Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 296045" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Well the gov't is more perplexed by this than you think. Since I was talking about oil and most of that at least in the minds of the masses goes to cars let's consider that for a moment. But one interesting point I learned wathing the program on History channel entitled Crude before going forward. According to the experts on this program, the average person uses 3 gallons of oil per day. 1 gal. if for transportation alone, 1 gal. is for transport of goods, foods, etc. and the last gal. is for products like plastic containers and related items like oil in fertilizers to grow food and to my surprise, oil in some foods themselves altough the chemistry is highly altered of course. But let's consider the first gallon alone.</p><p> </p><p>There is already a tax crisis so to speak as it relates to fuel excise taxes and it's because of hybrids. Here is just one example from 2 years ago.</p><p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml</a></p><p>The problem is the present system taxes per gallon used but obviously hybrids get better mileage so pay less tax per mile. In other posts I've suggested the reason we don't have encouragement from the gov't for super high mileage vehicles is the revenue consequences to them. After the bridge collaspe on Minn. (was it last year?) there were some hues and cries about money being diverted from the Highway Trust Fund to other gov't expenditures because of the massive red ink so this on top of a growing problem just makes worse.</p><p> </p><p>Oregon looked at along with Cal-lee-forn-ya (Arnold's 51st state <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" />)</p><p>using as the article said on-board GPS which most vehicles now to a certain extent have. UPS' telematics program that you drivers will see more and more of over the never few years taps into this system that exists basically on all newer vehicles. Using RFID and other related technologies, you can see from the article what they are thinking. I know the civil libertarians will be concerned about the tracking aspect of the system but to the surprise of some, I like the system.</p><p> </p><p>I like it because it would open the door for high mileage vehicles and there would no longer be the gov't sitting in the way to protect a revenue stream. It's a trade off obviously but that's how I see it any way. Now how does this relate to wind and solar?</p><p> </p><p>Well directly it doesn't but the point is that it's not always as easy to tax as you may think. Sure they can tax anything, anytime but it also most be cost effective. UPS can deliever a package to the moon, sure we can but what would it cost to do so and what would be the return on investment? And thus it is with solar and wind.</p><p> </p><p>Gas and even Hydrogen are mass produced products on large scale and thus their distribution would also be centralized and large scale. It's easy to piggyback those models with an excise tax to derive revenue. But solar and wind can be produced easily at the individual level, a car charged with the electricty generated and then discharged as you drive about. In that mix, where does the car plug into a centralized system to be taxed? That is the problem facing public policy wonks and thus the reason you see no large scale gov't backing of that kind of individual transportation model. I love internal combustion engines, in the 70's owned a Hertz Olds, a 68' Shelby GT500KR (I paid $2500 for that car) so I love big ripping engines but electric is the way to go IMO. </p><p> </p><p>In principle, you are correct that the gov't can tax anything and I think we will both agree that they do a much better job than we would like for them too! <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /> However, in our Keynesian gov't planned economic model, the gov't looks hard at what are the economic advantages to tax policy and regulatory cost to them before they get behind an industry. For years they stood tooth and nail behind tobacco including mass subsidies to growers until those investments and returns got weighed against the cost to the gov't in healthcare and other losses across the economic stradum and then the tide turned. Cost drove this. </p><p> </p><p>Same is true with greenhouse gases and it doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. So far the cost to change far outweigh the economic returns so until this model shifts, the gov't must protect it's revenue stream in order to provide for it's own survival. In the deep wonk circles the desire is to leave carbon based fuels behind unrelated to global warming but still on the burner. Another related to this desire is the amount of monies flowing to the Mideast and to fellas like Chavez to our south. </p><p> </p><p>The problem is maintaining a centralized energy grid and there the easiest means of maintaining the revenue stream to the gov't as they just piggyback to revenue model. Want something or idea to take effect? Show the gov't they can tax it easier than the current model and drive as much if not more revenue from it and you'll spend a week in the Lincoln bedroom and the President himself or maybe herself after Nov. will even serve you breakfast in bed!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /> That's the key to any new idea. It's also the roadblock IMO to human innovations that make life better for all. When you have big gov't it must be paid for and thus it requires at some point for the gov't to regulate how things move and work within the economy to protect the gov't means of supporting itself. Small gov't which costs much less is less impacted by these evolutionary shifts in man's knowledge and technolgy and tends to stand less in the way of it's learning and progress forward IMO. Another major reason I'm for small gov't and rather anti-state.</p><p> </p><p>BTW: You think those handout checks we'll all get later this year, whole and completely endorsed by both parties united, is about easing our pain? Nope! It's to ensure you don't go running away from their 2 parties and into the arms of a 3rd party or the even worse scenario of 80 to 90% of the voters stay home in the general election. Our electorial process is a peaceful revolution process and once that is gone or the people believe it so, there is only one option left to change gov't! That is the nightmare scenario they so fear!</p><p> </p><p>Also, they didn't cut spending to pay for the handout but rather borrowed the money so enjoy those checks for the short time you have them because you'll pay it all back 3 to 4 times their face value in taxes to paydown the debt. Are we stupid or what!</p><p> </p><p>The bottomline is companies like Halliburton, KBR and even companies unrelated to the war in Iraq understand how the system works and works it to it's bottomline. People get upset when some comment that companies like Halliburton, KBR, CACI or even Blackwater profit from war and conflict. Some scream, "oh you're just a liberal!" or some other nonsense. Well be an economist and investor for once and look at the financials of these companies and look at the trendlines for revenue and profit and when did they take marked upturn on the profit side? It's not liberal to point that out although some do so for political motive but the reality is, it's a cold hard cash fact! </p><p> </p><p>Where I differ with them, say Deisel and EZ, although I think they have good hearted motives, large gov't attracts snakes because they see the ability to manipulate for easy profit. The funny part to me is folks like D and EZ unknowingly throw out the very seeds that attract the prey that the snakes feed off of and the more seed thrown down, the more prey come and the fatter the snakes get. Folks like you see the prey as pests and the snakes as a good thing. A cleanser it you will as to you the seed cost you money. No more prey and no more need to throw out seed. It's the perfect Hegelian dialectic and the synthesis is the gov't itself who grow fatter at the expense of both sides. Besides, once the little mice and birds are gone, the snake will need to eat something so why not it's master!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 296045, member: 2189"] Well the gov't is more perplexed by this than you think. Since I was talking about oil and most of that at least in the minds of the masses goes to cars let's consider that for a moment. But one interesting point I learned wathing the program on History channel entitled Crude before going forward. According to the experts on this program, the average person uses 3 gallons of oil per day. 1 gal. if for transportation alone, 1 gal. is for transport of goods, foods, etc. and the last gal. is for products like plastic containers and related items like oil in fertilizers to grow food and to my surprise, oil in some foods themselves altough the chemistry is highly altered of course. But let's consider the first gallon alone. There is already a tax crisis so to speak as it relates to fuel excise taxes and it's because of hybrids. Here is just one example from 2 years ago. [URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/eveningnews/main674120.shtml[/URL] The problem is the present system taxes per gallon used but obviously hybrids get better mileage so pay less tax per mile. In other posts I've suggested the reason we don't have encouragement from the gov't for super high mileage vehicles is the revenue consequences to them. After the bridge collaspe on Minn. (was it last year?) there were some hues and cries about money being diverted from the Highway Trust Fund to other gov't expenditures because of the massive red ink so this on top of a growing problem just makes worse. Oregon looked at along with Cal-lee-forn-ya (Arnold's 51st state :happy-very:) using as the article said on-board GPS which most vehicles now to a certain extent have. UPS' telematics program that you drivers will see more and more of over the never few years taps into this system that exists basically on all newer vehicles. Using RFID and other related technologies, you can see from the article what they are thinking. I know the civil libertarians will be concerned about the tracking aspect of the system but to the surprise of some, I like the system. I like it because it would open the door for high mileage vehicles and there would no longer be the gov't sitting in the way to protect a revenue stream. It's a trade off obviously but that's how I see it any way. Now how does this relate to wind and solar? Well directly it doesn't but the point is that it's not always as easy to tax as you may think. Sure they can tax anything, anytime but it also most be cost effective. UPS can deliever a package to the moon, sure we can but what would it cost to do so and what would be the return on investment? And thus it is with solar and wind. Gas and even Hydrogen are mass produced products on large scale and thus their distribution would also be centralized and large scale. It's easy to piggyback those models with an excise tax to derive revenue. But solar and wind can be produced easily at the individual level, a car charged with the electricty generated and then discharged as you drive about. In that mix, where does the car plug into a centralized system to be taxed? That is the problem facing public policy wonks and thus the reason you see no large scale gov't backing of that kind of individual transportation model. I love internal combustion engines, in the 70's owned a Hertz Olds, a 68' Shelby GT500KR (I paid $2500 for that car) so I love big ripping engines but electric is the way to go IMO. In principle, you are correct that the gov't can tax anything and I think we will both agree that they do a much better job than we would like for them too! :wink2: However, in our Keynesian gov't planned economic model, the gov't looks hard at what are the economic advantages to tax policy and regulatory cost to them before they get behind an industry. For years they stood tooth and nail behind tobacco including mass subsidies to growers until those investments and returns got weighed against the cost to the gov't in healthcare and other losses across the economic stradum and then the tide turned. Cost drove this. Same is true with greenhouse gases and it doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not. So far the cost to change far outweigh the economic returns so until this model shifts, the gov't must protect it's revenue stream in order to provide for it's own survival. In the deep wonk circles the desire is to leave carbon based fuels behind unrelated to global warming but still on the burner. Another related to this desire is the amount of monies flowing to the Mideast and to fellas like Chavez to our south. The problem is maintaining a centralized energy grid and there the easiest means of maintaining the revenue stream to the gov't as they just piggyback to revenue model. Want something or idea to take effect? Show the gov't they can tax it easier than the current model and drive as much if not more revenue from it and you'll spend a week in the Lincoln bedroom and the President himself or maybe herself after Nov. will even serve you breakfast in bed! :happy-very: That's the key to any new idea. It's also the roadblock IMO to human innovations that make life better for all. When you have big gov't it must be paid for and thus it requires at some point for the gov't to regulate how things move and work within the economy to protect the gov't means of supporting itself. Small gov't which costs much less is less impacted by these evolutionary shifts in man's knowledge and technolgy and tends to stand less in the way of it's learning and progress forward IMO. Another major reason I'm for small gov't and rather anti-state. BTW: You think those handout checks we'll all get later this year, whole and completely endorsed by both parties united, is about easing our pain? Nope! It's to ensure you don't go running away from their 2 parties and into the arms of a 3rd party or the even worse scenario of 80 to 90% of the voters stay home in the general election. Our electorial process is a peaceful revolution process and once that is gone or the people believe it so, there is only one option left to change gov't! That is the nightmare scenario they so fear! Also, they didn't cut spending to pay for the handout but rather borrowed the money so enjoy those checks for the short time you have them because you'll pay it all back 3 to 4 times their face value in taxes to paydown the debt. Are we stupid or what! The bottomline is companies like Halliburton, KBR and even companies unrelated to the war in Iraq understand how the system works and works it to it's bottomline. People get upset when some comment that companies like Halliburton, KBR, CACI or even Blackwater profit from war and conflict. Some scream, "oh you're just a liberal!" or some other nonsense. Well be an economist and investor for once and look at the financials of these companies and look at the trendlines for revenue and profit and when did they take marked upturn on the profit side? It's not liberal to point that out although some do so for political motive but the reality is, it's a cold hard cash fact! Where I differ with them, say Deisel and EZ, although I think they have good hearted motives, large gov't attracts snakes because they see the ability to manipulate for easy profit. The funny part to me is folks like D and EZ unknowingly throw out the very seeds that attract the prey that the snakes feed off of and the more seed thrown down, the more prey come and the fatter the snakes get. Folks like you see the prey as pests and the snakes as a good thing. A cleanser it you will as to you the seed cost you money. No more prey and no more need to throw out seed. It's the perfect Hegelian dialectic and the synthesis is the gov't itself who grow fatter at the expense of both sides. Besides, once the little mice and birds are gone, the snake will need to eat something so why not it's master! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top