Congressional inquiry of Oil industry profits

there has been some more recent debate about the kyoto treaty, which bush is right on about, even though he is a christian who believes in sorcery.

kyoto is another effort to ruin the economy through unnecessary restriction by the global collective. of course you guys are not helping the environment either, with your efforts to force gas to stay cheap, thereby stifling investment in cleaner alternatives.

anyways, my briilliantly intelligent anarcho-capitalist friends often say "martin, you are stupid, because democrats and republicans are both identically wretched and yet you defend bush, even after you admit he is a loony christian!"

and that is true to some extent. but there are a few things you cannot argue with, very important things:

1. bush has not raised taxes, in fact he lowered them. this makes him many times better than any democrat, regardless of spending increases.

2. bush does not buy kyoto (clinton recently said bush is 'flat wrong'). bush is terrific on this stance, and does not have to listen to environmentalists, because they dont vote for him anyway. kyoto is absolutely terrible, and not only would hurt the US economy, but would have a terrible effect on the enitre world. plus it is incredibly unfair, because it punishes the US while allowing china and india to go about their business.

it never ends, people trying to to tear down the rich and successful, whether they are people, companies or even countries. i'm sure the ayn rand fans here are with me on that one.

 

government will not solve all your problems red. it isnt blind and unrealistically idealistic to expect that freedom encourages innovation. you shouldnt favor the collective stepping in to manipulate people to your whims. you shouldnt want to control anyone except yourself. government manipulations like price ceilings, social security, things like this are problems, not solutions. stay off people's backs, dude. just because you can trick everyone into thinking we need protection from everything doesnt mean you should do it.

 

i advocate proper balance as well, between buyers and sellers. which will naturally be achieved if they are left to freely exchange money and goods/services.

what you advocate is actually the violation of people's rights of ownership. that is hardly "balance". it is not balance to use the power of the collective to bend people to your will.

dont you see that allowing the market to find solutions like alternative energies creates options, while restricting oil prices actually hurts competition? you are doing the opposite of creating balance.

the guy who needs investent inventing a more efficient hydrogen fuel cell is completely ****ed when you favor unfair government manipulation oil prices! thats stifles innovation, which is what we need most. thats not balance. that is you forcing your will on the market to get what you want.

do not be afraid of the free market. there will be people who will sell you what you want at acceptable prices, even if you do not force them to.

the more you restrict, the poorer everyone wil be.

 

when you favor restricting the "windfall" profits of the oil industry that is a diurect violation of their property rights to sell their products for the price they choose. it is like coming over to my house and taking my things from me, then giving me whatever you think they are worth, regardless of the fact that my things are not yours.

you clearly do fear the free market, or else you would favor allowing buyers and sellers to agree on prices without government interference. you act like it is somehow not justified to companies to make a certain level of profits on their produucts. you justify this by claiming you think it hurts the economy. that is explicitly admitting you fear the free market.

you like to make statements without accepting the logical ramifications of your positions. you claim to favor the free market while simulataneously lobbying against it, but you dont like it when i explain what your policies really mean.

 

like i said, you do not like when the ramifications of your opinions are considered. you like to take the happy funtime "balanced" viewpoint, but you do not like to consider what your views actually mean. you decided that you are going to avoid questioning the status quo and label any ideals with substance "extreme".

 

martin, what you fail to realize is that for the overwhelming majority of consumers oil is an inelastic comodity. Manufacutures and retailers have to be able to affordably ship products. People nned to afford to drive to work. Of course the ideal answer is to develop new sources of fuel, but that is too long term for most to consider.