[sparkscoffee] Re: Favors and Loot for Sale
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Sblumen123@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:55:17 -0400
RR
Again, profitism before patriotism.
Comrade B
In a message dated 9/10/2014 2:07:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Kelly,
We've discussed the Keystone pipeline already. The part of the Keystone
pipeline that EXPORTS U.S. oil and gas from the Oklahoma hub to the Gulf
Coast opened last year without opposition. It's already a done deal. The part
of the Keystone pipeline that Obama opposes is the northern section that
IMPORTS oil and gas from Canada.
The reason Obama opposes it? Because Canadian oil and gas is brought into
the U.S. by railroad tank cars that are owned by Warren Buffet, one of
Obama's biggest campaign contributors. Rail tank car accidents have caused far
more environmental damage than pipelines ever have so it's not an
environmental issue.
The argument used against opening the Keystone pipeline from Canada that
it will cause higher gasoline prices in the U.S. is that the oil and gas
that is currently being imported will simply pass through Oklahoma and go to
the Gulf Coast but that doesn't make sense since Canadian oil and gas are
already being imported into the U.S..
An argument that makes more sense is that opening the northern section of
the pipeline would mean the Canadian oil and gas would compete against
domestic oil companies. It would lower the price that producers of U.S. oil
and
gas could charge because Canadian oil and gas is cheaper.
The fracking boom we keep hearing about is suspect. I think the only
reason it happening is due to the rising stock market as a result of Fed money
printing. Banks who can borrow money at 0% interest and gullible investors
rush in to supply the capital to drill the fracking wells and there is an
immediate return but, unlike conventional oil wells, fracked wells deplete
very rapidly. The fracking boom is really just a Ponzi Scheme that will turn
into a big bust for both investors and the U.S. economy when the money runs
out and the wells run dry and the banks and investors are left with
worthless shares in dry wells.
But hey, Warren Buffer will be crying all the way to the bank.
-RR
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly
Sent: Sep 10, 2014 11:09 AM
To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Favors and Loot for Sale
<ZZZHT
Ron,
Very true that money is power and money powers Washington D.C. and the
world. Just this morning my wife was reading an interesting article giving
statistics for current wealth distribution across society. I've heard these
numbers elsewhere, but every time I am reminded, it stuns me. It turns out
that the 400 richest persons on the planet (0.0001% of the population)
together hold two trillion dollars in wealth.
That's like all the adults in my little neighborhood here having the power
to rule the planet.
These few individuals and the corporations they control, put undue
influence on law making bodies in order to favor themselves, regardless of how
it
might effect us, and often at the expense of the general population.
The examples your author Walter Williams uses though are curious ones. Of
all the inequitable and odious rulings that big money has succeeded in
pushing through congress, Mr. Williams' two examples happen to be quite
innocuous. In fact, they are two examples that a large segment of Americans
would happily consider rare instances of corporate interest falling in line
with the economic interest of most consumers.
Compact Florescent Lights have long been popular with the public, even
when they were relatively expensive. Their much longer life alone warranted
their greater cost even at the outset. And now that they have radically
dropped in price, it's a no-brainer for most consumers who know that they not
only last much longer, but use a fraction of the amperage of an equivalent
incandescent bulb, all at a very affordable price.
If there is any corporate pressure to restrict natural gas exports, I
wholeheartedly support it! It's simple supply and demand Ron. You're a smart
guy, right? Remember 'supply and demand' from Economics 101? The greater
the supply of natural gas we accumulate in this country, the lower the
price to the consumer will be. In the U.S. there are a rapidly growing number
of natural gas burning electricity generating plants and coal burning
plants that are converting to natural gas. It's cleaner burning and less
costly than coal. These plant operators no doubt would also support export
restrictions, as it would hold down the price of running their plants. And
ultimately the consumer wins with lower electricity bills.
I drive a Honda Civic GX which burns natural gas exclusively. I pay $1.77
per gallon equivalent unit and the car gets approximately 32 miles per
gallon equivalent units. When I bought the car in 2008 I was paying $0.63 per
gallon equivalent unit and driving literally for pennies.
If Americans didn't have to drop a good chunk of their income into
petroleum and businesses including trucking companies didn't have to drop such
a
good chunk of their budgets into petroleum, the local economy would be
greatly stimulated.
But apparently the author Walter Williams prefers to support the
extractors of natural gas and other petroleum products over the consumer. The
extractors of course want to sell their products at the highest possible
price,
which often means shipping them overseas. That's great for the extractors
but not so good for the local consumer as gas prices rise.
It's the very same argument for and against the Keystone pipeline.
There's been a gargantuan discovery of fossil fuels in the northern U.S. and
Southern Canada. That's a boon for us folks who live in North America. That
means that there will be an oil/gas glut and downward price pressures.
That also means that local economies will be stimulated by lower fuel prices
and the extra buying power that consumers will have left after filling their
tanks.
But the extractors of these resources know this as well. They of course
want to maximize their profits and that can't be done if locally extracted
and produced petroleum products are sold and consumed locally, and if the
net effect of extracting these large deposits simply results in downward
pressure on the price. That's where the Keystone pipeline comes in. Shipping
petroleum offshore to the highest bidder maximizes the bottom line, while
preventing a glut locally and the associated softening of the price at the
consumer level.
Kelly A.
____________________________________
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 09:15:36 -0600
From: ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Favors and Loot for Sale
The Founding Fathers were not unaware that "times change." But in the
whirlwind of life they saw that reason and experience could and had
demonstrated that there were unchanging qualities to the human condition,
grounded in
the fundamental political idea of individual rights.
They understood the various mantles that tyranny could take on – including
the cloak of false benevolence in the form of compulsory redistribution of
wealth. They established a constitutional order that was meant to guard us
from the plunder of violent and greedy men, while leaving each of us that
wide latitude of personal and economic freedom in which we could find our
own meanings for life, and adapt to new circumstances consistent with our
conscience and concerns.
This is what made America great. This is what made a country in which
individuals could say without embarrassment or conceit that they were "proud
to
be Americans."
- See more at:
http://thedailybell.com/editorials/35634/Richard-Ebeling-Proud-to-be-an-American-What-Should-It-Mean/#sthash.120AKuSg.dpuf
By _Walter E. Williams_
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/walter-e-williams/?post_type=article)
September 9, 2014
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama raised a little over
$1 billion, while Mitt Romney raised a little under $1 billion.
Congressional candidates raised over $3.5 billion. In 2013, there were 12,341
registered lobbyists and $3.2 billion was spent on lobbying. During the years
the
Clintons have been in national politics, they’ve received at least $1.4
billion in contributions, according to Time magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, making them “The First Family of Fundraising.”
Here are my questions to you: Why do people and organizations cough up
billions of dollars to line political coffers? One might answer that these
groups and individuals are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who
have a deep and abiding interest in encouraging elected officials to live up
to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Another possible answer is that the people who spend these billions of dollars
on
politicians just love participating in the political process. If you
believe either of these explanations for coughing up billions for politicians,
you’re probably a candidate for psychiatric attention, a straitjacket and a
padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of
Washington politicians and lobbyists lies in the awesome government power
and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our
lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant
special privileges, extend favors, change laws and do other things that if
done by a private person would land him in jail.
The major component of congressional power is the use of the IRS to take
the earnings of one American to give to another.
The Dow Chemical Co. posted record lobbying expenditures last year,
spending over $12 million. Joined by Alcoa, who spent $3.5 million, Dow
supports
the campaigns of congressmen who support natural gas export restrictions.
Natural gas is a raw material for both companies. They fear natural gas
prices would rise if export restrictions were lifted. Dow and other big users
of natural gas make charitable contributions to environmentalists who seek
to limit natural gas exploration. Natural gas export restrictions empower
Russia’s Vladimir Putin by making Europeans more dependent on Russian
natural gas.
General Electric spends tens of millions of dollars lobbying. Part of
their agenda was to help get Congress to outlaw incandescent light bulbs so
that they could sell their more expensive compact fluorescent bulbs. It should
come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global
warmers who helped convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying
the
planet.
These are just two examples, among thousands, of the role of money in
politics. Most concerns about money in politics tend to focus on relatively
trivial matters such as the costs of running for office and interest-group
influence on Congress and the White House. The bedrock problem is the awesome
power of Congress. We Americans have asked, demanded and allowed
congressmen to ignore their oaths of office and ignore the constitutional
limitations
imposed on them. The greater the congressional power to give handouts and
grant favors and make special privileges the greater the value of being
able to influence congressional decision-making. There’s no better influence
than money.
-RR
Other related posts:
