NationStates Jolt Archive

I gave the price of oil, used to produce gasoline, at $3/gallon. I have provided proof to this price, in oil cost ranging as $115-$143 a barrel lately.


Sure, if you extend the number of months you're averaging it over to include enough time for the prices to hit the right extremes for your numbers to work...

That's called fudging your data, and it means your numbers are bullshit.

Here's what you said first:

"The oil alone for producing gasoline costs $3 per gallon, at the oil well, assuming all of it was converted to gasoline and diesel. In reality, only 70% is. And then there's transportation and processing, plus the infrastructure.
So the only reason some customers can get it for under $4 at a pump is government's help."

Here's what you said when I pointed out those data didn't manage what I had:

"Current oil price is $116/bbl. 116/42=$2.76 per gallon of oil.
When oil was $143/bbl, it reached $3.40 per gallon of oil."

Here's what you're saying, now:

"My numbers were correct. I said, 3 dollars per gallon, which is the typical price over last months."

You ignored the fact that I pointed out all the additional costs you added in, only total about 50 cents on the gallon, but that's okay - I kinda thought you would.

You changed your story from an actual cost, to a sort of aggregate cost, if you look at the right selection of data.

Yeah. Your numbers were bullshit.


Better still, show me the source proving PPP is universal. Say, a country where a Ford Mondeo or a similar-quality car costs 5 times less than in US. Or even make it 2 times less.

If you can't, it's specific to selection of products.


You're asking me explain PPP to you? Why are you even arguing economics?

"This purchasing power exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods. Using a PPP basis is arguably more useful when comparing differences in living standards on the whole between nations because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of different countries, rather than just a nominal gross domestic product (GDP) comparison.

...


They weren't.



Of course. You're arguing not to prove any point, but solely to show off your ability to pull out different definitions (Third World), pick on terms (the West), distort the arguments using that, and flame.


Here's what you said:

"Third world nations are poor all through. But maybe the government ...

I pointed out your position was somewhere between naive and just plain wrong:

"...'Third World' refers to the UN Human Development Index, with such nations as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, China and India theoretically being 'Third World'.

The terminology is sometimes used politically, more often used of 'developing' nations... but most commonly, refers to the HDI rather than any other factor.

Being 'poor' has nothing to do with it. Another of your textbook mistakes.

You then tried to shift the goalposts, to prove me wrong, and pretend you'd been saying something else:

""Third World" refers to nations not in league with the NATO (First) or ex-Warsaw (Second).

You once again have your own definitions, different from these everyone else has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world"

Ignoring the fact that that was nothing like your argument to start with, and that YOU were desperately tryting to 'prove' ME wrong. You claimed I fabricated a definition, and provided a source to try to shut me down.

So - I did what you hadn't done - I read your source, and lo and behold, it validates my argument. Here's what I said:

"That's one of the possible meanings, but not considered key. Amusingly - it's what I talked about (political) rather than what you talked about (poor)... so you just made a liar of your own argument.

And here's what your source said:

""Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status. However, there is no objective definition of Third World or Third World country and the use of the term remains controversial.

The petroleum-rich countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, etc.) and the new industrial countries (India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico etc.) as well as the rapidly growing countries such as (Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Russia, etc.) have little if anything in common with poor countries (Haiti, Chad, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, etc.)"."


You're talking about me changing definitions, picking terms, distorting arguments... I just ran through that one little aspect, and YOU changed position, YOU mis-defined the term to start with, and when I presented the common understanding of the phrase, YOU attempted to pick the terms (or change the definition, whichever you prefer), by arguing that 'Third World' basically only had one meaning.

I don't have to show off my ability, you're doing at least half the work of making your argument look stupid.


UK spends about $4k per capita in its healthcare budget, which is quite comparable to the cost of health insurance elsewhere.
And it's still known to have some issues.

US stands out in its healthcare spending, but a number of other countries also have fully private, high quality healthcare.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/


The Canadian healthcare system is nationalised, and costs about 3k per head. The UK system is nationalised and costs about 4k per head. The US system (as of three years ago, it's increased since then) cost more than twice what Canada's system costs... or as much as Canada AND the UK put together. Per head.

The cost of the three systems is 'comparable' only in as much as they all have numbers in. But, the point stands - if the US nationalised healthcare, it would be (substantially) more affordable - both on a personal level, and on a national level.


OR that business simply can't be profitable under a high taxation level. For instance, if the cost to make the product plus tax is higher than the price a sufficient number of customers would pay for it.

Then you're investing in a losing product, not a losing company. A losing company will continue to produce that product at a loss, despite the fact that the lack of customers willing to pay for it SHOWS there's no demand.

A losing company will fold on that abd product. A winning company will find someway to increase the input.

GM's Volt may turn out to be the product change that shows whether today's GM is a winner or a loser.

The game of this thread. Using "game" as a generic for lots of different kinds of activities is a thing I do. Sorry.
I take this very personally, as I am a tremendous fan of actual games.

I'm not angry at all.
Then why are you hounding me so?
You don't? Then why bother giving up love?
I never had it to begin with.
OK, you wouldn't get to hypothetically control how I hypothetically would think about and interact with you in the hypothetical event that your life in Option #1 (having power) would ever overlap my life in Option #2 (having both love and hate relationships).

I cannot think of a reason I would want to hypothetically overlap your life.
I never try to be amusing. If I am or not is entirely up to the person I'm talking to. I just talk the way I talk. Also, nothing about you bothers me. What makes you think I'm bothered?
Because we were in the middle of talking about Machiavelli when you (in essence) told me to shut-up, then said that I was your enemy.

I take this very personally, as I am a tremendous fan of actual games.
And...? Does that make you happy or unhappy that I refer to NSG threads as games?

By the way, I tend to refer to all of life as a game.

Then why are you hounding me so?
Who's "hounding" you? You ask me questions and I answer them. You make comments about my statements, and I respond to them. What's the problem?

I never had it to begin with.
So...you did not choose Option #1?

I cannot think of a reason I would want to hypothetically overlap your life.
You don't have to want to. In the hypothetical, you, in doing whatever you'd do in your Option #1 lifestyle, could have an effect on my Option #2 lifestyle and, thus, we'd overlap.

Because we were in the middle of talking about Machiavelli when you (in essence) told me to shut-up, then said that I was your enemy.
OK, let me explain:

You and I were talking about Machiavelli.

BUT, the Machiavelli conversation was just two snobs having a pissing contest and was not really solidly on topic anyway.

Then other people started joking around with sex talk, and sex jokes are always entertaining, so I got into that.

Then you came back with some more of that dry Machiavelli stuff.

And I told you to shush and called you a boring old buzzkiller in an attempt to clue you that I was not interested in the Machiavelli side argument because I was having more fun with the sex jokes.

OK, THAT'S THE MACHIAVELLI PART. THE ENEMY PART IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE. It goes like this:

In saying that your Option #2 still allowed for me to have enemies by saying that I could be like Christ, I made a joke by offering you the chance to become my Judas if you liked.

You responded that you'd rather be my Pontius.

I replied that my enemies don't get to pick what role they play in my life. In other words, I'd be the one to decide whether you'd be Judas or Pontius.

And that was really all there was to that.

Do you see how the two things -- Machiavelli and enemies -- are not connected? Do you also see how none of it is really all that serious or deep? Do you see that you are not my enemy, except if you choose to be one in the hypothetical that you set up?

Power, I would love nouthing more than power over all.

Here's what you said first:
"The oil alone for producing gasoline costs $3 per gallon, at the oil well, assuming all of it was converted to gasoline and diesel. [...]
Here's what you said when I pointed out those data didn't manage what I had:
"Current oil price is $116/bbl. 116/42=$2.76 per gallon of oil.
When oil was $143/bbl, it reached $3.40 per gallon of oil."
Yes, I used an older price. Sorry, I don't keep in touch with daily change in oil price. Just a month ago it was $126/bbl, or $3/gallon.

You ignored the fact that I pointed out all the additional costs you added in, only total about 50 cents on the gallon, but that's okay - I kinda thought you would.
They may only add to 50c/gal, but not all of oil is usable for gasoline production. Although lately that fraction is increasing (using more expensive techniques).
Currently gas is down to $3.6, which indicates that in US customers are paying a very fair price. Probably better than fair.

The argument started from this:
Or gasoline... which is maybe $2.5 dollars in China, or about half of what it is over here.
I think it's amusing that you say the people in the US aren't paying much more to get the same goods...
...And the answer is, no, people in US aren't paying more to get gasoline than in China. It's just that in China they pay another $1.1 (or more) in the form of taxes, spreading this part of the cost irrespectively of how much one uses.



You're asking me explain PPP to you? Why are you even arguing economics?
"This purchasing power exchange rate equalizes the purchasing power of different currencies in their home countries for a given basket of goods.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that PPP actually is product-specific, more precisely specific for a selected basket. Which is a sustenance package, at least when discussing ultra-poor countries.


You're talking about me changing definitions, picking terms, distorting arguments... I just ran through that one little aspect, and YOU changed position, YOU mis-defined the term to start with, and when I presented the common understanding of the phrase, YOU attempted to pick the terms (or change the definition, whichever you prefer),
I didn't misdefine the term, I just used it. Which use - denoting poor countries - you understood.
But instead replied as if it was defined differently, and then started to argue on which definition is right.


The Canadian healthcare system is nationalised, and costs about 3k per head. The UK system is nationalised and costs about 4k per head. The US system (as of three years ago, it's increased since then) cost more than twice what Canada's system costs... or as much as Canada AND the UK put together. Per head.
The US system is screwed up, no excuse there.
And I doubt nationalization could fix it. Plus, add here that part of the problem is the majority of Americans feeding on junk food, driving all the time, getting no exercise, being outright fat. In other words, having poor health.

More healthy countries with private healthcare do much better, spending only as much as UK.
As mentioned here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
Japan, even Germany do OK without nationalization.



Then you're investing in a losing product, not a losing company. A losing company will continue to produce that product at a loss, despite the fact that the lack of customers willing to pay for it SHOWS there's no demand.
Or, in case of taxation, there naturally is demand, but due to tax the customers' ability to pay drops enough that it drops to negligible level.

A losing company will fold on that abd product. A winning company will find someway to increase the input.
Or become a losing company. And the higher the tax, the more losing companies and products, and the fewer winning ones.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that PPP actually is product-specific, more precisely specific for a selected basket. Which is a sustenance package, at least when discussing ultra-poor countries.


I don't think you understand - it's saying that PPP matches like-for-like to establish an intrinsic value. It's not saying there's a LITERAL basket of stuff it compares.


I didn't misdefine the term, I just used it. Which use - denoting poor countries - you understood.
But instead replied as if it was defined differently, and then started to argue on which definition is right.


You used it - to eman poor countries. Which it doesn't. SO - you are wrong.

But not content with just being wrong, or owning up to it and going on - you started arguing it meant something ELSE. Which was irrelevent, and you were STILL wrong.


The US system is screwed up, no excuse there.
And I doubt nationalization could fix it.


The healthcare systems of the UK and Canada say it probably couldn't hurt. Just getting rid of the ridiculous overheads that are allowed because of the 'insurance' system would drastically reduce the cost.

(Ever taken a child to an ER? They pull out a little pack to open (which they are required to do by the terms of their insurance coverage), and withdraw... say... a tongue depresser. Ka-ching - $100.)


Or, in case of taxation, there naturally is demand, but due to tax the customers' ability to pay drops enough that it drops to negligible level.


You seem to be under the rather naive impression that there's some kind of god-given right to trade, and that it would be free and open if only the Big Bad government would keep their noses out of it.

This is why libertarians will, not only never BE in control of an actual country, but will never be ALLOWED to be.


Or become a losing company. And the higher the tax, the more losing companies and products, and the fewer winning ones.

Which is... bad? Isn't natural selection good in businesses?

There ain't nothing greater than love.

There ain't nothing greater than love.

"Except for a nice MLT, a mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe. They're so perky, I love that...."

I don't think you understand - it's saying that PPP matches like-for-like to establish an intrinsic value. It's not saying there's a LITERAL basket of stuff it compares.
OK. But. It still doesn't really adjust the currency's value. Just because bread in Cambodia is cheaper, doesn't mean everything is.


You used it - to eman poor countries. Which it doesn't.
Which it quite often in colloquial use does. And you understood what I meant.


The healthcare systems of the UK and Canada say it probably couldn't hurt. Just getting rid of the ridiculous overheads that are allowed because of the 'insurance' system would drastically reduce the cost.
Possibly. However, as examples of other countries show, it's not being private which screwed up US healtcare, but other factors. Possibly it's never fully deciding if it's private or state, and settling in the middle.


You seem to be under the rather naive impression that there's some kind of god-given right to trade,
There is. Except birth-given. There is birth-given right to do anything that doesn't harm others, that includes trade.

and that it would be free and open if only the Big Bad government would keep their noses out of it.
Government keeping its nose out is what makes the trade free.

This is why libertarians will, not only never BE in control of an actual country, but will never be ALLOWED to be.
Except US. Where the Conservatives, winning two last elections in a row, and going to win the third, are economically libertarian. They only have a problem with their need to meddle into social affairs and even other countries' ones.


Which is... bad? Isn't natural selection good in businesses?
Natural is good. Artificial, not so much.

Suppose, I want to become a self-employed roof repairman, because I'm good at it and can fix a roof 1.5 times faster than a regular person. Say, it costs 10 hours of my time, or 15 hours of customer's time, and we both value our time at at $100/hr. So, it costs the customer $1,500 to fix the roof himself, or $1,000 in time to me. I then agree to do it for $1,250. This brings the customers savings of $250, and me a gain of $250 over regular job. It's clear mutual benefit.
In non-monetary terms, it saves 5 hours of time per roof - time that will be spent producing more goods and services. The economy starts working more efficiently, benefiting everyone.

Then we add a 40% tax on the services. Now, I could still do it in 10 hours, but I would have to give 40% to the tax. Even if I charged full $1,500, I'd end up with $900, thus worth less than the time spent. So, it's unprofitable for me to do roof repairs, thus everyone fixes his roof himself.
The 5 hours per roof that could be saved, aren't. The economy works less efficiently than it could if there was a service.

True love, always.

Then we add a 40% tax on the services. Now, I could still do it in 10 hours, but I would have to give 40% to the tax. Even if I charged full $1,500, I'd end up with $900, thus worth less than the time spent. So, it's unprofitable for me to do roof repairs, thus everyone fixes his roof himself.
The 5 hours per roof that could be saved, aren't. The economy works less efficiently than it could if there was a service.

only if you assume that tax revenue sits in a giant vault so that members of congress can swim in in Scrooge McDuck style.

only if you assume that tax revenue sits in a giant vault so that members of congress can swim in in Scrooge McDuck style.

...that would be kind of awesome.

*runs for Congress*

only if you assume that tax revenue sits in a giant vault so that members of congress can swim in in Scrooge McDuck style.
Heh, here's the catch: Not really. Actually, if it was all sitting in a giant vault, it would be the least loss, since that would simply lead to deflation. But these 5 hours are lost in either case.

To explain it better, a bit more complex model should be used.
While the work is worth $100/hr per se, due to the tax, the earnings are $60/hr. So, for a regular guy, fixing the roof has an apparent worth of $900, and for me, of $600. Once again, since due to tax I could never get more than $540, the business can't commence.
But, indeed, for these money the government taxes out of the people, it can employ me to, say, build boats for it, for the same standard $60/hr. So, the $600 it taxes per 15 hours isn't entirely lost - it's tax money.

However, another guy still had to fix his roof himself, because the tax made my services unprofitable. That took all of his 15 hours, while I was doing regular job. As a result, in 15 hours the two of us have produced $1,500+roof fix, and earned (after tax) $900+roof fix.
But I could do it in 10 hours, and do regular work in the rest 5. Then the two of us would have produced $1,500+$500+roof fix.

Without tax, our combined wealth would be $2,000.
With 40% tax, it is $900. If we assume $600 in taxes have been spent wisely, the combined wealth becomes $1,500.
But the rest $500 is lost altogether - it's lost because I couldn't provide the services, due to tax making them unprofitable, and 5 hours of work have been wasted. That's what is called deadweight loss.

OK. But. It still doesn't really adjust the currency's value. Just because bread in Cambodia is cheaper, doesn't mean everything is.


When it got to this point, I realised it was no longer worth my while.

I wasn't surprised that you gave this response... not even that you felt okay about giving this response. No. I was surprised you could give this response, and still breathe, in and out.

Without tax, our combined wealth would be $2,000.
With 40% tax, it is $900. If we assume $600 in taxes have been spent wisely, the combined wealth becomes $1,500.
But the rest $500 is lost altogether - it's lost because I couldn't provide the services, due to tax making them unprofitable, and 5 hours of work have been wasted. That's what is called deadweight loss.
That's why the government has to coerce you into working.

As for the OP's question: as I understand it, I can have power or other people loving me. If that's the case, I'd probably choose power, because that wouldn't prevent me from loving other people. Even if they did not return my love, my power to help them would still bring happiness.

Supposing you had two options:

Option one: gain absolute power over Europe or the United States (your choice); the chosen territory becomes your personal empire. But if you decide to accept this power, you will never find true love, and if anybody does love you, he/she will not anymore. Thus, somebody may say they care for you, but deep down you will know you are alone (this includes relatives and friends who no longer love you, if they ever did). Of course, sexual pursuits will stay open, but relationships can never progress past lust.

Option two: find true love; you will find true love for certain (if you have not already), and you will be admired by most of those about you, but you will never have great power; you may affect things after you are dead (such as Christ did), but while living, you will never get anything "great" done.

Which option would you pick?

I would be like Alberich the Dwarf and choose option one.