Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Little fact about global warming for you


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Little fact about global warming for you Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 1:47:41 PM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
Just thought I'd leave this here for everybody to check out... http://climate.nasa.gov

< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 8/22/2013 1:48:06 PM >

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 1:48:11 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I don't have time to answer all this lunacy, however here is a mainstream article (money magazine) that shows subsidies for renewable energy vastly exceed fossil fuels:


In a capitalist economy why does an established business like the oil companies recieve any subsidy at all? If they can't make it without a government handout, then why should the taxpayers subsidize them?


I agree. If they're going to get subsidies then (I) want subsidies too!

Seems I remember someone bragging about how they get a welfare cheque for being a revenue thug...now if that ain't a subsidy I do not know what is?

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 1:48:58 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Just thought I'd leave this here for everybody to check out... http://climate.nasa.gov

http://climate.nasa.gov/

link fixed

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 2:05:14 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Obviously oil is not cost effective witness the giant subsidies to keep it propped up.

What are the subsidy levels? What is Big Oil getting vs. Renewables (in $'s and %'s, please)?
Edited to correct a formatting error.

quote:

Because I've done a bit of googling, there is a graph out there that shows $72B to Oil/Coal, roughly $17B to ethanol and roughly $12B to "Green" energy. That's the spending from 2002 to 2008. $12B/yr. to $4.8B/yr. Large disparity, right?
My guess is that the Oil/Coal sector is more than 3x larger than that of renewable energy, making the %-age of of subsidy quite a bit smaller comparatively speaking.

Now that you have educated yourself to the fact that the oil companies recieve subsidies please explain why in a capitalist economy they do.
I can understand how in a capitalist economy the government might want to encourage a new technology as they did with oil, more than a hundred years ago, and are now doing with renewables. Oil is long past the position of an emerging technology. This was my point...if they are an effective technology then why do they need subsidies which ,it would appear,until now you were unaware existed.


Baaa Haaa Haaa Haaa!

Damn, ya'all are making my belly hurt today with all this joking around bullshit!!

What percentage of the Oil sector do the subsidies make up? Btw, I already pointed this little tidbit out here, but, fire them neurons!

What about for the renewable energy sector?




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 2:07:45 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

I don't have time to answer all this lunacy, however here is a mainstream article (money magazine) that shows subsidies for renewable energy vastly exceed fossil fuels:

In a capitalist economy why does an established business like the oil companies recieve any subsidy at all? If they can't make it without a government handout, then why should the taxpayers subsidize them?


Where do you get that they can't make it without subsidies?




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 2:24:50 PM   
papassion


Posts: 487
Joined: 3/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Just thought I'd leave this here for everybody to check out... http://climate.nasa.gov


Interesting, Nasa also says we are heading into a cycle of fewer sunspots for the next 11 years or so. There is an observed high correlation between global temperature and the number of sunspots observed on the sun. Case in point: from 1645 to 1715, an abnormally long solar cycle, sunspots all but disappeared and that coincided with a mini ice age when England's Thames River froze. David Hathaway, a scientist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., "We are now in the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years." Hathaway says there is an observed relationship between temps on earth and the sunspot cycle. You can assume colder winters and a shorter growing seasons than expected.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 3:08:26 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Just thought I'd leave this here for everybody to check out... http://climate.nasa.gov


Interesting, Nasa also says we are heading into a cycle of fewer sunspots for the next 11 years or so. There is an observed high correlation between global temperature and the number of sunspots observed on the sun. Case in point: from 1645 to 1715, an abnormally long solar cycle, sunspots all but disappeared and that coincided with a mini ice age when England's Thames River froze. David Hathaway, a scientist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., "We are now in the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years." Hathaway says there is an observed relationship between temps on earth and the sunspot cycle. You can assume colder winters and a shorter growing seasons than expected.

Link?

(in reply to papassion)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 3:18:00 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I don't have time to answer all this lunacy, however here is a mainstream article (money magazine) that shows subsidies for renewable energy vastly exceed fossil fuels:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm

That's about the federal government of the US. It proves nothing. We're talking world wide and over the history of the industry.

quote:

Here is a link that shows that the accumulated taxes paid by Oil compared to the subsidies received:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxfoundation.org%2Ffiles%2Fsr183.pdf&ei=bXEWUrewJeXn2wXml4HYDA&usg=AFQjCNH1nMDx0zmmb5LcEy77KKpwFseUPw&bvm=bv.51156542,d.b2I

It also has the profits, and taxes paid per year. It pretty much demolishes your arguments about Big oil being a net subsidy. In fact pretty much over the lifetime of the industry big oil has paid almost 2 trillion in taxes and received about 1.2 trillion in profits.


There is nothing in this report about subsidies. why make such easily disproven claims.

Also BTW a real link to the real report posted on a ultra right wing site
http://taxfoundation.org/files/sr183.pdf

Tried to hide that didn't you?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax_Foundation
quote:

Board of Directors

On its website the Tax Foundation lists its board of directors, as of March 2009, as being:[3]
Dr. Wayne Gable (Chairman), Koch Charitable Foundations

Posting stuff run by the Koch's that says the Koch's are angels whose shit don't stink is not going to convince anyone with a brain.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 5:30:16 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
I don't have time to answer all this lunacy, however here is a mainstream article (money magazine) that shows subsidies for renewable energy vastly exceed fossil fuels:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm

That's about the federal government of the US. It proves nothing. We're talking world wide and over the history of the industry.

quote:

Here is a link that shows that the accumulated taxes paid by Oil compared to the subsidies received:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftaxfoundation.org%2Ffiles%2Fsr183.pdf&ei=bXEWUrewJeXn2wXml4HYDA&usg=AFQjCNH1nMDx0zmmb5LcEy77KKpwFseUPw&bvm=bv.51156542,d.b2I

It also has the profits, and taxes paid per year. It pretty much demolishes your arguments about Big oil being a net subsidy. In fact pretty much over the lifetime of the industry big oil has paid almost 2 trillion in taxes and received about 1.2 trillion in profits.


There is nothing in this report about subsidies. why make such easily disproven claims.

Also BTW a real link to the real report posted on a ultra right wing site
http://taxfoundation.org/files/sr183.pdf

Tried to hide that didn't you?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tax_Foundation
quote:

Board of Directors

On its website the Tax Foundation lists its board of directors, as of March 2009, as being:[3]
Dr. Wayne Gable (Chairman), Koch Charitable Foundations

Posting stuff run by the Koch's that says the Koch's are angels whose shit don't stink is not going to convince anyone with a brain.


Whereas you run numbers by... why.. no one.. and just claim infinite knowledge that it must be so. Why? Because FactlessKen says so!

Regarding "subsidies". Subsidies are just double speak. If the government sets the tax policy at $1- you are paying $1. If the government sets the tax policy at $2, but then excuses you paying one dollar - you are now receiving a government "subsidy."

Thats why the term is utterly meaningless, and the only term that really matters is how much does the energy sector pay in taxes. Which as I documented is trillions of dollars. As documented - more in taxes than in profits.

As opposed to "alternate energy" almost none of which are profitable, once you remove government subsidies. I said almost none, as I am sure that there are some niche markets of profitability. But, by and large, solar and wind power is ridiculously unprofitable.

It is, to me, quite amusing when I hear people talking about solar farms to cut down on CO2 emission.

Because people forget - that if you are having hundreds of hectares covered in voltaics - you no longer have plants absorbing carbon dioxide in those same spaces. And so a decrease in CO2 uptake is exactly the same as CO2 emissions.

But the "science" ignores that inconvenient truth.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 5:31:51 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Just thought I'd leave this here for everybody to check out... http://climate.nasa.gov


Interesting, Nasa also says we are heading into a cycle of fewer sunspots for the next 11 years or so. There is an observed high correlation between global temperature and the number of sunspots observed on the sun. Case in point: from 1645 to 1715, an abnormally long solar cycle, sunspots all but disappeared and that coincided with a mini ice age when England's Thames River froze. David Hathaway, a scientist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., "We are now in the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years." Hathaway says there is an observed relationship between temps on earth and the sunspot cycle. You can assume colder winters and a shorter growing seasons than expected.

Link?

I've provided this link for you more than three times Factless Ken. Look it up yourself.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 5:38:45 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

OR
Now that you have educated yourself to the fact that the oil companies recieve subsidies please explain why in a capitalist economy they do.
I can understand how in a capitalist economy the government might want to encourage a new technology as they did with oil, more than a hundred years ago, and are now doing with renewables. Oil is long past the position of an emerging technology. This was my point...if they are an effective technology then why do they need subsidies which ,it would appear,until now you were unaware existed.



Just for amusement. One of those "subsidies" that you are bleating about is called a "depletion" allowance.

Its based on the priniciple that .. as you pump oil out.. its no longer there! The value of the remaining minerals, and the value of the land is therefor decreased.

Sounds kind of like sensible policy to me. I mean, both democrats and republicans have voted for it.

Yet this is one of the "subsidies" to "Big Oil" that you find unreasonable.

My point: "subsidies" exist for a number of reasons, not just to promote technologies, and they occur in every segment of the life cycle.

This particular subsidy benefits land owners, which may be, but usually is not an oil company.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 8:35:46 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Just thought I'd leave this here for everybody to check out... http://climate.nasa.gov


Interesting, Nasa also says we are heading into a cycle of fewer sunspots for the next 11 years or so. There is an observed high correlation between global temperature and the number of sunspots observed on the sun. Case in point: from 1645 to 1715, an abnormally long solar cycle, sunspots all but disappeared and that coincided with a mini ice age when England's Thames River froze. David Hathaway, a scientist at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., "We are now in the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years." Hathaway says there is an observed relationship between temps on earth and the sunspot cycle. You can assume colder winters and a shorter growing seasons than expected.

Link?

I've provided this link for you more than three times Factless Ken. Look it up yourself.

No, you haven't because it does not exist.

And everyone is encouraged to use the sites search to find any link he has made to the NASA site (nasa.gov). You will find that he has never posted a single link to anywhere on the site.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 9:13:08 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Just utterly false. Go look it up. CO2 has varied from under 180 ppm to over 6000.

Do you really think humans can live in CO2 concentrations over even 1000ppm? Want to give it a try yourself?


Deliberately missing the point. Edwynn was trying to say that nature maintains an equilibrium.


No I wasn't, not as an absolute standard in every case, your intrepational failure notwithstanding.

What the heck did the explanation of 1,000 steps occurring before the last one takes one off a cliff have anything to do with equilibrium, natural or otherwise?

The example of blood Ph level was only one example of how things can change quickly once a threshold is reached or surpassed, which in this particular case happens to concern a tightly bound equilibrium, but that is just coincidental to the point I was making. The phase change of water, the other example used, is not bound to a tight requirement to be very close to 32 degrees F.

If you take that latter example as my claiming that nature maintains a tight equilibrium on everything, your interpretation skills or scientific skills, or both, are in serious question.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 8/22/2013 9:31:23 PM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/22/2013 11:37:53 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

What subsidies are we giving to Big Oil and what subsidies are we giving to renewables? What % of their business does that subsidy comprise?

Because I've done a bit of googling, there is a graph out there that shows $72B to Oil/Coal, roughly $17B to ethanol and roughly $12B to "Green" energy. That's the spending from 2002 to 2008. $12B/yr. to $4.8B/yr. Large disparity, right?

My guess is that the Oil/Coal sector is more than 3x larger than that of renewable energy, making the %-age of of subsidy quite a bit smaller comparatively speaking.



Except that it's an inappropriate apples/oranges comparison, being that it's comparing 60 yr. old (nuclear) and 120 yr. old (oil) energy production tech, both with government "picking winners" intervention in the early days (especially nuclear), and market-distortion financial intervention in numerous forms ever since.

These energy paradigms have long established market hegemony, based on both availability of supply on one hand and limit of alternatives on the other, both sides of it being financially induced heavily by government favoritism.

What percentage of total revenues of the nuclear industry came from government inducements in 1947? What % of total revenues to the electronics industry came from government in the last century's 1900s and '20s? RCA was a privatization spin-off of the Dept. of the Navy. How much revenue from private/consumer sector to the transistor manufacturers in 1955? None. Who effectively financed almost all of their research?

You seem to be stuck on the word "subsidy," but financial inducement, and even more important, broad market intervention by way of domestic policy or international political/military means can take many forms, and that is what matters. Government being the only market at the outset is what propelled the electronics and computer and nuclear industries. Almost any entrepreneur would tell you that a such a large locked-in guaranteed market, where the expensive research is literally paid in advance, is, as they say, "nice work if you can get it."

If you would like info on how the oil industry actively (in several cases, physically) destroyed numerous municipal electric rail public transportation systems all through the early and mid 20th century, the book Internal Combustion by Edwin Black would be a good place to start. For a good and accurate account of oil industry collusion to limit output of wells to control prices, Control Of Oil by John Malcolm Blair, and for a good investigation of oil's influence on government regulation on many fronts, and further control of prices by shutting down ~300 refineries, after the embargo and two major price increases by OPEC, there is Antonia Juhasz's excellent book The Tyranny Of Oil.

The estimation of the total cost to taxpayers of all the governments of several countries' intervention on behalf of oil companies would be a Herculean task. How does one 'value' just the ME interventions alone? From the dividing of spoils after WWI, to the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now a whole new cabinet department, Homeland Security, to deal with the blowback? How are we to assign an exact dollar amount to the delayed response to the Mossadegh overthrow in Iran of taking the US embassy hostage in '79?

OTOH, some solar panel companies have certainly gone out of business, and the remainder are suffering, due to Chinese manufactures 'dumping' a flood of them on the market at below-cost prices.

When we invade China for their solar panels to the same level as we invade the ME for oil, or when the solar/wind industries succeed in destroying gas stations and nuclear power plants (with government blessing) to advance their own economic agenda, then we might be able to discuss a "level playing field," here.

Otherwise, you have the three links given above (the books) as a starter course.

Good luck in your venture.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 8/23/2013 12:36:19 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/23/2013 1:21:18 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Just for amusement. One of those "subsidies" that you are bleating about is called a "depletion" allowance.

Its based on the priniciple that .. as you pump oil out.. its no longer there! The value of the remaining minerals, and the value of the land is therefor decreased.


Right. But if we are talking honest capitalism here, why should the supply side of it have such blatant government favoritism, vs. the demand side? Did Royal Typewriter have any "market depletion allowance" to allow for word processors? How many companies got "market depletion allowance" for making tubes after transistors came along? The government should still be blowing economic kisses to cathode ray tube screens, by this estimation. Has there ever been any question, in history, that both supply and demand in any one venture were finite? Why the extraordinary government favoritism and taxpayer burden for sake of this one commodity and its industry?

quote:

Sounds kind of like sensible policy to me. I mean, both democrats and republicans have voted for it.


Anything that even sniffs of throwing large amounts of taxpayer money to the wealthiest corporations in the world sounds good to you, you've made that clear.





< Message edited by Edwynn -- 8/23/2013 1:45:27 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/23/2013 4:28:24 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Just for amusement. One of those "subsidies" that you are bleating about is called a "depletion" allowance.
Its based on the priniciple that .. as you pump oil out.. its no longer there! The value of the remaining minerals, and the value of the land is therefor decreased.

Right. But if we are talking honest capitalism here, why should the supply side of it have such blatant government favoritism, vs. the demand side? Did Royal Typewriter have any "market depletion allowance" to allow for word processors? How many companies got "market depletion allowance" for making tubes after transistors came along? The government should still be blowing economic kisses to cathode ray tube screens, by this estimation. Has there ever been any question, in history, that both supply and demand in any one venture were finite? Why the extraordinary government favoritism and taxpayer burden for sake of this one commodity and its industry?


It's not a "market" depletion allowance the oil industry gets. It's based on the value of the well being lower since there is less oil under it. Taxes are based on the value, and when that value decreases, so should the taxes, no? Ever heard of a depreciation deduction? How much you want to bet that business owners do?

Does the US Government give money to "Big Oil," or, would it be better described not taking as much through tax breaks? Which is it for renewables?



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/23/2013 5:52:29 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Just for amusement. One of those "subsidies" that you are bleating about is called a "depletion" allowance.
Its based on the priniciple that .. as you pump oil out.. its no longer there! The value of the remaining minerals, and the value of the land is therefor decreased.

Right. But if we are talking honest capitalism here, why should the supply side of it have such blatant government favoritism, vs. the demand side? Did Royal Typewriter have any "market depletion allowance" to allow for word processors? How many companies got "market depletion allowance" for making tubes after transistors came along? The government should still be blowing economic kisses to cathode ray tube screens, by this estimation. Has there ever been any question, in history, that both supply and demand in any one venture were finite? Why the extraordinary government favoritism and taxpayer burden for sake of this one commodity and its industry?


It's not a "market" depletion allowance the oil industry gets.



How cracked are you this morning? I didn't say that the oil companies get a a "market depletion allowance," I said that the -oil depletion allowance- is as absurd as if other companies were to likewise get a "market depletion allowance." If people naturally observe the absurdity of a "market depletion allowance," then they might finally wake up to the absurdity of a "depletion allowance" of any sort.

quote:

It's based on the value of the well being lower since there is less oil under it.


Everybody knows that going in. Why do the oil companies, five out of the top ten most profitable corporations, deserve a special tax break for what anybody and his cousin has known for 100 years?

quote:

Taxes are based on the value, and when that value decreases, so should the taxes, no?


Exxon-Mobile earns twice the profit of the number two highest earning corporation, Microsoft. How does that amount to their being "less valuable"? The decrease in profit from an individual well is already accounted for by commensurate decrease in taxes based on that decrease in profit from that well. How hard is that to figure out?


quote:

Ever heard of a depreciation deduction? How much you want to bet that business owners do?


Here, your fundamental ignorance comes to the fore. Depreciation is an entirely different thing than depletion. Companies not involved in depleting resources do not have a depletion allowance available to them. My point (which apparently flies over your head) is that it amounts to 'double counting' to allow another tax break for resource depletion when depreciation of the equipment involved and the lessening of profit due to depletion are already accounted for in tax assessment.

quote:

Does the US Government give money to "Big Oil," or, would it be better described not taking as much through tax breaks? Which is it for renewables?


Again, you are stuck on this "subsidy" mantra as limited to direct outlays of government to corporations.

In the broader sense, what a government does that results in material benefit to the company or industry in question constitutes financial/economic favoritism, or "subsidy" in that broader sense. Or we could just keep to whatever strict term of 'subsidy' you like, and we could discuss things in terms or 'hundreds of thousand lives lost for economic recipient benefit' as a separate category, and assess 'government cost and domestic and international turmoil as result.'

Whatever floats your boat.

Again; how many countries has the US invaded, and awarded no-bid contracts to privateers (all paid by taxpayers) for their renewables?

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 8/23/2013 6:09:47 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/23/2013 6:18:09 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Just for amusement. One of those "subsidies" that you are bleating about is called a "depletion" allowance.
Its based on the priniciple that .. as you pump oil out.. its no longer there! The value of the remaining minerals, and the value of the land is therefor decreased.

Right. But if we are talking honest capitalism here, why should the supply side of it have such blatant government favoritism, vs. the demand side? Did Royal Typewriter have any "market depletion allowance" to allow for word processors? How many companies got "market depletion allowance" for making tubes after transistors came along? The government should still be blowing economic kisses to cathode ray tube screens, by this estimation. Has there ever been any question, in history, that both supply and demand in any one venture were finite? Why the extraordinary government favoritism and taxpayer burden for sake of this one commodity and its industry?

It's not a "market" depletion allowance the oil industry gets.

How cracked are you this morning? I didn't say that the oil companies get a a"market depletion allowance," I said that the oil depletion allowance was as absurd as if other companies were to likewise get a market depletion allowance.


I was merely pointing out that the two things aren't at all the same. Asset Depreciation Deductions would be more accurate, and, all businesses do get those.

Oh, and I'm just as cracked as normal, to answer your question.

quote:

quote:

It's based on the value of the well being lower since there is less oil under it.

Everybody knows that going in. Why do the oil companies, five out of the top ten most profitable corporations, deserve a special tax break for what anybody and his cousin has known for 100 years?


If you tax the value of a well, shouldn't the $ amount of the tax drop as the value of the well drops?

quote:

quote:

Taxes are based on the value, and when that value decreases, so should the taxes, no?

Exxon-Mobile earns twice the profit of the number two highest earning corporation, Microsoft. How does that amount to their being "less valuable"? The decrease in profit from an individual well is already accounted for by commensurate decrease in taxes based on that decrease in profit from that well. How hard is that to figure out?


Apparently, it's damn difficult for some to figure out. The value of the company isn't what the tax is on. It's the value of the well they are paying on. That's the asset they are being taxed on. As the value of that asset depreciates, they are allowed a deduction for that depreciation.

quote:

quote:

Ever heard of a depreciation deduction? How much you want to bet that business owners do?

Here, your fundamental ignorance comes to the fore. Depreciation is an entirely different thing than depletion. Companies not involved in depleting resources do not have a depletion allowance available to them. My point (which apparently flies over your head) is that it amounts to 'double counting' to allow another tax break for resource depletion when depreciation of the equipment involved and the lessening of profit due to depletion are already accounted for in tax assessment.


Yeah, it's flying over my head. The oil in the ground isn't "equipment." The oil left in the ground doesn't fall under the same category as the equipment. Consumables also have their own tax deduction for mining companies (including oil), and that has come under fire. Those things don't fall under the typical equipment categories, either, even though they are equipment. When the amount of oil coming out of a well drops, the profits from that well will drop. Profits don't drop based on the amount left in. The oil that's in the ground doesn't profit the company until it's sucked out, or it's sold to someone else.

quote:

quote:

Does the US Government give money to "Big Oil," or, would it be better described not taking as much through tax breaks? Which is it for renewables?

Again, you are stuck on this "subsidy" mantra as limited to direct outlays of government to corporations.

In the broader sense, what a government does that results in material benefit to the company or industry in question constitutes financial/economic favoritism, or "subsidy" in that broader sense. Or we could just keep to whatever strict term of 'subsidy' you like, and we could discuss things in terms or 'hundreds of thousand lives lost for economic recipient benefit' as a separate category, and assess 'government cost and domestic turmoil as result.'

There is a huge difference between getting money directly from the Federal Government and not having as much taken away in taxes. Those who are getting money from the government are still benefiting from the credits and deductions in the tax code, too. "Big Oil" still pays an incredible amount of money in taxes each and every year.

A paper manufacturer doesn't have a resource depletion deduction because they aren't dealing with that issue. A typewriter company doesn't have consumable drilling equipment, so they don't get that deduction, either. Is that really all that tough to figure out?

quote:

Whatever floats your boat.


Here's how this all works out in your parlance. Anything that allows you to pay a lower tax rate than the top tax rate is a subsidy. Deductions, credits, lower rate tax brackets, etc. Those are all subsidies, in your book. That's all well and good. For you. That's not, for me. Reduced taxes and direct subsidy isn't the same.

Now, how about you attend to the actual percentages of credits, profits, etc. of the business? Big Oil may have had record profits, in gross dollar amounts, but what was the profit margin? What profit did GE see, and at what margin? Which is more important, gross $ profit, or margin?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/23/2013 7:43:16 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


We will "free ourselves from dependence on opec" sometime around 2017. Not from "green" energy, however, but from fracking. We will surpass saudi arabia as the biggest producer sometime around 2020.


Any validation for this puerile, insipid, moronic horse shit?

[qiote]The technologies that exist now *cannot* be cost effective.


Obviously oil is not cost effective witness the giant subsidies to keep it propped up.

quote:



Snicker. Yeah. Exxon is going out of business real soon. I posted an answer to this drive above. The only companies going out of business are "renewable" energy companies. Because they can't compete.






So If exxon is so well off why do they still have thier lips tatooed to the taxpayer tit?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Little fact about global warming for you - 8/23/2013 7:49:08 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you tax the value of a well, shouldn't the $ amount of the tax drop as the value of the well drops?


They don't tax the value of the well. The change in value of the well is deducted from gross income.

quote:

Taxes are based on the value, and when that value decreases, so should the taxes, no?


They don't tax the value of the well. The change in value of the well is deducted from gross income. Except that, unlike other businesses, the oil companies are allowed to double dip.


quote:

The value of the company isn't what the tax is on. It's the value of the well they are paying on. That's the asset they are being taxed on. As the value of that asset depreciates, they are allowed a deduction for that depreciation.


So tell us, then, how much do the drug companies and electronics companies et al. get in depletion allowance for their patents, which decrease in value over time?


quote:

Yeah, it's flying over my head. The oil in the ground isn't "equipment." The oil left in the ground doesn't fall under the same category as the equipment. Consumables also have their own tax deduction for mining companies (including oil), and that has come under fire. Those things don't fall under the typical equipment categories, either, even though they are equipment. When the amount of oil coming out of a well drops, the profits from that well will drop. Profits don't drop based on the amount left in. The oil that's in the ground doesn't profit the company until it's sucked out, or it's sold to someone else.


I didn't say that oil in the ground is "equipment," I said that it is double counting to deduct taxes for the depletion when taxes are already lowered due to less taxable profit from that depletion, and that they get the standard depreciation allowance for whatever equipment involved. Please, have at least two more cups of coffee before you continue further.


quote:

Does the US Government give money to "Big Oil," or, would it be better described not taking as much through tax breaks? Which is it for renewables?


As one example, the refineries (Koch Bros. et al.) get 45 cents per gallon (from the Treasury) for adding 1.6 ounces of corn ethanol to 14.4 ounces of petroleum gasoline. Ten percent ethanol gas. In any case, economic benefit is economic benefit. But the bill has to be paid eventually, by someone. If you and three other tenants get free rent, the other tenants' rent will be higher than otherwise. But you consider it as being no harm to the other tenants, because it didn't involve making you pay the same as everyone else. How convenient. For you.


quote:

There is a huge difference between getting money directly from the Federal Government and not having as much taken away in taxes.


You are too funny. Anyways, the oil companies are way ahead of you, and they understand fully the concept of composite economic advantage.



quote:

Those who are getting money from the government are still benefiting from the credits and deductions in the tax code, too.


Exactly.


quote:

"Big Oil" still pays an incredible amount of money in taxes each and every year.


Exxon paid zero taxes to the federal government in 2009.


quote:

A paper manufacturer doesn't have a resource depletion deduction because they aren't dealing with that issue.


It's true that trees are renewable, but it's also true that they are being cut down faster than natural replenishment can keep up with at the moment. Eating less fast food would give us more environmentally sustainable paper, there's that.

quote:

A typewriter company doesn't have consumable drilling equipment, so they don't get that deduction, either. Is that really all that tough to figure out?


Every manufacturer and almost every service provider has on their balance sheet consumable equipment, hence depreciation and amortization allowance. You obviously have not even taken accounting 101, yet you insist on bluster and incoherent blather as functional substitute.

quote:

Here's how this all works out in your parlance. Anything that allows you to pay a lower tax rate than the top tax rate is a subsidy. Deductions, credits, lower rate tax brackets, etc. Those are all subsidies, in your book. That's all well and good. For you. That's not, for me. Reduced taxes and direct subsidy isn't the same.


You are incapable of understanding economic benefit if in any form other than direct subsidies or tax relief, thanks for making my point. The Mossadegh overthrow, US embassy hostage taking for over a year, two Iraq and one Afghanistan invasions, IMF (Treasury-led) bitch slapping of Bolivia and Equador, etc.,;all freebies, no cost to anybody, no benefit at all to the oil companies. That's what passes for 'deep understanding' from you.


quote:

Big Oil may have had record profits, in gross dollar amounts, but what was the profit margin? What profit did GE see, and at what margin? Which is more important, gross $ profit, or margin?


You are incapable of understanding that economic benefit is derived across a band of profit margins, as played out in every economy, thanks for making my point.

Though by this discourse, such as it is, I doubt you could make meaning of it, here is one account of the profit margin in question.

It is difficult for me to come up with an example simple enough for even you to understand, but let's try this:

If you've got one $million of your own, and there are two different profit making opportunities you have available, one which requires 5 $million and another which requires 10 $million, and you can only get 4 mill in financing, which are you going to take? Does the margin matter in that case, as long as you feel good about the prospects? OTOH, if one venture has a 25% P margin and the other a 20% P margin, and the latter makes 20% more in total net income, which are you going to choose?

Why do you insist on being the loudest second grader in the class in all of these discussions?









< Message edited by Edwynn -- 8/23/2013 8:34:14 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Little fact about global warming for you Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141