2008 Depression

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Oh, I get it. You want someone else to invest money finding the oil and developing the fields, then collect a reward.

From one perspective I can see what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with the underlying assumptions.

Consider, if for a moment, that those natural resources are physically a part of the nation. You are literally taking a piece of nation and selling it.

The roads, fences, power lines, trucks, drills, pumps, tanks, and the surface of the ground they occupy… those are all private property. The oil itself? That’s physically a part of the “mass” of the nation.

You can’t just “take” 5,000 valuable tons of the nation and then sell it. You’ve got to pay for it somehow. It’s got a price attached.

Alaska and some mainland states have a similar policy, if I’m not mistaken. Alaskans even get a cheque on a regular basis from their natural resource royalty revenues.

Whatever way you look at it, this system affords the provincial government zero debt and that means lower taxes for me. Therefore, I like it.

On another tangent altogether…

What are you talking about with regards to lixy? Those are some pretty strong claims. Would you mind posting a link to the thread/incident you are referring to?

ElbowStrike[/quote]

How far down does land property rights go? To the center of the earth?

Look, its assumed that anyone searching a property for oil agrees to split the profits with the owners of the land, whether it be government or privately held. The landowner gets a fee for access to the oil, if found. The oil belongs to the one who found it. Now, the land owner can, if they so choose, refuse access unless there is a contract. Canadians honor their contracts, Iran did not. They refused access and chose to run it themselves.

Could that be why they are not developing like India and China? Companies know that their investments will be confiscated…and that’s a big reason why we have to conquer the Middle East, to civilize it. The poor and disenfranchised there need our help.

More on Lixy later…teaching a class in about 5 minutes.

42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Oh, I get it. You want someone else to invest money finding the oil and developing the fields, then collect a reward.

From one perspective I can see what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with the underlying assumptions.

Consider, if for a moment, that those natural resources are physically a part of the nation. You are literally taking a piece of nation and selling it.

The roads, fences, power lines, trucks, drills, pumps, tanks, and the surface of the ground they occupy… those are all private property. The oil itself? That’s physically a part of the “mass” of the nation.

You can’t just “take” 5,000 valuable tons of the nation and then sell it. You’ve got to pay for it somehow. It’s got a price attached.

Alaska and some mainland states have a similar policy, if I’m not mistaken. Alaskans even get a cheque on a regular basis from their natural resource royalty revenues.

Whatever way you look at it, this system affords the provincial government zero debt and that means lower taxes for me. Therefore, I like it.

On another tangent altogether…

What are you talking about with regards to lixy? Those are some pretty strong claims. Would you mind posting a link to the thread/incident you are referring to?

ElbowStrike

How far down does land property rights go? To the center of the earth?

Look, its assumed that anyone searching a property for oil agrees to split the profits with the owners of the land, whether it be government or privately held. The landowner gets a fee for access to the oil, if found. The oil belongs to the one who found it. Now, the land owner can, if they so choose, refuse access unless there is a contract. Canadians honor their contracts, Iran did not. They refused access and chose to run it themselves.

Could that be why they are not developing like India and China? Companies know that their investments will be confiscated…and that’s a big reason why we have to conquer the Middle East, to civilize it. The poor and disenfranchised there need our help.

More on Lixy later…teaching a class in about 5 minutes.

[/quote]

Law is not your strong, neither theoretical nor practical.

While you do have a point that some law systems make you own the place all the way down and others don´t, indicating that what exactly is your property is a matter of legal definition I´d like to see you find oil our extract it if I do not allow you to enter my properties surface which is undeniably mine.

Could be done theoretically when the piece of property is small but it would be hard.

Second, the reason Iran has economic problems is exactly that they are not honoring property rights and of course this pesky little sanctions that must be more like a fifth season for them than anything else.

That however does not mean that we have to baptize them with the sword, um, convince them to use our socioeconomic model, the poor and disenfranchised there not only want to live but also voted for the man nationalizing the oil fields.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields.
[/quote]
This doesn’t make sense to me. This would mean that trees growing on my property belong to those that I allow to come in and produce usable wood from.

Would it not be more correct to assume that I am selling my trees to the wood producers and thus we can say there is a rightful exchange of property? This to me would be a contractual question.

I would not assume that just because I have the technology and skill to drill for and produce crude oil means I have an inherent right to it if there is no legal exchange of property.

44

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
What are you talking about with regards to lixy? Those are some pretty strong claims. Would you mind posting a link to the thread/incident you are referring to? [/quote]

Allow me to bring you up to speed.

I am a Muslim who opposes American interventionism. Since we all know that if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists, according to Hedo, HH and others, I must therefore be an agent of Al-Qaeda distilling not-so-subliminal propaganda to take over the world.

Anyway, I find it amusing that HH started threads dedicated to the theory that I am in Afghanistan in a so-called cyber-jihad group, with a cell-leader going around telling us what to do. I say amusing because, despite the seriousness of the accusation, the term “terrorist sympathizer” became mundane after 2003. It is used as a wildcard to silence any opposition to gratuitous aggression. But I digress…

As for the second part of his post, it is pure twisting of the facts. It originated in the following thread which I recommend you read and decide for yourself;

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1814017&pageNo=0

In any case, it seems I hit a nerve calling HH an old man.

Edited missing tag

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields.

This doesn’t make sense to me. This would mean that trees growing on my property belong to those that I allow to come in and produce usable wood from.

Would it not be more correct to assume that I am selling my trees to the wood producers and thus we can say there is a rightful exchange of property? This to me would be a contractual question.

I would not assume that just because I have the technology and skill to drill for and produce crude oil means I have an inherent right to it if there is no legal exchange of property.[/quote]

Growing above the land and minerals under the ground are different.

Landowners in the US are paid royalties on the oil/gas that is found and extracted from their property.

The bulk of the money goes to the one taking the highest risk. The landowner incurs no risk. They are paid a lease for the right to enter their property, and paid royalties on everything etracted. The amount of the royalties is dependent on the quality of the landowners’ legal representation to negotiate the best percentage for their clients.

If you owned a forest, and you wanted to keep all the money for yourself, you should go into the logging business. Otherwise, you will be paid based on a percentage of the value of the wood harvested for your land.

46

[quote]lixy wrote:
As for the second part of his post, it is pure twisting of the facts. It originated in the following thread which I recommend you read and decide for yourself.[/quote]

Damn. Talk about “out of context”.

How many times do you have to explicitly say that you do not approve of the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor their legal systems?

The article for “straw man” on Wikipedia should have a link to that thread.

Don’t worry too much about it. When people stop attacking your position and start attacking you it just means they’ve lost the argument.

ElbowStrike

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields.

This doesn’t make sense to me. This would mean that trees growing on my property belong to those that I allow to come in and produce usable wood from.

Would it not be more correct to assume that I am selling my trees to the wood producers and thus we can say there is a rightful exchange of property? This to me would be a contractual question.

I would not assume that just because I have the technology and skill to drill for and produce crude oil means I have an inherent right to it if there is no legal exchange of property.[/quote]

The value you added to the land was your effort to produce the trees. The land owner is a passive participant. He is entitled to his share for allowing the raw material to be used. You did the work, the trees are yours. You pay a fee for use of the land, and that’s his share.

Oil doesn’t magically come out of the ground and turn itself into gasoline. The oil belongs to he who wrests it from the earth. That person pays a fee for access to the oil but the oil is NOT the landowner’s.

If the oil IS the landowner’s, let’s see what happens if no one pumps it out for him. It has no value at all then. It is nothing.

48

[quote]lixy wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
What are you talking about with regards to lixy? Those are some pretty strong claims. Would you mind posting a link to the thread/incident you are referring to?

Allow me to bring you up to speed.

I am a Muslim who opposes American interventionism. Since we all know that if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists, according to Hedo, HH and others, I must therefore be an agent of Al-Qaeda distilling not-so-subliminal propaganda to take over the world.

Anyway, I find it amusing that HH started threads dedicated to the theory that I am in Afghanistan in a so-called cyber-jihad group, with a cell-leader going around telling us what to do. I say amusing because, despite the seriousness of the accusation, the term “terrorist sympathizer” became mundane after 2003. It is used as a wildcard to silence any opposition to gratuitous aggression. But I digress…

As for the second part of his post, it is pure twisting of the facts. It originated in the following thread which I recommend you read and decide for yourself;

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1814017&pageNo=0

In any case, it seems I hit a nerve calling HH an old man.

Edited missing tag[/quote]

Nah, not at all. We’re suspicious of you because you write like an American on an American site and write shit like the following:

"I don’t know about virgins, but the ones behind the horrendous situation sure get to have bases in Iraq.

I probably should add that Al-Qaeda’s aren’t permanent."

If you don’t think that such statements would make most Americans suspicious of you, you’re dreaming. You cast Al-Qeada as somehow superior to American troops protecting a fledgling democracy and the resistance to that as somehow noble. Just because some Muslims can’t accept the outcome of an election…

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields.

This doesn’t make sense to me. This would mean that trees growing on my property belong to those that I allow to come in and produce usable wood from.

Would it not be more correct to assume that I am selling my trees to the wood producers and thus we can say there is a rightful exchange of property? This to me would be a contractual question.

I would not assume that just because I have the technology and skill to drill for and produce crude oil means I have an inherent right to it if there is no legal exchange of property.

The value you added to the land was your effort to produce the trees. The land owner is a passive participant. He is entitled to his share for allowing the raw material to be used. You did the work, the trees are yours. You pay a fee for use of the land, and that’s his share.

Oil doesn’t magically come out of the ground and turn itself into gasoline. The oil belongs to he who wrests it from the earth. That person pays a fee for access to the oil but the oil is NOT the landowner’s.

If the oil IS the landowner’s, let’s see what happens if no one pumps it out for him. It has no value at all then. It is nothing.

[/quote]

Merely legal technicalities.

However you put it, the landowner has the right to exclude you from pumping his oil out of the ground, that makes it for all practical purposes “his” oil.

You want it, you pay for it.

50

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If the oil IS the landowner’s, let’s see what happens if no one pumps it out for him. It has no value at all then. It is nothing.
[/quote]
Is this not true of all goods? Everything requires production.

I still think with your analogy we could argue a lumberjack would be able to claim trees on my property as his own merely because he has a sharp ax and I do not, for example. Without an ax these trees are of no use to me.

To argue against RJ’s point: what difference does it matter that trees are above ground and oil is below? Risk has nothing to do with ownership. That is always an internalized cost. You assume that the property owner has no risk in drilling but imagine what would happen if the oil company screwed up and spilled oil all over his land…

Everything we are arguing about is nothing more than a contractual matter that would be agreed upon by the parties in question prior to production. One cannot claim resources on an other’s property as his own no matter what superior technology he or she may possess to produce it without a voluntary arrangement.

51

^ MAXIMVS is spot on!

Now, does anyone know what Iranian laws regarding natural resources were during the Mossadeq period?

Either way, the United States did not have the right to interfere in the democratic process in Iran. If it were sound under Iranian law for the oil industry to be nationalized, then that is the risk you take when doing business abroad.

The resulting backlash of international companies refusing to do business in Iran is the proper punishment for their infraction against British Petroleum.

Also, Britain would be well within their rights to demand fair compensation for the British Petroleum Co. If compensation were not provided voluntarily by Iran, then Britain and her allies should have instituted harsh tariffs against Iran until the damages had been paid off.

When your neighbour’s kids play with fire and burn down your garage, you sue him for damages. You don’t walk over to his house, kill him, and force the family to accept a new “father” you handpicked for them. Especially not one that has a nasty habit of beating and torturing the mother and kids.

As it was, Britain and America, blinded by power and pride, deposed an elected government, installed a brutal dictator, which led to a Muslim revolt and the Islamic Fascist government in power today – all of which would have been prevented had superpower intervention not taken place.

I believe there is an Ebonic proverb which states, “Don’t start nuthin’ and there won’t be nuthin’”.

(edit)
And before anyone points out “But Iran shouldn’t have nationalized the oil industry!”

Iran did not force Britain or America to do anything. Iran only dicked with Iran’s own affairs. A person is only responsible for their own actions and so it is the same with nations.

Iran is responsible for the natural economic backlash against nationalizing their oil industry.

Britain and America are responsible for installing a brutal dictatorship.

It’s obvious that the latter is the greater crime.

Given this history, an invasion and occupation of Iran would do nothing more than make the Iraq insurgency look like a goddamn tea party.
(/edit)

ElbowStrike

52

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
^ MAXIMVS is spot on!

Now, does anyone know what Iranian laws regarding natural resources were during the Mossadeq period?

Either way, the United States did not have the right to interfere in the democratic process in Iran. If it were sound under Iranian law for the oil industry to be nationalized, then that is the risk you take when doing business abroad.

[/quote]

That’s the end of your argument right there: if someone votes to take away your rights, then you certainly DO have the right to fight such actions.

What happens in these backwaters is that, in the name of ‘democracy’, some tinpot wannabe-el-presidente, convinces the populace that they are being screwed somehow by ‘big bad America’, the Great Satan. They then vote because the future dictator promises them a paradise built on the money no longer going to the evil Americans or Brits. Of course, the dictator buys yachts and whores with the money and puts a lot in Swiss banks (like Arafat and his $2 billion dollars). The people are worse off because now no one will invest there.

If they had shown that they were law-abiding, they’d have developed and had a boom, like India and China. Instead, all they export are more Muslim hordes into Europe and the USA.

Iran would be far better off if the USA went in and installed the rule of law, instead of insanities like Sharia ‘Law’, and other such Satanic rituals.

53

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:

On another tangent altogether…

What are you talking about with regards to lixy? Those are some pretty strong claims. Would you mind posting a link to the thread/incident you are referring to?

ElbowStrike[/quote]

Read back. He’s fond of raping little girls, and arranged marriages. He is a pedophile and a coward of the highest order.

I won’t waste my time looking for Lixy’s child molesting musings.

54

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

To argue against RJ’s point: what difference does it matter that trees are above ground and oil is below? Risk has nothing to do with ownership. That is always an internalized cost. You assume that the property owner has no risk in drilling but imagine what would happen if the oil company screwed up and spilled oil all over his land…
[/quote]

First off - you need to read what I wrote. I never said a thing about ownership and risk. I said money follows the risk. Higher risk = higher reward.

Learn to read.

55

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ElbowStrike wrote:
Iran would be far better off if the USA went in and installed the rule of law.[/quote]

That may be, but judging by the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war and occupation of Iran cannot end well.

Regardless, we need to win the wars we are fighting right now before talking up wars in the 'morrow.

That and to pay for an invasion of Iran, Bush would have to go to the Fed again and we all saw what happened to the value of the American dollar the last time he did that.

ElbowStrike

56

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

To argue against RJ’s point: what difference does it matter that trees are above ground and oil is below? Risk has nothing to do with ownership. That is always an internalized cost. You assume that the property owner has no risk in drilling but imagine what would happen if the oil company screwed up and spilled oil all over his land…

First off - you need to read what I wrote. I never said a thing about ownership and risk. I said money follows the risk. Higher risk = higher reward.

Learn to read.
[/quote]

The original point I was arguing against was the US’s inherent right to claim oil in another country because it has the technology to extract and produce it. I still haven’t received an explanation as to why minerals below ground are any different than that which grows above ground in terms of property ownership.

I don’t know why you would speak about risk in this regard because the debate was never about the reward for a successful endeavor. Besides this there is no economic laws that states the market will necessarily bear the risk taken by an entrepreneur – hence it is called risk.

It still comes down to a contractual agreement.

57

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The original point I was arguing against was the US’s inherent right to claim oil in another country because it has the technology to extract and produce it. I still haven’t received an explanation as to why minerals below ground are any different than that which grows above ground in terms of property ownership.[/quote]

Who said it was the US’s “inherent right”? The one that does the extracting of a natural resource takes the risk of failure, and gets the bulk of the reward. This is common sense. Your inability to grasp this basic concept makes it futile to attempt explain anything further to you.

[quote]I don’t know why you would speak about risk in this regard because the debate was never about the reward for a successful endeavor. Besides this there is no economic laws that states the market will necessarily bear the risk taken by an entrepreneur – hence it is called risk.

It still comes down to a contractual agreement.[/quote]

This is a bunch of bullshit. Get out from behind your macro-econ book and pay attention to the real world.

If I have a contract to extract oil from under your land, and I get 75% of the oil for my efforts - I am getting royally fucked if a government nationalizes that well, and keeps the money that is contractually obligated to me.

58

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who said it was the US’s “inherent right”? The one that does the extracting of a natural resource takes the risk of failure, and gets the bulk of the reward.
[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock! My originally reply was to HH’s comment: [quote]"oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields.[/quote]

HH made it seem as if property was something other than contractual agreement.

Then you start speaking to me about risk. I know full well what risk implies. You, however, do not.

Well, that is a risk, isn’t it?!

59

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Who said it was the US’s “inherent right”? The one that does the extracting of a natural resource takes the risk of failure, and gets the bulk of the reward.

No shit, Sherlock! My originally reply was to HH’s comment: "oil belongs to those who discover it aand develop the fields.

HH made it seem as if property was something other than contractual agreement.

[/quote]

You are confusing the oil with the ACCESS to the oil. Just because someone owns the land over which the oil sits, they are allowed to ask for money in exchange for access. Why does this magically cause them to own the oil? If you own a home, do you own all the land underneath it down to the center of the earth? Why not right on through the earth? “Hey, I own land in China!!” Or do they own my land?

Anyway, gold is around $900/ounce and the stock market is on the verge of a collapse, at least 40%. Yes, we are going to have a mild depression. The developing major powers like China will have a major depression — the fading major economic power always has a milder depression.

60

Prof predicts Bad Recession:

Bearish outlook sees worst recession since Depression

Bulls and bears debate sting and reach of housing downturn

Thursday, January 10, 2008 By Glenn Roberts Jr.Inman News

NEW YORK – Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is calling it the worst housing recession since the days of the Great Depression.

Nouriel Roubini
Speaking during a session at the Real Estate Connect NYC conference on Wednesday, Roubini said he believes that a U.S. economic recession began in late 2007 and “is going to be much more severe” than economic recessions earlier this decade and in the early 1990s, with credit problems spreading across the financial system and impacting all forms of home loans, commercial real estate loans and even auto loans, among other forms of financing.

“What we’re worried about today is a systemic financial crisis. This is a severe, massive problem. It’s going to take years to adjust,” said Roubini. Home prices have already fallen 15 percent to 20 percent in some areas from their peaks during the latest housing boom, with housing starts tumbling 40 percent and sales sliding about 50 percent, he said.