1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Gary Childress, Sep 15, 2016.

  1. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,346
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    You are not producing anything merely by owning something, whether your investments are profitable or not.

    Yes, 'I stated' that public policy should be used to slash profits, not get rid of them completely.
    I would certainly invest my money at a lower profit if that meant that workers would be well-paid, environmental standards followed, and so on.
    Of course, the real issue here is that if no one is buying anything, there will be no business activity in any case and the question of whether I will invest won't even come up. Which gets us back to why we need to redistribute wealth away from profits and towards wages.
    Government already supplies the money for investment over the long run in any case. The only question is who controls investment decisions and who benefits from them. The answer doesn't have to be an idle class that derives income purely from owning stuff, in other words simply by existing.

    I don't have a pension at all let alone a gold-plated government one. Pensions don't actually need to earn a return to keep paying out benefits. The essence of a pension is that you set money aside to be paid out after retirement. There is no requirement that this money be invested in anything, and in my opinion placing US pension funds into the stock market was nothing but a huge sop to money-managers who now extract nice fees from the whole process.
     
  2. Silurian

    Silurian Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,567
    I can see why you do not have a pension since you are ideological opposed to a return on investments.

    You seem to think that a pension invested in nothing would be a good idea.
    If you had invested $100 in 1928 in nothing you would have $100 now.
    The trouble there is a thing called inflation. To buy the same stuff last year you would need $1386. (CPI index calculater http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp )
    If the $100 had been invested in the S&P500 it would be worth $294,061 in 2015.
    And 10 year government bonds would be worth $7,062 last year.
    http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
     
  3. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    24,346
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I am opposed to certain uses of the return on investments, though you are not the first person I have encountered who was unable or unwilling to distinguish between RoI and profit (which is only one possible use of RoI).

    I don't have a pension because my job doesn't offer me one (yet).
     
  4. Silurian

    Silurian Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,567
    From Wiki

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment
     
  5. Timsup2nothin

    Timsup2nothin Quad B

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2013
    Messages:
    46,522
    Location:
    Shadowy Fringe of the Candy Industry
    Point?
     
  6. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    OPEC doesn't set the price of oil. They set how much oil they will produce and add to the market. Lately, many of the member states of OPEC have ignored their own agreed production caps, and flooded the market for their own particular reasons. If OPECs own member states violate agreed upon levels of production, then obviously OPEC, as a body, no longer really determines their own level of production which in turns affects the global price of oil.

    You can think what you want. In turn, I think your 'not of benefit to society' is so overly broad as to be equally worthless. :lol:
     
  7. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    Either way, we aren't producing enough oil such that our cost of production would have any effect on the price of refined oil products.

    They haven't been operating under production caps for a while now, largely at the Saudis behest. That's why the market is flooded - the Saudis want it to be flooded. Other countries like Venezuela don't mind either. How much they pump is what determines prices. If they decide to control production, generally the cartel abides.
     
  8. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Again, wrong. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-exports-idUSKCN0ZM1E5 US oil exports are the highest they've been in over 40 years, and OPECs failed attempt to hurt our production by driving market prices down has indeed had a huge effect on the current oil market, but our oil production has remained competitive and survived it, so it is most certainly a factor on the world market now.
     
  9. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    Yes, but transportation cost savings aren't large enough to impact how much oil we end up supplying, especially now that pipeline extension decisions affect a small percentage of the oil we produce.

    It isn't wrong, you're arguing something else entirely. The question isn't whether we supply enough oil to affect supply and therefore affect prices, the question is whether our oil supplies are dependent on building more pipelines, which they aren't because the cost savings that more pipelines provide don't effect the bulk of our oil supply.

    Also, OPEC does still control the market, because they place artificial controls where our oil reacts solely to the market, and with significant lag time. Their flooding of the market has had a significant impact on new exploration and new wells, but that won't show up in the supply or export statistics for several years.
     
  10. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    If transportation cost savings weren't large enough to make that impact, we wouldn't be building pipelines.

    And again, OPEC isn't really acting as a group anymore - it's more like each man for himself lately. In that regard, it's certainly not controlling the market.
     
  11. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    Sure we would. You're mistakenly assuming that the U.S. government wouldn't OK the use of eminent domain or give up federal land for pipeline extensions just to benefit the bottom lines of some oil companies, but of course that's what happens. The companies lobby heavily to win approval for these projects because the cost savings over time to them is large, but amount to a drop in the bucket in terms of the overall global oil market. And are meaningless in terms of exploration and drilling costs when companies determine when to drill.
     
  12. Silurian

    Silurian Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,567
    Glad you agree that the savings are large.

    If I came up with a way to make the site were I work 1% cheaper to run they would be quite happy with me. If they could apply that to another 20% of sites they would be very happy.
     
  13. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    :rolleyes:

    Large to one company does not mean large relative to the entire market. Try to keep up.
     
  14. Silurian

    Silurian Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,567
    70% of US crude oil is shipped by pipeline.

    If the percentage was increased to 80% the savings would have a market effect.

    If you were to do nothing in your job it would be "meaningless" to the market.
    If 10% did..
     
  15. Gary Childress

    Gary Childress Student for and of life

    Joined:
    May 11, 2007
    Messages:
    4,465
    Location:
    United Nations
    The latest developments on the DAP:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/15/breaking_nd_prosecutor_seeks_riot_charges

    Unbelievable! Good job North Dakota! :crazyeye:
     
  16. tetley

    tetley Head tea leaf

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,181
    Location:
    Igloovik
    I assume you're being sarcastic.

    I also saw the actress who played lead in Divergent got singled out for arrest.
     
  17. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    18,563
    Location:
    Canberra
    I'm reading that they're using water cannons against people out there in sub-zero temperatures. I'm not sure how that isn't attempted murder tbh.
     
  18. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    9,286
    Location:
    Brazil
    The violence of the state is called ''law'', while the violence of the individual is called ''crime''. If the state does it, it isn't called murder
     
  19. tetley

    tetley Head tea leaf

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,181
    Location:
    Igloovik
    I know someone who got maced in subfreezing temps. That source comes not through the news--it is direct from them.

    Personally I think we've got bigger fish to fry, than to protest the pipeline.
     
  20. tetley

    tetley Head tea leaf

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,181
    Location:
    Igloovik
    Confirmed. The guy I know was water cannoned in sub-freezing temps. We are also not positive whether he is even okay right now. Waiting to hear from him again.
     

Share This Page