Global Climate Change (Natural or Man Made)

You are all over the place Tom...first you want to tax the hell out of oil (the price of oil already being half tax) thus boosting the price higher than it should be to punish people who use it and force them to us less like a socialist (and people in socialist nations are very happy with this tactic I assure you)...then you say you want a 'REAL' free market system...these concepts just dont fit!! You seem completely confused as to what a free market system in...nazi germany isnt, british colonialism isnt...and artificial price hikes in oil isnt...

If you want to stop subsidies to oil...thats fine...oil MIGHT even become just a BIT more expensive but, as I said, most subsidies for oil are not going to lower gas prices at the pump, its for other things like exploration and new development...you would just be ensuring the US stays bound to OPEC.

The american system is about as 'REAL' of a free market system as any that exists...more so than most...socialism being more the rage. If you have a good idea...if you can get the capital and you have the drive you can do almost anything in the american system...Your carpet guy can do it if the idea is good, makes sense, and he wants it bad enough...there is nothing at all stopping him for doing that...

 

Like I said... the free market is not "free" or "real" or whatever you want to call it as long as costs are externalized. Externalized costs leads to aificially low prices, which (by the economic princliple of supply and demand) results in artificially high demand.

An example of externalized costs: A petroleum company drills a series of wells in Montana to produce natural gas. They figure the cost of the equipment and labor and transportation of the gas as their "cost". But their activites result in widespread pollution of groundwater and streams, negatively impacting the livelihoods of ranchers and farmers in the area. That is a real cost of gas extraction which is being externalized... foisted off on others to deal with.

Another example: A copper mining company locates a sulphide ore body mines in Northern Michigan, They mine the ore and use crushers and stamp-mills to recover the native copper. They figure cost as labor, land, and equipment. The tailings or "stamp sands" are dumped into a nearby lake where they make a lovely black-sand beach. But as it happens, that site (Torch Lake, where I once lived) has now become a superfund toxic waste site due to the high arsenic content of the tailings. The mining company and their Boston investors made millions. The federl government is left with a mammoth cleanup bill, and the local people are warned not to eat any fish caught there (not a problem, there are none). Again, costs are externalized.

In cases of this kind, decisions might have been made differently if companies acknowledged the true and total costs of their activities.

We have a similar situation with gasoline in the United States. The real costs of gasoline are not reflected in the price paid at the pump. That price does not acknowledge the massive portion of the military budget devoted to protecting tankers and oil-shipping lanes... part of the cost. That price does not reflect the cost of highways and roads, the cost of smog induced illnesses, nor the cost of motor vehicle accidents. All those are parts of the true cost of the gasoline based automobile lifestyle that we've adopted in the United States. We bought into it because by externalizing those costs, the fuel could be made to appear cheap, so we bought a lot of it. We didn't care how far we had to drive to work, or that we could no longer walk to a store for a carton of milk. We could just drive our car! And gas was so cheap (I remember 25 cents/gallon) that it didn't matter.

So how do you get companies to internalize costs? The tobacco industry did it ONLY because of a federal lawsuit, and they went kicking and screaming the whole way. The oil industry has a more powerful lobby, and will also resist any such pressure to reform. So taxes are about the only way to acknowledge the actual costs to the REST OF US that is the result of certain activities. Not that I think it's likely to happen, but in some quarters there seems to be a problem with the idea of paying for what you get. There aint no such thing as a free lunch. (TANSTAAFL)

 

That's always the bottom line for the collectivist mindset. All of the rest of the jargon and discussion are a smoke screen to maneuver the issue to this point. All condemned activities and organizations suddenly become acceptable when they generate sufficient tax dollars.

 

You keep using this word "collectivist" as if it were a bad label. Do you know what it means?

col·lec·tiv·ism (kə-lĕk'tə-vĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

collectivist col·lec'tiv·ist n.
collectivistic col·lec'tiv·is'tic adj.
collectivistically col·lec'tiv·is'ti·cal·ly adv.

Are you sure you're using the right term for what you are trying to convey? It seems that the meaning keeps vacillating from post to post. Are you defining collectivism as the antithesis of individualism? I guess I'm just unsure why you have been stuck on this label throughout this thread. Have you read a book on the subject lately that has influenced your thinking on this principle?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be combative here, I just pay attention to broad labeling terms as they are presented in these threads because it tells me something about where the users are coming from. Please don't take this as an insult.

 

Moen, the term is used deliberately and [I believe] accurately; but I admit it might not be best. If a better term comes along or if someone writes a book, I'll use their terminology; but I don't know of any. For now, this is the best way I know to convey the message. I wish there was something better and I'm open to suggestions. I'm sure your definition is correct, but I would change it to "... ownership or control ..." to more accurately describe what I mean. The other day, H. Clinton made a comment while denouncing oil company profits that I believe was, "If elected President, I'll take those profits..." This is the mindset I'm talking about. Many people applauded and cheered, but I see it as a danger to the existence of the Republic and our way of life. I'm hoping Congress slams the Office of the President [regardless of who is in the job] and also the Supreme Court, and restores more power to the legislative branch. At least then there is a chance for representative government to continue. America isn't supposed to have a "decider."

 

Thanks for the explanation Cloudy. If I am able to get a better sense of what you mean by collectivism, I will search around for something that may match your insights. Thanks again.

As far as Hillary goes, I think she is just using the unpopularity of the big oil companies to pander to those that resent this countries economic royality for reaping such huge profits while each of us is paying through the nose for fuel. It seemed for the last couple years everytime heating fuel came down in price, gasoline would suddenly rise. As soon as electricity costs came down natural gas prices would rise. So it's no wonder that people begin to resent large profits and Hillary is just tapping into that frustration for political purposes. Politicians do that kind of thing regardless of party affiliation and nobody should be surprised by it anymore. If we are going to have a woman in the White House, why can't it be Geena Davis? She is hot and presidential. :thumb: