patrick.net

no one tells you how to spend your money, dont tell others how to spend theirs either. it's a free country. you want to blow millions on pot and hookers its your right, just dont come crying for a bailout refund.

the mental condition required, to even begin to think, for even one small instant of time, that there is a "reason" for any American voter to pay a larger percentage of their net yearly increase than any other voter,,.. has not infected me.

And when the "reason" given for lopsided taxes is "they spend lots of their money" .... lol .... I just feel happier to not suffer from the disorder.

one nation
one vote
one tax
no more free riders

wanting this country to be more like Norway & Sweden and less like Brazil and Mexico is not a "mental condition", bap.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html

Higher taxes on the wealthy are not the only way, nor particularly the best way, but some way is necessary to redistribute money and capital from the rich to the poor, from the top of the income scale to the bottom.

Necessary if you want to have a unified social order and not a country divided between rich & poor, like how it is in most shithole countries.

The math is very simple about this. The rich make money in their sleep -- their money works for them. Over time capital becomes more and more concentrated, it is a vicious circle of the poor getting tapped by the rich every which way they turn -- for natural resources like gasoline, for medical services, for services like phone and internet, and of course housing rents.

While on the margin individuals in the working class can break into the ranks of the wealthy, over time the system becomes more and more zero sum as more and more of natural resources and business opportunity become owned by the hereditary wealthy.

This is how it works in Mexico and Brazil, and not at all how it works in the scandinavian countries.

http://www.prosperity.com/downloads/2009LegatumProsperityIndexReport.pdf

This nation is heading towards a very ugly future. We're halfway there already, and some of us are beginning to realize it.

HW,

The Apple II computer, with 1/20,000 the processing power of a $400 laptop today, and 1/2,000,000 the storage space, once cost nearly $4,000! See, new technology needs the "rich" and "frivolous" "hobbyists" as early early adopters before the process details are worked out and scaled up for mass consumption at ever lower prices. If there had been no "rich" early adopters but instead we had to rely on government funding for all computer research like in the soviet union and Japan, we'd never have anything like the Apple II, PC, Mac, notebook computers or tablet computers . . . but only mainframes and terminals, and "nobody would ever need a personal computer."

Civil Aviation is probably going to be quite exciting when the economy recovers in a half decade. By then, Honda should have a new line of small jets providing taxi service perfect tailored to the route in that ad.

Bellingham Bob says

wanting this country to be more like Norway & Sweden and less like Brazil and Mexico is not a "mental condition",

Ignoring the size difference however is. Norway and Sweden are about 1/20 the size of Mexico and Brazil respectively. The entire populations of Norway and Sweden combined are only a fraction of the size of Mexico City or San Paolo or Rio. Norway has a population of 5mil, Sweden 10mil; whereas Mexico has about 120mil, and Brazil close to 200 mil! For comparable size, you'd have to compare to the entirety of EU (about 350mil), and what a disaster that unification/centralization attempt has become, with hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the streets every day. What Mexico and Brazil suffer from is the central government / imperial administration. The EU has the same problem even without formal fiscal union. Norway and Sweden are doing reasonably well because they are effectively practicing regional independence and self-determination! i.e. exactly the opposite of your advocacy of big central government!

some way is necessary to redistribute money and capital from the rich to the poor, from the top of the income scale to the bottom.

The most effective way of eroding money and capital from the rich establishment is the dynamic market creative destruction process.

Necessary if you want to have a unified social order and not a country divided between rich & poor, like how it is in most shithole countries.

Most shihole countries are what they are precisely because stupid attempt at political/economic/social unification. Different people have different ideas. Self-determination is of paramount importance to human happiness.

The math is very simple about this. The rich make money in their sleep -- their money works for them.

Only if the government regulators put enough red tapes to stop competitive threat from emerging. Otherwise, it would be capital obsolescence while the rich is sleeping. Think what happened to the computer manufacturing arm of IBM.

Over time capital becomes more and more concentrated,

That would indeed be the case if capital is controlled by a cadre of bureaucrats, just like in a militarized society or feuldal order.

it is a vicious circle of the poor getting tapped by the rich every which way they turn -- for natural resources like gasoline, for medical services, for services like phone and internet, and of course housing rents.

Economic Rent is only possible when there is a lack of competition. Guess what government regulations do? They reduce competition. Hence, government is prone to be the tool used by a small group of individuals to exploit the masses.

Bap33 says

the mental condition required, to even begin to think, for even one small instant of time, that there is a "reason" for any American voter to pay a larger percentage of their net yearly increase than any other voter,,.. has not infected me.

If you get the time google "marginal utility of the dollar". It'll get you started on the path to understanding a progressive tax system and the reason why its required in order to have equitable distribution of wealth in any country. Socialism, communism, whatever has nothing to do with it.

Bap33 says

And when the "reason" given for lopsided taxes is "they spend lots of their money" .... lol .... I just feel happier to not suffer from the disorder.

Except the rich aren't spending most of their money. You feel happy because you don't understand how thoroughly you're getting screwed. They're either letting it sit in special loopholed investment vehicles to earn more interest or they have it specu-vested in some bizarre financial instrument that can't fail since its backed by the government. Their cash isn't going to buy goods and services for the most part, its being used to make them richer and richer over time. Effectively establishing an American aristocracy as over time the inherited wealth gets bigger and bigger.

Interestingly if you ever get the time look up "millennial bonds" and the reasons for their illegality.

tts says

Except the rich aren't spending most of their money. You feel happy because you don't understand how thoroughly you're getting screwed. They're either letting it sit in special loopholed investment vehicles to earn more interest or they have it specu-vested in some bizarre financial instrument that can't fail since its backed by the government.

Did you realize that your much beloved taxes and regulations are precisely what pay for their "specu-vestment" bailouts?

Their cash isn't going to buy goods and services for the most part, its being used to make them richer and richer over time. Effectively establishing an American aristocracy as over time the inherited wealth gets bigger and bigger.

If they never buy goods or services, they are not taking up the resources that you and I need.

Taxation almost always further concentrate wealth and power: because any and all tax-and-spend scheme always takes money from more people than the bulk of the money (difference vs. free market alternative) is spent on.

in simple terms, it is stupid to have a graduated tax because some person is given the power to draw a line between "rich" and "poor" basec on pulledfromarse system favored by demoncrate progressives. That same system makes it worthwhile to search for loopholes.
What is rich? Why that amount? The location one lives in and how they live is not based on that, is it? Who picked the person that has picked who gets a free pass and who don't? Why not call it welfare when a tax return results in more money going to a voter than they paid in?

one nation
one vote
one tax
end the progressive game

Reality says

Most shihole countries are what they are precisely because stupid attempt at political/economic/social unification. Different people have different ideas. Self-determination is of paramount importance to human happiness.

Most shithole countries are what they are because a very small group people have all the money and power while everyone else lives in poverty. Simple greed an thuggery, not any grand social scheme failure.

John Bailo says

Well, actually the personal computer by itself was a colossal failure until it turned in a terminal hooked up to a mainframe (web browser to internet server running unix).

Personal computers were tremendous successes long before there was internet. Do any of the following: Apple II, IBM PC, PC AT, Mac, 286, 386, 486 . . . ring a bell?

If you think the WorldWideWeb and Internet are mainframes, obviously you have no clue about what distributed computing is.

And the web was invented at CERN.

The inventor of the port-80 protocol for hyper-text mark-up worked at CERN. To credit CERN for inventing WWW however would be like crediting the NASA for inventing putting on an adult diaper then driving across country to chase down a romantic rival! (the jilted lover who did that worked at NASA).

BTW, hyper-text linked documents preceded the invention of the port-80 protocols by Berners-Lee anyway.

bob2356 says

Most shithole countries are what they are because a very small group people have all the money and power while everyone else lives in poverty. Simple greed an thuggery, not any grand social scheme failure.

What do the "very small group [of} people having all the power" usually call themselves? The corporations! Every shithole place is marked by concentration of power . . . into the hands of the corporate officials that have too much monopolistic coercive power to control and to intervene in people's lives.

tts says

If you get the time google "marginal utility of the dollar". It'll get you started on the path to understanding a progressive tax system and the reason why its required in order to have equitable distribution of wealth in any country.

just the "equitable distribution of wealth" is not that great a goal, as it penalizes the successful and rewards the lazy.

equitable distribution of economic opportunity is.

This is why I like Georgism. It gets down to the heart of the matter and addresses one of the main mechanisms how the rich parasitically profit from the poor.

But we have other problems -- it's the rents that are the fundamental imbalance in the system. Wages go into the working class, but rents take most of that income away.

Economic rents in housing. Medical care. Gasoline. Wage arbitrage with cheap labor countries like China and Mexico. Just those are about $4T/yr being sucked out of the working class, most of their income.

The whole system is simply unsustainable. Conservatives like bap either don't understand where this is going or want us to go there. I don't know which is worse.

"Self-determination is of paramount importance to human happiness."

And yet Norway, Sweden, and Finland are the happiest nations on the planet.

Your bullshit is unreal.

Bellingham Bob says

But we have other problems -- it's the rents that are the fundamental imbalance in the system. Wages go into the working class, but rents take most of that income away.

we agree here. It should not be legal to rent a single family home. The only legal occupant of any home should be the owner, period. Maybe outlaw ownership of more than one SFH by any one person (?) ... I dunno .. but there is an obvious problem when you allow rentals, more specily welfare supported rentals, to be privately owned. The fact that most lower income/welfare people are alos renters means that the taxpayers are subsidizing those who own multiple houses .. and, on that I agree, there should be no such animal.

Welfare supported rentals should be owned by the county tax payers in that area, so they enjoy the benifits of apprieciation, and so no individual land owner is able to have the tax payers fund their housing investment.

I am not sure how to correctly word this ... and it is so obvious to me in my mind ... but, as long as there is forced wealth transfers in place that make poor people able to pay rents higher than their own production ability the price of rents will be above true market prices ... but, even that has the possiblity of land barons owning entire towns and creating Potervilles all over ... and then folks will be working for rent and running a tab at Potters grocery and Potters gas and electric .... this would be bad. Outlaw the practice of renting any SFH, and outlaw subsidized remts on privatly owned property ... that would be a good thing.

Bellingham Bob says

just the "equitable distribution of wealth" is not that great a goal, as it penalizes the successful and rewards the lazy.

equitable distribution of economic opportunity is.

Agree up to this point. There is another name for inequitable distribution of economic opportunity: privileges; i.e. feudal privileges; i.e. government granted territorial monopoly.

This is why I like Georgism. It gets down to the heart of the matter and addresses one of the main mechanisms how the rich parasitically profit from the poor.

Henry George was correct in advocating the reduction of taxes. He made an error in assigning all land opportunity value to the government; heck, by that logic, why not tax people for sunlight or rain water or breathing fresh air?

But we have other problems -- it's the rents that are the fundamental imbalance in the system. Wages go into the working class, but rents take most of that income away.

Rent is typically 1/10 to 1/3 of household income; that's including rent on capital improvement in addition to land rent.

Economic rents in housing. Medical care.

Economic rent (ROI above economic opportunity cost) is only possible when there is a (relative) lack of competition. If you want to reduce rent, the answer is not jacking up government officials' own rent seeking by raising licensing fees (property tax is a form of licensing fee), but by allowing more competitors and relaxing licensing/zoning requirement. . . so that more competitors can enter the market place to whittle away the economic rent down to normal economic opportunity cost.

Gasoline. Wage arbitrage with cheap labor countries like China and Mexico.

Are you saying gasoline price is too high or too low? I'm a little confused. If you are decrying it being too high (from the preceding items), then availability of less expensive goods from imports should be a good thing. You can't be seriously decrying the problem of privileges at one moment, then turn 180 degrees instantly and decry the lack of feudal privileges on the part of Americans who already have jobs over those who looking for one, can you?

In any case, you are mistaken on the real economic value of lower cost goods. They do not destroy jobs but actually create jobs by making all sorts of goods distribution, retailing and the use for making higher order goods and services possible. It's like the introduction of cheaper cab fares after the invention of automobiles increased overall job opportunities despite putting more expensive horse-drawn cabs out of business; the introduction of PC increased jobs and job productivity despite elimination of many typist and dictationist jobs.

People do not go to jobs in order to work, but in order to get paid so that they can get what they really want in goods and services. Protectionism stands directly in the way of people's ultimate demand for goods and services.

The whole system is simply unsustainable.

The problem is getting worse because all sorts of big-government prescriptions are exacerbating the problem, exactly the opposite of a cure, which is always liberty and freedom!

"By then, Honda should have a new line of small jets providing taxi service perfect tailored to the route in that ad."

And those Honda jets will be flying into and out of government owned airports and directed by FAA air traffic controllers so they don't crash into each other?

"If there had been no "rich" early adopters but instead we had to rely on government funding for all computer research like in the soviet union and Japan, we'd never have anything like the Apple II, PC, Mac, notebook computers or tablet computers . . ."

How many of these products would exidt if it were not for the govt. invented internet?

Bellingham Bob says

"Self-determination is of paramount importance to human happiness."

And yet Norway, Sweden, and Finland are the happiest nations on the planet.

Your bullshit is unreal.

You are again forgetting just how small Norway, Sweden and Finland are. They have only 5-10 million people each! That's about the 1/5 - 1/3 the size of a single major city in Brazil and Mexico! The countries of Mexico and Brazil are 20x the size! at 120mil and 200mil respectively. Norway, Sweden and Finland are enjoying regional self-determination just by their sheer smallness. As you can see, the EU as a whole, at a size much more comparable to Brazil, is having far more strife than Norway, Sweden and Finland individually.

The advantage of Europe is the political fragmentation and regional self-determination; i.e. the lack of a powerful central government wasting resources imposing its rule on people. In fact, that's precisely the reason why Europe had pulled ahead of the likes of Russian, Indian, Ottoman and Chinese empires in the previous 500 years.

HousingWatcher says

"By then, Honda should have a new line of small jets providing taxi service perfect tailored to the route in that ad."

And those Honda jets will be flying into and out of government owned airports and directed by FAA air traffic controllers so they don't crash into each other?

A major driving force behind the small Honda Jet program is seeking to avoid reliance on existing major airports and their high cost. An even smaller aircraft project has been undertaken by Toyota . . . the goal there is to have something that does not require FAA traffic controllers at all. Let's keep in mind, the FAA air controllers' intervention is coerced by law not a necessary condition for physical flight. Considering that planes have landed safely with air controllers sleeping or watching porn . . . the whole scenario would have been a lot safer if the FAA had given advanced notice that they are out of business and some private sector collision avoidance solutions would have stepped in to fill the vacuum with multiple competing coordination services.

"If there had been no "rich" early adopters but instead we had to rely on government funding for all computer research like in the soviet union and Japan, we'd never have anything like the Apple II, PC, Mac, notebook computers or tablet computers . . ."

How many of these products would exidt if it were not for the govt. invented internet?

All of them existed without the help of internet. All but one of them were tremendous market successes before the internet age. People bought millions of Apple II, PC's, Mac's and notebook computers before the internet. The government did not even invent the internet, any more than Nazis could be credited with inventing the computer for purchasing IBM punch card machines.

How old are you anyway? pre-teen? Did someone teach you that you wouldn't know how to put one of your feet in front of the other without government teachers? or that English as a language didn't exist in society until public school teachers invented it and taught to students in public schools?

Bellingham Bob says

The math is very simple about this. The rich make money in their sleep -- their money works for them. Over time capital becomes more and more concentrated, it is a vicious circle of the poor getting tapped by the rich every which way they turn -- for natural resources like gasoline, for medical services, for services like phone and internet, and of course housing rents.

Bob, for many (maybe even most) wealthy people no capital is made when they sleep. It's simply the profit made from work done by employees and added value economics.

What you are referring to is economic rents which are only possible through government sponsored inflation.

"What you are referring to is economic rents which are only possible through government sponsored inflation."

I was going to say LOL but you have something resembling a point.

RE investors are engaging in time arbitrage, buying what might not cashflow all that well now and relying on inflation to make the deal pay off over time.

But generally RE pros cashflow from day 1 so they are not strictly reliant on wage inflation to clear their profits.

Other forms of rent-seeking have nothing to do with "gummint".

A primary example of this would be the economic rents of oil. A gallon of gas has an inherent value to me of $20 or so, since one gallon can move me and my stuff 30 miles, which is 10 trips to the store, or $2 a trip, less than what the bus costs.

So it's a miracle that gasoline "only" costs $4 now, and accident that the market is producing enough supply to keep the $4/gallon bid the market-clearing price.

I think gas could easily go up to $20 should global continue to demand rise and global supply fall -- and the profits to those producers with lower cost bases will be immense.

This has absolutely nothing to do with government-created inflation since I am talking here in real prices and not nominal prices.

Your model of the world is still broken.

Bellingham Bob says

RE investors are engaging in time arbitrage, buying what might not cashflow all that well now and relying on inflation to make the deal pay off over time.

hmm, if you think the current standard practice for real estate investing is cash flow negative after down payment and closing cost . . . what economic rent seeking are you complaining about? The house rent they are collecting can't even cover their own rent payment on the money that they borrowed and the rent they owe the towns as property tax! They are getting negative rent!

Any speculation on future inflation is just that, speculation, not rent seeking. If inflation does go up as they hope, they will be rewarded for speculating correctly just like any buyers of durable commodities and stocks would be paid off. There is no rent seeking to speak of there either. How things pan out can easily prove them wrong, just like many wannabe buy-to-let ended up getting foreclosed in the last few years, losing their down payments and closing money.

Remember, economic rent means return on investment that is higher than market economic opportunity cost due to lack of competition. If the competition for buying real estate has already reached such a fierce level that new landlords can not cash flow positive, then there is no economic rent to speak of. They are actually subsidizing renters!

In a normal market, cash flow should be positive from day 1 (or after renovation), as the owners have down payment and closing cost as initial investment. The market arbitrage is actually in credit worthiness: the renter may not have the credit worthiness to borrow and buy, and the convenience factor: the owner buying whole sale bundle of housing in terms of time (and space too if multi-family) then retailing in smaller units of time (and space in case of multi-family). The return on these things are not usually much higher than normal economic opportunity cost . . . and actually lower during the current bubble as you noticed with negative cash flow, so there is no economic rent to speak of, any more than buying a bundle of index stocks and collecting dividends. . . heck cash flow negative is the equivalent of the companies losing money like during the dot-com mania.

A primary example of this would be the economic rents of oil. A gallon of gas has an inherent value to me of $20 or so, since one gallon can move me and my stuff 30 miles, which is 10 trips to the store, or $2 a trip, less than what the bus costs.

If you are only 1.5 miles from the store, walking and the $40 bike from Walmart become very viable alternatives to driving. BTW, if you keep mking 1.5 mile trips with a cold engine on a gasoline or diesel car, the mileage probably won't be much over 10mpg regardless what the EPA rating says. Engines have to run very rich when cold in order to avoid stalling as well as heating up the catalytic converter. The primary cost of car ownership in that kind of driving pattern won't be fuel use either but the cost of replacing exhaust system and engine itself would soon catch up with you. Getting a bike or good pair of sneakers is highly recommended.

For the rest of us with more normal driving patterns, higher price would simply make me drive much less or get a more fuel efficient car.

So it's a miracle that gasoline "only" costs $4 now, and accident that the market is producing enough supply to keep the $4/gallon bid the market-clearing price.

Gasoline prices are extremely competitive in the retail market. Prices are kept low by that competition, as well as people electing to drive less if it gets expensive. There isn't much economic rent to be found in gasoline price. The credit card companies might have more rent collection every time you swipe the card at the gas station. Many gas stations use low priced gas as loss leader to sell cigarettes and candies at marked up prices.

The multi-nationals with oil contracts with governments like Iraq indeed enjoy economic rent, but that's a political arbitrage not a free market phenomenon.

"If you are only 1.5 miles from the store, walking and the $40 bike from Walmart become very viable alternatives to driving."

My time is worth more than $2/hr. Or whatever. I didn't have a car for the first 3/4 of my life so I could manage, but I'd like to restructure my life if I had to stop driving.

In Tokyo I lived 10 minutes away by foot from two excellent grocery stores.

http://g.co/maps/t9k6r

"Gasoline prices are extremely competitive in the retail market."

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

Plus each household buys 20 gallons a week, so we're very price conscious.

"There isn't much economic rent to be found in gasoline price."

True, but there's tons built in the price of crude oil.

And gasoline is made from crude oil, you might know.

"Many gas stations use low priced gas as loss leader to sell cigarettes and candies at marked up prices."

No, gas stations operate sundry retail to try to stay in business.

"The multi-nationals with oil contracts with governments like Iraq indeed enjoy economic rent, but that's a political arbitrage not a free market phenomenon."

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.

Somebody will pocket those rents, be it state oil companies or private oil companies.

Christ you're an idiot.

Bellingham Bob says

My time is worth more than $2/hr. Or whatever. I didn't have a car for the first 3/4 of my life so I could manage, but I'd like to restructure my life if I had to stop driving.

Many people would get bikes before gasoline price hits $20/gallon, especially if they live within 1.5 mile of where they need to go.

True, but there's tons built in the price of crude oil.

I addressed that issue only a few lines down, in case you didn't notice.

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.

Somebody will pocket those rents, be it state oil companies or private oil companies.

Not sure what you mean by "free market can't compete with that." Crude oil price is not a free market phenomenon; it's largely a corporate oligopoly business worldwide. Governments (as in governments that forcibly collect tax on drilling and distribution that have to be ultimately born by consumers then give the money to favored corporations and rich individuals, through government contracts and interest payments on sovereign debts) have been the biggest factor in crude oil price for decades, since at least the time when beduin tribesmen were allowed to raise oil price to launder money from American motorists to Wall Street in the early 70's (aka "oil shock"; they hated us so much that they would send the proceeds from higher price to Wall Street banks), if not when they were appointed to the thrones in those oil rich countries in the early 20th century to begin with. If you have to put it in terms of "rent," then yes the various governments (i.e. individuals and groups of individuals controlling governments) of the world have indeed been collecting massive rents on liquid fuel use for nearly a century.

Christ you're an idiot.

Considering all the idiocy you have been writing about economic rent on housing while your view of the current housing market is that of new landlords subsidizing renters with negative cash flow . . . that expression would be appropriate if you uttered it while gazing into a mirror.

I have been too charitable towards you for too long.

Bellingham Bob says

but I'd like to restructure my life if I had to stop driving.

I did this in 1997. Huge improvement in quality of life will never go back to commuter life. Ever. Don't just like it do it.

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.