[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Who is arguing against allowing the US producers to sell their oil on the world market?
What relevance does it have wrt increasing our own domestic oil production (obviously assuming we don’t go back to $8/barrel)?
Any oil that is produced here DOES NOT belong to us. It can be sold anywhere a producer finds the most profit.[/quote]
It belongs to whoever legally sucks it out of the ground. Who is this “us” you are referring to?
Once again, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
Why do you enter threads that are obviously over your head and start trying to sound like an expert? You are wrong on oil and gas and international trade every time. And not by just a little bit, either.
It amazes me how utterly stupid you are when you are separated from your theory books.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I know for a fact money will go overseas, I do it all the time.
[/quote]
Be logical for one second it might do you some good.
You may exchange your money for some foreign goods but that money will not be spent abroad it will be used to facilitate trade here to balance out trade deficits.
If what you say is true about sending money overseas then the reverse of that is also true – meaning we would be spending foreign currency here. This is not the case. Yuen get spent in China, Dollars in the US, Euros in the EU, Pounds Sterling in the UK.
You are not a CPA you freakin’ fraud. Any CPA would know that.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
What exactly is yor point here? I know that you know enough about economics to know that us extracting oil here will have possitive effects on exchange rates. You seem to posses common sense as well, so I assume that you also agree that it would possitive impacts on domestic wealth in general.[/quote]
Yes, absolutely but only if the assumptions I laid out are true – i.e., it is more profitable produce and sell here than of the other possible combinations that could happen. It isn’t better for consumers if it costs them more just because it is pumped here.
The average American does not care about exchange rates, he wants cheap stuff. Maybe it is possible to provide it more cheaply by producing it domestically, I do not know. I am just supplying the missing information no one seems to consider.
The entire point is that it isn’t necessarily beneficial to produce something domestically – that is the law of comparative advantage.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I know for a fact money will go overseas, I do it all the time.
Be logical for one second it might do you some good.
You may exchange your money for some foreign goods but that money will not be spent abroad it will be used to facilitate trade here to balance out trade deficits.
If what you say is true about sending money overseas then the reverse of that is also true – meaning we would be spending foreign currency here. This is not the case. Yuen get spent in China, Dollars in the US, Euros in the EU, Pounds Sterling in the UK.
You are not a CPA you freakin’ fraud. Any CPA would know that.[/quote]
We used to send actual cash over seas. I don’t know how much more real it can get than that. Your ignorance of how the real world works is astonishing.
But now we use wire transfers. Money is leaving my account and showing up in theirs. Now, there may be a conversion that occurs with wire transfers - but money is leaving my account and showing up in theirs.
Do I need to repeat it again?
I have to give my bank their account information. Do you know what the word transfer means? No - not your made up definition - the real definition. I suggest you go look it up.
And no - I am not a CPA. I stopped being one several years ago in protest of what the profession had turned into.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes, absolutely but only if the assumptions I laid out are true – i.e., it is more profitable produce and sell here than of the other possible combinations that could happen. It isn’t better for consumers if it costs them more just because it is pumped here.
[/quote] this seem quite obvious in today’s market so I don’t know why you are even arguing this. We just need the handcuffs taken off and the market will decide where the oil will come from. Have you seen any evidence or testimony that suggests it would not be profitable to dril here?
The average American will certainly appreciate their dollars going further. I can appreciate the acedemic exercise but it simply doesn’t apply this conversation given our current situation.
[quote]
The entire point is that it isn’t necessarily beneficial to produce something domestically – that is the law of comparative advantage.[/quote]
I certainly understand comparative advantage, but have you seen profit of oil companies? The exercise you are persuing is simply not needed with the current or expected price of oil.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
The exercise you are persuing is simply not needed with the current or expected price of oil.
[/quote]
The academic exercise is needed. This may or may not be the case with oil but it can be applied to every good we either must produce ourselves or import. I certainly understand how domestic production can be beneficial, I also understand how it might not be. I agree about getting gov’t out of the way.
And in any event, any decision is ultimately a gamble that needs to be left to entrepreneurs, investors, and producers to make.
Bottom line, I want energy as cheap as I can get it.
OK, I lean a bit to the left but I am all for developing more domestic oil. It takes many years to develop oil fields and we need to have quick access to a supply in case we get squeezed by the assholes holding the tap. Frankly we need a domestic supply of jet fuel so we can go bomb the crappola out of Iran if they turn off the tap…
Do you have any idea how much cheaper it is to run crude through a pipeline than putting it on a ship and hauling halfway across the globe? That savings alone will more than pay for the increase in production costs at the well head.
[/quote]
Does this infrastructure exist? Is this something that the oil companies are going to put in place if it doesn’t?
It seems like some oil produced would hit the pipelines that we already have built, but if we are going to start drilling all over the coasts a good deal of that oil is just going to be just as cheap or cheaper for oil companies to sell elsewhere.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Domestic oil production means better balance of trade, better jobs, less worries about crazies in the middle east etc.
Drill baby drill!
Who gives a shit if we drill as long as we keep saying that we will! I love this new trend toward actually developing an energy policy.[/quote]
New trend? Nixon was going to develop an energy policy.
We don’t need an energy policy, we need Washington to get out of the way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Domestic oil production means better balance of trade, better jobs, less worries about crazies in the middle east etc.
Drill baby drill!
Who gives a shit if we drill as long as we keep saying that we will! I love this new trend toward actually developing an energy policy.
New trend? Nixon was going to develop an energy policy.
We don’t need an energy policy, we need Washington to get out of the way.[/quote]
Spontanious organization is something libs can’t imagine. If gov’t doesn’t organize or legislate it, they don’t beleive it will happen.
Spontanious organization is something libs can’t imagine. If gov’t doesn’t organize or legislate it, they don’t beleive it will happen.[/quote]
This is a shitty argument. There are no property rights without government, and in the absence of government cartels and other market distortions will still arise, but they will manifest much less democratically.
I’ve said it before. Instead of complaining about the government we need to have a stake in it. We are, after all, supposed to be self-governing.
IMO, if we revised our system of government representation instead of letting congress redistrict themselves we would all be much better off. The two party system would perish.
So keep your shitty attacks on “libs” (whoever they are) and pull your head out of your ass.
Spontanious organization is something libs can’t imagine. If gov’t doesn’t organize or legislate it, they don’t beleive it will happen.
This is a shitty argument. There are no property rights without government, and in the absence of government cartels and other market distortions will still arise, but they will manifest much less democratically.
[/quote]
First, it wasn’t an argument. It was a statement. I never said we don’t need government for anything. I will say that we certainly don’t need them to come up with an “energy policy”. Anything they come up with set us back just like every energy “policy” in place now.
Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but this is no longer a reality. If it were, it would not include an energy policy.
[quote]
IMO, if we revised our system of government representation instead of letting congress redistrict themselves we would all be much better off. The two party system would perish.
So keep your shitty attacks on “libs” (whoever they are) and pull your head out of your ass.[/quote]
you’re an idiot and way out of your league in here.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
This is a shitty argument. There are no property rights without government, and in the absence of government cartels and other market distortions will still arise, but they will manifest much less democratically.[/quote]
There are property rights as long as someone exists to defend property. It is not necessarily the State’s place to defend property.
Spontanious organization is something libs can’t imagine. If gov’t doesn’t organize or legislate it, they don’t beleive it will happen.
This is a shitty argument. There are no property rights without government, and in the absence of government cartels and other market distortions will still arise, but they will manifest much less democratically.
First, it wasn’t an argument. It was a statement. I never said we don’t need government for anything. I will say that we certainly don’t need them to come up with an “energy policy”. Anything they come up with set us back just like every energy “policy” in place now.
I’ve said it before. Instead of complaining about the government we need to have a stake in it. We are, after all, supposed to be self-governing.
Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but this is no longer a reality. If it were, it would not include an energy policy.
IMO, if we revised our system of government representation instead of letting congress redistrict themselves we would all be much better off. The two party system would perish.
So keep your shitty attacks on “libs” (whoever they are) and pull your head out of your ass.
you’re an idiot and way out of your league in here.
[/quote]
A statement is an argument, genius. Your argument sucked.
Spontanious organization is something libs can’t imagine. If gov’t doesn’t organize or legislate it, they don’t beleive it will happen.
This is a shitty argument. There are no property rights without government, and in the absence of government cartels and other market distortions will still arise, but they will manifest much less democratically.
First, it wasn’t an argument. It was a statement. I never said we don’t need government for anything. I will say that we certainly don’t need them to come up with an “energy policy”. Anything they come up with set us back just like every energy “policy” in place now.
I’ve said it before. Instead of complaining about the government we need to have a stake in it. We are, after all, supposed to be self-governing.
Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but this is no longer a reality. If it were, it would not include an energy policy.
IMO, if we revised our system of government representation instead of letting congress redistrict themselves we would all be much better off. The two party system would perish.
So keep your shitty attacks on “libs” (whoever they are) and pull your head out of your ass.
you’re an idiot and way out of your league in here.
A statement is an argument, genius. Your argument sucked. [/quote]
You haven’t given me any thing to argue. Why don’t you explain to me why you think we need an energy policy from gov’t and what it should be. I’ll be happy to take you to school junior.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I’ll be happy to take you to school junior.[/quote]
I’m sure you would. However, I’m not interested in learning about non-existent realities and regurgitated ideologies. The fact is that there is, has, and for the foreseeable future always will be energy policies.
The debate should be about whether or not they are working, which they clearly aren’t. Energy policy is an issue of national security. Period.
Laissez Faire doctrine is really only relevant as it pertains to international trade. It has been shown that over regulation of trade is deleterious to our society, there is no such thing as being “too secure” as far as domestic energy policy is concerned.
And as to your statement about us not being “self governed” anymore, why on earth wouldn’t that be your first concern? If you are right about energy policy, which I obviously don’t think you are, we would have a MUCH better chance of doing what you say if we fixed this first.
You really have no business complaining about over regulation when you refuse to take any interest in self-governance.