Counterarguments, pls, since I havent heard a single good one.
...counterarguements to what?
Its an America issue, but since you asked...
Oil companies have made record high profits in the last quarter. You know, the one where we got hit by a few HUGE hurricanes and they ****ed and moaned about supply disruption. Well, apparently it didnt disrupt the supply of cash to their pocketbooks, since one company alone (think its Mobile, but I'm not sure) made like 10 or so BILLION dollars in three months. And then they jacked the prices up about 60% and said "oh noes! supply disruption!"
Its all BS. Just another way for corporate america to shaft the little dude in order to give multimillion dollar bonuses to some CEO ******* who does little to nothing.
And what's your arguement? How can we provide a counterarguement for an arguement that doesn't exist? That's what I'm getting at.
Uh, thread title. I'm advocating taxing them, with the funds going most likely to research and development of either mass transit systems, or alternative fuel sources.
If we tax, the prices will go up again.
Tax them, and hand over price control to the government.
[spoiler]No, that won't work. But, how else would you be able to stop them raising prices? [/spoiler]
If you start taxing oil companies for charging more when the demand is high, what would stop companies from being taxed for charging more for pumpkins around halloween, Christmas trees in December? It is the fault of the people who continue to buy gas no matter what the cost for giving the signal to oil companies to keep increasing prices.
People dont need pumpkins and trees to go about their daily lives, either.
And its not like they just raised the prices to cover their costs. If that were the case, then their profits would have remained stable, not shot through the roof.
Gasoline isn't necessary, it just makes it a hell of a lot more convenient. I could understand fining them if they lied about their supplies, but not for attempting to be profitable businesses by legal means.
Gas is a vital suppl for most people today. The large majority of people do not live within walking/biking distance from their job, and not all communities have decent public transit.
It is very possible to go through life without driving. As I said before, it just makes things a hell of a lot easier. I don't consider it to be the government's job to assure a speedy trip to town.
Its a multihour bike ride from where I loved before moving to college to the downtown area. Even if you could make that trip, it would most likely too tired to be an effective worker, as most americans are in terrible shape.
I promise you that is gasoline disappeared from the market in america, our country would grind to a halt.
The government could establish an independant committee which analyses loads of stuff, reads about the current oil situation, and generally has a really high in-tray, and chooses a maximum price for a range of oil productgs and byproducts. Companies are allowed to sell lower then that if they want.
I'm not advocating price controlls. >.>
Infact, if anything an artificial price floor might be a bit of a good thing, with any excess revenue going towards alternative resources. But the main point of the original proposal was to punish the oil companies for screwing the consumer.
Well, what about a frequently re-evaluated price point above which the companies get taxed 95% of the excess, which goes 100% towards alternative resources?
It's highly unfortunate that the entire economy of most First-world countires are based on oil. We really need to totally become independent of oil for power very quickly, or lots of plastic stuff won't be available anymore, and when oil runs out, everyone dies![spoiler] I mean, everything stuffs up.[/spoiler]
Very simple.
The oil industry is a private concern in this country.
The government doesn't reimburse them when they spend $100,000,000 to explore a new region, they don't help pay for a new $50,000,000 platform, nor do they give them any tax breaks on the salaries they pay to their bazillions of employees.
If the people decided that the Oil Industry should be nationalized and ponied up the $$$ to buy it, then i'd be all in favor of setting "price points" or controlling the flow as needed. Hell, Iraqis used to pay .10 cents for a gallon of gas. Viva la Nationalized Industry.
With that said, as long as the industry is expected to fund itself, then the government really has no say in how it prices it's product.
If they want to charge $100 for a gallon of gas, it's up to them.
If you don't like it, start a rival oil company that produces a cheaper product.
Really, the reason you "haven't heard a single good counterargument" is because you have shown yourself time and time again as totally ignorant to the precepts of a free market economy.
Sure, there are benefits to government regulations in some sectors but "pricing" isn't one of them.
As others have said. It's your decision to own a car. It's your decision to live in an area that is out of cycling distance to work. It's your decision to do everything you do.
Part of the reason the liberal mind is so predisposed to wanting everything "regulated" is that they're oblivious to the freedoms they already have. “Freedom” means an individual making decisions on his own, and that is just terrifying to the leftist. No, everything should be “controlled” by the government.
Too far from work? Don't like paying for oil? Move closer.
Don't like the city? Want to move out to the country? Go!
No jobs in the country? Start a business and make them.
Don't have enough money to make anything happen in your life?
Don't blame the government. Ask yourself what have you done in the past three years to better your situation. Look three years down the line and calculate where you will be, and decide if you will have enough flow to life the lifestyle you wish.
Don't be a stupid liberal who sits around all day, waxing philosophical and blaming his life on 'the government'. Make your own decisions- up to and including your own use of oil.
I love u!
Crap, he ALMOST had a good post going.
Really. Until the word "liberal" he convinced me that he can make a decent post once in a while.
from [URL="http://www.dictionary.com"]www.dictionary.com[/URL]
[quote][B]lib
Landon, excellent post.
Blunted, excellent rebuttal.
everyone else, keep trying
this is an interesting read. Arwon needs to get his *** in here
I reiterate.
DAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
It was BJ who just recently was complaining about my conservative bashing, too. :(
well, I did like that you took a conservative viewpoint, sniper, but that doesn't mean that it was a very good argument. LoS can laugh all day, but he's not changing anyone's mind, really. I think the oil companies should be taxed like everyone else. no more, no less
Most people dont gouge prices on something that we need to get by.
And if we dont need it, then I fail to see the justification for violation not only Alaska, but also the coastal waters of my home state to get more.
I don't see the tie between justifying us needing it with drilling in different places. I can walk. I'm not trying to be an ***, I'm just missing your reasoning here or something
Yeah the idea that the oil industry is an unfettered free market is, well, totally wrong.
Anyway, as someone who is a big fan of market-based incentives and disincentives to achieve desirable economic outcomes, I'm all for oil prices being pushed up through taxation, thus lowering demand, if that's what it takes to get people to use less oil. Because it's, you know, kinda finite, and we kinda, you know, need it.
I don't the issue at hand relates to conservative or liberal points.
Landon is right about a few things. We live in a capitalist society. We encourage free-enterprise with minimal government intervention.
But there must be some control on business, otherwise things like Anti-trust laws would not exist.
Take pharmaceutical drugs, for example. Here in America, they're dang expensive. If you have an infection that requires you to take Keflex (an antibiotic), you have to buy Keflex, name brand, or your infection doesn't go away. And the good folks who manufacture Keflex know that. So they can make their price what the heck ever they want to. You either pay their price, or suffer a serious infection which can lead to amputation and even death.
In Canada, the government there has placed a cap on what companies there can charge. Many people that I knew while living in Minnesota actually crossed the border to purchase their perscription drugs, then returned here because the prices are that much lower.
So to put a "cap" on any product requires a certain level of socialism, which I am not opposed to. In a truly capitalist society, business rules. More than government, the people are governed by the people in charge of the commercial stuff.
What about a company that has more money than the United States Government? What about when Wal-Mart has a $1,000,000,000 sales day? (which they have had, by the way)
To say that our government rarely interferes with business is not true.
Look at the tobacco industry: When several states sued the four major tobacco companies (PMUSA, RJReynolds, and two others), the four companies were required to raise their prices, in order to pay off the suit. When you buy a pack of cigarettes, a certain piece of that money goes straight to your state government, and not in the form of sales tax.
Well, the generic tobacco companies saw this as a great opportunity to keep their prices considerably lower than their mainstream competition. $5.60 for a pack of Marlboros, or $2.30 for a pack of GPCs... Wasn't a tough call for the consumer.
But with the major cigarette sales decreases, the money flowing into the state from their sales also decreased. So many states (including Arizona) introduced price floors. Generic Cigarette companies can't charge an amount substantially lower than the name brand companies, to ensure that people still buy mostly name brand cigarettes, to ensure that the money keeps flowing.
Now, this whole thing is hearsay, what a friend of mine has told me (and he works for PMUSA, so I believe him), and I haven't done any real research, but feel free to fact check me, and let me know if I'm off in any way.
But what the hell does that have to do with oil?
It's simple. The government (state in the case of cigarettes) has demonstrated a great deal of interest in the affairs of "private companies", much like Mobile and Standard. It is much to their benefit to involve the government at some points, then wave the capitalist flag at other times. I'm saying that perhaps it's time to usher in some solidity. If they want capitalism, don't place price roofs or floors. But don't accept payoffs and do thing underhanded at the same time. And if you want intervention, then by all means, intervene. But keep it that way and don't claim "free-enterprise" when we ask for intervention that benefits us.
Ah well, if he thinks America doesn't need oil and it's totally okay to not worry about how much you're using then that's his problem. Myself, I'll be laughing my *** off when the rest of the world has cars that can drive to the moon and back after being exposed to sunlight for 2 minutes and oil prices in America have gotten to the point where they really do have to walk everywhere and the entire country has ground to a halt because no one has any electricity apart from members of Greenpeace.
whaaaaaaaaaaat
Shh. Watch.
speedy, c'mon man. Most of your posts are at least BORDERING on intelligent. You can do better than that.