Good Analysis of California vs. Texas Oil & Gas Policies

Well written article comparing the effects of Oil & Gas policies in California and Texas.  Worth reading.

California Vs. Texas: Oil And Natural Gas -- Comparing The Two States 1 In 5 Americans Call Home

Policy matters.  Even if a nation or state is endowed with significant natural resources, history shows that tax rates, regulatory burdens and rule of law largely determine whether those resources are harnessed or remain idle.  Good policies and honest government are why resource-poor nations such as Japan and Singapore far outperform nations with vast natural resources.

Nowhere is the effect of government more apparent than in the recent history of oil and gas production in California and Texas.

... In an August interview with the Houston Chronicle, Occidental’s CEO Vicki Hollub was asked about how the firm she leads was able to prosper during the downturn in oil prices.  She responded, “…we exited low-margin, low-return businesses… we spun off California.”

... The net result of California’s policies is that it must import more of its energy, with much of the shortfall coming in by supertanker, a mode of transportation that carries greater risks to the environment than locally produced oil and gas.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2018 at 10:15 PM, mthebold said:

A fun question to ask liberals: "Central and South American countries have the same abundant natural resources as the US on top of a centuries-long head start.  Why are they not richer than us?" 

Answer: because they didn't prioritize wealth.  You reap what you sow.  

Extraction based economies tend to not do well. The trickle down rarely trickles very well.

Look at two early economic superpowers, England and Japan, they lacked enough resources, and that drove productivity. Import the cheap stuff and then do something with it.

Of course the ideal situation is a mix, and the USA is unusually blessed in human capital and natural resources. Human capital is, in the end, more important than natural resources. 

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mthebold said:

There's nothing preventing a resource rich country from saving, investing, and developing skills.  They simply chose not to.

I recall reading an article about how both Americans and Mexicans were worried about NAFTA, but for different reasons.  Americans were concerned about falling wages; Mexicans about losing their siestas.  That's a stark cultural difference, and it's easy to see how one would surpass the other in material success. 

It's time to stop making excuses for lazy cultures. 

Just an observation. For whatever the reason, extraction economies traditionally don't benefit the overall country well. What happens to the average lottery winner? Stories over and over again of how they fail. I'd still like to win and prove it wrong.

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2019 at 2:42 AM, mthebold said:

It's time to stop making excuses for lazy cultures. 

Yes, here in the West we need to come to terms with reality and get competetive again.... We need to quit virtue signalling and other excuses like blaming it on illegal immigration. There is nothing stoppping US or Europe from implementing an instant ID for all employees. The tech to do it is here - we could make 80% dent in illegal employment immediately. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mthebold said:

 

In America, illegal immigration isn't an excuse.  Introducing millions of laborers to the market tore the bottom out of wages, which makes it remarkably difficult for US citizens to save money, pay for education, afford quality food, etc. 

You haven't seen it yet where you live, but just wait: with enough people entering your country, markets will be disrupted, culture will change, and the functional state you've built will begin to tear itself apart. 

Just do follow @John Foote and @Boats suggestion - go after the employers. Easy and simple to do. take away demand and supply leaves. Textbook capitalism. 

The wall is symbol that detract attention from the real solution. We have similar issues in Europe. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Yes, here in the West we need to come to terms with reality and get competetive again.... We need to quit virtue signalling and other excuses like blaming it on illegal immigration. There is nothing stoppping US or Europe from implementing an instant ID for all employees. The tech to do it is here - we could make 80% dent in illegal employment immediately. 

You make a strong point, Rasmus.  Fact is, not since I worked on farms or cutting neighbor's grass 35+ years ago have I NOT had to have a company issued ID that used my government issued Social Security Number (SSN) for reference.  The company ID MUST BE WORN AT ALL TIMES when at work.  When I visit other companies, I MUST TURN IN MY PHOTO ID TO SECURITY AND WEAR THEIR SECURITY ISSUED TEMPORARY ID.  I would surmise that every reader on this site is quite familiar with these requirements and are or have been subjected to the same.  Why the hell can we NOT enforce this standard for all employers/employees?  There is no reason other than employers and employees that want to skirt the law that "burdens" them, whether that be immigration or taxation or even child support for that matter.  Let's get on with it and take this part of the debate off the table.  Until we do, it is just conjecture and scaremongering to benefit illegal practices.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Going after employers only solves one type of illegal immigration: those who enter for jobs.  There are two others America also must deal with:
1) Asylum seekers who leech off public services and, once they've claimed asylum, are remarkably difficult to get rid of.  Quite frankly, these should be made to stay in and fix their own countries.
2)  Drug traffickers. 

The wall addresses the latter two.  Walls are quite effective, which is why the border patrol keeps requesting them. 

Okay, so we implement employer/employee/ID/etc. enforcement first.  Get it done and off the table as "not being enough".  Get it done.

Next, I agree, build the wall; whether that be out of stone, steel, electric wire or whatever.  Line it with retirees with long range tasers and sawed off shotguns, and give them another prescription of Viagra for every contact or kill with an illegal.

"Old Man's War!"  Taking "get off my lawn" to the nth degree!

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Going after employers only solves one type of illegal immigration: those who enter for jobs.  There are two others America also must deal with:
1) Asylum seekers who leech off public services and, once they've claimed asylum, are remarkably difficult to get rid of.  Quite frankly, these should be made to stay in and fix their own countries.
2)  Drug traffickers. 

The wall addresses the latter two.  Walls are quite effective, which is why the border patrol keeps requesting them

I dont actually think the wall will fix your no 1. People can request asylum at the border. Re no 2 - again I think it is much more effective to try to influence the demand side of the equation. But I don't know enough about this to have a serious discussion. All I wanted to point out is that there is a simple fix that could easily be implemented that would do a lot to illegal immigration. Same in Europe by the way. Why not focus the discussion on that?

On a sidenote - if more jobs were created as a result of current administration policies the current administration would like also get the support to build the wall... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mthebold said:

Drug and human traffickers are well-funded and heavily incentivized though; even a concrete wall might not stop them for long.  Their activities also make them the worst kind of scum - hardly worthy of being called human.  Thus, I propose we get serious: let the Marine Corps use them as target practice, then unceremoniously dump their lifeless bodies on the Mexican side of the border.  Or maybe we should take a cue from Vlad the Impaler.  Even better: privatize the entire affair.  Offer guided hunting trips for those interested in playing The Most Dangerous Game on the Southern border.  Or offer bounties for confirmed kills of known non-citizen criminals.  If that's legally tricky, have them declared non-uniformed agents of a foreign country (spies), the punishment for which is death. 

Or, given the magnitude and seriousness of the problem, we could send a military expedition into Mexico and destroy the source.  We would, of course, seize their oil as compensation for our trouble. 

Are serious? 

why not just educate people or do something else about demand. Drugtrafickers are just meeting a demand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mthebold said:

At the same time, we can remove demand for drugs by kicking out the illegals, which will cause wages to rise.  When people have hope for the future, they're less likely to turn to drugs.

Agree with giving people hope. But we are back to going after the enployers. 

As for your commentary - I believe in reducing demand. And helping people out of addiction. You seem to be victimizing the population of the US. Give the hope and have faith. And BTW - even if you were able to remove supply then some enterprising thug would just invent a product that could be made in the US. Supply and demand. Go after demand. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Agree with giving people hope. But we are back to going after the enployers. 

As for your commentary - I believe in reducing demand. And helping people out of addiction. You seem to be victimizing the population of the US. Give the hope and have faith. And BTW - even if you were able to remove supply then some enterprising thug would just invent a product that could be made in the US. Supply and demand. Go after demand. 

Legalize drugs the same as alcohol, enforce driving laws (and all other laws) and do drug test at work if necessary.  With 100 million people doing casual drugs it might as well be legalized and regulated and taxed anyway.  Do what you can with the addicts, but you'll never force them all to quit, same as alcohol.

Presto!  Perfect world.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, as of 2017 there are 79.8 million smart meters nationwide. Scientists are alarmed at the prospect of electronic radio waves tied to defective smart meters that may have ultimately caused California fires.

While I agree with Policy matters , regulatory burdens & rule of law if databases are falsified our resources will continue to evaporate. 

I’ll attempt to attach data..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Yes, here in the West we need to come to terms with reality and get competetive again.... We need to quit virtue signalling and other excuses like blaming it on illegal immigration. There is nothing stoppping US or Europe from implementing an instant ID for all employees. The tech to do it is here - we could make 80% dent in illegal employment immediately. 

Great, we can use it to determine who is eligible to vote also. Oh, Democrats. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Great, we can use it to determine who is eligible to vote also. Oh, Democrats. 

Ron, 

If you had a wish and could choose between instant ID of employees and going after the employers or the wall. Which would it be? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, mthebold said:

That's a fair point.  I'm on board with going after the employers, and going after them hard.  It's also fair that domestic supply will meet the demand, but at least that doesn't funnel money out of the country.  If we must have a drug problem, it can at least support the economy the way tobacco and alcohol do. 

Then there's human trafficking and terrorism.  We need to know who is coming into our country, and that's not always controlled by supply & demand. 

Any way you look at it, countries need controlled borders.  If our neighbors control their non-US borders and don't cause problems with us, then little effort is required on our part.  E.g. the border with Canada.  However, Mexico has little ability to control their own borders, little control over their own citizens (drug cartels running amok), and no intention of cooperating.  We'll have to do it the hard way.  I vote for concrete walls, declaring non-legal residents to be outlaws (I.e. rescinding all their rights, refusing to spend precious law enforcement resources defending them, and allowing US citizens to expel them as those citizens see fit), and military hunter/killer teams at the border with orders to put down anyone caught with drugs. 

And since Mexico is causing all these problems, we can liberate some of their border land to build the wall.  It's not like they can stop us. 

Apart from the rant at Mexico and drug cartels (which I think is victimizing) I 100 % agree with the rationale. Take the lowest hanging fruits first and move on from there. 

BTW - I will reply to some of your other post, but I hope you understand that I 100 % believe going after the meployers is the way forward. Also in Europe. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Ron, 

If you had a wish and could choose between instant ID of employees and going after the employers or the wall. Which would it be? 

Good question! I would go with instant ID. The RINOS and the Democrats would not though. It would be a miracle IMHO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a two part problem.

1) I have always said that the answer to the illegal immigration problem was to go after the employers. Take away the jobs and the illegals quit coming across the border. Create and maintain a database that employers can easily enter a biometric ID for a prospective or current hire. Periodically audit employers and have a system of fines in place that makes it very unattractive to hire an illegal immigrant. Put the money from the fines collected into maintaining the system. 

2) Legalize the drugs. It's a war we haven't put a dent in since the battle to stop them began. Let private business keep drug testing the workforce and drug users will continue to be unemployable in the mainstream but will not be able to make a living selling dope any longer because the legal market took away the margins.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2019 at 7:42 PM, mthebold said:

There's nothing preventing a resource rich country from saving, investing, and developing skills.  They simply chose not to.

I recall reading an article about how both Americans and Mexicans were worried about NAFTA, but for different reasons.  Americans were concerned about falling wages; Mexicans about losing their siestas.  That's a stark cultural difference, and it's easy to see how one would surpass the other in material success. 

It's time to stop making excuses for lazy cultures. 

 

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Good question! I would go with instant ID. The RINOS and the Democrats would not though. It would be a miracle IMHO.

Thats the problem Ron. If it was patriotic to turn in an employer who hired an illegal we could have a country of heros for no money. Why do these bums hire illegals who work for less money and benifits? To watch them take siestas?  Hehe, at least the Dems know their value. You and the bold seem to be about silly talking points.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Good question! I would go with instant ID. The RINOS and the Democrats would not though. It would be a miracle IMHO.

Sounds about rigth. 

Why is Trump NOT pushing the instant ID? It would be a win-win across his base. rigth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Boat said:

 

Thats the problem Ron. If it was patriotic to turn in an employer who hired an illegal we could have a country of heros for no money. Why do these bums hire illegals who work for less money and benifits? To watch them take siestas?  Hehe, at least the Dems know their value. You and the bold seem to be about silly talking points.

You think building a wall is a silly talking point, and I think you deny reality. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, mthebold said:

Unfortunately, instant ID doesn't solve the problem of asylum seekers or drug trafficking.  I'd vote for a properly designed wall because it handles all three problems simultaneously. 

My father-in-law farmed in the Rio Grande Valley (that's far south Texas) his whole life. He told me a wall was a bad idea & at that time i disagreed with him because I thought a physical barrier was the answer. I am definitely older now and would like to think those years have brought corresponding wisdom and I have come to realize that he was right. It doesn't matter what you build because a determined border jumper or drug smuggler will always be able to figure out a way to get around it. You have to eliminate the reward that lies on the other side of that border. The problem is that when you try to do this you are in for the political fight of your life!

Why? Because there is a political party in this country that learned long ago that they can steal money from the good citizens of this country by way of taxation and use it to buy votes in the form of entitlement programs.

I don't want to get off topic here and start a rant but instant ID is the answer in my opinion, as long as it is part of a system that makes it easy for a prospective employer to verify employment eligibility - see my earlier post in this thread.

Also, I believe that the vast majority of "asylum seekers" will go away when faced with a system that disregards trivial asylum applications.

Kent

 

Edited by MUI
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MUI said:

You have to eliminate the reward that lies on the other side of that border. The problem is that when you try to do this you are in for the political fight of your life!

PREACH

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that I am opposed to a wall, it's just that I believe there is a better solution to the problem (which I described in an earlier post). I will lay you odds that it will be easier to get funding for the wall than to get the political support needed to enact my solution.

We are in agreement that something has to be done. The wall will slow down the flood and create a focal point for the battle. My proposal would create a system where the wall would not be needed but is too radical an idea for today's society to grasp so I will concede that a wall is probably a better solution right now. Keep in mind though, a border wall does nothing to deter anyone from legally entering this country and then overstaying their visa.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MUI said:

It's not that I am opposed to a wall, it's just that I believe there is a better solution to the problem (which I described in an earlier post). I will lay you odds that it will be easier to get funding for the wall than to get the political support needed to enact my solution.

We are in agreement that something has to be done. The wall will slow down the flood and create a focal point for the battle. My proposal would create a system where the wall would not be needed but is too radical an idea for today's society to grasp so I will concede that a wall is probably a better solution right now. Keep in mind though, a border wall does nothing to deter anyone from legally entering this country and then overstaying their visa.

 

Pls can someone explain to me why Trump is not pushing the instant ID? It seems to me it must be a homerun with his base? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robust wall

+ mandatory employment ID / verification

+ Voter ID / verification 

+ no welfare for illegal aliens

+ mandatory drug testing for legal welfare recipients

 

Just sayin.

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites