Re: 133 finely tuned constants are required for life to exist

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:44:45 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:44:52 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:46:16 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:20:57 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:41 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:17:53 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):

<snip>

You snipped an American whining about 4 dollar/gallon gas,
which started this sub-thread.

Of course, Americans are always complaining
about getting their fuel almost for free.

You might want to consider the fact that the US and Europe
get their fuel for essentially the same price but the US
government adds far less tax. See:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12452503/

If you think you pay too much for fuel complain to your
government about it, don't whine that US citizens don't pay
as much.

Didn't say anything of the kind.

"getting their fuel for free" seems to qualify.

If I had written it.
Since you deliberately quoting falsely
there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Sorry, my error; that should have been "getting their fuel
*almost* for free", a small but real difference.

By economic doctrine prices should equal marginal costs,
not the lower historical costs.
Even at present prices oil is (economically speaking)
still underpriced.

Better now,
or do you prefer using my "deliberate" false quote as an
excuse for refusing to answer the questions I posed? To
remind you, here they are:

"Let me ask you a couple
of questions: If the price in Europe had been comparable to
that in the US (i.e., if the various governments hadn't been
taking advantage of the need for fuel to rake in excessive
amounts via taxes) would you have complained to your
government that you were paying too little?

Indeed.

So you claim you *would* have complained to your government
that you were paying too little? Pardon me if I find this
difficult to believe.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I write
or is it incapability?

Neither. I'm assuming your "indeed" was a confirmatory
response to my question. If not, then you *still* haven't
answered the question.

You snipped the response.

You are writing all the time about paying more,
I am talking about the way in which.
And yes, to reiterate: the American government
should let motorists pay more,
and get correspondingly less from other taxes.
(apart of course from the fact that Americans
are not paying enough taxes anyway,
and prefer to run up debts instead)

Or are you actively complaining to
your government *now* that you pay too little, given your
statement above that "Even at present prices oil is
(economically speaking) still underpriced."?

Stripping your demagogy:
governments will get the money they want anyway.
It is much better if they get it from taxes on petrol,
rather than on diffuse taxes like income- or sales tax
which have no beneficial side effects.

That is your opinion. I disagree.

Noted.

And if your
price doubles in the coming year would you think it had
increased excessively? If you answered "no" to the first
question or "yes" to the second you have exactly zero room
to point fingers at the "whining Americans"."

The doubling now in the US is entirely the fault
of previous American governments
which have failed in the past to tax fuel appropriately.
With taxes in place the relative increase is much smaller.
(as has happened in Europe)

I see; if we had been paying higher prices in the past the
high prices now would be OK.

I said the sudden increases are less disruptive.
(part of the tax is at a flat rate, not proportional)

Ummm...right...

The same has happened in Europe for other categories
(like fisherman) who traditionally have had their fuel untaxed.
They complain like hell about rising prices,
and demand subsidies. (which they are not getting)

And you still haven't answered the second question. Since
that makes two exchanges in which you refused to answer, I
can only assume you won't (for whatever reason, but I think
the reason is pretty obvious). So have a nice life, and keep
enjoying the European fuel prices which are lower than you
think they should be (from your statement: "Even at present
prices oil is (economically speaking) still underpriced.").

It is just that after all these exchanges
I no longer have an idea what your second question was.

Well, both are right above, but I'll copy/paste them again:

Question 1:

"Let me ask you a couple
of questions: If the price in Europe had been comparable to
that in the US (i.e., if the various governments hadn't been
taking advantage of the need for fuel to rake in excessive
amounts via taxes) would you have complained to your
government that you were paying too little?

Question 2:

And if your
price doubles in the coming year would you think it had
increased excessively? If you answered "no" to the first
question or "yes" to the second you have exactly zero room
to point fingers at the "whining Americans"."
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Relevant Pages