If we can get ethanol for $3 a gallon why are we still messing with oil?

http://news.cnet.com/...
http://earth2tech.com/...

Gee...   Maybe I'm wrong.  And maybe it will snow in hell.

If you want immediate relief for the people being hurt by high fuel prices and a little boost for the economy then here's your answer:

http://GreaterVoice.org/...

And then we have that truly wild and crazy futuristic science fiction
koolaid of 55 MPH speed limits to reduce the amount of fuel being
consumed.

But if you've just got to drill because of some fetish then drill here:

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/...

This is not much of a diary but it gets into the political economy of energy just enough for the highly political people here at Kos.  There is not much discussion here other than "he said, they said" and "So n' so is Satanic" and if you believe something other than my way is the right way then you are a Republican.

But this algae stuff is really important.  I recently published a diary about the great ANWR Rip Off.  And that diary was very political. At least it was as political as I would typically get.  In it I accused the Republicans of seeking favor with the all powerful oil companies in their never ending quest for supreme fascism.  I will not retract that position any time soon.

There has also been an attack of Obama for his support of biofuels and specifically an attempt (justified or not) to link him to corn based biofuels.  That is a bad association to have in today's red hot food shortage world.  Obama is smart enough to dodge that I think and he is also smart enough to be promoting a "Profits Tax" on the oil companies.  He has not been explicit about the use of the revenues from such a tax and I have published what I think is the absolute stone cold nuts on that issue.

Based on the current limited amount of information concerning the ANWR drilling proposal the oil companies are getting a huge slice of the oil proceeds.  Then the Alaskans get half of what is left.  And last and least, the rest of the American people get some royalties and tax revenue out of the deal.

I have written on this subject before.  But not until today June 6, 2008, did I realize the scope of this operation and the fascism that it lives and breaths.  Not until today did I see Barack Obama tied to the deaths of millions of people by virtue of his support for biofuels.  And not until today did the little lite bulb come on about the true story of ANWR.

The Republican apologists have really put this one together well.  It is hard to imagine people that want fascism but they seem to want it badly.

This article is lifted from a thread in Usenet sensationalizing the recent stupidity of one or two very ignorant Democrats on the subject of "nationalizing" the oil companies. It took on the characteristics of a disagreement over taxation and Constitutionality. The righties love to lean on the Constitution when squawking about any sort of tax on the oil companies (or any other corporate tax for that matter).

But look a little deeper and you find that the gummint can do just about whatever the people tell it to do.

There seems to be some controversy over the idea of a Windfall
Profits Tax (WPT) on oil company profits.  There are those who erroneously
claim that all taxes are paid by consumers and that corporations
will just increase their prices and "pass the tax" to the people that buy
their stuff.  This basic tenet of faith, subscribed to by many, is in an
"elastic market", total bunk. But in the case of oil companies there is
some small grain of truth to it.

Who actually carries the burden of the tax is discussed as "tax
incidence". http://en.wikipedia.org/...

In the case of the WPT (and other business taxes), who ends up with the
burden of the tax will depend primarily on the elasticity of the supply
and the elasticity of the demand for the productions (the link above
discusses these elasticities in context of the tax). There is also an
additional factor which we will address at the end of this article.

Free markets are mostly a very good thing.  But when the concept is
applied to life supporting less elastic essential resources, the problem
of the ego and the desire for power overcomes the good that would
otherwise flow from such unfettered pursuit of "happiness"/"property".

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the current fiasco of oil prices.
Having compiled wealth into the hands of the few, the few are now waging
a feudal war for control of the life's blood of the planet:

"'free trade' -- despite the well meaning wishes of the idealists --
ends up concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the greedy-
selfish" says retrogrouch.....

This will be the last bubble but no more are needed. Having concentrated wealth into the top 1% of the people on earth we have economic feudalism  where the fight is over the ownership of the world's oil supplies.  The price of oil is not a reflection of supply and demand in anything even remotely resembling a "free market" . It is the hoarding and withholding of non-produced fixed supply resources in pursuit of power.  The ownership of oil is more concentrated than it has ever been in that the unregulated but enforced futures markets make it entirely possible and legal to exercise sufficient control over supplies to wage economic warfare for control of the world.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why our illustrious government has been pumping oil out of the North Slope, transporting to Texas, and then pumping right back into the ground? That is essentially what the Bush administration has been doing for the last 7 years as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been filling up.  I suppose it must be the Republican version of a jobs program moving the oil from one US storage facility to another. I don't see any new infrastructure in place but that, of course, is the beauty of it.  The continuing success of the Republicans in their war to impoverish the American government and all it stands for.

It never got on the radar until the high gasoline prices finally got the Senate, on a vote of 99 to 1 to tell the moron in chief that the game was over.  But this is merely the tip of the stupidity iceberg.

A Windfall Profits Tax will not increase the cost of gasoline at the pump or decrease the supply of oil.  And such a tax with a combination "stimulus" type rebate program is the proper address to the current problems and dislocations caused by high gasoline prices.  The Windfall Profits (sur)Tax  of 50% of profits so long as the per barrel price of oil exceeds $80 would provide a minimum of $40 per month to the two earner family (probably more like $50).  Please recall that the stimulus rebates phase out at higher incomes and that is part of the design of a proper stimulus.

In a recent comment to a diary presented by Duke1676 I used some very inflammatory name calling in combating what is a significant amount distortion in the actual economics of illegal immigration.  While those calling themselves "progressives" are obviously quite kind and forgiving folk who have a certain sentimentality "caring" about the less fortunate, it is never a good thing to ignore economic realities; not good to ignore  and the price of these sentiments being paid by those who may not be quite so altruistic. The problem is that a great many of these "less than generous" common folks will soon crowd into the voting booths and register their dismay at the flood of illegal labor that continues to enter our country from the south and contribute to the increasing wealth disparity and to adversely effect their prosperity.  We are all acutely aware of the jingoistic bigotry of the Republican party and their feigned fascination with law enforcement for their own political purposes.  This diary seeks to expand on the actual economics of immigration (legal and illegal) without all the heat, emotion, misdirection, and political posturing.

In a  recent diary entitled "Whats in a Label" we see that the country is conservative as opposed to Liberal as those terms are currently defined.  The actual problem for Liberals is that the term has been so destroyed by the extremes (both left and right) that the only safe haven for the rational is in the middle.  And the true conservative voice has articulated a camaraderie with the word "justice" that draws people from the rational middle while the true Liberal voice has been non existent.

I missed it and it has now been covered up by the primary wars. It was a very fine article on the issue of immigration entitled South of the Border: Another view on immigration that discussed the actual economic issues as opposed to the usual posturing bull manure.  The point (as interpreted by me) was that the immigration problem can only be cured by curing the poverty that exists south of our borders.  The point was also made that NAFTA and other, so called, trade agreements have made matters a lot worse.  And in focusing on this latter point we may be able to develop an understanding of what will be necessary to address the former (the curing of the poverty).  So I will get the bad stuff out of the way first:  The culture of those living south of the border seems to produce a very high birth rate and a very large population.  And there is very little that the American people can do about that unless  education provides an answer.  But this actually brings us to the positive part of this diary.  Read on, McDuff...

All too often I hear the, so called, progressives framing the issues of compassion in terms of taking from the rich.  I wonder if it even matters that we "justify" such actions by alleviating conditions of poverty.  While such a scheme is probably righteous in some religious circles it is not necessarily just and fair.  And when the "progressive movement" transgresses upon the boundaries of justice and fairness I, for one, become less enamored.  For me this lack of support for "progressives" happens because I know that almost all of the problem of poverty and inequality of opportunity can be eliminated without this indiscriminate blackjacking of the rich. Assuring equal opportunity is not the same thing as showering the poor with goodies simply because they are poor; it is not the same thing as nurturing and feeding those that refuse to contribute to the society.  Opportunity and equal justice matters.  Outcomes are not guaranteed.

Well it actually happened last week.  I've been sorta busy and will post this diary a day or so late but it is an "I told ya so" diary reflecting the very long winded, thick, and ponderous dairy I produced during the heat of some recent Obama/Clinton wars.  Perhaps during this minor break I can reiterate my convictions concerning "It's the Congress, Stupid" and the realities of electoral district size regarding  the likely outcome of elections and policy/legislation.

The recent victory of "Our House" over the more plutocratic Senate (where the electoral district is the whole state) and the latter day Aristocratic (P)resident (where the electoral district is the whole #&#%^$& nation) is the trumpet I will blow in support of my cause.

In a recent thread concerning the telecommunications company immunities it was stated that the House of Representatives is "our firewall" against these transgressions of the oligarchy.  And this particular characterization is of great importance and substance in exemplifying the role of the House of Representatives and our own responsibilities. The Senate was originally conceived as a bulwark against the populism that would characterize the more representative and more democratic House of Representatives. But there is also a countervailing defensive mechanism at work in the House.  The House serves not only as the bastion of popular legislation in the positive sense but as our bulwark against the onslaught of oligarchy that ensues from the more plutocratic Senate and the more aristocratic latter day (P)residency. The House of Representatives is the "People's House".  And our bicameral legislature is part of the "checks and balances" sought in the design of our government.

I am amazed at the political ineptitude of lefties as they piss all over the 8 good years of Clinton.  The nation was not fully restored from the Republican disaster of the 80's but there was a reprieve from right winged stupidity.  All the moonbats are screeching and whining as usual that it wasn't sufficient. There wasn't a Constitutional amendment enforcing Roe V Wade for all eternity; no council of females directing the economic and moral development of the communities. We did not have legislation creating special tax treatmrnt for those attending a kumbaya sing-in.

I can hear the Right Wing Noise machine already: The economy was doing just fine until the Democrats took over the Congress.  They threatened to raise taxes and they refused to fix Social Security.  They were able to stop the Republican anti illegal immigration legislation that would have saved American jobs by insisting on enforcement of current immigration laws.  Then they produced no immigration bill to resolve the problems.  So here we are with a recession.  And if you want to look deeper you will find that Bill Clinton did NAFTA and that Bill Clinton signed the 1997 capital gains tax cuts and the repeal of Glass Steagall.  And both of these latter stupidities fed the Dot.Com bubble and are totally responsible for the current housing debacle.  George Bush was able to preside over a growing economy until the Democrats came to town.  Then everything went to hell in a hand basket.

The Democrats make much of the good years when Clinton "ran the country", and this is a good thing and not to be discouraged.  Yet few on the left or the right actually understand why things were "good" for the most of us and those on the right certainly do not want to discuss it.  The story was not really the "Clinton story" so much as it was the story of the Democratic Congress.