Posted on 01/27/2006 5:23:10 PM PST by LouAvul
Any major country (aside from russia) not hoarding oil is crazy.
It's a chance we'd have to take; Even their economies would result in chaos with $262 barrels of oil.
i worry that dollar savings at market interest rates will lose real buying power so quickly over the next 10-20 years that what is left will be a mere fraction of what it is today. I have worried about this setting up trusts that might have a lifetime of 20+ years, and see no easy way around it.
It appears we're set up for inflation, if not a mini-depression.
Home prices can NOT keep rising, while if the interest rates go up to 10%, the RE market will plunge.
The good news will be money markets making a come back.
If we go to war with China the first thing we'll have to do is take back the Panama Canal
"If we go to war with China the first thing we'll have to do is take back the Panama Canal
"
Why? It is a big ditch with 3 locks. Whether panama or the US own it makes very little difference, espeicially since there would be US forces in the area regardless. Thera are always US forces in the area, one does not need non-public knowledge to see the number of GI's in Panama city to figure this out.
There is a crowd that claims that china own/runs/manages/ the canal, and a sub-set that claims there are thousands of chinese troops hidden in panama, but the first has been mis-led and the second is in gross error.
"You are talking about microeconomic theory; I’m taking about economic reality."
Sorry you cannot split the two. No more than you can split theory of fluid dynamics from flight.
Thanks. I'm not sure just what a troll is. I see the term and but have not dialed it in.
Certainly putting more taxes on energy is not going to help anything. Seems like something a democratic socialist would suggest.
"Big Oil is already the major player in solar cells"
I have not looked at fillings to see the real extent. I have just assumed the eco-friendly activities are just PR or MAYBE a hedge. I would if I was them can't hurt the share holders.
I don't think that all these news outlets are in cahoots to spread misinformation over a Chinese company with ties to the Chinese military running the ports of the Panama Canal.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/New_World_Order/china_company_grabs_power.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/4/5/80227
http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/reports/reports/0106/panamajack.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/553979.stm
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=99-F_18
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/m-5.html
Also note the downplay by Clinton over the deal.
"If you see lightning bolts, cats and kittens, often with Viking helmets, it is a troll who got zotted. "
If I may, what is the connection to cats? I seem 'em alk the time around here. there is one that pops up with Viking horns once in awhile.
With FNC gone completely off the deep end, I tend to look at FR first for news. Most is pretty good. Economics is not a strong point on this site. In fact finding competent economics news is very hard. Rueters is so bad it wants to make me puke.
H-W owns the leases on balboa and cristobal ports, and apparently won the leases corruptly (surprise). I had heard they tried to get Rodman docks but am not up to date on how that worked out. It certainly stands to reason H-W will have an accomodating relationship with the PRC/PLA.
These ports are not part of the panama canal. Cristobal port (the main one) is fairly far from gatun locks, while balboa port is quite close to Miraflores locks.
The major, honest confusion among posters here is that running these ports mean you somehow have anything to do with canal ownership, land, administration or operations. None of the above it true. The ACP is essentially identical to the panama canal commission it replaced, with some more local corruption/color starting to pop up.
At the time clinton made his remark, china had apparently bought the then-current government of panama, had wholesale people-smuggling in operation, but a lot of that seems to have quieted down under the follwing 2 governments. Whatever geopolitical influence china has in panama, his remark was inaccurate. I have wondered if he was only cursorily briefed on the topic and made the same erroneous assumption many here do.
i have read some of the allegations that law 5 given H-W various rights that look bad, and cannot verify much of this, particularly the part about the pilots, despite several years of asking, including commission employees. If Panama Ports/HW is running the pilots no one, including the pilots, know about it.
The best way to judge, of course, is come to Panama. See the secret china ports, and judge for yourself. That will take a few hours if you do Cristobal as well, then you can have fun the rest of your vacation while you wander in teh streets and run into american soldiers EVERYWHERE.
"What's needed is a tariff on imported oil, to permanently change the economics in favor of domestic production"
I agree. IMHO we need a $15-20 per barrel oil import fee.
Many pluses:
1. money raised can be used to support alternatives, like nuclear power.
2. Domestic shale oil can be guaranteed to be competititive and we will have a path to energy independence.
3. encourages domestic supply.
4. encourages via higher pricing energy conservation.
"Our price goes up but everybody else in the world gets it cheaper. Plus domestic prices go up also, just so the government gets more money? Explain why that is a good thing?
"
Right now OPEC is engineering the cost of oil via their own supply levels, and given strong demand can continue to do so.
By putting in a tariff we reduce the fraction of oil price going overseas and increase the fraction kept at home.
In other words, by increasing our tax, we can reduce the OPEC tax. I'd guesstimate that a US oil import tariff of $15-20 would be good enough to drive price of a barrel of oil down $5-10 just by itself.
The other good effects are mentioned in my previous
- it will help us move towards energy independence, since an oil import tariff will ensure projects like oil shale will not become uncompetitive should OPEC decide to drive oil back under $25.
Of all taxes, a tax on a consumption item that is 70% imported is least onerous to our economy. Balance it with tax cuts on payroll (SocSec and income tax rate cuts) and you have a win/win/win.
Having a negative cash flow for the past three months kind of ruled out the idea of options trading, not that the idea would have occurred to me anyway. Conveniently, the ability to heat with wood came just as my wife lost her job, but this is something I've been planning to do for a long time. Through a lot of hard work of my wife's part in starting a freelance business, and some long overdue changes in our spending habits, it looks like we've turned the corner.
The stove cost me $200, so depeciation is not worth the effort. So far this year I've secured about 4 cords at a total out of pocket cost of $250 and about 40 hours of work. Next year my cost should be about $50, and the time input should be about half. Between December and April my oil cost was typically $1200.
Right now the value of the learning experience is high.
"Is this what is know of as a troll?"
No!
I'm a hard-core supply-side Reagan anti-tax Conservative.
The ONLY tax I favor increasing is the oil import tariff.
Tariffs are a better form of taxation, hitting consumption of imported products, than income taxes and payrolls taxes (which hits production). The oil tariff is particularly suitable for several reasons cited in previous replies.
If we want to have full energy independence, here is how to do it:
1. build 400 nuclear power plants and use nuclear power to supply most of our electricity.
2. Have a $20+ oil import tariff.
3. Encourage domestic supply and production via #2 and via changing govt policies on offshore, ANWR, and govt land drilling for oil and gas.
4. Encourage conservation and energy efficiency - higher gas and oil taxes is the most direct way to discourage consumption. gas tax of 50 cents or more.
5. move from using oil for transport to using electricity by using plug-in- hybrid electric vehicles as a solution.
If we want energy independence, we will need to raise the consumer's cost of gas to encourage conservation, fuel switching, etc. Raise it high enough so that electricity is cheaper and peple will switch.
The political and economic benefits of energy independence will outweigh the costs of such taxes.
"In peacetime prior to 9-11 the US spent sixty billion dollars per year to ensure the free flow of oil from the Mideast, one dollar in five spent for defense went for that. This amounts to a subsidy of oil from the Mideast, even though we ourselves get most of our imports from elsewhere. Shutting off the Persian Gulf would cause oil that flows to the US to be bid up so we have no choice.
It ends up that in peacetime we subsidized oil imports by $15 per bbl, a tariff would collect the cost of this subsidy from the point were the cost is incurred. When you subsidize the production of illegitimate babies through the welfare state you end up with a bunch of illegitimate babies. Subsidize oil imports and we end up dependent on imported oil."
Interesting argument.
I dont buy at all the 'war of oil' garbage of the left,
but it is true that oil dependency is limiting our options in dealing with Iran.
That is a cost that is incalculable relative to the costs of tariffs.
Beyond that, the economic harm of sending $200 billion overseas each year needs to be considered. Oil dependency is making America a weaker nation politically and economically, and our military costs to preserve mideast oil flow is just a part of the price we are paying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.