patrick.net

indigenous says

David Kreutzer is the research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis

From Wikipedia:

The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

The Heritage Foundation serves Grade A grass-fed Bullshit, yes.

Really amazing how thoroughly the energy sector has taken control of our media and politics. Back in Eisenhower's day it was just the Birch Society and associated "Texas Oil Millionaires".

So what if the sealevel rises 3 feet in our grandchildren's lifetime, gotta pump that stuff out of the ground!

Bellingham Bill says

The Heritage Foundation serves Grade A grass-fed Bullshit

Ad Hominem

indigenous says

Ad Hominem

No. Its not. What would you expect if an organization whom leans one way politically came out with a report that unabashedly takes the side of their political ideology? The Heritage Foundation is basically similar to the Tea Party, where outside money from various commercial interests come in and the organization then prints stories, produces propaganda and otherwise presents fake news that serves to support that outside money. That's all it is.

Bellingham Bill says

The Heritage Foundation serves Grade A grass-fed Bullshit

Pretty sure it's corn-fed. More toxins that way.

edvard2 says

No. Its not.

Yes it is. Argue the points

indigenous says

Yes it is. Argue the points

Ok, let me spell it out for you so that it is easier for you to comprehend.

Simply put, I don't care WHAT side a political lobby or thinktank leans to, but ANY article that is written by organizations like these are meant to do one thing and one thing only- to goad the public into believing a one-sided story.

Its bullshit. Plain and simple.

So let me put it another way. Assume that I found an article and it was written by a left-leaning lobby group. If you were aware of that would you believe what that article said?

edvard2 says

Ok, let me spell it out for you so that it is easier for you to comprehend.

Also, I assume any article from 49th Parallel is probably poorly written because he so often fails to think critically and doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, so there's little point in reading it.

Probably more "I know you are, but what am I?" non-sense coming soon...

edvard2 says

Its bullshit. Plain and simple.

No it is not but you are plain and simple

indigenous says

No it is not but you are plain and simple

The translation to your responses so far is that you don't have anything to add to this. You are incapable of disproving what me and others just said. So you are resorting to 3rd-grader tactics which is to draw attention away from any real debate by calling names. Real smart.

edvard2 says

The translation to your responses so far is that you don't have anything to add to this. You are incapable of disproving what me and others just said. So you are resorting to 3rd-grader tactics which is to draw attention away from any real debate by calling names. Real smart.

Funny Stuff. The article points out how the government has caused the price of gas to go up thorough the mandate for Renewable Fuel Standard. Which is bi-partisan.

The CBO study showed that gas will go up 13-26 cents and diesel will go up 31-50 cents per gallon, by 2017, because of this mandate.

This is purely because of congressional ignorance.

indigenous says

Funny Stuff. The article points out how the government has caused the price of gas to go up thorough the mandate for Renewable Fuel Standard. Which is bi-partisan.

The CBO study showed that gas will go up 13-26 cents and diesel will go up 31-50 cents per gallon, by 2017, because of this mandate.

The study also totally ignores the fact that oil and gas production in the US has also dramatically increased to the point where we will be or are now the largest producer of both crude and natural gas. So in other words the study is flawed because its done in a vacuum scenario without considering any other outside influences.

To me it doesn't fucking matter. I bought an electric car for the reason that I want to limit as much as possible any financial contribution to the oil and gas industry anyway. If Americans weren't so addicted to their huge gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs then fuel prices wouldn't be such an issue anyway.

indigenous says

Ad Hominem

actually, a fact.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation

DeMint taking over removes any fig leaves they once had, but they've always been corrupt corporatocratic propaganda mill, in service of the rich.

your kind of people, LOL

as for prices,

Why do the BAD press on Gas prices, always have a hot chick pumping gas?

indigenous says

This is purely because of congressional ignorance.

no, pump prices are set at what people can afford to pay. Taxes actually come out the economic rents the oil-gas industry are enjoying.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/02/all-taxes-come-out-of-rents/

CaptainShuddup says

Why do the BAD press on Gas prices, always have a hot chick pumping gas?

Press photographers trying to use a backdoor way to get in the backdoor?

Bellingham Bill says

no, pump prices are set at what people can afford to pay. Taxes actually come out the economic rents the oil-gas industry are enjoying.

A somewhat socialist idea. Who determines the value of the land? What about the land that BP Oil was drilling into, 18000 ft deep through 5000 feet of water. With high danger of a spill and huge cost for cleanup. How valuable should that land be?

Bellingham Bill says

DeMint taking over removes any fig leaves they once had, but they've always been corrupt corporatocratic propaganda mill, in service of the rich.

Ad Hominem

edvard2 says

So in other words the study is flawed because its done in a vacuum scenario without considering any other outside influences.

Those factors are irrelevant.

edvard2 says

To me it doesn't fucking matter. I bought an electric car for the reason that I want to limit as much as possible any financial contribution to the oil and gas industry anyway. If Americans weren't so addicted to their huge gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs then fuel prices wouldn't be such an issue anyway.

Yes that is very interesting, you should put that on a tee shirt. But it has fuck all to do with this conversation.

If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he MUST be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he MUST use. In short, to sustain his "human right."

- Murray Rothbard

he MUST be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he MUST use

LOL, I can agree with that, partially. Problem comes when our friendly 1% elite comes to "own" half or more of the planet, yes?

http://fortune.com/2012/09/27/meet-the-largest-landowner-in-america/

of course, Dan Sullivan, here:

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

nicely addresses the typical "Got mine fuck you" version of libertarianism that Rothbard/Misean arguments in general create.

indigenous says

With high danger of a spill and huge cost for cleanup. How valuable should that land be?

the after-tax market value of its available natural resources, less cost of productization, less the profit vig to the capitalist to make the endeavor worthwhile to him

Severance taxes aren't that controversial a topic. Hell, even the secret socialists up in Alaska are dependent on them.

indigenous says

Ad Hominem

Of course going after Heritage is ad hom, but how stupid do you have to be to not see they're a front group for corporate fascism here?

As the man said, follow the money, LOL

Bellingham Bill says

Of course going after Heritage is ad hom, but how stupid do you have to be to not see they're a front group for corporate fascism here?

As the man said, follow the money, LOL

Do see that is a two street?

Bellingham Bill says

the after-tax market value of its available natural resources, less cost of productization, less the profit vig to the capitalist to make the endeavor worthwhile to him

You make it sound so simple, to the point the numbers would be tortured as in the point of my article. As with the taxes in any area that the government gets a foothold.

France is thinking about taxing vacant property to encourage economic activity. When the government bypasses the price discovery process the trouble begins.

indigenous says

You make it sound so simple

Works for Norway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil

If the majors don't want to productize Norway's resource wealth by their rules, they've got their state-run engineering company to make the investments instead.

France is thinking about taxing vacant property to encourage economic activity. When the government bypasses the price discovery process the trouble begins.

LVT accelerates the price discovery, it does not bypass it. Nothing like lighting a fire under market participants to make them 'piss or get off the pot' as it were.

indigenous says

Do see that is a two street?

http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

indigenous says

Those factors are irrelevant.

They are. And once again, please add more to a debate instead of giving weak soggy noodle quips. On the other hand I would take answers such as that to be more or less the representative typical right-leaning response and hence makes me feel more confident that the GOP is a dinosaur with 2016 for theirs to lose...

Bellingham Bill says

Works for Norway.

They are subsidized by oil money.

Bellingham Bill says

LVT accelerates the price discovery, it does not bypass it. Nothing like lighting a fire under market participants to make them 'piss or get off the pot' as it were.

Not true. Who decides the value of the land?

Bellingham Bill says

http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

Give me the readers digest version of the blather.

edvard2 says

They are.

edvard2 says

The study also totally ignores the fact that oil and gas production in the US has also dramatically increased to the point where we will be or are now the largest producer of both crude and natural gas.

How is that relevant to the gross (by partisan) incompetence of the state targeting of bio fuel through the RFS at great expense to the citizens?

Or as they state in the article:

"So, the net effects of the RFS are to drive up farm commodity prices (and subsequently food prices), drive up the cost of diesel fuel, drive up the cost of the gasoline used by the vast majority of drivers, and provide little, at best, environmental benefit. It’s not a simple case of supply and demand where more ethanol means lower fuel costs. Understanding the complete picture is more complex. But one thing is clear: The RFS is simply a bad idea whose time to go has come."

corntrollio says

Incapable because he's a troll who can't think critically. He's one of those stupid people who can only post poorly-written articles by ideologues that he's too stupid to know are poorly written.

As I recall you were the one who lost his ass because he did not understand Austrian economics?

corntrollio says

Yeah, these are the same people who criticize infrastructure projects that they don't agree with, even though they cost less than infrastructure that they use -- e.g. California high speed rail will be cheaper than increasing the capacity of CA-99, I-5, and various California airports, and in addition, it will make a profit.

You mutts think that the intention ever was about public benefit, it is always about the private interests profiting from cronyism.

indigenous says

Funny Stuff. The article points out how the government has caused the price of gas to go up thorough the mandate for Renewable Fuel Standard. Which is bi-partisan.

How is a bill introduced by a republican congressman into a republican congress, going to a republican senate signed by a republican president bi partisan? Some democrats voted for it doesn't make it bi partisan. The vote was 208 r 41 d for 22 r 160 d against. Bipartisan? Only in your warped little world. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a windfall for large scale corporate agriculture, one of the biggest welfare recipients in the country.

Using your same "logic" makes obamacare bipartisan.

bob2356 says

How is a bill introduced by a republican congressman into a republican congress, going to a republican senate signed by a republican president bi partisan? Some democrats voted for it doesn't make it bi partisan. The vote was 208 r 41 d for 22 r 160 d against. Bipartisan? Only in your warped little world. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a windfall for large scale corporate agriculture, one of the biggest welfare recipients in the country.

I read some where that it was bipartisan. But I don't give a fuck, I'm not arguing for the Rs, this should make you happy?

Either way it illustrates how fucked up the process is.