Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
MadeInTaiwan
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
As a side note while I benefit from the mortage interest deduction, I still feel that it is one of the worst regressive taxes. Mortgage interest deduction should be capped based on an area’s (state/city) medium household income.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
As a side note while I benefit from the mortage interest deduction, I still feel that it is one of the worst regressive taxes. Mortgage interest deduction should be capped based on an area’s (state/city) medium household income.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
As a side note while I benefit from the mortage interest deduction, I still feel that it is one of the worst regressive taxes. Mortgage interest deduction should be capped based on an area’s (state/city) medium household income.
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]
…Regardless of the mechanism, it is naive to believe that the Government will recover the amount of dollars they anticipate by enacting this change. People will react and adapt to the changes in a way that reduces the overall take of the government.I don’t disagree that in the long run the removal of this subsidy would make the economy more efficient, it’s just that the reaosn for doing so (to generate more revenue for the Government) may not come to pass.[/quote]
I think government will recover the revenue. As capital allocation moves away from non-productive investment like housing and real-estate, it should move into more productive investments that will generate tax revenue. At least that is what I hope happens.
As a side note while I benefit from the mortage interest deduction, I still feel that it is one of the worst regressive taxes. Mortgage interest deduction should be capped based on an area’s (state/city) medium household income.
Participant[quote=patb]china can sell plastic crap to themselves and the saudi’s[/quote]
Actually, they cannot sell plastic crap to themselves, yet. They need to consume more internally as part of the global rebalance (i.e. US consume less, save more, produce more), However, a host of government policies favor big manufactures and export over consumers. There is a lot of facinating analysis at mpettis.com
Participant[quote=patb]china can sell plastic crap to themselves and the saudi’s[/quote]
Actually, they cannot sell plastic crap to themselves, yet. They need to consume more internally as part of the global rebalance (i.e. US consume less, save more, produce more), However, a host of government policies favor big manufactures and export over consumers. There is a lot of facinating analysis at mpettis.com
Participant[quote=patb]china can sell plastic crap to themselves and the saudi’s[/quote]
Actually, they cannot sell plastic crap to themselves, yet. They need to consume more internally as part of the global rebalance (i.e. US consume less, save more, produce more), However, a host of government policies favor big manufactures and export over consumers. There is a lot of facinating analysis at mpettis.com
Participant[quote=patb]china can sell plastic crap to themselves and the saudi’s[/quote]
Actually, they cannot sell plastic crap to themselves, yet. They need to consume more internally as part of the global rebalance (i.e. US consume less, save more, produce more), However, a host of government policies favor big manufactures and export over consumers. There is a lot of facinating analysis at mpettis.com
Participant[quote=patb]china can sell plastic crap to themselves and the saudi’s[/quote]
Actually, they cannot sell plastic crap to themselves, yet. They need to consume more internally as part of the global rebalance (i.e. US consume less, save more, produce more), However, a host of government policies favor big manufactures and export over consumers. There is a lot of facinating analysis at mpettis.com
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.
How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?
That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.
[/quote]
Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.
Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).
And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.[/quote]
First, Allan, I need to call a bit of a foul on you. You were hammering Brian for not understanding the nature of the spill when your real beef is that either he expects 100% spill proof drilling or that he and by extension his man Obama has not laid out a comprehensive plan. The post I quoted above essentially concdes this point.
I think you’re also misrepresenting that he demands 100% spillproof guarrantee.
I, and I suspect Brian, do not expect 100% guarrantee, but we do want more oversight, and slowing down, or more vigorous process for approving additional off shore drilling.
My understanding is that oversight has been significantly weakend in all extraction industries under Pres Bush/Cheney. I for one like to see the regulations strengthened.
I am under the impression that Pres. Obama is open to nuclear, gas, even coal as well as wind, solar as part of an overall solution and in fact is the path he was proceeding.
One way to make other energy solutions cheaper by comparison is to make energy from oil more expensive. This can be done via taxes, less exploration/drilling of untapped reserves, higher operational costs due to insurance/safety procedures, oil extraction not keeping up w/ consumption or any combination of the above.
I prefer tax because it can be adjusted to smooth out the energy price increase. From what I read our economy can adjust to higher oil prices, just not the sudden swings we experienced recently. So theoretically we can set tax policy to steadily increase oil prices over years until gasoline is say $8 a gallon at the pump. Taxes can be reduced or increased depending on external events to keep the schedule. There is a lot of new technology that becomes viable at equivalent of $120/barrel prices. However, with market swings and uncertainty there is little incentive for investors.
Lastly, I’ve read that we need not just replacement for fuel, but we need replacement for all kinds of other pretoleum products. My understanding is that crude products belong to three major categories, gasoline, diesel/airplaine fuel, lubricants/asphalt/plastics and the like. We can massage around the edges but the % of each category from a barrel of crude is not really elastic. Maybe you can add insight to this. Therefore we not only need to find replacements in all the areas that currently pretroleum dependent. No one solution can do that.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.
How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?
That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.
[/quote]
Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.
Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).
And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.[/quote]
First, Allan, I need to call a bit of a foul on you. You were hammering Brian for not understanding the nature of the spill when your real beef is that either he expects 100% spill proof drilling or that he and by extension his man Obama has not laid out a comprehensive plan. The post I quoted above essentially concdes this point.
I think you’re also misrepresenting that he demands 100% spillproof guarrantee.
I, and I suspect Brian, do not expect 100% guarrantee, but we do want more oversight, and slowing down, or more vigorous process for approving additional off shore drilling.
My understanding is that oversight has been significantly weakend in all extraction industries under Pres Bush/Cheney. I for one like to see the regulations strengthened.
I am under the impression that Pres. Obama is open to nuclear, gas, even coal as well as wind, solar as part of an overall solution and in fact is the path he was proceeding.
One way to make other energy solutions cheaper by comparison is to make energy from oil more expensive. This can be done via taxes, less exploration/drilling of untapped reserves, higher operational costs due to insurance/safety procedures, oil extraction not keeping up w/ consumption or any combination of the above.
I prefer tax because it can be adjusted to smooth out the energy price increase. From what I read our economy can adjust to higher oil prices, just not the sudden swings we experienced recently. So theoretically we can set tax policy to steadily increase oil prices over years until gasoline is say $8 a gallon at the pump. Taxes can be reduced or increased depending on external events to keep the schedule. There is a lot of new technology that becomes viable at equivalent of $120/barrel prices. However, with market swings and uncertainty there is little incentive for investors.
Lastly, I’ve read that we need not just replacement for fuel, but we need replacement for all kinds of other pretoleum products. My understanding is that crude products belong to three major categories, gasoline, diesel/airplaine fuel, lubricants/asphalt/plastics and the like. We can massage around the edges but the % of each category from a barrel of crude is not really elastic. Maybe you can add insight to this. Therefore we not only need to find replacements in all the areas that currently pretroleum dependent. No one solution can do that.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.
How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?
That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.
[/quote]
Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.
Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).
And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.[/quote]
First, Allan, I need to call a bit of a foul on you. You were hammering Brian for not understanding the nature of the spill when your real beef is that either he expects 100% spill proof drilling or that he and by extension his man Obama has not laid out a comprehensive plan. The post I quoted above essentially concdes this point.
I think you’re also misrepresenting that he demands 100% spillproof guarrantee.
I, and I suspect Brian, do not expect 100% guarrantee, but we do want more oversight, and slowing down, or more vigorous process for approving additional off shore drilling.
My understanding is that oversight has been significantly weakend in all extraction industries under Pres Bush/Cheney. I for one like to see the regulations strengthened.
I am under the impression that Pres. Obama is open to nuclear, gas, even coal as well as wind, solar as part of an overall solution and in fact is the path he was proceeding.
One way to make other energy solutions cheaper by comparison is to make energy from oil more expensive. This can be done via taxes, less exploration/drilling of untapped reserves, higher operational costs due to insurance/safety procedures, oil extraction not keeping up w/ consumption or any combination of the above.
I prefer tax because it can be adjusted to smooth out the energy price increase. From what I read our economy can adjust to higher oil prices, just not the sudden swings we experienced recently. So theoretically we can set tax policy to steadily increase oil prices over years until gasoline is say $8 a gallon at the pump. Taxes can be reduced or increased depending on external events to keep the schedule. There is a lot of new technology that becomes viable at equivalent of $120/barrel prices. However, with market swings and uncertainty there is little incentive for investors.
Lastly, I’ve read that we need not just replacement for fuel, but we need replacement for all kinds of other pretoleum products. My understanding is that crude products belong to three major categories, gasoline, diesel/airplaine fuel, lubricants/asphalt/plastics and the like. We can massage around the edges but the % of each category from a barrel of crude is not really elastic. Maybe you can add insight to this. Therefore we not only need to find replacements in all the areas that currently pretroleum dependent. No one solution can do that.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.
How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?
That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.
[/quote]
Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.
Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).
And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.[/quote]
First, Allan, I need to call a bit of a foul on you. You were hammering Brian for not understanding the nature of the spill when your real beef is that either he expects 100% spill proof drilling or that he and by extension his man Obama has not laid out a comprehensive plan. The post I quoted above essentially concdes this point.
I think you’re also misrepresenting that he demands 100% spillproof guarrantee.
I, and I suspect Brian, do not expect 100% guarrantee, but we do want more oversight, and slowing down, or more vigorous process for approving additional off shore drilling.
My understanding is that oversight has been significantly weakend in all extraction industries under Pres Bush/Cheney. I for one like to see the regulations strengthened.
I am under the impression that Pres. Obama is open to nuclear, gas, even coal as well as wind, solar as part of an overall solution and in fact is the path he was proceeding.
One way to make other energy solutions cheaper by comparison is to make energy from oil more expensive. This can be done via taxes, less exploration/drilling of untapped reserves, higher operational costs due to insurance/safety procedures, oil extraction not keeping up w/ consumption or any combination of the above.
I prefer tax because it can be adjusted to smooth out the energy price increase. From what I read our economy can adjust to higher oil prices, just not the sudden swings we experienced recently. So theoretically we can set tax policy to steadily increase oil prices over years until gasoline is say $8 a gallon at the pump. Taxes can be reduced or increased depending on external events to keep the schedule. There is a lot of new technology that becomes viable at equivalent of $120/barrel prices. However, with market swings and uncertainty there is little incentive for investors.
Lastly, I’ve read that we need not just replacement for fuel, but we need replacement for all kinds of other pretoleum products. My understanding is that crude products belong to three major categories, gasoline, diesel/airplaine fuel, lubricants/asphalt/plastics and the like. We can massage around the edges but the % of each category from a barrel of crude is not really elastic. Maybe you can add insight to this. Therefore we not only need to find replacements in all the areas that currently pretroleum dependent. No one solution can do that.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]
Sure the cementing might have caused the explosion.
How do the facts you listed support the oil industry’s claim that they can drill safely and guarantee to the public (because the public wants a guarantee) that another historical disaster will not happen again?
That’s what I was addressing when I said that this disaster obviated the drill-baby-drill argument of safe exploration and extraction.
[/quote]
Brian: So, let me see if I have this straight: You want a 100% risk-free guarantee on ALL new extraction technologies? Also, you want this guarantee, in spite of the fact that the cementing process was at fault, not the drilling itself? This is exactly the type of thinking I was referencing in my earlier post: A zero risk mentality that eliminates any possibility of forward-thinking on new technologies.
Dude, how about this instead: Your guy, Obama, uses this golden opportunity to formulate and enact a sweeping energy policy for the US, and one that includes cost-effective solutions, like nuke and natural gas? Think that’s a good idea? Do you think he’ll do it? (And you and I both know the answer there).
And, by the way, Bunkie, we already DO bear the risks of disaster and not only in extracting oil, but transshipping it, refining it and distributing it. I’m no fan of Big Oil and I deal with issues relating to this industry every day, but until someone steps up and offers a cheaper, better, more viable alternative, then this is what we get.[/quote]
First, Allan, I need to call a bit of a foul on you. You were hammering Brian for not understanding the nature of the spill when your real beef is that either he expects 100% spill proof drilling or that he and by extension his man Obama has not laid out a comprehensive plan. The post I quoted above essentially concdes this point.
I think you’re also misrepresenting that he demands 100% spillproof guarrantee.
I, and I suspect Brian, do not expect 100% guarrantee, but we do want more oversight, and slowing down, or more vigorous process for approving additional off shore drilling.
My understanding is that oversight has been significantly weakend in all extraction industries under Pres Bush/Cheney. I for one like to see the regulations strengthened.
I am under the impression that Pres. Obama is open to nuclear, gas, even coal as well as wind, solar as part of an overall solution and in fact is the path he was proceeding.
One way to make other energy solutions cheaper by comparison is to make energy from oil more expensive. This can be done via taxes, less exploration/drilling of untapped reserves, higher operational costs due to insurance/safety procedures, oil extraction not keeping up w/ consumption or any combination of the above.
I prefer tax because it can be adjusted to smooth out the energy price increase. From what I read our economy can adjust to higher oil prices, just not the sudden swings we experienced recently. So theoretically we can set tax policy to steadily increase oil prices over years until gasoline is say $8 a gallon at the pump. Taxes can be reduced or increased depending on external events to keep the schedule. There is a lot of new technology that becomes viable at equivalent of $120/barrel prices. However, with market swings and uncertainty there is little incentive for investors.
Lastly, I’ve read that we need not just replacement for fuel, but we need replacement for all kinds of other pretoleum products. My understanding is that crude products belong to three major categories, gasoline, diesel/airplaine fuel, lubricants/asphalt/plastics and the like. We can massage around the edges but the % of each category from a barrel of crude is not really elastic. Maybe you can add insight to this. Therefore we not only need to find replacements in all the areas that currently pretroleum dependent. No one solution can do that.
-
AuthorPosts