Why is Oil a rare commodity in 2005... [Archive]

KaneKungFu123

11-10-2005, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i first came to thailand a roundtrip ticket from florida was $800 bucks, it is now about double that.

seems like a giant scam to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Build a raft or swim next time. You don't have a right to have someone else build intercontinental airliners and operate them at a price YOU deem fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

this argument sucks so bad it isnt funny.

what if the prices of every food in a grocery store doubled. And if people dont like it they can grow their own food. And if the people live in a city, well then they should move to the country, right?

imported_luckyme

11-10-2005, 03:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
seems like a giant scam to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

But it was a giant scam before, so that aspect doesn't shed much light. Perhaps it's just the simple fact that commodities in high demand go up in price when supply can't keep up. The fact that there is a scamming system in between doesn't change the ratio significantly.

luckyme

hmkpoker

11-10-2005, 03:28 PM

purnell

11-10-2005, 03:33 PM

hmkpoker

11-10-2005, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i first came to thailand a roundtrip ticket from florida was $800 bucks, it is now about double that.

seems like a giant scam to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Build a raft or swim next time. You don't have a right to have someone else build intercontinental airliners and operate them at a price YOU deem fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

this argument sucks so bad it isnt funny.

what if the prices of every food in a grocery store doubled. And if people dont like it they can grow their own food. And if the people live in a city, well then they should move to the country, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever read anything on the subject of economics?

Do you think you have a natural right to fly to Thailand or whatever it was?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm ok with him having a natural right to stay in Thailand ^_^

KaneKungFu123

11-10-2005, 04:04 PM

HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thich_Quang_Duc_-_Self_Immolation.jpg)

KaneKungFu123

11-10-2005, 04:05 PM

you guys dont like me complaining that the price is inflated on the internet why not?

how else am i supposed to effect the price?

slickpoppa

11-10-2005, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
seems like a giant scam to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?

TheFatPimp

11-10-2005, 04:39 PM

Oil is a finite commodity. The more you use, the less there is. The less there is, the more you pay. You think you pay alot now? Wait, in a couple of years you will be paying much much more, for a lower grade of oil, which is why we need to start switching, to other forms of (preferably renewable) energy asap. It also doesn't help that the oil companies are crooked bastards.

11-10-2005, 07:09 PM

The Don

11-10-2005, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i first came to thailand a roundtrip ticket from florida was $800 bucks, it is now about double that.

seems like a giant scam to me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Build a raft or swim next time. You don't have a right to have someone else build intercontinental airliners and operate them at a price YOU deem fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

this argument sucks so bad it isnt funny.

what if the prices of every food in a grocery store doubled. And if people dont like it they can grow their own food. And if the people live in a city, well then they should move to the country, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your knowledge of economics seems to be quite limited. The firm wouldn't make this decision unless it was in their best interest. That being said, if nobody flies on their airline, they will be force to go under... clearly not the best option. Basically, there is a demand for flights at this price level. The airlines are skeptical about future fuel prices and that is the reason for the high prices... such is the nature of having imperfect information.

In your grocery store analogy, you claim that they could double their prices overnight, forcing individuals to supply their own food. The issue is that another firm would step in and supply at lower prices, thus reaping all of the profits.

The invisible hand of the market, etc...

KaneKungFu123

11-10-2005, 08:22 PM

you guys are focused on airline and not on oil. arent the oil companies alligned with one another to ask the same price? cant believe gov lets them get away with this, oh wait...

Darryl_P

11-10-2005, 08:38 PM

Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I thought Thailand was 10x as corrupt as the USA.

purnell

11-10-2005, 08:51 PM

The Don

11-11-2005, 03:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you guys are focused on airline and not on oil. arent the oil companies alligned with one another to ask the same price? cant believe gov lets them get away with this, oh wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you think that the government will actually solve anything is quite disturbing. Why, per se, do you think that a central planner will act in a manner that is more beneficial to society? Do you actually believe that this is more beneficial than the will of the people as individuals?

In reality, I realize that OPEC exists, that doesn't mean that it isn't [censored]. Maybe prices would be lower without BS regulations. Oil is a SCARCE resource, and is priced according to the market for the most part though. Until new energy technologies become mainstream, you are going to have to deal with it.

r3vbr

11-11-2005, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you guys are focused on airline and not on oil. arent the oil companies alligned with one another to ask the same price? cant believe gov lets them get away with this, oh wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

Kane, if you really believe this, why dont you look for other people who think the same way (and I'm sure lots of people do), pool your money togeather into a fund, start yourself an oil company, don't agree on any deal regarding price-fixing, sell at lower cost and reap all the profits (you think the have this huge margin and insane profits right) so get in the market yourself, and make some bucks!

Also as a sidenote, study a bit more about economics.

bobman0330

11-11-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
arent the oil companies alligned with one another to ask the same price? cant believe gov lets them get away with this, oh wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
this argument sucks so bad it isnt funny

r3vbr

11-11-2005, 08:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you guys are focused on airline and not on oil. arent the oil companies alligned with one another to ask the same price? cant believe gov lets them get away with this, oh wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

Kane, if you really believe this, why dont you look for other people who think the same way (and I'm sure lots of people do), pool your money togeather into a fund, start yourself an oil company, don't agree on any deal regarding price-fixing, sell at lower price and reap all the profits (you think the have this huge margin and insane profits right) so get in the market yourself, and make some bucks!

Also as a sidenote, study a bit more about economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

DougShrapnel

11-11-2005, 09:06 PM

I think salt should be trading publicly like oil.

Peter666

11-12-2005, 05:49 PM

I have to come to Kane's defence because one point that is important is that oil is not a luxury item, but a necessity in most cases. Without it we do not have transportation, and without transportation a regular Joe cannot function normally in society.

One cannot just go and move somewhere else or start a movement without CAPITAL. If capital is too difficult to acquire, then there is no progress. A person cannot effectively fight the system until he has been a slave to the system for a while in order to generate the necessary capital to do what he wants to do. He may not live long enough to come to that point.

When oil companies are making record profits which is at a higher percentage than previous years, yet we are paying a lot more than ever, there is a serious problem. They are putting lower classes at a much bigger relative disadvantage than those who are in higher classes and can take the hit. That's akin to robbery. The wealth gap widens.

A free market is not free until there is enough starting capital for each individual.

r3vbr

11-13-2005, 04:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have to come to Kane's defence because one point that is important is that oil is not a luxury item, but a necessity in most cases. Without it we do not have transportation, and without transportation a regular Joe cannot function normally in society.

One cannot just go and move somewhere else or start a movement without CAPITAL. If capital is too difficult to acquire, then there is no progress. A person cannot effectively fight the system until he has been a slave to the system for a while in order to generate the necessary capital to do what he wants to do. He may not live long enough to come to that point.

When oil companies are making record profits which is at a higher percentage than previous years, yet we are paying a lot more than ever, there is a serious problem. They are putting lower classes at a much bigger relative disadvantage than those who are in higher classes and can take the hit. That's akin to robbery. The wealth gap widens.

A free market is not free until there is enough starting capital for each individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can personally take your own money and buy oil stocks, then you will be the one who is "robbing" everyone cause you will own part of the company.

Peter666

11-13-2005, 11:29 PM

"You can personally take your own money and buy oil stocks, then you will be the one who is "robbing" everyone cause you will own part of the company."

I would if I could. The question is where do the poorer classes get the capital to invest?

BCPVP

11-14-2005, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
one point that is important is that oil is not a luxury item, but a necessity in most cases. Without it we do not have transportation, and without transportation a regular Joe cannot function normally in society.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that so. So before the gasoline engine, people couldn't function normally in society? What did they do for all those centuries when there were no gasoline engines?

[ QUOTE ]
When oil companies are making record profits which is at a higher percentage than previous years, yet we are paying a lot more than ever, there is a serious problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right! Every company should sell their product at or less than the previous year's price to avoid these dreaded "record profits".

[ QUOTE ]
They are putting lower classes at a much bigger relative disadvantage than those who are in higher classes and can take the hit. That's akin to robbery. The wealth gap widens.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? Who is this "They" and why are "They" obligated to keep the lower classes at an even level with higher classes? Must just be the fascist streak in you talking...

Peter666

11-14-2005, 06:02 PM

"Is that so. So before the gasoline engine, people couldn't function normally in society? What did they do for all those centuries when there were no gasoline engines?"

I'd like to see you ride a horse on the highway to work.

"What? Who is this "They" and why are "They" obligated to keep the lower classes at an even level with higher classes? Must just be the fascist streak in you talking..."

The excessively rich have a moral obligation to put their excess funds to good use. This includes taking care of the disadvantaged. If you call charity fascism, so be it.

BCPVP

11-14-2005, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see you ride a horse on the highway to work.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe a horse. Maybe a bike. Maybe a train, bus, cab, subway...people all over the world get to where they need to go without taking a car.

[ QUOTE ]
The excessively rich have a moral obligation to put their excess funds to good use. This includes taking care of the disadvantaged. If you call charity fascism, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if they don't put their excess funds to "good use", then what?

Peter666

11-14-2005, 08:33 PM

You can't get certain jobs unless you own a car.

"And if they don't put their excess funds to "good use", then what?"

Then the gap between the poor and rich will continue to widen until another communist-like revolution takes place. If the poor do not have the bare necesities of life, they have a right to take it from those who have way too much.

tek

11-15-2005, 12:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Then the gap between the poor and rich will continue to widen until another communist-like revolution takes place. If the poor do not have the bare necesities of life, they have a right to take it from those who have way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why oil prices have not kept up with inflation. It's also why alternative will be found. And it's also why we have so many socialist programs in a supposedly free enterprise capatalist country. The guys pulling the strings don't want their heads or their children and grandchildrens heads on spikes, so to speak...

BCPVP

11-15-2005, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You can't get certain jobs unless you own a car.

[/ QUOTE ]
So? Is everyone entitled to a certain job that has requirements they can't meet? Am I entitled to be an NFL quarterback, even though I can't throw well past 35 yards?

[ QUOTE ]
If the poor do not have the bare necesities of life, they have a right to take it from those who have way too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
So do we just hope that They are kind enough to give out of their own generosity or do we force them to give? I don't fully buy into this "I have a right to your stuff" mentality you seem to be espousing.

Il_Mostro

11-15-2005, 05:54 AM

That's what happens when demand are starting to outstrip supply. Be glad you can fly at all, there is lots to say for air transportation being a thing only for the very rich soon enough.

Borodog

11-15-2005, 12:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Am I entitled to be an NFL quarterback, even though I can't throw well past 35 yards?

[/ QUOTE ]

Showoff.

tek

11-15-2005, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Am I entitled to be an NFL quarterback, even though I can't throw well past 35 yards?

[/ QUOTE ]

Call the Vikings. We'll take anyone at this point /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Peter666

11-15-2005, 01:04 PM

No, everyone should be able to freely use their talents to acquire as much as they wish. The problem is that those in the lower classes as time goes on will have less of an opportunity to use these talents because they are too busy just trying to make ends meet. It becomes less and less of an equal opportunity chance.

For example, what would an elite university be but just a place for dumb rich kids if it did not offer scholarships?

BCPVP

11-15-2005, 06:37 PM

Psh, I'll saw off my own hand before I help the Vikings! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

BCPVP

11-15-2005, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that those in the lower classes as time goes on will have less of an opportunity to use these talents because they are too busy just trying to make ends meet. It becomes less and less of an equal opportunity chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people (Middle+Lower class) have to first worry about making ends meet before anything else. I fail to see how it is the responsibility of the very rich to take care of these people. If some of the rich decide to give to charitable causes, great. But who are you to tell them what to do with their money?

tek

11-15-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Psh, I'll saw off my own hand before I help the Vikings! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad the GB cheesers need help too /images/graemlins/grin.gif

r3vbr

11-16-2005, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"You can personally take your own money and buy oil stocks, then you will be the one who is "robbing" everyone cause you will own part of the company."

I would if I could. The question is where do the poorer classes get the capital to invest?

[/ QUOTE ]

assume a poor american earns 1000$/month.
assume he can save 1000$ year to invest.
if oil companies are so damn crooks, he can of course make at least 50% profit over his investment every year.

Year
1- $1000
2- $2500
3- $4750
10- $113,330
15- $1,311,682

In 15 years, the poor person becomes a milionaire.

Ok so maybe you'll say 50% annum is unrealistic.. they're not robbing that much..

So assuming a mere 30%
1- $1000
2- $2300
3- $3990
10- $42619
15- $167286
22- $1067280

and be glad that I stopped at a million... if he invested on oil stocks over his entire lifetime (say 50+ years) and they never stopped robbing people, then i assure you this person can become the richest in the world even earning just the smaller 30% return.

r3vbr

11-16-2005, 01:29 AM

of course another assumption would be that oil companies are like any other honest business who obeys suppy/demand and fails to "exploit" people. market is cyclical, have their ups and down years, and in 5 years from now oil is 20$ a barrel.
Or maybe they invent some new fuel technology and every single oil company goes bust...

durron597

11-16-2005, 02:25 AM

google search results for 'peak oil' (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-28,RNWE:en&q=peak+oil)

WillMagic

11-16-2005, 08:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have to come to Kane's defence because one point that is important is that oil is not a luxury item, but a necessity in most cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus begins every argument for legalized theft in the history of humanity. Just because you need something doesn't mean you have a right to have it for free, or to have someone sell it to you for less than they are willing. I need health insurance - but I can't go to Blue Cross and demand they give it to me. I need a new car...I can't just walk into the Hyundai dealership and take one. I need some oil...I can't go to the gas station and fill up my tank without paying. Why? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT TO ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR. I can trade for it, but I don't have a right to it.

[ QUOTE ]

Without it we do not have transportation, and without transportation a regular Joe cannot function normally in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is this royal "we" you are talking about? The proletariat?

[ QUOTE ]
One cannot just go and move somewhere else or start a movement without CAPITAL.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. For some bizarre reason when you want to use the fruits of someone else's labor, you have to have something to trade. Just because you need something doesn't mean you can steal it.

[ QUOTE ]
If capital is too difficult to acquire, then there is no progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. If no one invests any capital, then no business ventures are undertaken, and the world stands still. But why do people invest capital anyway? Oh, that's right, PROFIT. If investors don't have the incentive of profit, or if that incentive is curtailed by, say, a windfall profits tax, then capital investments stop, and, hey, the world stops.

[ QUOTE ]

When oil companies are making record profits which is at a higher percentage than previous years, yet we are paying a lot more than ever, there is a serious problem. They are putting lower classes at a much bigger relative disadvantage than those who are in higher classes and can take the hit. That's akin to robbery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Selling a product isn't robbery. Using force to coerce someone into selling a product for less than they wish - that's robbery. You are so phenomenally wrong here that it boggles the mind.

[ QUOTE ]

A free market is not free until there is enough starting capital for each individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia:
"A free market is a market where all exchanges are made without the influence of coercion; all trades are voluntary."

Notice the lack of any mention of "enough" starting capital. A free market is one with no coercion. That's it.

And what is "enough starting capital?" Who is to be the judge of that?

Will

Peter666

11-16-2005, 06:07 PM

"Or maybe they invent some new fuel technology and every single oil company goes bust..."

Something tells me the research labs of the oil and car companies could have found a feasible replacement a long time ago if they wanted too.

And the 15 year investing plan sounds great, but unfortunately not all revenue goes to the shareholders.

BCPVP

11-16-2005, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
unfortunately not all revenue goes to the shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Something's wrong if revenue is going to the shareholders without being subject to expenses and taxes. I think you mean profit.

purnell

11-16-2005, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Or maybe they invent some new fuel technology and every single oil company goes bust..."

Something tells me the research labs of the oil and car companies could have found a feasible replacement a long time ago if they wanted too.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's energy, man. You can't make it out of nothing. The first energy company that produces something to replace petroleum at a lower cost will reap the REAL windfall profit.

[ QUOTE ]
And the 15 year investing plan sounds great, but unfortunately not all revenue goes to the shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of it goes to the employees, some to the shareholders and other creditors, and some is plowed back into research and new investment. Where is the injustice?

Borodog

11-16-2005, 08:00 PM

WillMagic,

Me /images/graemlins/heart.gif you long time.

Peter666

11-16-2005, 10:26 PM

"Selling a product isn't robbery. Using force to coerce someone into selling a product for less than they wish - that's robbery. You are so phenomenally wrong here that it boggles the mind."

Actually you are the one who has it backwards. It is robbery to sell necessities at exhorbitant prices due to an unjust monopoly over the system.

After 9/11 when people were leaving New York, or Hurricane Katrina when people were escaping the floods, some hotels and motels took advantage of the situation by offering room rates at ridiculously high prices. Nice for the rich, but too bad for the rest of us. Of course these places are being investigated for and charged with unfair business practices.

It sounds like if a person dying of thirst came up to you and begged for a glass of water which you have a lot of, you would charge the man everything he had in the bank. It certainly would be very profitable in your free market. But ethically and morally, you are in deep trouble.

Peter666

11-16-2005, 10:38 PM

"Most of it goes to the employees, some to the shareholders and other creditors, and some is plowed back into research and new investment. Where is the injustice?"

That is fine, there is nothing unjust about that. But what if other energy sources have been found which would be much less expensive and cleaner, but the oil companies destroy the competition through hostile takeover bids or even illegal means? Years and years of legal battles plus token fines are easy for the giant corporations to handle, but not for the little guys. And in the end, the consumer gets screwed.

BCPVP

11-17-2005, 01:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually you are the one who has it backwards. It is robbery to sell necessities at exhorbitant prices due to an unjust monopoly over the system.

[/ QUOTE ]
You need a dictionary. Seriously.
rob·ber·y
n. pl. rob·ber·ies
The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.

Not giving someone something they want is not robbery.

[ QUOTE ]
After 9/11 when people were leaving New York, or Hurricane Katrina when people were escaping the floods, some hotels and motels took advantage of the situation by offering room rates at ridiculously high prices. Nice for the rich, but too bad for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of the econ majors can correct me if I'm wrong, but if demand increases suddenly, but supply doesn't then prices will rise. It would be nice if those businesses charged nothing to those in need, but who are we to force them?

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like if a person dying of thirst came up to you and begged for a glass of water which you have a lot of, you would charge the man everything he had in the bank. It certainly would be very profitable in your free market. But ethically and morally, you are in deep trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]
But the person doing the actual robbing isn't?

Peter666

11-17-2005, 02:58 AM

Don't be such a nit with the definitions. You understand the principle.

And a man dying of thirst is not guilty of stealing your excess water if he takes it out of necessity. Human life is much more precious than your bottle of evian. You are guilty of murder for not helping him if he dies in this particular situation because of your act of ommission.

BCPVP

11-17-2005, 03:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be such a nit with the definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're the one arguing it's robbery. Don't use words incorrectly and then argue that you're using it right.

[ QUOTE ]
And a man dying of thirst is not guilty of stealing your excess water if he takes it out of necessity. Human life is much more precious than your bottle of evian. You are guilty of murder for not helping him if he dies in this particular situation because of your act of ommission.

[/ QUOTE ]
Either way, oil is not water. Billions of people live on this planet without using much if any oil. We've gone for centuries without it. You have no inherent right to someone else's oil.

Il_Mostro

11-17-2005, 05:00 AM

Of course, those are not the only alternatives.

Mempho

11-17-2005, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oil is a finite commodity. The more you use, the less there is. The less there is, the more you pay. You think you pay alot now? Wait, in a couple of years you will be paying much much more, for a lower grade of oil, which is why we need to start switching, to other forms of (preferably renewable) energy asap. It also doesn't help that the oil companies are crooked bastards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been talking about this for years. The U.S. will end as a Superpower because of oil. Guess what? The oil companies don't care about their great-grandchildren.

11-17-2005, 01:25 PM

Of course oil companies could invest in cheaper, sutainable energy, but they wouldn't make as much money would they. Of course the goverment could pressure the energy companies to do something, but the energy companies are the goverment so thats not going to happen.
A time will come when oil runs out and they are forced to go into the renewable enrgy market, but it will be interesting to know if enough fuel exists at that time in order to run the industry required to create the new energy sources. I suspect there won't be, certainly not to power the level of technology and sustain the standard of living the west enjoys today.

Mempho

11-17-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course oil companies could invest in cheaper, sutainable energy, but they wouldn't make as much money would they. Of course the goverment could pressure the energy companies to do something, but the energy companies are the goverment so thats not going to happen.
A time will come when oil runs out and they are forced to go into the renewable enrgy market, but it will be interesting to know if enough fuel exists at that time in order to run the industry required to create the new energy sources. I suspect there won't be, certainly not to power the level of technology and sustain the standard of living the west enjoys today.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's sort of like the social security argument. Everyone cares about their own grandchildren...or so they say. They falsely believe that doing what makes their family the most money is what is best for their family. This, however, may end up being false if they end up bankrupting the West because of it. As a matter of fact, the oil companies have purchased patents from inventors of technologies that would have already made fossil fuels irrelevant. Guess what? They have shown no intent on using them. The government and the media have done nothing. Why is it not on CNN everyday...Why aren't there organized boycotts? Why are there not constant questions?

Peter666

11-17-2005, 02:34 PM

"You have no inherent right to someone else's oil."

This can be applied to all private property. And it is true, I do not have a right to another person's property under normal circumstances. But in principle, in time of grave necessity, one has the right to someone elses excessive property.

The state as a whole does sometimes require this property for the common good, and sets about regulations to try and fairly distribute it. Or sometimes it invades other countries to take theirs whether necessary or not.

BCPVP

11-17-2005, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This can be applied to all private property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good.

[ QUOTE ]
But in principle, in time of grave necessity, one has the right to someone elses excessive property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're on shoddy footing. I don't have a ferrari. Do I have the right to go steal someone else's ferrari just because they have an "excessive" number of ferraris? I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think oil is a necessity as evidenced by the centuries of time we've gone without it as well as the billions who don't use it now.

So do you have a right to steal things when you aren't in grave need of it?

bobman0330

11-17-2005, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've been talking about this for years. The U.S. will end as a Superpower because of oil. Guess what? The oil companies don't care about their great-grandchildren.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been kicking this theory around for years and you still haven't spotted the gaping logical holes in it? That's unfortunate.

Il_Mostro

11-17-2005, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of fact, the oil companies have purchased patents from inventors of technologies that would have already made fossil fuels irrelevant

[/ QUOTE ]
This you are going to have to back up. As a long-time student of peak oil I see this claim now and again, but have never seen anyone back it up in any sort of reasonable way.

Peter666

11-17-2005, 05:22 PM

"So do you have a right to steal things when you aren't in grave need of it?"

No

"I don't think oil is a necessity as evidenced by the centuries of time we've gone without it as well as the billions who don't use it now."

This is true, but I don't think anyone is advocating taking over the oil companies by force to take oil. We are advocating regulations that can help in a more fair distribution of natural resources which in a sense belong to every citizen of a country.

Oil companies have the extraction process, but they don't have absolute property rights over the oil they are extracting. The citizens of a country do. We should not steal the tools of the oil company, we are trying to regulate the resource that they take.

11-17-2005, 05:33 PM

This entire discussion is based on one thing, that robbery is wrong.

In reality, there are no right and wrongs.

Turns out Rand let you down!

11-18-2005, 08:43 PM

Last night, a doctor I'm friends with had to drive to the hospital after receiving an emergency call at home at 2 am. He got a flat tire on the way to the hospital, but grabbed a cab and made it into surgery on time. The nurse had the patient ready to go, and he saved the guy's life.

It's pretty weird, because you never would have pictured it when he was younger. He partied a lot and was pretty lazy. He buckled down a little bit in college, and toughed it out through medical school. Now he buys $500 meals, drives sports cars, and is on call 24/7 to save peoples' lives.

He didn't reach this point because he's a humanitarian. He wanted to buy flashy things and throw money around, and enjoy the prestige that comes with his profession. That's called incentive.

Incentive is also the reason there was a nurse willing to work the graveyard shift when she'd rather be asleep. She probably has to put food on the table for 4 kids. Maybe the cabbie was just a good guy, but I bet there was somewhere he'd have rather been too.

The point is that we live in an increasingly complex society where many people are required to do many jobs, and do them correctly, or things don't work out too well. Members of this society tend to settle at a job that corresponds with the greatest incentive they are inclined to work, sacrifice and innovate for.

If it takes dreams of four BMW's to get someone through medical school, so be it. If everyone could only have one there would be at least one less doctor. And if everyone was guaranteed food, shelter, and gas, every city would have 500,000 bums wiping windshields an hour a day for booze money.

Our society is like the poker community. The players range from the worst amateurs with no discipline to improve, to the low level pros doing their best, to the mid range guys who have reached a level of complacency, to the very top notch sharks and then the casino owners. So maybe the sharks have more cars than the little guys, and the casino owners just get to sit back and watch the money pile up while they think of more ways to take advantage of the suckers. Big deal. At least everyone still gets to enjoy the game. And everyone benefits when the boys at the top dump their money and energy into getting poker on television and the internet. Just like when someone actually invented that stuff in the first place. They only bothered because there was an incentive.

Maybe someday the masses will rise up and slaughter all the vile capitalists. (Especially the rich dumb college kids and everyone else who ever outdrew you at anything) We’ll live in a utopia where everyone plays poker and wins the same number of pots. Then the next day we’ll all be responsible for the same amount of work and eat the same portions at dinner. But eventually some neo-robber baron will get a little hungry and you’ll get a little lazy…..

BCPVP

11-19-2005, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is true, but I don't think anyone is advocating taking over the oil companies by force to take oil. We are advocating regulations that can help in a more fair distribution of natural resources which in a sense belong to every citizen of a country.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone else see a contradiction in these statements...?

r3vbr

11-19-2005, 09:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Or maybe they invent some new fuel technology and every single oil company goes bust..."

Something tells me the research labs of the oil and car companies could have found a feasible replacement a long time ago if they wanted too.

And the 15 year investing plan sounds great, but unfortunately not all revenue goes to the shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conspiracy theory? You think in the free-flowing information internet age they could stop from a new technology emering? And wouldnt it be in the carmakers best interest? (its the oil companies that should be worried).

The rest of the revenue covers costs? all the PROFIT goes to shareholders (and reinvesting).

Peter666

11-19-2005, 11:08 PM

"Anyone else see a contradiction in these statements...?"

Apparently not, and rightfully so. What if you invented a super net that was able to catch every fish in the ocean in a short time. Do you have a right to catch every single fish and sell it at prices you deem fit, leaving others with nothing?

purnell

11-19-2005, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Anyone else see a contradiction in these statements...?"

Apparently not, and rightfully so. What if you invented a super net that was able to catch every fish in the ocean in a short time. Do you have a right to catch every single fish and sell it at prices you deem fit, leaving others with nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

The contradiction is obvious, and the question was rhetorical.

You are advocating communism, Peter. Of course you can do that if you want to, but please be aware of it.

Peter666

11-19-2005, 11:38 PM

That is ridiculous. I didn't say he must distribute every fish equally to all the people and take no profit.

I advocate limiting his ability to take the entire resource for himself. Not doing so destroys the resource and causes much more suffering than good. He has no right to every single fish in the sea, just as if I make a weapon capable of killing everybody does not give me the right to go kill everybody.

purnell

11-19-2005, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is ridiculous. I didn't say he must distribute every fish equally to all the people and take no profit.

I advocate limiting his ability to take the entire resource for himself. Not doing so destroys the resource and causes much more suffering than good. He has no right to every single fish in the sea, just as if I make a weapon capable of killing everybody does not give me the right to go kill everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
fair distribution of natural resources which in a sense belong to every citizen of a country

[/ QUOTE ]

This is socialism, pure and simple.

Mason Hellmuth

11-19-2005, 11:47 PM

By far the best first post in history.

Mason Hellmuth

11-19-2005, 11:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are advocating communism, Peter.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is socialism, pure and simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weak. I think Peter already knows he's a socialist.

Peter666

11-20-2005, 12:24 AM

I believe in Social Credit actually.

An actual socialist would take control of the fishing net because it is the means of production. I do not take away the guys net. He can use it for himself, but on a limited basis because a natural resource has a common patrimony.

To give unlimited control to "Super Fishing Net Guy" or any monopoly advocates slavery. What good is private property if only the most powerful person has it?

Mason Hellmuth

11-20-2005, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in Social Credit actually.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I didn't know that "socialism," in the pure sense, necessitates state control of the means of production. My thinking was misled by the more common usage, which refers to increased taxation and use of those funds for social programs (as in some European countries). I suppose I was wrong to call you a socialist. However, I still think "socialist" is a big step down from "communist."

purnell

11-20-2005, 12:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in Social Credit actually.

[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I didn't know that "socialism," in the pure sense, necessitates state control of the means of production. My thinking was misled by the more common usage, which refers to increased taxation and use of those funds for social programs (as in some European countries). I suppose I was wrong to call you a socialist. However, I still think "socialist" is a big step down from "communist."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, and I misused the word.

Mason Hellmuth

11-20-2005, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I still think "socialist" is a big step down from "communist."

[/ QUOTE ]
It is, and I misused the word.

[/ QUOTE ]
So we're all happy.

For what it's worth, I disagree with Peter 100% as well.

Peter666

11-20-2005, 01:14 AM

That's ok, my net will ensnare you all.

BCPVP

11-20-2005, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently not, and rightfully so.

[/ QUOTE ]
It appears this turned out to be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
What if you invented a super net that was able to catch every fish in the ocean in a short time. Do you have a right to catch every single fish and sell it at prices you deem fit, leaving others with nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad analogy. The oil industry seems fairly diverse. No one company or country controls "all" the oil and no one can take "all" the oil.

But this doesn't really go to the contradiction I was thinking of, which was that you aren't advocating taking control of the oil companies, yet want vague "regulations" (sounds like control to me) on these companies to keep them from doing something they aren't even doing now.

Plus the fact that you think regulating the oil industry would result in a more fair distribution of oil. Think about it. It sounds like you want to limit their production so they don't "take" it all too quickly, which would create a shortage and thus raise the prices, effectively making life tougher on the poor (something I thought you were arguing previously was bad). Also, if regulation means higher taxes and making the oil industry less productive, you're again creating a shortage/raising the price affecting the poor you pretend to care about.

So tell me, does your previous statement seem a little contradictive and stupid now?