NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama today called for a $1,000.00 "stimulus" package for American families to "offset the cost of energy" that he proposes paying for with a windfall profits tax on "big oil's excess profits" over the next 5 years.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while: First, what gives government/Obama the right to say how much profit is "too much" or an "excess?" Secondly, reducing the money an oil company is allowed keep as earnings is not exactly a good incentive to them if you want them to deliver energy at a reasonable cost since lost income means less money to spend on R & D and other measures to deliver energy of all types, including oil. Oil companies have an approximately 8.5 - 9.7% profit margin - not exactly huge - look at Google with a 25% profit margin, why not hit them with a windfall tax on internet earnings? Oil company profits are in the billions of dollars because of the amount of the product they sell, not because their costs are low and their prices high. This will do absolutely -0- to lower energy costs and, if the Jimmy Carter era is any indication, will likely serve to raise the cost of gasoline.

Obama and his supporters really need to rethink this idea, its a horrible one.

Sources: Obama's Plan (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5klN)

In Defense of Big Oil - CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/)

Gah...don't say Jimmy Carter. Nightmares...

couldnt this be seen as a response to an environmental issue?
increasing tax on profits would mean oil companies would want to spend more on R&D so that there is less tax handed over to the government and more long term benefit for them.
therefore the addition of the $1000 "stimulus package" would therefore be present to offset the rise in energy costs this plan would cause in this context.

in all honesty i dont know how stable Obama is on environmental policy but i just thought this might be an idea.

Obama today called for a $1,000.00 "stimulus" package for American families to "offset the cost of energy" that he proposes paying for with a windfall profits tax on "big oil's excess profits" over the next 5 years.


Sounds like a good idea to me. It's like progressive rebating, but you get it all up front.

The Oil companies would have to be idiots to oppose it. (THey'll make a little fuss, maybe, for the look of it).


This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while: First, what gives government/Obama the right to say how much profit is "too much" or an "excess?"


They're the government? There are already anti-gouging laws, but you can get around that by playing it smart. The big Oil companies gouged the US consumer.


Secondly, reducing the money an oil company is allowed keep as earnings is not exactly a good incentive to them if you want them to deliver energy at a reasonable cost since lost income means less money to spend on R & D and other measures to deliver energy of all types, including oil. Oil companies have an approximately 8.5 - 9.7% profit margin - not exactly huge - look at Google with a 25% profit margin, why not hit them with a windfall tax on internet earnings? Oil company profits are in the billions of dollars because of the amount of the product they sell, not because their costs are low and their prices high.


High profit is still high profit, whether it's on one barrel or one million. Oil companies haven't 'been doing okay' or 'coasting' or 'trying to make ends meet'. In years in which produce prices have skyrocketted, car companies have felt the big pinch, and air carriers have actually been broken - the oil companies have declared RECORD profits.

Overall trend downwards. Cost per barrel up. (Alleged) additional costs for security and speculative costs... up. And yet the oil companies still made record profits.

The oil companies may actually have had a lot to do with breaking the back of American industry, and you're defending them?


This will do absolutely -0- to lower energy costs and, if the Jimmy Carter era is any indication, will likely serve to raise the cost of gasoline.


Unlikely. At the current rate of decline of a barrel of oil, gas should be back around $3 now, or soon. The oil industry is STILL getting away with charging a premium on their product.

Like I said - the situation as it is, the oil companies would have to be stupid to fight this one.

Like I said - the situation as it is, the oil companies would have to be stupid to fight this one.
And Ben Bernanke would be stupid not to. Petrol won't get any cheaper or any more with this policy (and as the OP rightly points out, if there was to be any movement it'd be in the other direction), but the consumers will have more money to spend on it.

More money chasing the same amount of goods?

im not particularly in favor of a windfall profits tax and im certainly not in favor of tax relief based on it.

what happens when the oil companies ARENT making excess profits?

Bah, just nationalize the oil companies!

Bah, just nationalize the oil companies!

Actually, this is what I've thought for quite some time.

Socialist? Yes. Would it still work in lowering oil? Probably.

I think a large slash in oil prices is worth a little "typical government inefficiency."

We need to just cut the oil out. Move to some other form of energy. Then the oil companies will stop making more money in one minute than I will in a long time. Exxon Mobil made $31,000 in 15 seconds last night for Christ's sake!

He's only saying this because they didn't give him money. If they had given him money like the finance industry had he'd be talking about bailouts for them.

Or maybe he's just stupid, like everyone says.

Obama today called for a $1,000.00 "stimulus" package for American families to "offset the cost of energy" that he proposes paying for with a windfall profits tax on "big oil's excess profits" over the next 5 years.

Secondly, reducing the money an oil company is allowed keep as earnings is not exactly a good incentive to them if you want them to deliver energy at a reasonable cost
All the more reason to tax their profits and give it back to the people. Also, where do you think those profits come from and where that windfall will go? Gas.

Also, I don't think you quite understand how much money these people make. 5% of just Exxon-Mobile's profits this quarter alone is half a billion dollars. $1000 per household would be ~111 billion dollars. In 5 years, Exxon-Mobile would pay off at least 10% of that itself. Of course I have no idea what the actual tax on profits would be.

Oh wait, I forgot, we have to give money to the oil companies or they will immediately go under from bankruptcy.

We need to just cut the oil out. Move to some other form of energy. Then the oil companies will stop making more money in one minute than I will in a long time. Exxon Mobil made $31,000 in 15 seconds last night for Christ's sake!

as much as we delude ourslves, no other useable fuel gives off as much energy as burning gasoline.

as much as we delude ourslves, no other useable fuel gives off as much energy as burning gasoline.
I assume that in this blanket statement we are not counting coal or natural gas?

I don't get it, how would creating inflation solve the oil crisis?

I assume that in this blanket statement we are not counting coal or natural gas?

Pretty much, because we can put coal or natural gas into out gas tanks with out very expensive modifcation.

Well, Obama's not known for his over excess of intelligence.

Well, Obama's not known for his over excess of intelligence.

Um, wut?

And Ben Bernanke would be stupid not to. Petrol won't get any cheaper or any more with this policy (and as the OP rightly points out, if there was to be any movement it'd be in the other direction), but the consumers will have more money to spend on it.

More money chasing the same amount of goods?

Speculation at the moment tends towards oil prices continuing to drop. They're already 12% down, and well on the way to 25%.

Overall the trend is up, no one would dispute that. But the leap from $3 gas to $5 gas is artificial.

I don't get it, how would creating inflation solve the oil crisis?
The same way that giving oil companies access to coastal drilling sites would.

All the more reason to tax their profits and give it back to the people. Also, where do you think those profits come from and where that windfall will go? Gas.

Also, I don't think you quite understand how much money these people make. 5% of just Exxon-Mobile's profits this quarter alone is half a billion dollars. $1000 per household would be ~111 billion dollars. In 5 years, Exxon-Mobile would pay off at least 10% of that itself. Of course I have no idea what the actual tax on profits would be.

I fail to see how giving everyone $1000, and ensuring high gas pricing, is really helping anything. You state them making profits like its a bad thing. Also, I think its ridiculous to call profits due to high prices a "windfall", since its bound to happen from time to time.

as much as we delude ourslves, no other useable fuel gives off as much energy as burning gasoline.

Per... what? In what circumstances?

Have you any idea how inefficient an internal combustion engine is?

I fail to see how giving everyone $1000, and ensuring high gas pricing, is really helping anything. You state them making profits like its a bad thing. Also, I think its ridiculous to call profits due to high prices a "windfall", since its bound to happen from time to time.
Lets realize they make "record" profits every few few months. There is no reason that taxing their absurd profits would cause gas prices to go up other than people accepting it.

I fail to see how giving everyone $1000, and ensuring high gas pricing, is really helping anything. You state them making profits like its a bad thing. Also, I think its ridiculous to call profits due to high prices a "windfall", since its bound to happen from time to time.

High profits, due to high pricing, when the cost of raw materials didn't match it at all. The oil companies took advantage of perceptions to artificially 'enhance' the price of their product. I'm not sure why that would make it 'not a windfall'.

The $1000 thing is a gesture. It's much like Bush's little election year sweetener earlier this year. Only - because it's a democrat talking about it now, it's a bad thing.

And - who said anything about 'ensuring high pricing'?

Um, wut?
harvard law review--well known for its morons.

Per... what? In what circumstances?

Have you any idea how inefficient an internal combustion engine is?

Horriblely so.

High profits, due to high pricing, when the cost of raw materials didn't match it at all. The oil companies took advantage of perceptions to artificially 'enhance' the price of their product. I'm not sure why that would make it 'not a windfall'.

The $1000 thing is a gesture. It's much like Bush's little election year sweetener earlier this year. Only - because it's a democrat talking about it now, it's a bad thing.

And - who said anything about 'ensuring high pricing'?

what did the oil companies do to increase prices? and crude oil is the raw material, who are you to decide that the cost wasn't right?

as long as we agree that hes making a bad attempt at bribing the American people, thats fine.

well, if you go ahead and add costs ontop of their normal operating, I'd assume they will try to get more to make up for it. If you plan on taxing them over 5 years or more for a one time thing, thats ensuring higher pricing.

Lets realize they make "record" profits every few few months. There is no reason that taxing their absurd profits would cause gas prices to go up other than people accepting it.

I'm not sure what you mean. why is record in quotes?

Even if they were making record profits every few months, as other posters have pointed out, they wont be making those profits for much longer as the prices were inflated by speculation, in addition to the usual increases in demand. Now speculators are driving the price down, by selling off oil. Therefore, any plan to continue taxing high profits into the future relies on keeping those profits high, which means high prices.

what did the oil companies do to increase prices? and crude oil is the raw material, who are you to decide that the cost wasn't right?


If the price of crude increases by a total of 150%

And the price of refined gas increases by 400%

The cost wasn't right... right?


As to what the oil companies did... nothing too dishonest, but nothing terribly honest either. Everytime a pipeline broke, they boosted the price at the pump. When the per-barrel price dropped, the per gallon price didn't.

I'm not saying they manufactured the whole thing out of nothing - but they certainly manipulated every detail to maximise profits... and may have broken the back of American industry to do it... not to mention, made windfall profits off of consumer spending.


as long as we agree that hes making a bad attempt at bribing the American people, thats fine.


Not a particularly bad attempt. No worse than the one earlier this year by the other side.


well, if you go ahead and add costs ontop of their normal operating, I'd assume they will try to get more to make up for it. If you plan on taxing them over 5 years or more for a one time thing, thats ensuring higher pricing.

It doesn't ensure it. The oil companies probably ARE going to charge more - they have been doing so. What this would, in effect do, is tax the 'windfall' value. And - there's actually LESS incentive for the oil companies to gouge quite so hard, if they're going to keep a lesser percentage of the 'excess'.

You people singing the "record profit" song really need to study up on the economics of business and learn the difference between a "record profit" and a "profit margin" and get a clue on how the cost of production, transportation, delivery, etc. affect things. You need to learn a bit about the idea of supply and demand.

On average an oil company makes about 35 cents per gallon of gas sold, the government takes 45 cents though for taxes, why is there not a proposal for a windfall profit tax on the money government is earning from the sale of gasoline?

You people singing the "record profit" song really need to study up on the economics of business and learn the difference between a "record profit" and a "profit margin" and get a clue on how the cost of production, transportation, delivery, etc. affect things. You need to learn a bit about the idea of supply and demand.

On average an oil company makes about 35 cents per gallon of gas sold, the government takes 45 cents though for taxes, why is there not a proposal for a windfall profit tax on the money government is earning from the sale of gasoline?

Um, I'm going to have to see your source for the 45c a gallon tax, because I highly doubt the Federal Highway Program earns billions of dollars a day. My guess is you're off by about an order or magnitude at least.

You people singing the "record profit" song really need to study up on the economics of business and learn the difference between a "record profit" and a "profit margin" and get a clue on how the cost of production, transportation, delivery, etc. affect things. You need to learn a bit about the idea of supply and demand.

On average an oil company makes about 35 cents per gallon of gas sold, the government takes 45 cents though for taxes, why is there not a proposal for a windfall profit tax on the money government is earning from the sale of gasoline?

Tax the government?

Who'd collect it? And.. wouldn't that tax go to.. the government?

Where'd you learn the principles of minimal government, Bush?

What you're taling about are fixed and variable costs, versus the perceived 'advantages' - in this case, the fixed costs changed not much (fixed, after all - although they varied a little as the secondary effects of oil price struck), the variable costs increased about 150% overall (driven by the biggest single increase - the price of the raw material), and the 'benefit' (in this case, the profit margin) increased proportional to the increase in end-user pricing - which was a 400% increase. Thus - the profit increased by somewhere in the ballpark of 250% - the profit margin increased, overall - and the nature of the profit was 'windfall'.

What is it we need to learn?

Oh...come on!
If the stupid government taxes the "windfall" profits of gas companies then they will just pass it on to the consumer making gas prices even higher. What will the government determine what is "windfall" profit anyway.

The Congress also doesn't GIVE A CRAP about how high the prices are anyway because they are considering a 10 cent increase in federal gas tax. In March a democratic congressman from Michigan wanted to add an additional 50 cents to every gallon of gas.

Why look at the gas companies record profits when the government TAKES more than the oil companies make. The government is making OBSCENE PROFITS with their taxes on gas. The oil companies work to earn the profits and government takes a lot of it by force.

Oh...come on!
If the stupid government taxes the "windfall" profits of gas companies then they will just pass it on to the consumer making gas prices even higher. What will the government determine what is "windfall" profit anyway.

The Congress also doesn't GIVE A CRAP about how high the prices are anyway because they are considering a 10 cent increase in federal gas tax. In March a democratic congressman from Michigan wanted to add an additional 50 cents to every gallon of gas.

Why look at the gas companies record profits when the government TAKES more than the oil companies make. The government is making OBSCENE PROFITS with their taxes on gas. The oil companies work to earn the profits and government takes a lot of it by force.

Actually - what the windfall tax strikes at mostly, is 'investor returns'.

In an oil company, you could say that the actual oil workers have a hell of a job. And yet, they get paid fuck all, and windfall profits barely touch them. The management structure could be argued as essential, and probably works less physically, but no less 'hard'. They get paid a little more, and are also about untouched by the profits. The extremities of the structure (liaison with OSHA, that kind of thing) might have an easier day, most days - until the shit hits the fan, but their jobs are essential, and they don't make that much more than the spanners. They probably get little or nothing from windfall.

Sections like development, or research work pretty hard, get a decent return, and might even be seeing a little of the windfall.

The higher level management don't do much at all, especially if they're doing their job right. If the top man has everyone else doing their job right, his job is basically to sit in a big chair. This echelon does pretty good off of windfalls - even if they manage less directly, they are taken care of by the shareholders.

And that's where the windfall really lands - at the profit level, where investors collect their returns.

And - let's be honest - how hard are they 'working' for that?

If the price of crude increases by a total of 150%

And the price of refined gas increases by 400%

The cost wasn't right... right?


Oil in Jan 2001 approx $25 a barrel. Gas approx $1.50ish

Last quarter average price of oil approx $128. Gas approx a shade under $4.

Crack spreads have actually come down. Oil companies with refinery operations are already eating part of the refining cost (which is offset by increased production profits which is due to the price of oil which they don't set), so they are in fact already subsidizing lazy greedy stupid americans.

If the price of crude increases by a total of 150%

And the price of refined gas increases by 400%

The cost wasn't right... right?


when did refined gas increase 400% it wasn't like 75 cents a gallon anytime during the past 20 years, that I know of.

As to what the oil companies did... nothing too dishonest, but nothing terribly honest either. Everytime a pipeline broke, they boosted the price at the pump. When the per-barrel price dropped, the per gallon price didn't.

In other words running a business. Also, the price of gas has been going down. There's usually a lag for any product, I don't think its a conspiracy by oil companies.


I'm not saying they manufactured the whole thing out of nothing - but they certainly manipulated every detail to maximise profits... and may have broken the back of American industry to do it... not to mention, made windfall profits off of consumer spending.

I'm still not sure what details you think were manipulated. yup, money people freely gave.


Not a particularly bad attempt. No worse than the one earlier this year by the other side.

Well, I haven't heard anything good about his proposal, though I don't spend alot of time watching the news. We'd have to see if he gets any better numbers from this or continues dropping to be sure.

It doesn't ensure it. The oil companies probably ARE going to charge more - they have been doing so. What this would, in effect do, is tax the 'windfall' value. And - there's actually LESS incentive for the oil companies to gouge quite so hard, if they're going to keep a lesser percentage of the 'excess'.

fair enough, til the end. There's less incentive, but if they want to make more profits, which they do, they will try harder to get it.

c'mon now. you think Joe Public cares? there's only three points that Joe Public will remember.

1) This is Obama's plan.
2) Obama will give out $1000 per household.
3) Anyone opposing it doesn't want to give $1000 per household and is in Big Oil's Pocket.

everything else will fly over Joe Public's head.

Um, I'm going to have to see your source for the 45c a gallon tax, because I highly doubt the Federal Highway Program earns billions of dollars a day. My guess is you're off by about an order or magnitude at least.

Ok, you asked for it, prepared to be wtf pwnd. Please note also I didn't say it was only the federal government, I said tax per gallon, between the states and the feds, yes it is billions more than the oil companies.

For the first quarter of 2008, the average state gasoline tax is 28.6 cents per US gallon, plus 18.4 cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 47 cents per US gallon

Source: Motor Vehicle taxes by state (http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/)

Wikipedia: Fuel Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax)

Care to try again.

So Obama plans to tax Oil Companies profit...which will reduce their profit margin.

Yea, there's just nooo way this is going to ever come back and bite us in the ass.

NOT in a million years....no siree bob!

Obama DOES realize that if he does implement this, that the oil companies are just going to raise prices, right? :confused:

when did refined gas increase 400% it wasn't like 75 cents a gallon anytime during the past 20 years, that I know of.

Not 75 cents, but it was below a dollar a little over 10 years ago. At least, it was where I lived.

I'm not sure what you mean. why is record in quotes?

Even if they were making record profits every few months, as other posters have pointed out, they wont be making those profits for much longer as the prices were inflated by speculation, in addition to the usual increases in demand. Now speculators are driving the price down, by selling off oil. Therefore, any plan to continue taxing high profits into the future relies on keeping those profits high, which means high prices.

What part of every few months did you miss? They made record profits last year, and the year before that, ad infinitum

Not 75 cents, but it was below a dollar a little over 10 years ago. At least, it was where I lived.

It was well below a dollar when I came here... 8 years ago? And it topped out well over $4 around here, too.

And I know we're a lot cheaper than a lot of other places, because I've paid those prices when I was IN other places. :)

Bah, just nationalize the oil companies!

Hear hear!

Unfortunately it'll never happen. :(

What part of every few months did you miss? They made record profits last year, and the year before that, ad infinitum

I wouldn't know about that since it's always just stated, without any context, like inflation and so forth. besides, as I pointed out prices are falling....

Obama today called for a $1,000.00 "stimulus" package for American families to "offset the cost of energy"

Actually... I have to admit.

What's really confusing me about this, is why there's a big outcry from a proportion of the population that didn't make a big outcry when Bush did much the same thing earlier this year.

It's okay for Republicans to play the 'free money' card in an election year (being the party of 'fiscal responsibility, or something)... but not for the Democrats?

And - also... wasn't Bush's incentive package just taken out of tax revenue (so - 'un-tax and spend', in effect)... while Obama is suggesting a plan with a built-in repayment scheme?


It's bugging me. It looks like partisan politics that's stopped even pretending.

Well, Obama's not known for his over excess of intelligence.
As opposed to noted intellectual McCain?

Actually... I have to admit.

What's really confusing me about this, is why there's a big outcry from a proportion of the population that didn't make a big outcry when Bush did much the same thing earlier this year.

It's okay for Republicans to play the 'free money' card in an election year (being the party of 'fiscal responsibility, or something)... but not for the Democrats?

And - also... wasn't Bush's incentive package just taken out of tax revenue (so - 'un-tax and spend', in effect)... while Obama is suggesting a plan with a built-in repayment scheme?


It's bugging me. It looks like partisan politics that's stopped even pretending.

There is no real outcry about this plan either. Nor has there been any outcry about the 800bn housing handout. (Which both McCain, Bush and Obama support).

All of these things were/are shit.

There is no real outcry about this plan either. Nor has there been any outcry about the 800bn housing handout. (Which both McCain, Bush and Obama support).


'Housing handout', or bailout for acronyms?


All of these things were/are shit.

Matter of perspective. Low wages and high cost of heating fuel. 3 kids, two of them babies. If I hadn't got a rebate on my taxes (or 'economic stimulus payment', whatever they called it), I'd have been bankrupt this year.

'Housing handout', or bailout for acronyms?

Well the FNM/FRE thing is part of a larger spending bill.


Matter of perspective. Low wages and high cost of heating fuel. 3 kids, two of them babies. If I hadn't got a rebate on my taxes (or 'economic stimulus payment', whatever they called it), I'd have been bankrupt this year.

High heating fuel costs can be laid at the doorstep the government's repeated and pathetic attempts to insulate the financial industry from its own foolishness and greed. (Of which the stimulus check is part).

I don't know what to tell you other than hope that Ralph Nader gets elected or something. The reality is that there isn't a CH worth of difference between McCain and Obama when it comes to this sort of stuff. (However much they tell you otherwise).

I don't know what to tell you other than hope that Ralph Nader gets elected or something. The reality is that there isn't a CH worth of difference between McCain and Obama when it comes to this sort of stuff. (However much they tell you otherwise).

The second part is true.

The first part, I'm not convinced. American politicians are all about protecting industry and themselves, and screw people like me.

The first part, I'm not convinced. American politicians are all about protecting industry and themselves, and screw people like me.

I actually think that Nader believes what he says. Which is why he has been so effectively marginalized by the orthodox 'left' over the past ten years or so.

He'll never be elected though, so its not worth worrying about. (Though I think its very telling that he annoys democrats more than republicans).

Wowmaui, Obama is a Liberal Democratic Socialist.

Obama today called for a $1,000.00 "stimulus" package for American families to "offset the cost of energy" that he proposes paying for with a windfall profits tax on "big oil's excess profits" over the next 5 years.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while: First, what gives government/Obama the right to say how much profit is "too much" or an "excess?" Secondly, reducing the money an oil company is allowed keep as earnings is not exactly a good incentive to them if you want them to deliver energy at a reasonable cost since lost income means less money to spend on R & D and other measures to deliver energy of all types, including oil. Oil companies have an approximately 8.5 - 9.7% profit margin - not exactly huge - look at Google with a 25% profit margin, why not hit them with a windfall tax on internet earnings? Oil company profits are in the billions of dollars because of the amount of the product they sell, not because their costs are low and their prices high. This will do absolutely -0- to lower energy costs and, if the Jimmy Carter era is any indication, will likely serve to raise the cost of gasoline.

Obama and his supporters really need to rethink this idea, its a horrible one.

Sources: Obama's Plan (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5klN)

In Defense of Big Oil - CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/)

lost income means less money to spend on R & D
Bullshit.
Stock buyback.

So Obama plans to tax Oil Companies profit...which will reduce their profit margin.

Yea, there's just nooo way this is going to ever come back and bite us in the ass.

NOT in a million years....no siree bob!

Obama DOES realize that if he does implement this, that the oil companies are just going to raise prices, right? :confused:

As apposed to now, where they're increasing the price regardless?

The problem with oil companies is that, often times, they're raising the price of oil without any cause, and rarely reduce it. For example; israel throws a hissy fit and pisses Iran off. The price of Oil goes up, in spite of the fact that nothing has happened. Iran isn't at war, they haven't hurt the movement of oil through the area, they've done nothing, and yet this slim possibly of something happening in the future is enough to raise the price.

And keep is Raised. The Worst part is that, even when the price of oil drops, it doesn't drop up at the pump, but if it raises, it goes up almost right away.

So he's going to give them $1,000 to continue the very same behavior that has been the major driver of oil price increases over the past decade?

Why not instead give tax deductions and credits to pay for the cost of a major upgrade to a heating/cooling system, a more fuel efficient vehicle, energy efficient appliances or household alternative energy systems? Those would slash energy consumption, give the energy efficiency and alternative energy sectors a boost and produce lasting savings for Americans that will provide benefits long after the election is over. That's the kind of change we can believe in, not some glorified version of the $50 "gasoline rebate" proposed back in the summer of '07.

Now, in general I believe "windfall" profit taxes are a foolishly punitive and economically ignorant idea to begin with but to effectively subsidize wasteful behavior by using money that could be far better spent is simply idiotic.

hey, buddy, free speech.Obama and the government can say whatever the hell they want, that dosent make it law. (even though it should be)

So he's going to give them $1,000 to continue the very same behavior that has been the major driver of oil price increases over the past decade?

Why not instead give tax deductions and credits to pay for the cost of a major upgrade to a heating/cooling system, a more fuel efficient vehicle, energy efficient appliances or household alternative energy systems? Those would slash energy consumption, give the energy efficiency and alternative energy sectors a boost and produce lasting savings for Americans that will provide benefits long after the election is over. That's the kind of change we can believe in, not some glorified version of the $50 "gasoline rebate" proposed back in the summer of '07.

Now, in general I believe "windfall" profit taxes are a foolishly punitive and economically ignorant idea to begin with but to effectively subsidize wasteful behavior by using money that could be far better spent is simply idiotic.

I don't think you quite have the hang of this. See, that would actually solve the problem. That's not how politics works.

See, the republicans and democrats must put forward two different plans that effectively accomplish nothing. The Republican strategy right now is a stall tactic. They endorse proposals that we will see progress on... eventually. You know, in the indeterminate future. Things like fuel cells and more oil wells. Nuclear power plants. Things that will take years upon years to see any real difference so that in a couple years the plans can have their funding stripped in favor of new plans that again will eventually come to fruition, or so we're led to believe.

Barack Obama's tactic is to create the illusion of a short-term solution by taking money from the fuel companies, giving it to the people so they can give it back to the fuel companies. On the longer term, in order to avoid a market rush on alternative renewable energy products which will allow the mass-market manufacture of such technologies at reduced costs, he will continue to give tax breaks to companies searching for a way to make renewable energy not quite so renewable.

Or as a shorter explanaition: If solar panels required monthly applications of an expensive and proprietary goo that had to be slathered on in order to produce electricity, we'd all have them on our roofs by now.

McCain is old and Obama is a White Sox fan.

Should I even vote in my first election?

McCain is old and Obama is a White Sox fan.

Should I even vote in my first election?

Oh trust me, this is it. You can either vote for Bowl of Shit A, or Bowl of Shit B. Either way you're getting a bowl of shit.

Oh trust me, this is it. You can either vote for Bowl of Shit A, or Bowl of Shit B. Either way you're getting a bowl of shit.

I think the really screwed up part is that the legal voting age is 18 and the legal drinking age is 21 when one would have to be drunk to vote for either of them . :p

Oil companies have an approximately 8.5 - 9.7% profit margin

Shell's profits are up this last quarter by a figure of somewhere near 33%. Doesn't seem small.

Ok, Wowmaui, we see you're a friend of the Oil companies, that means, the Bush family, the Cheney family... Pirates, bucaneers, public brigands, international criminals. They are getting much more profits than you say. Believe whatever you want, but don't try to tell us fairy tales about the 'moderate' profit level of oil companies. By the way, I'm nor American neither in America. Abusive profits by oil companies -and by the way, by banks too- are worldwide known and proven facts. In which world do you live?

Speculation at the moment tends towards oil prices continuing to drop. They're already 12% down, and well on the way to 25%.
I'd be careful about the connection between futures prices and actual prices. There's a combination at work there of actual expectations and contracts being bought and sold to eliminate arbitrage opportunities. In short: futures markets for oil are financial markets, spot markets are where the physical stuff actually happens. One needs to be wary of linking one to the other too closely, and that goes regardless of whether prices are going up or down.

Anyways, the thing that might get oil prices down properly is the world economy starting to hurt really badly, so that demand really drops and stays down. Not necessarily desirable if you ask me. If it doesn't happen, the US recovers and Chinese overcapacity can be brushed back under the carpet I wouldn't count on the decrease to continue.

Either way, a tax on windfall profits is politically popular, but hardly effective. Investors will continue to expect certain rewards from ownership, and CEOs will continue to make sure they earn them. And the easiest way to get the extra income to get the extra profits and make sure after-tax profits are where they want them is to pass it on to the consumers - knowing that all their competitors are in the same situation and will do the same thing and that those consumers have a few extra dollars to spend anyways. The person hurt most in the end is Bernanke, who is already worrying about 5% inflation rates.

I'm gonna have to side with Vetalia and LG here. This really isn't particularly bright from Obama. If he wanted to make a difference he'd study the way the German government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Law)* made sure a solar cell industry developed for example. That program creates its own distortions, but if nothing else it made sure that Germany is now the world's biggest producer and exporter of the things.

*More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL2389939520070730
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7181866.stm

Abusive profits by oil companies -and by the way, by banks too- are worldwide known and proven facts. In which world do you live?
Would you mind defining what an "abusive profit" is? As well-known and proven as this may be, I'm utterly clueless, it seems.

the problem with Obama idea is that it will do the opposite.

you tax oil companies more they will raise prices. so as I read this the money given to consumers to will be to cover the price increase caused by the taxs to give money to consmers. of course the real loser will be the consumer who will see prices increase more then the benfits cover as goverment overhead takes it share. the winner will be big bussines who will have an excuse to raise prices and increase profit margins even more.

Even if it does work (which i dont think it will) this is just middle class welfare. Since when was driving essential for life. yes it is the prefered means of travel for many people for many reasons but there is public transport.

Everyone will be taxed to pay for thoes who drive more. How is that fair?

Thoes who drive more most likely have more money in the first place because they are not worried about the running costs of the car. This is a vote buying policy only. If he wanted a real solution there would be incestments in technology and/or public transport investments and/or tagreting the competition for oil to lower prices

In the end people have made their decision as customers. Instead of car pooling, walking, riding the bike or taking public transport more often they decide to drive.

the thread title reminded me of the cutscene ''Mission Idiotic' from Ratchet and Clank 3

So I guess you prefer the status quo?

The way to end this whole problem.

Step 1) Cut all of Big Oil's federal and state subsidies, both direct and indirect.

Step 2) Watch gas prices rise to actual free market values.

Step 3) See how fast alternate energy technologies pass petrol.

He'll never be elected though, so its not worth worrying about. (Though I think its very telling that he annoys democrats more than republicans).

I think that's probably because the Democrats would get elected otherwise.

the thread title reminded me of the cutscene ''Mission Idiotic' from Ratchet and Clank 3

All Obama needs is to create the O-Force.

...but to effectively subsidize wasteful behavior by using money that could be far better spent is simply idiotic.

It's all about perspective. You live a wasteful life, so you assume everyone else does.

Some people are trying hard to balance all the numbers so that they can keep the home warm enough that their babies don't die during the winter. There is no 'better way' to spend.

It's all about perspective. You live a wasteful life, so you assume everyone else does.

Some people are trying hard to balance all the numbers so that they can keep the home warm enough that their babies don't die during the winter. There is no 'better way' to spend.

$150,000 per year income and below? That's hardly people who risk freezing to death. The vast majority are going to use it on gas guzzling SUVs, inefficient heating systems, and wasteful consumption of electricity in household appliances.

I'd agree with you if it were only for poverty line, low-income, senior citizens, or other people at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. That would be far different than giving $1,000 checks largely to the SUV-driving upper and upper middle class who can more than afford to make ends meet (although giving them money to replace their heating systems still makes far more sense regardless). That's not going to do anything other than prolong dependence on fossil fuels and cost consumers even more in the long run.

This is nothing more than a vote-buying scheme that ignores and worsens the problem rather than solving it. If Obama were really serious about helping people, he'd use that money to bring them real, lasting savings on energy expenditures that will help them long after the election and long after he leaves office. Not to mention it won't require repeated payouts, saving the government money it can use for better purposes than to fill somebody's Hummer.

Ok, Wowmaui, we see you're a friend of the Oil companies, that means, the Bush family, the Cheney family... Pirates, bucaneers, public brigands, international criminals. They are getting much more profits than you say. Believe whatever you want, but don't try to tell us fairy tales about the 'moderate' profit level of oil companies. By the way, I'm nor American neither in America. Abusive profits by oil companies -and by the way, by banks too- are worldwide known and proven facts. In which world do you live?
My opinion of the oil companies is irrelevant to the issue I raised which is the economic idiocy of Obama and his plan to slap a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies and the idiocy of people who believe that a government has a right to determine how much profit any company should be permitted to make before the must be punished by the government. The idea that we want people to be successful, but we must punish them with extra taxes if they are "too" succesful doesn't sit well with me, I don't care if you are talking about banks, oil companies, farmers or dope growers. To punish success is counter productive and actually works as a disincentive to innovation and growth and the market place.

All I see is wealth envy and a Marxist attempt to re-distribute wealth.

And - who said anything about 'ensuring high pricing'?
Higher taxes mean that the Oil companies have another excuse to raise their prices. Savvy?

The way to end this whole problem.

Step 1) Cut all of Big Oil's federal and state subsidies, both direct and indirect.

Step 2) Watch gas prices rise to actual free market values.

Step 3) See how fast alternate energy technologies pass petrol.

He speaks the truth!!!!:eek2::hail:

Higher taxes mean that the Oil companies have another excuse to raise their prices. Savvy?

I thought the oil campanies could charge what they wanted. I thought that was the Whole Point.

I thought the oil campanies could charge what they wanted. I thought that was the Whole Point.

I said another EXCUSE. That way they'll get less flak for it.

$150,000 per year income and below? That's hardly people who risk freezing to death. The vast majority are going to use it on gas guzzling SUVs, inefficient heating systems, and wasteful consumption of electricity in household appliances.

I'd agree with you if it were only for poverty line, low-income, senior citizens, or other people at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. That would be far different than giving $1,000 checks largely to the SUV-driving upper and upper middle class who can more than afford to make ends meet (although giving them money to replace their heating systems still makes far more sense regardless). That's not going to do anything other than prolong dependence on fossil fuels and cost consumers even more in the long run.

This is nothing more than a vote-buying scheme that ignores and worsens the problem rather than solving it. If Obama were really serious about helping people, he'd use that money to bring them real, lasting savings on energy expenditures that will help them long after the election and long after he leaves office. Not to mention it won't require repeated payouts, saving the government money it can use for better purposes than to fill somebody's Hummer.

No no - you are wrong to assume it's 'nothing more' than anything.

At one level - it's certainly both worthwhile, and possibly one of the best available redistributions of finances. To the poor, who are disproportionately affected by heating costs, it's not only laudable, but also practically an essential if you want the market to keep ticking.

The 'problem' is, that this good idea is extended into a vote-year tool. An excellent idea is ALSO a voter incentive, which is less defensible. The fact that it's trying to level the playing field (against a Bush incentive that may actually have been worth a lot more to some lower income families) is almost irrelevent. Advantage Republicans for getting in there first.

If Obama were REALLY keen on doing something, there wouldn't be a cash payout, there'd have been some movement to help insulate, weather-proof, and otherwise ensure the heat capacity of homes for the poor. But, oil companies really WOULD take a hit from that (reduced usage), and so are a lot less likely to support it than this current plan.

I said another EXCUSE. That way they'll get less flak for it.

yeah, because people are gonna laugh off $5 gas because the poor oil companies with record profits are getting charged a higher tax.

Higher taxes mean that the Oil companies have another excuse to raise their prices. Savvy?

Which is why I am Pro-Market Regulation.

Tax them, and cap them.

They don't need excuses to raise prices. Windfall profits, remember?

Which is why I am Pro-Market Regulation.

Tax them, and cap them.

They don't need excuses to raise prices. Windfall profits, remember?
Cap them. Cap them. Price Caps will eventually just drive each and every company it's implemented on out of business. Well, if you want no more ebil corporations, be my guest. I'm sure big brother will figure out something.:hail:
yeah, because people are gonna laugh off $5 gas because the poor oil companies with record profits are getting charged a higher tax.
1. I said less flak, not none at all.
2. I don't think that they'd risk jumping that high so quickly.

2. I don't think that they'd risk jumping that high so quickly.

Yeah. USians paying as much for gas as everyone else? Horrifying.

Cap them. Cap them. Price Caps will eventually just drive each and every company it's implemented on out of business.

Utter rubbish.

Tax is no different to any other cost. If your company can't work out how to accomodate it, your company didn't deserve it's market share.

(Note: I didn't say 'price caps', that's your strawman).

No no - you are wrong to assume it's 'nothing more' than anything.

At one level - it's certainly both worthwhile, and possibly one of the best available redistributions of finances. To the poor, who are disproportionately affected by heating costs, it's not only laudable, but also practically an essential if you want the market to keep ticking.

I don't think we're in disagreement when it comes to using it to help poor people. Nobody deserves to suffer in the richest country on Earth when we have the resources available to help them permanently escape the trap of dependence on expensive heating fuels.

However, I feel any cash aid should be limited to them and them only. Everyone else should only receive aid enabling them to install more efficient appliances and HVAC systems (along with solar panels, hybrids, etc.)

The 'problem' is, that this good idea is extended into a vote-year tool. An excellent idea is ALSO a voter incentive, which is less defensible. The fact that it's trying to level the playing field (against a Bush incentive that may actually have been worth a lot more to some lower income families) is almost irrelevent. Advantage Republicans for getting in there first.

If Obama were to restructure his plan along the lines I'm proposing, it would be far more popular beyond the election and in to his presidency. By encouraging alternative energy and efficiency, you get not only a lot of support from environmentalists and anyone else concerned about the ramifications of global climate change, but you also get to

Here would be an even bolder idea: permit offshore drilling relative to reductions in oil consumption and CO2 emissions. A "leases for barrels" plan would give them additional acreage in protected areas based upon the progress of energy conservation. Give oil companies what they want, but only if they agree to help ensure progress in conservation and CO2 emissions. If you go a step further and agree to a moratorium on any cap-and-trade or other systems in exchange, we'd be able to get them on board.

If he were to propose something like that, I would be hard pressed not to support him for President.

If Obama were REALLY keen on doing something, there wouldn't be a cash payout, there'd have been some movement to help insulate, weather-proof, and otherwise ensure the heat capacity of homes for the poor. But, oil companies really WOULD take a hit from that (reduced usage), and so are a lot less likely to support it than this current plan.

No, they wouldn't. Oil companies don't care anywhere near as much about energy efficiency initiatives as they do about taxes (and in the case of everybody except Exxon, they'd benefit from increased sales in their alternative energy units). They will still sell oil and will still earn profits, considering they make far more money from overseas sales than they do those in the US. A major tax rebate and cash payment program for alternative energy would be a real plan that would have real benefits for the American people.

They don't like windfall profit taxes because that takes away money they could use for other purposes. Back in the early 1980's, it did little else but drive oil production overseas and cost us jobs and investment.

Here's a plan: Sell oil from the SPR to finance the program. Oil companies would be dead in the water if they tried to oppose something like that, and if you give ground to the Republicans as previously mentioned on offshore and domestic drilling, it won't be hard to achieve at least some kind of plan before the winter. We do not need the oil in the SPR right now and it would do a world of good for our economy if we sell it responsibly. As has been previously shown, that oil would reduce prices, producing real savings for the American people as well as generate the funds necessary to finance the money for investment in alternative energy and energy efficiency.

Utter rubbish.

Tax is no different to any other cost. If your company can't work out how to accomodate it, your company didn't deserve it's market share.

(Note: I didn't say 'price caps', that's your strawman).
I wasn't talking about taxes driving them out of business, I was talking about price caps, which you brought up.

(Note: You completely ignored what I said, and replaced it with something you could argue for, that I never opposed. Hooray for ignorance!)

Which is why I am Pro-Market Regulation.

Tax them, and cap them.
Tax, yes, cap, no.

We do not want any industries running on a not-for-profit basis, because if the industry starts to fall at all, you may well lose entire sectors. Seeing as oil is the base for just about everything in the entire economy, fucking over its producers is not a good idea.
They don't need excuses to raise prices.
And what's the excuse to raise taxes and put on price caps?

"Because I'm pro-market control"?
Windfall profits, remember?
Uhu... on the other hand oil companies are making the slimmest profit margins in a great many years. Let them have a wee bit of extra cash, they might well need it in the future.

The way to end this whole problem.

Step 1) Cut all of Big Oil's federal and state subsidies, both direct and indirect.

Step 2) Watch gas prices rise to actual free market values.

Step 3) See how fast alternate energy technologies pass petrol.Oooh, nice post! :)

All I see is wealth envy and a Marxist attempt to re-distribute wealth.
Myopic, then.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html?mod=djemITP
This might just come across as a fuck-you, but you need to consider it in perspective.

Myopic, then.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html?mod=djemITP
This might just come across as a fuck-you, but you need to consider it in perspective.
Redistribution of wealth is not just from the rich. I know, shocking, isn't it? :eek2:

Windfall profits, remember?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/07/31/bcnexxon131.xml
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0801/breaking17.htm
$11.68 billion[/B], or $2.22 a share, in the quarter.
+
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/144858.asp

Now we determine how much is going into stock buybacks, and we're going to have a fun argument? Any takers?

Oooh, nice post! :)
Just keep in mind that between 2. and 3., you will probably destroy most American farmers' livelihoods, causing a massive food shortage which will raise prices enormously, leading to a) food riots, and b) hyperinflation. When hyperinflation comes along, your housing market will be absolutely shafted, and you will have destroyed what savings middle-class Americans have left.

Obviously, you will also take away their debts, but the ensuing banking crisis and means necessary to keep the economy afloat would make the handouts to the housing sector look like small beans.

GZ, you have just made the ensuing recession a complete disaster which your economy will take decades to recover from.

Since when was driving essential for life. yes it is the prefered means of travel for many people for many reasons but there is public transport.

Tell that to people who commute from Riverside, California to Los Angeles (about 60 miles) every day. Out here public transport is not nearly as well developed as it is in New York, or places like it, and a lotof people live in neighboring counties, meaining they have to commute, and public transit isn't always going to work for them

When hyperinflation comes along, your housing market will be absolutely shaftedWhat do you mean with this? Are you taking note of current events, or just reiterating economy class extreme-scenario examples?

GZ, you have just made the ensuing recession a complete disaster which your economy will take decades to recover from.We're already nearing this issue WITHOUT doing number 1.

Obama today called for a $1,000.00 "stimulus" package for American families to "offset the cost of energy" that he proposes paying for with a windfall profits tax on "big oil's excess profits" over the next 5 years.

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while: First, what gives government/Obama the right to say how much profit is "too much" or an "excess?" Secondly, reducing the money an oil company is allowed keep as earnings is not exactly a good incentive to them if you want them to deliver energy at a reasonable cost since lost income means less money to spend on R & D and other measures to deliver energy of all types, including oil. Oil companies have an approximately 8.5 - 9.7% profit margin - not exactly huge - look at Google with a 25% profit margin, why not hit them with a windfall tax on internet earnings? Oil company profits are in the billions of dollars because of the amount of the product they sell, not because their costs are low and their prices high. This will do absolutely -0- to lower energy costs and, if the Jimmy Carter era is any indication, will likely serve to raise the cost of gasoline.

Obama and his supporters really need to rethink this idea, its a horrible one.

Sources: Obama's Plan (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5klN)

In Defense of Big Oil - CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/)
The fact is that the oil business is different from other sectors of the economy. Oil is the beneficiary of tax breaks and subsidies that other industries don't get. We've sent our army to war for the interest of oil twice in the last twenty years, and intervened several other times to keep their supply open, as in the Persian Gulf Iran Crisis of 87. The Federal government negotiates with foreign countries on oil's behalf, the Saudis wouldn't merit near so much attention in our foreign policy were this not so. The oil industry is and has been a quasi-socialist venture in the USA. Consumers don't pay market rates, because of government intervention. This is a bad place to start an argument for pure capitalism.
If oil's windfall profits are taxed, it amounts to a renegotiation of the sweet deal they already get, not some unmerited, unwarranted government meddling in the marketplace.

What do you mean with this? Are you taking note of current events, or just reiterating economy class extreme-scenario examples?
What I'm saying is that if you make gasoline extremely expensive, farmers are going to be absolutely fucked. It takes a hell of a lot of fuel to produce food in any kind of modern way, not to mention the transport of all manner of goods in and out of farms.

Food is the base of your economy, because people need to eat. Make it very expensive, and people will ask for more wages so that they can afford to eat. The Fed would have to print more banknotes, and with that comes inflation, which can rapidly get out of hand.

With the fall in housing in the US, the sector is already in dire trouble. If you make your houses worth a pittance, then everyone loses out, especially the banks who gave out mortgages. If you get a non-tracking mortgage, then you're off scot-free if you get rapid inflation. This means that the banks are screwed, and when the banks are screwed, your economy will die, basically.

I'd not wish for oil companies to start losing money, because it would start a very dangerous chain of events. It might sound revolutionary and left-of-field to criticise Big Oil and all that, but oil companies run the farming industry, and the farming industry runs the rest of the economy.
We're already nearing this issue WITHOUT doing number 1.
No, you're not. The recession that's coming will be very bad, probably 1970s/1980s bad. It will recover in a few years.

I wasn't talking about taxes driving them out of business, I was talking about price caps, which you brought up.

(Note: You completely ignored what I said, and replaced it with something you could argue for, that I never opposed. Hooray for ignorance!)

Ignorance my shiny white ass.

I suggested a tax-and-cap portfolio. I didn't realise 'and' was a difficult concept.

In order to address your response, I merely guided you back in the general direction I was discussing, before pointing out that I never mentioned price caps...

Which apparently - even though I've re-iterated that it's not so - you think I brought up.

Tell that to people who commute from Riverside, California to Los Angeles (about 60 miles) every day. Out here public transport is not nearly as well developed as it is in New York, or places like it, and a lotof people live in neighboring counties, meaining they have to commute, and public transit isn't always going to work for them

Of course public transport doesn't work. You all rely on being able to d.i.y.

See the inherent circular nature of that argument?

Ignorance my shiny white ass.

I suggested a tax-and-cap portfolio. I didn't realise 'and' was a difficult concept.

In order to address your response, I merely guided you back in the general direction I was discussing, before pointing out that I never mentioned price caps...

Which apparently - even though I've re-iterated that it's not so - you think I brought up.

Fine then. What exactly did you mean by "Cap"?

No, you're not. The recession that's coming will be very bad, probably 1970s/1980s bad. It will recover in a few years.I've taken note of how many assessments have been made by "experts" over this issue for the last year, and each couple of weeks their expectations are altered, in the negative fashion and not so much the positive.
On that topic, just hit me - what would happen if, perhaps, the Saudis decided to pull use of dollars for barrels of oil?
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/barisheff042205.html
I remember this coming up recently ...

...oh, and yes, the U.S. housing market is behaving in a quite shafted manner, which is what i quoted. I really don't think i need to post links to back that statement up.

I've taken note of how many assessments have been made by "experts" over this issue for the last year, and each couple of weeks their expectations are altered, in the negative fashion and not so much the positive.
Uhu.
On that topic, just hit me - what would happen if, perhaps, the Saudis decided to pull use of dollars for barrels of oil?
They won't, so long as they have 150,000 Americans and their allies next door armed to the teeth, or if they realise that the Euro is going to be a fairly volatile currency in the near future.

...oh, and yes, the U.S. housing market is behaving in a quite shafted manner, which is what i quoted. I really don't think i need to post links to back that statement up.
Am quite aware. Which is why the last thing the mortgage lenders need is their assets being completely devoid of value.

On that topic, just hit me - what would happen if, perhaps, the Saudis decided to pull use of dollars for barrels of oil?

It'll never happen. All of the major oil producers have no real choice but to use the US dollar as their pricing unit; aside from the quality of US securities as an i nvestment option, it would require a colossal amount of time and money to restructure their entire financial system to use another currency. Not to mention all of the other countries that hold US securities, all of whom would be very displeased by any major shift in the financial system.

Plus, with the US consuming approximately 24% of the world's oil, attempting to screw over your biggest customer is a disastrous idea. By the time any such thing does happen, oil will be a thing of the past.

Fine then. What exactly did you mean by "Cap"?

You can cap other things than prices.

For example - you could cap profits.

Tax, yes, cap, no.

We do not want any industries running on a not-for-profit basis, because if the industry starts to fall at all, you may well lose entire sectors. Seeing as oil is the base for just about everything in the entire economy, fucking over its producers is not a good idea.


Who said 'not for profit'? Taxation doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

Saying 'you can't make a windfall prift in a year in which the market folds' isn't "fucking over" anyone.


And what's the excuse to raise taxes and put on price caps?

"Because I'm pro-market control"?


The 'excuse' is preservation of the market, as a whole.


Uhu... on the other hand oil companies are making the slimmest profit margins in a great many years. Let them have a wee bit of extra cash, they might well need it in the future.

Whereas what? The American consumer doesn't?

You can cap other things than prices.

For example - you could cap profits.
And limit growth. Hooray.

if they realise that the Euro is going to be a fairly volatile currency in the near future.
As compared to the dollar, now? Howso? Just curious.

The 'excuse' is preservation of the market, as a whole.

And that excuse.... Is crap. You don't preserve the market by LIMITING GROWTH and TAKING from the market!

Whereas what? The American consumer doesn't?
You're right. You should give back the income taxes you took. Come on now. Or does the American consumer only need corporate money? :rolleyes:

And that excuse.... Is crap. You don't preserve the market by LIMITING GROWTH and TAKING from the market!

True. Best to watch the market implode, rather than doing anthing about it.

It'll never happen. All of the major oil producers have no real choice but to use the US dollar as their pricing unit; aside from the quality of US securities as an i nvestment option, it would require a colossal amount of time and money to restructure their entire financial system to use another currency. Not to mention all of the other countries that hold US securities, all of whom would be very displeased by any major shift in the financial system.

Plus, with the US consuming approximately 24% of the world's oil, attempting to screw over your biggest customer is a disastrous idea. By the time any such thing does happen, oil will be a thing of the past.So them bringing this up earlier this year, when Bush was saying it's a supply issue and them saying it's his economic principles, was just another ruse? That's when it came up again.

So them bringing this up earlier this year, when Bush was saying it's a supply issue and them saying it's his economic principles, was just another ruse? That's when it came up again.

Most likely. The threat of any change in oil denomination at this point in time is a pretty darn effective tactic, even if there's no chance of it ever happening.

True. Best to watch the market implode, rather than doing anthing about it.
Indeed. Better to watch the market implode then limiting it to the same capacity as back in 1300 AD with today's population.

Indeed. Better to watch the market implode then limiting it to the same capacity as back in 1300 AD with today's population.

After the market has imploded, why would you bother?

Indeed. Better to watch the market implode then limiting it to the same capacity as back in 1300 AD with today's population.

Huh? What are babbling about?

After the market has imploded, why would you bother?

Because the market always comes back. Unless of course, you're limiting it through excessive taxation and profit caps.

Of course public transport doesn't work. You all rely on being able to d.i.y.

See the inherent circular nature of that argument?

I didn't make that argument. Please make sure you know what someone is talking about before responding :rolleyes:

What I was saying is that, as it stands, public transit only works for a small percentage of people, and without a major overhaul it will stay that way

I would love to see the public transit system expanded, TBH, but there are a hell of a lot of hurdles to that, including the budget (the California state budget still hasn't been passed, and the state employees have been put on minimum wage), the fact that to do so would involve some major (and painful) reconfiguration of infrastructure (bus lanes on freeways that are already highly congested, rail lines under key arteries, etc.), and the fact that there is very little political will to expand it, because no one is willing to pony up the dough

when did refined gas increase 400% it wasn't like 75 cents a gallon anytime during the past 20 years, that I know of.

In other words running a business. Also, the price of gas has been going down. There's usually a lag for any product, I don't think its a conspiracy by oil companies.



I'm still not sure what details you think were manipulated. yup, money people freely gave.



Well, I haven't heard anything good about his proposal, though I don't spend alot of time watching the news. We'd have to see if he gets any better numbers from this or continues dropping to be sure.


fair enough, til the end. There's less incentive, but if they want to make more profits, which they do, they will try harder to get it.

I got my license in 1995 and paid 72 Cents a gallon at the Exxon by my home. I just wanted to comment on the bolded portion.

Although I support Obama, some of his ideas (such as this one) I don't support.

I got my license in 1995 and paid 72 Cents a gallon at the Exxon by my home. I just wanted to comment on the bolded portion.

At their lowest levels back in the 90's you could buy gas easily at that price.

A while back there was a photo taken by somebody back in 1998 that showed a gas station selling gasoline for $0.69, but I can't find it anymore...of all the times it would be useful, it's not here right now. Not to mention it would be nice to reminisce about better times...God knows I wouldn't mind seeing prices like that again. As much as I like the Prius, sometimes there's nothing better than a car with a powerful engine and a nice roomy cabin.

Of course, even with a salary of $50,000 or so I'll still have to drive something small and economical when I graduate. With any luck, gas prices will decline again and I can finally get myself something really nice.

Thanks to a glitch in price-handling (and not knowing that Dubya would FUBAR the economy so much), a few years ago some gas stations sold gas for $0.32 a gallon! :D

Obviously they fixed it after a day or two, but...

Thanks to a glitch in price-handling (and not knowing that Dubya would FUBAR the economy so much), a few years ago some gas stations sold gas for $0.32 a gallon! :D

Obviously they fixed it after a day or two, but...I remember reading about that. :)

vote buying :D The rich are more capable of driving as they can afford it so then they can have their life styles payed for by the poor. The price of petrol will still be the same in reality. The only difference is that the government will pay for it from taxes that come from people who can and can not afford it.

Yes the price has risen. But petrol has been known for how long to be a limited resource? The increasing price of petrol has been known well before most people bought their cars. They took a risk as a consumer with their money (which poorer people couldnt do) and now they want everyone to be taxed to artificially lower the price again altho it is certain that the price of petrol will keep on rising

And limit growth. Hooray.

There is no such thing as 'unlimited growth'. Much less, in a closed system.

Growth is going to be limited by any number of factors - one of them might as well be preservation of the economy.

But what is an economy? The bourgeois constantly try to disguise what an economy really is, using highfalutin buzzwords like 'personal utility' to hide the theft-economy which belies capitalism.

In nature and wildlife their are some creatures which themselves are not very strong or big, their only advantage is that they can latch onto other bigger creatures and feed off them in so way, sapping them of strength and in so doing make themselves stronger. These are called parasites.

This metaphor can only be used to analysis modern capitalist society. The capitalists themselves are psychically weak and very small in number, yet through gaining the reins of state and gaining control of the police and military they have become the ruling class in society. They have collectively latched unto working people and worked them to produce the commodities which the capitalist then 'appropriates' (steals) from the worker and sells to other workers at a higher amount than the amount that was needed to produce this commodities in the first place.

This system has become so ingrained that few workers questions that every day they are being robbed of the product of the labor and then having that product (which they made with their very hands) sold as if it were the rightful property of the capitalist.

This is what can be called 'lack of access to the means of production', a worker can work on a machine producing goods all day, yet the second he produces that good and passes it on to be sold he has no thought that he has just used his sacred labor to produce something and had it stolen from him in that same instant. The cultural hegemony of capitalism ensures that workers never actually realize the slave system they live in. You see under feudalism exploitation was clear to see, the peasant had to actually give his product to his lord. Under capitalism however the process is shrouded in what is called the 'automation' of production, in which the 'production line' process ensures the worker has as little personal contact with what he produces.

You see, whenever we produce something of course a part of ourselves goes into that product, we used our labor to build it and thus the capitalist must do as much as possible to remove that attachment. This concept becomes even more important when we consider people who work all their lives, and yet come out with little to show for it save their lives. This is capitalists must continually decrease the investment which they put in to keep workers producing, in this case that is a wage.

So in the end this 'wage' becomes nothing but a food, electricity and mortgage 'voucher' which the capitalist ensures his capital (human being) does not starve to death so he can keep working. Capitalism must continually reduce wages so that his initial investment becomes less and the return greater, thereby further reducing the worker to subsistence levels (living from week to week).

To each the full product of their labor! Capitalism is theft!

And that excuse.... Is crap. You don't preserve the market by LIMITING GROWTH and TAKING from the market!


Actually, under the right circumstances, limiting growth is EXACTLY how you 'preserve the market'.

Once again, though... ambiguous phrasing... 'taking from the market'?


You're right. You should give back the income taxes you took. Come on now. Or does the American consumer only need corporate money? :rolleyes:

Errr... eh? Someone makes a comment about how the poor lil' oil companies are going to maybe need profits soon... and I'm pointing out, there are a LOT of people that NEED money.

I don't really have to say much to you, do I? I give you a comment to chew on, and you create an army of strawmen to fight.

But what is an economy? The bourgeois constantly try to disguise what an economy really is, using highfalutin buzzwords like 'personal utility' to hide the theft-economy which belies capitalism.

In nature and wildlife their are some creatures which themselves are not very strong or big, their only advantage is that they can latch onto other bigger creatures and feed off them in so way, sapping them of strength and in so doing make themselves stronger. These are called parasites.

This metaphor can only be used to analysis modern capitalist society. The capitalists themselves are psychically weak and very small in number, yet through gaining the reins of state and gaining control of the police and military they have become the ruling class in society. They have collectively latched unto working people and worked them to produce the commodities which the capitalist then 'appropriates' (steals) from the worker and sells to other workers at a higher amount than the amount that was needed to produce this commodities in the first place.

This system has become so ingrained that few workers questions that every day they are being robbed of the product of the labor and then having that product (which they made with their very hands) sold as if it were the rightful property of the capitalist.

This is what can be called 'lack of access to the means of production', a worker can work on a machine producing goods all day, yet the second he produces that good and passes it on to be sold he has no thought that he has just used his sacred labor to produce something and had it stolen from him in that same instant. The cultural hegemony of capitalism ensures that workers never actually realize the slave system they live in. You see under feudalism exploitation was clear to see, the peasant had to actually give his product to his lord. Under capitalism however the process is shrouded in what is called the 'automation' of production, in which the 'production line' process ensures the worker has as little personal contact with what he produces.

You see, whenever we produce something of course a part of ourselves goes into that product, we used our labor to build it and thus the capitalist must do as much as possible to remove that attachment. This concept becomes even more important when we consider people who work all their lives, and yet come out with little to show for it save their lives. This is capitalists must continually decrease the investment which they put in to keep workers producing, in this case that is a wage.

So in the end this 'wage' becomes nothing but a food, electricity and mortgage 'voucher' which the capitalist ensures his capital (human being) does not starve to death so he can keep working. Capitalism must continually reduce wages so that his initial investment becomes less and the return greater, thereby further reducing the worker to subsistence levels (living from week to week).

To each the full product of their labor! Capitalism is theft!

If civil rights are an illusion, and in most capital soceities, the right to property is counted among those civil rights, property is an illusion.

So basicly
capitalism=theft of preoperty
Civil rights=Illusion
Right to Property=one of your civil right
property=illusion
theft=illusion.

If civil rights are an illusion, and in most capital soceities, the right to property is counted among those civil rights, property is an illusion.

So basicly
capitalism=theft of preoperty
Civil rights=Illusion
Right to Property=one of your civil right
property=illusion
theft=illusion.

Your math is broken - the 'right' to own property doesn't make 'property' an illusion.

But it was cute. :D

Your math is broken - the 'right' to own property doesn't make 'property' an illusion.

But it was cute. :D

Damn.

I'll try it again when I'm not tired.

Damn.

I'll try it again when I'm not tired.

Umm, well the point is that the 'automated production line' of capitalism has ensured a personal detachment from the worker and the products he makes and then has them stolen from him in the same moment, so the 'property' and 'theft' of it are therefore an 'illusion' in the workers eyes, but not in reality.

Exploitation causes massive pain in the individual (chiefly responsible for all emotional breakdowns in modern society), in the end the individual is so numbed by having no time to themselves that they feel nothing at all, which is where apathy takes over and mindless consumption blindly gets the exploited individual through on a day to day basis, which is where alcoholism and other substance abuse comes from.

Liberals of course contest this, and don't believe that social ills are structural, so they advocate dealing with the 'symptoms' of capitalism on an individualized basis, and deal with them as if they were personal defects on the individual, so in effect they isolate the individual to prevent them doing shame to the capitalist system. Liberals will basically say social ills 'come out of the sky' and are abstract, and because they refuse to see that they are a structural result of the social system they posit 'individual solutions'. In reality that means liberals posit a welfare-capitalist system which leeches/taxes from the wages of the 'better' workers to improve the plight of those worse off.

Umm, well the point is that the 'automated production line' of capitalism has ensured a personal detachment from the worker and the products he makes and then has them stolen from him in the same moment, so the 'property' and 'theft' of it are therefore an 'illusion' in the workers eyes, but not in reality.

Exploitation causes massive pain in the individual (chiefly responsible for all emotional breakdowns in modern society), in the end the individual is so numbed by having no time to themselves that they feel nothing at all, which is where apathy takes over and mindless consumption blindly gets the exploited individual through on a day to day basis, which is where alcoholism and other substance abuse comes from.

....

Saying one thing is the only reason for emotional breakdowns is a little absolute of you. And as everyone knows, only Sith speak in absolutes.

Rise, Darth Andaras.

....

Saying one thing is the only reason for emotional breakdowns is a little absolute of you. And as everyone knows, only Sith speak in absolutes.

Rise, Darth Andaras.
It's not absolutist in the sense you're thinking, capitalism provides the material basis which influences and create such social ills. So maybe subjectively it seems like 'individual' or 'specific' things causes social breakdown, but it only seems like that when your looking at an 'individual' case, and your not looking at bourgeois society in a systematic and structural way.

After all, capitalism does not turn the light bulb, it creates the material conditions which influence the likelihood of an individual screwing the light bulb.

It's not absolutist in the sense you're thinking, capitalism provides the material basis which influences such social ills.

So your saying that capitalism is the sole and only reason for emotional breakdowns?

So your saying that capitalism is the sole and only reason for emotional breakdowns?

Of course it is, emotional breakdowns always have an inter-individual short-term causation, and to the subjective eye it might seem for example a couple got divorced because of simply that reason, but within outside that lies the social system, the environment in which we all live, so how can it not affect us so?

Here's an example:

A teenage boy is arguing with his mother about borrowing the car. A shrink watches their interaction and he doesn’t really pay attention to the specifics of the argument. To the shrink it isn’t important if the boy did his chores, or whether the mother promised him he could borrow the car…. The shrink sees all these unconscious motivations at play: a struggle over control, the son wanting to leave the nest but not. These motives are the motor and context of the entire interaction-even though they don’t enter into the surface substance of the interaction which are just words about cars and chores. The specific words of the conversation are important if we want to know about cars and chores. But if we want to know about their relationship, their egos, their behavior… then we have to ask deeper questions that penetrate beneath the surface froth of words.

Similarly, the substance of bourgeois theory, supply and demand, is important for understanding some things about the economy: price fluctuations, inflation, etc. But if we want to understand deeper issues about the economy we need other tools that are able to pierce through this surface substance to the underlying meanings.

Of course it is, emotional breakdowns always have an inter-individual short-term causation, and to the subjective eye it might seem for example a couple got divorced because of simply that reason, but within outside that lies the social system, the environment in which we all live, so how can it not affect us so?

That sounds pretty absolute to me.

snip

What do egos and wanting to leave home have to do with capitalism?

Similarly, the substance of bourgeois theory, supply and demand, is important for understanding some things about the economy: price fluctuations, inflation, etc. But if we want to understand deeper issues about the economy we need other tools that are able to pierce through this surface substance to the underlying meanings.

Supply and demand can be applied to a lesser extend to a communist system.
Fell free to correct anything that doesn't make sense. I don't know much about the interworkings of communism, only that is evil. :wink:

Stay with me, this is kinda long.


Ok, so say America becomes Communist, and I lie dead with a rifle by my side. But anyway, the automakers are taken over by the state. Now say that there is a major flood near one of large iron mines. The mine shaft is flooded, and large amounts of equipment is destroyed. This means that new equipment has to be hauled in. However there was major problem in Iran and some Shitte or Sunni which ever is the minority, blows up a a pipe junction where tankers dock. This means that the price of oil goes up, which means the state has to spend more money to purchase the oil and refine it. This means that it costs the state more to ship the new equipment, which drives the prive up for the state to buy the equipment. Which means the state's workers don't get paid enough because the state's budget can't afford it. This in turn means that the workers get demoralized and don't work as hard, and even less iron ore is produced. Thus, this drives up the costs for the state across the board because there is less Iron and Iron products to go around.

Now back to the automaker. The cost of Iron is up, which means that the cost to make cars is up, there for the state can't buy as many, so they can't sell them to the workers, which means that to pay for the posts for oil, means that they have to raise prices, which lowers demand, because you don't have the supply.

...which lowers demand, because you don't have the supply.

I'm mainly letting you kids fight this one out... but... more broken math, I'm afraid.

Lowering supply doesn't lower demand - it just doesn't satisfy the demand.

I'm mainly letting you kids fight this one out... but... more broken math, I'm afraid.

Lowering supply doesn't lower demand - it just doesn't satisfy the demand.
I didn't make that very clear.

I mean that by lowering supply, things get more expensive, meaning that there is less sales, and therefore, demand goes down.

I didn't make that very clear.

I mean that by lowering supply, things get more expensive, meaning that there is less sales, and therefore, demand goes down.

Again, though - it doesn't. Only 'demand satisfied' goes down.

If 1000 people need cars, and the price increases, AND your supply drops... you STILL need 1000 cars, and that demand will go elsewhere.

Again, though - it doesn't. Only 'demand satisfied' goes down.

If 1000 people need cars, and the price increases, AND your supply drops... you STILL need 1000 cars, and that demand will go elsewhere.

And if the state owns everything, there is no elsewhere, right?

And if the state owns everything, there is no elsewhere, right?

Does the state have an iron fence around it's whole perimeter?

Kinda irrelevent anyway, the demand hasn't dropped just because your supply has - it's just left unfulfilled. If they CAN get the product elsewhere, they will - if they can't, well, the demand is STILL there.

(And, of course - though I'm trying to not get into the contratemps too much, as I said... a well organised central government would just find a cheaper alternative, in your elaborate house-of-cards. Move the machinery from a closer site... use a cheaper mode of transport... construct on site, whicher was cheaper.)

Does the state have an iron fence around it's whole perimeter?

Kinda irrelevent anyway, the demand hasn't dropped just because your supply has - it's just left unfulfilled. If they CAN get the product elsewhere, they will - if they can't, well, the demand is STILL there.

(And, of course - though I'm trying to not get into the contratemps too much, as I said... a well organised central government would just find a cheaper alternative, in your elaborate house-of-cards. Move the machinery from a closer site... use a cheaper mode of transport... construct on site, whicher was cheaper.)

They didn't call it the Iron Curtian for nothing buddy...

They didn't call it the Iron Curtian for nothing buddy...

1. Eh?

2) Cool. Melt down the Iron Curtain, and reforge it.

3) Eh?

1. Eh?

2) Cool. Melt down the Iron Curtain, and reforge it.

3) Eh?

1. Yes
2.profit
2&half. Its not really iron. The state needs the iron to run its vast millitary industrial complex.
3. Opress minorities
4. Dirty Deeds Done Dirty Cheap.

If 1000 people need cars, and the price increases, AND your supply drops... you STILL need 1000 cars, and that demand will go elsewhere.
Need and demand aren't quite the same thing. Need (and want, which are interchangable) is used to derive the demand curve, but the actual demand at any given time is a point on this curve, not the curve itself. So if the price increases because supply drops, and the demand curve doesn't move, then demand (or rather: quantity demanded) does fall, but the demand curve doesn't.

And that may then shift demand curves in other markets and have secondary effects, so you're right.

None of this is really all that clearly connected with the topic at hand, because taxing oil company profits simply has no direct effect on petrol prices.

Because the market always comes back. Unless of course, you're limiting it through excessive taxation and profit caps.

The market and the economy are artificial constructs, not some super regenerating life forms the way libertarians like to treat them ideologically. Therefore it stands to reason that at times it needs control in different ways.

The market and the economy are artificial constructs, not some super regenerating life forms the way libertarians like to treat them ideologically.
Not really. They're words used to describe abstract constructs, processes which result in people trying to live their lives in a material environment. A market is the process by which people exchange goods and services, and regardless of whether money is involved, we call it a "gift economy" or anything else, the process will still happen unless there really is no exchange of anything going on at all (and that would even include labour, which can't really happen).

The economy is simply the aggregate term for all the economic activity in the community, which means everything we do to affect our environment in such a way as to yield material improvements to our standards of living. Again, you can't outlaw that.

Therefore it stands to reason that at times it needs control in different ways.
I happen to agree, but really this second sentence is completely unrelated to the one above.

1. Yes
2.profit
2&half. Its not really iron. The state needs the iron to run its vast millitary industrial complex.
3. Opress minorities
4. Dirty Deeds Done Dirty Cheap.

1) Ah.
b) Bu...bu... you said America...
iii) Nah, you can pick up a vast military industrial complex cheap, used.
3) You can't oppress them, they're minorities. They come pre-oppressed.
4) I have to go scrub my eyeballs.

1) Ah.
b) Bu...bu... you said America...
iii) Nah, you can pick up a vast military industrial complex cheap, used.
3) You can't oppress them, they're minorities. They come pre-oppressed.
4) I have to go scrub my eyeballs.

1. Now you see
2. profit is profit
3. Then oppress them more.
4. Are you thunderstruck?

They didn't call it the Iron Curtian for nothing buddy...
'They'(the bourgeois) called it that simply for propaganda warmongering reasons, and dopes like you lapped it up and asked for more.

waaaaaaaaaaaaa! taxes!

Essentially.