Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <email@example.com> writes:
> Matthias Julius wrote:
>>>- they are selling more than before
>>>- it is costing *more* to get the oil out of the ground
>> I doubt this cost has gone up 50% in the last year.
> So what? It is a free market. If there is more demand, then they can
> charge more. Ever try to get a hotel room in a city while the Olympic
> Games were in town? They are *ultra* expensive. Should congress
> investigate Atlanta and Salt Lake City for allowing that to happen? NO!
> Keep the supply fixed and increase the demand -> higher prices. I am
> stunned that so few people understand this.
I understand. I was just replying to your statement above.
>>>- we give them tax breaks because we want the companies to keep as much
>>>of their business within our borders as possible
>> One could also penalize the import of foreign oil.
> It is obvious that you do not understand economics. Tarrifs benefit
> *noone*, except for the entrenched local base. They hurt customers more
> than anything else. Seriously, you complain about gas prices and then
> say we should put an additional tax on foreign oil? Don't you think
> that will raise proces.
Yes they will. Unlike tax breaks that won't lower prices. They tend
to get silently ignored by the sales people.
>> Well, of course, a business is all about maximizing profits. This is
>> the way it is and I don't want to condemn any company for trying do
>> that (not even Microsoft). The question is whether they need special
>> help for that.
> That's true. I hate corporate welfare with passion. If the government
> needs to give a company an incentive to operate here rather than
> somewhere cheaper (i.e., a foreign country), then that is fine. But
> tarrifs are a no go for me, as are unnecessary incentives.
I think, here the reasons for wanting them to operate here are mostly
not economical. But, that's fine.