That's logical fallacy. If they didn't fear the people, what's the point of giving them "cheap subsidized bread, food, gas"?
It's a rhetorical question, BTW.
(sighs) No it is not a metaphor for changing the subject. That is not what changing the goalposts means.
[quote from someone else mirroring that statement]
Exactly what standard or criterion did I change here? Be specific. If you have trouble spelling it out, that should tell you something.
That is not a definition of "popular pressure". Either you can define it in an accessable clear way, or you can't. This is not rocket science, and it forms the basis of your argument, so it is important.
Your assertion that "popular pressure... when you are a net producer brings prices down" is bull , especially when applied to the US, and that is pretty easy to show to a reasonable degree.
If you can't define it, just say so.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-12-2013 at 10:25 AM.
So, even if we made all the oil we produced, and exported the excess, then we would still be subject to global fluctuations in the price of oil. It would seem we agree on that.
Do you agree with my bolded statement? Yes or no will do.
I think, (and that's a generous description of my mental activity this morning) that EN is trying to fold the popular pressure argument into an oil discussion where, it simply does not apply.
Now, nat gas is another matter, and I think that's what has EN going down this path.
You don't get to say what *anything* means without substantiating it (something I did, but you did not). If you're going to tell anybody else to substantiate what they say, at least have a modi of courtesy and do the same.
You attempted to move the conversation to geopolitics, when we were having a discussion about economics.
That's not to say geopolitics isn't a valid (yet different) discussion topic, it just isn't what we're discussing.
Let me know if that's not specific enough for you.
pressure NOUN
persuasion/force
4 [uncountable] the act of trying to persuade or to force somebody to do something
pressure (for something) The pressure for change continued to mount.
pressure (on somebody) (to do something) There is a great deal of pressure on young people to conform.
The government eventually bowed to popular pressure (= they agreed to do what people were trying to get them to do).
Teenagers may find it difficult to resist peer pressure.
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionar...ary/pressure_1
Well, that's probably where the confusion stems. The US isn't a net producer (it imports substantially more oil than it exports).
Perhaps I should have used "net exporter" instead of "net producer". If that's what caused the confusion, I apologize.
The evidence provided actually backs up that contention clearly.
What's not rocket science is to see that it's much easier to convince people to pay more for their gas when you are importing oil from overseas, and you have all the associated logistics costs (transportation, etc).
I don't agree that global fluctuations in the price of oil are the sole determinant of consumer pricing in the US. As a matter of fact, it isn't, and it's very easy to prove.
What's more, it's irrelevant to this scenario, since you already agreed that china's external demand hasn't changed one bit under this arrangement, thus overall supply/demand hasn't changed at all.
Let me know if you still have any doubts.
How so?
using ur money to pump up t heir own SOE taking out the compe ion even if they run losses or just buy out the compe or for its supply lines...
Your analysis is spot on for nat gas pricing....and I think the whole Net export vs. Net production confusion mussed the discussion up a bit. Now go to your room and think about what you've done.
FWIW, we're not discussing the current situation.Your analysis is spot on for nat gas pricing....and I think the whole Net export vs. Net production confusion mussed the discussion up a bit. Now go to your room and think about what you've done.
My argument was that if the US would be able to produce massive amounts of oil (ie: through ramped up oil shale extraction) and reduce consumption (through more efficient technology), to become an actual net-exporter of oil, consumer prices of oil byproducts such as gas would drop down. Now I don't think they would bottom out, because pricing strategies in the US vary wildly by location and company (ie: market-value pricing, penetration pricing, etc).
But as seen in other oil net-exporter nations (linked on that article), once the country doesn't rely on outside actors for supply and becomes self-suficient, there's basically a new tool in the political arsenal to quench popular demand for better gas pricing (which is always there, whether you're self-suficient or not), and politicians are never shy to use it. But make no mistake, that tool is there because of popular demand. If the people didn't , then that wouldn't be there.
What he is tryign to argue, if I gather correctly, is that somehow the US goverment will suddenly decide to start subsidizing gasloline like all these other countries if we somehow end up a net oil exporter.
I'm not really sure, which is why I am trying to get things a bit clearer.
That is not a criterion or any specific metric, and in case you didn't notice, I kept addressing the economics.You don't get to say what *anything* means without substantiating it (something I did, but you did not). If you're going to tell anybody else to substantiate what they say, at least have a modi of courtesy and do the same.
You attempted to move the conversation to geopolitics, when we were having a discussion about economics.
That's not to say geopolitics isn't a valid (yet different) discussion topic, it just isn't what we're discussing.
Let me know if that's not specific enough for you.
I didn't change the subject, I expressed an opinion about whether it was good or bad overall.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-12-2013 at 04:13 PM. Reason: playing slightly nicer
"I think it is a good thing that..."Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
Does not dismiss any claim or demand any other evidence, you , and it does not cons ute moving goalposts, merely noting something in passing.
I didn't ask your dumb ass for any greater evidence.
I didn't dismiss a goddamned ing thing you said.
I expressed an opinion.
No more no less.
No, actually I didn't. That was precisely the opposite point I was attempting to make.
Ohhhhohhhhh...I know what this one is!!!!111 *Waves hand wildly*
Let's expand it a bit. I will simplify a bit.
Chinese consumption of oil: 100 units
Iraq consumption of oil: 5
World production/consumption: 400 units
Non-Chinese units of oil consumed: 300 units.
Chinese production, domestic: 10 units.
Iraq production: 10 units.
Iraq exports to world: 5
China decides to unprofitably invest in Iraqi production, and gets to benefit from this, bying 100% of Iraqi exports, for the sake of argument.
New Iraq production: 20 units.
Net Iraq exports: 15 units.
Net world production: 410 units.
Net Chinese consumption is still 100 units.
Non-chinese oil production/consumption: 310.
10 more units are available to everybody, increasing supply beyond where it would be normally.
That means, all other things equal, that anybody, including the US, gets slightly cheaper oil, since there is now more supply relative to demand.
Basically what has happened is that the Chinese have lost money producing oil that would not have been produced otherwise, and because they are not bidding against us for the oil that is produced, we benefit.
FUNGIBLE.
China's external demand does not change, but they have added new capacity that could not profitably be produced otherwise, which amounts to a subsidy of everybody else's oil.
It is only ad hominem if I say El Nono is wrong because he is a .
He isn't. He is just a . He is wrong, because he can't support his assertion ( that the US government will suddenly decide to subsidize gasoline for everybody if we become a net exporter of oil).
How much would the Republican party support taxes on oil exporters/producers for gasoline subsidies for the poor? More taxes, more nanny state giveaways?
That is what he is going with.
He is wrong, because his argument is more than a little bit implausible. Well that and not understanding what the phrase moving the goalposts means, despite reading the definition more than once.
That is not ad hominem. That is just someone being an idiot.
Name calling, yes. Logical fallacy... no.
EN is not an idiot, nor is he a (whatever the that is). He is a stubborn er tho!
Ad Hominem. I get a star!
So are you, btw.He is a stubborn er tho!
Doesn't have to be a subsidy. It can simply be pricing regulation, much like in the case of private-run public utilities.
Let me repeat it one more time in case I wasn't clear the first time: you don't get to referee absolutely anything in this conversation.
Furthermore, that was concise and to the point (which is exactly what you asked, specificity). As a matter of fact, you understood it very clearly, considering the rest of your response...
You actually replied to one of my posts that centered entirely on the economic issue, with a response on geopolitics.
So start explaining how China's external demand has changed under this new agreement. Be specific
Last edited by ElNono; 06-12-2013 at 05:10 PM.
it's still going over your head
The *contract* for those 10 extra units is out there for *everybody*. The extra 10 units of production are going to be added to the Net world production whether it's China, Exxon or any other Oil company.
As a matter of fact, Exxon and every other oil company have as much desire to exploit those extra 10 units as the Chinese.
The extra 10 units added to the Net world production are inevitable, and have nothing to do with the Chinese, it has everything to do with Iraq extending a contract.
China isn't even taking a loss. They're simply accepting terms on a contract that are not *as profitable* as Exxon or other Oil extraction company want it to be.
Let me know when you actually wrap your head around what's actually happening.
Actually, I was out of line by calling RG a ing idiot. I apologize to RG (edited the post now, but the apology stands). I don't hate him or anything. I just think he doesn't really understand what is happening in this arrangement.
This isn't China trying to exploit some previously undiscovered oil rig somewhere else. These are oil fields that go to China, Exxon or whoever Iraq decides gives the better offer.
Italian gene, IMOEN is not an idiot, nor is he a (whatever the that is). He is a stubborn er tho!
Ad Hominem. I get a star!
It was simply an opinion based on ample evidence from other net-exporter countries. Evidence presented actually supports the notion that net-exporters do fall for that trap.
I also don't buy the 'Republicans won't stand for this' angle. Republicans are very happy to hand out subsidies, including farm and oil. This is a fact.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the Republicans would propose such a thing, and the Democrats would oppose it. That's just how politics work in this country.
as wc would say..........i think you all are a bunch of teachers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
