EPA to raise gas prices while the econmy is still bad

[Jeff7]

I'd sooner see them get ethanol out of gasoline.

I am going to go with foreign competition caused the steel crash a lot more then the EPA issues.

Unless you want the companies to offer pennies a day in wages and use child labor it's hard to compete as labor strikes in the 50's - 60's caused a lot to do with it's downfall more then the epa as they were on the down slide before the epa was formed.

These strikes let in a lot of foreign competition that the industry was never able to recover from.

Not to mention a lot of the cheaper raw resources were gone by the 60's and it caused increased prices.

:thumbsup:

Or the other pointless crap the EPA was formed for - the little things, like keeping toxic materials out of air and drinking water. Plenty of companies will go with whatever is more profitable, without any care as to the consequences. Workers are getting injured on machines? Oh well, we can get more workers. Local people getting sick because we're dumping our toxic sludge into the nearby stream? I don't know any of them, so I don't need to care.

Down with those darn expensive regulations and their drain on the economy.

Like Unions the EPA started with noble intentions, and fought the good fight.

Now they've won their battles and look to press on, past their mandate and towards destructive ends. Everything is good in moderation, but these radicals don't know when to stop pushing for more.

This is turning out to be a modern war on energy.

It may continue to make gasoline unpalatable as a fuel source, continuing the push toward......something. The downside of course is, that "something" is not quite known yet. Electric cars? Ok, who's going to pay for the upgrades to our antiquated power grid? (Which is something else entirely. Investing on infrastructure? Naaaah. Just enjoy fat profits until the system starts to fall apart, then leave the company. Problem solved.)

Moderation in all things - something we're not good at.
(Yes, the unions are certainly a good example of that.)

 

[Juror No. 8]

LOL @ the silly, childish idea that the EPA was created to protect the environment.

 

[dawheat]

Good. So then you agree. Regulations (economic, environmental, etc...) are preventing domestic steel manufacturers from being competitive with foreign steel manufacturers.

Ah I didn't get it for a while, but this is a parody account.

 

[Newbian]

Good. So then you agree. Regulations (economic, environmental, etc...) are preventing domestic steel manufacturers from being competitive with foreign steel manufacturers.

I am just saying the steel industry was dieing before epa was around from other causes.

Also the easy to get ore was mostly mined in these locations thus increasing the prices and at the time the plants were largely outdated and could not compete with the prices of steel with better plants or more available ore.

Sure you can say regulations didn't help but then again if there was no such thing as a minimal wage , safety standards, and age limits for working in these areas do you honestly think people would be better off if they worked in death traps for pennies a day and child labor being used?

 

[Meghan54]

Geez......lighten up on the trolls, errrr knowledgeable posters like No. 8 and Incorruptible. After all, who wouldn't want to return to the days of Love Canal and when Lake Erie burned?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Sure you can say regulations didn't help but then again if there was no such thing as a minimal wage , safety standards, and age limits for working in these areas do you honestly think people would be better off if they worked in death traps for pennies a day and child labor being used?

Yes, people would be far, far better off with more freedom.

What's the argument for a minimum wage? If someone wants to work for below minimum wage and an employer wants to provide it, what business is it of yours? If someone wants to work a dangerous job and is made aware of the inherent risks, what business is it of yours? If a child wants to work and help support his family and the family is OK with it, what business is it of yours?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Geez......lighten up on the trolls, errrr knowledgeable posters like No. 8 and Incorruptible. After all, who wouldn't want to return to the days of Love Canal and when Lake Erie burned?

Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez say, "hey, remember me?".

LULZ.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Now you all will suffer CA gas prices. The terror.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Hey, Einstein, we have oil spills, polluted rivers and air, and random gas and oil line fires EVEN WITH A GOVERNMENT AND MOUNTAINS OF REGULATIONS IN PLACE!

Reality shows that government doesn't solve that problem! LOL!

Hey Einstein, what do you think it would be like without any environmental regulations? Do you think the pollution problems would be better or worse? Are you familiar with the economic concept of "externality"?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You are a fucking moron. You are singling out specific accidents, when those have no bearing on overall environmental quality.

What's depressing is the number of "Joe the Retarded Plumber" types that we have on this forum and in our country. Most demonstrate themselves to be incapable of independent, critical thought. It's as though, somehow, they all ended up being concentrated in the United States (which is why I think that our society and economy is doomed).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

LOL. Prior to the EPA and job-killing environmental regulations, Pittsburgh had a booming steel industry and a robust local economy. That's all gone now. As for L.A., and California in general, prior to the EPA and job-killing environmental regulations, people from all over the country used to flock there for a better life. Now they are fleeing by the thousands because there are no jobs.

Could you please elaborate on how environmental regulations, in and of themselves, are "job-killing"? Are they job killing because of global environmental arbitrage--companies relocating production to nations where they can freely pollute, or are they job killing for some other economic reason?

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, people would be far, far better off with more freedom.

What's the argument for a minimum wage? If someone wants to work for below minimum wage and an employer wants to provide it, what business is it of yours? If someone wants to work a dangerous job and is made aware of the inherent risks, what business is it of yours? If a child wants to work and help support his family and the family is OK with it, what business is it of yours?

And if someone wants to steal someone's car at knife point, what business is it of yours?

People's choices have an impact on others including you. Even if it is not immediately obvious. Society needs rules in order to function.

 

[IGBT]

But the head of American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Charles Drevna, said in an interview Thursday that the refiners' group was still unclear on the motives behind the agency's regulation, since refining companies already have spent $10 billion to reduce sulfur by 90 percent. The additional cuts, while smaller, will cost just as much, Drevna said, and the energy needed for the additional refining actually could increase carbon pollution by 1 percent to 2 percent.

 

[Incorruptible]

The EPA has killed jobs and that disgusting piece of shit steven chu said he wanted higher gas prices. This tells all you need to know about the EPA. Abolish the EPA and we would be better off. I wont respond to fear mongering

 

[Juror No. 8]

Hey Einstein, what do you think it would be like without any environmental regulations? Do you think the pollution problems would be better or worse? Are you familiar with the economic concept of "externality"?

It would be better, by far.

The government and its corrupt legal system protects big corporations and those who run them from facing the full consequences of their decisions ("limited liability"). Not only that, but you have the problem of regulatory capture. You can create a hundred EPAs, but nothing will stop them from eventually being captured by the big corporations they are supposed to monitor. In time, the corporations will have the government and regulators working for them, which is the situation we currently live under.

Under anarchy, big polluters would face immediate street justice.

No comparison.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Could you please elaborate on how environmental regulations, in and of themselves, are "job-killing"? Are they job killing because of global environmental arbitrage--companies relocating production to nations where they can freely pollute, or are they job killing for some other economic reason?

They increase the cost of doing business.

Do you really need that explained to you?

 

[Juror No. 8]

And if someone wants to steal someone's car at knife point, what business is it of yours?

This is a nonsensical argument. In my examples (people accepting low wages, working dangerous jobs, and allowing children to work) there are no victims, just two parties freely trading with each other. In your example, there is a victim, as well as a dangerous criminal. My examples are classified under trade, while your example is classified under force.

People's choices have an impact on others including you. Even if it is not immediately obvious. Society needs rules in order to function.

Whoa, is that you Michael Bloomberg?

 

[Incorruptible]

They increase the cost of doing business.

Do you really need that explained to you?

Considering that your talking to a leftist then he does need it explained to him.

 

[1prophet]

Short of taxing heavily on foreign steel, and guess what that would be, you would have to remove minimal wage and age restrictions to make it competitive.

No you wouldn't, the solution is pretty simple but the will to implement it is the hard part.

A lot of companies went overseas to escape labor, environmental, etc. laws just like pedophiles would go overseas to exploit children because of their little to lax laws,

What the US government did was make an American citizen liable under US laws for sex tourism regardless of what the laws in the said country were at the time, and the individual now could be prosecuted and held accountable just as if they exploited children in the US.

Likewise the US government could require these same companies that exploit the little to lax labor, environmental, worker safety rules in these foreign countries accountable just as if they were in the United States or bar them from bringing in their cheap imports to the US.

 

[thraashman]

They increase the cost of doing business.

Do you really need that explained to you?

The slow destruction of the environment is both job killing and people killing. One is worse than the other buddy.

 

[Juror No. 8]

The slow destruction of the environment is both job killing and people killing. One is worse than the other buddy.

If you were opposed to job and people killing, you'd be opposed to government. Nothing kills more jobs and more people than government.

Methinks you have another agenda.