|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Well as tasteless as this seems, could I then ask "Should Bush be able to claim responsibility for the benefits that 9-11 had on the economy (ie. the money he threw into America) even though it was planned before he got into office"?
The simple fact is, inject that much money into an economy and you'd be an idiot to not expect growth; as hollow as it may be. |
9-11 cost the US between 100 Billion and one trillion dollars in damage . Does not seem to be any benefit there.
| Quote: |
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Are you saying that in the LAST 3 years, suddenly all he oil is just "gone" because of China and india? |
that is a big reason
| Quote: |
Do you SERIOUSLY think that jeopardizing the safety of the most oil rich regions of the world did NOT have an impact on oil prices? |
the region was stable before? It was safe before?
There has been a war waged on the US by groups and regimes in that region. Before 9-11 the US didn't really understand what was going on.
But any way this year oil has been at low as 49 dollars a barrel and and high as 78.
Over the long term it is the market that determines prices.
| Quote: |
so what: Cut tax revenue EVEN FURTHER? Does that make sense? |
Bush' s tax cuts were not my cup of tea but there are a lot intelligent people out there who make strong arguments that tax cuts increase productivity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
by the way if high taxes are so great then why is it that the US economy has out performed most EU countries for a long time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Well as tasteless as this seems, could I then ask "Should Bush be able to claim responsibility for the benefits that 9-11 had on the economy (ie. the money he threw into America) even though it was planned before he got into office"?
The simple fact is, inject that much money into an economy and you'd be an idiot to not expect growth; as hollow as it may be. |
9-11 cost the US between 100 Billion and one trillion dollars in damage . Does not seem to be any benefit there. |
Growth isn't always good growth, just as cancer isn't good growth. What is a better way to grow the economy, grow it building tanks and jets or grow it building power plants, roads, factories, and fiber optic?
| Quote: |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve |
Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics. Bueller? Bueller?Bueller? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Growth isn't always good growth, just as cancer isn't good growth. What is a better way to grow the economy, grow it building tanks and jets or grow it building power plants, roads, factories, and fiber optic? |
Growth is always good -how could it not be ? but I agree the economy is probably better off with the later- though defense spending also pushes the technological curve.
However I do think business and consumers spend more money more effiecently than does the govt.
| Quote: |
| Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics. Bueller? Bueller?Bueller? |
That is not a very fair assessment. At any rate the US enjoyed a huge economic expansion in the 1980's and in the 1990s. There are many opinions on why it occured and quite a few people credit tax cuts.
I don't think the tax cuts were worth the debt, but I do think tax cuts improve productivity and increase investment. In fact most people think so.
But let me ask this if high taxes and government spending are so great then why does the US economy outperform European economies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Growth isn't always good growth, just as cancer isn't good growth. What is a better way to grow the economy, grow it building tanks and jets or grow it building power plants, roads, factories, and fiber optic? |
Growth is always good -how could it not be ? |
What do you do with a tank once it's been built? How does it add value to the economy? A tractor is a much better thing for your economy to make than a tank. A tractor creates jobs to construct it (like a tank). But then it doesn't sit there. A tractor works fields, produces something else, and adds increased efficiency to the economy.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics. Bueller? Bueller?Bueller? |
That is not a very fair assessment. At any rate the US enjoyed a huge economic expansion in the 1980's and in the 1990s. There are many opinions on why it occured and quite a few people credit tax cuts. |
You know I'm just making a joke here right? You know what movie I'm talking about right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 9-11 cost the US between 100 Billion and one trillion dollars in damage . Does not seem to be any benefit there. |
Forgive me for sounding crass and ignorant but:
1) How much of that was insured?
Regardless of that answer, 3 planes hit three buildings to the cost of "x": Does your 100bil to 1tril "estimate" include impact on markets?
It could also be argued that 9/11 has cost (and continues to cost) America, FAR more than merely the monetary value of those three buildings.
| Quote: |
the region was stable before? It was safe before?
There has been a war waged on the US by groups and regimes in that region. Before 9-11 the US didn't really understand what was going on. |
During Clin-Ton's administration, gas prices were fairly steady; they rose, but not like we've seen in the last 3 years +/-. So perhaps it wasn't completely "stable" nor had it been particular "safe", but numbers show that the safety and stability of the region, pre 9-11 either had NO impact, or had very little impact.
So that seems like kind of a strawman.
| Quote: |
But any way this year oil has been at low as 49 dollars a barrel and and high as 78.
Over the long term it is the market that determines prices.
|
That's not true at all. It's OPEC, all by it's lonesome that determines the price, NOT the market: If OPEC wants the price to go up, it ALLOWS the that to happen; if OPEC wants the price to go down, it ALLOWS it to happen.
IF OPEC sees an overt threat to a major oil field, it is going to control oil prices accordingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What do you do with a tank once it's been built? How does it add value to the economy? A tractor is a much better thing for your economy to make than a tank. A tractor creates jobs to construct it (like a tank). But then it doesn't sit there. A tractor works fields, produces something else, and adds increased efficiency to the economy. |
Perhaps growth is still good no matter how you get it.
Growth is good , debts are bad.
When the US spends money on new weapons new technologies are developed. Composites used on jet fighters led to composites used in civilian air craft. It also produces jobs but you are sort of right. Civilian projects add more to the economy than defense spending.
I don't think we were arguing this.
| Quote: |
You know I'm just making a joke here right? You know what movie I'm talking about right? |
sorry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Forgive me for sounding crass and ignorant but:
1) How much of that was insured? |
I don't know
| Quote: |
Regardless of that answer, 3 planes hit three buildings to the cost of "x": Does your 100bil to 1tril "estimate" include impact on markets? |
yes
| Quote: |
It could also be argued that 9/11 has cost (and continues to cost) America, FAR more than merely the monetary value of those three buildings. |
sure
| Quote: |
During Clin-Ton's administration, gas prices were fairly steady; they rose, but not like we've seen in the last 3 years +/-. So perhaps it wasn't completely "stable" nor had it been particular "safe", but numbers show that the safety and stability of the region, pre 9-11 either had NO impact, or had very little impact.
So that seems like kind of a strawman. |
Well there is a security premuim in oil prices as I said but the big reason for their increase are that China and India use more and cause there is less easy to get oil out there.
| Quote: |
That's not true at all. It's OPEC, all by it's lonesome that determines the price, NOT the market: If OPEC wants the price to go up, it ALLOWS the that to happen; if OPEC wants the price to go down, it ALLOWS it to happen. |
OPEC has an effect however if prices are too high then economies suffer then nations look for non OPEC alternatives and other sources of energy.
| Quote: |
IF OPEC sees an overt threat to a major oil field, it is going to control oil prices accordingly. |
OPEC has alot of control over prices in the short term but not so much in the long term. It wasn't by OPECS wish that oil prices fell too 10 dollars a barrel in the 90's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
You know I'm just making a joke here right? You know what movie I'm talking about right? |
sorry |
I apologize too. I know when you get in the thick of debate, emotions and zeal sometime cloud perception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Ought Bush be blamed for all the damage that high oil prices did to the US economy , even though the biggest reasons for high oil prices are that China and India use more and that it is getting harder and harder to find easy to obtain oil? |
huh? hmmm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060426-121912-6032r.htm
President Bush yesterday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, which are creating bottlenecks in U.S. gasoline markets, and announced a federal investigation into potential manipulation of gas prices that have topped $3 per gallon.
Mr. Bush, responding to high fuel costs that are expected all summer, said oil companies have a responsibility to American motorists and called on Congress to strip away tax breaks the corporations are enjoying amid record profits.
"Listen, at record prices, these energy companies have got large cash flows, and they need to reinvest those cash flows into expanding refining capacity, or researching alternative energy sources," the president said in a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates alternate energy sources, yesterday in Washington.
The $16 billion in combined first-quarter earnings expected from ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the country's three largest oil and gas companies, will be 14 times greater than the combined first-quarter profits of Google Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Oracle Corp, and 19 percent more than last year.
Mr. Bush also suspended new purchases of crude oil for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a small move to boost market supplies.
Analysts and Democrats predicted that the actions will do little to dampen high prices this summer, even though crude oil and gasoline futures fell yesterday after Mr. Bush's announcement.
"If you have $75 a barrel crude oil, you're sort of at a starting point of $2.90 a gallon for gasoline," said Mary Novak, managing director at the economic consulting firm Global Insight.
Democrats called Mr. Bush a hypocrite for making the speech because he signed last year's energy bill that gave oil companies billions in tax breaks and subsidies. They also called for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
"We have two oilmen in the White House, the logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "It is no accident. It is a cause and effect."
Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, introduced an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that would put a 60-day suspension on the 18-cents-per-gallon federal tax on gasoline to give drivers immediate tax relief -- saving $2.70 to fill a 15-gallon tank.
The Senate is expected to consider the amendment, which also calls to end tax breaks for oil and energy companies, this week.
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, called gas prices a "serious problem," but said lawmakers should further consider drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Democrats balked at calls for offshore drilling or for exploring in ANWR.
Mr. Bush's call for the Environmental Protection Agency to relax regional clean-fuel standards is designed to attract more gasoline imports and make it easier for supplies to be moved between states. He directed the agency to use its authority to temporarily waive air-quality laws in states if that would relieve a local gasoline supply shortage.
The EPA said it will consider fuel waivers on a case-by-case basis if gasoline supply problems become apparent. The waivers could result in price spikes or shortages of cleaner summer-blend gasoline. Pennsylvania is the only state to have asked for a waiver, the EPA said.
EPA spokesman John Millett said the waivers would not hurt air quality because they are only for 20 days, although states can request extensions.
Refiners, meanwhile, said that most of the change to summer-blend gasoline, which annually drives up prices, has been completed and waivers might not be needed -- and might even be counterproductive in some cases.
Mr. Bush's announcement came a day after House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, sent a letter to Mr. Bush calling for a federal investigation into gasoline price gouging or market speculation.
During the past few days, Mr. Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated.
The administration sent letters yesterday to state attorneys general urging them to vigorously enforce state law "against any anti-competitive, anti-consumer conduct in the petroleum industry."
"Consumers around the nation have expressed concerns about what they have perceived as anti-competitive or otherwise unfair conduct by the world's major oil companies," said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras.
Past investigations of price gouging have concluded that "the industry is reasonably competitive and the explanation for price increases lies in other causes," said Bert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute. The chance that investigators will find anything new "strikes me as fairly low," he said.
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Mr. Bush used the enhanced authority Congress gave him in the energy legislation to waive clean fuel requirements and use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to the widespread devastation of oil and gas facilities caused by the storms.
Gas prices at the pump fell from records of more than $3 a gallon to the mid-$2 range after the administration used emergency provisions to temporarily waive summer fuel regulations and rules requiring lower sulfur content in diesel fuels, which unleashed a flood of imports and fuel onto the market. Oil prices stayed subdued in the $60 to $70 range and did not start picking up again until late January, when the standoff between the United States and Iran over Iran's nuclear program sparked a new round of speculation. Analysts expect the administration will employ the reserves again if Iran retaliates against any U.N. economic sanctions by cutting oil exports.
Christina Bellantoni and Patrice Hill contributed to this article, which is based in part on wire service reports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While we are on the subject of unemployment, solutions, causes etc., one way of aleviating the problem is to cut taxes. Right? I discussed the high tax rate on gasoline, which puts on a extra burden on the unemployed who depend on transportation. Furthermore, the high tax on gasoline raises costs to consumers on all goods and services. This is a no brainer. The next example will show just how the federal government taxes gasoline, which does have a serious affect on the unemployed:
"When you buy a gallon of gasoline, the government receives the largest chunk of your money. According to one report, for a dollar's worth of gasoline, 34 cents are accounted for by exploration and production, refining takes up 6 cents, wholesalers get a nickel, and the service station owner gets 12 cents. As Figure 2 shows, taxes take up the rest.
Figure 2. Where Your Gasoline Dollar Goes(15)
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute concludes that over the past 20 years gas taxes have been the fastest-growing federal taxes imposed on middle-income Americans. Moore observes:
Earlier this year [1997] Republicans adopted a sensible policy that required all gas tax dollars to be spent on roads, not other government programs. That well-intentioned policy inadvertently created a whole new set of problems. It turns out that the care and maintenance of the highway system don't require anything like an 18.4 cent gas tax. After all, in the 1950s and 1960s we built the interstate highway system with a maximum federal gasoline tax of just 4 cents a gallon. Maintenance of those roads shouldn't cost 18 cents a gallon.(16)
Fuel taxes cost Americans $32.1 billion, or $121 a person. But as Table 4 shows, additional transportation taxes and related revenues totaled $86 billion as of 1994.
Table 4. Transportation Revenues by Mode and Revenue Raising Instrument: FY 1994(17) (Billions)
Highway, total
$60.1
Air, total
$13.1
Federal:
Federal Airport & Airway
Trust Fund
$6.0
Highway Trust Fund
$15.4
State airport charges
$.7
State:
Local airport charges
$6.4
Motor fuel taxes
$24.5
Transit, total
$8.9
Motor vehicle license taxes
$11.8
HTF Transit Account
$2.7
Motor vehicle operator
license taxes
$1.1
State transit charges
$1.2
Reg & toll highway charges
$3.2
Local transit charges
$5.0
Local:
Water, total
$3.2
Motor fuel taxes
$.7
Federal water receipts
$1.4
Motor vehicle license taxes
$.9
State water transit charges
$.4
Motor vehicle operator
license taxes
N.A.
Local water transit charges
$1.4
Reg & toll highway charges
$2.0
Pipeline Safety Fund
N.A.
Parking charges
$1.1
Emergency Preparedness Fund
N.A.
GRAND TOTAL $86.0 "
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=310 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vicissitude wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Ought Bush be blamed for all the damage that high oil prices did to the US economy , even though the biggest reasons for high oil prices are that China and India use more and that it is getting harder and harder to find easy to obtain oil? |
huh? hmmm
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060426-121912-6032r.htm
President Bush yesterday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, which are creating bottlenecks in U.S. gasoline markets, and announced a federal investigation into potential manipulation of gas prices that have topped $3 per gallon.
Mr. Bush, responding to high fuel costs that are expected all summer, said oil companies have a responsibility to American motorists and called on Congress to strip away tax breaks the corporations are enjoying amid record profits.
"Listen, at record prices, these energy companies have got large cash flows, and they need to reinvest those cash flows into expanding refining capacity, or researching alternative energy sources," the president said in a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates alternate energy sources, yesterday in Washington.
The $16 billion in combined first-quarter earnings expected from ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., the country's three largest oil and gas companies, will be 14 times greater than the combined first-quarter profits of Google Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and Oracle Corp, and 19 percent more than last year.
Mr. Bush also suspended new purchases of crude oil for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a small move to boost market supplies.
Analysts and Democrats predicted that the actions will do little to dampen high prices this summer, even though crude oil and gasoline futures fell yesterday after Mr. Bush's announcement.
"If you have $75 a barrel crude oil, you're sort of at a starting point of $2.90 a gallon for gasoline," said Mary Novak, managing director at the economic consulting firm Global Insight.
Democrats called Mr. Bush a hypocrite for making the speech because he signed last year's energy bill that gave oil companies billions in tax breaks and subsidies. They also called for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
"We have two oilmen in the White House, the logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "It is no accident. It is a cause and effect."
Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, introduced an amendment to the supplemental spending bill that would put a 60-day suspension on the 18-cents-per-gallon federal tax on gasoline to give drivers immediate tax relief -- saving $2.70 to fill a 15-gallon tank.
The Senate is expected to consider the amendment, which also calls to end tax breaks for oil and energy companies, this week.
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, called gas prices a "serious problem," but said lawmakers should further consider drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The Democrats balked at calls for offshore drilling or for exploring in ANWR.
Mr. Bush's call for the Environmental Protection Agency to relax regional clean-fuel standards is designed to attract more gasoline imports and make it easier for supplies to be moved between states. He directed the agency to use its authority to temporarily waive air-quality laws in states if that would relieve a local gasoline supply shortage.
The EPA said it will consider fuel waivers on a case-by-case basis if gasoline supply problems become apparent. The waivers could result in price spikes or shortages of cleaner summer-blend gasoline. Pennsylvania is the only state to have asked for a waiver, the EPA said.
EPA spokesman John Millett said the waivers would not hurt air quality because they are only for 20 days, although states can request extensions.
Refiners, meanwhile, said that most of the change to summer-blend gasoline, which annually drives up prices, has been completed and waivers might not be needed -- and might even be counterproductive in some cases.
Mr. Bush's announcement came a day after House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, sent a letter to Mr. Bush calling for a federal investigation into gasoline price gouging or market speculation.
During the past few days, Mr. Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated.
The administration sent letters yesterday to state attorneys general urging them to vigorously enforce state law "against any anti-competitive, anti-consumer conduct in the petroleum industry."
"Consumers around the nation have expressed concerns about what they have perceived as anti-competitive or otherwise unfair conduct by the world's major oil companies," said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras.
Past investigations of price gouging have concluded that "the industry is reasonably competitive and the explanation for price increases lies in other causes," said Bert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute. The chance that investigators will find anything new "strikes me as fairly low," he said.
After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Mr. Bush used the enhanced authority Congress gave him in the energy legislation to waive clean fuel requirements and use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to the widespread devastation of oil and gas facilities caused by the storms.
Gas prices at the pump fell from records of more than $3 a gallon to the mid-$2 range after the administration used emergency provisions to temporarily waive summer fuel regulations and rules requiring lower sulfur content in diesel fuels, which unleashed a flood of imports and fuel onto the market. Oil prices stayed subdued in the $60 to $70 range and did not start picking up again until late January, when the standoff between the United States and Iran over Iran's nuclear program sparked a new round of speculation. Analysts expect the administration will employ the reserves again if Iran retaliates against any U.N. economic sanctions by cutting oil exports.
Christina Bellantoni and Patrice Hill contributed to this article, which is based in part on wire service reports. |
High oil prices world wide are the biggest reason for high gas prices in the US.
The reason that oil prices are high world wide is that China & India are using more oil and that oil is getting harder to find.
At any rate gas prices are really too low.
If the US used less oil then oil prices go down. If oil prices go down then Al Qadia and the other creepy organizations like them have less money to do evil stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vicissitude
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee] High oil prices world wide are the biggest reason for high gas prices in the US.
The reason that oil prices are high world wide is that China & India are using more oil and that oil is getting harder to find. [/quote]
Who's telling you this, your republican dad? At least back up your statements with some type of credible sources. You are trying to over symplify a very complex problem.
| Quote: |
| At any rate gas prices are really too low. |
You are absolutely right. When the US economy is in trouble, the best thing to do is raise up gas prices three and four times as usual. GEE, even that's obviously not high enough for you. Americans should pay $100.00 a gallon and this will solve the whole unemployment rate too. Meanwhile, there are some countries only paying about 25 cents a gallon. Would you like some proof on that? Just ask.
| Quote: |
| If the US used less oil then oil prices go down. If oil prices go down then Al Qadia and the other creepy organizations like them have less money to do evil stuff. |
Please, everyone knows that Al Qaida is in the drug and money laundering business not to mention the trafficking of WMDs.
The US would love nothing more than to eliminate the need for imported oil and lower gas prices. It will be a cold day in hell before the oil mongers and auto-makers (in bed together) will let that happen. So meanwhile, the poor will get poorer and the rich will always get richer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vicissitude wrote: |
The US would love nothing more than to eliminate the need for imported oil and lower gas prices. It will be a cold day in hell before the oil mongers and auto-makers (in bed together) will let that happen. So meanwhile, the poor will get poorer and the rich will always get richer. |
I understand why oil companies would want high oil prices but it seems high oil prices cause the domestic auto companies to lose piles of money. Low oil has the advantage for a domestic car company that they can keep on making the same cars without the need to invest in new engineering and production lines.
So what's the connection? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Who's telling you this, your republican dad? At least back up your statements with some type of credible sources. You are trying to over symplify a very complex problem. |
No I am not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3708951.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_of_2004-2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/
| Quote: |
You are absolutely right. When the US economy is in trouble, the best thing to do is raise up gas prices three and four times as usual. GEE, even that's obviously not high enough for you. Americans should pay $100.00 a gallon and this will solve the whole unemployment rate too. Meanwhile, there are some countries only paying about 25 cents a gallon. Would you like some proof on that? Just ask. |
yes raise gas prices but use to money for alernative energy research also cut taxes at the same time.
It's not in the interest of the US to be paying huge sums of money across its borders, never mind to an enemy. Likewise, high oil prices are in the interest of Iran and Al Qaeda.
| Quote: |
Please, everyone knows that Al Qaida is in the drug and money laundering business not to mention the trafficking of WMDs. |
Sure , but a lot of their money comes from oil. One reason why people care a lot more about Saudi Arabia and Iran is cause of the oil.
| Quote: |
The US would love nothing more than to eliminate the need for imported oil and lower gas prices. It will be a cold day in hell before the oil mongers and auto-makers (in bed together) will let that happen. So meanwhile, the poor will get poorer and the rich will always get richer. |
If oil prices were lower US car makers woud be better off.
he US itself would be one of the biggest benefators of alternative energy. and in fact many of the neo cons are among its biggest supporters.
I am sure that companies like General Electric, ABB who Rumsfeld used to work for and all the Fuel Cell companies are secretly hoping the US will not develop alternative energy. Rolling Eyes
If oil prices were to collapse that would be bad for the US ? In the 1990's when oil prices were low how was the US stock market doing?
If oil prices fell what would that do to the US trade deficit ?
I am sure the US would get all upset to see Venezuala's economy go down the drain?
What would low oil price do to Russia? Would they be good for Russia or bad for Russia?
If oil prices collapsed how would that affect US car makers? Would they be upset or happy about it? Do you think they would want to sell less gas guzzling cars or more H2s? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
