| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
Nicos
3 thumbs up
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 1050
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: Oh how I wonder |
 #1 |
| sigh... |
|
|
|
Tigouille
1 thumbs up
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Posts: 271
Location: france limoges
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:19 am Post subject: |
#2 |
the obvious answer is
So they can make more money
or
To sustain growth
or
because the economy is more important than education.  |
|
|
|
FPeel
3 thumbs up
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: San Jose, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 2:31 pm Post subject: |
#3 |
Um, guys. That $10B was attributed to the USA. So unless your countries want to become the 51st state... We do appreciate you concern for how our tax dollars are being spent.
Seriously though, this is what's called capitalism and it's not a bad thing. Even with all its warts it's the best economic system on the planet. But if this sort of thing galls your inner-socialist:
Work to change the laws to take away the oil companies' "subsidies", most of which are the same sorts of write-offs that all firms receive in one form or another. Before doing so consider that those no longer subsidized costs of doing business will ultimately find their way to the cost of products consumers buy as the oil companies maintain their profitability. Yep, pay me now or pay me later...
Or
Hit them in the wallet where it hurts. Don't buy oil derived products.
Or
For the ultimate revenge build a better mousetrap. Find a new source of energy and run them out of business.
 (OK, the last two were just me being sarcastic.) There are really far larger abuses of tax shelters and government waste than those assigned to the oil companies.
Realize that the jobs and product sales that result from the oil companies' activities result in large sums of taxes being paid into the system by their employees and the vendors buying and selling their products and by-products. Taxes of all types, including those funding education. It's not a single-tiered system. Their businesses contribute to a lot of government revenue. Arguably, too much.
Regardless of the direction chosen, stop watching the main street media. It will rot your brain. They may still call it news, but it's just entertainment and propaganda sprinkled with a breath of reality. They've learned that getting people riled up by demonizing groups and over dramatizing stories buys them eyes and political influence. And they're selling your eyes. Yes, you are the product the MSM's are selling to their advertisers and they're giving you nothing of enduring value in return. Oh, and while they're demonizing the oil companies watch how many products the MSM hawks that are derivative or reliant on oil production.
BTW, I'm fairly libertarian in my views and believe in flat taxes with no write offs for corporations or individuals. I also have no problem with oil companies making a profit. If you want to be worried about someone gouging take a look at Nestle. They're not only the most profitable company in the world, their margins increased 242% between 2009-11*. And they sell FOOD! Now THAT'S evil!
* http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2011/performers/companies/profits/
_________________
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space." - Anonymous |
|
|
|
Nicos
3 thumbs up
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 1050
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 4:12 pm Post subject: |
#4 |
| FPeel wrote: |
| Um, guys. That $10B was attributed to the USA. So unless your countries want to become the 51st state... We do appreciate you concern for how our tax dollars are being spent. |
Us, them? It seems you are making assumptions. In any case, where I or Tigouille happen to live right now has little to do with this post, perhaps you miss the point.
| FPeel wrote: |
| Seriously though, this is what's called capitalism and it's not a bad thing. Even with all its warts it's the best economic system on the planet. |
If you think that exponential expansion/growth is the best economic system in the world, you should know it is accelerating our species (and the planet) to an early death. Not what I would call the best. A child can tell you that basing everything on a ever-increasing growth curve when you live on a ball in space with limited resources is not going to last too long — in fact it's madness if you aspire to continuing your heritage into the future. I wonder what our grandchildren are going to think of the idea. And their grandchildren.
It's like most civilizations who have lived in isolation with limited resources, they harness their resources faster and faster until one day they knowingly chop down the last tree to make a roller bearing for a monument to the Gods... history consistently repeats itself in this way.
Only now it's global and we have nowhere else to go... and all this in only a few generations, not even a couple of thousand years. In retrospect I believe these industrialized times will be known as The Stupid Ages, that is if we make it through the next 100 years with any kind of remaining technology or recorded history. Interesting times. |
|
|
|
FPeel
3 thumbs up
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: San Jose, CA
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject: |
#5 |
| Nicos wrote: |
| FPeel wrote: |
| Um, guys. That $10B was attributed to the USA. So unless your countries want to become the 51st state... We do appreciate you concern for how our tax dollars are being spent. |
| Nicos wrote: |
| Us, them? It seems you are making assumptions. In any case, where I or Tigouille happen to live right now has little to do with this post, perhaps you miss the point. |
|
Thank you for your efforts to spend MY money, but I'll kindly ask you to stay out of MY wallet. You see, it does matter where you live because these are MY tax dollars you're talking about, not yours. If by some chance you do pay US taxes, then you have a voice. Otherwise, you're just an outsider complaining about how another family spends its money. Which you can do, but don't expect that family to not take offense at it.
| Nicos wrote: |
| FPeel wrote: |
| Seriously though, this is what's called capitalism and it's not a bad thing. Even with all its warts it's the best economic system on the planet. |
If you think that exponential expansion/growth is the best economic system in the world, you should know it is accelerating our species (and the planet) to an early death. Not what I would call the best. A child can tell you that basing everything on a ever-increasing growth curve when you live on a ball in space with limited resources is not going to last too long — in fact it's madness if you aspire to continuing your heritage into the future. I wonder what our grandchildren are going to think of the idea. And their grandchildren.
It's like most civilizations who have lived in isolation with limited resources, they harness their resources faster and faster until one day they knowingly chop down the last tree to make a roller bearing for a monument to the Gods... history consistently repeats itself in this way.
Only now it's global and we have nowhere else to go... and all this in only a few generations, not even a couple of thousand years. In retrospect I believe these industrialized times will be known as The Stupid Ages, that is if we make it through the next 100 years with any kind of remaining technology or recorded history. Interesting times. |
For that argument to have any validity I would have to believe in the junk science of anthropogenic global warming. I do not. The IPCC has backed off on its claims, the founder of that religion has gone on record that the data really don’t support the idea that “global warming” will be a catastrophe and reputable scientists are coming out against it. It doesn't pass peer review, therefore there is no scientific conclusion.
Like I said before, stop watching the MSM. That stuff will rot your brain.
FWIW, I do believe we should be good stewards of our planet and I live my life in accordance with that belief. I don't have to buy into new ways for the government to tax me to do it either. Quite the contrary, actually.
Back to our original discussion, you appear to have missed my main point by sidetracking yourself into a whole other discussion. The system is capitalism and the oil companies are doing what the laws and regulations allow them to do (and if you believe AGM is a factor, then work to change the laws; good luck with that given the current data). But demonizing the oil companies (or Nestle, or some other commercial entity) is not the solution. Their charter is to generate as much profit as the law allows. They answer to their stock holders and board of directors. Not to you nor to me (unless we've invested in them and the weight of our voice is relative to our investment). Again, and in this case it's both of us, we're the voice of an outsider and it carries no weight.
The root problem are the regulations, not companies making profits or using legal write offs for expenses. Even worse, you're complaining about $10B (of someone else's money) which is a pittance in the grand scheme of things. Let me share a little story with you to put it in perspective. I'm going to borrow this to save a lot of typing:
| Quote: |
Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?
Anybody? Anything?
No? Didn't think so!
Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people that read this can remember! Ready??
It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh?
AND NOW IT'S 2012 -- 35 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")
34 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.
Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes -- good old Federal Bureaucracy.* |
*http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/05/insanity-and-night-watchman-short-story.html
Several hundred billion dollars on...nothing and you're grousing about a measly $10B. That several hundred billion dollars would have bought a lot of education. It would have been a grand investment into hydrogen vehicle research or, given the extreme wealth of natural gas we have in this country, converting to that instead of gasoline. Instead, we just got more bureaucracy that is now getting in the way of domestic production. I think they forgot what their job is supposed to be.
Again, you're demonizing the wrong guys. If the oil companies were breaking the law I'd be right there beside you. But if they are abiding by the laws and regulations the government has set and the outcome is not acceptable it's not the oil companies who are at fault. They're doing what they're allowed to do and what they're supposed to do: Stay within the law and make as much money as they can. It's the government's responsibility to pass legislation that results in an acceptable outcome and, in this country, even that has limitations. So if you believe things are amiss write a letter to your Congressmen or whatever you have in your country. Hell, write one to my Congressmen (actually they're all women, but that isn't apparent unless you look closely).
Now, you might be happy and willing to carry this discussion on ad infinitum. Do so if you must, but I'm done here. Discussing this any further would violate my New Year's Resolution. Thanks for the chat.
_________________
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space." - Anonymous |
|
|
|
Nicos
3 thumbs up
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 1050
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:10 pm Post subject: |
#6 |
| FPeel wrote: |
| Nicos wrote: |
| FPeel wrote: |
| Um, guys. That $10B was attributed to the USA. So unless your countries want to become the 51st state... We do appreciate you concern for how our tax dollars are being spent. |
| Nicos wrote: |
| Us, them? It seems you are making assumptions. In any case, where I or Tigouille happen to live right now has little to do with this post, perhaps you miss the point. |
|
Thank you for your efforts to spend MY money, but I'll kindly ask you to stay out of MY wallet. You see, it does matter where you live because these are MY tax dollars you're talking about, not yours. If by some chance you do pay US taxes, then you have a voice. Otherwise, you're just an outsider complaining about how another family spends its money. Which you can do, but don't expect that family to not take offense at it. |
My family has paid US taxes for 20 years if that helps, but I think it's totally irrelevant, the same kind of thing goes on in almost all countries and I wonder why. Not everything has to be about Amerika.
The point of the post is to ask if we should value our corporations (ie. huge subsidies) over things like education and public health care.
| FPeel wrote: |
| Nicos wrote: |
| FPeel wrote: |
| Seriously though, this is what's called capitalism and it's not a bad thing. Even with all its warts it's the best economic system on the planet. |
If you think that exponential expansion/growth is the best economic system in the world, you should know it is accelerating our species (and the planet) to an early death. Not what I would call the best. A child can tell you that basing everything on a ever-increasing growth curve when you live on a ball in space with limited resources is not going to last too long — in fact it's madness if you aspire to continuing your heritage into the future. I wonder what our grandchildren are going to think of the idea. And their grandchildren.
It's like most civilizations who have lived in isolation with limited resources, they harness their resources faster and faster until one day they knowingly chop down the last tree to make a roller bearing for a monument to the Gods... history consistently repeats itself in this way.
Only now it's global and we have nowhere else to go... and all this in only a few generations, not even a couple of thousand years. In retrospect I believe these industrialized times will be known as The Stupid Ages, that is if we make it through the next 100 years with any kind of remaining technology or recorded history. Interesting times. |
For that argument to have any validity I would have to believe in the junk science of anthropogenic global warming. I do not. The IPCC has backed off on its claims, the founder of that religion has gone on record that the data really don’t support the idea that “global warming” will be a catastrophe and reputable scientists are coming out against it. It doesn't pass peer review, therefore there is no scientific conclusion.
Like I said before, stop watching the MSM. That stuff will rot your brain. |
I don't watch MSN or CNN or much mainstream media at all. More assumptions.
Junk science?!? Oh dear, you are in major denial. Not sure where you get your info from. The vast majority of the global community agree the temperature is rising due to human influences, and the results WIL be catastrophic. But I'm not here to argue either... I'm actually here to learn.
| FPeel wrote: |
Back to our original discussion, you appear to have missed my main point by sidetracking yourself into a whole other discussion. The system is capitalism and the oil companies are doing what the laws and regulations allow them to do (and if you believe AGM is a factor, then work to change the laws; good luck with that given the current data). But demonizing the oil companies (or Nestle, or some other commercial entity) is not the solution. Their charter is to generate as much profit as the law allows. They answer to their stock holders and board of directors. Not to you nor to me (unless we've invested in them and the weight of our voice is relative to our investment). Again, and in this case it's both of us, we're the voice of an outsider and it carries no weight.
The root problem are the regulations, not companies making profits or using legal write offs for expenses. Even worse, you're complaining about $10B (of someone else's money) which is a pittance in the grand scheme of things. Let me share a little story with you to put it in perspective. I'm going to borrow this to save a lot of typing:
| Quote: |
Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration?
Anybody? Anything?
No? Didn't think so!
Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency, the reason for which very few people that read this can remember! Ready??
It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh?
AND NOW IT'S 2012 -- 35 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")
34 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.
Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes -- good old Federal Bureaucracy.* |
*http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2012/05/insanity-and-night-watchman-short-story.html
Several hundred billion dollars on...nothing and you're grousing about a measly $10B. That several hundred billion dollars would have bought a lot of education. It would have been a grand investment into hydrogen vehicle research or, given the extreme wealth of natural gas we have in this country, converting to that instead of gasoline. Instead, we just got more bureaucracy that is now getting in the way of domestic production. I think they forgot what their job is supposed to be. |
Totally agree.
| FPeel wrote: |
| Again, you're demonizing the wrong guys. If the oil companies were breaking the law I'd be right there beside you. But if they are abiding by the laws and regulations the government has set and the outcome is not acceptable it's not the oil companies who are at fault. They're doing what they're allowed to do and what they're supposed to do: Stay within the law and make as much money as they can. It's the government's responsibility to pass legislation that results in an acceptable outcome and, in this country, even that has limitations. So if you believe things are amiss write a letter to your Congressmen or whatever you have in your country. Hell, write one to my Congressmen (actually they're all women, but that isn't apparent unless you look closely). |
I respectfully suggest that I was not attempting to demonize anyone, merely providing some information and asking about our values as a society, I hope you can see that. |
|
|
|
Mavi Gogun
1 thumbs up
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 978
Location: Istanbul (not Constantinople)
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
#7 |
| The typical tact of those defending ideology over reason: hypocrisy, alienation, and logical absurdity are their favorite topics, focusing on the speaker rather than confronting challenging ideas. A particular hallmark of those not worth talking to is a long rant ending in a statement about how they don't have time to devote to the subject anymore- a dismissive provocation and parting insult rolled into one. No thanks. |
|
|
|
Cav_Man_77
2 thumbs up
Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Posts: 138
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 11:51 pm Post subject: |
#8 |
Mobil, Shell, BP and Chevron all operate in Australia. 
_________________
Almost Awesome pilot. |
|
|
|
FPeel
3 thumbs up
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 1116
Location: San Jose, CA
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2012 8:45 am Post subject: |
#9 |
| Mavi Gogun wrote: |
| The typical tact of those defending ideology over reason: hypocrisy, alienation, and logical absurdity are their favorite topics, focusing on the speaker rather than confronting challenging ideas. A particular hallmark of those not worth talking to is a long rant ending in a statement about how they don't have time to devote to the subject anymore- a dismissive provocation and parting insult rolled into one. No thanks. |
I wasn't being dismissive and certainly said nothing intentionally insulting. I was disengaging from the thread and gave Nico the last comment. I appreciate his well described and worded position as it obviously has a lot of rational thought behind it. We just disagree on some key points. Spending excessive time on a forum hashing out issues where our words have no effect on the outcome is, well, a waste of time. Not wasting time in useless arguments is part of my New Year's Resolution.
_________________
"If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space." - Anonymous |
|
|
|
|
Unanswered
Highest rated...
Topics
