I do not remember the name of company, only the story.
It was a famous story told by many and for a long time.
As I recall, it was owned by two brothers.
One was for the idea and one was 100% against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Printable View
I do not remember the name of company, only the story.
It was a famous story told by many and for a long time.
As I recall, it was owned by two brothers.
One was for the idea and one was 100% against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David
It looks like the same deal. Gravity Payments was owned by two brothers and one did sue the other. Its sad when a family falls out. I am still boating and water skiing with my brothers and we are 63-68
"In October 2015, Dan was sued by Lucas over claims that Dan received excessive compensation and that he had been working against Lucas' interests.[13][14][15] Dan prevailed in the case in July 2016 and was awarded attorney's fees and other expenses incurred from the lawsuit."
Reading comprehension is a terrible thing to waste :rolleyes:
One more time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Payments
David,
Your opinion means zero, you don't pay into our failing system. Keep to Canada, l hear your current economic situation is stellar lol. My feeling are very simple, "if l am paying, then l deserve a vote". I have no interest in paying for people to buy a specific product or helping pay for a very controversial government agenda.
Joe
Gee, that sounds just like Forkin Crazy
Nice dig about their economy, but I thought you just said the US is down the drain.
We are very LUCKY to have Canada as our loving neighbor. They gave us Hockey :cheers:
Seriously we are very lucky to have the neighbors we have north and south,
Yes please build a wall to shut everyone up, PLEASE.
LOL, I paid US income tax for decades, as well as social security and medicare taxes. Much to my surprise I even paid a bit of income tax to Uncle Sam this year. Please explain why my country of residence effects economic theory. The general principles of economics are universal. As is the old joke about if you lined up all the economists in the world, they would point in different directions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPEROG
Joe,
One more thing. Please read my post. Did I say I supported the subsidy? Nope. As it turns out I know little about the subsidy in question and have no opinion on it. My point was that in response to a market failure, a government can subsidize, tax, or regulate. All of these are potentially legitimate actions, and just about all that a government can or should do. None of these actions are socialism. Socialism is generally understood as the government owning the means of production. The means of production means less in today's service economy then it did 100 years ago, but I don't think either of us want the government in charge of goods or services.
You could of course have argued that global warming is not real, or is not caused by CO2 emissions, so that there is no market failure that needs addressing. Or you could say that this specific subsidy is not the most efficient means of action - something I generally agree with, and may be the case here. My dispute was with your calling a subsidy socialism. And yes I am giving you a harder time about it then I might otherwise, since you have been asking Cuda to take economics lessons.
Cheers
David
PS If it matters, I do think the climate change is caused by human CO2 emissions, but I have no interest in debating this on SnF. I am willing to peacefully not agree with a lot of the crowd here on that point.
We will probably never know if the EV market would have developed or failed in the US without the subsidy. I suppose we may find out what happens if the subsidy ends.
I agree the climate is changing but I don't see the cause as just CO2 from human activity. Also have to disagree with anyone who thinks CO2 mandates from North America and Europe governments will make a damn bit of difference in how the climate changes. Unless most of the global population somehow disappears.
Barry
Careful what you wish for! ;)
I mostly agree, except that atmospheric CO2 is GOOD (and necessary)... if there was half as much; most of the human activity would stop due to starvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryStrawn
Also, the EV market is imploding with the subsidies; how could it possibly have done better without them?
And finally...
Attachment 532129
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.
It's already too late, I believe, and I'm too old to really care. I just find it hard to believe those who don't believe it's happening,
I just came from a job in Everglades City, and some streets regularly flood at high tide now. Old Miami is the same,
In every report I read, it's happening faster than previous predictions.
]https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/effects/[/url]
Earth Will Continue to Warm and the Effects Will Be Profound
The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions, and an increase in the wind intensity and rainfall from tropical cyclones.
left - Mike McMillan/USFS, center - Tomas Castelazo / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0, right - NASA.
Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.
Scientists had long predicted that global climate change would result in effects such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.
The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.
The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.
The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Here are some of the expected effects of global climate change on the United States, according to the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports:
Future effects of global climate change in the United States:
sea level rise
U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Global sea level has risen about 8 inches (0.2 meters) since reliable record-keeping began in 1880. By 2100, scientists project that it will rise at least another foot (0.3 meters), but possibly as high as 6.6 feet (2 meters) in a high-emissions scenario. Sea level is rising because of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.
Image credit: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
all electric everything should definitely help!
A government subsidy is a still paid with taxpayer dollars. Call it what you want, our current administration waged a direct war on fossil fuel as their personal agenda (no vote) and we are the ones paying for it. Nothing is free as you know and when we as a country are in the debt situation that we are, why the hell would they offer incentive for a specific market segment--Because they funded the manufactures before they offered funding to the consumer and have egg on their face (two wrongs don't make a right). Rebates, promotions, discounts, "whatever want to label them as" should be provided by the manufacture. Our government has over reached its bounds again with mandates that force the auto industry to build products that there is not a real demand for. Bottom line, they were never hired to be in the car or golfcart business, yet they are and my money is being used up on a lost cause when it could be going to reduce debt and helping to shut down the cash press. None of my businesses operate on the premise that "don't worry Joe, if you lose money, we will just send you a check". Its B.S. and it was named in his agenda when he was campaigning that he had a hard on for big oil and U.S. internal production. Let free enterprise be what it is and we all win with better products at better prices through market competition (really simple).Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Joe
Crude oil production in the United States, including condensate, averaged 12.9 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2023, breaking the previous U.S. and global record of 12.3 million b/d, set in 2019.
Hey, Mr free Enterprise, why do the oil companies get close to a Trillion a year in SUBSIDIES
In the United States, it's $646 billion yearly. May 3, 2023
Yes, Big Oil and all those corn growers for chitty Ethanol get handouts, not just Tax incentives.
The federal government spends more than $30 billion annually on farm businesses and agriculture subsidies.
not sure where you are getting your info on subsides but you’re off. by a lot. By a whole lot. About twenty times over. Unless you are reading from sources claiming that road damage and storm damage are subsidies to big oil (hint: they are not).Quote:
Originally Posted by CUDA
Here is the list of subsidies the USA offers to oil drillers as of 2016:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin...gas-subsidies/
I doubt that in today’s political climate and leadership, that subsidies have gone up. And they certainly have not gone up twenty times over, from what they were eight ago.
Also you said that globally oil is subsidized by 30 trillion. A trillion is a thousand billion. Billion, with a B. Does it seem odd to you that the world’s single largest oil producer only gets one sixtieth of the global oil subsidies. And that’s using YOUR subsidy numbers. Which are inflated… by a lot.
===
it’s the math that was burning you two years ago, and it’s the math that is still burning you.
===
but it’s the lithium fires that are burning everything else. More and more and more.
-Peter