I stopped at the third specious argument... I think that was around the fifth sentence.
Pretty much without exception every argument was nonsense.
The price trend is easily tied to ecological regulation.
Oil refineries are paying big taxes and fees that they weren't before. One of the funnier ones requires that they use more ethanol in their fuel then the auto companies will allow them to use. As a result, the oil companies can pay a fine or they can use less then the amount the auto companies consider damaging for the engine. They pay the fine. And that gets passed on to the consumer. Most refineries in the US pay more for this fine then they do for labor. So yes, adding an expense that exceeds labor costs which are often the most expensive component of business operations is going to cause prices to climb.
As to energy pocketing profit from jacking up price. Its true that the government does get a lot of that money. However, they also have limited our ability to drill which has increased the value of sites that can drill which has increased the value of the oil removed from those sites via simple economics. As a result, oil companies ARE making more money because the value of their product by the barrel has increased.
As to conspiracy theories revolving around the ultimate point. I did say that "if I didn't know better" which means I don't believe in the conspiracy which means that implying that I am suggesting one is itself idiotic. Rather, my point was that the environmental movement is not rational or goal orriented in regards to the environment. IF they were, they wouldn't take actions that are this stupid.
As to offloading emotional burden, that is what the keystone pipeline is in the first place. It is not a rational thing to oppose in this way. Its just a political slogan, a symbol, a talking point... for the environmental lobby they don't even know why they oppose it. Its just something to do. Because ironically... they are the sheeple.
And I could go on but to what end... you're a fool and I see no reason to further deconstruct your delusions.
It runs both ways. I'd be interested to see if any men are buying these stored eggs... I know their is a market for them. Then contributing their own sperm and hiring a surrogate to bring it to term. Its not a great deal different from the women that have been going to sperm banks.
I'm not advocating the practice... just pointing out that you have billions of people all breathing, farting, and eating... and thus there is going to be a significant amount of off gassing.
So... just to be clear... you wouldn't mind the CEO of a company scheduling a meeting with a congress person to talk about a problem they're having with a new law etc? Because if that's okay, then I don't have a problem.
Look, we have a right to redress grievances with the government. Corps should be able to do that just like anyone else.
Where I think we agree is that neither the corps nor the unions should be able to donate MONEY to politicians.
Talking is fine. I don't mind the union talking to the politicians or the corps talking to the politicians. Talking is fine. The money can't change hands. That is the issue. The money. Not the lobbying. I know the two are often seen as the same thing but they're not. Lobbying is just asking for a law to be changed or giving congress your perspective on things. I have no problem with that. Its the bribery and quid pro quo activity that needs to stop.
Actually I'm not saying that keystone is single handedly responsible for all price cost increases in the petroleum industry both in the US and internationally...
That is your rebuttal... and it is stupid. What I am saying is that ALL the anti petroleum policies collectively are just raising the price of oil which increases the incentive to produce it.
Now might the oil companies make less profits if you tax and regulate the shit out of them? Sure... but their revenue is still going to be sky high. That revenue means that SOMEONE is making a mint in the transaction. And the more you screw with the supply the higher the costs will get and the more money will flow into the petroleum industry to compensate.
Understand. I want to get us off petroleum as well. But I'd like to do it in a way that is ACTUALLY effective and doesn't inadvertently harm lots of people that are just trying to live their lives.
This is because I am neither a moron nor a sadist. Which in my opinion everyone pursuing the current policies is of one flavor or another.
What is my grand idea for getting us off this stuff?
1. Invest in RESEARCH for green technology.
2. Offer tax breaks for investments into green tech companies. You could even go so far as to offer ZERO capital gains taxes on specific types of companies. That would cause wallstreet to flood the industry with hundreds of billions of dollars.
3. Be patient and wait for the tech to develop. Do not force people to use the new tech. If everything works properly, then the new tech should simply out compete the old tech.
4. Consider decentralizing the utilities. Green technology lends itself to this model. We have off grid houses that are entirely self sufficient. The trend should be to push more and more homes especially in suburban and rural areas in that direction. Urban areas are problem because they're so dense that they require large centralized facilities to supply them. In the case of urban areas, explicitly link the population and consumption of every given city to specific sources of power, water, etc. And then limit growth through zoning to what those supplies can offer the city. If a city exceeds its ability to supply itself then it should be compelled to either build additional infrastructure or forbid additional growth.
The above are just some simple ideas that would have an effect not immediately but over time. Attacking the petroleum industry when we have no alternative is idiotic or sadistic.
I'm good with it... they can give up their freedoms if that's what they want. But don't give up mine in the process. Lose everything... be a drone. Just don't presume to make me one too.
If you have principles then you won't move on the issues that matter.
What troubles you is that the silicon valley people haven't chosen a political side yet. They could go one way or the other.
Well, your own damn fault for fucking with them in the first place. Washington DC started shaking silicon valley down for campaign donations. They did it by fucking with their industry and then saying "well if you want us to do something differently you can lobby us... and by the way lobbying means giving us money."
Its a game. And Silicon valley has enough money to play it.
So now you're upset that they're expecting something for the money the politicians extorted from them?
Boo hoo. Cry me a fucking river.
Tech companies stayed out of politics for years. They were conspicuous for it.
DC hated that... so they poked them until they started paying. Now they are... just like everyone else... and just like everyone else they expect their money's worth.
Actually, it is unfettered politicial power that is turning the US into an oligarchy.
Its the corrupt congressmen and senators and presidents.
Your president for example that won't allow investigation of anything isn't helping.
Fast and Furious... Benghazi... Various banking scandals... the IRS going after political enemies... the FBI going after journalists that investigate the white house...
That is your problem. But you won't touch him because he's a democrat. The press won't touch him. He gets a free pass to do things Nixon wouldn't have dreamed of and you won't lift a finger.
So you'd agree that unions shouldn't be able to make political donations....
the individual members, fine... but the union should not be able to make donations on behalf of the members.
Because if you allow that, then the corps must be allowed to respond in kind.
Cut the unions off and you'll find that my side of the isle will be okay with shutting the corps off.
Grasp that it is a balance of powers. The corps are our answer to the union money. Most of us find both the unions and the corps to be bad. But we see the corps as a necessary evil to counter the union money.
We have been making steps over the years to restrict union giving just as you have made efforts to restrict corp giving.
Tell me... who is allowed to donate money to politics and who is not? I ask because I suspect there is some revenue source near and dear to your political faction that must be exempted from your rule.
I've seen this too many time to not be cynical about it. Every faction says the other's revenue sources are wrong but its are fine.
Its pretty much uniform self serving horseshit.
The courts have already said its all legal under the first amendment. You don't like it... then lets talk about applying your rule to every donation from every source.
Big unions for example... you want to cut that money off?
Slashdot Mirror
So what if they did think it was creepy? Not illegal... and at that point the man will have a family. Try to start something. You'll lose.
I stopped at the third specious argument... I think that was around the fifth sentence.
Pretty much without exception every argument was nonsense.
The price trend is easily tied to ecological regulation.
Oil refineries are paying big taxes and fees that they weren't before. One of the funnier ones requires that they use more ethanol in their fuel then the auto companies will allow them to use. As a result, the oil companies can pay a fine or they can use less then the amount the auto companies consider damaging for the engine. They pay the fine. And that gets passed on to the consumer. Most refineries in the US pay more for this fine then they do for labor. So yes, adding an expense that exceeds labor costs which are often the most expensive component of business operations is going to cause prices to climb.
As to energy pocketing profit from jacking up price. Its true that the government does get a lot of that money. However, they also have limited our ability to drill which has increased the value of sites that can drill which has increased the value of the oil removed from those sites via simple economics. As a result, oil companies ARE making more money because the value of their product by the barrel has increased.
As to conspiracy theories revolving around the ultimate point. I did say that "if I didn't know better" which means I don't believe in the conspiracy which means that implying that I am suggesting one is itself idiotic. Rather, my point was that the environmental movement is not rational or goal orriented in regards to the environment. IF they were, they wouldn't take actions that are this stupid.
As to offloading emotional burden, that is what the keystone pipeline is in the first place. It is not a rational thing to oppose in this way. Its just a political slogan, a symbol, a talking point... for the environmental lobby they don't even know why they oppose it. Its just something to do. Because ironically... they are the sheeple.
And I could go on but to what end... you're a fool and I see no reason to further deconstruct your delusions.
If you raise the price of food we'll still buy it so you shouldn't try to discourage us from using food by interfering with the supply.
Inelastic goods.
Energy is effectively inelastic. Its also a core resource. Its right there with food and water. And you're fucking with it.
Its a basic economic concept.
You're out of your depth. All you're doing is hurting poor people and making everyone angry.
It runs both ways. I'd be interested to see if any men are buying these stored eggs... I know their is a market for them. Then contributing their own sperm and hiring a surrogate to bring it to term. Its not a great deal different from the women that have been going to sperm banks.
Keep preaching for the cause, comrade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm not advocating the practice... just pointing out that you have billions of people all breathing, farting, and eating... and thus there is going to be a significant amount of off gassing.
So... just to be clear... you wouldn't mind the CEO of a company scheduling a meeting with a congress person to talk about a problem they're having with a new law etc? Because if that's okay, then I don't have a problem.
Look, we have a right to redress grievances with the government. Corps should be able to do that just like anyone else.
Where I think we agree is that neither the corps nor the unions should be able to donate MONEY to politicians.
Talking is fine. I don't mind the union talking to the politicians or the corps talking to the politicians. Talking is fine. The money can't change hands. That is the issue. The money. Not the lobbying. I know the two are often seen as the same thing but they're not. Lobbying is just asking for a law to be changed or giving congress your perspective on things. I have no problem with that. Its the bribery and quid pro quo activity that needs to stop.
Actually I'm not saying that keystone is single handedly responsible for all price cost increases in the petroleum industry both in the US and internationally...
That is your rebuttal... and it is stupid. What I am saying is that ALL the anti petroleum policies collectively are just raising the price of oil which increases the incentive to produce it.
Now might the oil companies make less profits if you tax and regulate the shit out of them? Sure... but their revenue is still going to be sky high. That revenue means that SOMEONE is making a mint in the transaction. And the more you screw with the supply the higher the costs will get and the more money will flow into the petroleum industry to compensate.
Understand. I want to get us off petroleum as well. But I'd like to do it in a way that is ACTUALLY effective and doesn't inadvertently harm lots of people that are just trying to live their lives.
This is because I am neither a moron nor a sadist. Which in my opinion everyone pursuing the current policies is of one flavor or another.
What is my grand idea for getting us off this stuff?
1. Invest in RESEARCH for green technology.
2. Offer tax breaks for investments into green tech companies. You could even go so far as to offer ZERO capital gains taxes on specific types of companies. That would cause wallstreet to flood the industry with hundreds of billions of dollars.
3. Be patient and wait for the tech to develop. Do not force people to use the new tech. If everything works properly, then the new tech should simply out compete the old tech.
4. Consider decentralizing the utilities. Green technology lends itself to this model. We have off grid houses that are entirely self sufficient. The trend should be to push more and more homes especially in suburban and rural areas in that direction. Urban areas are problem because they're so dense that they require large centralized facilities to supply them. In the case of urban areas, explicitly link the population and consumption of every given city to specific sources of power, water, etc. And then limit growth through zoning to what those supplies can offer the city. If a city exceeds its ability to supply itself then it should be compelled to either build additional infrastructure or forbid additional growth.
The above are just some simple ideas that would have an effect not immediately but over time. Attacking the petroleum industry when we have no alternative is idiotic or sadistic.
and in the future it won't be this big... but it will continue to exist just as it did for hundreds of years.
Golf is fine... but its peaked as a sport and will now decline.
baseless insults are neither are rebuttal or an argument.
Your comment is null.
Try again this time with a point.
the environmental cost of refining gas in the US versus canada is nominal.
You're foaming at the mouth, your eyes are blood shot, and you're raving.
I await the time when there is a treatment for your disorder.
If they weren't any good you wouldn't want to steal them.
Everything is an exploitation.
There is no solution.
All you will EVER get is an exploitation.
The goal is to have an optimal exploitation that has the most reasonable cost benefit curve.
Fuck with the energy supply and you make it more profitable to supply it.
You're not helping anyone. You're just hurting people. You're not even helping the environment which is to say the interests of non-people.
Some people just want to be slaves.
I'm good with it... they can give up their freedoms if that's what they want. But don't give up mine in the process. Lose everything... be a drone. Just don't presume to make me one too.
Irrelevant... the oil will flow. You're not stopping anything.
All you're doing is annoying people and driving up the cost of oil.
Nothing more.
we have a hydrogen filling station in my neighborhood... no one ever uses it...
I'm all for green energy... but it won't be worth anything until we get batteries worth a damn or a replacement for batteries that are worth a damn.
That day is not today.
And yet that is exactly what happened.
So what you're saying is that my predictions are impressively accurate.
Thank you.
Only if you're corrupt.
If you have principles then you won't move on the issues that matter.
What troubles you is that the silicon valley people haven't chosen a political side yet. They could go one way or the other.
Well, your own damn fault for fucking with them in the first place. Washington DC started shaking silicon valley down for campaign donations. They did it by fucking with their industry and then saying "well if you want us to do something differently you can lobby us... and by the way lobbying means giving us money."
Its a game. And Silicon valley has enough money to play it.
So now you're upset that they're expecting something for the money the politicians extorted from them?
Boo hoo. Cry me a fucking river.
Tech companies stayed out of politics for years. They were conspicuous for it.
DC hated that... so they poked them until they started paying. Now they are... just like everyone else... and just like everyone else they expect their money's worth.
Want it to stop? Stop fucking with people.
Actually, it is unfettered politicial power that is turning the US into an oligarchy.
Its the corrupt congressmen and senators and presidents.
Your president for example that won't allow investigation of anything isn't helping.
Fast and Furious... Benghazi... Various banking scandals... the IRS going after political enemies... the FBI going after journalists that investigate the white house...
That is your problem. But you won't touch him because he's a democrat. The press won't touch him. He gets a free pass to do things Nixon wouldn't have dreamed of and you won't lift a finger.
There are other pipelines and other ways to move the oil... by truck and train amongst others. You're not stopping anything.
You're merely making something less convenient, forcing people to use technology more likely to produce leaks, oh... and you're pissing people off.
Net effect on the environment from your resistance?... Negative. Net economic effect? Negative. Net political effect? Negative.
Negative Negative Negative.
So where is the benefit of opposing it?
Its good for democrats... it rabble rouses their environmental wing. It has no other utility.
So you'd agree that unions shouldn't be able to make political donations....
the individual members, fine... but the union should not be able to make donations on behalf of the members.
Because if you allow that, then the corps must be allowed to respond in kind.
Cut the unions off and you'll find that my side of the isle will be okay with shutting the corps off.
Grasp that it is a balance of powers. The corps are our answer to the union money. Most of us find both the unions and the corps to be bad. But we see the corps as a necessary evil to counter the union money.
We have been making steps over the years to restrict union giving just as you have made efforts to restrict corp giving.
Lets meet in the middle and ban both.
*offers hand*
So... you're saying we should be paying 10 percent of what we're currently paying for gas?
So... 40 cents a gallon if we're paying 4 dollars today?
There's no way you can say our currency has been inflated that much since 1999. There is no way to justify those numbers.
Ah, here we are then.
Tell me... who is allowed to donate money to politics and who is not? I ask because I suspect there is some revenue source near and dear to your political faction that must be exempted from your rule.
I've seen this too many time to not be cynical about it. Every faction says the other's revenue sources are wrong but its are fine.
Its pretty much uniform self serving horseshit.
The courts have already said its all legal under the first amendment. You don't like it... then lets talk about applying your rule to every donation from every source.
Big unions for example... you want to cut that money off?
Attacking the pipeline does nothing to protect the oceans.
The rest of your post is largely meaningless buzzword ladin white noise.
Its not about capitalism.
This is the mistakes myopic socialist fuckwits keep making. They think this is an ideological issue.
Its more elemental. If those that produce are convinced they won't keep or benefit from what they produce they won't produce and everyone suffers.
That's even works with other species let alone humans.
Fuck over producers and they'll stop and everyone suffers.