Re: Motivation for the Oil Barons

On Sat, 17 May 2008 02:30:44 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:

> The Trucker wrote:
>> In a tread entitled "BEFORE Trying To Simply Hike the Fuel Tax . . ."
>> Day Brown <daybrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> ******************
>> Now, in this case, I dont blame the oil outfits for not looking for new

>> sources of alternative energy. They know how to make money off oil, and

>> are not keen on some new technology to compete with it. Very well. Tax 
>> the bastards to motivate them. Profits are positive re-inforcement, 
>> taxes are negative re-inforcement. They both work.
>> **********************
>> 
>> The Taxation of oil company profits is in fact a tax on rent that will
not
>> be passed to consumers.  If the oil companies could get higher prices
they
>> would already be doing it.
> 
> They haven't. Why did oil prices drop so precipitously after 1983?

"Secrets of the Temple" was a good read for me. It did a good job of
inadvertently describing the total gutting of the American economy by Paul
Volcker.  As the economy went to hell in a hand basket, so too did the oil
consumption. At the same time the investments in oil development in Mexico
and South America started coming on line loosening the control of OPEC. 
We had yet another "oil glut".

> Oil
> companies themselves are largely gutted. They went from Silly Putty to 
> Enron.

Good grief.

>> And so long as the proceeds of the tax are
>> disbursed to the general public it won't make any difference anyway.
> 
> Right. Once it's disbursed to everybody, it effectively
> disappears.

The objective in the esoteric economic academic sense is the
redistribution of rent and the coercive power it creates.  But that sort
of talk is not going to get anywhere.  Ya gotta stoop to politics.  It is
nasty and messy, but it is the only way to get anywhere.

>> So a
>> 100% surtax on oil company profits in excess of X simply redistributed
as
>> a quarterly "stimulus" in the same form as the present "stimulus" will
do
>> very nicely.
> 
> You were doing pretty well up to that point. Best I can tell. Once it 
> becomes expected, it's background and it doesn't influence behavior
> much anymore.

I can't agree with that and won't agree with it.  The price of gasoline
will not have been actually affected by the redistribution.  But CHOICE as
to what to do with the proceeds in the hands of rational individuals will
still CONSERVE gasoline.  That is a market force and it will not be
denied.

>   As oil prices increase driving profits above X then the oil
>> companies get the wrench. That is some serious motivation to help in
the
>> effort to reduce the prices.
>> 
> 
> We've had twenty five years of reduced prices, at very high cost.

We have had 30 years of enhanced rent privatization based on Hayekian
horse****.

>> As the definition of X can become quite complicated, it is better to
>> simply apply a lower tax rate to the entire profit. Say 50% so long as
>> oil prices remain above $80 per barrel.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I have no doubt but what this will happen, and I can only consle myself 
> with the knowlege that I won't live long enough to see the end result.

I think you are being overly dramatic and simply making a very big
mistake.

> *If* you can capture rent towards replacing oil, then it makes sense.
> Only if. Anything else is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The plan is to use market forces to "replace oil".  I don't see why this
is a problem.  The "fuel efficient" hybrids and the wind energy and all
the rest is market forces.  Very little of it is because of left winged
moonbat-****. All I'm proposing is the castration of the overlords.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend