Page 5 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Do you think oil prices are justified?
Yes 39%  39%  [ 12 ]
No 61%  61%  [ 19 ]
Total votes : 31

The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

06 Jun 2008, 10:39 pm

Maybe not. I also can't see why we should be paying so much for oil when the big companies are making massive and obscene profits on it. Given that they are, it looks as if we need to search for viable alternative fuels pronto.


_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 10:42 pm

oscuria wrote:
What's wrong with government intervention when it is needed?

The argument that is being presented to you is that it is not needed. Feel free to respond to that one with an actual counterargument rather than hot air and empty rhetoric.
oscuria wrote:
This whole "Well, it's the markets" yeah, keep saying that when it becomes $200+ a barrel.

I will.

oscuria wrote:
Free market, absolutely great.

Yes, it is, isn't it? Consumption is exceeding what can be readily supplied, so prices increase to prevent a disastrous shortage like you typically see in socialist/communist regimes. Markets have a nice way of balancing consumption and production in order to allocate resources as efficiently as possible without any real need for exceptional central planning.

oscuria wrote:
This whole argument is just intellectual crap.

If you're referring to the debate we're having on this thread, yes, it is intellectual crap because one side refuses to actually put forward any argument other than that the other side is wrong and stupid. Guess which side that is? :wink:

oscuria wrote:
Why shouldn't the government intervene to ease the need of its public? What is wrong with that?

Because government involvement is likely to be counterproductive and make the problem worse. Also, government intervention infringes on personal liberty (I know it's not a concept you believe in, but you've yet to give much reason why I should reject it) and sets dangerous precedents for government to expand more and more until you end with a totalitarian state. The foot-in-the-door phenomenon is documented fact.
oscuria wrote:
I cannot see how a people be so turned on into a philosophy that isn't built on looking after others, instead on itself. It is crap.

This is too grammatically incoherent for me to make much sense of it. I take it you are criticizing libertarianism for being uncaring? Quite the contrary. Libertarians claim that less government involvement will leave everyone better off, and if you take an honest look at economic history, you will find this to be true.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 10:51 pm

Speckles wrote:
As a side note, I'm a bit annoyed by the false dichotomy of libertarianism or fascism being advanced in this thread. It isn't only one or the other, and presenting the issue like that is a strawman. There are an infinate number of positions between those two extremes.

Yes, but those of us debating are closer to the outside than to the middle, so it makes sense to debate the positions that are actually held by the parties to this discussion.
Speckles wrote:
I agree with oscuria that an attempt at a pure libertarian society would be just as flawed as attempts at pure communism. Ideologies don't make for good governments.

I disagree, perhaps slightly dependent on how you are defining a "pure libertarian society." I'm minarchist, AG is anarchist, but both "libertarian." Until society is close to how I would like to see it (very little government), AG and I are mostly on the same side. We were arguing mainly that more liberty, which we are advocating, would be better than less, which oscuria is promoting. A socialistic system needn't be pure communism to be flawed, it need only be socialistic. You do realize that the amazing abundance which makes socialism look feasible was produced only by centuries of capitalism? The prosperity, the advancement, all of it is a product of the free market, and socialism would bring all those centuries of progress to naught.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 10:51 pm

oscuria wrote:
What's wrong with government intervention when it is needed? People will find a way to destroy itself with or without government. This whole "Well, it's the markets" yeah, keep saying that when it becomes $200+ a barrel. Free market, absolutely great. This whole argument is just intellectual crap.

Because nothing is ever needed, so therefore, we must create a more rigorous intellectual framework. I would keep on saying it so long as it seemed to be true. Trust me, the market is not an intellectual crap argument, how much econ have you actually studied?
Quote:
Why shouldn't the government intervene to ease the need of its public? What is wrong with that? I cannot see how a people be so turned on into a philosophy that isn't built on looking after others, instead on itself. It is crap.

Because the public is a false construct. The philosophy is about personal choice and responsibility, I could ask a counter-question as to why people are so turned on about philosophies that enslave them. The philosophy has not been proven to be crap though, so far you have not caught us in inconsistency.

oscuria wrote:
It is better than believing you have the right to do anything. Rather, you actually have the right to convince yourself of it.

Oh, I do have the right to do anything, I just don't have the right to do anything without facing consequences for the action. The issue is one of what consequences there should be for certain actions.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 10:52 pm

Speckles wrote:
As a side note, I'm a bit annoyed by the false dichotomy of libertarianism or fascism being advanced in this thread. It isn't only one or the other, and presenting the issue like that is a strawman. There are an infinate number of positions between those two extremes.
I agree with oscuria that an attempt at a pure libertarian society would be just as flawed as attempts at pure communism. Ideologies don't make for good governments.

Oh, well, there are only middle positions if you allow for middle positions. Given that I am drawn to anarchism and consider any form of government to be somewhat fascist, the notion of a middle position then seems flawed to me.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 11:00 pm

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Maybe not. I also can't see why we should be paying so much for oil when the big companies are making massive and obscene profits on it.

We should be paying so much for oil because that is the market price of oil. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The fact that the big companies are earning high profits is only a temporary phenomenon, and really you seem to be advocating some very odd views here. The value of a good is not inherent in itself, nor is it related to production costs—the labor theory of value is crap and was discarded long ago. Oil's price is determined by how much demand there is compared to how much supply, not by the cost of procuring it.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


MR_BOGAN
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2008
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,479
Location: The great trailer park in the sky!

06 Jun 2008, 11:13 pm

Simple supply and demand.

Demand has out stripped supply, so the price goes up. :shrug:

As the oil runs out it is just going to get more expensive.


_________________
Dirty Dancing (1987) - Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8CmMJf8QA


Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

06 Jun 2008, 11:14 pm

Orwell wrote:
And I would consider most of your comments on this thread to be stupid things to say. You have been advocating for more government control and less personal freedom, such systems of government are currently dominant in the places I mentioned. I was merely suggesting that you exercise the FREEDOM that this country gives you to find someplace more to your liking. The Soviet Union may have been better, but they collapsed. Why? Because socialism and totalitarianism are sh***y ways of organizing society.


If you're going to invole the Soviet Union, I'm going to invoke Nicaragua. Both extremes lead to bad results.

Quote:
oscuria wrote:
The difference between corruption and complete government control, compared to the control that I would like to see is pretty wide. Unless you like to have all the pornography, all the ignorant and mind wasteful television shows and stupid, critical broadcasts which does nothing but foment hate for one's own neighbors. In fact, this is how it is. People like to say "I'm free, I have all the liberty" while their neighbor is involved in a drunk-driving accident, their child kills himself due to a loaded gun being found in his friends house, and sleeping on the same bed with an adulterous wife because people shouldn't say anything against their lifestyle.

Little thing called "personal responsibility." I know you liberals/commies/whatever you want to call yourself don't believe in it, but at a certain point people need to stop being children and look after themselves.


I'm confused by this counter. While I view laws about adultery and tv shows as stupid, I DO feel that there should be laws about keeping loaded guns where children can get at them (doesn't have to be a specific law, could just fall under a general child-negligence rule) and drunk driving. I suspect that you were just dismissing oscuria's stuff in general though, and not suggesting legalizing actual crimes. Could you clarify?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 11:19 pm

Speckles wrote:
If you're going to invole the Soviet Union, I'm going to invoke Nicaragua. Both extremes lead to bad results.

What happened in Nicaragua? Or are you referring to Chile under Pinochet?

Speckles wrote:
Quote:
Little thing called "personal responsibility." I know you liberals/commies/whatever you want to call yourself don't believe in it, but at a certain point people need to stop being children and look after themselves.


I'm confused by this counter. While I view laws about adultery and tv shows as stupid, I DO feel that there should be laws about keeping loaded guns where children can get at them (doesn't have to be a specific law, could just fall under a general child-negligence rule) and drunk driving. I suspect that you were just dismissing oscuria's stuff in general though, and not suggesting legalizing actual crimes. Could you clarify?

OK, if you do something that harms someone else (ie cause an automobile accident, not pay enough attention to keep your own child safe) you should be held liable for that. Hence "personal responsibility." I was dismissing oscuria's stuff in general because he was essentially invoking all perceived social ills as caused by libertarianism, and offering totalitarianism as our savior from this degenerate world. :roll: Legalizing actual "crimes" depends on how you define crime. I define crime as something which harms another person without their consent. Oscuria defines it pretty much as anything he dislikes or considers immoral.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

06 Jun 2008, 11:21 pm

MR_BOGAN wrote:
Simple supply and demand.

Demand has out stripped supply, so the price goes up. :shrug:

As the oil runs out it is just going to get more expensive.
Oil isn't going to run out. We are being ripped off. Even when the world price of oil goes down, we very rarely see much of a dip in price at the petrol bowsers. On a side note, why are so many big gas guzzling SUVs and "Toorak Tractors" selling if petrol price is such a big concern?

To those who say we should trust to "the market", "the market" is just as big a tyrant as a dictatorship. You need some government intervention to protect people from being ripped off by large corporations and bosses.


_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 11:27 pm

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Oil isn't going to run out. We are being ripped off. Even when the world price of oil goes down, we very rarely see much of a dip in price at the petrol bowsers. On a side note, why are so many big gas guzzling SUVs and "Toorak Tractors" selling if petrol price is such a big concern?

Right, and the US has refining problems, especially as each state has it's own mix of gasoline that works. As well, it is everyone else who complains about gas prices. Your point is valid, the squeeze obviously isn't that big and is thus somewhat hyped.
Quote:
To those who say we should trust to "the market", "the market" is just as big a tyrant as a dictatorship. You need some government intervention to protect people from being ripped off by large corporations and bosses.

The market is not the same as a dictatorship in functioning though, technically, we could call any constraint to be tyrannical, the issue is how necessary the overall constraints are.



The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

06 Jun 2008, 11:32 pm

Well, the way I see it, "the market" is given way more respect as an arbiter in society than it deserves. There are certain things that cannot be produced at much or any of a profit but are yet necessary to assure the smooth running of a society - most of these come under the heading of public services and public utilities.

If one went purely by "the market" and "self interest", we would see people living on the streets, dying of totally curable infections and other conditions because they can't afford to see a doctor, having no hope in life because they'll never get a job; and the list goes on. But wait, isn't that what life is like in the good old USA already?


_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 11:36 pm

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Well, the way I see it, "the market" is given way more respect as an arbiter in society than it deserves. There are certain things that cannot be produced at much or any of a profit but are yet necessary to assure the smooth running of a society - most of these come under the heading of public services and public utilities.

Well, the issue with those services you speak of is not because the desire is not strong enough, but rather because of issues of organizing such a system.
Quote:
If one went purely by "the market" and "self interest", we would see people living on the streets, dying of totally curable infections and other conditions because they can't afford to see a doctor, having no hope in life because they'll never get a job; and the list goes on. But wait, isn't that what life is like in the good old USA already?

Ok. The issue really ends up being an analytical framework for best understanding the idea.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 11:41 pm

The_Chosen_One wrote:
Oil isn't going to run out.

There is a finite quantity of oil.
The_Chosen_One wrote:
On a side note, why are so many big gas guzzling SUVs and "Toorak Tractors" selling if petrol price is such a big concern?

Because the people buying those vehicles are willing to pay the high price for fuel.

The_Chosen_One wrote:
To those who say we should trust to "the market", "the market" is just as big a tyrant as a dictatorship. You need some government intervention to protect people from being ripped off by large corporations and bosses.

No, not really. The Austrian claim is that monopolistic behavior can't really succeed unless it serves the best interests of the market. I don't see why we need government to protect us from corporations (which typically have more government power than we do anyways) when there's always another corporation willing to undercut them if they can till earn a profit.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

06 Jun 2008, 11:41 pm

Orwell wrote:
Speckles wrote:
As a side note, I'm a bit annoyed by the false dichotomy of libertarianism or fascism being advanced in this thread. It isn't only one or the other, and presenting the issue like that is a strawman. There are an infinate number of positions between those two extremes.

Yes, but those of us debating are closer to the outside than to the middle, so it makes sense to debate the positions that are actually held by the parties to this discussion.


Okay, that makes sense. Sorry for assuming.

Quote:
Speckles wrote:
I agree with oscuria that an attempt at a pure libertarian society would be just as flawed as attempts at pure communism. Ideologies don't make for good governments.

I disagree, perhaps slightly dependent on how you are defining a "pure libertarian society." I'm minarchist, AG is anarchist, but both "libertarian." Until society is close to how I would like to see it (very little government), AG and I are mostly on the same side. We were arguing mainly that more liberty, which we are advocating, would be better than less, which oscuria is promoting. A socialistic system needn't be pure communism to be flawed, it need only be socialistic. You do realize that the amazing abundance which makes socialism look feasible was produced only by centuries of capitalism? The prosperity, the advancement, all of it is a product of the free market, and socialism would bring all those centuries of progress to naught.


Oh, I think it would be idiotic to do away with capitalism, in most cases it really is the best system. Not perfect, but nothing is. I'll also agree with the centuries of capitalism being one of the major factors to the prosperity of today - I don't know if you'd remember, but I actually defended sweatshops in another thread on pretty much those grounds. I just feel that some aspects of society are better handled in a socialist manner. Like the military - IMO the scandals with Blackwater have proved that Rumsfield's idea of an outsourced military is kind of stupid. Or long-term disease research, because the incentives are messed up for private industry. Or for big projects like giant bridges or dams, which generally benefit society as a whole but are practically impossible to make money on. I personally would be willing to give up some of my theoretical liberty in order to gain the benefits of programs like those.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

06 Jun 2008, 11:42 pm

Driving home and listening to the radio today, the economists all agreed that the $11 spike in a barrel of oil in one day was completely unrelated to market fundamentals of supply and demand, which really didn't change today. They mentioned two factors - the drop of the dollar, and speculators.

Between the producer and the consumer lies the commodity futures market. The amount of money going into the futures market has shot through the ceiling in the past decade. People know that if they buy oil future contracts, and the price keeps going up, they can turn a nice profit when the contract matures. Just like buying a house on speculation - pay $X now, sell for $1.5X when the house is finished.

Of course, the price of oil may not keep going up forever, and we may see a lot of investors get burned. In the mean time, increased demand (by speculators) is driving up the price of oil, just as increased demand drove the price of houses up. Towards the end of the housing bubble, some financial advisors were suggesting that people might rent instead of buying - and that was good advice. So, assuming that the price of oil will eventually collapse back to its equillibrium price, I am advising you to postpone filling your tank. Renting gasoline is not an option, but the bus, the bicycle, and sleeping in your cubicle may be needed until the most fair and rational market system imaginable corrects itself. Judging by the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble, you shouldn't have to wait more than a few years, maybe less.



Last edited by monty on 06 Jun 2008, 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.