DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1312--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: JR Date: April 16, 2011, 5:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Jes Beard link=topic=11.msg1308#msg1308
date=1302989373]
. . . identifying all of the private individuals who have broken
the laws of their states by using the internet to ****, and
thereby violated federal law since those internet communications
crossed state lines..... There are probably a couple of FBI
agents preparing the warrant for your arrest right now.
[/quote]
Wow, that's not good. Well at least I know jes that you would
believe in my case so much that you'd probably work for me pro
bono to take on those FBI thugs.
And if things went to trial, I'm lucky enough to have friends
like DaveP, CurtOne, Scoop, etc. who would jump at the chance to
be character witnesses for me and would vouch for my high level
of integrity and character.
Doesn't sound like I have much to worry about.
#Post#: 1313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: JeffH Date: April 16, 2011, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Your Honor, I would like to point out that Mr. Riddick is a fan
of the Chicago Cubs. As such, at this time, we notify the court
of our intention to pursue a defense of 'mental disease or
defect'."
"Case dismissed!"
#Post#: 1505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 17, 2011, 2:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The article doesn't quite address what I advocated.
I do not recommend that we should change the current leases. I
am recommending that we change the perameters of new leases.
With current leases, once oil is found on a particular lease,
there is little incentive to drill "lots" of oil quickly. There
are requirements for necessary production, but there is little
incentives for large amounts of production. companies always
have to balance the desire for immediate profits with the need
for long term benefits. In a time of rising oil prices, there
is a strong incentive to restrict production in order to be able
to produce in the future at a higher price. Why produce more
than necessary today, merely reducing prices without increasing
profits.
What I recommended was that at the end of a period of time, the
lease ends, and the land, now with proven oil reserves, is put
up for bid. This gives the company a very strong immediate
incentive to drill quickly, and to produce massive amounts of
oil from that land before they either lose it or have to pay a
much increased lease cost for the land.
The author also ommitted one important point. It is true that
current leases are for a period of time, usually 5 years but as
long as ten year. But he doesn't mention that the lease has an
automatic renewal clause that prevents land that shows good
promise to go back on the open market.
It is certainly true that this administration has put in quite a
few obsticles to production, limiting or banning new drilling
and overregulating current drilling. Even the theoretically
pro-oil Bush administration banned all drilling off the coast of
Florida. Extremely important issues, but irrelivant to the
question we were discussing.
#Post#: 1507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 17, 2011, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
JR - I would be happy to appear in court to testify to your
character. But wouldn't you be better off with someone that
didn't know you all that well?
#Post#: 1570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Scoop Date: April 17, 2011, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JR link=topic=11.msg1312#msg1312 date=1302993330]
And if things went to trial, I'm lucky enough to have friends
like DaveP, CurtOne, Scoop, etc. who would jump at the chance to
be character witnesses for me and would vouch for my high level
of integrity and character.
[/quote]
Who's JR?
#Post#: 1586--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: April 17, 2011, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>What I recommended was that at the end of a period of time,
the lease ends, and the land, now with proven oil reserves, is
put up for bid. This gives the company a very strong immediate
incentive to drill quickly, and to produce massive amounts of
oil from that land before they either lose it or have to pay a
much increased lease cost for the land. </i>
Yes, and it was as misguided an idea then as now.
<i>companies always have to balance the desire for immediate
profits with the need for long term benefits. In a time of
rising oil prices, there is a strong incentive to restrict
production in order to be able to produce in the future at a
higher price. Why produce more than necessary today, merely
reducing prices without increasing profits.</i>
This is what illustrates that it is misguided.
In a properly functioning economy, where profits are not the
result of theft, or slave labor, or government regulation which
distorts decision making or grants a monopoly, or the failure of
an economic activity to internalize all of its costs, profit is
a measure of how valuable a particular activity or good or
service is to society. Forcing business (or even pressuring
business) to make decisions which reduce the total profit, even
when that is by reducing the price (at the moment) which
consumers pay for the activity or good or service, reduces the
total benefit to society.
Wen an oil company delays production because it anticipates
greater profit in the future, it is assuring that future demands
are going to be met. Creating pressures to coerce oil
companies, or ANY company providing any good or service, to
bring a product to market now, when society does not value it as
much as society will value it later, is misguided.
#Post#: 1597--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: CurtOne Date: April 17, 2011, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Scoop, JR is that guy over at World Crossing that was always
bragging on how he owed thousands in taxes because of his
gambling gains, but that he was never going to pay. Remember
now?
#Post#: 1620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 17, 2011, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Forcing business (or even pressuring business) to make
decisions which reduce the total profit, even when that is by
reducing the price (at the moment) which consumers pay for the
activity or good or service, reduces the total benefit to
society."
What I recommended does not force a company to do anything. But
no company has the right to decide what to do with land that
belongs to the Federal Government. The various companies can
decide, each for themselves, how to maximize their profits
within the structure of the lease. They have the choice to
enter into a contract with the Federal Government, or not to do
so. Just like any transaction, they have to proceed in
accordance with the strictures of the leasor. The strictures I
recommend may not seem reasonable to you, but that is because
you, not the recommendation, is unreasonable.
Saying that the government should not have rules that affect the
marketplace is meaningless, since the government, as the
landowner, IS a part of the marketplace and any action, or for
that matter any inaction, has an effect on the marketplace. The
only thing left to be decided is what effect that government
should have.
#Post#: 1625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: davep Date: April 17, 2011, 10:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
After all the fuss about Air Traffic Controllers falling asleep
on the job, another one did so yesterday. I don't know if he
should be fired, but anyone that stupid should certainly be
sterylized.
#Post#: 1638--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: April 18, 2011, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>What I recommended does not force a company to do anything.
</i>
<b>"Forcing business (or even pressuring business)....</b>
Dave, the part in parenthesis is still part of the sentence.
<i>But no company has the right to decide what to do with land
that belongs to the Federal Government. </i>
At no point have I suggested that the Federal Government lacks
the right to impose the lease restrictions or requirements which
we have been discussing. My comments have focused instead on
whether such restrictions or requirements are good or bad for
society, which is why I wrote that it "reduces the total benefit
to society."
<i>The various companies can decide, each for themselves, how to
maximize their profits within the structure of the lease. </i>
That is true even when the mineral rights are leased from a
private property owner. Government certainly has the power to
impose such use restrictions on leases from private property
owners, or to require all owners of property to use the land
instead of leaving it fallow, or to use the land for
agricultural purposes instead of any other purpose, and even
require that the crops are planted the first day of January each
year.
Now, every one of those things would be foolish and misguided
and reduce the total benefit to society. But government could
certainly do so. I would hope that if someone pointed out to
you that such restrictions were misguided and reduced the total
benefit to society you could get beyond the question of whether
government has the power or authority to impose such
restrictions.
<i>Saying that the government should not have rules that affect
the marketplace is meaningless, since the government, as the
landowner, IS a part of the marketplace and any action, or for
that matter any inaction, has an effect on the marketplace.
</i>
Dave, you spent time in the military, so I will use a military
example. Saying that a military action should have as little
effect as possible on civilian populations is meaningless, since
the military, drawing its members from the civilian population
and any military action, or for that matter inaction, therefore
has an effect on the civilian population. And, therefore,
Dresden and Hiroshima are fine and not even worth discussing.
Yes, The very existence of government effects the marketplace.
A good government, which allows unrestricted marketplace
choices, enforces contracts, prosecutes fraud, provides a stable
currency, borders secure from military invasion, unrestricted
international trade, a system of resolving disputes, rule of
law, and an orderly transfer of power from one regime to
another, effects the marketplace a great deal. Such a
government allows the market to flourish, and that is certainly
influencing the market.
That is quite difference from government actions which are
designed to influence or produce a particular result, such as
taxing the consumption of alcohol (though no other beverage or
food) in order to discourage consumption of alcohol. Folks are
still allowed to drink, though the goal is to get them to drink
less.
You are right that to the greatest extent reasonable, government
should reduce its role as a player in the marketplace, such as
by selling government owned land, but that is not even close to
the idea that government should decide how it wants to influence
the market and then should set about doing so.
Ownership of property, even real estate, is not static,
permanent or immutable. Not even for government. The United
States has owned more land in the past, and it has owned less
land in the past. You, seemingly, think that should not be a
concern, despite the fact that it is a tremendous intrusion in
the marketplace, and frequently results in government policies,
or property use restrictions which, just like the one we are
discussing, reduce the total benefit to society.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page