Yes, we can.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So are the people better off with no food? Or paying $20/loaf?

All items have value. If I were the flood victim, I owuldn't be happy to be paying $20/loaf. But I'd sure be glad that I had something to feed my kid.

Why does it have to be either/or? Why not sell the bread at a reasonable rate? Say 20% above the pre flood price. Or better yet… donate the bread and get free publicity and tons of good will. Assuming a normal price of $4 a loaf $20 would be a 400% mark-up! That’s not making a decent profit, that’s obscene greed!

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Total agreement. I know Leo threw in "risking life and limb" but in the end, what is he risking it for? An $18 profit. Boo.

The idea that the gas companies are somehow being unselfish is beyond laughable. We all know that Exxon made more money last year than any company has ever made in any year, ever, right? That is, while we are paying prices for gas that are bankrupting delivery businesses and making some people decide between paying their mortgage and driving to work.

Bolding mine. Since an argument could be made that people shouldn't have bought more house then they could afford (and divulge into a predatory lending discussion) I'd change it to buying groceries or paying utiltiies and driving to work.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

The idea that the gas companies are somehow being unselfish is beyond laughable. We all know that Exxon made more money last year than any company has ever made in any year, ever, right? That is, while we are paying prices for gas that are bankrupting delivery businesses and making some people decide between paying their mortgage and driving to work.

Yes, I know that. I just don't see how it is particularly relevant. And overt government attempts to cap gasoline prices will not work. A windfall tax in an environment of unchanged demand -- and the US market is an increasingly smaller portion of global demand -- will just raise gasoline prices. A cap on profits will just cause companies to stop selling gas once they've maxed out for the year.

I have no problem with oil companies raping us from both ends. I just want to stop subsidizing them for the privilege.

[innerSpaceman]

Why is a subsidy not "expected" to be paid back? Who expected the subsidy in the first place? No one. Our representative government decided to give them a hand-out. That same representative government can, at any time, just as well decide to tax them.

I agree it all should be left alone, no subsidies, no corporate tax loopholes, etc. But he who giveth is also he who can taketh away. Anyone who expects one is an ass not to expect the other.

[Alex]

To clarify, I am not suggesting I would support a windfall tax now on the basis that it was seeking recoupment of past subsidies. That would not be fair as the decision to use such subsidies would have been made on deceptive terms and it would not take into account actual use of subsidies by individual companies.

I also would not be advocating anything like a traditional loan. Because not only would that show incorrectly in corporate valuation it would also falsely "boost" the government's accounting.

I'd have to think through the accounting a lot (and I'm doing that way too much in real life for me to do it for my political fantasy baseball team) but essentially it would an agreement to submit to a higher tax rate in the future in return for current assistance.

[scaeagles]

Let's say that oil companies decided to completely cut out their profit on gas. Completely. That's about 9 cents/gallon. I recall that the possible elimination of the gas taxes for the summer was laughed at because it would make no real impact, but that would have been something like 24 cents/gallon, if I recall the numbers correctly.

If 24 cents/gallon would make no real impact, then what impact does 9 cents/gallon make? No real impact at all.

The oil companies are nothing but a scapegoat.

[scaeagles]

Your economics are right on, Alex, but I don't think we're being raped at all. 9 cents/gallon isn't a huge profit margin.

[scaeagles]

Agreed, JW. It is greed. But which is better? The people without food or paying $20?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Agreed, JW. It is greed. But which is better? The people without food or paying $20?

Again I ask, why does it have to be either/or?

ETA:

I think this shows the basic difference between two types of people in this world – those who see disaster, and instinctively think of helping other people; and those who see disaster, and instinctively think of helping only themselves. It would never cross my mind to reap horrendous profit from the misery of others. If I had owned that bread company, I would unhesitatingly donate my bread to help others in trouble. I guess that puts me in the former category.

I also think that I wouldn’t want much to do with those who fall in the later category.

[mousepod]

See, the problem I have with your metaphor, scaeagles, is that it doesn't take into account the subsidies that the bread supplier already got the year before, and the press that would undoubtedly raise the public cry against the supplier who would be pummeled on TV - 24 hours a day (until a sexier story comes up).