Canadian And US Dollar At Par

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As an example, what prevents pirates from simply confiscating oil tankers?
[/quote]
Hopefully, private enterprise is responsible for its own actions and not dependent on government protectionism. I know self-ownership and responsibility is a novel concept that has lost its meaning but it is still the only right and proper way to act.

I understand what you are arguing but I think your precepts are incorrect. Your contention is that the US bears the economic burden unfairly to the benefit of the rest of the world and you assume its actions are moral and just. But are they?

I think what the US is doing to itself economically is not the moral responsibility of the rest of the world; especially since the US is only acting at the behest of world leaders and not the majority of its inhabitants. Even still, we as Americans do not bear the moral burden of enforcing “fairness”. This can only be done through coercion and the threat of violence by taxing unfairly the labor or free individuals. How does that make our actions moral?

The good intent of the offending nation is of no consequence if the outcome is hegemony.

[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Cheapskates.

Are you familiar with the word Arbitrage?

In economics and finance, arbitrage is the practice of taking advantage of a price differential between two or more markets: a combination of matching deals are struck that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices. - Wikipedia

Why would anyone be against it? Please consider the following mutual benefits:

The Canadian consumers save money on goods bought in the US at lower prices. Slumping US economy benefits as more goods are bought by Canadian consumers hence stimulating the GDP. Tourism industry gets a boost also. Finally, the Canadian economy doesn’t overheat as the high CAD keeps inflation in check and mitigates high interest rates.

Love doesn’t make the world go round, trade does.

Headhunter, I invite you to a well thought out responce.

[/quote]

Me? Uh, …okay… :wink:

My whole point is that we spend a tremendous mind-boggling amount on defense. Because we create paper dollars to pay for this, then those countries that DO NOT inflate must see their currencies become worth relatively more, all other things being about equal. Canada benefits from spending relatively less on defense.

We did the same thing to Britain in the 19th century. Their Navy protected international commerce; we benefitted.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
As an example, what prevents pirates from simply confiscating oil tankers?

Hopefully, private enterprise is responsible for its own actions and not dependent on government protectionism. I know self-ownership and responsibility is a novel concept that has lost its meaning but it is still the only right and proper way to act.
…[/quote]

Do we really want Exxon to build their own armed navy to repel the Iranian Navy?

If you recall when the US Navy isn’t around Iran has a habit of mining shipping lanes and harassing other nations oil tankers.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

What would happen to civilisation without oil? By maintaining stability in the Middle East, the oil flows. What would have happened if Saddam had not been beaten in 1991? I’m sure he’d happily sell you oil, at about $200 a barrel…that is, if it got past the pirates.

The USA is the most noble and moral country in history, protecting the weak and helpless, even if they could afford to pay. Too bad we’ll go broke doing it.
[/quote]

That was a very weak retort, ‘smith machine squat’ effort.
Headhunter, please try again.

In 1991 US spanked Sadam and restored stability to the Middle East. Since 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Middle East is more unstable than ever. Civil war on Bush’s watch is a damn disgrace.

Since when is war noble and moral?
US uses ‘democracy’ as a whore, and does away with it as it sees fit, all in it’s national self interest.

Pirates? Arr Matey, have some rum!
US Navy doesn’t have to protect anybody. At $200 a barrel petro companies could build or hire their own fleets.

Believe it or not, war is good for the economy. US is indeed a great nation and will overcome this temporary economic setback, but history will prove George W. Bush as America’s worst and most incompetent president.

Piracy is a robbery committed at sea, or sometimes on the shore, by an agent without a commission from a sovereign nation. Seaborne piracy against transport vessels remains a significant issue (with estimated worldwide losses of US $13 to $16 billion per year[2]), particularly in the waters between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, off the Somali coast, and also in the Strait of Malacca and Singapore, which are used by over 50,000 commercial ships a year.

A recent[1] surge in piracy off the Somali coast spurred a multi-national effort led by the United States to patrol the waters near the Horn of Africa to combat piracy. While boats off the coasts of North Africa and the Mediterranean Sea are still assailed by pirates, the Royal Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard have nearly eradicated piracy in U.S. waters and in the Caribbean Sea.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do we really want Exxon to build their own armed navy to repel the Iranian Navy?
[/quote]
Yes. I do. Armored trucks are responsible for their own contents and do not get armed government caravans to help transport their contents.

I don’t care what Iran does. Let the oil companies pay for it and reflect that cost at the pump–at least it would be honest. Why are we morally responsible for Exxon, et al, profitability?

[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:
Believe it or not, war is good for the economy.
[/quote]
No. War is not good for the economy. When one destroys the usefulness of an object and has to reproduce that object there is no profit. Anything that is destroyed results in an added expense where scarce and valued resources could have been used for some other needed good. War is NOT GOOD for the economy…no matter what military industrial complex propaganda you’ve been led to believe. Your statement just isn’t true.

Please read Frederic Bastiat, “That Which is Seen, That Which is Unseen;” specifically, the fable of the broken window.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Do we really want Exxon to build their own armed navy to repel the Iranian Navy?

Yes. I do. Armored trucks are responsible for their own contents and do not get armed government caravans to help transport their contents.

If you recall when the US Navy isn’t around Iran has a habit of mining shipping lanes and harassing other nations oil tankers.

I don’t care what Iran does. Let the oil companies pay for it and reflect that cost at the pump–at least it would be honest. Why are we morally responsible for Exxon, et al, profitability?[/quote]

Armored trucks also have police back up available within minutes if needed.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you recall when the US Navy isn’t around Iran has a habit of mining shipping lanes and harassing other nations oil tankers.

I don’t care what Iran does. Let the oil companies pay for it and reflect that cost at the pump–at least it would be honest. Why are we morally responsible for Exxon, et al, profitability?[/quote]

The problem is Exxon (the consumer) would end up paying protection money to every scumbag along the way.

The scumbags would fight for dominance.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Armored trucks also have police back up available within minutes if needed.[/quote]

…after a crime has already been committed.

Patrolling the streets within the borders is one thing, patrolling the international oceans are another beast altogether.

I still ask, what moral responsibility is there on the tax-payer for the profitability of the oil companies?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The problem is Exxon (the consumer) would end up paying protection money to every scumbag along the way.
[/quote]
Again, what is the American tax-payer’s moral responsibility to Exxon? Could not the price of petrol cover the cost of defending the product on the high-seas? Why couldn’t oil tankers have their own defensive measures as per the 2nd Amendment?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The problem is Exxon (the consumer) would end up paying protection money to every scumbag along the way.

Again, what is the American tax-payer’s moral responsibility to Exxon?
[/quote]
The money would come out of consumers pockets, not Exxons.

Yes, but it is more likely they would just end up paying protection money to places like Iran. I would rather pay our Navy.

I am sure they could but they would have to be pretty substantial.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
TKOWKD1 wrote:
Believe it or not, war is good for the economy.

No. War is not good for the economy. When one destroys the usefulness of an object and has to reproduce that object there is no profit. Anything that is destroyed results in an added expense where scarce and valued resources could have been used for some other needed good. War is NOT GOOD for the economy…no matter what military industrial complex propaganda you’ve been led to believe. Your statement just isn’t true.

Please read Frederic Bastiat, “That Which is Seen, That Which is Unseen;” specifically, the fable of the broken window.[/quote]

War may provide a temporary boost due to spending but in the long run all the time and materials are wasted rather than producing useable goods.

[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

What would happen to civilisation without oil? By maintaining stability in the Middle East, the oil flows. What would have happened if Saddam had not been beaten in 1991? I’m sure he’d happily sell you oil, at about $200 a barrel…that is, if it got past the pirates.

The USA is the most noble and moral country in history, protecting the weak and helpless, even if they could afford to pay. Too bad we’ll go broke doing it.

That was a very weak retort, ‘smith machine squat’ effort.
Headhunter, please try again.

In 1991 US spanked Sadam and restored stability to the Middle East. Since 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Middle East is more unstable than ever. Civil war on Bush’s watch is a damn disgrace.

Since when is war noble and moral?
US uses ‘democracy’ as a whore, and does away with it as it sees fit, all in it’s national self interest.

Pirates? Arr Matey, have some rum!
US Navy doesn’t have to protect anybody. At $200 a barrel petro companies could build or hire their own fleets.

Believe it or not, war is good for the economy. US is indeed a great nation and will overcome this temporary economic setback, but history will prove George W. Bush as America’s worst and most incompetent president.
[/quote]

What wasn’t clear about what I wrote? If your neighbor spends most of his income buying weapons to protect the whole neighborhood, it stands to reason that you can buy a new boat, car, vacation etc while he goes broke protecting you. Should you ‘man up’ and part with a few of your dollars or just call his President names and shit?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you recall when the US Navy isn’t around Iran has a habit of mining shipping lanes and harassing other nations oil tankers.

I don’t care what Iran does. Let the oil companies pay for it and reflect that cost at the pump–at least it would be honest. Why are we morally responsible for Exxon, et al, profitability?

The problem is Exxon (the consumer) would end up paying protection money to every scumbag along the way.

The scumbags would fight for dominance.[/quote]

Many non-Americans and libs think the world would be Shangri-la without the USA there to club the evil bastards who threaten the world. When we finally have to give up policing the world, due to cost, they’ll learn one hard lesson.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
TKOWKD1 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

What would happen to civilisation without oil? By maintaining stability in the Middle East, the oil flows. What would have happened if Saddam had not been beaten in 1991? I’m sure he’d happily sell you oil, at about $200 a barrel…that is, if it got past the pirates.

The USA is the most noble and moral country in history, protecting the weak and helpless, even if they could afford to pay. Too bad we’ll go broke doing it.

That was a very weak retort, ‘smith machine squat’ effort.
Headhunter, please try again.

In 1991 US spanked Sadam and restored stability to the Middle East. Since 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Middle East is more unstable than ever. Civil war on Bush’s watch is a damn disgrace.

Since when is war noble and moral?
US uses ‘democracy’ as a whore, and does away with it as it sees fit, all in it’s national self interest.

Pirates? Arr Matey, have some rum!
US Navy doesn’t have to protect anybody. At $200 a barrel petro companies could build or hire their own fleets.

Believe it or not, war is good for the economy. US is indeed a great nation and will overcome this temporary economic setback, but history will prove George W. Bush as America’s worst and most incompetent president.

What wasn’t clear about what I wrote? If your neighbor spends most of his income buying weapons to protect the whole neighborhood, it stands to reason that you can buy a new boat, car, vacation etc while he goes broke protecting you. Should you ‘man up’ and part with a few of your dollars or just call his President names and shit?

[/quote]

Not if this guy forces his “protection” on me if I do not want it.

I might have to get a weapon to unprotect myself.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The money would come out of consumers pockets, not Exxons.
[/quote]
By allowing the cost to be maintained at the pump it institutes competition and thus only consumers are affected. My grandmother who lives on a fixed income does not drive. What does she care about the price of petrol and why should she care? Don’t forget, the price of shipping goods is already figured into the cost of said good so there is no need for another excise tax.

If the free market cannot provide a particular good at a cost that is bearable it will fix itself through competition so that it might become bearable.

The problem is that our foreign policy protects oil companies from real competition and thus the market does not work the way it should; for example, by allowing funds to be liquidated to develop energy that doesn’t depend on a heavily armed force to protect its production.

You still have not answered the question about moral responsibility. Consumers are ultimately, and rightfully, who should be paying for the use of the good; not non-consumers.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The money would come out of consumers pockets, not Exxons.

By allowing the cost to be maintained at the pump it institutes competition and thus only consumers are affected. My grandmother who lives on a fixed income does not drive. What does she care about the price of petrol and why should she care? Don’t forget, the price of shipping goods is already figured into the cost of said good so there is no need for another excise tax.

If the free market cannot provide a particular good at a cost that is bearable it will fix itself through competition so that it might become bearable.

The problem is that our foreign policy protects oil companies from real competition and thus the market does not work the way it should; for example, by allowing funds to be liquidated to develop energy that doesn’t depend on a heavily armed force to protect its production.

You still have not answered the question about moral responsibility. Consumers are ultimately, and rightfully, who should be paying for the use of the good; not non-consumers.[/quote]

Unless your grandmom lives off the grid she benefits.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Unless your grandmom lives off the grid she benefits.[/quote]

And, as I already pointed out the cost of fuel consumption in transporting goods is already figured into the cost of production. She consumes, she pays. What does that have to do with her paying taxes to help fund cheap fuel for people that drive when she does not?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Unless your grandmom lives off the grid she benefits.

And, as I already pointed out the cost of fuel consumption in transporting goods is already figured into the cost of production. She consumes, she pays. What does that have to do with her paying taxes to help fund cheap fuel for people that drive when she does not?[/quote]

She pays now and she would pay later. What is the difference from her standpoint?