Reply With Quote
"Dry land is not a myth"
-What's his nuts from the movie Waterworld
You don't need a link to tell you when something is more efficent. You need only look at the cost. American produce is much more expensive, but they are able to sell it at a loss due the fact that American farm companies get a load of money depending on how much they grow. Those are subsidies and those are what Smeagol is talking about.
Because they can afford to sell their produce at a loss, they can compete with produce from other countries but only because our tax dollars go to them. In other words, we pay more in an indirect way and tax dollars go to waste all while 3rd world farmers can't compete here because of that.
All in all, the money goes to line the pockets of a few farm companies while the tax payers pay more and the 3rd world farmers lose a market. Wooohooo!
"Dry land is not a myth"
-What's his nuts from the movie Waterworld
Because it makes American steel products more attractive to the steel market here. It's political pandering (as all subsidies are) to a specific group - in this case the steel industry [the companies, unions, and cities like Pittsburgh] at the expense of everyone else.
No its not.
Yeah, but the prices for American steel are the same as they are on an international level. By the way, when I say steel I'm referring to structural steel and heavy equipment.
Could not have put it better myself.
This is why I like you dude.
The starter of this thread will disagree with me and will get pissed off because I have derailed it.
Apparently you haven't heard of to whom much is given much is required. Yeah it is your money...so go ahead and keep it. You earned it...doing what I don't know? Helping humanity? Bettering mankind? Probably not.
Alot of it comes from Latin America...especially here in the United States. It's obvious you've never heard of the United Fruit Company or the term banana republic.
i dont know what it is but one time i took a picture of myself looking at my tshlong
Once again, it is all our fault, we exploit everyone and give nothing back.
Of course don't consider the jobs provided by the mean old American
company.
Better yet, don't eat the bananas.
Well you got one thing right in the above statement: "doing what I don't
know?"
That is an improvement.
Let me clue you on one thing. Not everything the US does is great and should be applauded.
Subsidies and tariffs suck.
Unfortunately, you are ignorant on the subject.
Well, well. I happen to differ with you. Which I am sure you will
applaud. The US does make mistakes, but most of what we do
is great and should be applauded.
The United States has shed more blood, given more of our wealth
than any country in the history of the world. And I suspect we
will continue to do so. We have never kept any territory we have
conquered. Yes, MAYBE, some companies have to a degree, exploited
some countries. But in many cases what you would call exploit ion was
really God send to those people, who in many cases were living
below a human level to begin with.
In short, stick it in your ear. You are here exploiting our country. Simply
because you take a higher wage here than you can get in your own
country. Right?
As far as subsides and tariffs, they have existed from time immoral
and will continue to exist. The third world nations use them extensively
and will continue to use them. They are a fact of life. So live with it.
For all the blood that we have shed and money we have given..there's just as much that has been shed by the dictators we have propped up in places like the Congo and Honduras.
And for all the money we give just as much if not more is given to these corrupt dictators and has been given to them time and time again. While they abuse and reign terror on their people, we turn the other cheek because they support us.
I guess I missed WTF any of this has to do with Global Warming and ExxonMobil's admission of their contribution to it
The US does many things very well and they should be applauded. That being said, obviously your red, white and blue colored glasses do not allow you to see things the way other countries see them.
What does this mean? In the two World Wars? In the 20th C wars? In the history of mankind?
[QUOTE=xrayzebra given more of our wealth[/QUOTE]
On an absolute basis? Maybe. If you are the richest country in the world, chances are you will give more.
As a % of GDP? I don’t think so.
The Philippines?
So?
Tariffs and subsidies have nothing to do with US companies operating overseas. Stick to the point.
Wrong. I work here because my American employer first, and my French employer currently, believe no American can do the work I do. It said so in my Visa and it is the reason I have a green card. And this may hurt you, ray, but in the not so distant future, because of this quality, I will have a chance of become a US citizen.
Oh, so is this one of the things I should applaud the US for (continuing with such a practice, that is)?
I don't know what there is to disagree with you about other than the uselessness of trying to talk sense to XRay.
A long time ago we debated on thread about agricultural subsidies from rich countries and we had a disagreement.
My comment was harmless.
Welcome to America Smeagol. I don't know how long you've been here, but way to (eventually) become a citizen the legal way.
See Mexico, we encourage the legal way.
9 years, although I'll be back in Argentina as of February (no more League Pass
).
I will be back in the US often (once a month) for work reasons, and keep an address here in NYC. If xray keeps bugging me I'll become a citizen simply to annoy his old Texan ass
Nevertheless, I will keep posting on ST from wherever I am (that will never change).
You wont annoy me. You did it the legal way. Happy to have you.9 years, although I'll be back in Argentina as of February (no more League Pass
I will be back in the US often (once a month) for work reasons, and keep an address here in NYC. If xray keeps bugging me I'll become a citizen simply to annoy his old Texan ass
Nevertheless, I will keep posting on ST from wherever I am (that will never change).
But it wont stop me from bugging you either.....
And now...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 12:42 p.m. CT Jan 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.
Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.
Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”
Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.
CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”
Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.
Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions.
President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world’s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact early in his first term.
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on emissions.
Scenarios studied
The industry talks center on the range of greenhouse gas policy options such as cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes, said Roy Kopp, head of the climate program at RFF. There also will be debates on whether rules should focus on companies producing oil, gas and coal, which release CO2 when burned, or consumers who use the fuels.
To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations.
Some see Exxon’s participation in the talks, coupled with its pledge to stop funding CEI, as early signs of a possible policy change.
“The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift,” said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.
Exxon’s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and "five or six" similar groups.
Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.
Scoring oil
In a report last year on how oil majors are addressing global warming emissions, Ceres gave Exxon a 35 — the worst of any company. Oil majors BP and Royal Dutch S got 90 and 79, respectively.
“Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate skeptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact,” said Logan.
But he said it was too early to tell the substance of the change. “The devil is in the details,” he said.
Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that while questions remain about the degree to which fossil fuels are contributing to warming, the computer modelling on what the future may hold “has gotten better.”
And, he said, “we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”
Peter Fusaro, a carbon markets expert, noted that Exxon already must comply with Kyoto regulations in other countries, and said the company may want to simplify compliance standards throughout its international operations.
“Multinational companies are under the gun to comply with Kyoto,” he said. “It’s starting to crystallize that companies can’t have dual environmental standards.”
Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, told the Wall Street Journal that he was impressed by Exxon. “They are taking this debate very seriously,” said Sharp, a former Democratic congressman. “My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate.”
Reuters contributed to this report.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions