Biden goes after oil industry

Started by james03, June 15, 2022, 08:02:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

james03

This is something right out of Atlas Shrugged

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/biden-sends-threat-letters-big-oil-help-alleve-putin-price-hike-or-face-our-tools

Quote"I understand that many factors contributed to the business decisions to reduce refinery capacity, which occurred before I took office,"  adding, "at a time of war, refinery profit margins well above normal being passed directly onto American families are not acceptable."

"My administration is prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate federal government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term, and to ensure that every region of this country is appropriately supplied,"

There are two problems.  First, the eco freaks are in the Federal regulatory bodies, so no expansion is possible.  Even if you made an investment decision today to expand capacity, it would likely take 10 years until it comes online due to the regulatory permitting and inevitable nuisance lawsuits you'd have to settle.  So I don't know how a bunch of metrosexual DC boys and bile spewing feminists think they are going to do to increase refining capacity.

Second, the high prices are the natural result of sending large quantities of US diesel to Europe.  If you want prices to drop, shut down diesel exports.  A couple of problems though.  Europe would immediately drop Russian sanctions, and ZOG would be really pissed about that.  And second, energy exports is one of the few ways our debt soaked economy is able to limp along (agricultural products being the second).

Which brings up a good point.  Will Biden next write a scathing letter to farmers to increase food production and drop prices?  No fertilizer?  Figure it out, you are farmers, that's what you do.

Like I said, right out of Atlas Shrugged.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

Latest DOE numbers:

Quote from: ZHDOE

Crude +1.96mm (-1.2mm exp)

Cushing -826k

Gasoline -710k  (+100k exp)

Distillates +725k (+800k exp)

So diesel built and gasoline dropped.  We're probably seeing alternative barrels reaching Europe and less exports from the USA.  Refineries will respond by shifting their conversion units from diesel to gasoline production.

Rise in crude storage is good, but Cushing went down.  Looks like we are close to balanced on crude supply.  Keep in mind we'll lose 1 MM bbl/day of crude in October when the Strategic Petroleum Reserve release is finished.

In a bit of good news Exxon continues to expand the new elephant oil field offshore Guyana and they are finding that this thing is so huge it extends over to Suriname waters.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

King Wenceslas


If this continues, the US is going to become another Venezuela.

You reap what you sow.

james03

Already happening.  Engineering departments are no longer put together based on merit, but politics.  The diversity has caused a dramatic drop in know-how.  Management is a joke.  As I mentioned before we call the daily (used to be weekly) staff meeting "group therapy" or "group".  You might think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not.  It's really bad.

In Venezuela it was similar.  You got a job because of corruption.  They used to bring in Americans and Europeans when they needed to get things done.  Then Chavez ended that and their industry collapsed.  Don't know how it will play out in the US.  There's still a pool of Gen X talent to draw from as contractors, so stuff still is getting done.  But the clock is ticking. 
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Greg

Just get your guns and kill the bastards.

There's their great reset.

Geriatric and effeminate tossers.  Just kill them.  Kill them all.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

james03

After living through it, you really start to get an appreciation for Pinochet and Franco.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Justin Martyr

Quote from: james03 on June 15, 2022, 08:02:31 AM
This is something right out of Atlas Shrugged

Miss Rand has proven prophetic in multiple ways in regard to her economic predictions, especially in the last couple of years.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

james03

Not surprising.  Her thesis was that the West gave up on Aristotle, so she drew the consequences.

The weird thing is that Rand was an atheist, and Aristotle doesn't work without First Cause.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Justin Martyr

Quote from: james03 on June 24, 2022, 05:11:52 PM
Not surprising.  Her thesis was that the West gave up on Aristotle, so she drew the consequences.

The weird thing is that Rand was an atheist, and Aristotle doesn't work without First Cause.

The problem was she rejected Aristotle's Metaphysics while keeping his Epistemology, Aesthetics, and Ethics (somewhat; she had a different moral standard but the majority of the same conclusions).

I'm also not sure Rand was ever really familiar with a philosophically robust view of God. Alot of the objections in her works just don't apply to the Thomistic conception.  She gets somewhat close in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to addressing a proper view of God, but even there she shows that she doesn't really grasp it.

Her atheism seemed to largely be the result of faulty metaphysics, ignorance, and some personal sins she didn't want to give up. I very much hope she repented before death and made it to purgatory, though. She was a brilliant woman, in spite of her flaws, and her works were the first step along the road that lead to my eventual conversion.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

Innocent Smith

Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 24, 2022, 05:32:52 PM
Quote from: james03 on June 24, 2022, 05:11:52 PM
Not surprising.  Her thesis was that the West gave up on Aristotle, so she drew the consequences.

The weird thing is that Rand was an atheist, and Aristotle doesn't work without First Cause.

The problem was she rejected Aristotle's Metaphysics while keeping his Epistemology, Aesthetics, and Ethics (somewhat; she had a different moral standard but the majority of the same conclusions).

I'm also not sure Rand was ever really familiar with a philosophically robust view of God. Alot of the objections in her works just don't apply to the Thomistic conception.  She gets somewhat close in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to addressing a proper view of God, but even there she shows that she doesn't really grasp it.

Her atheism seemed to largely be the result of faulty metaphysics, ignorance, and some personal sins she didn't want to give up. I very much hope she repented before death and made it to purgatory, though. She was a brilliant woman, in spite of her flaws, and her works were the first step along the road that lead to my eventual conversion.

I read a chapter from The Fountainhead and various minor works of hers in the late '80s or early '90s.  I believe one of the books was called Positivits or something along the lines of Positivisim. 

Would it be fair to characterize her thinking to eventually boil down to 'might makes right'?  Or is it more complicated than that? 

Or does she have an escape hatch for that one assuming the creators will be the ones who have ownership? Eventually it all falls into the hands of those who expand the money supply and buy production for lots of money that costs them nothing.
I am going to hold a pistol to the head of the modern man. But I shall not use it to kill him, only to bring him to life.

Justin Martyr

#10
Quote from: Innocent Smith on June 24, 2022, 05:47:45 PM
Quote from: Justin Martyr on June 24, 2022, 05:32:52 PM
Quote from: james03 on June 24, 2022, 05:11:52 PM
Not surprising.  Her thesis was that the West gave up on Aristotle, so she drew the consequences.

The weird thing is that Rand was an atheist, and Aristotle doesn't work without First Cause.

The problem was she rejected Aristotle's Metaphysics while keeping his Epistemology, Aesthetics, and Ethics (somewhat; she had a different moral standard but the majority of the same conclusions).

I'm also not sure Rand was ever really familiar with a philosophically robust view of God. Alot of the objections in her works just don't apply to the Thomistic conception.  She gets somewhat close in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to addressing a proper view of God, but even there she shows that she doesn't really grasp it.

Her atheism seemed to largely be the result of faulty metaphysics, ignorance, and some personal sins she didn't want to give up. I very much hope she repented before death and made it to purgatory, though. She was a brilliant woman, in spite of her flaws, and her works were the first step along the road that lead to my eventual conversion.

I read a chapter from The Fountainhead and various minor works of hers in the late '80s or early '90s.  I believe one of the books was called Positivits or something along the lines of Positivisim. 

Her philosophy was called Objectivism, dunno which work it could have been. Only one of her works has Objectivism in the title (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).

QuoteWould it be fair to characterize her thinking to eventually boil down to 'might makes right'?  Or is it more complicated than that?

Her thinking was much more complicated than might makes right, and was quite opposite. The standard by which she judged an act as moral or immoral is whether or not a given action is in favor of or hinders one's rational, long term self-interest; with one's self-interest being determined by man's objective nature, not one's personal whims. To put it in Thomistic terms, it is similar to natural law ethics, but with the standard placed not on the purpose of a given act but on the purpose of man as a whole. A phrase that appears constantly in her non-fiction works is that what is moral is that which is necessary in order for "man to live qua man, qua rational animal". Her view is less like Nietzsche, more like a less emotionally repressed Spock.

Her ethics are laid down primarily in The Virtue of Selfishness (a misleading, if eye-catching, title; she meant something very different by the word selfishness than the colloquial use, and intentionally used it in an attempt to reclaim an older meaning of the word). I don't recommend reading non-catholic works, but that's where you'd find a fuller treatment than what I've laid out here. There are issues with her ethics, but on the whole in her principles and conclusions she is far closer to the Catholic view than many modern altruists after Kant (which isn't saying much, granted).

QuoteOr does she have an escape hatch for that one assuming the creators will be the ones who have ownership? Eventually it all falls into the hands of those who expand the money supply and buy production for lots of money that costs them nothing.

Like most radical capitalists, she believed the market naturally prevents such things from occurring in the absence of government intervention. She has some interesting arguments and evidences, but I ultimately think it is a moot point as original sin ensures that would-be monopolists will always find some way to use force to prevent a truly free market from ever occurring in nature. Hence, the need for a Catholic state to regulate, albeit lightly and carefully. Just my opinion as a distributist, though.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

james03

QuoteThe problem was she rejected Aristotle's Metaphysics

I disagree.  Her Aristotelian metaphysics is why she was so successful at her predictions.  She titled a section of her book "A is A" for goodness sakes.  Her problem was her presupposition that God did not exist.  Which is why her novel takes place in a world that fallen men have destroyed due to their evil ways, and ends up blaming a belief in Original Sin as the cause.

But all of her predictions which came from her belief in Greek Realism (sans First Cause) were frighteningly accurate.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

I also liked The Fountainhead, which gives us a peak into the mystery of nihilism. 
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Justin Martyr

#13
Quote from: james03 on June 24, 2022, 07:01:58 PM
QuoteThe problem was she rejected Aristotle's Metaphysics

I disagree.  Her Aristotelian metaphysics is why she was so successful at her predictions.  She titled a section of her book "A is A" for goodness sakes.  Her problem was her presupposition that God did not exist.  Which is why her novel takes place in a world that fallen men have destroyed due to their evil ways, and ends up blaming a belief in Original Sin as the cause.

But all of her predictions which came from her belief in Greek Realism (sans First Cause) were frighteningly accurate.

Right, but she rejected the substantial forms entirely. The beating heart of Greek Realism is the Forms/Substantial Reality, which she rejected as platonic corruption. Miss Rand was really big in her non-fiction on depicting Aristotle (and to a lesser degree St. Thomas) as her philosophical predecessors and the source of the good in philosophy, and depicting Plato and St. Augustine as the predecessors to Kant who she viewed as her antithesis and source of the evils in modern philosophy (which is largely true in regard to Kant, though he's hardly the successor to Plato and St. Augustine she holds him to be). This lead her to reject the majority of Aristotle's Metaphysics as Platonic errors, and to a distorted view on the relationship between Aristotle and Plato (which compliment, not contradict, each other in most cases as the history of Catholic philosophy has demonstrated).

Edit: I'm working from her own admission that Aristotle had an erroneous metaphysic:

Quote from: Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Appendix
Prof. C: I understand how one grasps similarity on the perceptual level. Aristotle, presumably, was unable to identify how we grasp similarity beyond that point. He held that we grasp the essence of things—namely, how they are similar—intuitively. What in addition to that is the Objectivist theory stating?

AR: He didn't say you grasp similarities intuitively. He said you grasp the essence of things intuitively.

Prof. C: Yes, the essence as the fundamental similarity.

AR: But that isn't the way he saw it. Aristotle proceeded from a certain erroneous metaphysics. He assumed that there are such things as essences—and that's the Platonism in him. But he didn't agree with Plato's theory that essences are in a separate world. He held that essences do exist, but only in concretes. And the process of concept-formation, in his view, is the process of grasping that essence, and therefore grouping concretes in certain categories because they have that essence in common. It is the same essence, but in different concretes. You see, he approaches the subject from that perspective. He isn't concerned with perceived similarities and differences. And since he can't explain how it is that we grasp these essences, which are not perceived by our senses, he would have to treat that grasp as a direct intuition, a form of direct awareness like percepts, but of a different order and therefore apprehending different objects.
The least departure from Tradition leads to a scorning of every dogma of the Faith.
St. Photios the Great, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs

CANON I: As for all persons who dare to violate the definition of the holy and great Synod convened in Nicaea in the presence of Eusebeia, the consort of the most God-beloved Emperor Constantine, concerning the holy festival of the soterial Pascha, we decree that they be excluded from Communion and be outcasts from the Church if they persist more captiously in objecting to the decisions that have been made as most fitting in regard thereto; and let these things be said with reference to laymen. But if any of the person occupying prominent positions in the Church, such as a Bishop, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, after the adoption of this definition, should dare to insist upon having his own way, to the perversion of the laity, and to the disturbance of the church, and upon celebrating Pascha along with the Jews, the holy Synod has hence judged that person to be an alien to the Church, on the ground that he has not only become guilty of sin by himself, but has also been the cause of corruption and perversion among the multitude. Accordingly, it not only deposes such persons from the liturgy, but also those who dare to commune with them after their deposition. Moreover, those who have been deposed are to be deprived of the external honor too of which the holy Canon and God's priesthood have partaken.
The Council of Antioch 341, recieved by the Council of Chalcedon

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

james03

Didn't know this.  Thanks.

Not surprising as atheists don't even have an existence theory for the immaterial world.  At the end of the day it has to devolve into absurd material reductionism.  And then you reach the quantum level and the immaterial shows up again and smacks you in the face.

An atheist HAS to deny that there is a THING called a heart.  And then you get into Final Cause, which completely blows them up.  I hold a heart exists and it has a purpose to pump blood.  And thus atheism collapses.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"