On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:52:03 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John LarkinPost by flipperPost by John LarkinPersonally, I think that taxation is a better way to reduce gas
consumption than giving the money to foreigners.
I disagree with the theory even if it were true but all taxes do is
increase the cost and you still pay 'the foreigner' since he isn't
going to 'charge less' just because you've decided to rape the
populace with taxes.
Increasing the cost of gas will reduce consumption, whatever the
increase is from. If world market prices were constant and taxes were
increased, consumption would fall and we'd spend *less* net money on
imported oil.
'Simple' case of supply/demand, eh?
But, before we get into that, we should note that your proposal has
nothing whatsoever to do with the current complaint about prices as
it's patently absurd to suggest that raising price, by taxation, is
any kind of 'solution' to high prices.
The problem with your 'simple' supply/demand theory is that demand for
oil, more appropriately energy, is largely inelastic and it takes
draconian price increases to have even marginal effects, which is one
reason why price spikes so dramatically on even slight disruptions:
demand doesn't significantly drop so price is bid up as people strive
to maintain their supply. Which is why barring refinery construction
for 30 years so the ones left are perpetually operating at near full
capacity leads to price shocks when upsets occur.
Long term the effects are also marginal and merely serve to slightly
inhibit the increase in demand, not reduce it.
Nor does it make one any less 'vulnerable' to 'the foreigner', even if
it worked to any significant degree, because it's impossible, short of
economic collapse, to reduce demand down to anything even remotely
close to current domestic production levels and, since the market is
basically inelastic, foreign producers could still cause catastrophic
supply shortages. (The key here is diversification of supply sources;
reducing the impact any particular one has on the total. That still
leaves cost vulnerable to world pricing but supply is available.)
There are a myriad of other factors but I'll just sum up this portion
with a general comment that I object to the notion that government has
any 'right' to manipulate and coerce the public into it's vision of
what people 'should do' even if they had the slightest idea how to
accomplish it and what the consequences would be.
Post by John LarkinPost by flipperThe only way you avoid paying 'the foreigner' is if you increase
domestic production and you're not about to allow that, right?
Yes, I wish I made the rules, but I don't.
No offense but, for that, I'm grateful.
Post by John LarkinBut we're not going to
increase domestic production much, for long, unless we process coal or
tar sands or some such. We just don't have enough, something like 3%
of the world's reserves.
Yes, that's the typical 'enviro' (which would be more appropriately
called 'anti-technology', 'anti-mankind') approach: push all viable
solutions off the table and then declare there aren't any solutions.
The fact of the matter is that everything requires energy, even if
it's oxen pulling a plow, or you yourself. And while you can start a
'movement' to 'conserve oxen' but don't try to tell me it's
'painless'.
Post by John LarkinYou avoid "paying the foreigner" by buying less of his oil.
And the only viable way to do that is produce the energy yourself, or
go back to pulling your plow.
Post by John LarkinPost by flipperPost by John LarkinWhy increase prices?
To reduce strategic dependence on countries like Iran and Venezuela,
people who will hurt us if they can.
So to avoid that potential possibility you'll hurt everyone up front,
and then they get a double whammy should your fear happen anyway. But
at least you've ensured they're in pain and misery under even the best
scenario.
Post by John LarkinTo get rid of gross, hideous vehicles like Dodge Rams and Cadillac
Escallades and things named after the most fragile parts of the
planet, the places they're designed to destroy, like "Outback" and
"Sierra" and "Tundra."
No one designs cars specifically to 'hurt' your favorite wasteland.
Of course they do.
Pure nonsense.
Post by John LarkinLook at the ads of 3-ton SUVs tearing the country
landscape apart, huge tire gouges and clouds of dust. All that ground
clearance and knobby tires aren't for hauling groceries from a Safeway
in Los Angeles.
I see 'ads' with cars popping out little robot arms slicing open piggy
banks and reproducing, not to mention the 'talking' car telling me
what fuel he likes. You believe those too?
You need to get over that incredible urge to dictate to everyone else.
Post by John LarkinAnd you consider the Sierra Nevada to be a wasteland?
They don't have roads and traffic laws?
Post by John LarkinPost by flipperPost by John LarkinTo tone down the sick culture of cars in this country.
Before we hand over our freedoms would you mind telling us all the
other things you'd 'mandate' on our 'sick culture'?
Like I said, I'm not in charge. But $10 gas is just a matter of time,
If you have your way.
Post by John Larkinso I'll be happy in the end.
Of course. So, as I mentioned above, let's not fool anyone by
suggesting you're 'concerned' about high prices or that your proposals
are intended to 'help'.
Post by John LarkinThe pandering morons in Congress, whining
about gas price gouging, are merely ensuring that the inevitable price
increases will be shocking and panic-inducing and maximally disruptive
to the economy.
We might actually agree here, although for different reasons.
They'll likely ensure more "panic-inducing" disruptions by doing the
same thing they've done for the past 40 years in creating this one:
pander to the 'no new production of any kind regardless of the
disastrous impact' anti-technology, 'poor is better', crowd.
Post by John LarkinPost by flipperPost by John LarkinSpend the money on reducing the deficit. As if!
And how are you going to do that after having destroyed half the
economy in the process?
Again, all this will happen with minimal effort on my part.
Au contraire.
Post by John LarkinDoubling
the price of gas, or energy in general, will not destroy half the
economy, it'll just cause transient distress and ultimately shuffle
some priorities and reduce waste. Anything that's cheap is wasted.
That's the great myth.
Inefficiency, environmental destruction, poverty, un safe conditions,
and misery in general are almost directly proportional to the degree a
country tries to implement a 'command economy' with the former Soviet
Union being one of the more notorious examples.
The average businessman is infinitely more knowledgeable and motivated
to reduce 'waste' than any government could ever be, even if they
cared, and the great 'efficiency' myth derives from blindered 'single
issue' advocates who measure everything by their 'one thing', to hell
with all other costs, so they're perfectly happy to spend a thousand
dollars to 'save a buck' because, after all, it's 'more efficient'
that way.
Your "transient distress" argument is disingenuous for the same
reason.
Post by John LarkinHey, flipperfish, what do you drive?
Not really any of your business and I'm tempted to say I drive a
'monster SUV' because my goal in life has always been to destroy as
much of the environment as I possibly can. But the real reasons would
be more like if I thought they looked cool and were a babe magnet, or
were a good compromise between a conventional car and a truck, or that
I thought they were safer in collisions, or any number of reasons. If
I actually had one.