Diesel prices

Page 2 of 4  
me wrote:


It's true in Washington state but since they don't have a mechanism for individuals to voluntarily pay it they don't bother anymore. One case where the cost of bureaucracy benefited the consumer.
JD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just mix a bit of diesel with your WVO and they can't tell the difference in smell test.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What does it mean to "fix the C289 to be 2X fuel efficient" ?
Please let me in on a secret since I am possibly now considering a C280. What year? What experiences in general?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And I guess rising world demand and the fact that oil went from $20 a barrel to $100 in a relatively short period of time has nothing to do with it? If you want to place blame for high prices, start with the governments that form OPEC, ie Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Indonesia, etc. And then I'd also blame the environmental extremists that won't allow drilling in many areas of the USA, like offshore, ANWR, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The high oil prices are at least in part due to the manipulation of the futures market and manipulation by the big international capitalist oil corporations in cooperation with their OPEC partners. When the Saudis split 50-50 with Exxon, which is what the deal is, do you think Exxon thinks about a kid freezing in an apartment in Chicago, or their billionaire buddies in Saudi Arabia when they make pricing decisions?
For example, about a month ago the media here in the U.S. was full of stories for about a day about the record high gasoline inventories which they were arguing would bring the cost of gasoline down by $0.50 U.S. per gallon over the next few months.
Then, only a day later, Exxon filed its lawsuit to freeze $12 billion in Venezuelan assets over a dispute over $712 million worth of Exxon property that Venezuelan law expropriated based on historic exploitation of the Venezuelan economy and people by Exxon. Chevron/ Phillips and other big oil companies had reached agreeable terms with Venezuelan oil, but Exxon chose to fight in court. Then the media was full of stories that Chavez threatened to cut of oil supplies to the U.S., which Chavez promptly denied. The denials didn't hit the news for about a week, however, and in the meantime, the futures market bid oil up over $100 per barrel based upon the "uncertainty of supply" because of the comments of Chavez that he actually had not made.
Then when the Chavez speech where he denied the comments finally broke through the iron curtain and got in our media, the media started a story that OPEC was probably going to cut its output at its upcoming meeting in May, which conveniently coincided with the futures market decisions, and, again a story that was a pure speculative fabrication, sending oil to its current record levels.
Now the money to pay for roads and schools and health care (which, by the way, is the most expensive in the world in the U.S.), has to come from somewhere. There is no free lunch, as the capitalists like to say, so when a citizen in Germany or England pays taxes at the pump, it replaces taxes or other expenditures that have to come from somewhere. In other words, we pay for our low gasoline prices in bumpy roads and collapsing bridges and lack of health care, etc.
When we spend money on things using borrowed money at the Federal level that money also has to come from somewhere. It comes from the same people who are not paying their fair share in taxes. That increases the National Debt, which means that more and more of the tax money taken out of the wages of working people goes straight into the bank accounts of the same rich people who have had their taxes cut. Those monies go into their bank accounts in the form of interest payments on the National Debt because, obviously, when the Federal Government has to borrow money because the rich are not paying their fair share, they have to get the money somewhere, and the only place is from people who have money, the rich, so then the rich get back interest payments on the money they should have been paying in taxes in the first place, raising the taxes on you and me and just about everybody else. (Most people are not rich and have no chance of becoming so.)
When we pay more at the pump it all goes to Exxon/Mobile and their executives and stockholders so they have more money to lend the Federal Government so we can pay them even more in interest on their money.
Wake up people. The common man is getting completely screwed under this system and will continue to get reamed out as long as the current mass ignorance of what is actually happening continues!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, the Saudis split their oil revenue 50-50 with Exxon? According to whom? Reference please.
do

No. Do you think Intel thinks about kids when they decide how much to charge for a CPU chip? Does Kellogs when they decide how to price cereal? Do you when you go to sell a car? Of course not. According to well understood economics, in free markets prices get set by the individual participants to maximize profits. Been going on for hundreds of years and first well documented by Adam Smith in the 1700's.

The gasoline inventories were at 14 month highs, not record highs. Here's one analysts take that I think is a lot closer to reality than all the claims of manipulation:
"In many ways the recent rise in gasoline prices reflects the fuel playing a bit of catch-up to oil, which has been above $85 for more than four months, said Ken Medlock a research fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. Based on the historic price relationship between crude oil and gasoline, Medlock said, retail gasoline should be priced closer to $3.63 per gallon if oil remains at $100."
That's about where prices are right now. Clearly not that far out of line. And oil is a worldwide commodity, with production relatively fixed and worldwide demand from countries like China and India growing.

Cool, a two bit communist dictator seizes Exxon assets and they should just roll over. Sounds like your views about "exploitation" fit right in with Chavez. With all the oil Venezuela is pumping, if there is exploitation, it's within their own country. So, Exxon stand up to a commie and you view that as part of some conspiracy to raise oil prices?
Chevron/

Yeah, why should anyone doubt Chavez, a guy who won;t allow free elections in his own country? He came to the US and made speeches declaring our president to be the devil. Even the King of Spain had enough of his claptrap at a summit in South America and told Chavez to shut up. Chavez's response was to demand an apology or he would nationalize Spain's assets in Venezuela. Hmmm, sound familiar?
The denials didn't hit the news

Welcome to how free markets work. Of course they react to news. They reacted when OPEC, which BTW Venezuela is a member of, stated they would not increase production. They reacted when it looked like Venezuela might get into military conflict with Columbia. They react when a refinery catches fire or a hurricane heads for the Gulf of Mexico.

The story of possibly reducing the target below that of Q4 was reported by multiple news organizations and was based on OPEC SOURCES. What do you expect reporters to do? BTW, if OPEC wanted to deny the story or increase the quotas, they are free to do so. What is this a worldwide conspiracy? Let's see, it's Exxon, Saudi Arabia, the media which can range from NY Times to Fox news, wall street, .... who else is in on this big conspiracy?

Spoken like a true liberal that see higher taxes as the solution to all of life's problems.

Here in NJ federal and state income taxes top out currently at 44%. Social security taxes take another 13%, split between the employer and employee. We have a 7% sales tax. I pay 10,000 a year in property taxes on a 3200 sq ft house. So, tell us, how much more money do you want to take to fix problems. Want to go back to 70% federal rate, like we had in the 70's and the economy that went with it?
That> increases the National Debt, which means that more and more of the tax

Taxes were cut at all levels. It's a blatant lie that they only went to the rich. The top 1% of incomes pay 39% of all the federal income tax. The top 5% pay 60%. Guess how much the bottom 50% paid? A whopping 3%.
BTW, in 1980, when the top fed rate was 70%, guess how much of all income tax the top 1% paid? Answer: 19% That's right. With today's rate that is close to half of what it was in 1980, the highest income folks pay twice what they did back then.
The class warfare argument that you're making goes like this. Guy A pays 30,000 in income tax. Guy B pays 3,000. So, we give everyone a 10% tax cut. Now, A pays 27,000 and B pays 2,700. Guys like you try to maintain it's unfair, because the cuts are only percentage wise equal, and both guys didn't get a $2700 cut.
Try that argument next time your in a store when they have a 10% off sale. But a $10 item and tell them you want the same discount that the guy who pays $100 for something gets. Tell them you should get your item for free.

The unfairness issue was crushed above.
they have to get the money somewhere, and the only place

As if the "rich" are the only ones investing in US govt securities. US debt is widely held by people across the board, around the world. Bond funds that little investors are in own them. Individuals own them through savings bonds. Institutions around the world own them as do foreign central banks.

You really do sound like Hugo Chavez. Maybe even worse. The biggest contributor to the cost of oil is crude. Sure Exxon is making money on the oil they produce themselves from wells they paid to drill. But that doesn't equate to the lions share of the money we are paying for gas going into Exxon's pocket.

Yep, keep railing against a system you don;t even understand. Try taking an economics course or two.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think your description of your own financial situation indicates that you may want to reconsider which side of the class war you belong on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not the one engaging in class warfare, so I have no side. I'm also not even sure what your comment above is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting someone living in a 3200 sq ft house in NJ meets your definition of rich? Or are you just so shocked that the people in the top 5% of incomes currently pay 60% of all US federal income tax that you fell off your chair?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Check out the history of ARAMCO. It's a 50/50 split

Yes they react with astounding efficiency at the chance to raise prices but seldom are so assiduous about passing on savings to consumers.

Now there's something to be proud of. Look at the numbers a different way; the top 10% control 72% of the wealth leaving 28% for the majority 90%. Now even if you're at the top of that bottom 50% you mentioned that pays only a piddling 3% of the revenue, your income for a family of four is $40,000. Not much left to pay taxes on, is there? And that's at the TOP of that bottom 50%. The way I see it the rich aren't paying proportionately to their wealth

Your argument only works in a flat tax situation

Do a little research. I think you'll find that that top 10% is far more heavily invested on a per capita basis. Never mind the idiocy of selling so much debt to the Chinese that they could sink our enonomy with a mass sell off.

How else do you explain the absolutely obscene level of profits they reported this year? With an administration so heavily vested in the oil industry don't you think it's a little strange that we can build a Ford Ranger turbodiesel pickup that gets 30mpg in the US that you can't buy on these shores? Who stands to gain the most by high fuel consumption? Both the oil companies and the government would lose billions in revenue if CAFE standards were in place.

How about a course in economic history. You might find that wars and revolutions are nearly never about ideology but about money. This from my PhD SIL who teaches economics at Georgetown.
JD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe you should check it out. Two minutes on Google would have kept you from making an ass of yourself. Below is the reference. Pay attention to the last line, which states that what was ARAMCO has been 100% owned by the Saudi government since 1980.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco Saudi Aramco's history dates back to May 29, 1933, when the Government of Saudi Arabia signed a concessionary agreement with Standard Oil of California (Socal) allowing them to explore Saudi Arabia for oil. Standard Oil of California passed this concession to a wholly-owned subsidiary called California-Arabian Standard Oil Co. (Casoc). In 1936 with the company having no success at locating oil, the Texas Oil Company purchased a 50% stake of the concession. The company name was changed in 1944 from California-Arabian Standard Oil Company to Arabian American Oil Company (or Aramco). In 1948 Standard Oil of California and the Texas Oil Company were joined as investors by Standard Oil of New Jersey who purchased 30% of the company, and Socony Vacuum who purchased 10% of the company, leaving Standard Oil of California and the Texas Oil Company with equal 30% shares.
In 1973 the Saudi Arabian government acquired a 25% share of Aramco, increased this to 60% by 1974 and finally acquired full control of Aramco by 1980. In November 1988 the company changed its name from Arabian American Oil Company to Saudi Arabian Oil Company (or Saudi Aramco).

Yep, welcome to the real world. Prices in most markets don't come down quite as fast as they can go up. But, over many decades, oil and derivative prices have responded nicely to supply and demand in both directions. The only thing is guys like you don't seem to pay attention when crude goes back down to $12 to $20 dollars a barrel like it did for most of the 80's and 90's. The essential differences then were OPEC, which controls a significant share of the worlds output, couldn't get it's act together and some members were always cheating. And worldwide demand was lower.

Yes it is something to be proud of, because it shows that contrary to misinformed populist beliefs, the top 5% of income earners are paying 60% of the income tax burden and the tax system is already progressive.
Let's take a look at that family of 4 making $40,000. Using the standard deduction, they would be paying $2700 in income tax. That works out to 6.8% of their income. On the other end of the scale, incomes above $330K are paying the top rate of 35%. That sure sounds like a progressive tax system to me. But you're not satisfied, you want it all.
Here's two thoughts to ponder. Do you think just maybe most of the people earning higher incomes are there because they made the right choices in life and worked hard? That they paid attention and stayed in school, spent years working on successful careers or started businesses that keep the economy expanding and create jobs?
And the second thought is this. Guys like you like to rail on about the family of 4 making $40K, as if it were the same family, forever fixed in time. In reality, in a free economy, people are not static. Many that are that family making $40K in 2008, will be making $75K five years later. Now, I expect the rejoinder to that will be that the economy is SO bad today, that unlike any other time in history, it's impossible to get ahead making the right choices and with hard work. Which of course is nonsense.

No, it works in any situation where you want to cut taxes. You can either do it by giving a straight percentage cut off the existing taxes that are paid. The guy that pays $30,000 gets a cut of $3,000. The guy that pays $3,000 gets a cut of $300. That gives everyone an equal cut based on the taxes they already pay. If you were cutting a sales tax what would you do? What guys like you want to do is use every opportunity to wage class warfare and try to make the tax system MORE progressive, by fooling around with how the cuts are distributed.
And that's because of very different views. The class warfare experts view all the tax money paid in as the govts and that people should be lucky to get any of it back. Guys like me view it as the people's money and if it's gonna be returned, it should be in the same proportion it was paid in.

Sure the top 10% is more heavily invested in US govt obligations. So what? They are also more heavily invested in stocks, real estate and other assets. What would make you happy, pass a law preventing higher income people from buying US govt bonds?

The profits are explained in basic economics. You seem to have a problem with percentages whether applied to taxes or economics. Take a look at any business. Suppose you have a plumber who is quoting a job for a new boiler. The boiler costs him $3000. He adds on his markup and quotes it to the customer at $4000. Labor is another $1000, for a total of $5000.
A year later, you call him up for the same boiler on another job. Only now the price of boilers has risen so his cost is now $4000. Is he going to only add a markup of $1000 to this boiler? Or is he going to mark it up by the same 33% that he marked up the other boiler, meaning the boiler cost is now $5330 and the total job $6330.? At the end of the year, his income has increased, just like Exxon's
How much per gallon of the $3.60 price of gasoline do you think Exxon's profit amounts to? It's a few nickels.

And what does this have to do with a lack of knowledge about basic economics and fondness for failed socialist ideas?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm not trying to get into the Exxon is evil/Exxon is just acting as a business in a free market acts argument.
I'm not to fond of OPEC right now though. While it may be true that the current cost of fgasoline closely matches the current cost of crude, it is not the case that the current cost of crude matches the current demand and supply secenario. Even with OPEC refusing to raise production, the futures industry can only justify a cost closer to 70 dollar per barrel. Not over a hundred.
On another topic, I looked into making my own biodiesel, or converting my car to WVO, and in the state of Maryland I could find no system set up to collect taxes on either fuel. I would not be surprised if I did it and was fined, but the irony of it woudl be that I tried to find out how to pay the tax, and I could not find anyone willing to take my money if I were to make my own biodiesel. In the end I opted not to make it since it involves some nasty chemicals, but I think the state of Maryland is missing out on potential taxes, and I wouldn't be surprised if other states are also. Not that I am aching to pay taxes, but road use taxes do go to maintaining the roads I drive on, and I appreciate it when they put salt on icy roads, or fix potholes.
Have a good day, Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Here's the twist on that argument. The futures industry doesn't justify the price. The price of futures isn't set in some secret meeting in NYC. It's set by open auction with the entire world free to participate during regular trading hours every day. The particpants include oil producers, oil consumers, and speculators. If any oil producer thinks that $105 a barrel for April crude is high and a great opportunity, they can sell as many April futures contracts as they want. In other words, if there were producers that think the prices above say $90 were too high and unsustainable, the prices wouldn't be that high because there would be heavy selling from oil producers above $100.

Interesting question. I would think most states are just ignoring this for now, as it's a very small % of the total fuel usage. Plus, govts are actually subsidizing alternative fuels at various levels, so ignoring the tax, at least for the time being, would seem to make sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trader,
I am very familiar with that argument, and that is the reason that this seems so strange. Or perhaps more upsettingly, it seems like it might be a paradigm shift to a new paradigm that involves the oil industry simpy charging more per barrel than they used to with the same supply/demand ratio and the same value of the dollar. It's kind of a scary situation. The green awareness in America might drive a shift like this. The last two quarters have seen a decrease in American gas consumption. That hasn't happened in years. So there could feasibly be something to drive that shift. It woudl mean that the projections by the futures people will be low until they adjust.
Assuming there is not a total paradigm shift (I don't think that there is.) means that oil should be coming down soon. Analysts have been saying for weeks that oil should be coming down, or that it is unjustifiably high, but it is going up. Even despite the political squabbles amongst oil producing countries, by historical comparison, the amount of oil being pumped out of the ground compared to consumption currently places the value much lower than expected even factoring in the squabbles.
The main reason that OPEC sites for not increasing production (or at least the reason that the analysts that I have listened to have cited.) is that demand should be dropping in the coming weeks with the end of the heating season in much of the world since there are more fuel hungry houses to heat in the northern hemisphere than the south. They say there is not reason to ramp up production for a few weeks. That doesn't sound like conspiracy theory to me, or an abuse of their monopoly, it sounds like smart planning.
However, back to the argument that you cite, supply and demand is an illusion in this industry. If OPEC wanted to they could easily set an earnings goal and reach it. They could say,"We want to make XX billion dollars this month." and they could do it. They could raise the price to whatever they need to accomplish their goal, and because everyone in the world is dependent on them, they would get the money. People have to drive to work. People have to heat their homes. Companies need to run factories. Ocean liners need to carry goods. Planes need to fly.
I'm sure that in your economics courses, you learned all about other factors that drive markets other than supply and demand. There is simply the investor's greed or speculator optimism. I forget the names of the players, but there is a well documented case of two investors that were fiercely competitive and used the same broker. The broker sold each of them a few shares of a fake stock. This stock had no value. It had no company tied to it to produce value. These two fellows bought and sold those shares back and forth to try to attain the most shares they could. The whole time they knew it was a hoax. Psychology has a role in the industry. There are a lot of big egos in the market. Actually I think I may have learned about that case study in psychology rather than economics.
But my point is that it is not as simple as supply and demand when you look at the market on a small time scale, but on a larger one it pretty much is. If OPEC were to raise prices ridiculously, in time people would find ways to do with less petroleum products until OPEC couldn't sustain a lofty profit goal.
So I predict that prices will fall in the next few months. Maybe not soon since everyone is excited about the new record highs, and those are driving it higher. But a correction is underway. I would be very surprised if a barrel is still over 90 dollars by the end of June. Even with summer travel coming.
Just my two cents worth. (That would drive my car to the end of the block.)
Have a good weekend, Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree completely with what you've stated above. I think supply and demand does work in the long run. But I would say what accounts for the current price action is that this time OPEC finally has it's act together. In the past, particularly when we had oil at $12 a barrel, there was widespread cheating by OPEC producers. They routinely exceeded their output quotas. With OPEC, this market isn't like a free market for common items in the USA, where monopolistic behavior is illegal. OPEC is acting as an oligopoly and being the biggest producer, they have a huge factor in setting the price.
If speculators are truly the ones propping up the price, then when it finally turns, the fall should be swift and furious. I tend to doubt that though. You'd have to be a real bone head to think oil at $110 has a lot more upside. Especially given that there are signs demand is slowing and the US economy is slowly dramatically and perhaps already in a recession. And if you're looking for a hedge against inflation, there are certainly other physical commodities that would seem to offer a hell of a lot less downside risk at this point.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
weelliott wrote:

Creating biodiesel in your backyard emits gasses that are collected in a facility that is dedicated to creating biodiesel. In your back yard, with your water heater modified sufficiently to cook the biodiesel, you will likely just be polluting the environment even worse than if you just drove your car on diesel.
WVO, on the other hand, you just filter and pour into the car. In MD winters, you'll probably want to have a block heater and/or mix varying amounts of diesel fuel into it, but a conversion to heat veggie oil with the coolant is not expensive nor difficult to install.
In Southern California I can run WVO year-round, although on mornings where it's freezing or below I've got to do a couple of rounds with the glow plugs. My '79 300TD gets 21-22mpg on diesel, and 17-19 on WVO, plus WVO has significantly less power (I'm told it's around 20% less energy, and on the non-turbo engine let's just say that I want to hit hills going at a good clip). The tradeoff is that I get well over 100 miles on a gallon of petroleum, when it's averaged out. ;)
And yeah, at $4.15 a gallon, youch. (I understand that folks living in the US commute more than people in Europe. My workplace is 10 miles (16km) from home but I live closer to the office than half of my coworkers. ...and public transport here sucks; it'd take me about three hours (and probably 20 miles each way) on busses to get to my office.
-tom!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Trader4, Exxon no longer owns 50% of Saudi oil, they just do the work on a contract basis and receive 50% of the revenue, which is not as beneficial to them as ownership would be on Wall Street, but it still makes it clear to Exxon that the Saudis mean more to them than American kids in freezing apartments going to bed with a toothache.
And, no I did not mean to imply that you were among the ruling class. Clearly you are not. You are fighting their battles for them, however, if I read your post correctly.
I am not going to spend the time to get your figures quoted exactly, but at some point in your post you argued that at a lower tax rate the wealthy today pay a higher percentage of total government revenues than they did under the 70% tax rate. Does this then not confirm the gist of my argument, that our society is too top heavy? I think that math indicates that the top 1% or whatever it was has a much higher percentage of total wealth since a lower tax rate now produces relatively more government revenue that a higher tax rate used to.
Which is precisely the problem. This intensifies the transfer of wealth from the less wealthy to the ruling class, at least in part because of where the interest on the National Debt goes. It is deducted from the paycheck of a Wal-mart worker and deposited into the accounts of Exxon executives and other members of the ruling class. Not just chump change. We are talking about numbers approaching a trillion dollars, per year.
"Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy.
I still think you need to reevaluate which side of the battle would be in your best interest.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader4 wrote:

Go go national debt! Need more money, borrow it? From whom? From nobody, just print the damn money! Yay!
I love the fact that the Federal Reserve owns the currency, and the US people pay the Federal Reserve to rent the currency from them. Yay capitalism!
...I also find it strange that anyone not in the elite thinks the current distribution of wealth in this country is equitable. But I guess a lot of people look to enormous wealth and hope that one day they'll be there too. That's the only explanation I can think of...
-tom!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See, here's the problem. Cutting taxes did not produce the national debt. Govt revenue went through the roof in the 80's when taxes were cut. The only problem is govt spending rose even faster, that's what increased the national debt.

I guess we should go back to using rice for currency or maybe a pure barter system. Do I dedict a whiff of Ron Paul in the room?

No, the explanation is that the current capatilistic system combined with freedom, which goes hand in hand, have benefited mankind like no other. All the systems that have tried to re-distribute the wealth have failed miserably. They only succeed in making most of the people equal when they all wind up living in poverty. Look at the classic examples of systems that alleged to make everyone equal, ie the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Totally failed systems and countries and even then, you had what you would call the elite ruling class that lived splendidly well everyone else suffered.
I don't covet the wealth of others and think how to take it. I generate my own.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The whole point about the wealth transfer of the interest on the National Debt is that it is transferring wealth from the have nots to the haves. From the less well off to the wealthy. It's true that a Wal-Mart worker who is heavily invested in U.S. Treasuries is protected from the wealth transfer just as much as a Wall Street trader is if they are invested in Treasuries. But they are not coming from the same starting point. I have failed to mention an important point in my earlier posts. The income from Treasuries is tax free.
So when you talk about a government that is not involved in wealth transfer being your ideal, you should be working to eliminate structures, such as the National Debt and the Federal Reserve that transfer wealth from the poor to the well off.
What we have now is government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, and that is dangerous, wrong and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
It is what Mussolini termed "Fascism."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interest from US treasuries is fully taxable at the federal level. So this is another thing you're misinformed on, just like the assertion that Exxon splits oil revenue 50/50 with the Saudis. Treasuury interest is only exempt from state and local taxes. And I don't know what makes you think the rich folks have all their money parked in Tbonds. They have had a pathetic yield for many years.
This notion that treasuries is the vehicle for wealth transfer is bizarre. The rich didn't get rich by investing in treasuries. Most of them did it by starting companies that benefit the economy and provide jobs to millions of Americans. That is not a bad thing, it's a good thing.
As for the national debt, it's hardly a new thing. As a conservative, I'd like to see it reduced by reducing govt spending. But you can't just look at the national debt as some big boogey man. You have to compare it to reasonable measures, like GDP. If you don't do that, it's like looking at someone who has a $200K mortgage and proclaiming it shockingly high, without referencing what the underlying asset is worth, income, etc. When you compare the national debt as a percentage of GDP, it's now about where it was in the Eisenhower years. And measured against the economy, it's less than many other industrialized countries.

I'm sorry, but when you start railing against the Federal Reserve, you've joined the kook fringe elements. Every country has a central bank, don't they? Ours happens to be the FED and they've done a pretty damn good job of managing to keep the economy off the shoals for most of the last century. What exactly is your alternative to a central bank? barter?

And quite frankly, it's offensive to compare what we have in the USA today to Mussolini. But it does show how misinformed you are of not only economics, but history and where you're coming from.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.