![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 59. Go back in thread:
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 1:25:59
In reply to Re: oil business and profits » Estella, posted by laima on August 19, 2006, at 23:03:35
> That was my point- economics seems to be getting in the way of putting these alternatives into widespread production and use, as most consumers balk at paying more for something cleaner.
It isn't even about consumers paying more. It is about governments failing to educate the population on alternatives, failing to subsidise alternatives etc etc.
NZ govt can't afford to import less oil. That was my point. Politically... If we import less oil we will endanger NZ US relations fairly severely... After saying 'we refuse to send people to die for a war we don't believe in'... After struggling (still) with the repercussions of insisting on our nulear free policy... We can't afford not to keep on importing the oil.
So... We don't do anything.
And hence indirectly...
We continue to support the war.
Posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 7:48:21
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 1:25:59
Hi Estelle,Are you in NZ? I fear I know little about your county's government or its policies, though I am quite attracted to your country and would love to visit. I'm surpised and shocked by your report though-you're educating me-and troubeling me-I didn't know about any of it.
Too bad I'd require a flight on an airplane using loads of oil as fuel to visit...
As for the US policies, which I know more about- I totally agree- they heavily subsidize oil here, it's well known (to many) that the "real" price of oil /gas (whatever the exact term I should be using is) is FAR higher than what the consumers see. Now people are complaining that the prices are climbing, but I understand that they are still laughabley low compared to what they would be if not subsidized. I do believe that our govt could stand to subsidize alternatives in a similar fashion, but they aren't really doing to much of that, and out of fear of saying something uncivil, I won't write about my beliefs as to why that is. I'm sure you can use your imagination though.
I speculate that the war motives seem more complicated than JUST oil-or should I say "directly" just oil- I think there is also some evidence of extremeist religious fanaticism elements and intolerances involved? (Civility monitors please note I'm not saying which side (s).) My brother's company does no or scant business in that region, and claims that no or few US companies do. Now I don't know what our govts aims for the future are exactly (though I have my guesses)...but my brother's point was that it's incredibley unprofitabley expensive to keep sending your employees into a war zone, none of them or keen to go, the infrastructure isn't in good shape, that they are more interested in what's going on in Nigeria, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, and with those oil sands in Canada. As to whether or not I got any of those facts accurately- perhaps someone else on the thread, actually involved in the industry, could help us clarify or give input? That would be great!
Respectfuly,
Laima
ps- Geez it's hard to write about politics on psychobabble!
> > That was my point- economics seems to be getting in the way of putting these alternatives into widespread production and use, as most consumers balk at paying more for something cleaner.
>
> It isn't even about consumers paying more. It is about governments failing to educate the population on alternatives, failing to subsidise alternatives etc etc.
>
> NZ govt can't afford to import less oil. That was my point. Politically... If we import less oil we will endanger NZ US relations fairly severely... After saying 'we refuse to send people to die for a war we don't believe in'... After struggling (still) with the repercussions of insisting on our nulear free policy... We can't afford not to keep on importing the oil.
>
> So... We don't do anything.
>
> And hence indirectly...
>
> We continue to support the war.
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 11:14:57
In reply to Re: oil business and profits » Estella, posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 7:48:21
I've looked into these "subsidies".
The tax breaks they're talking about is basically allowing the oil companies to deduct the expenses they incur. Which is not exactly a break unique to oil companies. In allowing deduction rather than write off of research and development, I would imagine the government is only acknowledging that these are an ongoing cost of oil exploration rather than a one time start up of inventing and selling widgets. The percentage depletion allowance doesn't cover large oil companies at all. It's limited to those who receive oil royalties of under a certain dollar amount, and is likely put in place to make recordkeeping less cumbersome. You could argue about the percentage, I suppose.
Other "subsidies" include maintaining the roads, and an army. While some might think that the army is maintained purely for the use of the oil companies, that's far from a universal conclusion and I'm not sure that an army should be included as an oil company subsidy. Ditto on roads and highways.
And yes, there are oil tax credits. But those were most certainly not put in place for the benefit of the oil companies so much as to provide incentive for the oil companies to do what the government wishes them to do. Check the names of the tax credits, and they certainly appear to be policy choices. Unconventional fuel source credit?
I'm quite certain other countries allow their companies to deduct expenses they incur, that they maintain roads, and that at least some maintain armies as well.
Moreover, some of the transportation costs are paid by the large taxes on gas. If those taxes are then turned around to build roads, how is that subsidizing the oil company?
Oil is taxed on every level from the time it's pulled out till the time it hits your tank. Severance tax is what, 10-12%? Then the taxes added to the actual tank of gas, and myriad taxes in between on the supplies used to process gasoline, property taxes on the real estate and personal property used to process and distribute gasoline.
I don't get the claim of subsidies.
I'd prefer that the cost of taxes per gallon be displayed right below the cost per gallon on each and every pump.
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 11:39:54
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 11:14:57
2020 yay sweden!!!!!
http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/peakoil/
Interesting that I'm not seeing Australia on this graph...
Posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 11:46:29
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 11:14:57
Thank you for your input and clarifications, Dinah!There are a lot of rumours and skewing of complex realities, including oversimplification of facts, that is for sure. I guess especially when we don't know or understand the whole story and passions are intense...
Laima
ps-especially thank you for this reminder:
>Unconventional fuel source credit?
(Certainly gives something more to think over.)
> I've looked into these "subsidies".
>
> The tax breaks they're talking about is basically allowing the oil companies to deduct the expenses they incur. Which is not exactly a break unique to oil companies. In allowing deduction rather than write off of research and development, I would imagine the government is only acknowledging that these are an ongoing cost of oil exploration rather than a one time start up of inventing and selling widgets. The percentage depletion allowance doesn't cover large oil companies at all. It's limited to those who receive oil royalties of under a certain dollar amount, and is likely put in place to make recordkeeping less cumbersome. You could argue about the percentage, I suppose.
>
> Other "subsidies" include maintaining the roads, and an army. While some might think that the army is maintained purely for the use of the oil companies, that's far from a universal conclusion and I'm not sure that an army should be included as an oil company subsidy. Ditto on roads and highways.
>
> And yes, there are oil tax credits. But those were most certainly not put in place for the benefit of the oil companies so much as to provide incentive for the oil companies to do what the government wishes them to do. Check the names of the tax credits, and they certainly appear to be policy choices. Unconventional fuel source credit?
>
> I'm quite certain other countries allow their companies to deduct expenses they incur, that they maintain roads, and that at least some maintain armies as well.
>
> Moreover, some of the transportation costs are paid by the large taxes on gas. If those taxes are then turned around to build roads, how is that subsidizing the oil company?
>
> Oil is taxed on every level from the time it's pulled out till the time it hits your tank. Severance tax is what, 10-12%? Then the taxes added to the actual tank of gas, and myriad taxes in between on the supplies used to process gasoline, property taxes on the real estate and personal property used to process and distribute gasoline.
>
> I don't get the claim of subsidies.
>
> I'd prefer that the cost of taxes per gallon be displayed right below the cost per gallon on each and every pump.
Posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 12:16:22
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 11:14:57
The government, for example, subsidizes the building and maintaining of roads and highways, as Dinah points out.
This is very expensive, and certainly is done to support the low cost of the car as mode of transportation. I don't see how it can be argued that this isn't subsidizing the oil industry, among other things.
It subsidizes other industries, and puts in place negative incentives to, for example, engineer cars that get as much gas mileage as possible.
Moreover, the federal government gives little, and less over time, subsidy to any form of public transportation, especially, but not only, Amtrak. In Europe and Japan, and other countries trains are much faster, in better condition, etc. This, plus the price of oil, and of driving in general, creates an incentive structure that promotes use of public transportation elsewhere. But not here.
Do people want this? Yes. But did it have to evolve to the point where people want it and consider it so important and so highly preferable to drive cars? No.
Have you been in New York City lately? Try taking a cab from somewhere in midtown to somewhere else in midtown. Try taking a cab (ie a car) from someplace anywhere to someplace anywhere else, not in midtown-- ie in parts of town with less traffic. It's a nightmare, and has gotten very much worse in the 8-9 years I've lived here. The amount of gas used by people stalled in traffic jams, or blocked from passage a round double and triple parked cars is frightening to contemplate. Not to mention the daily rush-hour traffic jams on all the bridges, tunnels, streets going toward the outlets to suburbs. Try going across town on any of the crosstown streets through Central Park. (Only do this if you like sitting in traffic for ten-fifteen minutes to drive eight city blocks--or less than 1/2 mile.)
This is because it's politically impossible to restrict access by motor vehicles into the city. Which is not coincidentally linked to the subsidy of roads, and unwillingness of federal and state governments--also not unrelated-- to subsidize adequate subway service.
Try living here sometime and your view of the incentives for public vs. private transportation-- and it's clear relationship to the cheap price of gas-- may shift.
Jost
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 13:02:55
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 12:16:22
I'm sorry, but I see the provision and maintenance of highways and roads to be one of the jobs of government, since we certainly can't get together and build one ourself.
I find it hard to see building roads and highways as a subsidizing of the oil industry. It may be subsidizing a way of life that Americans find desirable, but it's not subsidizing the oil industry any more than it's subsidizing the farm industry by allowing fast access to allow fresh produce to get to market. It's just doing its job.
As a matter of interest, though, are there any developed countries that don't maintain and build roads and highways?
I'm all in favor of promoting alternative fuel sources. The government tries to do that already, with tax credits and with direct subsidies. When alternative fuel sources are more affordable than oil, I'm reasonably sure the American public will switch to it. In the meantime, I think the government should encourage the switch to clean electrical power sources. Even subsidize it.
Whatever happened to hydroelectric plants? Why aren't there more of them?
Posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 15:06:56
In reply to Re: oil business and profits » Jost, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 13:02:55
I'm pressed for time, but my point was not that it's bad to maintain highways and roads, but that there are incentive structures that the government creates for different social practices, such as using public or private transportation.
It's more the amount of subsidy for roads vs. for trains, subways, etc.
Certainly, there should be good roads, but the users of roads could cover more of the cost, and the government could support provision of better, fast, more reliable public transportation, to support the use of that.
Rather than broken down subways coming every 6-14 minutes, at irreular intervals and being crowded, you could have clean, well-maintained trains coming every five minutes, regularly, with more sitting room for everyone.
Or Amtrak could go to many more destinations, leaving at much more frequent intervals, travelling much faster, with fewer delays, etc.
Etc.
It's not an either/or proposition, but of balancing of public goods.
Jost
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 15:20:40
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 15:06:56
I think maybe it's a different situation in urban situations like NYC. They're working on a subsidized light rail system here, but there are all sorts of questions about feasibility. As you get into more rural areas there are even more questions. Then there's the issue of interstate commerce.
However, I've never opposed subsidies of public transportation. And I'd be delighted with safer and cleaner public transportation.
It takes more than subsidies to change hearts and minds though. Public transportation is a different thing than vehicular traffic. Even safe, clean, and uncrowded public transportation. In all but the most urban of cities, public transportation can't provide the freedom of choice and freedom of movement that the American public desires. Or the privacy.
Posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 15:21:56
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 15:06:56
(Also, surely the users of the road already do cover the cost. Both through gasoline taxes, and by the fact that most taxpayers use the road.)
Posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 17:00:04
In reply to Re: oil business and profits » Jost, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 13:02:55
Not sure if this relates exactly to your query, but I was fascinated to hear something about the mayor of Chicago "leasing" one of our highways to a foreign company to take care of it (!?). And then there are toll roads around here, which are partially maintained by people having to pay to drive on them. Finally, while driving from Chicago to NYC once, passing through Ohio- it felt "different". My passenger reported that he heard that Ohio somehow leased out highway and rest stop maintenence to fast food chains (???) Sure enough, there was a rest-stop which doubled as food court just about every few miles....with mostly all the same fast food restaurants in each one. I don't know how much of this is "true", but perhaps there are some kernels of "truth" in some of this? Weird- especially the Ohio rumour.
> I'm sorry, but I see the provision and maintenance of highways and roads to be one of the jobs of government, since we certainly can't get together and build one ourself.
>
> I find it hard to see building roads and highways as a subsidizing of the oil industry. It may be subsidizing a way of life that Americans find desirable, but it's not subsidizing the oil industry any more than it's subsidizing the farm industry by allowing fast access to allow fresh produce to get to market. It's just doing its job.
>
> As a matter of interest, though, are there any developed countries that don't maintain and build roads and highways?
>
> I'm all in favor of promoting alternative fuel sources. The government tries to do that already, with tax credits and with direct subsidies. When alternative fuel sources are more affordable than oil, I'm reasonably sure the American public will switch to it. In the meantime, I think the government should encourage the switch to clean electrical power sources. Even subsidize it.
>
> Whatever happened to hydroelectric plants? Why aren't there more of them?
Posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 17:03:56
In reply to Re: oil business and profits, posted by Jost on August 20, 2006, at 15:06:56
Wow, having spent chunks of time in NYC myself, I really relate to and stand by your observations and comments about the streets in Manhatten and the situation with the subways!
Subways and busses in Chicago have some serious issues, too- even though they keep raising fares while cutting service-especially service to pooer parts of the city.> I'm pressed for time, but my point was not that it's bad to maintain highways and roads, but that there are incentive structures that the government creates for different social practices, such as using public or private transportation.
>
> It's more the amount of subsidy for roads vs. for trains, subways, etc.
>
> Certainly, there should be good roads, but the users of roads could cover more of the cost, and the government could support provision of better, fast, more reliable public transportation, to support the use of that.
>
> Rather than broken down subways coming every 6-14 minutes, at irreular intervals and being crowded, you could have clean, well-maintained trains coming every five minutes, regularly, with more sitting room for everyone.
>
> Or Amtrak could go to many more destinations, leaving at much more frequent intervals, travelling much faster, with fewer delays, etc.
>
> Etc.
>
> It's not an either/or proposition, but of balancing of public goods.
>
> Jost
Posted by Estella on August 20, 2006, at 21:09:19
In reply to Re: oil business and profits » Jost, posted by Dinah on August 20, 2006, at 15:20:40
> It takes more than subsidies to change hearts and minds though.Yes indeed.
> Public transportation is a different thing than vehicular traffic. Even safe, clean, and uncrowded public transportation. In all but the most urban of cities, public transportation can't provide the freedom of choice and freedom of movement that the American public desires. Or the privacy.
Even when you consider the cost in global terms. I really do think that is so really very sad. America now vs America later, America now vs Other countries both now and later.
It isn't personal. I just think it is a shame when it wouldn't be so very hard for the govt to put its f*cking foot down and say 'hey lets stop being the biggest global producer of crap' and start educating people on the consequences of their choices.
Rights at... What cost?
Posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 15:52:28
In reply to Re: oil business and profits » Estella, posted by laima on August 20, 2006, at 7:48:21
right.
Name another industry that gets threatened with (or ever had to pay) a "windfall profit" tax.
Posted by laima on August 21, 2006, at 23:00:12
In reply to Re: sublidies, posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 15:52:28
Auntie Mel,What is your relationship to the oil business? Are you close to the industry, too?
And should we all take a breather to go watch something like the Cober- Repor- more often when things get passionate? :)
Warmly,
Laima
right.
>
> Name another industry that gets threatened with (or ever had to pay) a "windfall profit" tax.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 22, 2006, at 8:08:22
In reply to Re: sublidies » AuntieMel, posted by laima on August 21, 2006, at 23:00:12
I work in the industry - writing geophysical software.
Cobert - and the Daily Show should be required watching. Especially for high school students.
Posted by laima on August 22, 2006, at 8:59:16
In reply to Re: sublidies, posted by AuntieMel on August 22, 2006, at 8:08:22
I agree-just discovered Cobert myself, and I gotta say, it's sort of good to get some comic relief from all of the terrible news and troubles of the world- not to mention I love how he plays with rhetoric to put the whole left/right thing into a blender...baffeling the uninitiated.> Cobert - and the Daily Show should be required watching. Especially for high school students.
Posted by Estella on August 25, 2006, at 0:14:29
In reply to Re: sublidies, posted by AuntieMel on August 21, 2006, at 15:52:28
> "windfall profit" tax.
whats that?
i just think that things that f*ck up the environment should be taxed more to:
1) help alleviate the damage they cause
2) help find sustainable and less harmful alternatives (i mean really jolly well find them not just offer tokens towards it like petrol stations having solar panels jeez how noble of them)in NZ fertaliser companies are taxed more (or at least that was going to happen) because fertaliser that is used to promote plant growth results in dead lakes. they are taxed more so help undo the harm. farmers are taxed because their cows f*rt too. he he. but f*rting cows pollute the environment too...
Posted by Dunder on August 29, 2006, at 8:29:05
In reply to Re: sublidies, posted by Estella on August 25, 2006, at 0:14:29
Changing the behaviour of individuals with respect to energy usage is a tremendous task. I believe that our governments should create tax systems which tax people in proportion to the environmental damage they cause (in the UK where 75% of the cost of gas is tax we go a small way towards this). The tax revenue should then be earmarked for investment in public transport and alternative energy sources. However, I am a realist and recognize that tough enough government action isn't going to happen fast, if at all. What we need is a rapid response to global warming. Therefore, my hopes lie with market forces. If oil prices continue to rise (I keep my fingers crossed that they do) then investment in alternative energy sources will become more and more attractive to investors. It will also make the millions of pointless car journeys that people lazily take every day seem less affordable.
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 10:17:54
In reply to High oil prices is a good thing, posted by Dunder on August 29, 2006, at 8:29:05
Makes sense to me- maybe higher gas prices will reduce some of those "drive self in SUV 3 blocks to grocery store on gorgeous day to buy one item" style trips, for starters.I've also heard some encouraging reports that in the US, sales of SUVs are falling already, while sales of hybrid and more fuel efficient cars are climbing.
> Changing the behaviour of individuals with respect to energy usage is a tremendous task. I believe that our governments should create tax systems which tax people in proportion to the environmental damage they cause (in the UK where 75% of the cost of gas is tax we go a small way towards this). The tax revenue should then be earmarked for investment in public transport and alternative energy sources. However, I am a realist and recognize that tough enough government action isn't going to happen fast, if at all. What we need is a rapid response to global warming. Therefore, my hopes lie with market forces. If oil prices continue to rise (I keep my fingers crossed that they do) then investment in alternative energy sources will become more and more attractive to investors. It will also make the millions of pointless car journeys that people lazily take every day seem less affordable.
Posted by Jost on August 29, 2006, at 11:29:48
In reply to Re: sublidies, posted by Estella on August 25, 2006, at 0:14:29
You do need something that looks like a windfall profit, before anyone imposes a windfall profits tax, though. You, Auntie Mel, might be here to tell us that they were wrong?
Speaking as one who used to have/ride in cars, I remember circling the parking lots of supermarkets, malls, etc, looking for space close to the door, so we wouldn't have to walk more than five or six steps.
It seems so logical when you';re in a car. It looks strange, when you walk five blocks to a supermarket (minimum) and lug four bags of groceries back-- but when you have a car, there's something about parking far out in the parking lot that seems wrong.
Isn't it funny? (not haha, but strange.)
Jost
Posted by gardenergirl on August 29, 2006, at 12:49:27
In reply to Re: High oil prices is a good thing » Dunder, posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 10:17:54
> I've also heard some encouraging reports that in the US, sales of SUVs are falling already, while sales of hybrid and more fuel efficient cars are climbing.I think that's a good trend. Unfortunately, the tax credit for purchasing hybrid vehicles is about to expire. :(
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on August 29, 2006, at 12:53:50
In reply to Re: sublidies, posted by Jost on August 29, 2006, at 11:29:48
I do think it's funny/strange. I also find myself really annoyed when I see that kind of behavior. In fact, much to my husband's chagrin, I've been known to stop and say something to folks who are sitting in their cars with the engine running while waiting for me to back out of a space. ...
"Hello??? Thanks for wasting the earth's resources. Is there something wrong with that spot right there that's about FIVE STEPS FURTHER???? Do you realize you could be IN THE STORE RIGHT NOW if you only parked 10 more feet away????"
And then, absurdly, I take my sweet time backing out.
Bah!
gg
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:36:54
In reply to Re: High oil prices iand individual behavior » laima, posted by gardenergirl on August 29, 2006, at 12:49:27
Oh- didn't know.
> > I've also heard some encouraging reports that in the US, sales of SUVs are falling already, while sales of hybrid and more fuel efficient cars are climbing.
>
> I think that's a good trend. Unfortunately, the tax credit for purchasing hybrid vehicles is about to expire. :(
>
> gg
Posted by laima on August 29, 2006, at 17:38:56
In reply to Re: sublidies » Jost, posted by gardenergirl on August 29, 2006, at 12:53:50
Part of the irony is some of these people are also wondering, "when will I make it to the gym?"
> I do think it's funny/strange. I also find myself really annoyed when I see that kind of behavior. In fact, much to my husband's chagrin, I've been known to stop and say something to folks who are sitting in their cars with the engine running while waiting for me to back out of a space. ...
>
> "Hello??? Thanks for wasting the earth's resources. Is there something wrong with that spot right there that's about FIVE STEPS FURTHER???? Do you realize you could be IN THE STORE RIGHT NOW if you only parked 10 more feet away????"
>
> And then, absurdly, I take my sweet time backing out.
>
> Bah!
>
> gg
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.