(10-10-2013 04:55 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:47 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:33 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  I know your not talking to me but personally i am against subsidies or any kind. But then again i'm a wacky libertarian that believe people should run their own lives and live with the decision they make and not have to be coddled by the government when i stub my toe.

Business should be able to survive based on what it does and not a government handout. It shouldn't need a subsidy.

The big companies do actually need them because much of what they do ultimately falls outside what the market will support.

Consider this, truly deep water rigs are more complex, more advanced, and operate in more hostile conditions than the space shuttle.

I understand it takes a lot of capital to build an oil rig. I work in a company that deals with them on a daily basis.

That's not how economics works. If the good is in demand (which it is safe to say that oil is pretty inelastic) The market will pay for the good.

Sure, but only to a point; you know that very well.

Yes everyone has a breaking point at which they will no longer buy a product. They will search for alternative ways of transportation- whether it be electric, coal ... IDK but the market will decide.

That is what makes the system so great if something is to expensive then it will be replaced by something else. It is called the Law of substitution.

Which brings us right back to our original point.

Without certain subsidies it isn't cost effective for large oil companies to invest in certain projects, like the cutting edge of deep-water rigs. The cost to consumers, should it be assumed, would trigger the law of substitution you just defined.

(10-10-2013 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:44 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you're functionally illiterate.

Uh no. He agrees that the govt comes out on top REGARDLESS of subsidies.

I think you are confused. No one ever, ever claimed oil companies do not get subsidies - which illuminates the unanswered question of why the hell you used them to make some kind of phantom point.

The profit margins remain and subsidies are factored into those margins.

Here is your quote...

"I am challenging the notion that big oil is getting huge breaks by our federal govt -- which liberals love to claim"

All I ever said is they get them, they help, and they need them.

If you weren't so angry all the time, took the time to read what people write, and stayed on point then you may just be able to carry on a conversation.

yeah.....and I am saying that they aren't really getting a break because they pay much more in federal tax....and their profit margin reflects that. If you would use some logic you would understand the bottom line.

LOL!

Riiiiiiiiight.

To end this and correct your poor information.

Feds levy a small tax on gasoline per gallon.
Big oil companies receive large subsidies.

Twist is whichever way you wish.

Pall, for the last time. Gasoline distribution is not big oil. Some oil companies produce their own gasoline and get taxed again but many just gather crude. Subsidies go to big oil who already pay more taxes than any corporation in the US. They also have lower profit margins even after they receive their subsidies.

The bottom line remains: Subsidies help the consumer, not big oil. The big winner is the federal govt. You basically stand for upping their reward ---not even close to what the GOP stands on. Have a good evening, Mr. I'm not really a Republican.

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:55 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:47 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The big companies do actually need them because much of what they do ultimately falls outside what the market will support.

Consider this, truly deep water rigs are more complex, more advanced, and operate in more hostile conditions than the space shuttle.

I understand it takes a lot of capital to build an oil rig. I work in a company that deals with them on a daily basis.

That's not how economics works. If the good is in demand (which it is safe to say that oil is pretty inelastic) The market will pay for the good.

Sure, but only to a point; you know that very well.

Yes everyone has a breaking point at which they will no longer buy a product. They will search for alternative ways of transportation- whether it be electric, coal ... IDK but the market will decide.

That is what makes the system so great if something is to expensive then it will be replaced by something else. It is called the Law of substitution.

Which brings us right back to our original point.

Without certain subsidies it isn't cost effective for large oil companies to invest in certain projects, like the cutting edge of deep-water rigs. The cost to consumers, should it be assumed, would trigger the law of substitution you just defined.

I don't think you understand my point.

I don't care that Gas and oil might die. if that happens another industry will rise up and take its place. All government does is get in the way of innovation and growth.

If gas were to all of a sudden have a price increase that turned off all customer Electric cars would all of a sudden be more economical than gas.

(10-10-2013 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:44 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you're functionally illiterate.

Uh no. He agrees that the govt comes out on top REGARDLESS of subsidies.

I think you are confused. No one ever, ever claimed oil companies do not get subsidies - which illuminates the unanswered question of why the hell you used them to make some kind of phantom point.

The profit margins remain and subsidies are factored into those margins.

Here is your quote...

"I am challenging the notion that big oil is getting huge breaks by our federal govt -- which liberals love to claim"

All I ever said is they get them, they help, and they need them.

If you weren't so angry all the time, took the time to read what people write, and stayed on point then you may just be able to carry on a conversation.

yeah.....and I am saying that they aren't really getting a break because they pay much more in federal tax....and their profit margin reflects that. If you would use some logic you would understand the bottom line.

LOL!

Riiiiiiiiight.

To end this and correct your poor information.

Feds levy a small tax on gasoline per gallon.
Big oil companies receive large subsidies.

Twist is whichever way you wish.

Can you support this with some stats?

My understanding is that it's not really "Big Oil" that get the lions share of the subsidies, but primarily the smaller, wildcat type companies. That they do get a "subsidy" or benefit by being able to depreciate machinery at an accelerated rate, so this reduces their effective overall tax rate per annum.

The idea being this will encourage more aggressive and prolific exploration and discovery of more sources, helping to keep the flow to market steady, prices comparatively lower, and market prices more immune from sudden spikes up OR down.

That's my understanding, someone correct that if wrong.

(10-10-2013 05:06 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:55 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:47 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  I understand it takes a lot of capital to build an oil rig. I work in a company that deals with them on a daily basis.

That's not how economics works. If the good is in demand (which it is safe to say that oil is pretty inelastic) The market will pay for the good.

Sure, but only to a point; you know that very well.

Yes everyone has a breaking point at which they will no longer buy a product. They will search for alternative ways of transportation- whether it be electric, coal ... IDK but the market will decide.

That is what makes the system so great if something is to expensive then it will be replaced by something else. It is called the Law of substitution.

Which brings us right back to our original point.

Without certain subsidies it isn't cost effective for large oil companies to invest in certain projects, like the cutting edge of deep-water rigs. The cost to consumers, should it be assumed, would trigger the law of substitution you just defined.

I don't think you understand my point.

I don't care that Gas and oil might die. if that happens another industry will rise up and take its place. All government does is get in the way of innovation and growth.

If gas were to all of a sudden have a price increase that turned off all customer Electric cars would all of a sudden be more economical than gas.

I'm not contradicting your point man. I'm simply saying that in the context of big oil companies and the oil industry in general the subsidies make business possible.

Wether or not we switch to whatever else to power cars and all is a separate issue. Besides, oil in all it's forms and products make modern life modern in more ways than just transportation. Granted, that's in many ways a separate point.

(10-10-2013 05:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:44 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Uh no. He agrees that the govt comes out on top REGARDLESS of subsidies.

I think you are confused. No one ever, ever claimed oil companies do not get subsidies - which illuminates the unanswered question of why the hell you used them to make some kind of phantom point.

The profit margins remain and subsidies are factored into those margins.

Here is your quote...

"I am challenging the notion that big oil is getting huge breaks by our federal govt -- which liberals love to claim"

All I ever said is they get them, they help, and they need them.

If you weren't so angry all the time, took the time to read what people write, and stayed on point then you may just be able to carry on a conversation.

yeah.....and I am saying that they aren't really getting a break because they pay much more in federal tax....and their profit margin reflects that. If you would use some logic you would understand the bottom line.

LOL!

Riiiiiiiiight.

To end this and correct your poor information.

Feds levy a small tax on gasoline per gallon.
Big oil companies receive large subsidies.

Twist is whichever way you wish.

Can you support this with some stats?

My understanding is that it's not really "Big Oil" that get the lions share of the subsidies, but primarily the smaller, wildcat type companies. That they do get a "subsidy" or benefit by being able to depreciate machinery at an accelerated rate, so this reduces their effective overall tax rate per annum.

The idea being this will encourage more aggressive and prolific exploration and discovery of more sources, helping to keep the flow to market steady, prices comparatively lower, and market prices more immune from sudden spikes up OR down.

That's my understanding, someone correct that if wrong.

Another poster published some statistics on it.

The smaller companies do receive the subsidies you mentioned but in terms of dollars and cents they aren't as large as those given to the larger companies. That's mostly because the projects the larger companies take on are much more expensive.

Plus, smaller companies tend to follow bigger ones to proven areas. The costs are born by the man who finds and begins production. Finding and drilling an exploratory well is massively expensive and even with today's seismic technology it's an imperfect science.

I want to say Marathon Oil missed on a continual basis without a strike for almost 20 years. For a period, they gave up and focused on the downstream market.

(10-10-2013 05:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:52 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 04:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Here is your quote...

"I am challenging the notion that big oil is getting huge breaks by our federal govt -- which liberals love to claim"

All I ever said is they get them, they help, and they need them.

If you weren't so angry all the time, took the time to read what people write, and stayed on point then you may just be able to carry on a conversation.

yeah.....and I am saying that they aren't really getting a break because they pay much more in federal tax....and their profit margin reflects that. If you would use some logic you would understand the bottom line.

LOL!

Riiiiiiiiight.

To end this and correct your poor information.

Feds levy a small tax on gasoline per gallon.
Big oil companies receive large subsidies.

Twist is whichever way you wish.

Can you support this with some stats?

My understanding is that it's not really "Big Oil" that get the lions share of the subsidies, but primarily the smaller, wildcat type companies. That they do get a "subsidy" or benefit by being able to depreciate machinery at an accelerated rate, so this reduces their effective overall tax rate per annum.

The idea being this will encourage more aggressive and prolific exploration and discovery of more sources, helping to keep the flow to market steady, prices comparatively lower, and market prices more immune from sudden spikes up OR down.

That's my understanding, someone correct that if wrong.

Another poster published some statistics on it.

The smaller companies do receive the subsidies you mentioned but in terms of dollars and cents they aren't as large as those given to the larger companies. That's mostly because the projects the larger companies take on are much more expensive.

Plus, smaller companies tend to follow bigger ones to proven areas. The costs are born by the man who finds and begins production. Finding and drilling an exploratory well is massively expensive and even with today's seismic technology it's an imperfect science.

I want to say Marathon Oil missed on a continual basis without a strike for almost 20 years. For a period, they gave up and focused on the downstream market.

make a point, for God's sake.