Posted on 09/04/2008 6:57:35 AM PDT by steve-b
First, I am glad you showed up here so I can denounce your idiocy to your face rather than behind your back.
Second this drivel isn't even logical. And that is before we get to underlying facts.
Third, Dude, the State of Alaska did not steal the land from private individuals. They owned the land before anyone even knew that there was a there there, much less that there was oil there.
And yes, you are in for some more slanderous ad hominems on the grounds that you claim you have a license to teach this drivel to young and impressionable minds.
Get to know businessdude here better because that is about his position. He will tell you that when you call him an idiot for spewing illogic, that you are not properly arguing with the spittle drooling from his lips that he calls an argument.
And yes bdude that is more ad hominem.
Your analogy is false. Alaska is a government, not a corporation. Alaska has public control of a vital resource (mineral rights). Public control is the opposite of private property rights in a market. If Alaskans are shareholders, they should be able to sell their shares. In addition, each shareholder should have some basis (investment amount) in the mineral rights.
I understand why public control is popular in Alaska. Popularity does not make public control into a good policy for the country as a whole. Through public control, Alaska can impose an energy tax on the rest of the country. There is evidence that the combination of severance taxes and royalties are very high on Alaskan oil. The royalties seem to be higher than prices set in a market with private ownership of mineral rights.
Many other states are looking to the Alaska model of public control of mineral rights. Other states will see the potential of taxing non residents in a similar manner and increase tax revenues. High energy taxes (because of public control of mineral rights) will lead to lower production and ultimately higher energy prices and lower employment in the domestic energy industry. This issue is not just an Alaska issue. Governments throughout the world see public control of energy as cash cow.
You are drooling again.
Who will you vote for in November?
Hey dude, in this drivel you forget two tiny teensy little things.
1. The price of oil in the lower 48 is established by international oil prices not by Alaska taxes on oil revenues.
2. If the oil companies operating in Alaska are so overtaxed producing at the costs in Alaska and selling at market prices they can pack up and leave.
The world continuously and repeatedly has rejected the JD Rockefeller model of monopolistic control of energy resources because it is the efficient solution for a very small number of folks at the expense of everyone else.
Economists have performed many studies to indicate the impacts of public control versus private ownership. Many conservatives have called for more private ownership of public assets in the past. For example, many conservatives have called for the federal government to sell at least some of its huge land holdings.
Well I guess we know who paid for this hit piece.
What will be really embarassing is when you try to support bdude's positions with the rational argument that he himself is unable to provide.
Oil and gas prices are not really set by the market. They are set in large part by manipulation on the supply side by a cartel (OPEC) and by individual dictatorial regimes (Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and on the demand side by consumer subsidies by dictatorial regimes (China, Russia, etc.)
Oil and gas, therefore, are not just a commodity but a strategic asset and the object of legitimate public concern.
Allowing "the market" to set the prices for oil and gas rights in the USA would really be allowing foreign governments to set the prices.
Energy companies appeal and lobby aggressively in the US for tax breaks and complain about socialism here because if they appealed and lobbied and complained with the same aggressiveness in other countries where they do business, they would have their assets seized and possibly their employees imprisoned.
As a result, they are - quite rationally - transferring the cost of supply dislocations and demand distortions caused by cartelization and national consumer subsidies in unfree countries to the consumers living in free countries.
I'm sure Alaska could get an enormous cash price for the Northern Slope by selling it to Gazprom - but that would be a strategic nightmare for the US.
I am not asserting that Alaska sets the price of oil. I am asserting that Alaska determines the price of royalties as well as severance tax rates. The price of oil is set on commodity exchanges. In addition, many governments are conducting private agreements to determine oil prices. I am not sure if these private agreements are impacting world oil prices.
2. If the oil companies operating in Alaska are so overtaxed producing at the costs in Alaska and selling at market prices they can pack up and leave.
You are right. Alaska cannot force any corporation to develop oil. I am not asserting that Alaska has that power. I am asserting that the royalty rates set by Alaska (or any government) will be arbitrary. Prices should be determined by market forces, not governments. I have seen evidence that the combination of royalty rates and severance taxes will discourage production.
I would not want to replace the monopoly Alaska has on mineral rights with a private sector monopoly. I think that mineral right sales could produce a large market of mineral right owners. If a private sector monopoly developed, it would require regulation.
Right now, the existing system enables the government of Alaska to operate without having a state personal income tax or state sales tax.
It is implausible to believe that these lands could be sold for enough money to continue to pay for the operation of the government especially when inflation is factored in.
So, what possible reason would the people of Alaska have to sell this land when the ultimate result in a decade or so would be the imposition of taxes on them?
Additionally, why are you and others berating Sarah Palin for not suggesting the sale of land when the people of Alaska don’t want to sell it and the current system works so well for them?
In what ways, and how is this relevant? The principle difference I can see is that corporate governance is aimed at maximizing revenue first for the company officers, second for the shareholders with the board of directors mediating between the two. Public ownership wants to maximize revenue into the public treasury balanced against other public land use issues, environmental concerns, employment maximization, and broader public policy issues.
Private ownership is established by selling the resource perhaps through an auction. Governments have established private property rights of formerly publicly controlled assets in many other situations. For example, the wireless spectrum was auctioned in the 1990s and 2000s. Governments have sold previously publicly controlled corporations and land.
This is not an argument. This is simply a lecture trying to tell us something you think we don't all already know. What you have not done is address the crony capitalism issues a la Russia.
Economists have performed many studies to indicate the impacts of public control versus private ownership.
Surely as a professor you know that you cannot rest an intellectual argument on a well-they say kind of argument. Besides which a lot of those economic studies have suggested that there are multiple issues to deal with and it isn't a simple private ownership is good public ownership is bad kind of argument like you insinuate but are not intellectually honest enough or capable enough to come out and argue for yourselves.
Many conservatives have called for more private ownership of public assets in the past. For example, many conservatives have called for the federal government to sell at least some of its huge land holdings.
You are hiding behind rather diaphonous skirts which do not hide your intellectual dishonesty. First of all, which conservatives. Conservative such as this Phillips Connoco bought tool calling itself a libertarian think tank?
Second, I don't care if it was mosaic law that says public ownership of energy resources is a bad thing. What I am not hearing in all of this is YOUR OWN INTELLECTUAL SOUND AND HONEST argument as to WHY public ownership of energy resources is bad.
So, I can address your transparently empty arguments in a rational manner.
Having done so, I have demonstrated why this is just drivel from a fraud.
I am not asserting that public control is not popular in Alaska. This policy enables funding of many government services through taxes paid largely by non residents. I am not berating Sarah Palin in any way. She could not have been elected governor without supporting this policy.
I am asserting that public control of a vital resource is not good policy for the country. Many states and governments want the same policy of public control. They see lots of tax revenues through taxes paid by non residents. I see excessive taxation, lower energy production, and higher energy prices as a result of this policy when applied across many governments and states.
This is the one thing that worried me last night in her speech. First she raised taxes on ‘big oil’ almost 50 percent, which resulted in such a great surplus for the state that she sent out 1200 rebate checks. This is the work of a populist governor, ala Huey Long. Could this tax increase have played a part in increased gas prices in the lower 48? It is a question that needs to be asked. Will she be a VP of all 50 states?
You just argued that prices are set by market forces.
The state is no different an owner seeking to maximize royalties than any other owner of a resource. The goal in all cases is to maximize royalty / tax revenues from the stream of production. The prices cannot be arbitrary because markets establish sale prices, costs of production, reasonable profits, etc, and set a ceiling on royalties and taxes.
So it is intellectually dishonest to suggest these are arbitrary or not driven by market forces or that the government acts differently than a private owner would.
The usual problem with governments setting prices on land, resources, etc. [Russia, Nigeria, the Congo, anywhere in South America up until the last decade or so] is not that they overprice the assets (in a free market they cannot), but through bribes, corruption and incompetence underprice the assets leaving a windfall on the table for others.
But you know all of that already. That is why I call you a fraud.
Actually, it was 2.5%, but I guess the Palin bashers prefer to use round numbers.
I agree. The Republicans keep touting her “taking on Big Oil” as a major selling point. Now, I’m not familiar with Alaska’s issues, and maybe “Big Oil” needed to be “taken on,” but it seems like just more punish the people we need to help this country all so you can redistribute some wealth.
I am not sure about the impact of these private deals. I think there is only speculation and anecdotal evidence about the impact. I think it is bad news if these private deals will determine prices.
Allowing "the market" to set the prices for oil and gas rights in the USA would really be allowing foreign governments to set the prices.
There are plenty of private owners of mineral rights in this country. I am an owner of mineral rights in Texas. I am not sure about the balance between public control and private ownership in mineral rights.
I am not sure about the impact of transferring mineral rights to the private sector. On principle, I am in favor of more private ownership. The political process is impeding the development of domestic energy sources. It is very easy for the political process to impose onerous constraints on mineral rights. I would be open to careful studies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.