How are YOU telling BP to go **** itself?

[ricketyclik]

What does that have to do with royalty regimes?

In Australia (and I therefore assume other countries) they [the oil companies] argue that it is unfair if we either impose a non-renewable premium on their tax rate, a carbon tax, or subsidise the development of renewable infrastructure*. And, of course, they are big contributors to the major political parties.

As far as governments go, it's far easier to tax something being consumed than a renewable.

* Despite having been hugely subsidised when they were setting up.

[KrazyHorse]

You can take over assraping him, kuci. It's past 3 in the morning here, and he's not getting any less retarded.

[ricketyclik]

As always, the real "reasoning" comes out:

1) taxing oil company profits is designed to hurt oil companies, not raise government revenues
2) rickety wants to hurt oil companies because by some magic they're preventing some more efficient way of doing things from coming about. If only the government would step in and pick up all that free money from renewables.

Keep telling me what I'm saying Nancyboy.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think even you know what you're saying.

[notyoueither]

As always, the real "reasoning" comes out:

1) taxing oil company profits is designed to hurt oil companies, not raise government revenues
2) rickety wants to hurt oil companies because by some magic they're preventing some more efficient way of doing things from coming about. If only the government would step in and pick up all that free money from renewables.

Where does a carbon tax fit in there?

You are in favour of a carbon tax, are you not?

[KrazyHorse]

Carbon taxes are a separate issue, nye. Those should be there to correct an actual externality. We WANT less people to use oil when its use harms others. How much less depends on how much its use harms others (the level at which we would try to set the tax) vs the price elasticities of supply and demand. Its status as a non-renewable is already accounted for in the price people are willing to pay for it.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, if you think too many people are using oil today and there will not be enough tomorrow, there is a very simple way for you to both help future generations as well as make yourself some money: buy some oil and put it in a tank in the ground. Or even better, buy the right to drill oil somewhere and sit on it. Or even better, buy oil futures on one of the dozens of commodities exchanges.

EDIT: now I really do have to say goodnight.

[MrFun]

****ing retards is illegal, and I'm a law-abiding man.

[Kuciwalker]

In Australia (and I therefore assume other countries) they [the oil companies] argue that it is unfair if we either impose a non-renewable premium on their tax rate, a carbon tax, or subsidise the development of renewable infrastructure*. And, of course, they are big contributors to the major political parties.

As far as governments go, it's far easier to tax something being consumed than a renewable.

* Despite having been hugely subsidised when they were setting up.

Okay, so because the oil companies want it, it must be bad?

[Hauldren Collider]

Obviously; anything that makes you rich is bad. Trufax.

[Hauldren Collider]

If you take what rickety says to its logical conclusion, then it becomes a sort of godwin's law except with oil companies. Oil companies want to be able to buy office furnishings! Therefore we should prevent them from buying chairs, and chair taxes are good!

The fact that they contribute to political parties only serves to PROVE my point!

[ricketyclik]

Okay, so because the oil companies want it, it must be bad?

.

Well, you seem to miss the point that it's actually you that are the real culprit here - it's your demand of oil that are the reason for this disaster.

This is not true. In order to participate in the modern world one must travel daily to work, source energy to heat and cool one's house, and [mainly in terms of oil consumption] buy food and a whole lot of crap that one can throw out and update in a year or so.

Oil and coal were the first cabs off the rank at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and so have market dominance, as well as massive economies of scale after centuries of investment in their discovery, extraction and distribution.

Thus for your average pleb the only choice they have in order to participate is to consume oil and coal, while these actively discourage the uptake of alternatives in order to protect the investments they've made described above.

Thus it is oil and coal companies who drive dependence on oil and coal.

[Hauldren Collider]

Uhh that really didn't counter Kuci's point at all.

Also your post is just wrong but that's another issue entirely.

[ricketyclik]

Uhh that really didn't counter Kuci's point at all.

Also your post is just wrong but that's another issue entirely.

I'm saying that these are my points. KH wanted to argue about what's the best form of royalties, because those sort of areas are his strong point and he wanted to reframe the argument, but what I was saying is really in the quotes above.

I'd be happy to debate with you why my post above is wrong or right if you keep it civil, but if you want to keep emulating KH's style, you won't get much in the way of reasoned argument from me.

[Hauldren Collider]

You know, given your track record, I doubt I'll get much in the way of a reasoned economics argument from you at any time so I might as well enjoy myself and make fun of you for it.