Artfldgr says:
Do we focus on the point the article was posted, or do we focus on the point that the article brings up?
In this case both here are right. Armchair decided to focus on the validity of the point in the article as a means of determining the dependent points validity. While josh, you wanted this point to be accepted automatically, so that you can get to the discussion as to why these angles and such are actually ‘allowed’ (for lack of a better term).
For a better view of the situation, I would suggest reading this piece from the Cato Institute. “Socialist Oil Death Spiral” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8778
While I don’t agree with the analysis, what is easy to agree with is the facts in the article as to the lay of the land. (it would be way too long and nuanced for me to get into why I don’t agree with the analysis. So in the interest of a better quality life for my fellow man/woman reading, I will forgoe that).
First of all the article is right as to the quantity of oil… we have tons and tons of it, the fact that it seems like not are for very good reasons.
There is enough liquid oil in the ground to last generations; and when oil sands and oil shale are included, there is enough oil to last centuries. If there were a truly free market in oil, with both the reserves and production owned and controlled by many competitive companies, the price of oil would be a fraction of today's price.
This is VERY true, the only reason these things are not in play is because of the balancing act by the OPEC nations. Who raise the price up to the point where its not quite worth it going after these other less easy sources.
The high price of oil is a direct consequence of artificial supply constraints imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other countries, including the United States, and the incompetence and mismanagement found in most state-owned oil companies. OPEC is an international government cartel made up of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. These nations control about 77 percent of the world's known liquid crude oil reserves.
Most of these countries and other major oil producers that rely on mainly state-owned companies, such as Russia, have underinvested in exploration and development of new production facilities and mismanaged the ones they have. (If politicians understood the facts and were truthful, they would rant against "greedy" socialists rather than private oil companies.)
Venezuela, despite having perhaps the sixth-largest oil reserves in the world, has falling production because of the mismanagement by the Chavez government. Mexico also is suffering from falling oil production because the government refuses to allow private oil exploration and production companies, and the state-owned oil company, Pemex, is corrupt and incompetent. By contrast, the U.S. only has about 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but produces little more than 8 percent of global production, largely because they are privately owned and managed.
So, the half truth in the article is this point, and it’s confirmed. RB is being clever this time as his target of propaganda is not those that easily accept the point of the article, but those who know the points above, and may be teased to accept the conclusion from using this as the valid half of the whole.
However, let’s take a quick look at the validity of dependence.
It’s a funny concept in this argument since it’s chosen to get you to emote over the situation. Given our socialistic group programming and anti drug propaganda, dependence is a bad thing.
The problem is not one of dependence, the problem is that dependence creates vulnerability, and we don’t feel safe when people play with our vulnerabilities. Which is why, again, that stability is very important to capitalist societies as major productivity comes from the ability to handle risk correctly.
We depend on air, in the situation we live in, its not easy to step between the supply and the need, and exert control outside of the domain. However, read heinleins “the moon is a harsh mistress”, and paying your air bill on the moon makes air similar to oil.
We are dependent on food, and dependent that the rules for trafficlights and such are all working the same way.
The assault on dependency is also an assault on stability, the status quo, and lack of change (which doesn’t leave opportunity for gate crashers and others to get into power and push merit out in favor of collusive power).
Between the two posts here you can see the game!
The half truth sells the option… like a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down in a most delightful way.
And josh, sees the manipulation and how armchair is being seduced into it.
Why the difference… I would suspect that if the difference is from reason (it may not be, and I am not insinuating it isn’t), then josh presumably sees something armchair doesn’t, or visa versa.
So what is armchair missing.. what was in his sugar that josh may or may not be picking up on?
Taxes. The socialist mandate is to tax us to death. So good ol rat boy’s medicine to make you sick, is the taxes… and the whole thing is window dressing to make a tax on people for reasons of manipulation and not REAL state services, is what he is missing.
We have been trained to think that money can fix any problem… so when there is a problem, we find it normal to propose a tax. However is the tax actually examined in a way to see how it works operably? To see how it works tactically, and so work back to motive? Not at all.
Lets examine the article in light of this, shall we?
The first paragraph is basically establishing the truth that OPEC is controlling the price.
Stage 1: state a crisis or problem
The second paragraph sets up the reader to be part of the masses pleading for a better life. And how do we get a better life? By letting the state take more money from us, to do what?
The presumption is that a dollar of tax, will reduce my gas bill by how many dollars?
I am hoping that armchair sees the problem here. Since less than 100% of that dollar can go to reduce the oil, then what is this tax a play for? That the state needs to bud off another agency that will spend its life and our money attempting to preserve its existence first, and fulfill its mandate second!!!! (while in the free market the mandate to preserve existence and fulfilling are the same. fulfill the mandate, exist in benefit. in the state, the two are separate, since the fulfillment of the mandate, does not necessarily effect the preservation of existence!)
Please notice that the article is long on emotion, and short on reason. Does he point out how large gasoline taxes are now? that removing all gasoline taxes would reduce the cost of gas at the pump ridiculously.
Local, State and Federal Gas Taxes Consume 45.9 Cents Per Gallon on Average
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1054.html
In 1932, the federal government imposed the first federal gas tax. It began as a temporary levy with a rate of just 1 cent per gallon. Over the years, the tax burden has increased significantly. The Revenue Act of 1941 made the federal gas tax permanent and increased the rate to 1.5 cents per gallon to help fund the war effort. A decade later in 1951, the tax was increased to 2 cents per gallon to assist in the funding of the Korean War.
After President Eisenhower’s idea of an interstate highway system had been instituted, the federal gas tax was raised to 4 cents per gallon in 1959. As recent as 1981, the federal gas tax remained at 4 cents per gallon. Significant tax increases in 1982, 1990 and 1993 increased the federal gas tax by 14.4 cents per gallon, or 360 percent from 1981 levels.
In 1919, Oregon became the first state in the nation to place a tax on gasoline and every state has subsequently adopted this form of taxation. This year, according to the Energy Information Administration the average state gas tax is 20.8 cents per gallon. In addition to statewide taxes, often consumers pay local excise taxes on gasoline purchases (see Figure 2).
Wow, his simple example would raise the average tax on gas by 500%...
One only needs to follow the link to see a map as to how much they are already taking!
And note the reasons why above that we are taking them!!! we are taking them because of the actions of communist/socialist states. And this tax he is proposing is also because of the actions of socialist/communist, or socialist/communist ideas in state!!
WWII was because of the actions of two socialist states colluding.
Korean War was because a communist invasion
Interstate highway system was a socialist works project
More taxes, larger government… the more the plant in the corner yells “feed me Seymour”.
However there is a freudian slip in the article.
Not one. Everyone just runs away from the “T-word” and watches our wealth run away to Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
I can’t believe that someone could not win the following debate:
He is slipping that the object is to win, not be right!!!! That the faux debate he puts up is so hoaky is to be completely ridiculous.
The republican only has three sentences to say in their allotted time. Can you imagine any politician having only three sentences, and 206 characters, to say in a debate with a democrat over taxes? And those sentences are so canned that no one would actually talk that way… it’s a characature… a ad hominem in disguise.
His tax finances people who hate us. Mine would offset some of our payroll taxes, pay down our deficit, strengthen our dollar, stimulate energy efficiency and shore up Social Security. It’s called win-win-win-win-win for America. My opponent’s strategy is sit back, let the market work and watch America lose-lose-lose-lose-lose.”
Sounds like an ad for a socialist org. your dollar can go a long way to making a difference. For just the cost of one dollar, we can alleviate suffering, etc.
Look at that list!!!! Not only would raising your gas charges at the pump will lower your gas charges at the pump, but they will also fix social security!!!
They constantly believe that the state can spend your money better than you can, and they constanty try to tell you that after they take your money, your going to have more money…
In ALL the discussion it is assumed that everyone knows that the dollar would do all these things. there is not one iota as to the principals behind the result. (that should be a huge warning sign that the results are not important, they are incidental. Whats important he has already said, to win, to get power (by any means is whats implied since their suggestions have no basis))
Remember they also want to more heavily tax the companies in America that make gas too. like in venezueala, and russia, the extra monies that go into investing in the future are seen as exploitative profits!!! And so these actions actuall do the opposite of whats intended, they take away the money that would be used to develop our own sources, and force them to go to the other cheaper things and buy the assets there.
To look at it this way… they take the extra money that comes from the profit that comes from buying the oil, reforming it, and then distributing and selling it… and they use that to explore their own fields so that they can pull out oil cheaper than others pull it out and sell it for a profit.
But if you take that extra money away from them, they don’t see it as profitable to build new sources…
Would you enter a race after you find out that the result is economic destruction and you HAVE to run with a 10lb weight around your neck (but others don’t)?
The whole article is full of spurious claims that have no basis OTHER THAN THEY FEEL RIGHT TO THE EMOTIONAL MIND because the words that are attached to the different points.
Not one iota of reason is needed to know which side to take.
They are using the most simplest concept of capatlist thought to get those who think they are capatlists and are actually socialists to decide the right minded answer.
Yes, supply, demand and costs have clear responses..
However, taxes is an artificial means of skewing those things to create a vision of reality that is false… the purpose is not greater productivity, but manipulation of a group of people.
They are not drawing (purposefully) the distinction between a luxury good, and a necessity good. gasoline, in a modern society is a necessary good…
Here I will show how they cant analyse. They say that such a tax will lower the use of gas… and offers no mechanics as to how, but I WILL offer some now.
Yes, raising the cost of a good lowers the use of that good..
If that good was in isolation, like say franklin mint collectors plates, the sales would go down… but the manufacturer will have to increase price to make up for the difference to maintain operations. These things will be written off as necessary operations expenses and such and will create a tax debit in exess of the dollar taken.
But gas is not a durable item it’s a product whose use destroys it, so it has to be renewed, and since its use is for other things, the ripples from the dependency move outward.
The complexity is high and so the democrats or rather the communsts have an easy time tricking the masses who don’t even want to think at this basic level!!!
The cost of gas will cause the cost of deliveraing and making all goods go up… so not only would you pay more at the pump immediately, but you will also pay more for goods at the store. The increase in costs will reduce sales and so people will be laid off to preserve coporate operations. The dependency will shift to ethanol, and the engines will not last as long increasing the impact they have… after all, is it more energy conscious to drive a car that is 14 years old or one year and buy a new one every two years? Even if that car is wasteful in energy, the total amount of energy necessary to make the new one, and dispose the old one is in excess of the waste!
Gas and oil are used to make other thigns… so heating oil will become more expensive, so this will hit the poor.
If the cost of gas goes up 100 dollars a week, can a poor person earning minimum wage now do the work? of course not, so it will increase the numbers of people on welfare…
The whole thing snoballs out from their, and the cost of administering it and such will exceed the amount taken.
There is no way to have the outcome that he proposes
Do note that at the end, he also claims to be the knower of truth… and that all the rest of the government is lying.
Do note that just by that little point, he is saying we should take from the people and give to the liars…
Now how can it be good to take money and present it to people that your calling liars, to then reap benefits in excess of that monies value?
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit