some way in this country, they'll take their jobs and move to a less expensive country just like every one else is doing. Technology is easily moved these days and there are plenty of people in Asia willing to work for less. When they have something to manufacture there are fewer environment restrictions there
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#19878 - 05/01/06 08:08 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: crackers]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
|
No offense mike, but your economic analysis of the costs of rents, the role of OPEC in price fixing and the relative power of the big five or six oil companies in the world is, um, surprisingly naive from somebody otherwise well informed.
OPEC is a non factor in my argument. What Ive posted is about the profit margin increase on the product after the Oil is acquired from OPEC.OPEC also does not price fix since they only control the amount of production and currently all or most OPEC Oil nations exceed that production output limit already.
As for the big 5, they are the ones in question.
Edited by Smike (05/01/06 08:16 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#19879 - 05/01/06 08:50 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: Smike]
|
Pooh-Bah
Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
|
Has oil production fallen off in the past 6 months?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#19880 - 05/01/06 08:53 PM
Re: The Proposed $100 Gas Rebate
[Re: Smike]
|
veteran
Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1513
|
It's my understanding that American oil companies produce at least some of their own oil. So their extraction costs don't go up even if the price does, and they can pocket the profits.
I can't get that ethanol pdf page to work on my Firefox browser, so I haven't read it. But if there is collusion going on, I think the proper response is not a windfall profits tax but a suit to end the collusion and collect civil penalties; it's certainly not a check to the public from the government. If demand is tight during the summer driving season, then the price will go up and the compaines will get the profits. I see nothing wrong with that. I see a whole lot wrong with continuing to give the companies tax breaks. Seems to me that a windfall profits tax doesn't address the behavioral problems of oil companies or consumers; it allows prices to stay high, and the corporations can still make more money though at a lower profit margin. But ending government subsidies is certainly in the public interest, and possibly investigating collusion if there is good reason to suspect that it's going on.
If we don't help them out some way in this country, they'll take their jobs and move to a less expensive country just like every one else is doing. Technology is easily moved these days and there are plenty of people in Asia willing to work for less. When they have something to manufacture there are fewer environment restrictions there
I don't think this argument applies to the oil industry. You have to pump oil where it is; you can't move your operations to a place where there is no oil but the labor is cheap. Oil continues to be pumped in the US because it is profitable to do so, not because the oil companies manage to get huge favors from Congress. More generally, if the labor is cheap and it makes a difference, then companies will go there anyway. If we subsidize businesses to make them competitive with cheaper foreign competitors, we still wind up losing because we are in essence making the products more expensive by funding them with our tax dollars.
As for campaign donations, I've said it before: public campaign financing. We'll save whatever we allocate for campaigns many times over if it gives Congress the backbone to end corporate welfare.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|