D
- Status
D
Dave Simpson
Guest
Ian St. John wrote:
> > > Check this out... America uses percapita twice as much oil as Europe!
> >
> > Oooooo -- with an exclamation mark at the end, even.
> Worth a bit of an exclamation point. It clearly shows how subsidies for gasoline drive
> consumption.
Now you advertise you are not only dishonest and often asinine, but a bit of a buffoon,
too. Pathetic.
Dave Simpson
> > > Check this out... America uses percapita twice as much oil as Europe!
> >
> > Oooooo -- with an exclamation mark at the end, even.
> Worth a bit of an exclamation point. It clearly shows how subsidies for gasoline drive
> consumption.
Now you advertise you are not only dishonest and often asinine, but a bit of a buffoon,
too. Pathetic.
Dave Simpson
I
Ian St. John
Guest
"Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ian St. John wrote:
>
> > Speaking of not thinking, Scott has already apologised for his
'mistakes' in
> > the post. Are you that honest?
>
> The real issue is: You don't apologize for your frequent errors and misbehavior. You owe
> everyone numerous apologies.
Apparently not. I have my answer.
>
>
> Dave Simpleton
news:[email protected]...
> Ian St. John wrote:
>
> > Speaking of not thinking, Scott has already apologised for his
'mistakes' in
> > the post. Are you that honest?
>
> The real issue is: You don't apologize for your frequent errors and misbehavior. You owe
> everyone numerous apologies.
Apparently not. I have my answer.
>
>
> Dave Simpleton
M
Martin K.
Guest
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:11:04 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>This is a perfect example of how simpletons can create meaningless verbiage without limit. It is
>easy enough for a fool to do as Dave demonstrates all too well.
This is why most serious contributors to these conferences ignore him. Stupid, childish flame wars
are what he's about. Advice: move on.
>This is a perfect example of how simpletons can create meaningless verbiage without limit. It is
>easy enough for a fool to do as Dave demonstrates all too well.
This is why most serious contributors to these conferences ignore him. Stupid, childish flame wars
are what he's about. Advice: move on.
M
Mark Schaffer
Guest
[email protected] (Dave Simpson) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> MTV wrote:
>
> > Good case for drilling in ANWR.
>
> The existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is the best case for drilling in ANWR.
> Put it to all the use we can get out of it before its service life has ended.
>
>
> Dave Simpson
If you were in the mood to actually learn something about this you might want to start here:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-wrong-number.html
news:<[email protected]>...
> MTV wrote:
>
> > Good case for drilling in ANWR.
>
> The existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is the best case for drilling in ANWR.
> Put it to all the use we can get out of it before its service life has ended.
>
>
> Dave Simpson
If you were in the mood to actually learn something about this you might want to start here:
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-wrong-number.html
I
Ian St. John
Guest
"Mark Schaffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Dave Simpson) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > MTV wrote:
> >
> > > Good case for drilling in ANWR.
> >
> > The existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is the best case for drilling in
> > ANWR. Put it to all the use we can get out of it before its service life has ended.
> >
> >
> > Dave Simpson
>
> If you were in the mood to actually learn something about this you might want to start here:
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-wrong-number.html
And then remember that the numbers being strewn around are fabrications built on hypothetical
geophysical exercises that have "drilled" a lot of dry holes in similar terrrain, not estimates
built on actual physical evidence.
Right now, economically recoverable or technically recoverable oil is ZERO. It is the HOPE of a lot
of fossil fool zealots that they will discover enough black gold to offset the damage they will do (
whatever the outcome).
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Dave Simpson) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > MTV wrote:
> >
> > > Good case for drilling in ANWR.
> >
> > The existence of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is the best case for drilling in
> > ANWR. Put it to all the use we can get out of it before its service life has ended.
> >
> >
> > Dave Simpson
>
> If you were in the mood to actually learn something about this you might want to start here:
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-wrong-number.html
And then remember that the numbers being strewn around are fabrications built on hypothetical
geophysical exercises that have "drilled" a lot of dry holes in similar terrrain, not estimates
built on actual physical evidence.
Right now, economically recoverable or technically recoverable oil is ZERO. It is the HOPE of a lot
of fossil fool zealots that they will discover enough black gold to offset the damage they will do (
whatever the outcome).
R
Ricardo
Guest
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:23:51 -0400, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop better
>and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good step in the
>right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota Presis hybrid and
>he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave others
to the guinea piggery.
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply for liability
purposes: I *always* obey the law. '89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
>Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop better
>and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good step in the
>right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota Presis hybrid and
>he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave others
to the guinea piggery.
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply for liability
purposes: I *always* obey the law. '89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
C
Chris Phillipo
Guest
In article <3f0c534d.48797830@news>, [email protected] says...
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:23:51 -0400, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop
> >better and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good
> >step in the right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota
> >Presis hybrid and he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
>
> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
> others to the guinea piggery.
>
>
This years Civic hybrid fits the bill but it isn't selling so great.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:23:51 -0400, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop
> >better and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good
> >step in the right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota
> >Presis hybrid and he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
>
> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
> others to the guinea piggery.
>
>
This years Civic hybrid fits the bill but it isn't selling so great.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
C
Chris Phillipo
Guest
> > >
> >
> > How odd, the country farthest north uses the most energy per person. I hope they didn't spend
> > too much on that study. I could have told them that by looking at my oil bill I'm still paying
> > from last winter. I suppose if we start to paying fuel taxes as outrageuous as they do in the UK
> > that will by default create greater conservation. Right around the time I can't afford to pay
> > for that 3rd tank of oil in mid February I'll start to conserve oil by dying of hypothermia.
>
> You might consider more insulation as well, and maybe a cross flow heat exchanger for ventilation
> control. If you live near any old flooded mine shafts they are very useful for geothermal heat
> pumps. One factory I recently read about cut it's costs for heating by about 70% by using heat
> pumps and a nearby mine.
>
>
Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls are made of coal so...
I
would be interested to know what percentage of the population in Europe lives in stand alone houses
in rural areas compared to North America.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
> >
> > How odd, the country farthest north uses the most energy per person. I hope they didn't spend
> > too much on that study. I could have told them that by looking at my oil bill I'm still paying
> > from last winter. I suppose if we start to paying fuel taxes as outrageuous as they do in the UK
> > that will by default create greater conservation. Right around the time I can't afford to pay
> > for that 3rd tank of oil in mid February I'll start to conserve oil by dying of hypothermia.
>
> You might consider more insulation as well, and maybe a cross flow heat exchanger for ventilation
> control. If you live near any old flooded mine shafts they are very useful for geothermal heat
> pumps. One factory I recently read about cut it's costs for heating by about 70% by using heat
> pumps and a nearby mine.
>
>
Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls are made of coal so...
Iwould be interested to know what percentage of the population in Europe lives in stand alone houses
in rural areas compared to North America.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
D
Dave Simpson
Guest
Martin K. wrote:
> >This is a perfect example of how simpletons can create meaningless verbiage without limit. It is
> >easy enough for a fool to do as Dave demonstrates all too well.
> This is why most serious contributors to these conferences ignore him. Stupid, childish flame wars
> are what he's about. Advice: move on.
Projection will get you nowhere, Marty. Why be so silly?
On the other hand, if I'm annoyed and people like you insist on being hopeless, I do move on.
Dave Simpson
> >This is a perfect example of how simpletons can create meaningless verbiage without limit. It is
> >easy enough for a fool to do as Dave demonstrates all too well.
> This is why most serious contributors to these conferences ignore him. Stupid, childish flame wars
> are what he's about. Advice: move on.
Projection will get you nowhere, Marty. Why be so silly?
On the other hand, if I'm annoyed and people like you insist on being hopeless, I do move on.
Dave Simpson
D
Don Quijote
Guest
> > Af-flu-en-za n. 1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to
> > keep up with the Joneses. 2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by
> > dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth.
> > 4. A television program that could change your life.
> >
> >
>
>
> Not funny; while most consumers goods and foods are cheap westerners especialy yongsters are
> struggling under huge mortgages, rents, taxes, fees and education debts and have little hope of
> having the time of funds to have children or even get married in some cases.
What should be expensive (say gasoline) is subsidized, what should be cheap (say higher education)
is prohibitive...
Who understands this world, and the ones who run it...?
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
> > keep up with the Joneses. 2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by
> > dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth.
> > 4. A television program that could change your life.
> >
> >
>
>
> Not funny; while most consumers goods and foods are cheap westerners especialy yongsters are
> struggling under huge mortgages, rents, taxes, fees and education debts and have little hope of
> having the time of funds to have children or even get married in some cases.
What should be expensive (say gasoline) is subsidized, what should be cheap (say higher education)
is prohibitive...
Who understands this world, and the ones who run it...?
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
S
Stephen Harding
Guest
Don Quijote wrote:
> What should be expensive (say gasoline) is subsidized, what should be cheap (say higher education)
> is prohibitive...
>
> Who understands this world, and the ones who run it...?
Don't claim to fully understand the world or even people who run it, but I think you'll find in all
US states, higher education is indeed subsidized to varying degrees.
SMH
> What should be expensive (say gasoline) is subsidized, what should be cheap (say higher education)
> is prohibitive...
>
> Who understands this world, and the ones who run it...?
Don't claim to fully understand the world or even people who run it, but I think you'll find in all
US states, higher education is indeed subsidized to varying degrees.
SMH
M
Matthew Russott
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Don Quijote
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>What should be expensive (say gasoline) is subsidized, what should be cheap (say higher education)
>is prohibitive...
Higher education is expensive because it is subsidized.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected] "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and
moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a
modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>What should be expensive (say gasoline) is subsidized, what should be cheap (say higher education)
>is prohibitive...
Higher education is expensive because it is subsidized.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected] "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and
moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a
modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
R
Ricardo
Guest
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:38:55 -0300, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
>> others to the guinea piggery.
>
>This years Civic hybrid fits the bill but it isn't selling so great.
I said "with real power".
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply for liability
purposes: I *always* obey the law. '89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
>> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
>> others to the guinea piggery.
>
>This years Civic hybrid fits the bill but it isn't selling so great.
I said "with real power".
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply for liability
purposes: I *always* obey the law. '89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
D
Dave Simpson
Guest
Don Quijote wrote:
> > Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are
> > lies from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is
> > done in Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the
> > United States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these
> > rates or fuel prices are higher.
> The revenues from higher taxes could be used to fight poverty. But, of course, who cares
> about it...
We have spent billions, trillions, fighting poverty.
There are other, equally if not more desireable things, on which someone might want government to
spend vast new revenues, but that doesn't justify such actions by themselves. People as it is are
getting tired again of too-high taxes. You can claim all you want that the spending helps people
or the economy, but that's for the benefiaries; the taxpayers and the economy are harmed by the
taxes. And harm is not restricted to the economic: the programs for which government has spent
money to fight poverty and such have failed to eliminate poverty and often act perversely to bribe
or even reward the poor, and bad decision-making. (As a Democrat who has written a book on the
"actuarial limits" to the foolish insistence on having government be a substitute or surrogate for
the family, also known as "finite limits" in eco-speak, but referring to what people are able or
willing to pay in taxes, our government social "insurance" programs are the equivalent of fire
insurance that pays people to leave pots of boiling oil on stoves.)
> Subsidized prices, urban sprawl and poverty are as American as Coke...
It's worse in other places. Also, whining and mischaracterizing the situation here in the United
States doesn't merely fail to make your case, it undermines if not destroys it.
Dave Simpson
> > Fuel prices in the United States are not "too low" or "artificially low." Such statements are
> > lies from the Left used in the desire for the United States to far more heavily tax fuels as is
> > done in Europe and elsewhere. Neither our fuel prices nor our AIDS or tuberculosis rates in the
> > United States are "too low" or "artificially low" compared to rates in other nations where these
> > rates or fuel prices are higher.
> The revenues from higher taxes could be used to fight poverty. But, of course, who cares
> about it...
We have spent billions, trillions, fighting poverty.
There are other, equally if not more desireable things, on which someone might want government to
spend vast new revenues, but that doesn't justify such actions by themselves. People as it is are
getting tired again of too-high taxes. You can claim all you want that the spending helps people
or the economy, but that's for the benefiaries; the taxpayers and the economy are harmed by the
taxes. And harm is not restricted to the economic: the programs for which government has spent
money to fight poverty and such have failed to eliminate poverty and often act perversely to bribe
or even reward the poor, and bad decision-making. (As a Democrat who has written a book on the
"actuarial limits" to the foolish insistence on having government be a substitute or surrogate for
the family, also known as "finite limits" in eco-speak, but referring to what people are able or
willing to pay in taxes, our government social "insurance" programs are the equivalent of fire
insurance that pays people to leave pots of boiling oil on stoves.)
> Subsidized prices, urban sprawl and poverty are as American as Coke...
It's worse in other places. Also, whining and mischaracterizing the situation here in the United
States doesn't merely fail to make your case, it undermines if not destroys it.
Dave Simpson
D
Dave Simpson
Guest
Ricardo wrote:
> >Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop
> >better and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good
> >step in the right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota
> >Presis hybrid and he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
> others to the guinea piggery.
That's the whole issue. Any substitute must be at the same general level of cost and practicality,
or utility. And, if such substitutes already existed, we would have them offered to us already,
because whoever offered them would become fabulously wealthy.
When I lived in Phoenix there was a test driver program for the EV-1 and I regret not being in a
position to be able to test it, but aside from the cost to recharge it, it would have been fun to
test it otherwise for free. I was not interested in buying a vehicle with about a real-world
60-mile-or-so range that cost something like $35,000 and likely subsidized at that cost, or in the
neighborhood of several hundred dollars a month to lease(!).
I hope fuel cells continue to be a promising future tech item but yes, the cost has to be much
lower and performance has to be equivalent (same range, same acceleration and normal operating
speeds, about the same recharging or refueling time as with current vehicles) before alt-tech
vehicles will become other than novelty items or show toys.
Dave Simpson
> >Yup. Me too. Fossil fuel remains popular only because there is no real commitment to develop
> >better and cleaner fuel for automobiles. The hybrid cars that Toyota and Honda make are a good
> >step in the right direction, but they're still too expensive. A neighbor of mine has a Toyota
> >Presis hybrid and he absolutely loves it; he gets something like 60MPG with it.
> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
> others to the guinea piggery.
That's the whole issue. Any substitute must be at the same general level of cost and practicality,
or utility. And, if such substitutes already existed, we would have them offered to us already,
because whoever offered them would become fabulously wealthy.
When I lived in Phoenix there was a test driver program for the EV-1 and I regret not being in a
position to be able to test it, but aside from the cost to recharge it, it would have been fun to
test it otherwise for free. I was not interested in buying a vehicle with about a real-world
60-mile-or-so range that cost something like $35,000 and likely subsidized at that cost, or in the
neighborhood of several hundred dollars a month to lease(!).
I hope fuel cells continue to be a promising future tech item but yes, the cost has to be much
lower and performance has to be equivalent (same range, same acceleration and normal operating
speeds, about the same recharging or refueling time as with current vehicles) before alt-tech
vehicles will become other than novelty items or show toys.
Dave Simpson
D
Dave Simpson
Guest
Ricardo wrote:
> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
> others to the guinea piggery.
I remember long, long ago, when talking to a lefty about this issue and that performance of
alternative vehicles has to be equivalent to be taken seriously, her reply was the typical,
unrealistic "We have to reconsider our priorities..."
(No, you have to get real.)
Dave Simpson
> Until they start making hybrids with real power that don't cost the earth, I think I'll leave
> others to the guinea piggery.
I remember long, long ago, when talking to a lefty about this issue and that performance of
alternative vehicles has to be equivalent to be taken seriously, her reply was the typical,
unrealistic "We have to reconsider our priorities..."
(No, you have to get real.)
Dave Simpson
I
Ian St. John
Guest
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... <snip>>
> >
> > You might consider more insulation as well, and maybe a cross flow heat exchanger for
> > ventilation control. If you live near any old flooded mine shafts they are very useful for
> > geothermal heat pumps. One factory I recently read about cut it's costs for heating by about 70%
> > by using
heat
> > pumps and a nearby mine.
> >
> >
>
> Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls are made of coal so... I
> would be interested to know what percentage of the population in Europe lives in stand alone
> houses in rural areas compared to North America.
The documentary was also of sea filled mines. The extensive depth of the mine works and the number
of passages allowed warm water from deep levels to rise as heat was pumped out and the cooler water
sank back down. It was a really good goethermal system for factories in an nearby industrial park
whose major power costs was heating.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
news:[email protected]... <snip>>
> >
> > You might consider more insulation as well, and maybe a cross flow heat exchanger for
> > ventilation control. If you live near any old flooded mine shafts they are very useful for
> > geothermal heat pumps. One factory I recently read about cut it's costs for heating by about 70%
> > by using
heat
> > pumps and a nearby mine.
> >
> >
>
> Our nearby mines are filed with seawater so I doubt it, but the walls are made of coal so...
I> would be interested to know what percentage of the population in Europe lives in stand alone
> houses in rural areas compared to North America.
The documentary was also of sea filled mines. The extensive depth of the mine works and the number
of passages allowed warm water from deep levels to rise as heat was pumped out and the cooler water
sank back down. It was a really good goethermal system for factories in an nearby industrial park
whose major power costs was heating.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
S
Scott A Crosby
Guest
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:52:27 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> writes:
> > The Greenpeace report, unlike ICTA, is not unreasonable.
> >
> > Here's my criticque of it however.
> >
> > From table ES-1: http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html
> >
> > The claim is that Defense is 66% of the subsidy for oil.
>
> Defense is just one part of the subsidy. The subsidies are obscene and market distortions without
> the defense part. The sum is just greater if it is included rather than hidden.
>
> > I disagree that it is a subsidy for gasoline at all. The world runs on petroleum fuels.
>
> Not a relevant argument. Petroleum causes a large portion of the defense budget. See Iraq, along
> with military spending in countries there. The cause of this is the importance of oil in the
> current economy but that is still a 'cost' of the oil.
>
If you go by their numbers, yes. But most of the benefit of that defense budget in the middle east
is borne by the rest of the world. The two-thirds oil consumption that are not in the US.
> > Any disruption of those fuels affects affects us, but also affects other countries far far more.
> > I quote the GP report: ''The protection from price spikes that the DoD provides greatly benefits
> > oil consumers worldwide''.
>
> Here you are not referring to the cost of military but to the strategic reserve which is a
> separate element.
No. I quote the Greenpeace report (which the ethanol association cites as their source.)
See: ''Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States'' on
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/index.html
Section 4.1 "Middle East Oil Security" Page 4-2, or Page 61 in the PDF file.
> > That includes the 2/3 of the non-US oil users. This would seem to indicate that only one-third
> > of that is a subsidy for US oil consumption. 2/3 of that should be assigned as a subsidy for
> > foreign oil consumers. It should be accounted as a cost of foreign aid, not oil subsidy.
>
> It does not matter is someone else benefits as a 'side effect' of the policy. The policy was not
> designed for them.
At some level, this policy is designed for them. A worldwide petroleum crisis os bad juju for
everyone. Sure, we benefit, but that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the benefits enhance economic
stability and political stability in the majority of the world.
> The cost of maintianing price stability by buying and selling oil to ensure stable pricing is a
> COST of subsidized oil in terms that the reason for prices to rise is the low price from other
> subsidies and therefore high demand which can exceed supply. A more rational price for gasoline
> would immediately lower demand and no longer necessitate intervention.
I can't comprehend this paragraph.. But, one of the problems with transportation is that demand is
very inelastic. If the cost of transportation increases, the amount of transportation doesn't vary
much. However, the resulting increased prices and inflation does effect everyone massively and
negatively. Government intervention to mute the economic cycles is frequently an accepted practice;
why should it be considered a subsidy in particular this case?
Also, if it is in fact a subsidy, it does not distort the market. There exists no feasible
alternatives for automotive power sources.
> > The foreign tax credit also striks me as a strange addition. If I earn income in NY, and live in
> > PA (as I did a year ago). Should I be taxed on my NY income, then be taxed on that income a
> > second time when I bring it to my Pennsylvania bank account? I see nothing wrong in NOT being
> > double-taxed on income. Yet, the FTC seems to do about the same thing on an international scale;
> > I can't quite figure out how it is considered a subsidy.
>
> I am not sure what you are babbling about now but when you work in a foreign country such as Saudi
> Arabia and earn $US100,000 the country forgoes $80,000 of that income in your taxes.
I am paraphrasing someone elses critique in sci.energy or sci.energy.hydrogen from about a week ago.
Please see that post.
> >
> > Finally, the strategic petroleum reserrve. On page 4-23 of the Greenpeace report, they argue
> > (unconvincingly) that the SPR should be treated as a debt and thus subject to compounded
> > interest. They also omit that the SPR offers benefits to other coountries.
>
> First, we have dealt with this in a previous bit about defense which was the theoretical driving
> force behind the SPR. There are two factors here. One is the reserve itself as a static element
> which is part of the cost of defense and legitimately should pay interest on the principle.
That is nonsense.
No government organization pays interest on the principal that is invested within it. I pay (say)
$1,000 in taxes. I doubt I get over $1,001 in benefits.
> > These three subsidies account for 80%-90% of the claimed subsidies, and are arguably 20-60%
> > too high.
>
> You can argue but that does not mean you are arguing from a strong position. The benefit to other
> countreis of stable oil pricing is NOT critical here and they do NOT pay the U.S. to do this. The
> COST is still the same.
>
They are freeloading, but the benefits to them can still be charged under the account of foreign
aid. IE, their share of the benefits costs $50 billion, they don't pay it, but we can account it as
a bill for $50 billion that gets paid out of the foreign aid budget.
> SINCE you have apologised for your post and claimed error I will withdraw my return insults, but
> this is a pardon, not an acceptance of innocence.
>
An unprofessional insult is an unprofessional insult.
Scott
> > The Greenpeace report, unlike ICTA, is not unreasonable.
> >
> > Here's my criticque of it however.
> >
> > From table ES-1: http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html
> >
> > The claim is that Defense is 66% of the subsidy for oil.
>
> Defense is just one part of the subsidy. The subsidies are obscene and market distortions without
> the defense part. The sum is just greater if it is included rather than hidden.
>
> > I disagree that it is a subsidy for gasoline at all. The world runs on petroleum fuels.
>
> Not a relevant argument. Petroleum causes a large portion of the defense budget. See Iraq, along
> with military spending in countries there. The cause of this is the importance of oil in the
> current economy but that is still a 'cost' of the oil.
>
If you go by their numbers, yes. But most of the benefit of that defense budget in the middle east
is borne by the rest of the world. The two-thirds oil consumption that are not in the US.
> > Any disruption of those fuels affects affects us, but also affects other countries far far more.
> > I quote the GP report: ''The protection from price spikes that the DoD provides greatly benefits
> > oil consumers worldwide''.
>
> Here you are not referring to the cost of military but to the strategic reserve which is a
> separate element.
No. I quote the Greenpeace report (which the ethanol association cites as their source.)
See: ''Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United States'' on
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/index.html
Section 4.1 "Middle East Oil Security" Page 4-2, or Page 61 in the PDF file.
> > That includes the 2/3 of the non-US oil users. This would seem to indicate that only one-third
> > of that is a subsidy for US oil consumption. 2/3 of that should be assigned as a subsidy for
> > foreign oil consumers. It should be accounted as a cost of foreign aid, not oil subsidy.
>
> It does not matter is someone else benefits as a 'side effect' of the policy. The policy was not
> designed for them.
At some level, this policy is designed for them. A worldwide petroleum crisis os bad juju for
everyone. Sure, we benefit, but that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the benefits enhance economic
stability and political stability in the majority of the world.
> The cost of maintianing price stability by buying and selling oil to ensure stable pricing is a
> COST of subsidized oil in terms that the reason for prices to rise is the low price from other
> subsidies and therefore high demand which can exceed supply. A more rational price for gasoline
> would immediately lower demand and no longer necessitate intervention.
I can't comprehend this paragraph.. But, one of the problems with transportation is that demand is
very inelastic. If the cost of transportation increases, the amount of transportation doesn't vary
much. However, the resulting increased prices and inflation does effect everyone massively and
negatively. Government intervention to mute the economic cycles is frequently an accepted practice;
why should it be considered a subsidy in particular this case?
Also, if it is in fact a subsidy, it does not distort the market. There exists no feasible
alternatives for automotive power sources.
> > The foreign tax credit also striks me as a strange addition. If I earn income in NY, and live in
> > PA (as I did a year ago). Should I be taxed on my NY income, then be taxed on that income a
> > second time when I bring it to my Pennsylvania bank account? I see nothing wrong in NOT being
> > double-taxed on income. Yet, the FTC seems to do about the same thing on an international scale;
> > I can't quite figure out how it is considered a subsidy.
>
> I am not sure what you are babbling about now but when you work in a foreign country such as Saudi
> Arabia and earn $US100,000 the country forgoes $80,000 of that income in your taxes.
I am paraphrasing someone elses critique in sci.energy or sci.energy.hydrogen from about a week ago.
Please see that post.
> >
> > Finally, the strategic petroleum reserrve. On page 4-23 of the Greenpeace report, they argue
> > (unconvincingly) that the SPR should be treated as a debt and thus subject to compounded
> > interest. They also omit that the SPR offers benefits to other coountries.
>
> First, we have dealt with this in a previous bit about defense which was the theoretical driving
> force behind the SPR. There are two factors here. One is the reserve itself as a static element
> which is part of the cost of defense and legitimately should pay interest on the principle.
That is nonsense.
No government organization pays interest on the principal that is invested within it. I pay (say)
$1,000 in taxes. I doubt I get over $1,001 in benefits.
> > These three subsidies account for 80%-90% of the claimed subsidies, and are arguably 20-60%
> > too high.
>
> You can argue but that does not mean you are arguing from a strong position. The benefit to other
> countreis of stable oil pricing is NOT critical here and they do NOT pay the U.S. to do this. The
> COST is still the same.
>
They are freeloading, but the benefits to them can still be charged under the account of foreign
aid. IE, their share of the benefits costs $50 billion, they don't pay it, but we can account it as
a bill for $50 billion that gets paid out of the foreign aid budget.
> SINCE you have apologised for your post and claimed error I will withdraw my return insults, but
> this is a pardon, not an acceptance of innocence.
>
An unprofessional insult is an unprofessional insult.
Scott
I
Ian St. John
Guest
"Scott A Crosby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:52:27 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]>
writes:
>
> > > The Greenpeace report, unlike ICTA, is not unreasonable.
> > >
> > > Here's my criticque of it however.
> > >
> > > From table ES-1: http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html
> > >
> > > The claim is that Defense is 66% of the subsidy for oil.
> >
> > Defense is just one part of the subsidy. The subsidies are obscene and market distortions
> > without the defense part. The sum is just greater if
it
> > is included rather than hidden.
> >
> > > I disagree that it is a subsidy for gasoline at all. The world runs on petroleum fuels.
> >
> > Not a relevant argument. Petroleum causes a large portion of the defense budget. See Iraq, along
> > with military spending in countries there. The
cause
> > of this is the importance of oil in the current economy but that is
still a
> > 'cost' of the oil.
> >
>
> If you go by their numbers, yes.
Well we could go by the darkness of the **** but that usually just leads to more argument.
> But most of the benefit of that defense budget in the middle east is borne by the rest of the
> world. The two-thirds oil consumption that are not in the US.
The costs to the U.S. are independent. It is the importance of the oil to the U.S. economy that
drives the military costs and thus the cost/benefit to the rest of the world does not matter to the
subsidy equation in the U.S. The rest of the world is purely a red-herring.
>
> > > Any disruption of those fuels affects affects us, but also affects other countries far far
> > > more. I quote the GP report: ''The protection from price spikes that the DoD provides greatly
> > > benefits oil consumers worldwide''.
> >
> > Here you are not referring to the cost of military but to the strategic reserve which is a
> > separate element.
>
> No. I quote the Greenpeace report (which the ethanol association cites as their source.)
>
> See: ''Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United
States''
> on http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/index.html
>
> Section 4.1 "Middle East Oil Security" Page 4-2, or Page 61 in the PDF file.
O.K. But I don't agree that the military has much role in price stabilization. OPEC sets the price
where it wants unless you are going to include the illegal Iraqi invasion. And THAT has done
little to change oil prices.
The military spending is mostly irrelevant to the price of oil itself, but forms a large subsidy as
it is a fixed cost that must be born by the U.S. to preserves *its* supplies. The U.S. is the
largest user of petroleum on the planet and dependent on the middle east for most of that, so it HAS
to keep it's defense spending high to be able to intervene or influence policy gunboat diplomacy ).
These are fixed costs to the U.S. DUE to it's dependency on cheap oil.
>
> > > That includes the 2/3 of the non-US oil users. This would seem to indicate that only
> > > one-third of that is a subsidy for US oil consumption. 2/3 of that should be assigned as a
> > > subsidy for foreign oil consumers. It should be accounted as a cost of foreign aid, not oil
> > > subsidy.
> >
> > It does not matter is someone else benefits as a 'side effect' of the policy. The policy was not
> > designed for them.
>
> At some level, this policy is designed for them. A worldwide petroleum crisis os bad juju for
> everyone. Sure, we benefit, but that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the benefits enhance economic
> stability and political stability in the majority of the world.
It is STILL a red herring issue. The military is a subsidy to the oil industry. Period.
>
> > The cost of maintianing price stability by buying and selling oil to ensure stable pricing is a
> > COST of subsidized oil in terms that the reason for prices to rise is the low price from other
> > subsidies and therefore high demand which can exceed supply. A more rational price for gasoline
> > would immediately lower demand and no longer necessitate intervention.
>
> I can't comprehend this paragraph..
Simplified, if demand decreased because of higher prices for oil, the supply would exceed demand and
prices would fall. It is the subsidization of oil that increases usage to insane degrees that pushes
the cost of oil into unstable pricing affected by small shortfalls. The costs of those price
interventions ( releasing oil from strategic reserves ) is included in the subsidies.
> But, one of the problems with transportation is that demand is very inelastic. If the cost of
> transportation increases, the amount of transportation doesn't vary much. However, the resulting
> increased prices and inflation does effect everyone massively and negatively. Government
> intervention to mute the economic cycles is frequently an accepted practice; why should it be
> considered a subsidy in particular this case?
America is the land of the corporate welfare system. It distorts all markets and it is equally
damaging to all markets. The subsidy for road transportation has decimated the rail system ( which
provides a more efficient transport over long distances ) and forms an inefficient waste.
>
> Also, if it is in fact a subsidy, it does not distort the market. There exists no feasible
> alternatives for automotive power sources.
Certainly there is. Rail is purely feasible for long distance transportation of goods. Even the
amount of sea traffic ( even cheaper ) is affected by the move to subsidize petroleum and therefore
drive more highway traffic. Not only that but you have to pay for all that increased road
necessitated by the increase.
>
>
> > > The foreign tax credit also striks me as a strange addition. If I earn income in NY, and live
> > > in PA (as I did a year ago). Should I be taxed on my NY income, then be taxed on that income a
> > > second time when I bring it to my Pennsylvania bank account? I see nothing wrong in NOT being
> > > double-taxed on income. Yet, the FTC seems to do about the same thing on an international
> > > scale; I can't quite figure out how it is considered a subsidy.
> >
> > I am not sure what you are babbling about now but when you work in a
foreign
> > country such as Saudi Arabia and earn $US100,000 the country forgoes
$80,000
> > of that income in your taxes.
>
> I am paraphrasing someone elses critique in sci.energy or sci.energy.hydrogen from about a week
> ago. Please see that post.
You might learn something about the tax credit itself then. Blaming some other poster is not a good
debating techniques since you take his errors uncritically.
>
> > >
> > > Finally, the strategic petroleum reserrve. On page 4-23 of the Greenpeace report, they argue
> > > (unconvincingly) that the SPR should be treated as a debt and thus subject to compounded
> > > interest. They also omit that the SPR offers benefits to other coountries.
> >
> > First, we have dealt with this in a previous bit about defense which was the theoretical driving
> > force behind the SPR. There are two factors here. One is the reserve itself as a static element
> > which is part of the cost of defense and legitimately should pay interest on the principle.
>
> That is nonsense.
Nope. It represents unused money and thus should be costed by the prinicple investment.
>
> No government organization pays interest on the principal that is invested within it. I pay (say)
> $1,000 in taxes. I doubt I get over $1,001 in benefits.
If pays either directly or in opportunity costs when it can't use the money elsewhere. Same diff.
>
> > > These three subsidies account for 80%-90% of the claimed subsidies, and are arguably 20-60%
> > > too high.
> >
> > You can argue but that does not mean you are arguing from a strong
position.
> > The benefit to other countreis of stable oil pricing is NOT critical
here
> > and they do NOT pay the U.S. to do this. The COST is still the same.
> >
>
> They are freeloading,
False. They do nothing to freeload and they maintain their own military for similar purposes.
The supposed benefit to other countries for policies aimed at U.S. interests is a red-herring.
> but the benefits to them can still be charged under the account of foreign aid. IE, their share of
> the benefits costs $50 billion, they don't pay it, but we can account it as a bill for $50 billion
> that gets paid out of the foreign aid budget.
This is nonsense. P.S. most foreign aid is in the military support of Israel, Egypt, and Russia.
There is almost nothing left. These countreis need little help with oil production. By far the most
military support goes to Israel which cannot seem to find any oil in the West Bank. Only blood.
>
> > SINCE you have apologised for your post and claimed error I will withdraw my return insults, but
> > this is a pardon,
not
> > an acceptance of innocence.
> >
>
> An unprofessional insult is an unprofessional insult.
You wanted a professional insult?
>
>
> Scott
[email protected]...> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 13:52:27 -0400, "Ian St. John" <[email protected]>
writes:
>
> > > The Greenpeace report, unlike ICTA, is not unreasonable.
> > >
> > > Here's my criticque of it however.
> > >
> > > From table ES-1: http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/oil/fdsub.html
> > >
> > > The claim is that Defense is 66% of the subsidy for oil.
> >
> > Defense is just one part of the subsidy. The subsidies are obscene and market distortions
> > without the defense part. The sum is just greater if
it
> > is included rather than hidden.
> >
> > > I disagree that it is a subsidy for gasoline at all. The world runs on petroleum fuels.
> >
> > Not a relevant argument. Petroleum causes a large portion of the defense budget. See Iraq, along
> > with military spending in countries there. The
cause
> > of this is the importance of oil in the current economy but that is
still a
> > 'cost' of the oil.
> >
>
> If you go by their numbers, yes.
Well we could go by the darkness of the **** but that usually just leads to more argument.
> But most of the benefit of that defense budget in the middle east is borne by the rest of the
> world. The two-thirds oil consumption that are not in the US.
The costs to the U.S. are independent. It is the importance of the oil to the U.S. economy that
drives the military costs and thus the cost/benefit to the rest of the world does not matter to the
subsidy equation in the U.S. The rest of the world is purely a red-herring.
>
> > > Any disruption of those fuels affects affects us, but also affects other countries far far
> > > more. I quote the GP report: ''The protection from price spikes that the DoD provides greatly
> > > benefits oil consumers worldwide''.
> >
> > Here you are not referring to the cost of military but to the strategic reserve which is a
> > separate element.
>
> No. I quote the Greenpeace report (which the ethanol association cites as their source.)
>
> See: ''Fueling Global Warming: Federal Subsidies to Oil in the United
States''
> on http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/index.html
>
> Section 4.1 "Middle East Oil Security" Page 4-2, or Page 61 in the PDF file.
O.K. But I don't agree that the military has much role in price stabilization. OPEC sets the price
where it wants unless you are going to include the illegal Iraqi invasion. And THAT has done
little to change oil prices.
The military spending is mostly irrelevant to the price of oil itself, but forms a large subsidy as
it is a fixed cost that must be born by the U.S. to preserves *its* supplies. The U.S. is the
largest user of petroleum on the planet and dependent on the middle east for most of that, so it HAS
to keep it's defense spending high to be able to intervene or influence policy gunboat diplomacy ).
These are fixed costs to the U.S. DUE to it's dependency on cheap oil.
>
> > > That includes the 2/3 of the non-US oil users. This would seem to indicate that only
> > > one-third of that is a subsidy for US oil consumption. 2/3 of that should be assigned as a
> > > subsidy for foreign oil consumers. It should be accounted as a cost of foreign aid, not oil
> > > subsidy.
> >
> > It does not matter is someone else benefits as a 'side effect' of the policy. The policy was not
> > designed for them.
>
> At some level, this policy is designed for them. A worldwide petroleum crisis os bad juju for
> everyone. Sure, we benefit, but that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the benefits enhance economic
> stability and political stability in the majority of the world.
It is STILL a red herring issue. The military is a subsidy to the oil industry. Period.
>
> > The cost of maintianing price stability by buying and selling oil to ensure stable pricing is a
> > COST of subsidized oil in terms that the reason for prices to rise is the low price from other
> > subsidies and therefore high demand which can exceed supply. A more rational price for gasoline
> > would immediately lower demand and no longer necessitate intervention.
>
> I can't comprehend this paragraph..
Simplified, if demand decreased because of higher prices for oil, the supply would exceed demand and
prices would fall. It is the subsidization of oil that increases usage to insane degrees that pushes
the cost of oil into unstable pricing affected by small shortfalls. The costs of those price
interventions ( releasing oil from strategic reserves ) is included in the subsidies.
> But, one of the problems with transportation is that demand is very inelastic. If the cost of
> transportation increases, the amount of transportation doesn't vary much. However, the resulting
> increased prices and inflation does effect everyone massively and negatively. Government
> intervention to mute the economic cycles is frequently an accepted practice; why should it be
> considered a subsidy in particular this case?
America is the land of the corporate welfare system. It distorts all markets and it is equally
damaging to all markets. The subsidy for road transportation has decimated the rail system ( which
provides a more efficient transport over long distances ) and forms an inefficient waste.
>
> Also, if it is in fact a subsidy, it does not distort the market. There exists no feasible
> alternatives for automotive power sources.
Certainly there is. Rail is purely feasible for long distance transportation of goods. Even the
amount of sea traffic ( even cheaper ) is affected by the move to subsidize petroleum and therefore
drive more highway traffic. Not only that but you have to pay for all that increased road
necessitated by the increase.
>
>
> > > The foreign tax credit also striks me as a strange addition. If I earn income in NY, and live
> > > in PA (as I did a year ago). Should I be taxed on my NY income, then be taxed on that income a
> > > second time when I bring it to my Pennsylvania bank account? I see nothing wrong in NOT being
> > > double-taxed on income. Yet, the FTC seems to do about the same thing on an international
> > > scale; I can't quite figure out how it is considered a subsidy.
> >
> > I am not sure what you are babbling about now but when you work in a
foreign
> > country such as Saudi Arabia and earn $US100,000 the country forgoes
$80,000
> > of that income in your taxes.
>
> I am paraphrasing someone elses critique in sci.energy or sci.energy.hydrogen from about a week
> ago. Please see that post.
You might learn something about the tax credit itself then. Blaming some other poster is not a good
debating techniques since you take his errors uncritically.
>
> > >
> > > Finally, the strategic petroleum reserrve. On page 4-23 of the Greenpeace report, they argue
> > > (unconvincingly) that the SPR should be treated as a debt and thus subject to compounded
> > > interest. They also omit that the SPR offers benefits to other coountries.
> >
> > First, we have dealt with this in a previous bit about defense which was the theoretical driving
> > force behind the SPR. There are two factors here. One is the reserve itself as a static element
> > which is part of the cost of defense and legitimately should pay interest on the principle.
>
> That is nonsense.
Nope. It represents unused money and thus should be costed by the prinicple investment.
>
> No government organization pays interest on the principal that is invested within it. I pay (say)
> $1,000 in taxes. I doubt I get over $1,001 in benefits.
If pays either directly or in opportunity costs when it can't use the money elsewhere. Same diff.
>
> > > These three subsidies account for 80%-90% of the claimed subsidies, and are arguably 20-60%
> > > too high.
> >
> > You can argue but that does not mean you are arguing from a strong
position.
> > The benefit to other countreis of stable oil pricing is NOT critical
here
> > and they do NOT pay the U.S. to do this. The COST is still the same.
> >
>
> They are freeloading,
False. They do nothing to freeload and they maintain their own military for similar purposes.
The supposed benefit to other countries for policies aimed at U.S. interests is a red-herring.
> but the benefits to them can still be charged under the account of foreign aid. IE, their share of
> the benefits costs $50 billion, they don't pay it, but we can account it as a bill for $50 billion
> that gets paid out of the foreign aid budget.
This is nonsense. P.S. most foreign aid is in the military support of Israel, Egypt, and Russia.
There is almost nothing left. These countreis need little help with oil production. By far the most
military support goes to Israel which cannot seem to find any oil in the West Bank. Only blood.
>
> > SINCE you have apologised for your post and claimed error I will withdraw my return insults, but
> > this is a pardon,
not
> > an acceptance of innocence.
> >
>
> An unprofessional insult is an unprofessional insult.
You wanted a professional insult?
>
>
> Scott
- Status
Similar threads
