When gas prices rise, should the oil industries profit margin rise as well?

[Matchoo]

I sold my SUV last week and now I am taking the bus to work. It was just getting too expensive to drive due to increasing gas prices. If I could afford a $80k hummer that get's 5mpg do you think I'm really going to care too much if I get charged with an extra tax on my gas?

I agree that we should look for better alternatives in transportation and fuel, and I am totally for giving tax breaks and incentives to people who have decided they want to go that extra mile in protecting the environment so they buy a hybrid vehicle. What I'm NOT for is charging other people an extra 'dis-incentive tax' just because they don't agree with someone elses tree-hugging principles.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Sigh. You too Matchoo?

The concept of a guzzler tax is to discourage waste, it's not about fairness or numerical equality. What happens when supplies get low? That's right, it costs EVERYONE more money. Why should I pay a higher price to accommodate someone elses careless attitude and consume more than they need?

We hit polluting companies because we want them to stop polluting!. We credit those that reduce it to give them reason to continue to do so.

Stop thinking with your calculator.

---

ROFL, THANK YOU.

I thought Democrats PRIDEDED themselfs on FAIRNESS, and EQUALITY. Like I said, to discourage waste, why don't we go by the same way of thinking, and impose a dis-insentive tax on families with more than 2 kids, on people who have bigger houses (hey in Russia, you were given a place to live, based on the ammount of people in your family, because it was WASTEFULL, to have more space than a person "needed") we will base it on anyone who has more than 200sq ft per person pays a space dis-insentive tax, because it takes more fuel to heat, more electricity to light. Should I go on? You still don't understand that a person USING MORE, PAYS MORE? Oh, hold on, that's fair and equal, nevermind.

INSUARANCE, when a car gets into an accident, doesn't that raise insurance costs for EVERYONE? Why don't we just say that after 2 accidents, you're NOT allowed to drive anymore, period. Why should you pay a higher premium from ten years ago, even when you haven't had any claims?

By the way, WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHEN SOMEONE CONSUMES MORE THAN THEY NEED? How do you know how much they need? Are you the ultimate being, all knowing? Go to Russia, you would have LOVED it there 25 years ago, it was GREAT. Everyone knew EXACTLY how much their neighbor "needed". You don't need a car, or so your neighbor would say, so you didn't have one. You don't need a two bedroom appartment, or so your neighbor decided, and you wouldn't have one. You don't need $100 more a month, or so your neighbor decided, and you didn't get that pay. You don't need that big steak for 3 people, it's wastefull, just because you can afford it, there has to be enough for the rest of us, so you can only have half of it, otherwise there's not enough to go around and we all end up paying more, so go and share half of that steak and each can have a bite. I can go on, and on and on, about this too Grizzle. You would've fitted right in in Russia when the communists overthrew the Czar. I can't believe people in US don't see what's starring them right in their faces. It's scary.

Posted by Grizzle: "We hit polluting companies because we want them to stop polluting!. We credit those that reduce it to give them reason to continue to do so. "

--Yeah, that's why we have ELECTRICITY "shortage", when there's DOZENS of plants standing idle, because they have exhausted their "credits" for pollution. Who picks up the bill? Of course, WE do. I wonder who gets the cut from those higher electricity prices, which politicians pocket it goes into. Follow the trail on those polution credits and you'll find out.

Posted by Grizzle: "Stop thinking with your calculator. "

Rofl, stop thinking with your brains, and start thinking with...? LOL. Don't you just hate it when rationality comes over and BITES you. When you can't produce a valid argument anymore, your defense is STOP THINKING WITH YOUR CALCULATOR. Why don't we just STOP THINKING period. LOL.

[Aperson]

A person's politicle affiliation has nothing to do with this arguement. Also your exageration do little to help an agruemnt (if at all).

Communism works well in theory but its implementation and the human element causes problems, to say the least (I recommend Animal Farm for a fictional example of how this happens).

I would like a link on power plants shutting down due to exceeding pollution rules. And acording to this link power plant's are not having their output affected by pollution rules (Granted agreements and negotiations had to be made).

On the last point; Strawman's. Grizzel was saying that using a calculator was not appropriate to this arguement and other ways of thinking and logic were required when viewing the problem (his opinion of course). He was not saying anything about "not thinking".

[Grizzle]

All you have convinced me Soback, is that you think anyone with even the slightest consideration for other people and for our environment is a communist, tree hugger or any other disparaging remark you can think of.

You seem to have a one track mind when it comes to discussions regarding whats best for society and the world. It seems that if a concept encroaches even the slightest bit on your idea of "personal freedom" you consider it evil.

You fail to comprehend the big picture, but I don't fault you for that. You've got your opinion and I have mine. I just generally require fewer words to make it. LOL..Ciao!

P.S. I am neither a democrat, republican, liberal or conservative. My ideas and attitudes tend to run the gammut from one end of the spectrum to the other. While it may be comfortable for you to "classify" me all I can say is you are dead wrong in doing so.

[Soback]

You two STILL haven't explained WHY, by the same type of thinking, you can't impose a dis-instenitive tax on people with bigger homes, or on people with more than 2 kids, or on people using more energy, or on people using more water, or on people who have poor insulation and use more heating and air conditioning. They all waste more resources, and put stress on the rest of the society, driving up prices by using more that you do, or what you consider average.

Why not? You haven't said a single word about it. Why are you only SINGLING out the cars. Go ahead, the stage is yours, explain. Explain why only the cars? Don't you know that heating in the winter requires burning oil, gas or coal? You know, those same finite, poluting resources. Don't you know that dirty water requires processing, or is thrown out as polluted.

So, go ahead, EXPLAIN WHY ONLY CARS, and why not apply the same argument uniformly. I mean it MAKES SENSE right, if you use more than other people, you pollute more than other people, you drive up the price. So WHY have a dis-insentive for cars and not the rest?

I will be waiting for you rational explanation Grizzle and Aperson.

PS, Grizzle, you may use however many words you would like on this one.

[Grizzle]

Um...the topic is about gasoline and oil profits, but I'll bite.

We've increased the tax on cigarettes and placed limits on smoking in public to discourage smoking right? That was unheard of years ago, but people have adjusted to the idea. Believe it or not I thought it was outrageous myself, but it is what it is and it's probably a good thing no? Oh, and as for your future post on the same topic, I've already heard it all and I agree the whole not smoking in cars thing is absurd. But that's because the rationale behind it about being a dangerous distraction is ridiculous.

Why don't we tax fatty foods to discourage obesity? Why not tax alcohol to discourage drunkeness and deaths from drunk drivers? Because society won't tolerate it at this moment. However, given the current situation with oil, gas prices and pollution as well as the Middle Eastern problems we are facing, people are more likely to accept such a tax than they would have been years ago. It's pretty simple really.

In any event, I think you've interpreted my initial remark as something I am going to pack up and go to DC to lobby for. Relax, I have no plans to do so and I would probably never actively support such an idea, but on the same token, I wouldn't mind if it happened either. I would consider it a small price to pay and I don't mind making personal sacrifices if I think it's for the benefit of everyone in the long run.

As Spock so famously posited, The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. Who can argue with good old fashioned Vulkan logic? Live long and prosper. V/

[Soback]

You see, that's where you are wrong. It's not about society accepting it. It's about society agreeing with something that is irrational and absurd, because they are angry with fuel prices, and need a scapegoat to blame and take their anger out on. So who is better, than a guy driving an SUV? Therefore you go, tell the rest of the society that that SOB is partly to blame for the problem, because he uses more fuel, creates more pollution, ect...and him spending $60 to fill up, is an FU to the rest of us, shoving in our faces that he can afford it. People get mad, because they simply don't use their rational side of the brain to follow through, come up with a way to punish that said individual, and IMPOSE it on him by majority rule. That's all, it's that simple.

Instead of bettering themselfs, and rising up in this world, to go and achieve the things they want and the greatness they seek. They bring down those more fortunate then they are to their level, instead of actually rising UP to the level of those whom they seek to punish.

You mentioned society won't tollerate right now imposing a tax on fatty foods, ect...It's because they simply don't care, you can't get them riled up about it. No sane individual that drives an SUV or a "gas guzzler" would support the idea of a dis-insentive tax just for THEM. However, when the society finds it's scapegoat, society punishes him regardles. You do know that that's what happened during WWII in Germany. Society was suffering from lack of jobs, unemployment, people were poor. Well, who was to blame? First it was the enterpenuers, the bussinesses, the rich people (or anyone who had more money than their neigbor did), and then it went completly beserk and it was the Jews. It ALSO happened in Russia, during the communist revolution, the scapegoat for the peoples suffering was the czar and the royal family, then the boyars, then the aristocrats (my grand grandfather had a huge farming land, with stocks of animals, fields, workers, who do you think took it all in the name of the people, under the same banner, that he didn't NEED it all, that it was wastefull to be owned by one individual, and therefore should be used for the benefit of all, nevermind that he PROVIDED JOBS for dozens, and fed the whole village), then it also ended up being the Jews and the muslims (Chechens, Afghans, ect...).

So you see Grizzle. A guy making $100,000 a year, living on a 2 acre property, witha 2 car garrage and 5 bedroom house. Would be wasting resources, just like the guy driving an SUV. Nevermind that he payed dearly for that property, house, heating, conditioning bills. That he created a job for his gardener to come by twice a week. That he pays more property taxes than you do. He still wastes resources that he DOES NOT NEED. He doesn't need that 2 acres with a big home. It's only one guy. A family having 4 kids, is the same thing. So is a person owning an older home with poor insulation. So is a person having a bigger tv, an older fridge, and washing/drying machine, so is a guy liking his house to be lit up at night.

What you are saying, is that society would not tolerate that kind of TYRANY right now, because unlike gasoline, there isn't big enough shortage of electricity, water, food, ect....however, if food were ever to become a commodity, you watch those fat people, you better believe they will be harrased, and not by people joking, but by people saying "hey fatty, you watch that pork chop, it can feed my family for a week". It's TYRANY by MAJORITY Grizzle. That's all.

[Soback]

When there was a shortage of living space in China. The peolpe poor, packed into tiny appartments, living in hovels, cities overpopulated, well the government found it's scapegoat and imposed it's tyranical rule, that nobody is to have more than 1 child (because there wasn't a private building industry for homes, the government is responsible for housing construction, water workds, waste managment, ect...it simply didn't have the resources, money, materials, and just like any beurocracy it is p.poor at managing it, even more so under communism, so it was simply impossible for people to dynamically expand a city *something that happens in US, with private building companies* as population flocked to them during their industrial revolution). It was considered a waste of resources, and it was argued that a family did NOT NEED more than 1 child to be happy. It was all done for the benefit of the society, or so was said. It didn't matter if you were poor and couldn't support more than 1 kid, or you were middle class and could support 3. You were only allowed 1, any more than that, and you were punished, taxed, and the extra child killed.

I can run more paralels. But you see where it's going...

That's why we should tell the government to get out of our daily lives, to cut it's hold on us. To go back to CONSITUTIONAL roots of this country. To get our REPUBLIC back. To get our CAPITALISM back. Have you noticed how once the country got polluted with all this beurocarcy, violating our individual rights, it's growth has subsided?

Do you see why a free market is a better dictator of fuel prices and what people drive as opposed to price controls, special taxes, inscentives, dis-insentives, ect....

[Aperson]

A carrot is generally better than a stick, so giving tax-breaks on buying fuel effienct cars is probably better. Granted its less favourable with politicians for reasons that should be obvious.

And urban-sprawl is going to come back and bite us, hard, in the future unless we start building up instead of out. But that's another thread.

Also, overweight people are already harressed, just for different reasons, often wholly superfical.

Unfortunatly with captilism, people in general arn't very good at foresight and so incentives, dis-incentives, whatever, are often necessary to prevent a problem that will arise in the future which would be worse without said regulations.

[Grizzle]

I don't like people telling me what to do either, but sometimes, just maybe, they are right!

quote:

---

Asperson:

Grizzel was saying that using a calculator was not appropriate to this arguement and other ways of thinking and logic were required when viewing the problem (his opinion of course).

---

He sees that you and I are coming from different points of view and he's right.

You come from a place of political/social ideology , personal freedoms and equality. That's but one way to examine the topic.

In order to survive, a society must adapt and change with it's environment. Someday there may be a need to address the other issues you brought up, but as I already stated, now is not the time.

If we begin to perceive that our behaviors result in dangerous or negative consequences then we owe it to ourselves, our ancestors and descendants to alter the paradigm so we can continue to thrive as a species. Afterall what's life all about anyway? I don't know, but I suspect it has little to do with John Q. Public being able to drive an SUV.

While creating laws, financial incentives/disincentives may seem heretical to one's sense of personal freedom, it is and has been a tool used throughout history to foster change that is needed.

Anyhow, I think I've said all I can or care to on the subject. Your point of view is valid, but we just don't agree.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

darkling

We know that the Oil Companies are paying off the guy who invented the Carberator that gets 100 Miles per gallon and shut down the company that was going to make a car that ran on water.

---

Stanley Steamer.

Seriously though, ya'll make me look up the most interesting things.

Try... 300 MPG Carburetors ; Is there such a thing? ... that links to ... The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth ... which states

quote:

---

The first is that the gasolines in use during the days of the mixing valve were far more volatile than the ones in use today. Some of you may remember when you could stand ten feet away from an open pan of gasoline, light a match, and watch the gasoline immediately catch fire.

Gasolines were changed in the 1930s with the advent of the catalytic cracker now used in petroleum refining. Carburetors like the Pogue, which depend on easily vaporized gasoline, simply will not work with todayÔÇÖs gasolines.

---

Neat stuff.

[Guest]

We are at the limits of production? Why is that?

Because there aren't enough well, and there aren't enough tankers, and there at not enough pipelines.

Solution?

DRILL MORE WELLS, build MORE tankers, create more pipelines, and build more refineries...

Problem solved....

[Grizzle]

Jag, That's all well and good, but if you would read the article I referenced you'd see that admidst all these record profits the Oil companies have been boosting stock dividends rather than enhancing their infrastructure. Not to mention regardless of how many wells we drill and refineries we build, they'll all become useless when the oil runs out.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Jag, That's all well and good, but if you would read the article I referenced you'd see that admidst all these record profits the Oil companies have been boosting stock dividends rather than enhancing their infrastructure. Not to mention regardless of how many wells we drill and refineries we build, they'll all become useless when the oil runs out.

---

A: there is PLENTY of oil, B: they can't enhance their infrastructure because the greenies are all over them, and C: there is NOTHING wrong with enhancing the value of their stock or dividends.

They own the oil, they own the infrastructure, and therefore they can do whatever they feel they can get away with.

It is PRIVATELY owned, and therefore, the law of supply and demand kick in.

Make it more profitable to create more refineries, drill more wells, and build more tankers and pipelines and it will happen, but until the greenies get off their little back to nature kick, then the oil companies will work with what they've got.

[Soback]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

I think that the parameters used in this thread are incorrect. In my opinion, these are the relevant facts:

1) A very minoritary segment of world's population (mainly USA, EU, Japan) uses +70% of energetic ressources.

2) Fossile energy consumption generates poluution.

3) Fossile energy is finite, and despites figures on untapped reserves, these fossiles reserves are increasingly difficult to exploit and to refine.

4) It doesen't matter how much oil you may extract if the refining capacity is static. Now there is so much difference between oil types that refineries only may process exactly the kind of oil they were meant to. That's why Venezuela's threats against the US are pure BS. The only refineries that are specifically tuned to process the particular venezuelan oil are located in the US...

5) Emergent economies requirements (China, India) have begun to strain a market that is already near production limit.

Now the big question is: for how long will western countries be able to sustain unefficient consumption when India and China populations slowly raise their own consumption ? Would'n it be better to prevent the problem by gradually promoting efficiency ?

---

1. Yeah, we use the most oil, because we are the most developed. What is your point? So if combined with EU, Japan we use 70% of energy resources, that's because it TAKES THAT MUCH to run a developed country. You want to allocate resources based on the number of countries on the globe? Split it up? ROFL, we'll all be third world countries then, EQUAL however. Your statement made no sence.

2. Yeah, so? It generates pollution. That's a fact. Till you envent cold fusion, don't complain about it. Otherwise turn off your computer and start saving us some resources.

3. There's plenty of resources left. When we run a danger of shutting down completly, we will have no choice but to invent something new, or go back to plowing the fields with mules. Either way, no reason to start mule plowing now.

4. True about Venezuella. True about refineries. So I suggest lifting the pollution restrictions bs, and start behaving like an industrious, civilized, advanced country.

5. It it's near production limit. Then lets go develop some more oil wells. California and Alaska would be a great start. I bet there's some fields near Europe too.

You CAN NOT force efficiency, just like you CAN NOT force someone to sit down and invent something. Inventions come from need, the greater the need, the greater the invention. When we really start running out of resources, then something new will either come out on the market, or like I said, we will all start plowing the lands.

PS. Grizzle, when it costs you 3 million to do an "environmental study" about an impact on some fly because you want to drill a new well. Another 50 million to get the permit to build, and another 100 million to pay off the politicans for pollution credits. 1 billion to prospect, construct and develop a well. AND After all that, some enviro-mental can walk onto your property, see that "endangered" fly dead in the mud puddle, start crying, and shut the whole operatino down. Guess what, those new wells, NOT gonna happen.

Kinda reminds me how I went fishing this weekend. Drive up to the lake and see a $2 dog fee placard at the entrance. So I ask, "Hey, that $2 dog fee, does that mean we don't have to pick up our dogs poop? I mean what kind of special maintenance do you guys need to do for dogs?" Here's why the fee was introduced. When other people get scared of dogs, they have to call the cops, file a complaing...ect... it was happening so often, that the cops started charging the reserve for the drive out there (aren't they already on the payroll however? I guess actually doing their work was interfeering with cruising around, patrolling, and chewing donuts), and therefore the $2 dog fee. Kinda ranting, but what I am trying to say is. When all you invest in that well, can be taken away at the moments notice by enviro-mentals filing a paper in court. It's just not worth the trouble. And you end up paying the price. Next time someone tell you bussineses are evil, profeteering, and polluting, think who makes those oreos you are chewing on, the toothpaste you use every morning (with that hot, clean water by the way), and the coffee you drink.

[ 09-20-2005, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Grizzle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Jag, That's all well and good, but if you would read the article I referenced you'd see that admidst all these record profits the Oil companies have been boosting stock dividends rather than enhancing their infrastructure. Not to mention regardless of how many wells we drill and refineries we build, they'll all become useless when the oil runs out.

---

A: there is PLENTY of oil, B: they can't enhance their infrastructure because the greenies are all over them, and C: there is NOTHING wrong with enhancing the value of their stock or dividends.

They own the oil, they own the infrastructure, and therefore they can do whatever they feel they can get away with.

It is PRIVATELY owned, and therefore, the law of supply and demand kick in.

Make it more profitable to create more refineries, drill more wells, and build more tankers and pipelines and it will happen, but until the greenies get off their little back to nature kick, then the oil companies will work with what they've got.

---

I hardly think the oil companies give a rats ass about what environmentalists think.

They haven't beefed up infrastructure because they are afraid to glut the market and cause prices, and hence profits, to fall.

I have nothing against their business practices, but they ALWAYS think about the bottom line.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

I have nothing against their business practices, but they ALWAYS think about the bottom line.

---

And what is wrong with this exactly?

What, you think that these corporations are nonprofit church groups or something?

When someone says the above, my radar goes off, BIG time. THis is a capitalist, Free enterprise country, if you don't like the situation, then move somewhere that has tried your economic ideas.

You will notice that they either A: depend upon us for their successful economies or B: are third world countries.

Human beings are greedy and self thinking by nature, the ONLY economic system that motivates the human being is one where he has the GAIN, for his work, otherwise, the economic system will fail from it's weight.

YES, they ALWAYS think of their bottom line, and I wouldn't have it ANY OTHER WAY...

[Guest $iLk]

I do have a problem with monopolistic business practices Jag... it's not good for anyone except the monopoly.

[Grizzle]

Jag, I don't disagree with you, I'm just stating the obvious. However, it confounds me how they think they can continue down this path with a finite resource.

Thinking about the bottom line also involves some foresight. It behooves them to develop new business models and technology to ensure they can remain in business when the oil supply inevitably runs out. They aren't doing that.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Jag, I don't disagree with you, I'm just stating the obvious. However, it confounds me how they think they can continue down this path with a finite resource.

Thinking about the bottom line also involves some foresight. It behooves them to develop new business models and technology to ensure they can remain in business when the oil supply inevitably runs out. They aren't doing that.

---

When the oil supply will run out in about 150 years, I don't think that we have a problem, YET, and companies cannot afford to think THAT LONG term.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

I do have a problem with monopolistic business practices Jag... it's not good for anyone except the monopoly.

---

Monopoly, WHERE is there an oil monopoly?

Last time I checked there were over 20 different LARGE oil companies, and 100's of smaller ones.

If you mean OPEC, well, that's a whole other ball of wax...

[John Prezioso]

Not to sound like some tree-hugging, bunny-kissing, VW van-driving environmentalist wacko or anything, but it WOULD be nice if we strarted pursuing alternative forms of energy. Removing the gross over-dependency on oil would largely de-claw the OPEC monopoly.

[Aperson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

You CAN NOT force efficiency, just like you CAN NOT force someone to sit down and invent something. Inventions come from need, the greater the need, the greater the invention. When we really start running out of resources, then something new will either come out on the market, or like I said, we will all start plowing the lands.

---

Please explain then; why does whenever a goverment make stricter effiency laws, cars that fit them come onto the market.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soback:

PS. Grizzle, when it costs you 3 million to do an "environmental study" about an impact on some fly because you want to drill a new well. Another 50 million to get the permit to build, and another 100 million to pay off the politicans for pollution credits. 1 billion to prospect, construct and develop a well. AND After all that, some enviro-mental can walk onto your property, see that "endangered" fly dead in the mud puddle, start crying, and shut the whole operatino down. Guess what, those new wells, NOT gonna happen.

---

Personnaly, I belive that the goverment should fund such endevors. This also has the bonus of reducing the chance of corruption and bias.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

You will notice that they either A: depend upon us for their successful economies

---

It works both ways. The United States is a net importer, therefore unless its peoples' standared of living greatly diminishes, it relies on other countries for raw materials, goods et cetera. If the rest of the world sunddenly stopped supplying the U.S., the U.S. would have very large problems that wouldn't be easily fixed. On the other hand, if the U.S. suddenly disappeared, it would hurt, sure, but the world would more easily recover than the previous example.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aperson:

It works both ways. The United States is a net importer, therefore unless its peoples' standared of living greatly diminishes, it relies on other countries for raw materials, goods et cetera. If the rest of the world sunddenly stopped supplying the U.S., the U.S. would have very large problems that wouldn't be easily fixed. On the other hand, if the U.S. suddenly disappeared, it would hurt, sure, but the world would more easily recover than the previous example.

---

Sorry, WRONG....

If the world stopped importing to the US, it would hurt us in the short term, but long term, we would recover... It is the way our economy works.

Let's put it another way.

The US goes COMPLETELY isolationist, and depends SOLEY on our own resources etc. WE WOULD SURVIVE, because those resources are close at hand.

The US COULD supply 100% of it's own energy needs for about 75 years, but, if the US went isolationist, it would quite LITERALLY, DESTROY the world economy...

I almost wish we'd do it, I would love to watch the rest of the world collapse into chaos, it would be worth the price of admission....

[Soback]

ROFL, Are you actually serious? Government financing exploration for oil, drilling, and developing? ROFL. It would be more efficient and would cut down on waste and corruption?

First of all, by government using your tax dollars to look for oil, develop and then sell that oil. Who would profit? Mmmmm. lets see, that would be the politicians, profiting for free, from the money they literally loot from you. And if they fail to find any oil, oh well, it's YOUR loss, not theirs, the famous line is "WHOS TO BLAME". Talk about waste, and corruption. You do know about the bridge in Alaska being build, leading to an island with 3 homes on it. Who do you think profits from that? The public, or you think it was a backscratcher deal? Waste - yes, corruption - yes. No private company would EVER do that. You do know about the freeways that end NOWHERE. Waste, corruption?

Private companies can't afford this kind of waste, and that kind of corruption, that's why it simply would not happen. Mistakes cost them money, money costs them equipment, investors, and ultimatly their jobs. While in the government, no matter how badly you mess up, you still keep your job, because all that was wasted, is just some tax payers money, and they can always tax you more. ROFL. Take a look at Russia from 1920's to pretty much 2000 for an example of a government run economy. Oh man, how efficient and uncorrupt. When government officials have their own ranches outside the cities, get to drive personal cars while the rest of population takes PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and lives in a packed 5 to 9 story tiny appartment buildings, in units of 4 people to every 2 bedrooms. The holly socialist system, coming to Canada near you. ROFL, just wait 20 more years, if that.

In private industry. There's economic incentives to do better, to be the best, to be first. Just like in sports, if it didn't matter which team won, why would you bother to push harder, to sweat, to win. Like I said, that's why the private industry would NOT build oil wells if it means wasting money, be it of corruption (pollution credits, enviro-mentals lawsuits, government pay offs), or waste (meaning would cost more money to develop that oil field than you could get out of it) which ties in, AGAIN, into that same wacko, coming on the oil company property, seeing a dead "endangered" fly, and shutting down the whole operation. Would the government do it, hell yea, they would do it, JUST TO LAUNDER YOUR TAX MONEY from a government run oil operation, to the pockets of their friends, who would be doing the suing, the building, and prospecting. Ever thought that a government official can hire his buddy to be the prospector for an oil field, paying him $100,000 a year, and sending him to look for oil in the Carribean, staying at the resort hotel, and when a year goes by and he doesn't find any oil, oh well, it's a failed operation write off, and he is off looking for oil in Hawaii. ROFL, would that ever happen in a private company?

As far as inventions go. Government institutes goals, not hard coded standards, because no matter how hard they scream and yell, they can't get 150 mi out of an SUV, you can't close your eyes, wish it, and have it come through. If they come out and forbid the manufacture of any car that gets less than 100mpg after 2006, guess what. The only cars you'll be seeing on the market, are small, tiny, hybrids. That's all.

[ 09-20-2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]