Compassionate socialists?
Give 'em credit for bold solutions:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/gas-a26.shtml
The Socialist Equality Party advances a policy that places social needs before profit interests. We call for an immediate capping of gas prices for individual consumers and small to medium-sized businesses at $1.50 per gallon.
Individual consumers and small businesses are GOOD, large businesses are BAD. Profits for oil companies are VERY BAD.
Okay, so we want a two tier pricing mode. Let me pretend I am a gas station owner. I can choose to sell my gas, that costs me say $1.40/gallon for $1.50/gallon OR I am apparently allowed to charge EVIL BIG business ANY price. How about $5/gallon? I bett they'll pay. Hmmmm.. who should I sell my gas to?
Oh, but the socialist probably will say "No, you are lawfully required to sell as much gasoline to individuals as they want to buy and if there happens to be any left over at the end of the week, perhaps you can see some to Wal-Mart.
Oh, I can't even begin to offer a logical debate against this senselessness. Capping prices CAUSES shortages, and shortages CAUSE higher prices. If prices can't be legally raised, black markets are created to those who WILL pay.
The only logical solution I've heard to subsidy is to reduce the payroll tax in exchange for a higher gasoline tax. This "revenue-neutral" policy would reduce the living expenses to poor people who drive below average distances. It is a LONG term policy that encourages citizens to reduce their dependence upon driving long distances for their livelihood. If applied gradually say 10 years ago, we'd now have $5/gallon gasoline and 10 year head start on restructuring our lives and our technology to reduce our energy demand.
Since we DIDN'T start then, it doesn't mean it's too late, and the same logic apply. Raising fuel prices is necessary for conservation and making alternative fuels cost effective without subsidy.
The only hole in my argument is if you believe that the oil companies are not only just "sitting on oil", but "hiding centuries of it" for more profit now, perhaps I'll change my position. But even then, the "conspiracy", if there is one, is only the delusion that there are no acceptable alternatives. I won't fault the oil companies for profits in themselves, but I would fault them if they "bought up alternative technology" merely to reduce the competition. We don't know if the "monopoly power" of oil is due to its uniqueness or if we've just not tried hard enough to find alternatives, but if there are alternatives, certainly oil companies would prefer to keep "moderate" prices to avoid competition. Until just a few years ago OPEC was saying $30/bbl was a good price, and now they're thinking $50/bbl is good - ONLY because the economy seems to handle the higher prices.
Can the socialists understand this? Higher prices are our FRIENDS, like "sin taxes". I don't want high oil profits, but if that's what it takes to promote change, then I'm all for it. Taxes would be more predictable, but I'm sure the "market" will settle on a new balance price for oil in the coming years, like building a camp fire - keep throwing wood on until oxygen deficiency starts making it smoke, and then stop.
I believe there can be no "fair" market prices for "extractive resources" that deplete. If I FIND a gold nugget, is its VALUE worth the time it took me to pick it up and put it in my pocket, or is its value based on what its useful for? Just because OPEC can extract oil at $1.50/bbl doesn't mean that's what its worth. What will it be worth in 100 years?
I don't think I'm always right or anything. Arguing against socialists is usually an easy debate, easy because I use the same arguments the republicans and libertarians use on me when I argue for the "common good".
I've nothing against the socialists, except imagine they ought to be building communes if they want to change the world. I AGREE with the socialists - the system is against the little people. I believe in solidarity and cooperation to common goals. I see the GOAL ought to be to reduce the dependence of the people on "the system". The good thing is that we still have a world where those on the bottom CAN get ahead by cooperation.
A "good socialist" would promote principles that reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Trying to fight and blame "profitteers" seems pointless and a waste of energy.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/gas-a26.shtml
The Socialist Equality Party advances a policy that places social needs before profit interests. We call for an immediate capping of gas prices for individual consumers and small to medium-sized businesses at $1.50 per gallon.
Individual consumers and small businesses are GOOD, large businesses are BAD. Profits for oil companies are VERY BAD.
Okay, so we want a two tier pricing mode. Let me pretend I am a gas station owner. I can choose to sell my gas, that costs me say $1.40/gallon for $1.50/gallon OR I am apparently allowed to charge EVIL BIG business ANY price. How about $5/gallon? I bett they'll pay. Hmmmm.. who should I sell my gas to?
Oh, but the socialist probably will say "No, you are lawfully required to sell as much gasoline to individuals as they want to buy and if there happens to be any left over at the end of the week, perhaps you can see some to Wal-Mart.
Oh, I can't even begin to offer a logical debate against this senselessness. Capping prices CAUSES shortages, and shortages CAUSE higher prices. If prices can't be legally raised, black markets are created to those who WILL pay.
The only logical solution I've heard to subsidy is to reduce the payroll tax in exchange for a higher gasoline tax. This "revenue-neutral" policy would reduce the living expenses to poor people who drive below average distances. It is a LONG term policy that encourages citizens to reduce their dependence upon driving long distances for their livelihood. If applied gradually say 10 years ago, we'd now have $5/gallon gasoline and 10 year head start on restructuring our lives and our technology to reduce our energy demand.
Since we DIDN'T start then, it doesn't mean it's too late, and the same logic apply. Raising fuel prices is necessary for conservation and making alternative fuels cost effective without subsidy.
The only hole in my argument is if you believe that the oil companies are not only just "sitting on oil", but "hiding centuries of it" for more profit now, perhaps I'll change my position. But even then, the "conspiracy", if there is one, is only the delusion that there are no acceptable alternatives. I won't fault the oil companies for profits in themselves, but I would fault them if they "bought up alternative technology" merely to reduce the competition. We don't know if the "monopoly power" of oil is due to its uniqueness or if we've just not tried hard enough to find alternatives, but if there are alternatives, certainly oil companies would prefer to keep "moderate" prices to avoid competition. Until just a few years ago OPEC was saying $30/bbl was a good price, and now they're thinking $50/bbl is good - ONLY because the economy seems to handle the higher prices.
Can the socialists understand this? Higher prices are our FRIENDS, like "sin taxes". I don't want high oil profits, but if that's what it takes to promote change, then I'm all for it. Taxes would be more predictable, but I'm sure the "market" will settle on a new balance price for oil in the coming years, like building a camp fire - keep throwing wood on until oxygen deficiency starts making it smoke, and then stop.
I believe there can be no "fair" market prices for "extractive resources" that deplete. If I FIND a gold nugget, is its VALUE worth the time it took me to pick it up and put it in my pocket, or is its value based on what its useful for? Just because OPEC can extract oil at $1.50/bbl doesn't mean that's what its worth. What will it be worth in 100 years?
I don't think I'm always right or anything. Arguing against socialists is usually an easy debate, easy because I use the same arguments the republicans and libertarians use on me when I argue for the "common good".
I've nothing against the socialists, except imagine they ought to be building communes if they want to change the world. I AGREE with the socialists - the system is against the little people. I believe in solidarity and cooperation to common goals. I see the GOAL ought to be to reduce the dependence of the people on "the system". The good thing is that we still have a world where those on the bottom CAN get ahead by cooperation.
A "good socialist" would promote principles that reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Trying to fight and blame "profitteers" seems pointless and a waste of energy.
posted by Ares Olympus at 7:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home