Who's really to blame for gas prices? (a rant)

As I said BB, I wasn't trying to totally poo-poo it. There is obviously some interesting info there. But, the sales pitch starts at the beginning, not at the end. I have a natural tendancy to pull back from pushy salesmen.

If you have to work too hard to sell a tall gorgeous brunette, then my first thought is, must be heels, Miss Clairol and silicone.

This guy spends 40 minutes trying to scare the bejesus out of you, promising some sure fire solutions, for free, coming up soon, only to say, "yours free" after you purchase this no risk-guaranteed refundable, information.

His predictions bare watching.
 
Actually Extreme, you guys were trying to minimize OPEC's affect on the world wide market. The fact that no one has mentioned the effect the Russians have on world wide markets goes to show how limited your view is. Do you know how much control the Russians actually have on the oil throughout the world? Russia provides 90% of Europe's gas and most of their oil. You think they don't have influence over the price of oil?

Of course the value of the dollar plays part and policies here in the States have an effect as well, but there are more variables involved than the politics of the United States. That is why we need to eliminate or at least minimize dependence on foreign oil and take advantage of our own energy resources.
 
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/t...9893347/?icid=maing|main5|dl4|sec1_lnk3|52083
There is no supply issue going on here- what you have is the perception of the possibilty of a supply issue,"Dicker says."A whole bunch of people are pouring money into an oil market trying to take advantage of what they perceive to be a real risk in supply.It's a marketplace that I argue should not be wagered on like a stock or bond"

Also interesting:

he points out that when the 2008 economic crisis froze all financial markets and investors stampeded to the sidelines,the true price of a barrel of crude oil became known:$32. It's now hovering around $110 thanks entirely to investor demand,he says.
 
I subscribe to several daily services, but will never buy any of their products. You can get enough info from these daily emails and when you ignore the sales pitches, there can be some good information on occasion. Some of it is over-hype and over-kill - some of it is very infomative.

This guy is a bit much at times, but a lot of what he says can happen at some point. Back in 2004, he predicted that two major auto manufacturers would go bankrupt and singled out GM. Most analysts considered it a ridiculous claim at the time, but I thought it would get to the point where the government would provide a loan - a la Chrysler in 1981. But he basically nailed it.

Anyway, the message is quite interesting. Do I think these things will happen? Some of it - yes. I'm certain Bernanke will introduce QE3 and it will be a disaster. I really believe we will default before this decade ends. However, I think the pain of it will be severe, but short-lived.

If QE3 is introduced i will imagine we will find out about later on as i suspect the public would be outraged if it was introduced with an announcement like the last one especially if the economy picks up after QE2 ends in June.
 
1) who's in charge?

2) which party is over-populated by no-Growth/environmentalist wacko wingnuts that have had to be accomodated for decades?

3) which party most needs to drive up the marginal cost of energy IOT to make its "a long ways" from economically viable alternative energy sources competitive?

4) which party has pushed hardest on assinine technologies (from an energy balance perspective) like gasohol?

5) which party works hardest to prevent development of conventional domestic energy resources?

6) which party wants higher energy prices for more tax revenue to satisfy its insatiable appetite for more and more spending?

7) which party has been singularly adept at trumping rhetoric over results? clean coal anyone? what a bunch of f'ing, lying incompetents Biden and the rest have proven to be.

Who is to blame...you ask?

A completely uninformed, disinterested, rheroric bound electorate that falls for the malarky the redistributionist collectiviists now in power push....as jobs continue to move over-seas.
 
1) who's in charge?
Depends on whether you're talking to Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi :laugh:

2) which party is over-populated by no-Growth/environmentalist wacko wingnuts that have had to be accomodated for decades?
The Democratic Party.

However, in fairness to them, the Republicans have done nothing to change or solve the problem when they've had the power to, and it was Republican Richard Nixon who created the EPA in the first place, the source of most of these problems.

3) which party most needs to drive up the marginal cost of energy IOT to make its "a long ways" from economically viable alternative energy sources competitive?
See above.

4) which party has pushed hardest on assinine technologies (from an energy balance perspective) like gasohol?
The Democratic Party. They're displaying the scratch my back and I'll scratch yours attitude, as evident with GE's sweetheart deals and lack of paying taxes. All to the detriment of the American people.

Their push for ethanol has screwed farmers as well as the American public by driving up the price of corn, which has adversely altered the prices of many other things.

5) which party works hardest to prevent development of conventional domestic energy resources?
Honestly? Neither. It is because of the EPA and lobbyists that things are where they are now.

Sure, the EPA is hugely backed by the Democratic Party, but this is another example of the Republicans also failing to do anything with the opportunities they have been given over the years.

6) which party wants higher energy prices for more tax revenue to satisfy its insatiable appetite for more and more spending?
The Democratic Party. In fairness though, both parties suck and have an insatiable appetite for spending, they just pursue different avenues to achieve their goals.

The biggest difference between how Democrats and Republicans achieve their spending goals, is that the Republicans do it blatantly and don't try to hide everything they do. The Democrats like to hide and mask everything as a "benefit" to us, because they believe they can handle our money better than we can. For years, they have gone into spending by burying it in bills and riders on other bills, and by raising fees as a cover for raising taxes.

7) which party has been singularly adept at trumping rhetoric over results? clean coal anyone? what a bunch of f'ing, lying incompetents Biden and the rest have proven to be.
You said it all with this one, and I agree 100%.

Who is to blame...you ask?

A completely uninformed, disinterested, rhetoric bound electorate that falls for the malarkey the redistributionist collectivists now in power push....as jobs continue to move over-seas.
It's obvious both parties suck. Anyone who can't admit that is a fool. Both sides are crooked and weak, they just go about screwing us from different angles.

Without Tort Reform, jobs will continue to go overseas. Democrats will never allow Tort Reform to happen though, because Tort Law is how most of them made their names/money.

Jobs going overseas has nothing to do with energy or taxes. If that's what you were implying, you are way off base on that assumption. Frivolous lawsuits that are being allowed due to a lack of Tort Reform is the only reason jobs are leaving.
 
taxes have a lot to do with jobs going over seas.

and you missed my point. the blame ultimately rests not with Congress....but a clueless, manipulated electorate.
 
taxes have a lot to do with jobs going over seas.

and you missed my point. the blame ultimately rests not with Congress....but a clueless, manipulated electorate.
I didn't miss that point actually, I caught that at the end :)

As far as taxes having anything to do with jobs going overseas, that's laughable. If you truly believe that, you need to do your research a little better.

The only "taxes" that have forced them overseas are not really taxes. They are things like malpractice taxes/fees, which is directly tied to the refusal by Democrats to work for Tort Reform.

It all boils down to the fact that companies don't want to do business somewhere where the environmental regulations rape their profits if they do business here, and where they can lose everything if a worker makes a bogus claim, gets hurt from their own stupidity, etc. and files a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

I'm sorry, but I don't think someone would be able to sue their employer for millions if they stick a blowtorch up their ass and scorch their innards, and try to claim it could have been prevented if the company wasn't so negligent that they failed to place a warning label on the blowtorch about sticking it up your ass and firing away.

In reality, taxes have nothing to do with companies going overseas. It all comes back to Tort Reform in one way or another.
 
1) I am not saying taxes are the only or main cause...but they certainly play in the decision - corporate income taxes are comparatively high in the US.

2) Costs factor hugely.....and that is where your points enter: higher labor wages, soaring benefit packages, massive regulatory excess, litigation, etc., etc. No one can afford to do business here!

and...finally....a reluctance to play power politics in the International sphere. we are being rolled by the Chinese and successive regimes in Washington have done next to nothing about it. The current regime appears to actually favor it......meekly attempting to fight currency manipulation by inflating our own currency (while wages/salaries remain stagnant).
 
1) I am not saying taxes are the only or main cause...but they certainly play in the decision - corporate income taxes are comparatively high in the US.
Really? That statement is false. The U.S. corporate income tax is anywhere from 15%-35%. That averages out to 25%. That's lower than the corporate tax rate in 66 other countries - most notably Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, France, Germany, India (where a lot of these companies have moved to), Italy, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, The Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The U.K. and Venezuela. It also puts us at the same level as China, Switzerland, Vietnam and Israel.

Like I said, taxes not only aren't the only or main problem, they aren't even a factor. The countries that most of our comapnies are leaving for have considerably higher corporate tax rates than we do. The only thing they don't have is bull**** lawsuits and EPA regulations.

2) Costs factor hugely.....and that is where your points enter: higher labor wages, soaring benefit packages, massive regulatory excess, litigation, etc., etc. No one can afford to do business here!
I agree with 100% of this statement. Oddly, Tort Law and/or EPA regulations are directly tied in to every point you just made.

and...finally....a reluctance to play power politics in the International sphere. we are being rolled by the Chinese and successive regimes in Washington have done next to nothing about it. The current regime appears to actually favor it......meekly attempting to fight currency manipulation by inflating our own currency (while wages/salaries remain stagnant).
The thing I find funny about this problem with China, is that Bush receives the brunt of the blame from Democrats, when in reality it was Bill Clinton that did it to us and got the ball rolling downhill at a rapid clip.
 
Really? That statement is false. The U.S. corporate income tax is anywhere from 15%-35%. That averages out to 25%. That's lower than the corporate tax rate in 66 other countries - most notably Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, France, Germany, India (where a lot of these companies have moved to), Italy, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, The Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The U.K. and Venezuela. It also puts us at the same level as China, Switzerland, Vietnam and Israel.

Like I said, taxes not only aren't the only or main problem, they aren't even a factor. The countries that most of our comapnies are leaving for have considerably higher corporate tax rates than we do. The only thing they don't have is bull**** lawsuits and EPA regulations.

I agree with 100% of this statement. Oddly, Tort Law and/or EPA regulations are directly tied in to every point you just made.

The thing I find funny about this problem with China, is that Bush receives the brunt of the blame from Democrats, when in reality it was Bill Clinton that did it to us and got the ball rolling downhill at a rapid clip.


What countries are our corporations moving to? Cuba? Germany? Brazil? Japan? France? Germany? etc., etc. I don't think so! they're moving where there is a combination of low labor rates, lower taxes, favorable investment incentives (i.e., reduced confiscatory tax policies).....as well as some of the regulatory issues you refer to. they cut deals with national governments that ensure favorable treatment in return for employing the locals and technology transfer.
 
What countries are our corporations moving to? Cuba? Germany? Brazil? Japan? France? Germany? etc., etc. I don't think so! they're moving where there is a combination of low labor rates, lower taxes, favorable investment incentives (i.e., reduced confiscatory tax policies).....as well as some of the regulatory issues you refer to. they cut deals with national governments that ensure favorable treatment in return for employing the locals and technology transfer.

Here are the countries that most U.S. companies are moving to. The numbers following each country are the corporate tax rate (CTR)

China: 25-45% CTR
The Philippines: 30-32% CTR
India: 33.2175% CTR
Panama: 27-30% CTR
Uruguay: 25-30% CTR
Mexico: 28-29% CTR

In other words, to reiterate, it has nothing to do with taxes. These companies actually lose a lot of money when they have to "invest" (it's actually called buying governments off to look the other way, since most of these countries are corrupt beyond belief) but it balances out enough to where they are still saving money by not being here and having to deal with the lawsuits they are constantly barraged with.

You cannot accurately compare the labor rates, since most of these countries workers are forced labor or completely raped by the government. There is no way to accurately assess this based on the facts.

These governments don't give two ****s about these companies employing locals, because the government steals most if not all of the income anyway, especially in China.

The whole world kills to come to America, and our companies kill to get out. What does that tell you? It has nothing to do with taxes. You could at least admit that part of it, instead of changing course on your entire argument once the facts were presented. ;)
 
The US Federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35% of their profits in taxes. 47 States and some localities also tax corporate income. to borrow your concept....you don't have all the data. you already know the rhetoric about income being taxed twice in the US (profits, then shareholder dividends). how is that lower than any you listed?

do corporations actually pay that 35%+? no. no more than they do in those foriegn countries.

overall...we are actually in violent agreement that it gets down to avoiding honerous regulations and the cost of labor.
 
The US Federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35% of their profits in taxes. 47 States and some localities also tax corporate income. to borrow your concept....you don't have all the data. you already know the rhetoric about income being taxed twice in the US (profits, then shareholder dividends). how is that lower than any you listed?
You also have states that have a tax percentage of 0. This was all factored in. The official listed CTR in the United States is 0-35%. Realistically, the data I was citing states that most of the country (including the state plus federal CTR) is between 15-35%, that's why I said the average is 25%. Using your line of thinking, the stat would be based on the 0-35% listed by the United States, and the average would be 17.5%, which is truly unrealistic.

do corporations actually pay that 35%+? no. no more than they do in those foriegn countries.
Some do, some don't, same as with everything. It all comes down to who's in the barrel for the most pork.

overall...we are actually in violent agreement that it gets down to avoiding honerous regulations and the cost of labor.
I think everybody agrees on this point simply because no matter how much someone tries to twist a fact, when it's backed by so much proof, you can't twist it but so far. We shoot ourselves in the foot to often with the regulations we have. Some are great and completely required. Others, they're just plain dumb. The best example is how a farmer gets hit with a bigger fine for not using the proper fertilizer if he's near a river or bay than a major corporation gets for dumping trillions of gallons of toxic sludge illegally. Some things make no sense, no matter what your views are.
 
The U.S. taxes corporations to the tune of second highest in the world. By this summer, it will be the highest.
 
The U.S. taxes corporations to the tune of second highest in the world.
Really? I can see you aren't much for facts. Besides the ones I have already listed, here are some other countries that also have higher tax rates....

Angola, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Gabon, Gibraltar, Guatemala, Guyana, Jamaica, malta, Monaco......do you want me to keep going?

Seriously, what source did you get your information from? It isn't only wrong, it's absurdly and blatantly wrong. As I stated earlier, there are 66 countries around the world with higher tax rates, just google it and there's info a plenty.
 

So I see you failed to read this part........

America’s 39.2 percent will render it the corporate tax rate leader.......
in the countries comprising the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Funny that you are using this as a point of reference, since Mexico is the only country that American companies are going to that is even a member of this group, and mexico is on the bottom of the list of places American companies are relocating to.

We aren't losing businesses to developed and highly industrialized nations, so the tax rates of countries that have nothing to do with where American companies are moving to is completely irrelevant. At least stick to your own point you started out with.

Now that we cleared that up, I refer you back to your original argument....
The U.S. taxes corporations to the tune of second highest in the world. By this summer, it will be the highest.

You see what you did there? Your argument was wrong, so you changed your argument. Amazing how one little word can change your point completely. :)
 
Last edited:
Are you really saying that Bangladesh and the United States are comparable? If you want to play potayto and potahto, we can do so.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22917.html

Look at this list and compare it to the list you provided. Can you provide a comprehensive and detailed list of what Monaco provides to the world?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top