Tesla Model S, Third Fire

[G7PSK]

I don't see that there have really been any wars solely over oil,at least not since Hitler invaded Russia. I know every one likes to think there has but if you stop to think the wars have cost far more than paying slightly more for the oil so in pure economics it's not worthwhile to go to war over oil.

[SLJ]

I don't see that there have really been any wars solely over oil,at least not since Hitler invaded Russia. I know every one likes to think there has but if you stop to think the wars have cost far more than paying slightly more for the oil so in pure economics it's not worthwhile to go to war over oil.

Anyone that thinks that the US wars in the middle east are about freeing the people from tyranny and not about controlling the oil flow is asleep at the wheel.  If that were the case the US would have been all over Africa but unfortunately the starving people there don't have oil.

[nctnico]

I'm wondering if there is oil in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. There definitely is oil in Syria.
IMHO the US government is just making up enemies and starting wars to take people's minds of more important issues in their own country. In the middle east they do the same so there is your conflict. Mr Hoover did an excellent job pumping FUD into the minds of several generations in the US.

[zapta]

Just read this article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/canada-climate-australia-carbon-tax  Looks like Australia and Canada are moving back toward do-it-on-your-on-dime approach. Good for them. Subsidies distorts the economy.

As for the oil-requires-wars argument, that's a myth propagated by the environmentalist lobby. China gets oil and is not involved in wars.

EV technology is cool, exciting and promising but please do it on your own dime, not mine.

[G7PSK]

I don't see that there have really been any wars solely over oil,at least not since Hitler invaded Russia. I know every one likes to think there has but if you stop to think the wars have cost far more than paying slightly more for the oil so in pure economics it's not worthwhile to go to war over oil.

Anyone that thinks that the US wars in the middle east are about freeing the people from tyranny and not about controlling the oil flow is asleep at the wheel.  If that were the case the US would have been all over Africa but unfortunately the starving people there don't have oil.

Nigeria has oil and so do other African countries, if there is any reason the US does not go to war there its colour of skin and religion. And most certainly the US has not won any control over oil by its wars in the middle east as they still have to buy it on the high seas and outbid China and other countries as well. The main reason if not the only reason that the us went to war in Iraq rhymes with iron.

[mtdoc]

Anyone who does not understand that a very large percentage of US military spending and foreign aid spending is devoted to ensuring free availability of oil for import both through direct geographic intervention and by ensuring the continued status of the US "petrodollar" as the worlds reserve currency is either uninformed or naive.

[zapta]

Anyone who does not understand that a very large percentage of US military spending and foreign aid spending is devoted to ensuring free availability of oil for import both through direct geographic intervention and by ensuring the continued status of the US "petrodollar" as the worlds reserve currency is either uninformed or naive.

Calling everybody that disagrees with you uninformed or naive and ignoring the arguments that conflicts with your opinion is not a constructive way to have a discussion.

[mtdoc]

Anyone who does not understand that a very large percentage of US military spending and foreign aid spending is devoted to ensuring free availability of oil for import both through direct geographic intervention and by ensuring the continued status of the US "petrodollar" as the worlds reserve currency is either uninformed or naive.

Calling everybody that disagrees with you uninformed or naive and ignoring the arguments that conflicts with your opinion is not a constructive way to have a discussion.

Fair point.  But just to be clear, until a few years ago, I would count myself as one of the uniformed about the realities of world geopolitics as it pertains to energy and oil in particular.  There is no sin in being uniformed.

What I stated in the post above is not an opinion or controversial among foreign policy/ geopolotical experts. It's just the reality of being the lone "superpower" in a oil dependent world and as such the "elephant in the room".

Anyways - this topic is probably way too politically charged for an electronics forum... so I'll try to let it be.

[tom66]

The fact that China can get oil without military intervention doesn't mean that the US could do the same; it's too far ingrained to change this culture.

[nctnico]

Just read this article http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/13/canada-climate-australia-carbon-tax  Looks like Australia and Canada are moving back toward do-it-on-your-on-dime approach. Good for them. Subsidies distorts the economy.

IMHO that article is about countries pulling out of Kyoto which in itself is a half assed attempt already. At some point oil and fossil fuel will become scarse (expensive) and when that happens switching over to an alternative at once costs huge amounts of money. Putting tax on fossil fuels helps people to become aware and stear them towards using less fuel / looking for cheaper alternatives (keep paying the same), offers companies chances to develup such alternatives (jobs!) and gives governments money to invest in the required changes of the infrastructure (more jobs!).

The only problem is that appearantly the Canadians and Australians didn't fell for the global warming 'story'.

[free_electron]

do it on your own dime, not mine.

The incentive does not come out of 'other peoples' pocket. it is a tax rebate.

How does this work : during the year you owe x amount of taxes to the government. at the end of the year , during your normal tax filing the total amount is calculated and you either pay or get  a refund ( if you already paid during the year)

the incentive is a reduction of that tax up to 7500$.

if you don't pay 7500$ in tax to begin with you don't get the incentive.

if the tax owed to the government in a year is only 3000$ then that person can only get 3000$.
so the rebate does NOT come from other people ! it is a part of what you already paid in taxes that is being refunded.

So stop complaining it is done with 'other peoples money' . It isn't . The buyer get s a tax offset. that is all.

[nctnico]

That still means less tax income for the state so yes its money from other people's pocket. Besides that the system seems unfair to me because people with a higher income profit more from it.

[Corporate666]

Anyone who does not understand that a very large percentage of US military spending and foreign aid spending is devoted to ensuring free availability of oil for import both through direct geographic intervention and by ensuring the continued status of the US "petrodollar" as the worlds reserve currency is either uninformed or naive.

I actually think that position is naive and uninformed 

Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America.  But even that doesn't matter, because we buy oil on the global market just like everyone else does.  We don't get "cheap" oil from Iraq or anywhere else.  We also don't really do much to "ensure free availability of oil" - hell, we even refuse to "buy" Iranian oil. 

As for the "petrodollar", it doesn't have much if anything to do with the military - at least not directly.  What other currency is a producer/buyer/investor going to use?  The Euro?  Too new, too fractioned, too unstable.  The Ruble?  Same problem, times a million.  The Dinar?  Riyal?  Hrivna?   Yuan?  If one looks at the world currencies, stability, liquidity, ease-of-use and every other metric associated with a currency, one would be an abject fool to want to use anything but a dollar. 

[Corporate666]

That still means less tax income for the state so yes its money from other people's pocket. Besides that the system seems unfair to me because people with a higher income profit more from it.

This is one of the biggest, most insidious and pernicious lies about taxes and government "revenues" that exists. 

Taxes not owed are not analogous to a payment from the government or a subsidy from other taxpayers.  That is bullshit speak that politicians use.  Any tax rate is in flux at any given time - and it can go up or town based on numerous different factors, including legislation among many other things.  It is a political game for pawns to tell the public that so-and-so is "getting $x per year".  They even go further and call any reduction in the rate of increase a "cost".  What utter bullshit and total nonsense.

Let's say someone has a tax liability of, say, $10k but buys an EV and gets a $7500 tax break.  There is nothing to say that the $10k would otherwise have been paid to the government.  They could invest in an IRA, real estate, a business, or any infinite number of things that would change their tax liability.  Second, the economic activity they choose to engage in with the purchase generates revenue for the state that it would not if they did not participate in that activity.  Tesla gets money, pays workers, pays taxes, the workers pay taxes, the suppliers get paid who pay taxes and they pay their workers who pay taxes, etc. 

It's funny how some of our imbecilic leaders in this country will claim that $1 given to a poor soul who is allergic to work is not a cost because it will generate $3 in economic activity, but someone who gets to keep some more of their *own* money is somehow a rich fatcat being subsidized by the working poor.

[free_electron]

That still means less tax income for the state so yes its money from other people's pocket. Besides that the system seems unfair to me because people with a higher income profit more from it.

no , because it is a FEDERAL tax rebate. you don't get to claim it on state taxes !

[csshih]

exactly what Corporate666 said. (interesting choice of a username..)

Taxes are on profits - when I purchase more equipment to do business with, I'm lowering my profits and paying less tax!
By nctnico's logic whenever I purchase a piece of business equipment I'm robbing other people. 

[mtdoc]

Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America.

Incorrect. Canada is number 1, the Persian gulf is number 2. Mexico is the second largest individual country - just ahead of Saudi Arabia.:
U.S. Imports by Country of Origin

But even that doesn't matter, because we buy oil on the global market just like everyone else does.  We don't get "cheap" oil from Iraq or anywhere else.  We also don't really do much to "ensure free availability of oil" - hell, we even refuse to "buy" Iranian oil. 

Do you really think we don't want Iranian oil on the world market??

Our mideast policy is all about ensuring access to oil.  Our confrontational stance with Iran is all about our alliance with the House of Saud and Israel.  Sunnis versus Shiite versus Jew.  A complicated mess.  But if there was no oil in the Mideast we would not have spent the trillions we have on military and foreign aid to the area over the past 50 years. Do you really dispute this?   Are you old enough to remember the 1970s?

As for the "petrodollar", it doesn't have much if anything to do with the military - at least not directly.  What other currency is a producer/buyer/investor going to use?  The Euro?  Too new, too fractioned, too unstable.  The Ruble?  Same problem, times a million.  The Dinar?  Riyal?  Hrivna?   Yuan?  If one looks at the world currencies, stability, liquidity, ease-of-use and every other metric associated with a currency, one would be an abject fool to want to use anything but a dollar.

Well, don't take this the wrong way but based on the above you don't seem to understand how the global energy market functions or how having the world's reserve currency works. You ask what other currency would they use? but the question is why must they use the USD and what is the advantage to the US that they do use it ?  It a large topic but well beyond what is appropriate for this forum but a few points of fact:

By Oil being priced in dollars we are able to buy it at any price with money we create out of thin air. We can run a large trade imbalance with little consequence (for now). No other country can do that.

In 2000 Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros. After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD

In 2007 Iran began trading oil with the newly constructed Iranian Oil Bourse

In 2006 Venezuela supported Iran's decision.

The connection of the above to geopolitical events should be obvious.

Look, the US is doing the same thing every other Empire has done throughout history: Using it's military and economic power to control it's access to resources.  Oil and gas are the most important global resources necessary to drive any modern economy. Part of this control requires reserve currency status.

Before us the British, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Romans, etc, etc have all done the same thing- used a combination of military strength and Neocolonialism to try and expand and maintain their empires.   

This is not even something that is remotely controversial among historians or foreign policy experts.

[dr.diesel]

Government spending total != government income total


Confusing?  forget it, come on over and join me:

[nctnico]

That still means less tax income for the state so yes its money from other people's pocket. Besides that the system seems unfair to me because people with a higher income profit more from it.

no , because it is a FEDERAL tax rebate. you don't get to claim it on state taxes !

Whatever. Either way its lessening tax income of the government.

[staxquad]

The fact that China can get oil without military intervention doesn't mean that the US could do the same; it's too far ingrained to change this culture.

China was pushed out of Sudan and Libya, and will face pressure to get out of all of Africa.  The US are expanding military bases in Africa to do it.  (Oil, uranium, gold, tantalum, diamonds, etc)



Big Oil wants to pay less royalties and by themselves pump it out of the ground to get taxed less and keep more profits.  For the same oil, they get taxed only once, so would rather get taxed at the source than during transport.  They also like easy Oil (low cost per barrel for extraction) and Sweet Oil (less sulfur, higher price).

The Iran Nuclear issue is a red herring for a pretext (like the different pretexts for intervention in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, etc.).  The USA,  Britain want to resume stealing Iranian Oil like they used to before the Iranian revolution kicked the Americans, the British, the Shah and the CIA trained death squad Savak out of Iran.  It's what the 1st World War was all about, oil, the Germans building a railway line to Baghdad, the Sykes Picot Agreement, the Red Line Agreement,  partitioning off sovereign Oil between 5 Big Oil Companies (Exxon and Mobil (American), British Petroleum, Shell (Dutch), Total (French), the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt Iranian coup of 1953, the Iranina Revolution of 1979, the CIA manufactured Iran/Iraq war.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/Petroleum/redline.htm
"The execution of the Red Line Agreement marked the beginning of a long-term plan for the world control and distribution of oil in the Near East."

Big Oil doesn't pay for the military campaigns, taxpayers do, with treasury and blood, all Big Oil does is reap the profit,  very grim reapers they are.

[zapta]

China was pushed out of Sudan and Libya, and will face pressure to get out of all of Africa.  The US are expanding military bases in Africa to do it.  (Oil, uranium, gold, tantalum, diamonds, etc)

The US also has many military bases in the US. So what?

[zapta]

The US also has many military bases in the US. So what?

The US has become imperialist and likes to wave its dick around overseas, but that just makes the rest of the world resent it.

The blame-america-first attitude is very popular with the left these days, many in countries that were freed by the US.

I am sure that the people of the Philippines appreciate the US military

http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/11/u-s-marines-bringing-typhoon-aid-to-philippine-shores/

[free_electron]

The blame-america-first attitude is very popular with the left these days, many in countries that were freed by the US.

I am sure that the people of the Philippines appreciate the US military

http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/11/u-s-marines-bringing-typhoon-aid-to-philippine-shores/

Pissing on US has become a bit of an international sport. Ok , the US is not entirely without blame .

But you have to grant them : whenever there is a catastrophe : the US jump in. They immediately dispatched an aircraft carrier loaded with helicopters , food supplies, hospitals and the capability of making 200 thousand gallons of drinking water a day. The helicopters are feryying food and cisterns with water to the most needed places. 4 other ships are on their way including a massive hospital ship (The USNS Mercy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Mercy_(T-AH-19)).

What other country can do that ? NONE. Cause none even have such facilities or 'serious hardware'

[nctnico]

The US also has many military bases in the US. So what?

The US has become imperialist and likes to wave its dick around overseas, but that just makes the rest of the world resent it.

The blame-america-first attitude is very popular with the left these days, many in countries that were freed by the US.

Maybe it helps to stop being proud of what your grandfathers did and look at your own accomplishments 

@free_electron: the US is ranking 19 when it comes to the percentage of national income spend on foreign aid.

[dr.diesel]

1% of a trillion is far better than 5% of a million.