Is Regulation the Solution?

[Lemniscate]

To respond to the above and break the quote pyramid' date=' if we don't tax imported goods, America will lose all of its businesses due to the high standards of living, minimum wage, et cetera established here, fall into poverty as companies refuse to operate in America, and then be exploited by foreign companies as a depressed citizenry desperately seeks wages, even if the poor degree of those wages are inhumane.

[/quote']

 

Higher taxation on imported goods causes companies outside of america to stop doing business with us, and will raise the prices of imported goods.

Imagine if gas prices are back up to $4.

You want to know how quick an economy can fold, raise taxes.

[lordtyson]

i think the gov should put the gas up to $6

just to show you guys that no matter how high the prices are people will still buy gas if they need gas

[OMGAKITTY]

To respond to the above and break the quote pyramid' date=' if we don't tax imported goods, America will lose all of its businesses due to the high standards of living, minimum wage, et cetera established here, fall into poverty as companies refuse to operate in America, and then be exploited by foreign companies as a depressed citizenry desperately seeks wages, even if the poor degree of those wages are inhumane.

[/quote']

 

At the same time, you protect the companies too much, and there's no real drive left to compete on the global scale.

[Lemniscate]

i think the gov should put the gas up to $6

just to show you guys that no matter how high the prices are people will still buy gas if they need gas

 

Wow, hello basic economics.

The quality you just named is called elasticity.

Although that is true, the problem is not whether people will buy the gasoline, it is whether or not raising that tax will in fact HELP the economy.

[OMGAKITTY]

i think the gov should put the gas up to $6

just to show you guys that no matter how high the prices are people will still buy gas if they need gas

 

More logically, the government stops regulating gas, and let's it rise to it's natural equilibrium (that is, until it's high enough that the demand from people equals the supply).

Problem being, because America's infrastructure sucks, most people then couldn't get to work. Which would get them fired. Which would mean they aren't making money. Which means they aren't buying. Which leads to layoffs. Which leads to more people not making money.....you get the idea.

[Lemniscate]

Equilibrium being reached in oil prices would be catastrophic.

 

Gas is one case where prices have to be kept down, if they rise too much, then there WILL BE collapse.

[PrometheusMFD]

Equilibrium being reached in oil prices would be catastrophic.

 

Gas is one case where prices have to be kept down' date=' if they rise too much, then there WILL BE collapse.

[/quote']

 

Not in a purely Capitolist economy with very little to no regulation on the production speed of goods. As supply goes up and demand goes down, Oil producers will pull back on production, causing supply to go down. This fluctuation of prices will eventually reach a (relatively) stable medium in which the demand does not exceed supply, and surplus does not become detrimental to the company.

It is the government involvement that will cause an economic collapse. The government in itself does not have any money. At all. So, what they do is "borrow" money from tax-payers to fund the bailouts (which is called defecit spending. Here's looking to you, FDR). And, when the companies get their bailout money, they spend it on nice, big, paychecks for the executives. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire "recession" is built of off corruption and greed.

[Lemniscate]

Equilibrium being reached in oil prices would be catastrophic.

 

Gas is one case where prices have to be kept down' date=' if they rise too much, then there WILL BE collapse.

[/quote']

 

Not in a purely Capitolist economy with very little to no regulation on the production speed of goods. As supply goes up and demand goes down, Oil producers will pull back on production, causing supply to go down. This fluctuation of prices will eventually reach a (relatively) stable medium in which the demand does not exceed supply, and surplus does not become detrimental to the company.

It is the government involvement that will cause an economic collapse. The government in itself does not have any money. At all. So, what they do is "borrow" money from tax-payers to fund the bailouts (which is called defecit spending. Here's looking to you, FDR). And, when the companies get their bailout money, they spend it on nice, big, paychecks for the executives. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire "recession" is built of off corruption and greed.

 

Oil producers would have no reason to pull back on production.

We would continue to buy from them, and as they are foreign entities, they wouldn't care what is happening to our economy.

They know we have to keep buying, so they wouldn't pull back on production.

[PrometheusMFD]

Equilibrium being reached in oil prices would be catastrophic.

 

Gas is one case where prices have to be kept down' date=' if they rise too much, then there WILL BE collapse.

[/quote']

 

Not in a purely Capitolist economy with very little to no regulation on the production speed of goods. As supply goes up and demand goes down, Oil producers will pull back on production, causing supply to go down. This fluctuation of prices will eventually reach a (relatively) stable medium in which the demand does not exceed supply, and surplus does not become detrimental to the company.

It is the government involvement that will cause an economic collapse. The government in itself does not have any money. At all. So, what they do is "borrow" money from tax-payers to fund the bailouts (which is called defecit spending. Here's looking to you, FDR). And, when the companies get their bailout money, they spend it on nice, big, paychecks for the executives. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire "recession" is built of off corruption and greed.

 

Oil producers would have no reason to pull back on production.

We would continue to buy from them, and as they are foreign entities, they wouldn't care what is happening to our economy.

They know we have to keep buying, so they wouldn't pull back on production.

 

Pulling back production decreases the supply, therefore the ratio of Supply:Demand goes up, and that elevates the prices.

And if you are worried that foriegn oil producers are going to ruin the economy, there are massive oil fields in Alaska and the American Midwest that remain untapped.

[OMGAKITTY]

Equilibrium being reached in oil prices would be catastrophic.

 

Gas is one case where prices have to be kept down' date=' if they rise too much, then there WILL BE collapse.

[/quote']

 

Not in a purely Capitolist economy with very little to no regulation on the production speed of goods. As supply goes up and demand goes down, Oil producers will pull back on production, causing supply to go down. This fluctuation of prices will eventually reach a (relatively) stable medium in which the demand does not exceed supply, and surplus does not become detrimental to the company.

It is the government involvement that will cause an economic collapse. The government in itself does not have any money. At all. So, what they do is "borrow" money from tax-payers to fund the bailouts (which is called defecit spending. Here's looking to you, FDR). And, when the companies get their bailout money, they spend it on nice, big, paychecks for the executives. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire "recession" is built of off corruption and greed.

 

Oil producers would have no reason to pull back on production.

We would continue to buy from them, and as they are foreign entities, they wouldn't care what is happening to our economy.

They know we have to keep buying, so they wouldn't pull back on production.

 

Pulling back production decreases the supply, therefore the ratio of Supply:Demand goes up, and that elevates the prices.

And if you are worried that foriegn oil producers are going to ruin the economy, there are massive oil fields in Alaska and the American Midwest that remain untapped.

 

Haven't there been studies showing that the oil in Alaska would provide for the US for half a year, at most?

 

The problem is our dependency on oil(coughalternativesourcescough)...But the car companies here really don't seem to see any reason to change what they're doing, because they get nice fat juicy legislation to help them out whenever they need it.

[Lemniscate]

There is no way to know how much oil is down in ANWR until we drill.

 

I have a question, have you ever been to ANWR?

Answer: No

Has anyone you know ever been to ANWR?

Answer: No

 

So why shouldn't we drill there if the only things it will hurt are chipmunks?

[PrometheusMFD]

Equilibrium being reached in oil prices would be catastrophic.

 

Gas is one case where prices have to be kept down' date=' if they rise too much, then there WILL BE collapse.

[/quote']

 

Not in a purely Capitolist economy with very little to no regulation on the production speed of goods. As supply goes up and demand goes down, Oil producers will pull back on production, causing supply to go down. This fluctuation of prices will eventually reach a (relatively) stable medium in which the demand does not exceed supply, and surplus does not become detrimental to the company.

It is the government involvement that will cause an economic collapse. The government in itself does not have any money. At all. So, what they do is "borrow" money from tax-payers to fund the bailouts (which is called defecit spending. Here's looking to you, FDR). And, when the companies get their bailout money, they spend it on nice, big, paychecks for the executives. Nothing more, nothing less.

This entire "recession" is built of off corruption and greed.

 

Oil producers would have no reason to pull back on production.

We would continue to buy from them, and as they are foreign entities, they wouldn't care what is happening to our economy.

They know we have to keep buying, so they wouldn't pull back on production.

 

Pulling back production decreases the supply, therefore the ratio of Supply:Demand goes up, and that elevates the prices.

And if you are worried that foriegn oil producers are going to ruin the economy, there are massive oil fields in Alaska and the American Midwest that remain untapped.

 

Haven't there been studies showing that the oil in Alaska would provide for the US for half a year, at most?

 

The problem is our dependency on oil(coughalternativesourcescough)...But the car companies here really don't seem to see any reason to change what they're doing, because they get nice fat juicy legislation to help them out whenever they need it.

 

Yes, that is why we recently discovered reserves in Alaska that alone more than triple our current reserves, which has been estimated to be able to last the US more than 5-7 years.

 

And if you want to talk about alternative sources of fuel, then let's go nuclear.

[Lemniscate]

There is currently a ban on nuclear facility use or creation in the US.

So... it's not really a choice.

[PrometheusMFD]

There is currently a ban on nuclear facility use or creation in the US.

So... it's not really a choice.

 

It's not a ban per se. It merely restricts where a Nuclear Power Plant can and cannot be, how much Uranium they can store, ect ect ect.

And it is completely stupid. Nuclear Power is the cleanest (only puts out steam), most efficient (except for Fusion), safest (yes, I said safest. But this thread isn't about the safety of Nuclear Power, so don't try to argue to me about it) form of power we have.

It could slowly but surely remove our dependance on foreign oil.

Which goes to show that the government doesn't care about its citizens.

The government that governs best governs least. That is one of the few Universal truths.

[Lemniscate]

There is currently a ban on nuclear facility use or creation in the US.

So... it's not really a choice.

 

It's not a ban per se. It merely restricts where a Nuclear Power Plant can and cannot be' date=' how much Uranium they can store, ect ect ect.

And it is completely stupid. Nuclear Power is the cleanest (only puts out steam), most efficient (except for Fusion), safest (yes, I said safest. But this thread isn't about the safety of Nuclear Power, so don't try to argue to me about it) form of power we have.

It could slowly but surely remove our dependance on foreign oil.

Which goes to show that the government doesn't care about its citizens.

The government that governs best governs least. That is one of the few Universal truths.

[/quote']

 

No, the item you listed was updated to be a universal ban on the construction of nuclear power facilities.

 

Also, the nuclear waste cannot be properly contained.

We can't say that nuclear power is harmless because negative effects can take years to manifest.

 

The lead containers that house the radioactive waste do not last.

In the dank underground areas they are placed, the lead weakens, and waste seeps out.

This has already occured in Nevada and Arizona.

[PrometheusMFD]

There is currently a ban on nuclear facility use or creation in the US.

So... it's not really a choice.

 

It's not a ban per se. It merely restricts where a Nuclear Power Plant can and cannot be' date=' how much Uranium they can store, ect ect ect.

And it is completely stupid. Nuclear Power is the cleanest (only puts out steam), most efficient (except for Fusion), safest (yes, I said safest. But this thread isn't about the safety of Nuclear Power, so don't try to argue to me about it) form of power we have.

It could slowly but surely remove our dependance on foreign oil.

Which goes to show that the government doesn't care about its citizens.

The government that governs best governs least. That is one of the few Universal truths.

[/quote']

 

No, the item you listed was updated to be a universal ban on the construction of nuclear power facilities.

 

Also, the nuclear waste cannot be properly contained.

We can't say that nuclear power is harmless because negative effects can take years to manifest.

 

The lead containers that house the radioactive waste do not last.

In the dank underground areas they are placed, the lead weakens, and waste seeps out.

This has already occured in Nevada and Arizona.

 

Meh, exposure to a small amount of rads is good for you.

Plus, there is a process now that allows Uranium-238 to be converted to Plutonium-239

It is called introducing a Hydrogen atom.

Cheap, easy, effective

 

So I am right when I say that Nuclear Power only puts out steam as waste

[Holy Babylon]

It was the retarded stock brokers. They're all stupid. They put the profits towards themselves, not giving a rabbit's eye as to what the citizens will be getting. In fact, many CEOs of companies predicted this recession, gave themselves $400,000+ bonuses and left. It's their fault, not the government's.

 

By the way, I am one hundred percent towards nuclear power. It's clean, it's quick, and it works alot better than 10,000 windmills taking up the country side, and as a plus, nuclear power shoots H20 out of its thermals like crazy. The only thing we would have to worry about is the thing blowing up, and the chances of that are 0. Who ever bans nuclear power is retarded. We need it because when we get critical on fuel, we're going to need something new. I am not saying that it powers cars or anything like that, but it can power almost everything else...except motorcycles...and airplanes...and many boats...nevermind, let's just go out and buy some bikes.

[PrometheusMFD]

It was the retarded stock brokers. They're all stupid. They put the profits towards themselves' date=' not giving a rabbit's eye as to what the citizens will be getting. [b']In fact, many CEOs of companies predicted this recession, gave themselves $400,000+ bonuses and left. It's their fault, not the government's.[/b]

 

By the way, I am one hundred percent towards nuclear power. It's clean, it's quick, and it works alot better than 10,000 windmills taking up the country side, and as a plus, nuclear power shoots H20 out of its thermals like crazy. The only thing we would have to worry about is the thing blowing up, and the chances of that are 0.

 

I bolded everthing that is wrong with that statement, and italisized everthing that is right.

 

Sorry, but this reccession wasn't predicted until the gov't started throwing money around.

The entire Bailout system is to blame. It creates a defecit spending that takes money away from the taxpayers. The government should just get the hell out of it.

 

Nuclear reactors don't blow up. Ever. The core melts through the lining a little. Every safety precaution in a standard Nuclear Power plant stops this, though.

[OMGAKITTY]

It was the retarded stock brokers. They're all stupid. They put the profits towards themselves' date=' not giving a rabbit's eye as to what the citizens will be getting. [b']In fact, many CEOs of companies predicted this recession, gave themselves $400,000+ bonuses and left. It's their fault, not the government's.[/b]

 

By the way, I am one hundred percent towards nuclear power. It's clean, it's quick, and it works alot better than 10,000 windmills taking up the country side, and as a plus, nuclear power shoots H20 out of its thermals like crazy. The only thing we would have to worry about is the thing blowing up, and the chances of that are 0.

 

I bolded everthing that is wrong with that statement, and italisized everthing that is right.

 

Sorry, but this reccession wasn't predicted until the gov't started throwing money around.

The entire Bailout system is to blame. It creates a defecit spending that takes money away from the taxpayers. The government should just get the hell out of it.

 

Nuclear reactors don't blow up. Ever. The core melts through the lining a little. Every safety precaution in a standard Nuclear Power plant stops this, though.

 

We were already in recession when they started bailing out companies. I'm sorry, but what part of providing millions of jobs did I not get across before? Voting against saving millions of jobs is pretty much political suicide...

 

And uranium is a limited resource too. So switching to nuclear power is the same thing as drilling Alaska: putting off the problem for a few more years.

[PrometheusMFD]

It was the retarded stock brokers. They're all stupid. They put the profits towards themselves' date=' not giving a rabbit's eye as to what the citizens will be getting. [b']In fact, many CEOs of companies predicted this recession, gave themselves $400,000+ bonuses and left. It's their fault, not the government's.[/b]

 

By the way, I am one hundred percent towards nuclear power. It's clean, it's quick, and it works alot better than 10,000 windmills taking up the country side, and as a plus, nuclear power shoots H20 out of its thermals like crazy. The only thing we would have to worry about is the thing blowing up, and the chances of that are 0.

 

I bolded everthing that is wrong with that statement, and italisized everthing that is right.

 

Sorry, but this reccession wasn't predicted until the gov't started throwing money around.

The entire Bailout system is to blame. It creates a defecit spending that takes money away from the taxpayers. The government should just get the hell out of it.

 

Nuclear reactors don't blow up. Ever. The core melts through the lining a little. Every safety precaution in a standard Nuclear Power plant stops this, though.

 

We were already in recession when they started bailing out companies. I'm sorry, but what part of providing millions of jobs did I not get across before? Voting against saving millions of jobs is pretty much political suicide...

 

And uranium is a limited resource too. So switching to nuclear power is the same thing as drilling Alaska: putting off the problem for a few more years.

 

Yes, but that isn't what the bailout money went to. It was spent on CEO and "Special Customers" to go on cruises and whatnot.

 

Alaska reserves alone would make up for more than the projected need of oil in the next decade, and Uranium doesn't fuel Nuclear Power plants. Plutonium-239 does. And it takes 4-6 months for Plutonium-239 to convert to Uranium-238, which can be converted back to Plutonium-239 by introducing the equivalent of hydrogen to it.

[RacecaR]

Whoa whoa whoa. You know if you want to get into cars, just ask. If you do ask me... We are all being dubbed. The gas industry and sellers... Producers... The whole shebang is getting oil and getting rich off of it. Oil prices were skyrocketing a while back. Why? Because we all keep getting gasoline run cars.

 

The solution? Simple, electric cars.

 

Much cleaner, and run on energy. Sure your electric bill will be higher, and sure it may be a pain to plug in a lot. But who gives a #$@#$ about that stuff if it's the planet in question? (Note, I don't want to start yet ANOTHER tangent about global warming)

 

The gas company keeps shooting down electric cars.

 

But with electric we could finish our dependency on gasoline. (I'm no expert on this subject of electric cars. No doubt I'm missing a lot of problems with it. Bear with me though.)

 

This could save a lot of time and trouble.

[PrometheusMFD]

Whoa whoa whoa. You know if you want to get into cars' date=' just ask. If you do ask me... We are all being dubbed. The gas industry and sellers... Producers... The whole shebang is getting oil and getting rich off of it. Oil prices were skyrocketing a while back. Why? Because we all keep getting gasoline run cars.

 

The solution? Simple, electric cars.

 

Much cleaner, and run on energy. Sure your electric bill will be higher, and sure it may be a pain to plug in a lot. But who gives a #$@#$ about that stuff if it's the planet in question? (Note, I don't want to start yet ANOTHER tangent about global warming)

[/quote']

 

Then why the hell would you post that?

Besides, it is a little hypocritical to tell us to switch to electric cars when the US is largely based on Coal and Fossil Fuels.

And how would we get alluminum for the cars when electric forges can't reach the necessary tempuratures?

 

The thing about it is, people believe whatever is shoved down their thorats. Here is how the world works: Government=Inefficient/Corrupt, Global Warming=Amazingly Beneficial if it were true, and Electric Cars=Too Inefficiant to be a viable source of transportation.

[OMGAKITTY]

Whoa whoa whoa. You know if you want to get into cars' date=' just ask. If you do ask me... We are all being dubbed. The gas industry and sellers... Producers... The whole shebang is getting oil and getting rich off of it. Oil prices were skyrocketing a while back. Why? Because we all keep getting gasoline run cars.

 

The solution? Simple, electric cars.

 

Much cleaner, and run on energy. Sure your electric bill will be higher, and sure it may be a pain to plug in a lot. But who gives a #$@#$ about that stuff if it's the planet in question? (Note, I don't want to start yet ANOTHER tangent about global warming)

[/quote']

 

Then why the hell would you post that?

Besides, it is a little hypocritical to tell us to switch to electric cars when the US is largely based on Coal and Fossil Fuels.

And how would we get alluminum for the cars when electric forges can't reach the necessary tempuratures?

 

The thing about it is, people believe whatever is shoved down their thorats. Here is how the world works: Government=Inefficient/Corrupt, Global Warming=Amazingly Beneficial if it were true, and Electric Cars=Too Inefficiant to be a viable source of transportation.

 

You say the government is hopelessly corrupt, but really, wasn't it the corporations that misused the bailout money? Besides, because of how the government is set up (free election), congressmen have to vote to keep the public happy, not for what's best for the nation, if they plan to keep their jobs.

It's not so much corruption as...a flawed system.

 

And electric cars have been tested, and work well. Car companies don't want to switch over because they cost more to produce.

[PrometheusMFD]

Whoa whoa whoa. You know if you want to get into cars' date=' just ask. If you do ask me... We are all being dubbed. The gas industry and sellers... Producers... The whole shebang is getting oil and getting rich off of it. Oil prices were skyrocketing a while back. Why? Because we all keep getting gasoline run cars.

 

The solution? Simple, electric cars.

 

Much cleaner, and run on energy. Sure your electric bill will be higher, and sure it may be a pain to plug in a lot. But who gives a #$@#$ about that stuff if it's the planet in question? (Note, I don't want to start yet ANOTHER tangent about global warming)

[/quote']

 

Then why the hell would you post that?

Besides, it is a little hypocritical to tell us to switch to electric cars when the US is largely based on Coal and Fossil Fuels.

And how would we get alluminum for the cars when electric forges can't reach the necessary tempuratures?

 

The thing about it is, people believe whatever is shoved down their thorats. Here is how the world works: Government=Inefficient/Corrupt, Global Warming=Amazingly Beneficial if it were true, and Electric Cars=Too Inefficiant to be a viable source of transportation.

 

You say the government is hopelessly corrupt, but really, wasn't it the corporations that misused the bailout money? Besides, because of how the government is set up (free election), congressmen have to vote to keep the public happy, not for what's best for the nation, if they plan to keep their jobs.

It's not so much corruption as...a flawed system.

 

And electric cars have been tested, and work well. Car companies don't want to switch over because they cost more to produce.

 

Government=Corrupt because the only people who would go for a government job are those looking for power over other people (which is the definition of corruption)

Plus, where would the gov't get the money to pay the bailout money from other than the taxpayer's pockets?

 

Plus, electric cars are hypocritical if they are powered by coal power plants.

Plus, you need coal/gas furnaces in order to melt the aluminum to cast the frame work. And yes, it has to be aluminum. Electric cars don't have the horsepower to ferry stell bodies.

 

And like you said, it will cost more. And I doubt you want to pay 10 times as much for equal if not less car.

[lordtyson]

thank Ra that i wont be here to watch the robots take over