Gas prices and the free market

[1apreferably]

Originally Posted by sebrebc

There have been breakthroughs in magnetic research, and obviously hydrogen and whatnot. But I believe magnetic energy is the best, least expensive, least intrusive, and easily obtainable resource. It's not "renewable", it's a constant source of energy. Magnetic generators, magnetic engines, so forth. We, in theory, could completely remove the need for oil, coal, gas, solar, wind, so on and so on. I just don't understand, with all the technology we have today, we don't have magnetic power plants in every town.

I am unfamiliar with a constant magnetic power source please explain.

I assume that we are not talking here about something breaking the laws of psychics and achieving perpetual motion.

[sebrebc]

Originally Posted by 1apreferably

I am unfamiliar with a constant magnetic power source please explain.

I assume that we are not talking here about something breaking the laws of psychics and achieving perpetual motion.

Depending on ones definition of "perpetual motion"....yes. Basically a metallic cylinder within a magnetic housing. Similar to most coil/magnetic motors. I'm no physicist, and honestly can't speak too intelligently about how the whole thing works. There is a company trying to produce a car motor, and many others working on the magnetic motor theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgyY47duCM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZR4C9gqOY

Like I said, I am hardly an expert on the physical properties or the logistics on how this would be a true solution...but from what I have read, it seems like a perfectly logical replacement for fuel powered motors and power generators. No fuel required, almost no maintenance.

[1apreferably]

Originally Posted by sebrebc

Depending on ones definition of "perpetual motion"....yes. Basically a metallic cylinder within a magnetic housing. Similar to most coil/magnetic motors. I'm no physicist, and honestly can't speak too intelligently about how the whole thing works. There is a company trying to produce a car motor, and many others working on the magnetic motor theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgyY47duCM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZR4C9gqOY

Like I said, I am hardly an expert on the physical properties or the logistics on how this would be a true solution...but from what I have read, it seems like a perfectly logical replacement for fuel powered motors and power generators. No fuel required, almost no maintenance.

There are quite a lot of 'free energy' videos on youtube. Magnetism and running water and others. The implication here is that if only 'big oil' or big whatever would only allow these guys to develop their product we would all live happily ever after.

Unfortunately, there is no machine, engine, motor or other device that will endlessly run without an outside power source.

[sebrebc]

Originally Posted by 1apreferably

There are quite a lot of 'free energy' videos on youtube. Magnetism and running water and others. The implication here is that if only 'big oil' or big whatever would only allow these guys to develop their product we would all live happily ever after.

Unfortunately, there is no machine, engine, motor or other device that will endlessly run without an outside power source.

I don't see why not. By that I mean, I don't understand why not....ignorance on my part. I have had many conversations with people about the possibility of a magnetic power source, such as a magnet driven generator or motor. The one thing that always comes up is the theory of perpetual motion and how it isn't possible. I understand that perpetual motion is "impossible".....but I don't understand why. Granted there would be other factors at play when it comes to a magnetic power source, such as bearings which would need replacing and maintenance, and magnets do lose power over time, and you would need some kind of regulator for the power being produced. But the magnetic drive itself, I don't see why it would never stop working. If designed correctly, a metallic cylinder could spin inside a magnetic housing, simply on the power of the magnetic force. Aside from bearings and loss of magnetic power within the magnet itself, why wouldn't it simply spin forever? A spinning cylinder is all you really need to generate power. A combustion engine is simply a series of explosions in order to rotate a cylinder (of sorts), and even a generator or alternator is the same principle. Hydro-power plants use running water to, ultimately, spin a cylinder based power producer....using the running water as a source of power. Why not use magnets as a source of power to spin the cylinder, requiring no fuel source. This would be far more efficient than solar, water, or wind....in a small scale.

[brandishwar]

Originally Posted by HoratioBrock

Free Marketers out there...direct government intervention in fixing or lowering the price of a commodity (hey I don't like it either)....but isn't asking the President intervene in gas prices is counter to your ideology?

Name a true free market advocate who is asking the President to intervene with regard to gas prices as I'm quite curious -- and provide links to where such a person has said this as well. Not one that I read and watch on a regular basis has ever called for this. Instead they want government to reduce their current interventions with regard to the oil and gasoline markets, including reducing taxes on gasoline and oil, though some reports I've read have said that eliminating all taxes on gasoline still wouldn't provide a lot of immediate relief.

But here are a couple things to take into consideration. First, raising oil supplies won't work. Oil supply isn't the issue. Refining capacity is the issue. Refining capacity currently is about half what it was in the early 1980s. But even with refining capacity at such low levels, we still have so much gasoline that gasoline refiners in the United States are selling gasoline to other countries. Imagine that!

Further, with gasoline supply so high that it's being sold overseas, why are prices still so fucking high for gasoline? Well if gasoline supply is up, and gasoline prices are up, there's one other variable that needs to be accounted: the value of the dollar. The dollar is currently the currency used in oil and gasoline trading. It's all priced in dollars. And the dollar, created and maintained by the all-powerful Federal Reserve, is declining in value due to many factors.

So if you help gasoline supplies and reduce gasoline demand (which actually is down, which is why gasoline is being exported to other countries) but do nothing about the declining value of the dollar, what's going to happen? Gasoline prices are only going to continue to go UP.

[Mooja]

Originally Posted by 12941

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...an-oil-subsidy

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news..._breaks_obama/

Again, I don't see a subsidy anywhere in there. A subsidy requires a transfer of wealth from one party to another. Here's the definition from dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidize

Oil companies did not get one dime our dollars via government injection into their balance sheets. On the other hand Bay Area Video Coalition received $100,000 of our dollars via a direct grant from the NEA. Or say a $500 million dollar defaulted loan to Solyndra. That is a government subsidy and comes directly out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Bay Area Video Coalition, Inc.
San Francisco, CA
$100,000
To support the Factory Hybrid Filmmaking Project, a pilot program for young filmmakers. The project will test strategies to develop, distribute, and engage audiences for filmmakers who are producing traditional digital and web-native short films. Also, filmmakers will learn to reach traditional audiences via film festival screenings, conferences, and through television broadcasts as well as reaching audiences across social networks.

As for tax breaks, oil companies get roughly the same kinds of tax breaks that other industries get. It varies from year to year just like any business but there's an argument to be made that oil companies actually pay more taxes in total than the average American business.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/...l-company.html

That being said i'm a strong proponent of ending tax breaks for ALL businesses and individuals but at the same time lowering the overall effective tax rates. I'm no fan of oil companies but I do beleive they are used as a boogeyman, yet again for the purpose of dividing us. I don't believe the Federal government should have the power to favor or punish any particular law abiding industry, group, or segment of society. I'm for equal treatment under the law. Give politicians the power to discriminate and they will eventually use it for nefarious reasons.

[12941]

Originally Posted by Mooja

Again, I don't see a subsidy anywhere in there. A subsidy requires a transfer of wealth from one party to another. Here's the definition from dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidize

Well, I have a definition and you have yours.
Let's just agree to disagree.

[infantrystud]

And the dictionary be damned?

[Mooja]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

And the dictionary be damned?

Right, I don't know how people can possibly communicate unless we can agree basic things like what words mean.

If taking less of someones own money can be considered a subsidy then I suppose a thief could be described as subsidizing certain of their victims buy not stealing as much from them as they had from others.

[infantrystud]

Its very Clintonian

Originally Posted by Mooja

Right, I don't know how people can possibly communicate unless we can agree basic things like what words mean.

If taking less of someones own money can be considered a subsidy then I suppose a thief could be described as subsidizing certain of their victims buy not stealing as much from them as they had from others.

[12941]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

And the dictionary be damned?

You believe everything you read in a dictionary?


Besides, whose dictionary should we use?
Should we rely on the definition used by lay persons to discuss technical matters?
Or should we resort to the definition used by the practitioners of a certain field of knowledge?
Are you saying that language is purely objective and without bias?

[Mooja]

Originally Posted by 12941

You believe everything you read in a dictionary?


Besides, whose dictionary should we use?
Should we rely on the definition used by lay persons to discuss technical matters?
Or should we resort to the definition used by the practitioners of a certain field of knowledge?
Are you saying that language is purely objective and without bias?

This is very telling. It seems in your view words are arbitrary and can be defined to mean whatever you wish them to mean. I'm sure you can understand how this would lead to mass confusion. Anyone who chooses to communicate with you would in a sense have to learn a new language.

Regardless, you quoted a statement from a clean energy leaning web site which seems to want to redefine the word subsidy.

Here's the definition you provided. I'll show that a tax decrease does not in fact meet even this definition.

Oil Change International:

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Lets say the U.S. Government took 28% of Shell Oil profits in 2012 via taxation. And in the same year Shell Oil sold crude for $100 dollars a barrel. In 2013 the U.S. passed legislation to (in your words) subsidize Shell Oil by only taking 25% of their profits and in 2013 Shell Oil still sold crude for the same $100 dollars a barrel.

In the definition above there are three conditions that could be met to classify as a subsidy:
1) The government action lowers the cost of fuel energy production. - It costs X dollars in equipment and labor to produce oil from the ground. The cost of the labor and equipment does not change in response to the tax rate applied to any profits which might be produced. e.g. cost of equipment and labor is $50 per barrel both before and after the tax rate change. Fails definition.

2) raises the price received by energy producers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

3) lowers the price paid by energy consumers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

So even by their own customized definition of a subsidy, taking less in taxes from an oil company does not necessarily fulfill the requirements of their own definition.

[infantrystud]

Dude, we when start arguing over definitions of words then the terrorists have won.

Originally Posted by 12941

You believe everything you read in a dictionary?


Besides, whose dictionary should we use?
Should we rely on the definition used by lay persons to discuss technical matters?
Or should we resort to the definition used by the practitioners of a certain field of knowledge?
Are you saying that language is purely objective and without bias?

[12941]

Originally Posted by Mooja

This is very telling. It seems in your view words are arbitrary and can be defined to mean whatever you wish them to mean. I'm sure you can understand how this would lead to mass confusion. Anyone who chooses to communicate with you would in a sense have to learn a new language.

Regardless, you quoted a statement from a clean energy leaning web site which seems to want to redefine the word subsidy.

Here's the definition you provided. I'll show that a tax decrease does not in fact meet even this definition.

Oil Change International:

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Lets say the U.S. Government took 28% of Shell Oil profits in 2012 via taxation. And in the same year Shell Oil sold crude for $100 dollars a barrel. In 2013 the U.S. passed legislation to (in your words) subsidize Shell Oil by only taking 25% of their profits and in 2013 Shell Oil still sold crude for the same $100 dollars a barrel.

In the definition above there are three conditions that could be met to classify as a subsidy:
1) The government action lowers the cost of fuel energy production. - It costs X dollars in equipment and labor to produce oil from the ground. The cost of the labor and equipment does not change in response to the tax rate applied to any profits which might be produced. e.g. cost of equipment and labor is $50 per barrel both before and after the tax rate change. Fails definition.

2) raises the price received by energy producers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

3) lowers the price paid by energy consumers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

So even by their own customized definition of a subsidy, taking less in taxes from an oil company does not necessarily fulfill the requirements of their own definition.

The definition uses the word OR, only one condition need be present to fall under the definition.
Read it again.

When, by virtue of government action, a company is allowed to keep money which would it otherwise be compelled to spend, it would give such company a benefit. It that same government action means collecting less taxes, in real world terms, it would be the same whether one calls it tax break or subsidy.

Calling an orange an apple doesn't mean squat in real world terms.

[12941]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

Dude, we when start arguing over definitions of words then the terrorists have won.

It's nice that you're now developing your sense of humor here in MD.

[Mooja]

Originally Posted by Mooja

Oil Change International:

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Lets say the U.S. Government took 28% of Shell Oil profits in 2012 via taxation. And in the same year Shell Oil sold crude for $100 dollars a barrel. In 2013 the U.S. passed legislation to (in your words) subsidize Shell Oil by only taking 25% of their profits and in 2013 Shell Oil still sold crude for the same $100 dollars a barrel.

In the definition above there are three conditions that could be met to classify as a subsidy:
1) The government action lowers the cost of fuel energy production. - It costs X dollars in equipment and labor to produce oil from the ground. The cost of the labor and equipment does not change in response to the tax rate applied to any profits which might be produced. e.g. cost of equipment and labor is $50 per barrel both before and after the tax rate change. Fails definition.

2) raises the price received by energy producers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

3) lowers the price paid by energy consumers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

So even by their own customized definition of a subsidy, taking less in taxes from an oil company does not necessarily fulfill the requirements of their own definition.

Originally Posted by 12941

The definition uses the word OR, only one condition need be present to fall under the definition.
Read it again.

Uhhhhhh, yep, you're right. Which I clearly stated by saying this:

In the definition above there are three conditions that could be met to classify as a subsidy

And the definition fails all three criteria. How exactly do you believe an OR of three false statements create a true statement?

Originally Posted by 12941

When, by virtue of government action, a company is allowed to keep money which would it otherwise be compelled to spend, it would give such company a benefit. It that same government action means collecting less taxes, in real world terms, it would be the same whether one calls it tax break or subsidy.

Yet another redefinition of subsidy? Allowing someone to keep their own money is a subsidy? Do you realize that would mean i'm giving you a subsidy by not robbing you? When all else fails, redefine words.

Originally Posted by 12941

Calling an orange an apple doesn't mean squat in real world terms.

Agreed. Allowing people to keep their own money is not a subsidy. An orange is not an apple.

[12941]

Originally Posted by Mooja

This is very telling. It seems in your view words are arbitrary and can be defined to mean whatever you wish them to mean.

If words aren't arbitrary, what is the "objective basis" of the word "quiz"

I'm sure you can understand how this would lead to mass confusion. Anyone who chooses to communicate with you would in a sense have to learn a new language.

That's why words are communal tools. We agree then we communicate.

Regardless, you quoted a statement from a clean energy leaning web site which seems to want to redefine the word subsidy.

Here's the definition you provided. I'll show that a tax decrease does not in fact meet even this definition.

Oil Change International:

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Lets say the U.S. Government took 28% of Shell Oil profits in 2012 via taxation. And in the same year Shell Oil sold crude for $100 dollars a barrel. In 2013 the U.S. passed legislation to (in your words) subsidize Shell Oil by only taking 25% of their profits and in 2013 Shell Oil still sold crude for the same $100 dollars a barrel.

If, at year one, Shell made $5 Million profit by selling oil at $100, it tax liability would be around $1.4 Million.
At year two, with the "subsidy" of a lower tax rate, the tax would be $1.25 Million.
The energy company would have greater profit after tax.


In the definition above there are three conditions that could be met to classify as a subsidy:
1) The government action lowers the cost of fuel energy production. - It costs X dollars in equipment and labor to produce oil from the ground. The cost of the labor and equipment does not change in response to the tax rate applied to any profits which might be produced. e.g. cost of equipment and labor is $50 per barrel both before and after the tax rate change. Fails definition.

Your conclusion is incorrect.
If you allow a greater deduction for equipment (say 110% in depreciation, which would lessen the tax bill) or for example for salaries or employee benefits. The company will realize more profits.
All things being the same, if the Government spends money for a project which lessens the transportation costs of producing energy


2) raises the price received by energy producers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

Wrong yet again.
You used the price of oil from the source, not the refiners (the real companies that are taxed.
Really, the US taxes Saudi Arabia?
If an energy company buys oil at $100/barrel and produces electricity at X price, when the Government allows the energy company to charge X + $0.50, it goes to the pocket of the energy company.

3) lowers the price paid by energy consumers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

Wrong!
See above (#2)
Plus, if the Government lowers the price paid by energy consumers, it means the Government "pays" for the difference. This goes to the energy companies, which means profits. Plus it skews with the law of supply and demand, making it attractive for consumers to buy more.

So even by their own customized definition of a subsidy, taking less in taxes from an oil company does not necessarily fulfill the requirements of their own definition.

Plus, you make the mistake that the subsidy is dependent on how much an energy company charges, which is wrong.
The subsidy starts and ends with the government action. What happens afterwards doesn't affect the definition.

[infantrystud]

If I get a tax refund from the IRS, am I now being subsidized by the government?

Originally Posted by Mooja

Uhhhhhh, yep, you're right. Which I clearly stated by saying this:

And the definition fails all three criteria. How exactly do you believe an OR of three false statements create a true statement?

Yet another redefinition of subsidy? Allowing someone to keep their own money is a subsidy? Do you realize that would mean i'm giving you a subsidy by not robbing you? When all else fails, redefine words.

Agreed. Allowing people to keep their own money is not a subsidy. An orange is not an apple.

[12941]

Originally Posted by infantrystud

If I get a tax refund from the IRS, am I now being subsidized by the government?

You've got your terms mixed up.

What is the nature of the refund?

----------------------
Edit:

If the Government paid for your burrito so you could produce gas more, you got a subsidy.
If the Government allowed you to raise the amount you charge other people for the gas you produce, you received a subsidy.
If, the Government lowers the price paid by people of the gas you produce (but which doesn't affect your margin), you got a subsidy.

I hope that helps.
Eat less Mexican foods.

[Mooja]

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Originally Posted by 12941

If, at year one, Shell made $5 Million profit by selling oil at $100, it tax liability would be around $1.4 Million.
At year two, with the "subsidy" of a lower tax rate, the tax would be $1.25 Million.
The energy company would have greater profit after tax.

Except of course the definition of subsidy you chose, and I quoted above, says absolutely nothing about profit after tax. Yet another redefinition?

Originally Posted by Mooja

In the definition above there are three conditions that could be met to classify as a subsidy:
1) The government action lowers the cost of fuel energy production. - It costs X dollars in equipment and labor to produce oil from the ground. The cost of the labor and equipment does not change in response to the tax rate applied to any profits which might be produced. e.g. cost of equipment and labor is $50 per barrel both before and after the tax rate change. Fails definition.

Originally Posted by 12941

Your conclusion is incorrect.

No it follows perfectly. Tax rates do not change the cost of fuel energy production. That's like saying thieves change the cost of the car their victims drive to work. It's false.

Originally Posted by Mooja

2) raises the price received by energy producers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

Originally Posted by 12941

Wrong yet again.
You used the price of oil from the source, not the refiners (the real companies that are taxed.

Ok, so lets move to the price down the chain of production. It's the same argument. Refiners charge $2.50 for a gallon of gas in 2012 and in 2013. The price received by the energy producer does not change. Fails definition.

Originally Posted by Mooja

3) lowers the price paid by energy consumers - Oil sold for $100 a barrel in 2012 before the tax decrease and it sold for $100 dollars a barrel in 2013 after the tax decrease. Fails definition.

Originally Posted by 12941

Wrong!
See above (#2)
Plus, if the Government lowers the price paid by energy consumers,

The price has not changed. $2.50 a gallon in 2012 and 2.50 a gallon in 2013.

Originally Posted by 12941

Plus, you make the mistake that the subsidy is dependent on how much an energy company charges, which is wrong.

LOL, it's not my definition, it's the one you chose. The definition clearly says PRICE. The price of something is what you charge a consumer to purchase it. Do we need to redefine price now too?