patrick.net

I made my last commute in late 2002, yes.

I actually bought one of these:

to take it on this ride:

http://g.co/maps/42h74

so it was not so bad, actually. But Highway 17 really eats gas, even on a bike!

Bellingham Bob says

LOL. Oil still comes from the ground for $5 a barrel or less in Iraq. The "free market" can't compete with that, not any more.

I simply don't believe that number. Can you document it?

Bellingham Bob says

Of course, it's the only retail good where you can see the price from the street.

Huh? I see gas stations advertising cigs from the street and milk and eggs. The package stores near me have advertising you can see from the street at as well on the prices of most major beers.

I see plenty of prices of retail goods on the street.

It is easy to say to tax the rich more but unless actual rates and methods are created talk is kinda cheap.

If capital gains went up that might be interesting but that might be just one time gains. Few will sell everything off at once and some own such an amount that it would go down as they sell it.

Income taxes are nullified as most is derived from selling (capital gains)

I read one argument that a 1% transaction on all stock purchases would amount to quite a bit. I don't think 1% as a percentage is significant but when you considering the volume that is traded on various indexes that can be some serious money.

mdovell says

I see plenty of prices of retail goods on the street.

Um, stores won't post their prices if they are higher that the guy across the street.

To clarify, gasoline is the only good that you can comparison shop while driving by.

mdovell says

It is easy to say to tax the rich more but unless actual rates and methods are created talk is kinda cheap.

I find it odd that the discussion is solely focussed on income taxes.

Taxing rents is the way to go, both ground rents and economic rents in general.

bob2356 says

I simply don't believe that number. Can you document it?

Iraq's Oil Reserves: Untapped Potential
While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.

and:

"The world's cheapest oil to extract comes from Saudi Arabia and costs $2 a barrel."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/exxon_oil/index.htm

I'm impressed, one unattributed quote and an article from CNN money, who I consider basically worthless given their track record.

I decided to look myself. Here is a more current article from reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/28/oil-cost-factbox-idUSLS12407420090728 with actual numbers from International Energy Agency, which has a very interesting website.

You are technically correct at the $2.00 price point for Saudi oil, but it's an average number and doesn't include capital expenditures. Since it is impossible to actually drill without capital expenditures this number is true but meaningless. The number for Saudi's and Iraq is more like $4-6. But that's an average number which includes oil from old wells produced much more cheaply. Going forward the cost is going to be much higher because drilling is more expensive than it used to be and the oil is harder to reach. The easy fields are already done, even in Iraq. As old cheap wells dry up and go off line the number is going to rise substantially. As your own CNN article points out, this number does not include another $5-7 for pumping.

Still it's a very, very nice markup for the oil companies and oil producing countries.

Your scenario of $20.00 a gallon gas will never happen other than a brief spike in some really major unprecedented worldwide crises. Demand would fall like a rock and prices would drop just as fast. It's happened time and time again. That's what keeps killing renewable energy every time. Oil prices spike to the point where renewable is viable, demand drops, prices drop, and all the renewable companies get wiped out. A small continually rising tax on imported oil should have been imposed in the 70's. By the 90's renewable would have been very viable and by now we would not be nearly as dependent on imported oil

Every time Mr Reality says "government" I'm going to change it to "corporations in control of government".

Someone's got to tell the truth.

Greetings and Joy to you Patrick,
You must also be wanting to change "media" to something like "anti-American leftist progressive activist media" as a part of your mission to spread "truth", right?
Have a merry and blessed day Patrick!! Cheers.

How much would you pay for the ability to delete my comments, or to change them?

See this new thread about that idea:

http://patrick.net/?p=1086952

bob2356 says

Your scenario of $20.00 a gallon gas will never happen other than a brief spike in some really major unprecedented worldwide crises. Demand would fall like a rock and prices would drop just as fast. It's happened time and time again. That's what keeps killing renewable energy every time. Oil prices spike to the point where renewable is viable, demand drops, prices drop, and all the renewable companies get wiped out.

What about peak oil? Your prediction assumes that supply will still be available.

Bap33 says

I just feel happier to not suffer from the disorder

Bap33 says

What is rich? Why that amount?

You like the the bs propaganda sound bites much ?

Okay, some liberals made the mistake of saying something too general and too simple, such as: "the rich should pay more."

Then your overlords say, "What is rich? Who's to say, etc..."

I can't believe you buy that lame bs.

Here's the real issue (forgive me if it's more detail than your willing to take in).

If taxes are raised 3% on household income above 250K, that means a couple that makes 300K would pay $1500 more than they pay now. If they are both highly paid doctors and have a combined income of 600K, then they would pay $10,500 more than now.

This is not confiscating their wealth, and it's not defining what rich is. IT is only saying that if you make 600K, we think you can afford to pay $10,500 more than now.

It's no more arbitrary than the current tax rate. But what we know is that the top 1% is the group that saw huge increases in income in the past decade, while the average income went down. And tax rates are the lowest they've been in what, 70 years ? And the wealth disparity between the wealthy and the middle class is the highest it's been since the 1920s.

Forgive us is we aren't ignorant lap dogs that buy all of the bs lies from Rush Limbaughs (or whichever clown it is you choose to believe).

marcus says

Forgive us is we aren't ignorant lap dogs that buy all of the bs lies from Rush Limbaughs (or whichever clown it is you choose to believe).

there's gotta be a deeper game here. People can't be this stupid about things, can they?

marcus says

This is not confiscating their wealth, and it's not defining what rich is. IT is only saying that if you make 600K, we think you can afford to pay $10,500 more than now.

yes it is
yes it is
who is "we"?

On the point about the tax system already reflecting your example, that may be. But, I suggested a flat tax so that all voters pay an equal amount of their increase. That would be fair.
Lets keep in mind, I am the one that does not agree with a "government" enforced transfer of wealth between voters.

And the questions I asked were my own. The fact that Rush asks the same questions bothers you? Care to answer them? Shadow box much?

Calling names is not nice.
marcus says

we aren't ignorant lap dogs

That may be outside of the Comment Policy.

"On the point about the tax system already reflecting your example, that may be. But, I suggested a flat tax so that all voters pay an equal amount of their increase. That would be fair."

But it would not work, nor would it be "fair" burdens to tax people necessary to support our current $6T government.

The problem is increasing wealth disparity and diminishing economic opportunity as the wealthy continue to suck money from the working class.

Framing flat tax policy as "fair" is good wordsmithing but ignores this larger dynamic of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and the middle class in between disappearing.

Free market fundamentalism does not work anywhere on this planet, it never has and it never will.

The high tax / high service economies of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Germany are working better than ours to keep more people productive and happy.

That's a fact, a fact your conservative anti-government low-tax ideology continuously refuses to admit.

The successful Eurosocialist economies work by forcibly redistributing rents from rent-takers and skimmers to the masses via high marginal tax rates.

"That may be outside of the Comment Policy."

blow it out your ass.

Step one is lower spending, not more taxes.

A flat taxation is fair --- it is the text book example of fair. Leftist liberal progressives would rather taxes be based on color, last name, nationality, sex, age, gay or not, and income ... without regard of desire, life-choices, or worth placed on income by the taxed. I want each voter to pay the same percentage of their yearly increase. Simple.

Changing the rewards for being smart, lucky, or born at the right time, is not supported by anyone other than leftist liberal progressives.
Stop trying to spread the misery.

That last comment should result in banishment

Bellingham Bob says

"That may be outside of the Comment Policy."
blow it out your ass.

"That last comment should result in banishment"

blow that out of your ass, too, Mr Passive-Aggressive Butthurt conservative.

Bap33 says

who is "we"

All the objective intelligent people who are for bringing the marginal tax rates back to what they were when Clinton was President (but lower than they were at the end of Reagan's Presidency).

Bap33 says

yes it is

(confiscating wealth)

So tax cuts were given to the rich, tax cuts that were totally unpaid for. There were no reductions in spending to offset those cuts. In fact, we took on off balance sheet wars (also TOTALLY UNPAID FOR) right after that.

So give tax cuts to the rich, and if these were undone that's confiscating wealth.

There's no point in arguing this further, but there must be plenty of people who advocate not spending more than what we take in. And the idea of progressive taxation is only common sense.

You think that the percentage of taxes that a family making 60K or 90K can pay, sets the limit on the percentage (of higher marginal income tax ie tax on the last couple hundred thousand that someone making 500K) should pay ?

IT makes no sense.

SOmeone above suggested you look up marginal utility of the dollar.

MAybe discretionary income would be another term to look up. Some families can't hardly afford the minimum basics in life, and they may be working multiple low paying jobs. And you want to say that the tax they pay on their last 10K they earned, should be the same rate as someone who lives high on the hog,and also saves or invests a 6 figure amount every year for later, or for their descendants.

I'm pretty sure you are unclear on the concept, and just going with the party line because of the whole guns, gays and God marketing.

Or maybe you're just playing devils advocate. My hunch is on some level you know better.

Bap33 says

Changing the rewards for being smart, lucky, or born at the right time, is not supported by anyone other than leftist liberal progressives.

Like I said, you don't even comprehend the question.

So 10K more from a 600K income, or $1500 more from a $300K income is trying to spread misery or it's unfair.

You insult yourself far more than any name I could call you.

Bap33 says

A flat taxation is fair

Life isn't fair. Neither are taxes. Get over it.

Fair is irrelevent. What provides a sustainable, healthy economy is what matters.

marcus says

So 10K more from a 600K income, or $1500 more from a $300K income is trying to spread misery or it's unfair.

yes
yes

tatupu70 says

Life isn't fair. Neither are taxes. Get over it.
Fair is irrelevent. What provides a sustainable, healthy economy is what matters.

If you believe this, then you must agree with closed borders, removal of invaders and their spawn, drug testing for all welfare getters, reduced welfare accross the board, no EBT cash for welfare getters, no free lunches in school, no free medical for anyone, no unfunded mandates by EPA, no free schooling for invaders or welfare mommys .... pretty much remove all welfare programs and get some cuts going on, kill the murderers on death row, and make military service compulsary for 4 years after age 16 to remove all contractors in military support .... lets get some cuts going on and we just might find that "sustainable, healthy economy." Step one is for libs to make sure that invaders and druggies and single moms find out that LIFE IS NOT FAIR ... just like tatupu said, and then the flat tax may not sting the lower income group as bad.

one government
one vote
one tax

Bellingham Bob says

"That last comment should result in banishment"

blow that out of your ass, too, Mr Passive-Aggressive Butthurt conservative.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

I know you are, but what am I?

butt fixation much?

Bap33 says

If you believe this, then you must agree with closed borders, removal of invaders and their spawn, drug testing for all welfare getters, reduced welfare accross the board, no EBT cash for welfare getters, no free lunches in school, no free medical for anyone, no unfunded mandates by EPA, no free schooling for invaders or welfare mommys .... pretty much remove all welfare programs and get some cuts going on, kill the murderers on death row, and make military service compulsary for 4 years after age 16 to remove all contractors in military support .... lets get some cuts going on and we just might find that "sustainable, healthy economy." Step one is for libs to make sure that invaders and druggies and single moms find out that LIFE IS NOT FAIR ... just like tatupu said, and then the flat tax may not sting the lower income group as bad.

No. I don't agree with that. Remember, my overriding goal is a healthy economy.

Immigration-- Let's start enforcing the laws against companies that hire illegals. Put a couple of CEOs in jail and see what that does.

You list a lot of "safety net" type items. Those are GOOD for the economy--that money gets spent immediately.

Death penalty costs more than life in prison. It's a net loss for the economy.

Reinstating the draft--I don't have the numbers, but I would guess that it's a drag on the economy.

No offense--but I'm pretty sure that illegals, welfare moms, etc. already know that life isn't fair.

Bap33 says

one government
one vote
one tax

What does that even mean?? So you don't want local and state governments? Only Federal? And only income taxes? No sales tax?

Every time Mr Reality says "government" I'm going to change it to "corporations in control of government".

Someone's got to tell the truth.

I have been saying for a long time that every time ANYONE says "government," we should expand it to "individuals and/or groups of individuals in control of government."

That's all "government" is! There is no government as an independent entity that think, speak or act on its own, much less acting like idealized God/gods, but only _Individuals and/or Groups of Individuals in Control of Government (for their own benefit)_. That's all there is! Ever since "government" was invented. Men like Soros and Kochs don't even need corporations to control governments. Confusing "Government" with a (hypotehtical) omnipotent, omniscient and selfless God-like actor is nothing more than believing in the Divine Rights of the King/officials.

Edit: Patrick, Just noticed that you actually edited my earlier post without making edit mark or attribution. Please stop doing that. Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there (and opposite to what I had actually written) constitute libel.

Bap33 says

removal of invaders and their spawn

You don't really know much, do you? Deporting people en masse would be a huge hit to our economy and lower wages. Study after study shows this, and even the crazy Heritage Foundation agrees. Only ideologues say this crap. Thanks, robot dude -- your views don't really fit with reality.

Bap33 says

kill the murderers on death row,

Everyone knows the death penalty costs more than life in prison.

Reality says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there constitute libel.

No it doesn't. You should really learn more about libel.

How much would you pay for the ability to delete my comments, or to change them?

See this new thread about that idea:

http://patrick.net/?p=1086952

Near-zero. I wouldn't want to delete or change anyone else' comment. People come to this website for meaningful discussions. If I wanted an echo chamber, I could start my own website. Any echo chamber would lose traffic quickly anyway. If the need for revenue is getting critical, IMHO, a far more effective way is to link ads to the side of the forum screens. Failing that, seeking ideological patrons like Soros money or Koch money might be solutions if you keep up traffic (their endorsement will ultimately cost traffic over time; that's why they need to start off with high traffic, then see the ideological site die off over time before their money move onto the next one). Messing with people's posts, especially without proper indications of editorial footnotes or new attributions is not only a quick way to lose traffic and eyeball time, but also opens the editorial staff to potential libel suits as the old attribution linked to the substituted post context would constitute libel against the original author.

Reality says

but also opens the editorial staff to potential libel suits as the old attribution linked to the substituted post context would constitute libel against the original author.

Yeah, it still wouldn't do that.

corntrollio says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there constitute libel.

No it doesn't. You should really learn more about libel.

Of course it does. The result would read "so-and-so says: . . . " when the person never said that. Because that results from direct intentional editorial action instead of any computer glitch or misquoting, it is very much libel. It is the same as if I said "corntrollio says that mass rape of women is a good thing and should be encouraged by government" when you never said such thing.

Reality says

I have been saying for a long time that every time ANYONE says "government," we should change it to "individuals and/or groups of individuals in control of government."

That's all "government" is! There is no government as an independent entity that think, speak or act on its own, much less acting like idealized God/gods, but only _Individuals and/or Groups of Individuals in Control of Government (for their own benefit)_. That's all there is! Ever since "government" was invented. Men like Soros and Kochs don't even need corporations to control governments.

Right, and government is basically whoever is in charge of making the "rules", and the the top .5% of the population does not "need" corporations to control government.

In the absence of a democratic government the top .5% would just effectively take direct control, and become the new government. We would be trading our democracy for an Oligarchy or Monarchy.

leoj707 says

Right, and government is basically whoever is in charge of making the "rules", and the the top .5% of the population does not "need" corporations to control government.

More or less agree so far; I would refine 0.5% (1,500,000 people in this country) to 0.001% (3000 or so holding real power) if not an order of magnitude more concentrated than even that.

In the absence of a democratic government the top .5% would just effectively take direct control, and become the new government. We would be trading our democracy for an Oligarchy or Monarchy.

"Democratic government" doesn't change that much. The real issue is _Liberty_, not "Democracy." Individual liberty is what prevents the concentration of power, as there would be less of a nexus of power for the ultra rich and powerful to grab.

Reality says

Individual liberty is what prevents the concentration of power, as there would be less of a nexus of power for the ultra rich and power to grab.

Zero or tiny/spineless central government will achieve the same effect. All they need do is stand by while the warlords or the financiers establish monopolies. Pinkertons operated pretty freely during the Gilded Age. Is it cheaper for a Robber Baron to hire thugs, or to engage in regulatory capture operations and bribe cops? Well it depends.

Reality says

Editing what I wrote and making it look like I actually wrote what you put there (and opposite to what I had actually written) constitute libel.

Libel against whom? You're anonymous!

A guy I know at Facebook pointed out that Facebook doesn't have these problems because you just don't piss off your Facebook friends, or else they rapidly unfriend you.

But anyway, I found a better solution so no need to change any more comments. There will be a no-holds-barred Politics Forum, where users can zap each other's comments for $1. Not sure it will work, but worth a try.

Vicente says

Zero or tiny/spineless central government will achieve the same effect. All they need do is stand by while the warlords or the financiers establish monopolies. Pinkertons operated pretty freely during the Gilded Age. Is it cheaper for a Robber Baron to hire thugs, or to engage in regulatory capture operations and bribe cops? Well it depends.

Pinkerton service was extremely expensive, and did not even succeed in the most notorious strikes. It would cost the Robber Barons much more money to hire their own thugs than using taxpayer funded thugs. How many oil companies would be able to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on the scale that's been taking place in the past decade? or would be willing to? Most people don't realize that, even the slave owners had/have to rely on tax-payer funded fugitive return law enforcement to keep the slavery system in place. Even in today's world, sex slavers would confiscate the hapless victims' passports and documents first . . . why? Because transferring the cost of hiring of thugs to the taxpayers is much less expensive than paying for their own thugs.

The use of violence and coercion is very expensive. A big and powerful government transfers the cost of initiating violence to the hapless tax payers.

Reality says

How much would you pay for the ability to delete my comments, or to change them?

See this new thread about that idea:

http://patrick.net/?p=1086952

Near-zero. I wouldn't want to delete or change anyone else' comment. People come to this website for meaningful discussions.
...Messing with people's posts, especially without proper indications of editorial footnotes or new attributions is not only a quick way to lose traffic and eyeball time...

Wow, I almost never agree with Real, but this time I do. Just so that I can remain in consistent disagreement how much would it cost to change his post so that I can disagree with it?

I think that a better model may be a scaled membership system.

I am just spit balling here but perhaps something like this:

Free
- Can post 5 comments a month
$1/month
- Can post 10 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
$5/month
- Can post 50 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
$10/month
- Can post 100 comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
- Can view the Link Submission forum and add links (gives a preview of what's to come)
$30/month
- Can post unlimited comments a month
- Can add an image icon to their profile
- Can start threads
- Can view the Link Submission forum and add links
- Gives access to the Pnet data service

You could even give the different membership levels snappy names, and perhaps a small icon to indicate the membership level of the poster.

Libel against whom? You're anonymous!

A consistently used user name is an identity. It's not the same as posting under "anonymous."

A guy I know at Facebook pointed out that Facebook doesn't have these problems because you just don't piss off your Facebook friends, or else they rapidly unfriend you.

"ignore" button in forums serve the same purpose. OTOH, I haven't ignored anyone, 'cuz really want to hear what people have to say.

But anyway, I found a better solution so no need to change any more comments. There will be a no-holds-barred Politics Forum, where users can zap each other's comments for $1. Not sure it will work, but worth a try.

In that case, almost all posts with substantive content would be deleted quickly, and soon enough nobody would post there.

Here's a better business plan: let people set up accounts with you that start at $10, and can be added to in $10 increments (so you don't get nickel-and-dimed to death on transaction cost). Then people can spend 0.1 cent to rank posts on a 1-to-10 scale. Then allow readers to use a filter based on average rankings; i.e. posts with really low rankings wouldn't show unless reader choose to lower the threashold. At the same time, Patrick, try to keep your own posts as non-partisan as possible, so you can get audience of all stripes.

hmm, I think I may just have saved your website. LOL. You can thank me later, and send me some free shares when the site goes public.

Reality says

A consistently used user name is an identity. It's not the same as "anonymous."

How were you harmed though? Nobody knows who "reality" is. What damages could you possible provide?

Reality says

The use of violence and coercion is very expensive. A big and powerful government transfers the cost of initiating violence to the hapless tax payers.

It's not very expensive in many places in the world. Here's your AK, a cot, and you get a share of the loot. A non-existent or tiny/ineffective government is at least no longer in the way when you want to pillage and you can do it openly.

Reality says

Mental anguish is easy to establish when you insist on ascribing to other people what they never said.

Good luck with that. Until your identity leaks out, you have no case.

Reality says

Then people can spend 0.1 cent to rank posts on a 1-to-10 scale. Then allow readers to use a filter based on average rankings; i.e. posts with really low rankings wouldn't show unless reader choose to lower the threashold.

Too rational to be exciting. What we're talking about here is hate, and the ability to slightly injure someone you hate.

But maybe paying 0.1 cents to mark a comment as "Left" or "Right" would be a sufficient insult to make it worth paying. Perhaps I should physically shift a comment to the left or right on each vote!

leoj707 says

I think that a better model may be a scaled membership system.

Yes, it's just a matter of what exactly is worth paying for. I suspect it's the things that make someone else turn purple, more than the things that make their own online home a little nicer. Though Farmville has proven that people will pay to make their online home nicer.