|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 23, 2010 8:09:11 GMT -8
Yes, but the the Norwegians are pulling new money out of their as....err North Sea to fund their welfare state. If we got something like that going for the US, please sign me up! Do you know how much of their budget if funded by oil revenues? Gentlemen you responded to that troll as if it had validity. A lot of the successful countries profit from their natural resources. The United States is the greatest example. Federal Revenue directly or indirectly from the land is enormous. We have Forests and Oil and Natural Gas and Agriculture and Hydro Electric and Sunshine and Fishing and ........... ad infinitum  . |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 23, 2010 8:44:54 GMT -8
Do you know how much of their budget if funded by oil revenues? Gentlemen you responded to that troll as if it had validity. A lot of the successful countries profit from their natural resources. The United States is the greatest example. Federal Revenue directly or indirectly from the land is enormous. We have Forests and Oil and Natural Gas and Agriculture and Hydro Electric and Sunshine and Fishing and ........... ad infinitum . Well Jimmy Carter started the Department of Energy to assist us in becoming energy independent. With all the faith we have in government to do good things and having them been on the job since the late 70's, I'm sure our energy independence is going to arrive sometime next Spring..... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 23, 2010 9:57:09 GMT -8
I agree with your first paragraph. If parents are poor you will inherit personal property of little monetary value, but rich in sentimental value. If your parents are middle class you will get more. Not enough to retire on, but helpful. Most parents of boomers retired on defined benefit pensions, social security, and personal savings. Only the personal savings and real property will pass to survivors. This will be more than than the parents inherited. So this is positive. Since the poor and the middle class are the vast majority, most people will get squat, but more than in previous times as the middle class is larger than before. If your family is rich you will inherit more. This is as it always has been. Your second paragraph is just a typical conservative rant that has little connection to reality.  So you think that attacking those who are successful is good? You think that fomenting envy and bitterness towards people who have achieved and are successful/well off by those who have less is good? Because that's been the Democrats' playbook for the last 35 years... You make my point. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 23, 2010 9:58:41 GMT -8
Since you were posting I thought perhaps you knew something. The data I found says about 12% of Norway's budget. Not having the total down to the penny doesn't mean you don't know something. Do you think that Norway's welfare state is not significantly funded by the oil export surplus? And what does 12% of their budget mean? Is that directly from state owned oil revenue? What about the average citizen who works in their oil industry with their very high wages and their ability to pay the taxes for their welfare state? Are those tax revenues in or out of the 12%? From Wikipedia - Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP. I'm not sure what fact I stated about Norway that you are seemingly trying to avoid? Perhaps you should do research beyond wikipedia. I do think that 12% of budget is a significant number. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 23, 2010 10:30:57 GMT -8
Not having the total down to the penny doesn't mean you don't know something. Do you think that Norway's welfare state is not significantly funded by the oil export surplus? And what does 12% of their budget mean? Is that directly from state owned oil revenue? What about the average citizen who works in their oil industry with their very high wages and their ability to pay the taxes for their welfare state? Are those tax revenues in or out of the 12%? From Wikipedia - Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to 45% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP. I'm not sure what fact I stated about Norway that you are seemingly trying to avoid? Perhaps you should do research beyond wikipedia. I do think that 12% of budget is a significant number. Spare me. I gave you the wikipedia link. I didn't need it, as I had known about Norway's economy prior and from other sources. Given that people generally know how to use "google", it seems to me when one asks a question that they can easily answer for themselves, I tend to doubt the questioner's actual intellectual curiosity. I figured Wikipedia was about right for your level of intellectual curiosity IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 23, 2010 10:51:59 GMT -8
Perhaps you should do research beyond wikipedia. I do think that 12% of budget is a significant number. Spare me. I gave you the wikipedia link. I didn't need it, as I had known about Norway's economy prior and from other sources. Given that people generally know how to use "google", it seems to me when one asks a question that they can easily answer for themselves, I tend to doubt the questioner's actual intellectual curiosity. I figured Wikipedia was about right for your level of intellectual curiosity IMO. ROFL |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 24, 2010 17:57:42 GMT -8
Gentlemen you responded to that troll as if it had validity. A lot of the successful countries profit from their natural resources. The United States is the greatest example. Federal Revenue directly or indirectly from the land is enormous. We have Forests and Oil and Natural Gas and Agriculture and Hydro Electric and Sunshine and Fishing and ........... ad infinitum . Well Jimmy Carter started the Department of Energy to assist us in becoming energy independent. With all the faith we have in government to do good things and having them been on the job since the late 70's, I'm sure our energy independence is going to arrive sometime next Spring..... I do not know that Jimmy Carter created the DOE specifically for that purpose, BUT I do know that our present policy is the best one. I have many friends higher up in the Oil Business and they maintain that the oil field off of the North Shore of Alaska is the world's greatest Oil Reserve. I am not talking about on Alaskan Soil. I am talking about forty miles off shore. It is massive and it is ours. A great many years ago we signed an agreement NOT to drill in the Arctic. That was a very smart move as all agreements can be abrogated, and we do not want to drill up there until after we have used up as much of the world's oil as possible. Ditto drilling to excess in Alaska. We push environmentalists to hamper drilling because of the antelope up there not being able to migrate out of fear of the pipeline being in the way. Brilliant move. We can tell them all to go to hell when we want to. The simple fact of the matter is the US has enough reserves to provide for our needs for the next hundred years. The Arabian and Iranian oil reserves are about depleted. They are way past Peak Oil in those countries as the geologists have greatly overestimated the capacity of their fields. They are in for a rude awakening in the next few years. Add to that the fact that we have enough natural Gas to last 100 years and we are self sufficient. We are still developing efficient Solar to Electricity methods, but they are not needed yet, and each year that we further our developments in that area the cheaper the technology becomes. I have been to Israel many times in my life because of work that I did for that nation. Over there they are talking about generating massive amounts of electricity from galvanic action between mineral layers in the Dead Sea area. They tell me that the same massive electrical generating capacity can be harnessed in the Salton Sea area. Don't know if that is true, but it sounds plausible, so I will not discount it. Regardless of the Israelies, our reserve potential with other energy sources (Coal, Shale Oil....) is tremendous. We've got it. The rest of the world is drooling. Tought titty. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 25, 2010 6:45:27 GMT -8
Well Jimmy Carter started the Department of Energy to assist us in becoming energy independent. With all the faith we have in government to do good things and having them been on the job since the late 70's, I'm sure our energy independence is going to arrive sometime next Spring..... I do not know that Jimmy Carter created the DOE specifically for that purpose, BUT I do know that our present policy is the best one. I have many friends higher up in the Oil Business and they maintain that the oil field off of the North Shore of Alaska is the world's greatest Oil Reserve. I am not talking about on Alaskan Soil. I am talking about forty miles off shore. It is massive and it is ours. A great many years ago we signed an agreement NOT to drill in the Arctic. That was a very smart move as all agreements can be abrogated, and we do not want to drill up there until after we have used up as much of the world's oil as possible. Ditto drilling to excess in Alaska. We push environmentalists to hamper drilling because of the antelope up there not being able to migrate out of fear of the pipeline being in the way. Brilliant move. We can tell them all to go to hell when we want to. The simple fact of the matter is the US has enough reserves to provide for our needs for the next hundred years. The Arabian and Iranian oil reserves are about depleted. They are way past Peak Oil in those countries as the geologists have greatly overestimated the capacity of their fields. They are in for a rude awakening in the next few years. Add to that the fact that we have enough natural Gas to last 100 years and we are self sufficient. We are still developing efficient Solar to Electricity methods, but they are not needed yet, and each year that we further our developments in that area the cheaper the technology becomes. I have been to Israel many times in my life because of work that I did for that nation. Over there they are talking about generating massive amounts of electricity from galvanic action between mineral layers in the Dead Sea area. They tell me that the same massive electrical generating capacity can be harnessed in the Salton Sea area. Don't know if that is true, but it sounds plausible, so I will not discount it. Regardless of the Israelies, our reserve potential with other energy sources (Coal, Shale Oil....) is tremendous. We've got it. The rest of the world is drooling. Tought titty. You have come up with something that I have advocated in a different way for years. Pump the Middle East dry while prices are relatively cheap. At the same time develop and reduce the cost of clean energy. We will always need oil for uses other than fuel and we might just as well save our own resources. I would still explore and develop the domestic oil reserves to keep a lid on prices while pumping the Iraq and Venezuela dry. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 25, 2010 8:05:22 GMT -8
I do not know that Jimmy Carter created the DOE specifically for that purpose, BUT I do know that our present policy is the best one. I have many friends higher up in the Oil Business and they maintain that the oil field off of the North Shore of Alaska is the world's greatest Oil Reserve. I am not talking about on Alaskan Soil. I am talking about forty miles off shore. It is massive and it is ours. A great many years ago we signed an agreement NOT to drill in the Arctic. That was a very smart move as all agreements can be abrogated, and we do not want to drill up there until after we have used up as much of the world's oil as possible. Ditto drilling to excess in Alaska. We push environmentalists to hamper drilling because of the antelope up there not being able to migrate out of fear of the pipeline being in the way. Brilliant move. We can tell them all to go to hell when we want to. The simple fact of the matter is the US has enough reserves to provide for our needs for the next hundred years. The Arabian and Iranian oil reserves are about depleted. They are way past Peak Oil in those countries as the geologists have greatly overestimated the capacity of their fields. They are in for a rude awakening in the next few years. Add to that the fact that we have enough natural Gas to last 100 years and we are self sufficient. We are still developing efficient Solar to Electricity methods, but they are not needed yet, and each year that we further our developments in that area the cheaper the technology becomes. I have been to Israel many times in my life because of work that I did for that nation. Over there they are talking about generating massive amounts of electricity from galvanic action between mineral layers in the Dead Sea area. They tell me that the same massive electrical generating capacity can be harnessed in the Salton Sea area. Don't know if that is true, but it sounds plausible, so I will not discount it. Regardless of the Israelies, our reserve potential with other energy sources (Coal, Shale Oil....) is tremendous. We've got it. The rest of the world is drooling. Tought titty. You have come up with something that I have advocated in a different way for years. Pump the Middle East dry while prices are relatively cheap. At the same time develop and reduce the cost of clean energy. We will always need oil for uses other than fuel and we might just as well save our own resources. I would still explore and develop the domestic oil reserves to keep a lid on prices while pumping the Iraq and Venezuela dry. Ah HA! You do see a purpose for the department of energy. I think we should be developing alternative energy sources. The problem is that there is no incentive for private business to do it until we have so little oil left that it will be difficult for business to adapt quickly enough to avoid catastrophe. One only need look at electric vehicles to see the risk for business involved with adopting new technology and infrastructure when the economic incentive to purchase the vehicle is as yet unclear. Business has not proven that it is capable of planning for long term changes. If they can't or are not equipped to do it, government must. If we prepare soon enough the transition will be painful but palatable. If we don't there will be chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 25, 2010 10:00:00 GMT -8
Well Jimmy Carter started the Department of Energy to assist us in becoming energy independent. With all the faith we have in government to do good things and having them been on the job since the late 70's, I'm sure our energy independence is going to arrive sometime next Spring..... The simple fact of the matter is the US has enough reserves to provide for our needs for the next hundred years. That is another thing I hate about the manufactured crisis idiots on the left. I have heard from multiple sources that our dependence on oil as our primary source of energy has to stop in the next 100 years give or take a few decades. During that time, prices for petroleum based power would slowly go up as supply is used and under normal market forces, alternative energy would soon become a viable alternative for capitalists, thus slowly replacing petroleum without Government mandates, control, exorbitant taxation, etc. And 100 years is a split second in geological time. The Green House gas scare is self correcting by all accounts. So why the artificial "we have to do it now and under our control" by the Democrats? As if I needed to ask.  Have you ever seen a government that once obtained power ever give it up voluntarily? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 25, 2010 11:05:17 GMT -8
I do not know that Jimmy Carter created the DOE specifically for that purpose, BUT I do know that our present policy is the best one. I have many friends higher up in the Oil Business and they maintain that the oil field off of the North Shore of Alaska is the world's greatest Oil Reserve. I am not talking about on Alaskan Soil. I am talking about forty miles off shore. It is massive and it is ours. A great many years ago we signed an agreement NOT to drill in the Arctic. That was a very smart move as all agreements can be abrogated, and we do not want to drill up there until after we have used up as much of the world's oil as possible. Ditto drilling to excess in Alaska. We push environmentalists to hamper drilling because of the antelope up there not being able to migrate out of fear of the pipeline being in the way. Brilliant move. We can tell them all to go to hell when we want to. The simple fact of the matter is the US has enough reserves to provide for our needs for the next hundred years. The Arabian and Iranian oil reserves are about depleted. They are way past Peak Oil in those countries as the geologists have greatly overestimated the capacity of their fields. They are in for a rude awakening in the next few years. Add to that the fact that we have enough natural Gas to last 100 years and we are self sufficient. We are still developing efficient Solar to Electricity methods, but they are not needed yet, and each year that we further our developments in that area the cheaper the technology becomes. I have been to Israel many times in my life because of work that I did for that nation. Over there they are talking about generating massive amounts of electricity from galvanic action between mineral layers in the Dead Sea area. They tell me that the same massive electrical generating capacity can be harnessed in the Salton Sea area. Don't know if that is true, but it sounds plausible, so I will not discount it. Regardless of the Israelies, our reserve potential with other energy sources (Coal, Shale Oil....) is tremendous. We've got it. The rest of the world is drooling. Tought titty. You have come up with something that I have advocated in a different way for years. Pump the Middle East dry while prices are relatively cheap. At the same time develop and reduce the cost of clean energy. We will always need oil for uses other than fuel and we might just as well save our own resources. I would still explore and develop the domestic oil reserves to keep a lid on prices while pumping the Iraq and Venezuela dry. We discussed this in class 40 years ago, perhaps you had the same business professor. I remember the professor saying oil was too valuable to be burning as fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 25, 2010 19:36:13 GMT -8
You have come up with something that I have advocated in a different way for years. Pump the Middle East dry while prices are relatively cheap. At the same time develop and reduce the cost of clean energy. We will always need oil for uses other than fuel and we might just as well save our own resources. I would still explore and develop the domestic oil reserves to keep a lid on prices while pumping the Iraq and Venezuela dry. Ah HA! You do see a purpose for the department of energy. I think we should be developing alternative energy sources. The problem is that there is no incentive for private business to do it until we have so little oil left that it will be difficult for business to adapt quickly enough to avoid catastrophe. One only need look at electric vehicles to see the risk for business involved with adopting new technology and infrastructure when the economic incentive to purchase the vehicle is as yet unclear. Business has not proven that it is capable of planning for long term changes. If they can't or are not equipped to do it, government must. If we prepare soon enough the transition will be painful but palatable. If we don't there will be chaos. No, I do not see the Department of Energy being part of this or any solution. They have not made an inch of progress since being formed to end our dependence on foreign oil. I do see putting some incentives in place through tax policy to develop real clean renewable energy. I do not mean ethanol or plug ins that do not have a stand alone free method to recharge. Solar on the roof of your garage or even the car itself are ideas. Government should state the goals and then make it desirable to work toward those goals. That also means any cap and tax type scheme is out as well. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 7:47:47 GMT -8
Ah HA! You do see a purpose for the department of energy. I think we should be developing alternative energy sources. The problem is that there is no incentive for private business to do it until we have so little oil left that it will be difficult for business to adapt quickly enough to avoid catastrophe. One only need look at electric vehicles to see the risk for business involved with adopting new technology and infrastructure when the economic incentive to purchase the vehicle is as yet unclear. Business has not proven that it is capable of planning for long term changes. If they can't or are not equipped to do it, government must. If we prepare soon enough the transition will be painful but palatable. If we don't there will be chaos. No, I do not see the Department of Energy being part of this or any solution. They have not made an inch of progress since being formed to end our dependence on foreign oil. I do see putting some incentives in place through tax policy to develop real clean renewable energy. I do not mean ethanol or plug ins that do not have a stand alone free method to recharge. Solar on the roof of your garage or even the car itself are ideas. Government should state the goals and then make it desirable to work toward those goals. That also means any cap and tax type scheme is out as well. You see I think government should tax the pi@@ out of oil. That will get us the changes we want. We are not paying anywhere near the real opportunity costs for using oil, anyway. That is what I do not like about conventional economics. It externalizes too much, because the externalities are hard to quantify. So. . . .They don't bother. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 27, 2010 8:21:53 GMT -8
No, I do not see the Department of Energy being part of this or any solution. They have not made an inch of progress since being formed to end our dependence on foreign oil. I do see putting some incentives in place through tax policy to develop real clean renewable energy. I do not mean ethanol or plug ins that do not have a stand alone free method to recharge. Solar on the roof of your garage or even the car itself are ideas. Government should state the goals and then make it desirable to work toward those goals. That also means any cap and tax type scheme is out as well. You see I think government should tax the pi@@ out of oil. That will get us the changes we want. We are not paying anywhere near the real opportunity costs for using oil, anyway. That is what I do not like about conventional economics. It externalizes too much, because the externalities are hard to quantify. So. . . .They don't bother. Include other forms of energy in your statement and you have a winner. Make it revenue neutral or slightly positive by having this regressive tax replace a progressive tax and you have a winner. I did not think that you liked regressive taxation, but you might be more reasonable in your thinking than you let on. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 8:55:40 GMT -8
You see I think government should tax the pi@@ out of oil. That will get us the changes we want. We are not paying anywhere near the real opportunity costs for using oil, anyway. That is what I do not like about conventional economics. It externalizes too much, because the externalities are hard to quantify. So. . . .They don't bother. Include other forms of energy in your statement and you have a winner. Make it revenue neutral or slightly positive by having this regressive tax replace a progressive tax and you have a winner. I did not think that you liked regressive taxation, but you might be more reasonable in your thinking than you let on. You're right Win. Generally, I like progressive taxation. But, in this case regressive taxation is necessary because energy taxes would not only raise funds but also help modify behavior. I think that modifying behavior is a necessary component of energy independence. I agree we could expand it to all non-renewable forms of energy. I think the taxes should generate enough money to fund the infrastructure changes-at least to the point that private industry will see continuing as a good bet and begin to fill the niche themselves. I am more reasonable than several here think. But, this is an adversarial atmosphere, which I think tends to exaggerate our differences. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 27, 2010 9:21:16 GMT -8
Include other forms of energy in your statement and you have a winner. Make it revenue neutral or slightly positive by having this regressive tax replace a progressive tax and you have a winner. I did not think that you liked regressive taxation, but you might be more reasonable in your thinking than you let on. You're right Win. Generally, I like progressive taxation. But, in this case regressive taxation is necessary because energy taxes would not only raise funds but also help modify behavior. I think that modifying behavior is a necessary component of energy independence. I agree we could expand it to all non-renewable forms of energy. I think the taxes should generate enough money to fund the infrastructure changes-at least to the point that private industry will see continuing as a good bet and begin to fill the niche themselves. I am more reasonable than several here think. But, this is an adversarial atmosphere, which I think tends to exaggerate our differences. Dangerous ground here! Don't ruin the fun!  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 11:36:22 GMT -8
You're right Win. Generally, I like progressive taxation. But, in this case regressive taxation is necessary because energy taxes would not only raise funds but also help modify behavior. I think that modifying behavior is a necessary component of energy independence. I agree we could expand it to all non-renewable forms of energy. I think the taxes should generate enough money to fund the infrastructure changes-at least to the point that private industry will see continuing as a good bet and begin to fill the niche themselves. I am more reasonable than several here think. But, this is an adversarial atmosphere, which I think tends to exaggerate our differences. Dangerous ground here! Don't ruin the fun! Not me! I am too stubborn and opinionated for that. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 27, 2010 18:18:08 GMT -8
You see I think government should tax the pi@@ out of oil. That will get us the changes we want. We are not paying anywhere near the real opportunity costs for using oil, anyway. I don't. That would be an extremely unfair tax on the poor. We rape the poor in this country already. It is not their fault that so many of them are low IQ. If they are born dumb, they will stay dumb and will only get rich via two means. (Winning the lottery or selling drugs and not getting caught.) |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 19:24:45 GMT -8
You see I think government should tax the pi@@ out of oil. That will get us the changes we want. We are not paying anywhere near the real opportunity costs for using oil, anyway. I don't. That would be an extremely unfair tax on the poor. We rape the poor in this country already. It is not their fault that so many of them are low IQ. If they are born dumb, they will stay dumb and will only get rich via two means. (Winning the lottery or selling drugs and not getting caught.) You make a fair point. You could rebate back to lower income people somehow. The thing is that the connection has to be made between the activity and the real cost. As to whether or not the poor are dumb and whether their plan for achieving the American dream passes muster. . . . I am not going there! |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 27, 2010 22:55:35 GMT -8
You see I think government should tax the pi@@ out of oil. That will get us the changes we want. We are not paying anywhere near the real opportunity costs for using oil, anyway. I don't. That would be an extremely unfair tax on the poor. We rape the poor in this country already. It is not their fault that so many of them are low IQ. If they are born dumb, they will stay dumb and will only get rich via two means. (Winning the lottery or selling drugs and not getting caught.) Actually, Joe, I suspect selling enough drugs to get rich, would be evidence of high intelligence. The ability to not get caught, to set up a distribution network, to launder the money so that they can live a good life, all signs of entrepreneurship |
|
Have you ever seen a government that once obtained power ever give it up voluntarily? 