Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
December 20, 2014, 02:37:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Your opinion, please.........  (Read 3322 times)
iddee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6296

Location: Randleman, NC


« on: April 29, 2012, 09:12:04 PM »

Subject:  THE MASS EXODUS OF REFINERIES AND HIGH GASOLINE PRICES -
This will not appear on the news.  We don't have the ability to go into space and now we don't have the ability to refine our own oil.  The guy in charge must have peanut butter for brains.
 
Everyone should read this shocking e-mail as well as all the web sites referenced, since they verify the information reported here.  If this doesn't explain our president's objective of wealth distribution, I don't know what else is needed.  Despicable.

This comes from a retired oil executive who spent some 40 years in the industry.

             Mass Exodus US Oil Refineries.



The Closure Of The U.S. Oil Refinery Industry In The Past 2 Years:

In 2010, there were 149 operable U.S. refineries with a combined capacity of 17.6 million barrels (2,800,000 m3) per day. Something odd started happening in late 2010-early 2011. The US oil refinery industry quielty announced the closure of numerous US oil refineries. Many are completely unaware the US ships oil overseas to be processed. We do so as we do not have enough refineries to process the vast amounts here, and we are barred from building anymore refineries. All refineries perform three basic steps: separation, conversion, and treatment. Pretty simple.

Several reasons include technical and economic factors as to why we ship it overseas to be processed.

             1. The crude petroleum is sold to the highest bidder, NOT the nearest bidder

             2. There are different kinds of crude oil, such as sweet/light and dark/heavy. They have different applications and uses.

             3. Different kinds of refining processes are needed to make different products from the crude oil. Petroleum is processed to make lots of products other than gasoline, like plastics and asphalt.

             4. Politics, unions and the "environmentalists"

How many of you are aware Sunoco, ConocoPhillips and The HESS Corp are all closing US oil refineries? Not many, as the media refuses to give this HUGE story coverage. My guess is that if Americans understood the complete truth to how we are being sold out, and enslaved there just might be the much needed revolution to turn this country around.

Last September, both Sunoco & CP announced plant closing, effecting thousands of workers. Sunoco announced they are completely getting out of the oil industry. Closing up shop. They are done with the US oil industry.

Sunoco is closing it's 2 oil refineries in July 2012 in Philadelphia and Marcus Hook, Pa. Those 2 facilities alone process over 500,000 barrels a day.

     http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8343372

Also announced last year, ConocoPhillips announcd 2 plant closing for sure in Trainer, PA and Bayway, NJ., the other 3 plnts are undecided as of today.

     http://stillwaterassociates.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139:us-east-coast-refinery-for-sale-whos-buying&catid=40:white-papers&Itemid=155

Conoco also announced they were closing their Alaskan refining facility:

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/09/28/news/doc4e828f2ba723a246763254.txt

Just a week ago, the US 3rd largest oil refinery owned and operated by The HESS Corp just announced it's permanent closure. Costing over 2,000 jobs, and effecting 950 contractors:

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/16543753/major-oil-refinery-to-close-in-us-virgin-islands

Refineries on the East Coast of the US supply 40% of the gasoline sales and 60% of the diesel and other fuel oils.

Of that, HALF that comes from the Sunoco & ConocoPhillps plant closures.

When ConocoPhillips announced that it was closing the Trainer refinery, Willie Chiang, then ConocoPhillips' Senior Vice President of Refining, Marketing, Transportation and Commercial, noted that their decision to sell, like Sunoco's, was based on unfavorable economics caused by a competitive and difficult mark et environment characterized by "...product imports, weakness in motor fuel demand, and costly regulatory requirements."

They are ALL closing up shop due to gov regulations, union demands and excessive operating costs brought on by the Gov regulations.

Then you have the unions, led by Barry's buddy Leo Gerard saying they will close ALL US oil refineries starting from the east coast to west coast today.

             http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/usa-oil-refinery-labor-idUSS1E78M0T620110923

The unions are shutting down ports, rail and air across the pond right now......the SAME EXACT thing they plan on doing here. When the ships stop importing, the rails & air stop delivering....how much is everything you consume gonna cost? Remember...we are a CONSUMING country, no longer a producing one.

          http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=37873cee-2b75-4aa0-86ac-5336e56a4c04

The excessive and costly gov regulations on the US oil refinery mark et has forced companies to re-evaluate the cost of doing business in the US .

Why have operations in the US where you bleed money via regulations & demands, when you can have refineries built in Columbia , Mexico or Brazil for pennies on the dollar, and less regulations?

It's all business America ...nothing personal.

Besides.....your gov is giving BILLIONS to Columbia and Brazil to build refineries to process all that oil the US is losing.

We are building up every country on earth, while destroying our own....all in the name of redistribution of wealth.

I covered some of these "deals" Barry inked in my previous note:

     https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003192895784&sk=notes#!/note.php?note_id=145148522268243

You do the math. When the US oil refineries finally close up shop, who will process all that oil....and how much do YOU think that oil will cost when it's ALL processed over seas?

Think gas and energy costs are high right now.......wait 6 months. You haven't seen anything yet.

How can anyone expect any company to do business with an anti-American, hostile gov out of control? You can't. That is why we are seeing a mass exodus, across the board in every industry in the US LEAVING.


Robert A. Arnett

Robert A. Arnett & Associates, Inc.
Mesa, Arizona
480.332.3792
=
Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8186

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2012, 09:21:53 PM »

A lot of the oil pumped up today are not in the area of refineries.   The oil is pumped or trucked to get refined.  Also the environmental crap.   We get oil from up north and ship to Mexico to refine just to ship it back to the east coast.    Who knows?    Gas prices may be high, but oil is traded on the world market with the US dollar which has lost how much of it's value in the last couple of years?  Same oil, same price, just more dollars to get it.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2012, 09:27:25 PM »

it's not that new refineries are banned, but that the regulations and fighting the tree huggers makes it not worth it.  since oil and products are international commodities, it makes sense for the companies to go where they don't get such a hassle and re-import (at a higher cost to us).

after state and local taxes, the next biggest cost is the cost of transport.  if companies were allowed to build refineries closer to production and markets, the cost would be much lower.  the cost of all the different fuel mixes coupled with the limited number of refineries also adds a lot to the price.  

we also have the problem of production on public land going down.  while it is true that private production is up, production on "public" land is down.  since the government owns so much land, areas for drilling are limited.  this includes off shore drilling which is now very limited and controlled.

so much for the government working for us......
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2012, 01:50:06 PM »

I am not so sure of you statement kathyp.  Jimmy Carter gave the Serra Club veto power over certain new energy facilities on the East Coast.  The Sierra Club still maintains that they have to power to grant, deny, or modify any refineries on the East Coast.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/04/26/sierra_club_challenges_md_natural_gas_terminal/

Soon the President will have us sitting with our backs against the wall, while watching the water level rise in the same leaky boat Iran is in.  By that I mean we will be IMPORTING all our own gasoline despite our large oil reserves.  You would think that since Iran is unable to refine their own gasoline, that they would want to learn how to enrich gasoline before Iran learned how to enrich uranium?  But if you have an Ivy League education like most of our leaders do, it makes perfect sense to them.
Buy the way, the term "Ivy League" includes all three Service Academies.
Logged
carlfaba10t
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 131

Location: Grants Pass,Oregon


« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2012, 03:07:47 PM »

So great the power of the pen,BUT once you are in the state the American people are and have all ben corralled thrown and hog tied Where does that leave us? Can we the people ever hope to take control of our country from the crooks and thieves that are running it into the ground.We cant even elect a president of the people,s choice anymore.So where do we start? i don't have the answer,If anyone does i would very much like to hear it! 
Logged

Carl-I have done so much with so little for so long i can now do something with nothing!
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2012, 01:55:30 AM »

In retrospect the greatest Presidents in my lifetime have been Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.  All the rest except Ford had an Ivy League education.  Even though Harry Truman never owned a home, after Truman left office he refused all offers from every corporation that offered him a seat on its board of directors.  Truman said they didn't want him on their boards, they wanted the office of the President on their board of directors and the office of President was not for sale at any price.  I guess someone forgot to tell the Clintons.

Eisenhower, the only one of these 4 president to have what I define as an Ivy League Education was somewhat similar to Truman.  Say what you will about Nixon, he was the most liberal Republican since Hoover or maybe Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon did have the best intrest of the nation at heart.  Nixon also was likely one of the most intelligent (IQ wise) presidents ever.  Ronald Reagan started his political life as a liberal New Deal Democrat and the head of the Actors' Union to boot.  This is Holly Wood people!!!  To hear it the pinnacle of liberal Progressism.  But Reagan was intelligent enough to see when something wasn't or wouldn't work longterm and changed his and the nations course. I really think he was trying to make amends for past errors.

FDR, Truman, and Nixon all played poker.  FDR played for funzies while experimented on his friends with his bar keeping skills.  Truman just played badly.  And Nixon played well enough that he amassed a large grub stake while serving in Asia during WWII.

Ok flame away.
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2012, 02:08:07 PM »

... oil is traded on the world market with the US dollar which has lost how much of it's value in the last couple of years?  Same oil, same price, just more dollars to get it...

In the case of crude oil, the Dollar has already lost 90 to 96 percent of its value since 1998 when it traded for under $10 a barrel.  Soon all prices will be escalating like they did during the liberal Weimar Republic a.k.a. Second Reich of post WWI Gemany when for two years all prices averaged an 100% increase every two days.  Have you went grocery shopping lately?  Obama talks about not harming the middel class, oh boy, this Obama policy is not a shot across the the middle class' bow, it is a shot right between the middle classes' eyes in the best (or worst) Soviet tradition.
До свидания, y'all!!!
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 03:18:06 PM by kingbee » Logged
Wonga
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68

Location: Blue Mountains, Australia

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury refill


« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2012, 08:41:32 AM »

Well Iddee,
 - I think every country has its own unique political dialogue and shared political shorthand - but I thought you might like to know that what is happening to hydro-carbon refining in the US is also happening in Australia too.

Refineries are slowly getting old and not replaced, and now the announcements are being made that refining will all move off shore - probably in our case, to India and Indonesia. At the same time, the oil companies are divesting themselves of their company owned service stations - the retail outlets, here too.

It looks like the large oil companies are getting out of all except large scale extraction and sale. I don't know anything about 3rd world regulation, but I bet that 50 cents an hour wage cost looks mighty attractive. As for petrol (gasoline) costs, wait until China's planned vehicle production of 30 million cars a year gets up and running fully - demand/ fuel costs are going to rise then, and keep rising.

The bees don't care -



Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2012, 09:23:26 AM »

Quote
Refineries are slowly getting old and not replaced, and now the announcements are being made that refining will all move off shore

that's a problem for anyone who does it...us too.  oil and it's products are essential to our existence.  when you don't have control of an essential product...it's being refined in a potentially unstable place....you have put your country at risk.

not a problem if Indonesia makes your pringles chips and the place blows up.  big problem if they make your petrol products and blow up...(literately or  politically)

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2012, 02:51:54 AM »

... no... problem if Indonesia makes your pringles chips and the place blows up.  big problem if they make your petrol products and [it] blow up...(literately or  politically)

What those Ivy League government smarty pants seem to forget is that it does us no good to have a strategic petroleum reserve stashed in the ground if we must transport that crude oil via tanker ship through a war zone to refined it.  Then make the return trip through the same dangerous waters to deliver the refined petroleum products back to our shore.  Talk about putting our country not to mention the environment in double jeopardy....

But remember that American Progressives, at least in the highest places are at heart traitors, and seem to want to destroy your future by bring everything down around our ears, or by setting us up for failure and defeat by helping our enemies.  This failure will create the same economic stability for you and your children that currently exists in Greece or South Sudan. 

In January 1942 a German Unterseeboot sank the first American oil tanker lost in WWII.  By May of that same year U-Boats had sunk 234 American oil tankers, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic coast of the South Eastern United States.  It was estimated that 7,000 nonexistent rail tank cars would needed to arrive in New Jersey every 24 hours just to replace the amount of Texas oil being spilled into the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.... every single day.  That is almost two oil tankers sunk every day. 

The answer was the Big Inch Oil Pipeline construction project.  By late 1942 the route was surveyed and planned.  In January 1943 construction began.  Three thousand plus miles of trenches and tunnels were dug and two separate oil pipelines, one 2 feet in diameter and another 20 inches in diameter were cast, transported, welded, and installed.  The final pipe was welded shut in New Jersey in July of 1943.  Yes that's right, 7 months to construct 3,000 miles of oil transmission and feeder pipe lines, spanning 1,400 miles of the American heart land.  Obama has now been in office 25 days less than the total US involvement in the Second World War and still President Obama refuses permission for a single oil pipe line across the Canadian border to replace our own oil that President Obama is denying us.  You may call it what you will...... but I dare call it treason. 
Logged
yockey5
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 677


Location: Hudson, Indiana


« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2012, 09:10:51 AM »

Speculators are controlling the oil market now and this (controlling supply to meet demand) feeds their program for profit.
Logged
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2012, 06:26:08 PM »

Speculators are controlling the oil market... and ...controlling supply to meet demand...


Then please explain the President's Energy Secretary Steven Chu's 2008 statement that he (Chu) wanted to see U. S. gasoline reach the price level in  Europe, $10-12 in to days' dollar per gallon.   How is this going to decrease prices???  This statement is a call to every greedy oil speculator on Earth to "COME AND GET IT!"  I can't speak for you but I have a family car and a pickup.  Chu has never owned a car in his entire life and as far as I know he has never had a drivers license, but he is the one who is playing the tune to which you and I are forced to dance.

The Obama administration enables oil speculation in this manner.  Colorado's Democrat Senator Kenneth Lee Salazar objected to increasing oil and gas suppies and decreasing energy supplies even if it meant that you and I were forced to buy $10.00 a gallon gasoline.  Former Senator Kenneth Lee Salazar is President Obama's current Secretary of the Interior.  Ken Salazar is PERSONALLY responsible for approving every gas and oil lease on Fedrial Land.  Mr. Salazar was confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2009.  This is the day that President Obama was sworn into office. It is now almost June 2012.   Gasoline has never been been cheaper than it was on January 20, 2009, the first day of the Obama administration.  Mr. Salazar is personally responsible for APROVING ALL drilling and oil exploration permits on federal land.  Pray tell what Obama or his Czars are doing to discourage oil speculation?  Telling the market that you are committed to ever lower oil production, and ever higher oil prices is a clarion call to rampant oil speculation.

Not Even At $10 A Gallon?

Risch Questions Secretary Chu on Gas Prices - 02/16/11


You have seen the evidence, tell me therefore which party in Congress is the obstructionest party???
Logged
FRAMEshift
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1681


Location: North Carolina


« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2012, 10:46:08 PM »

You guys seem to believe the spin the oil industry puts on things.  While it's true that the total number of refineries has gone down, the average size of refineries has gone up. Older, smaller refineries have been replaced by larger refineries.  The total oil refined has increased.  The new Marathon refinery in Louisiana is enormous.  

US oil imports have been dropping while US exports of oil have been rising.  We have the lowest dependency on foreign imported oil in a generation.  True, that is partly a result of the severe recession/depression we are in.  But it's also because US production and REFINING have been on the rise.

By the way, I support the re-distribution of wealth.  If there is no mechanism for cycling money back to the middle class, all the money will end up in the hands of the most wealthy.  Taxes on the rich are lower than they were in the 1950s and 1960s when the industrial might of the country was growing at it's fastest and America became THE world leader.  Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 85% while now it is 38%.  

I doubt that many of you are among the super rich.  If so, you would have your butler doing your beekeeping for you. Smiley   Do you think you will be able to survive on the crumbs dropping from the tables of the rich?  Why don't you support policies that are in your own best interest?  Supply side, low tax policies have failed every time they have been tried.  Have you forgotten that Ronald Reagan presided over the largest inflation corrected tax INCREASE in US history?  It was one year after he engineered the largest tax decrease in history.  He had to do it because tax cuts did not stimulate the economy.  How many times do we have to repeat the same mistakes?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 08:28:22 AM by FRAMEshift » Logged

"You never can tell with bees."  --  Winnie-the-Pooh
BjornBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3773


Location: Lewisberry, PA


« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2012, 06:22:15 AM »

 lau

I guess that was the "no spin" zone.

 lau
Logged

www.bjornapiaries.com
www.pennapic.org
Please Support "National Honey Bee Day"
Northern States Queen Breeders Assoc.  www.nsqba.com
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2012, 08:52:08 AM »

If so, you would have your butler doing your beekeeping for you. Smiley

No way am I letting him have all the fun!!  I make him clean up the extracting room, though. evil
Logged

Rick
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2012, 01:31:52 AM »

... By the way, I support the re-distribution of wealth.  If there is no mechanism for cycling money back to the middle class, all the money will end up in the hands of the most wealthy...

Define wealth.  Is it negotiable instruments like cash money, cashiers checks, stocks, bonds, etc. or is wealth land, homes, factories, farms, machinery, etc.  In one of the first years of his career Elvis Presley paid 91% of his income in Federal income taxes.  Meanwhile the poor paid 10%.  is this how you intend to level the playing field?  Spread the wealth as well as the poverty around to everyone?

When John Lennon was assassinated he was a fugitive from justice in Great Brittan.  John Lennon fled the United Kingdom to escape a "spread the wealth around" income tax bracket of 110%.  You see Lennon was a greedy, tax cheating, one percenter.  Yes you read it right, a ONE HUNDRED AND TEN PERCENT income tax.  The idea is not to spread the wealth around, but to destroy the bourgeoisie elements in the middle class as well as the wealthy "one percent"

Hey I just remembered, I got this here bridge up there in Brooklin, why don't you come up I'll let it go cheap. 

The idea behind the issue you embrace is nothing less than the same old Leninist-Stalinist Marksism that set John Lennon and Mark David Chapman on course for that fateful meeting in a NYC.  The same path that Great Brittan was on in the 1970s, and the same path that led to the Final Solution, and the same garden path our President seems set on taking us down.

Tax rates high enough to furnish jam & butter to spread on the middle class' bread, will cause millions of rich Americans to simply pick up and leave like John Lennon did, taking their toys as well as the objects of your envy with them.  The middle class bourgeoisie are the ones I pity, because they are not going anywhere, which means that they can only stand by, hat in hand while the government seizes their jam and butter to redistributed to those who are, or who say they are in greater need.

As long as the government stays out of the way there are already two vehicles in place to redistribute wealth to the middle class.  These vehicles are named opportunity and hard work.  I highly recommend that you take one or both of these vehicles for a test drive.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15319


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #16 on: June 03, 2012, 11:13:01 AM »


Quote
By the way, I support the re-distribution of wealth.  If there is no mechanism for cycling money back to the middle class, all the money will end up in the hands of the most wealthy.  Taxes on the rich are lower than they were in the 1950s and 1960s when the industrial might of the country was growing at it's fastest and America became THE world leader.  Under Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 85% while now it is 38%.


redistribution does not "recycle" to the middle class.  there is not enough wealth among the wealthy to support redistribution.  by necessity, the middle class ends up taking the hit.  that's why the millionaires tax drifted down the 250,000 and then 200,000.... if and when the tax cuts expire, the majority of the burden for the higher taxes will fall on the middle class...which puts the lie to the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric we have heard so much.

Quote
I doubt that many of you are among the super rich.  If so, you would have your butler doing your beekeeping for you.    Do you think you will be able to survive on the crumbs dropping from the tables of the rich?  Why don't you support policies that are in your own best interest?  Supply side, low tax policies have failed every time they have been tried.  Have you forgotten that Ronald Reagan presided over the largest inflation corrected tax INCREASE in US history?  It was one year after he engineered the largest tax decrease in history.  He had to do it because tax cuts did not stimulate the economy.  How many times do we have to repeat the same mistakes?

you assume the wealthy do not work?  the wealthiest people i know put in the longest hours and do the hardest work.  that's how they got wealthy and it becomes a life time habit to work like that.

supply side works every time it's tried.  give me some numbers on the reagan tax increase.  what you are talking about, i suspect, is the largest revenue increase.  revenue increases when taxes go down because more people expand business, work, and PAY taxes.  in addition, closing loop holes in the tax code did increase some taxes on some people, but it also simplified the tax code (which we have screwed up again).

the mistake being made now IS to repeat history.  he's doing what Wilson and FDR did and both time, it was a failure and extended the recessions/depression.  this is history.

you talk about the poor living off the crumbs of the rich?  you sound like you are in a European class society.  we are not stuck where we are.  we are limited only by our choices, abilities, and work ethic. but...to use your example, if i had a butler, maid, gardener, etc. they would have those jobs because i could afford to hire them.  unlike the class system, if my staff wanted more, they could manage their money well and eventually make a different choice about their employment or education.  if they waited for crumbs, or for the government to "help" them, they would continue as servants.    

i don't think you care about redistribution as much as you care about punishing success.  


Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
kingbee
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1083


Location: Big bend of the Tennessee River


« Reply #17 on: June 03, 2012, 07:24:39 PM »

... By the way, I support the re-distribution of wealth.  If there is no mechanism for cycling money back to the middle class, all the money will end up in the hands of the most wealthy...

I'm trying to say this in a manner that even us beekeepers can understand.  The words honey and money are identical except for the first letter.

A bee colony needs 100# of honey-money just to forage and raise brood for 30 days.  This honey-money is not surplus to the bees needs, it is vital to the continued health of the colony.  If the beek taxes or robs his colony of this honey-money, no more brood is produced and the colony dwindles and dies.  A weak bee colony like a weak economy doesn't produce a harvestable surplus.  Soon it becomes obvious that the good old days was when you could look forward to having a few crumbs fall from the fat cats' table and land in your lap.

There is no government policy so unsustainable as seizing or overly taxing the wealthy and using this honey-money to disincentives the wealthy as well as discourage the middle class.  The only things this accomplishes is to drive the well off out of the country or else it encourages them to produce less.  At the same time these high taxes disincentives the middle class from working harder and smarter because they see by example that if they do succeed, a government robbing frenzy will ensue.  Since bees are social insects living in a society ruled by a government, that makes government revenue honey-money that's been extracted from us bees, no workey equals no surplus, equals no taxey.  Simple ain't it.

It is impossible for the government to extract honey-money from the rich even by the crush and strain method if the most productive bees are no longer willing or able to invest in the hive we call the USA.  You may as well pull your brood frames out every morning and feed the newly hatched worker larva or your queen bee to your chickens. The chickens will love you for it, but you can forget about getting a sustainable honey-money harvest. 

If you want more bees spend all your money on woodenware, sugar and package bees.  If on the other hand you want more poor people spend all your money on them. You's get's, what you's pay's for, nothing more and nothing less.
Logged
Wonga
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68

Location: Blue Mountains, Australia

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury refill


« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2012, 01:43:12 AM »

 I think re-distribution of wealth is problematic - but  we all support it - we are arguing over degree, or how much, same as socialism. I mean, when the London local government increased taxes on house/land owners, to build their sewerage system 200 years ago, the wealthy landlords decried this as lunatic socialism and theft, but the sewers delivered health savings and dropped deaths per year by many thousands  - from typhoid and cholera, etc- getting landlords to pay for this (there was no income tax or goods taxes then) was re-distribution of wealth, and it ultimately saved hundreds of thousands of lives, including those of the landlords and their families.

 Nowadays, we consider it normal to use taxes to run public water and sewerage, as it is considered basic health, even in 3rd world countries. and the poor benefit too. Socialism the same - I think legislating to keep children out of mines is socialism, but good, and I certainly want regulation prohibiting a large company from building a nuclear waste facility next door  to me-all a matter of degree.

So getting back to re-distribution of wealth, its a matter of degree - I don't think its overall good, some amount is needed even if just for sewer and water, Police, whatever, however the debate on degree and on motivation has to be constant and vigilant. So, just like I don't want to see slaves or 9 year old kids making products in unhealthy carcinogenic factories or working underground in mines,- neither do I want to see taxes cut to zero. But I don't buy it that wealth is always linked to hard work either - there is inherited wealth, and wealth due to government subsidy, and after all, if hard work was really good for you, the Rich Folk would keep it all for themselves.

Overly taxing the wealthy may disincentive them, maybe ( I mean, where's Bill Gates going to move to - Albania? Hardly, they don't have the copyright legislation), but I think that universally, the wealthy stay right where they can buy the right tax breaks, subsidies and lack of regulation - and move on when infrastructure gets old, labour costs get too high, or another society offers better opportunity for exploitation. At the least, their capital moves on.
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5528


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2012, 08:52:01 PM »

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were not born wealthy. They created their wealth.Bill Gates gives a large amount to charity.They collectively produced many more rich people that worked for stock when money was tight.They developed products that people willingly paid for.The market worked for them.
Their investments have produced more than any government investment.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.874 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page December 19, 2014, 03:48:10 PM
anything