Moe_Syzlak Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 What was your point? The thing about the old dude from Texas?Actually that was just a point of illustration. My point is that to start drilling places like ANWR now will result in a limited supply increase and that will not happen for many years (it takes a long time to get to peak production). Killing oil industry subsidies will promote more PRIVATE investment in alternative energies and likely provide more relief faster than more domestic drilling. Either way it will get worse before it gets better. Why don't we looks to more long term fixes. There has to be a better reason than simply JUDE's futures investments. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Actually that was just a point of illustration. My point is that to start drilling places like ANWR now will result in a limited supply increase and that will not happen for many years (it takes a long time to get to peak production). Killing oil industry subsidies will promote more PRIVATE investment in alternative energies and likely provide more relief faster than more domestic drilling. Either way it will get worse before it gets better. Why don't we looks to more long term fixes. There has to be a better reason than simply JUDE's futures investments.Why can't we do both? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Why can't we do both?We can. But get rid of the subsidies and charge the oil companies fair market value for the public lands they will drill on and see if they are still so eager. It amuses me that the same conservatives that tout free trade and no "redistribution of wealth" seem in favor of corporate socialism of this nature. I want an even playing field to promote the economically most sustainable technology. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Why can't we do both?one you can't plan for long term because it won't be around long term. two, if the best minds will focus on it, could in fact be limitless; in fact, that seems to be one of the main attributes it has going for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 'oil = heroin' is the new 'bush = hitler'. seriously, this thread, pure gold. You Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Look out, world, here comes Kurt Vonnegut! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 We can. But get rid of the subsidies and charge the oil companies fair market value for the public lands they will drill on and see if they are still so eager. It amuses me that the same conservatives that tout free trade and no "redistribution of wealth" seem in favor of corporate socialism of this nature. I want an even playing field to promote the economically most sustainable technology.fine with me one you can't plan for long term because it won't be around long term. two, if the best minds will focus on it, could in fact be limitless; in fact, that seems to be one of the main attributes it has going for it.what does drilling have to do with having our "best minds" working on alternatives? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Can the "best minds" be spared from their important work over in teh RTT? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 We can. But get rid of the subsidies and charge the oil companies fair market value for the public lands they will drill on and see if they are still so eager. It amuses me that the same conservatives that tout free trade and no "redistribution of wealth" seem in favor of corporate socialism of this nature. I want an even playing field to promote the economically most sustainable technology. Great reply, Moe.  Treehugger.com has an informative post regarding T Bone Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Can the "best minds" be spared from their important work over in teh RTT?we can always hope for a miracle. or, if no miracle, maybe they'll shift their gaze when the lights in their hotshot buildings don't work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 what does drilling have to do with having our "best minds" working on alternatives?absolutely zero. one makes a hell of a lot more sense (or is that cents) than the other, though. i'm just trying to think past tomorrow, idiot that i am. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Look out, world, here comes Kurt Vonnegut!kurt sort of got it right, so i'm amending "oil does not = heroin" to "oil is worse than heroin." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I love Kurt Vonnegut. If he was still alive, he would have my vote for Greatest Living American. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I second that. Vonnegut is a real hero of mine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 We can. But get rid of the subsidies and charge the oil companies fair market value for the public lands they will drill on and see if they are still so eager. It amuses me that the same conservatives that tout free trade and no "redistribution of wealth" seem in favor of corporate socialism of this nature. I want an even playing field to promote the economically most sustainable technology.  Even though I feel it is my job to provide a voice for the poor, underrepresented oil interests in this debate, I have no problem whatsoever with removing subsidies for these companies. Having said that, we need to remove the subsidies given to domestic ethanol producers and remove the tariffs placed upon ethanol imported from Brazil and other South American countries. I am opposed to any form of corporate socialism, whether it is for oil producers or agricultural interests. I challenge you to find where I said we needed to keep these subsidies in place, the reason I didn't try to refute anything you said is on the surface I find nothing to refute. I'm totally for developing alternatives to fossil fuels but I am opposed to legislating the elimination of oil usage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Even though I feel it is my job to provide a voice for the poor, underrepresented oil interests in this debate, I have no problem whatsoever with removing subsidies for these companies. Having said that, we need to remove the subsidies given to domestic ethanol producers and remove the tariffs placed upon ethanol imported from Brazil and other South American countries. I am opposed to any form of corporate socialism, whether it is for oil producers or agricultural interests. I challenge you to find where I said we needed to keep these subsidies in place, the reason I didn't try to refute anything you said is on the surface I find nothing to refute. I'm totally for developing alternatives to fossil fuels but I am opposed to legislating the elimination of oil usage. It seems we agree on a major issue. Subsidies in the hands of an established gov't - lobby fuckfest are killing the serfs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I second that. Vonnegut is a real hero of mine. Vonnegut is fine...I just thought the piece posted had a funny quote and, really, didn't change my mind that the heroin/oil thing is goofy and dramatic. that's all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I didn't even say anything about the quote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Even though I feel it is my job to provide a voice for the poor, underrepresented oil interests in this debate, I have no problem whatsoever with removing subsidies for these companies. Having said that, we need to remove the subsidies given to domestic ethanol producers and remove the tariffs placed upon ethanol imported from Brazil and other South American countries. I am opposed to any form of corporate socialism, whether it is for oil producers or agricultural interests. I challenge you to find where I said we needed to keep these subsidies in place, the reason I didn't try to refute anything you said is on the surface I find nothing to refute. I'm totally for developing alternatives to fossil fuels but I am opposed to legislating the elimination of oil usage.Cool. I agree with removing the subsidies for ethanol as well. I posted something in the Election thread about the fact that "red states" the overwhelming beneficiaries of federal spending while "blue states" foot the bill. I found that interesting as the conservative stance would have you believe it is the urban poor on welfare and this seems to dispute that. Instead I posited (with no evidence mind you ) that it is more likely things such as corn and oil subsidies. More drilling (and expansion of ethanol for that matter) are not legitimate fixes and likely wouldn't do one damn thing to help our situation. Rather I view them as money grabs while the getting is good. And the getting is good because of these subsidies. Remove them and I predict this debate goes away.  I merely took issue with you believing that further drilling is a good idea. I can't see it as a good idea for anyone other than those that stand to profit from it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I didn't even say anything about the quote. o.k. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I merely took issue with you believing that further drilling is a good idea. I can't see it as a good idea for anyone other than those that stand to profit from it. I'm not saying further drilling is necessarily a good idea, that is an unknown. I'm saying that removing the option completely is a bad idea within the context of an open market. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I'm not saying further drilling is necessarily a good idea, that is an unknown. I'm saying that removing the option completely is a bad idea within the context of an open market.As long as that market is free, open and fair, then we are in violent agreement. I suspect, however, that you would still be in favor of drilling even if the subsidies remain. Add to that the fact that no politician has the balls to propose removing the subsidies because most people would believe the propaganda that the politician would be responsible for higher gas prices. Once again illustrating why this is my favorite quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill ETA: Just to be clear that quote was not directed at you. While we may disagree on some things, you seem to do your homework. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I suspect, however, that you would still be in favor of drilling even if the subsidies remain.  As I said, I will not slag on any interest that tries to get money from the government be it in the form of subsidies or welfare (corporate or private). As long as the Fed continues to take such a large percentage of the GDP this will never change.  To answer your question yes I would still be in favor, as long as corn based ethanol producers receive subsidies and protection from competition in the form of import tariffs, oil subsidies are a non factor in my decision. Remove these subsidies from one side of the argument and I will re-think my position taking this imbalance into consideration. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 To answer your question yes I would still be in favor, as long as corn based ethanol producers receive subsidies and protection from competition in the form of import tariffs, oil subsidies are a non factor in my decision. Remove these subsidies from one side of the argument and I will re-think my position taking this imbalance into consideration.See this, to me, is like the old woman who swallowed the fly. The solution is worse than the original problem. There aren't just two sides to this and as long as lobbies are able to successfully fuck things up, new, potentially more effective, solutions' development will be stifled... technologies we perhaps haven't even thought of. We are a nation of innovation and allowing drilling as long the subsidies remain: A) won't solve the problem; B ) will likely inhibit solutions from being developed. It seems sort of akin to subsidizing the horse-drawn carriage industry to the detriment of the emerging auto industry of the early 1900s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.