Members thenakedarab Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 You and me are going to pay for it. Not the stock holders. They will pass the price of the tax on to the pump, and the consumer will pay for it directly in the form of higher prices. That's the way taxes on businesses work. Econ 101. Plus all those "worthless pieces of paper" that you hope would "shrivel up" happen to include millions of peoples' retirement funds, and thousands of others whose jobs are at stake. What don't you understand about regulating the amount they can charge? I said it in plain English man. They will be forced at the end of the legislative pen to keep prices reasonable. Maybe then they would invest a greater amount in keeping their refineries working at peak efficiency, and incorporating newer and even more efficient technology in order to make profits they way it's actually supposed to work in economics. If they act honestly, and in a healthy economic fashion the businesses that deliver innovation and improved value will prosper, while those that wish to adhere to the status quo will whither and die. IMO it would be the best thing that happened to the industry since the invention of the drill. Economics does not in any way imply that market manipulation in the way the oil industries have practiced it is healthy economically for a society. It puts forth that finding new and more efficient practices that deliver great value to society as a whole, which in turn generates profits as people choose your product in a free market is how a business and the larger industry as a whole are supposed to operate. None of which even remotely resembles the oil industry as it exists today. As far as the jobs, well the republicans didn't worry too much about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to out sourcing when they voted Bush in both times, so why the hell should they care about the oil workers now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 I don't think you quite get it. It's true that the profit margins of these oil companies are low. HOWEVER, that's not to say that their actual profits are not the same. For example, let's say you've got a limited supply of a certain product that will not exist after it is sold, and this product is needed by consumers. With a 10% profit margin, you could sell it for $100 and make $10 in profits. But if you sell it for $300, you will make $30 with the same profit margin. The oil industry knows that oil is a non-renewable resource. They're simply trying to get as much money as they possibly can from each drop of oil. If an oil company drilled more, that would bring down the price of oil, which would bring down the price of gas (assuming they don't sell it off to China or India). That would lead to less profits, which wouldn't make the shareholders very happy. BTW, I like how you forgot to make an argument against my, "the price of gas not coming down unless America nationalizes the oil industry", argument. How convenient. EDITED: Yes, perhaps the profit in actual $$$ earned per drop will be less, however; with more gallons being sold their actual profit $ amounts will be higher. I haven't yet see the government run anything efficiently, so the idea of socializing fuel seems ridiculous to me. The regulations that the government has already put in place has made it such that no new refineries have been built in what 30 + years, and that doesn't seem to have worked to the public's benefit, as I see it. Fundamentally, it appears that we differ in the stance re: profits being realized. I don't have a problem with people making profits, and it appears that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members marshallnoise Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 After reading through several pages of this I have come to a conclusion. I am thankfull the U.S.A. is not run by Musicians ... +1I came to this conclusion years ago. I am a business guy who happens to play guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BigFatPaulWall Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 Yes, perhaps the profit margin per drop will be less, however; with more gallons being sold their actual profit $ amounts will be higher. I haven't yet see the government run anything efficiently, so the idea of socializing fuel seems ridiculous to me. The regulations that the government has already put in place has made it such that no new refineries have been built in what 30 + years, and that doesn't seem to have worked to the public's benefit, as I see it.Fundamentally, it appears that we differ in the stance re: profits being realized. I don't have a problem with people making profits, and it appears that you do. No, profit margins stay the same...but the physical profits themselves change, and drastically. I have no problem with people running a business or a company. I do have a problem when these people try to exploit a whole populations' weakness for their own damn greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny'sGotTheBlues Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 No, profit margins stay the same...but the physical profits themselves change, and drastically.I have no problem with people running a business or a company. I do have a problem when these people try to exploit a whole populations' weakness for their own damn greed. Break the weakness cycle. Be strong. Stop using petroleum products. Be a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BigFatPaulWall Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 Break the weakness cycle. Be strong. Stop using petroleum products. Be a leader. That would be easy if public transportation existed in Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BadRonald Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 Stop using petroleum products. Never. As long as rubber products and many plastics are petroleum based we will not stop using it.Oil is not only used for gasoline. It's used in HUGE industries. Oil is not going away. It's there to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zachman Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 Never. As long as rubber products and many plastics are petroleum based we will not stop using it. Oil is not only used for gasoline. It's used in HUGE industries. Oil is not going away. It's there to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wader2k Posted June 23, 2008 Members Share Posted June 23, 2008 {censored} them. They can go screw themselves. Better check your retirement fund ...... might be yours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Agreed Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 Oil is a fungible commodity and unless we close our borders completely and utterly internalize our oil production (not going to happen), off-shore drilling is a drop in the bucket that will have no real impact on the global oil market and hence no real impact on the price of gas, plastics, etc. It would benefit the oil production industry in America, perhaps by as much as a 7% increase in size, but that's not going to fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 No, profit margins stay the same...but the physical profits themselves change, and drastically.I have no problem with people running a business or a company. I do have a problem when these people try to exploit a whole populations' weakness for their own damn greed. This about sums up my feeling on the matter. ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scud133 Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 What don't you understand about regulating the amount they can charge? I said it in plain English man. They will be forced at the end of the legislative pen to keep prices reasonable. Maybe then they would invest a greater amount in keeping their refineries working at peak efficiency, and incorporating newer and even more efficient technology in order to make profits they way it's actually supposed to work in economics. If they act honestly, and in a healthy economic fashion the businesses that deliver innovation and improved value will prosper, while those that wish to adhere to the status quo will whither and die. IMO it would be the best thing that happened to the industry since the invention of the drill. Economics does not in any way imply that market manipulation in the way the oil industries have practiced it is healthy economically for a society. It puts forth that finding new and more efficient practices that deliver great value to society as a whole, which in turn generates profits as people choose your product in a free market is how a business and the larger industry as a whole are supposed to operate. None of which even remotely resembles the oil industry as it exists today. So a price ceiling? Well that is a totally different point, you're right. But an economist would argue that it's not any better: http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/price-ceiling.php Either way, if you are restricting output (either through higher taxes or artificial price floors/ceilings) then you are reducing total welfare. Somebody ALWAYS gets burned, that's why econ is the dismal science. And in this case, unfortunately, the nature of the business will ensure that consumers get burned, not the energy companies. The majority of my Microeconomic Theory studies in college dealt with artificial price controls (ceilings, floors, taxes) and how they impact the market -- that site provides a good overview without getting too technical. If you took econ 101 it should be easy to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 Never. As long as rubber products and many plastics are petroleum based we will not stop using it. Oil is not only used for gasoline. It's used in HUGE industries. Oil is not going away. It's there to use. Most plastics and rubbers could be made by bacteria and plants within the next few decades with proper funding of the research. It's really quite promising stuff, and they're easier to make bio-degradable too. Talk about win/win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rscornutt Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 This has probably been pointed out before, but there are only two ways in which to bring the price of oil down. You either have to reduce demand or increase supply. Reducing demand is not going to happen since there are nations that are even farther away from developing alternative fuels (or can bear the cost of development and implementation). The only real way to do it, without artificial means such as price control, is to increase supply. Therefore, we should drill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 So a price ceiling? Well that is a totally different point, you're right. But it's not any better: http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/price-ceiling.php Either way, if you are restricting output (either through higher taxes or artificial price floors/ceilings) then you are reducing total welfare. Somebody ALWAYS gets burned, that's why econ is the dismal science. And in this case, unfortunately, the nature of the business will ensure that consumers get burned, not the energy companies. The majority of my Microeconomic Theory studies in college dealt with artificial price controls (ceilings, floors, taxes) and how they impact the market -- that site provides a good overview without getting too technical. If you took econ 101 it should be easy to understand. I know just as well as you do man that in the long term such tinkering can never come to good, but neither can the tinkering that the corporations and their sock puppets have been responsible for as we can all too plainly see. I think that in the shirt term the strict regulations would help to separate the wheat from the chafe, and purge the market of the collusion, and cartel mindset it has grown accustomed to. BTW, I'm an accounting major, so econ, management, marketing, statistics, and accounting courses have been my life the past year, but I prefer to not use most of the jargon here and totally lose the ability to hold a discourse with people that don't think in those terms. All of the major economic ideas can be conveyed in lay terms, and both you and I know that much of econ theory is heavily biased and subjective, sometimes from the Keynesian viewpoint, and sometimes from the Classical viewpoint. As far as the someone getting burned, yep, there's only so much pie to go around, but I feel the government needs to hand us a few extra pieces out of this one instead of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 This has probably been pointed out before, but there are only two ways in which to bring the price of oil down. You either have to reduce demand or increase supply. Reducing demand is not going to happen since there are nations that are even farther away from developing alternative fuels (or can bear the cost of development and implementation). The only real way to do it, without artificial means such as price control, is to increase supply. Therefore, we should drill. If you were to change the last sentence to therefore the oil companies should actually bring their refineries up to peak efficiency and capacity then I might agree with you, but that is not the case. In America there is a refining capacity shortage, and no that doesn't mean we need new refineries. It means the ones already in place are neglected and allowed to run well under peak capacity. While this won't impact the price per barrel in the global market, it will impact prices at home to some degree, and much, much faster than any drilling would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 read a story about this on CNN.com today...apparently, there's about 90 million acres worth of open deep water leases. only about 20 million are actually being utilized. why is it that they want to open MORE available fields when they aren't even drilling the ones they already have leases on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thenakedarab Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 read a story about this on CNN.com today...apparently, there's about 90 million acres worth of open deep water leases. only about 20 million are actually being utilized. why is it that they want to open MORE available fields when they aren't even drilling the ones they already have leases on? Because it's all theater, obfuscation, and subterfuge man, with the sole aim of screwing you and I out of our hard earned dollars. That's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 it was more of a rhetorical question, but i'm right there with ya on it:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BigFatPaulWall Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 Oil is a fungible commodity and unless we close our borders completely and utterly internalize our oil production (not going to happen), off-shore drilling is a drop in the bucket that will have no real impact on the global oil market and hence no real impact on the price of gas, plastics, etc. It would benefit the oil production industry in America, perhaps by as much as a 7% increase in size, but that's not going to fix the problem. That's exactly what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny'sGotTheBlues Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 Because it's all theater, obfuscation, and subterfuge man, with the sole aim of screwing you and I out of our hard earned dollars. That's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarcapo Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 One hurricane and we're {censored}ed. If it has any effect on the price of a barrel of oil, you DO realize it would be worldwide and not just us, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scud133 Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 read a story about this on CNN.com today...apparently, there's about 90 million acres worth of open deep water leases. only about 20 million are actually being utilized.why is it that they want to open MORE available fields when they aren't even drilling the ones they already have leases on? part of the prob is that some of those 90 million acres don't have oil at all, and some of the areas that do have oil are hard to get to, or not cost effective for drilling. i think the idea is if the ban is lifted, then they can drill in areas where the oil is easier to get to, and extraction costs are lower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 part of the prob is that some of those 90 million acres don't have oil at all, and some of the areas that do have oil are hard to get to, or not cost effective for drilling.i think the idea is if the ban is lifted, then they can drill in areas where the oil is easier to get to, and extraction costs are lower And that won't help us a damn bit. Oil is still a commodity and sold at the world market price. The only thing "cheaper extractable" oil does is add more profits to the oil companies. You can bet your arse that the oil in the "hard to reach' areas still costs (a lot less) then $130 a barrel to get to. Since it only costs 4$ a barrel to extract from some poor African country, it doesn't make financial sense for the oil companies to go for the hard to get stuff. Supply is NOT the problem now, speculation is. That speculation is based upon the turmoil of world events. Want it to end? End the oil based economy. That means cheap alternative fuels. Since that means the end of a dynasty and the oil empire, we're going to have to fight for it. It isn't simply going to happen. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members starsnuffer Posted June 24, 2008 Members Share Posted June 24, 2008 part of the prob is that some of those 90 million acres don't have oil at all, and some of the areas that do have oil are hard to get to, or not cost effective for drilling.i think the idea is if the ban is lifted, then they can drill in areas where the oil is easier to get to, and extraction costs are lower And that won't help us a damn bit. Oil is still a commodity and sold at the world market price. The only thing "cheaper extractable" oil does is add more profits to the oil companies. You can bet your arse that the oil in the "hard to reach' areas still costs (a lot less) then $130 a barrel to get to. Since it only costs 4$ a barrel to extract from some poor African country, it doesn't make financial sense for the oil companies to go for the hard to get stuff. Supply is NOT the problem now, speculation is. That speculation is based upon the turmoil of world events. Want it to end? End the oil based economy. That means cheap alternative fuels. Since that means the end of a dynasty and the oil empire, we're going to have to fight for it. It isn't simply going to happen. -W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.