Re: 133 finely tuned constants are required for life to exist
- From: Bob Casanova <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:12:46 -0700
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:31:24 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vend
<vend82@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
On 30 Nov, 21:46, nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:20:57 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):
Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:41 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder):
Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:17:53 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@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. 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.
Taxing fuel has beneficial effects: reduction of pollution and
reduction of dependence on a resource that is running out.
But governments don't tax it because of that. They do that because
it's a secure source of income for them: people need fuel and will buy
it even if it's severely overpriced.
The US government doesn't do that because the US are a oil producer
and the oil lobbies have lot of political power, while Europe has
virtually no oil and thus no oil lobbies to satisfy.
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 think you are oversimplifying the issue.
The American economy is perhaps more dependent on oil than the
European one, but you can't uniquely blame past governments for that.
Americans probably need more fuel for transportation due to their
population distribution: people are scattered roughly uniformely over
a very large land. Even the cities usually have a lower population
density than the European ones, with mostly single-family houses
instead of flats.
Moreover, the US produce and export (to Europe, among others) lots of
food and various goods, which take oil to be produced. Every time you
buy something made in USA (from soy to a Ford) you are effectively
buying low-priced oil.
All true, and thanks. But I doubt it will change anyone's
opinions about those US "whiners".
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: 133 finely tuned constants are required for life to exist
- Next by Date: Re: Manufacture vs. Artifact?
- Previous by thread: Re: 133 finely tuned constants are required for life to exist
- Next by thread: Re: minimum cell 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
