[Rhodes22-list] Fuel Question

[Brad Haslett]

John,

OK, here's a solution, let's just take all those public lands off the market
like President Clinton did with the 1.7 million acres of coal that are no
longer available in Utah.  Happy now?

As for Enron and accounting, some of my fellow undergrad accounting students
got caught in that scandal and got burned for no fault of their own because
they worked for Arther Anderson.. When something seems to good to be true,
it probably is.   Most of the Anderson people landed on their feet because
the world never can find enough "realistic" accountants.

As far as people "pissing down your back", I'm guessing that you think some
'gubment' 'a-whole' has more "skin in the game" and is more honest than
someone in the private sector. I'll go out on a limb here and bet you didn't
lose one dime on Enron.

I've got a whole library on Chairman Mao - you're welcome to a meal at my
house and listen to some folks who went through the Cultural Revolution
about the dangers of "I'm here from the government and I'm going to help
you".  What makes people think that 'gubment' bullshit smells less worse
than corporate bullshit.  There's no magic bullet out there that will
protect you from ignorance.

Think!

Brad



On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM, John Shulick <jsbudda at verizon.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> John,
>
> We keep hearing about those "subsidies" to Big Oil but no one seems to be
> able to find them in the tax code. As I sit here, I'm staring at a whole
> shelf of books on oil & gas accounting and I sure as hell can't find them,
> unless 'they' are referring to the immediate write-offs associated with
> bringing a well on line (don't ask how I know the tax rules for "dry
> holes").  The idea of subsidies for Big Oil is a myth.  In fact, the whole
> idea of Big Oil is a myth.  Exxon/Mobil, the largest of the American oil
> companies, is number 14 on the list worldwide, and the top five American
> oil
> companies control only 6% of the worlds reserves.  As for their "excess
> profits", their net return is less than 10% versus some software companies
> with returns of around 25%.  If some dumbass in Congress (let me restate
> that) if any single dumbass among the majority in Congress wants to go
> hunting for an "excess profits" target, it wouldn't be an oil company.  As
> to your numbers regarding donations, I don't have time to check them but
> they sound about right.  The Dems have voted about 80% of the time against
> drilling on US land and sea so who do you think the oil companies would
> support.  What we are suffering from right now with gas prices is Economics
> 101, which explains why the majority in Congress don't "get it".  They
> either didn't study economics, they don't understand economics, or deep
> down
> they really don't like capitalism.
>
> Brad
>
> Brad
>
>      What price did those companies pay for access to public lands (I
> believe the phrase is drilling leases) verses the value of the product they
> produce? If that doesn't qualify as a subsidy I'll buy that bridge in Iraq
> you're selling. When I bought my house, the minerals under it had been
> given
> away 150 or so years ago for pennies and should the owners of those rights
> decide to they can destroy may home to get to them and all I can do is
> accept what THEY decide is a fair market value. As for the rules of
> accounting all I have to say is "Enron". It may not be the case for you in
> your life experiences but for me "Trickle down economics" means some rich
> s.o.b. is urinating down my back and then telling me
> its raining.
>
> John Shulick
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Fuel-Question-tp17858444p17867020.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>