by pup55 » Mon 11 Aug 2008, 13:56:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou forget they are public companies. If they don't please their shareholders then the shareholders can sell the stock and walk which would destroy the companies.
I am just trying to follow the logic here:
Here is one possible argument:
a. We need more oil.
b. The oil companies can give us more oil, if they are economically motivated.
c. We should tax the oil companies if they make a profit.
Here is another:
a. We should wean off of oil.
b. The oil companies are giving us oil. We should take away their profit motive, so they will not produce any more oil.
c. We should tax the oil companies to discourage them from making a profit.
Here is another:
a. We need more oil
b. The oil companies can give us more oil, if we can reduce some of their risk, and make them more profitable.
c. We should give the oil companies tax breaks to take away some of the risk. They will be motivated to produce more oil.
Here is another:
a. We need more oil.
b. The oil companies can give us more oil, if economically motivated.
c. We should let the oil companies decide whether to give us more oil or not.
d. If the prices for oil and finished products are good enough, they will make money, and we will have oil. If not, they won't, and we won't.
e. If we give them subsidies, they will make a different decision than they would if we just left them alone. If we tax them, they will make a different decision. Therefore, we should neither subsidize them nor tax them.
Someone can clarify this: The first case, above, is logically inconsistent to me. The rest make sense. Whether any of them should or should not be done is a different issue.
Am I wrong on this? Is the first argument just logically inconsistent?