Ex-F.B.I. Analyst Goes to Jail for Taking Classified Docs

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You can make all the excuses you like, but the bottom line is, when nations' leaders begin taxing carbon, shutting down pipelines, and other dumb decisions like...oh...trying to get rid of gas stoves, the industry sees that and prices go up. Alot. 

That is not "the bottom line." That is a story you tell yourself. A fiction. You're making it up to play politics.

Oil is a fungible commodity in a global market. Prices are set by supply and demand. Even if Biden is giving stern looks and finger wags to US producers, nothing is going to happen to the price. They don't even have the practical option of selling above the global market rate. Who would buy?

Carbon taxes, BTW, would actually only show up in pricing where they are applied, e.g., if additional taxes on gasoline sales or production were applied directly to that chain.  A carbon tax on, say, widget manufacturers makes fossil fuel usage more expensive for widget manufacturers. If widget manufacturers consume less oil, it actually becomes cheaper to fill your tank, or whatever.

And canceling a pipeline that has never moved a drop of oil anywhere obviously doesn't affect supply. Nothing has changed. Supply is the same as it was as it was the day before So are transportation and refining costs. -- Completing pipelines or other infrastructure projects could, potentially, increase supply or reduce manufacturing costs, and apply negative pressure on prices at the pump, but canceling such a project does not push prices up. It remains status quo. 

You are cordially invited to make an intelligent argument explaining the mechanisms by which Biden has increased prices, but what you're doing right now is just nonsense. "Feelings, feelings, feelings... then prices go up," is not an argument.

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You can make all the excuses you like, but the bottom line is, when nations' leaders begin taxing carbon, shutting down pipelines, and other dumb decisions like...oh...trying to get rid of gas stoves, the industry sees that and prices go up. Alot. 

Funding a STUDY to explore the harm done by gas stoves is only "trying to get rid of...." in YOUR FANTASIES.

Let us know when a bill is even introduced in Congress and then you might have a a case. Duh

Edited June 25, 2023 by robosmith

[Deluge]

23 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course, POTUS has insufficient power to do what you claim Biden "announced," due to serving a term much SHORTER than REQUIRED.

And MOST OTHER people KNOW THAT.

No one "stopped making cars." Duh.

There was a shortage of advanced chips, but production did NOT stop.

Biden himself torpedoed the Keystone pipeline just two years ago, so you're wrong there.

In terms of reduced automabile production, this source below says otherwise:

https://www.oica.net/global-auto-production-in-2020-severely-hit-by-covid-19-crisis-with-a-16-drop-in-world-auto-production/

Now, robosmith: we both know that YOU are a shill. YOU are also a liar. These are two indisputable facts that will be thrown in your face every single time you and I have a conversation of which I expect to have many.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Deluge

[Hodad]

52 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Biden himself torpedoed the Keystone pipeline just two years ago, so you're wrong there.

In terms of reduced automabile production, this source below says otherwise:

https://www.oica.net/global-auto-production-in-2020-severely-hit-by-covid-19-crisis-with-a-16-drop-in-world-auto-production/

Now, robosmith: we both know that YOU are a shill. YOU are also a liar. These are two indisputable facts that will be thrown in your face every single time you and I have a conversation of which I expect to have many.

Hey, look who is trying to gaslight everyone into believing that "stopped" is the same as "reduced." Lol

Nice try.

Neither of which has any ability to drive up gas prices.?

[Deluge]

16 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Hey, look who is trying to gaslight everyone into believing that "stopped" is the same as "reduced." Lol

Nice try.

Neither of which has any ability to drive up gas prices.?

I'll give you that saying "stopped" is an exaggeration, as only 16% of all production was actually stopped. 

At least I man up with my overstatements.

Which is bullshit, given that taking away competing sources allows other producers to jack up their prices. 

 

[Hodad]

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I'll give you that saying "stopped" is an exaggeration, as only 16% of all production was actually stopped. 

At least I man up with my overstatements.

Which is bullshit, given that taking away competing sources allows other producers to jack up their prices. 

 

Can you describe any mechanism by which Joe Biden or his energy policy reduced automotive production? Or how any of this relates to gas prices? That was the original claim and context, right? 

What you're doing is sort of like, "Ow, I stubbed my toe! See, Biden sucks!". There's just no relationship between the thoughts.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Biden himself torpedoed the Keystone pipeline just two years ago, so you're wrong there.

One pipeline does NOT "end fossil fuels" like you claimed Biden would do. Duh.

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

In terms of REDUCED automabile production, this source below says otherwise:

https://www.oica.net/global-auto-production-in-2020-severely-hit-by-covid-19-crisis-with-a-16-drop-in-world-auto-production/

Again, "reduced" (which is what I said) did NOT "shut down" production. Duh

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Now, robosmith: we both know that YOU are a shill. YOU are also a liar. These are two indisputable facts that will be thrown in your face every single time you and I have a conversation of which I expect to have many.

You are the one who LIED here. I CORRECTED YOU with the TRUTH.

30 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I'll give you that saying "stopped" is an exaggeration, as only 16% of all production was actually stopped. 

At least I man up with my overstatements.

Which is bullshit, given that taking away competing sources allows other producers to jack up their prices. 

 

You ONLY "man up" after calling someone who corrected YOU, a liar. So you're LYING AGAIN ^here.

Edited June 25, 2023 by robosmith

[Rebound]

29 minutes ago, robosmith said:

One pipeline does NOT "end fossil fuels" like you claimed Biden would do. Duh.

Again, "reduced" (which is what I said) did NOT "shut down" production. Duh

You are the one who LIED here. I CORRECTED YOU with the TRUTH.

You ONLY "man up" after calling someone who corrected YOU, a liar. So you're LYING AGAIN ^here.

And the purpose of the Keystone XL Pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to Texas ports, where it can be shipped overseas. Keystone XL has no affect on production.  

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, Rebound said:

“The industry” is doomed because they refuse to understand that the industry they are in is Energy, not petroleum.  

Petroleum is energy. Without it...we cannot power our society.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Carbon taxes, BTW, would actually only show up in pricing where they are applied, e.g., if additional taxes on gasoline sales or production were applied directly to that chain.  A carbon tax on, say, widget manufacturers makes fossil fuel usage more expensive for widget manufacturers. If widget manufacturers consume less oil, it actually becomes cheaper to fill your tank, or whatever.

That's not really how it works.  It's a cumulative tax.

Most taxes allow input credits.  For example - ONLY the end user pays GST, the people who sold it to them and all the other people up the supply chain don't have to pay that money (they get it all back anyway).

But not so carbon. So it becomes part of their input costs.

So - widget guy has to add carbon tax to his prices and his mark up.  Then he sells it to the gizmo dude who will use it to build his gizmo.  Gizmo guy pays carbon tax to ship the widges to his facility one way or another, and then again to manufacture the gizmo So - when he sells it will include the original cost of the carbon tax that widget guy had to add, PLUS widget guy's mark up,  PLUS now the carbon tax gadget guy paid as well as HIS mark up.

Eventually when it gets to market it may have MANY layers of carbon tax cooked right in. Then the consumer pays the final carbon tax when he buys it. 

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

One pipeline does NOT "end fossil fuels" like you claimed Biden would do. Duh.

Again, "reduced" (which is what I said) did NOT "shut down" production. Duh

You are the one who LIED here. I CORRECTED YOU with the TRUTH.

You ONLY "man up" after calling someone who corrected YOU, a liar. So you're LYING AGAIN ^here.

One pipeline supports his statement about ending fossil fuels. It means more is to come. 

Reduced by 16% means that 16% of production was stopped. Don't be a dumbass, 

You haven't proven shit -- other than the fact that you're a shill and a liar. 

I was called out by a different poster. YOU haven't proven shit. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Petroleum is energy. Without it...we cannot power our society.

Wind and solar are energy. Without them, we cannot power our society. 

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Wind and solar are energy. Without them, we cannot power our society. 

We absolutely can power our society without wind and solar energy. What the hell were you thinking there?

In fact, we can't power our society WITH Them. THey're not efficient enough and we have no way to store the power.  At best they can be used to offset a portion of our power. Even california,  coudln't make it work.

Yeash dude - lets keep it in perspective.  With a little luck and a lot of work the day will come when we have something we can move to that isn't petroleum based, just like we moved away from coal after 100 years or so - but that day is not here and it's not going to be wind or solar as we know it, that's for sure.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's not really how it works.  It's a cumulative tax.

Most taxes allow input credits.  For example - ONLY the end user pays GST, the people who sold it to them and all the other people up the supply chain don't have to pay that money (they get it all back anyway).

But not so carbon. So it becomes part of their input costs.

So - widget guy has to add carbon tax to his prices and his mark up.  Then he sells it to the gizmo dude who will use it to build his gizmo.  Gizmo guy pays carbon tax to ship the widges to his facility one way or another, and then again to manufacture the gizmo So - when he sells it will include the original cost of the carbon tax that widget guy had to add, PLUS widget guy's mark up,  PLUS now the carbon tax gadget guy paid as well as HIS mark up.

Eventually when it gets to market it may have MANY layers of carbon tax cooked right in. Then the consumer pays the final carbon tax when he buys it. 

Hence why I referred to  specific chains. ?

So a carbon tax, unlike a direct gas tax, doesn't suddenly and simply increase the price of gas at the pump. In fact, carbon taxes in other sectors of the economy effectively decrease the demand for fossil fuels, including oil, leaving a looser supply for petroleum and providing downward pressure on the price at the pump.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

One pipeline supports his statement about ending fossil fuels. It means more is to come. 

"Supports" is NOT proving he can or will END it. Duh.

Stopping a NEW pipeline ONLY affects NEW production, not existing production.

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

Reduced by 16% means that 16% of production was stopped. Don't be a dumbass, 

And production in general was REDUCED; NOT STOPPED. Duh

NOTHING was "stopped."

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

You haven't proven shit -- other than the fact that you're a shill and a liar. 

I was called out by a different poster. YOU haven't proven shit. 

Same subject, same result. YOU LIED about oil being ended any time soon, and auto production being stopped.

Everyone (but you) KNOWS that oil production WILL BE ENDED eventually except for niche markets that cannot transition to renewables or cleaner alternative. 

YOU ARE completely IGNORANT of the REALITY.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Hence why I referred to  specific chains. ?

So a carbon tax, unlike a direct gas tax, doesn't suddenly and simply increase the price of gas at the pump.

It literally suddenly and simply increases prices at the pump.  You pay a specific direct carbon tax at the pump.  AND you pay GST tax on that tax.

It's just that on TOP of that - it ALSO has ADDITIONAL taxes in the backround that you ALSO have to pay.  ANd those show up on things that have nothing to do with carbon, such as food or shelter. But THOSE taxes you can't see.  You CAN see the ones at the gas pump.

Quote

In fact, carbon taxes in other sectors of the economy effectively decrease the demand for fossil fuels, including oil, leaving a looser supply for petroleum and providing downward pressure on the price at the pump.

They have utterly failed to do so, nor is it reasonable to think that they would.  All the businesses do is pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. They couldn't care less.   They have to make their deliveries and produce their products no matter what the carbon tax is - what, you think they were just hanging around wasting fuel and hydro already? LIke - "oh there's a carbon tax now, Hey jimmy, stop flushing all that spare fuel down the toilet, it's expensive now".

The only time they care (other than when the gov't gives them hundreds of millions to replace gear they were replacing anyway with the same gear they were going to )  is when there's something that's cheaper than gas.  But so far that's basically nothing for most businesses. The cost of electric vehicles makes them prohibitive and even if that wasn't the case the tech doesn't meet their needs yet.

 

So you're 100 percent off base on this. The tax does not work like you think it does and it does not achieve what they told you it would.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It literally suddenly and simply increases prices at the pump.  You pay a specific direct carbon tax at the pump.  AND you pay GST tax on that tax.

It's just that on TOP of that - it ALSO has ADDITIONAL taxes in the backround that you ALSO have to pay.  ANd those show up on things that have nothing to do with carbon, such as food or shelter. But THOSE taxes you can't see.  You CAN see the ones at the gas pump.

They have utterly failed to do so, nor is it reasonable to think that they would.  All the businesses do is pass the cost of the tax on to the consumer. They couldn't care less.   They have to make their deliveries and produce their products no matter what the carbon tax is - what, you think they were just hanging around wasting fuel and hydro already? LIke - "oh there's a carbon tax now, Hey jimmy, stop flushing all that spare fuel down the toilet, it's expensive now".

The only time they care (other than when the gov't gives them hundreds of millions to replace gear they were replacing anyway with the same gear they were going to )  is when there's something that's cheaper than gas.  But so far that's basically nothing for most businesses. The cost of electric vehicles makes them prohibitive and even if that wasn't the case the tech doesn't meet their needs yet.

 

So you're 100 percent off base on this. The tax does not work like you think it does and it does not achieve what they told you it would.

Where did you learn about economics? Ever hear of supply and demand?

Do you know that when the price goes up (whether due to production cost OR taxes), the demand goes down because people either can't pay more, they find alternatives or they use the product more efficiently.

If the price rise is due to higher taxes, and demand goes down, the underlying product price will be less due to lower demand, because the supply has not changed (supply is determined by well capacity and existing investment in pumping capacity).

IOW, the demand AND cost of the product is NOT solely determined by cost of production.  Profits can be squeezed by higher taxes and if NOT TOO MUCH, production incentives can INCREASE so VOLUME makes up for the lower profits from higher taxes, as long as there is production capacity to allow the increase in volume.

AKA, the price impact of increased (carbon) taxes is not nearly as simple you YOU BELIEVE.

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Where did you learn about economics? Ever hear of supply and demand?

Apparently you haven't    You've misquoted it. 

The law of supply and demand says that as price goes up suppy increases and demand goes down.  But - that doesnt' mean people stop buying it. It means that in a free market the excess supply and the fact people aren't pressured to buy because they can get it more easily will cause the price to move back towards equilibrium. People still want the product but if they can get it from anyone at a better price they will do so.  But here they can't.

You thought it meant that they just bought less    And you forgot the supply never became greater because this isn't a free market situation

 

You've just proven you have literally no idea what you're talking about     ROFLMAO ...  well no surprise. So we'll add economics to physics and law on the list of things you don't understand  

Quote

Do you know that when the price goes up (whether due to production cost OR taxes), the demand goes down

I know that's what originally was hoped would happen. But it didn't. And that's because energy isn't an 'elastic' expense.  Charge what you like, people stil need to heat their homes, and pick the kids up, and go buy groceries. So they keep buying the gas and cut spending elsewhere.

Which economists have been saying for years.

It's the same as rent - just because rent is high doesn't mean people stop renting - they still need somewhere to live.

And as we can see - emissions did not go down.

Quote

If the price rise is due to higher taxes, and demand goes down,

Nope.  Geez dude, where'd you learn your economics? The back of a cracker jacks box or something?

Seriously - you are WAY too stupid for this conversation.  You're arguing something will happen that we already know didn't happen. And it didn't happen in bc when it was started there earlier either. You don't even understand the economic principles you're misquoting.  Stick to playing with lego.

[Nationalist]

17 hours ago, Hodad said:

That is not "the bottom line." That is a story you tell yourself. A fiction. You're making it up to play politics.

Oil is a fungible commodity in a global market. Prices are set by supply and demand. Even if Biden is giving stern looks and finger wags to US producers, nothing is going to happen to the price. They don't even have the practical option of selling above the global market rate. Who would buy?

Carbon taxes, BTW, would actually only show up in pricing where they are applied, e.g., if additional taxes on gasoline sales or production were applied directly to that chain.  A carbon tax on, say, widget manufacturers makes fossil fuel usage more expensive for widget manufacturers. If widget manufacturers consume less oil, it actually becomes cheaper to fill your tank, or whatever.

And canceling a pipeline that has never moved a drop of oil anywhere obviously doesn't affect supply. Nothing has changed. Supply is the same as it was as it was the day before So are transportation and refining costs. -- Completing pipelines or other infrastructure projects could, potentially, increase supply or reduce manufacturing costs, and apply negative pressure on prices at the pump, but canceling such a project does not push prices up. It remains status quo. 

You are cordially invited to make an intelligent argument explaining the mechanisms by which Biden has increased prices, but what you're doing right now is just nonsense. "Feelings, feelings, feelings... then prices go up," is not an argument.

 

Hey...it's not my fault you're such a partisan hack and dull enough to think all this green horseshit isn't responsible for fuel prices and by extension our inflation.

You can lie to Dillard's, you even lie to yourself, but for those of us who actually think, your lies are just desperate and destructive.

[Nationalist]

17 hours ago, robosmith said:

Funding a STUDY to explore the harm done by gas stoves is only "trying to get rid of...." in YOUR FANTASIES.

Let us know when a bill is even introduced in Congress and then you might have a a case. Duh

Pfft...you such an insufferable fool.

11 hours ago, Rebound said:

Wind and solar are energy. Without them, we cannot power our society. 

Horseshit! If you think this...you really are as dumb as you sound.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Hey...it's not my fault you're such a partisan hack and dull enough to think all this green horseshit isn't responsible for fuel prices and by extension our inflation.

You can lie to Dillard's, you even lie to yourself, but for those of us who actually think, your lies are just desperate and destructive.

You were invited to make an intelligent argument. You are either incapable or unwilling and now, whichever the case, you're simply a troll mouthing off. 

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Pfft...you such an insufferable fool.

Horseshit! If you think this...you really are as dumb as you sound.

Researchers from Stanford studied CO levels produced by unventilated gas stoves in the cramped apartments of Manhattan, and they are definitely dangerous there.  
 

We shouldn’t criticize scientific study that hasn’t even been conducted.  Are gas stoves dangerous in standard homes with standard range hoods which are ventilated outside? I hope not, but it’s good to know.  There’s nothing wrong with being certain. 

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Pfft...you such an insufferable fool.

Horseshit! If you think this...you really are as dumb as you sound.

Over thirty percent of the electricity generated in Texas is windmill generated. Are saying Texas can cut their electricity 30% and operate normally? 

[Deluge]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

"Supports" is NOT proving he can or will END it. Duh.

Stopping a NEW pipeline ONLY affects NEW production, not existing production.

And production in general was REDUCED; NOT STOPPED. Duh

NOTHING was "stopped."

Same subject, same result. YOU LIED about oil being ended any time soon, and auto production being stopped.

Everyone (but you) KNOWS that oil production WILL BE ENDED eventually except for niche markets that cannot transition to renewables or cleaner alternative. 

YOU ARE completely IGNORANT of the REALITY.

Yes it is. I mean, for a brainless shill like you, the moon crashing into the earth isn't an event until your hive masters tell you it is. 

Sorry, numbnuts, when you have a shutdown, you have a stoppage of production. 2020 saw SHUTDOWNS in ADDITION to reduced production. 

There's no such thing as me lying. There is such a thing as YOU LYING and you do it a lot. 

And, no, everyone doesn't know that oil production WILL BE ENDED. We know you marxist perverts WANT OIL PRODUCTION TO END, but nobody gives a shit what you want. Windmills are nice for tree hugging moonbats, but they aren't realistic, and again, nobody gives a shit what you want. 

YOU are a shill, and a LIAR. 

 

[Rebound]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Yes it is. I mean, for a brainless shill like you, the moon crashing into the earth isn't an event until your hive masters tell you it is. 

Sorry, numbnuts, when you have a shutdown, you have a stoppage of production. 2020 saw SHUTDOWNS in ADDITION to reduced production. 

There's no such thing as me lying. There is such a thing as YOU LYING and you do it a lot. 

And, no, everyone doesn't know that oil production WILL BE ENDED. We know you marxist perverts WANT OIL PRODUCTION TO END, but nobody gives a shit what you want. Windmills are nice for tree hugging moonbats, but they aren't realistic, and again, nobody gives a shit what you want. 

YOU are a shill, and a LIAR. 

 

If “windmills are nice for tree hugging moonbats [SIC],” then explain what the “tree hugging moonbats” of Texas would do if 30% of their electrical output goes away.  Or, how would the “tree hugging moonbats” of Iowa survive if over fifty percent of their electrical production were cut off. Cause that’s how much electricity Iowa gets from windmills - Fifty Percent.  

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If “windmills are nice for tree hugging moonbats [SIC],” then explain what the “tree hugging moonbats” of Texas would do if 30% of their electrical output goes away.

Burn.... More.... Oil....

I"ve heard they have some of that in texas.   Pretty simple answer.  They can do without wind or solar just fine.

BUT - if you get rid of their oil and coal produced power... they would be in trouble.  They can't create wind and solar power reliably enough to meet demand.

Solar and wind is nice but they don't need it.  They DO need oil.