Ferris Bueller:That is the trouble with our health system nowadays. The onus is on curing rather than preventing. In which case some illnesses are left until it is too late to cure or prevent it going any worse.

Ferris Bueller: True... but the old health industry doesn't seem to quantify that a person's whole life can be destroyed by a mental illness, or the possible consequences of such to others apart from nearest and dearest.

(V):  You point out, "It's hard to treat therefore expensive."  That is true, but it is more costly not to treat it.

The USA is getting concerned over China's spending on it's military... Yet the USA's spending on military accounts for 40% of the whole world's annual spending.

As such the Chinese gov spends about 10% of the USA does.

Ferris Bueller: .. Because those affected by disorders tend to be not very good at 'demonstrating'. And those supporting are busy supporting.

... It's hard to treat therefore expensive.

... And still Billions being paid to the b... b.... bankers who played with peoples money with no respect....

SL-Mark: Mmmmmmm...

"Firstly skills are purchased at a premium. If there was no reward for learning a skill, then there would be no differentiation and all would earn the same amount."

Not in the encouragement of people to become 'apprentices' or 'trainees'.. They still need a working wage. It's not about lack of want to do the job, but putting bread on the table. In a utopian world maybe all employers would be fair.. but we all know that is not always the case.

"By introducing the minimum wage you effectively reduce the differentiation and reward, hence providing less encouragement for a skilled labour force."

Not really. Unless it's the difference between a 1 star McD's worker and and 5 star McD's worker. Most skilled workers are going to earn a lot more than minimum wage, and from experience.. most really skilled workers are going to earn at least 10 times minimum.

"A liquid labour market is not encouraged by the minimum wage, but instead creates an illiquid market. It results in less movement of labour as again differentiation and free market forces"

.... It also gives incentive for more to get off JSA more quickly.

"“The lack of such a minimum wage is a tax on the income the government gets”
Duh, surely you can't be serious with this statement!?"

Yes. It's called subsidising businesses by the DWP and local councils paying benefits out to those on low wages.

"but to prevent the uprising occurring in the first place we will introduce a tax on labour through means of a minimum wage, hence avoiding the uprising, but we will keep the tax receipts any way and make our nation less competitive. There is a real cost here, the government has again reduced the competitiveness of business and again the business fails and unemployment increases. Simple economics."

lol.. Some businesses will never be able to keep up in a wage war with likes of India. That is an economic truth. As for competitiveness.. Is that (as in recent cases with building firms) before or after they fix the prices?.. Or like Intel, bribe retailers??

"For most businesses, labour costs are one the largest, if not the largest operating cost of a business. And more so because of labour taxes."

Nope.. It depends on the business. Computers and factory machines can cut labour costs by a great deal. But you'd know that from the likes of economic terms such as "labour intensive" and "non labour intensive".

Ebay.. nothing compared to some sites I know.

SL-Mark:

> "In making such a request, I would have at least expected the courtesy that you provided some of your own statistical data to back your argument first."

That is exactly my point. There is no data to support the position. The data is at best sketchy. Look at rises in minimum wage and they are correlated more to rises in inflation than to the slowdown of economic growth. Governments typically rise minimum wages when they have little choice left. Inflation has eroded people's spending capacity to such an extent that only a rise in minimum wage can ensure that the lowest segments of society have enough to afford to live. The question is, what caused the economic slowdown: Inflation? Higher wages? People spending less due to inflation? As with all economics and econometric data, the information is highly incomplete. To assert that higher minimum wages lead to a slowing of the economy is like saying that because it is a cold day you will most likely catch a flu. It is mere conjecture.

People often forget that most western governments interpret economic data to justify government policy. A good example of this is the bank meltdown of 2008. During the Bush administration Allan Greenspan and other leading economists justified "liberalizing" the credit markets, including mortgage lending rules and third party lending (private banks lending to other banks). The idea was that the credit market would "sort itself out" and that less government intervention would stimulate the economy by making it easier to borrow and lend money to individuals and institutions. Instead banks figured they could keep lending and borrowing recklessly until they were so over-extended that the whole banking system faced a catastrophic meltdown. The so-called genius economists had interpreted financial data to justify government policy, rather than letting the real economy dictate how the government should act.

> "Even Ireland in its latest austerity budget actually reduced the statutory minimum wage, recognising the fact it is a hindrance to growth. "

Ireland now has lowered the minimum wage. Is that a solution? Or is the financial crisis being used as an excuse to undermine the working class? If lowering the minimum wage is a solution, what caused the problem in the first place? Was it a high a minimum wage? Or was it a reckless government that borrowed money without ever thinking that they would have to pay it back some day? Who is to blame? The workers who get the minimum wage? The inept government that mismanaged its finances? The unscrupulous lenders who lent money to Ireland knowing fully well that the country would be in trouble at some point?

Finally, who makes a profit here? If all else fails, just follow the money trail, and that will lead you to the Holy Grail. The Anglo-Irish Bank overextended itself in the property market. I found this snipped in Wikipedia:

"In many deals, Anglo Irish Bank would lend to wealthy individuals to further their equity participation. According to the CEO of Ireland's the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), loan-to-value on deals was as high as 100%. As a result the bank was totally exposed to any decline in value. In many cases, Anglo took personal guarantees as security. However, NAMA attaches no value to these personal guarantees.

Of the €36.5 billion of loans not being transferred to NAMA, Anglo Irish Bank has taken a provision of €4.9 billion... ... Anglo Irish Bank has large exposures to entrepreneurs such as Seán Quinn of Quinn Group and Barry O’Callaghan, of EMPG. In both cases, the bank's security was limited and largely on the men's shares in businesses. The provision of €4.9 billion compares with impaired loans of €9.5 billion at the end of December 2009."

So it is the minimum wage that is a hindrance to growth in Ireland. Silly me for thinking all along that it was the bankers and their capitalist friends who were getting all those huge loans knowing fully well that once they declared bankruptcy they would not have to pay them back. As a result of this fiasco the Irish government bought 75% of the Anglo-Irish Bank's stock, effectively being forced to nationalize the bank or face a catastrophic meltdown.

I am sure it was the minimum wage all along. If they had just kept the minimum wages low, the greedy capitalists who played roulette with Ireland's banking sytem would have been OK and there would have been no meltdown.

All in all, Ireland lowered the minimum wage, not to justify economic growth, but to do a favour to the same rich people who took the Irish working classes and their hard-earned savings to the cleaners. Who has the capital to invest in those businesses that will hire at a lower minimum wage? Those who stole the capital in the first place! Now there will be real economic growth due to more "investment" stimulated by "lower labour costs".

> "Yes, this is true and as the Western economies shoot themselves in the foot with these social polices which hurt competitiveness, we can see other nations now starting to overtake on the huge head start we had. This head start of course achieved through minimal intervention in business and the economy."

Like China? China is of course, NOT under the control of an all powerful communist party. The reason why China is attractive to western companies is because it has the biggest population on the earth, a low per capita income, and a communist party that is corrupt and can easily be bought to advantage. China has almost no environmental protection policies and worker safety policies. When the local population has asked that polution be reduced, nothing is done because the communist government has its greasy fingers EVERYWHERE. China is a bad example, because it is a form of state capitalism. The state uses the population as cheap labour, and that is what has made China attractive to foreign companies. The massive flow of capital into China is of some benefit to the local population, but it has mostly gone into the hands of a local business and comuunist party elite. Listening to people talk about China one would think that China REALLY REALLY got rid of its millions of poor people.

> "However, I maintain that the minimum wage does effect the supply and demand for labour in a way that causes greater unemployment."

I suppose that if the price of labout became very high overnight then unemployment would rise rapidly. Historically, rises in minimum wage occurred in response to inflationary pressures. I think it would be difficult to prove whether it was higher wages or inflation that lead to lower consumption, lower demand for labour and eventually higher unemployment.

In reality the picture is complex. Inflation and higher wages go together. It is unavoidable in a system that tries to stave off mass discontent with some benefits for people with lower income. Perhaps a better interpretation is one of a continuos cycle.

Inflation -> Lower consumption -> Decreased demand for goods -> Higher unemployment

Higher minimum wage -> higher overall wages -> higher consumption -> Increased demand for goods -> lower unemployment

Higher minimum wage -> lower rate of capital investment -> less job creation -> higher unemployment

Under this logic rises in the minimum wage could potentially be both bad or good.

If inflation is triggering a long term rise in minimum wage, then it is tempting to blame the minimum wage for an economic slowdown. However, the minimum wage does not rise continuosly. Minimum wages rise sporadically. In many cases they will remain the same for years. Goverments usually rise the minimum wage as a last resort, when other avenues of economic stimulus have failed. It is for this reason that statistical data cannot prove much.

Locally, here in Canada I have seen minimum wages rise both during recession and boom times. During recession, to stimulate spending. During boom times to offset higher inflation. It seems that the minimum wage is more a symptom than a cause of the economic growth or slowdown.

Übergeek 바둑이: Firstly, thank you for taking the time to answer in a way more becoming of you. It demonstrates a bit more respect than a sarcastic jibe.

>”Show me statistical data that shows that increases in the minimum wage have led to a decline in economic growth..”
In making such a request, I would have at least expected the courtesy that you provided some of your own statistical data to back your argument first. Overlooking this, let me point you to some modern day examples such as Hong Kong, Ethiopia, India. Even Ireland in its latest austerity budget actually reduced the statutory minimum wage, recognising the fact it is a hindrance to growth. In fact, all (informed) governments recognise this, however, they seek to gain political popularity through such measures to the detriment of the nation.

>”Adam Smith might have spoken of the "invisible hand". That was nice of him and the rich in Scotland liked it as they amassed their wealth using women and children in textile factories in Scotland. Capitalists do things not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of their own pockets. The only reason why capitalists ship jobs overseas is because profits are greatest when the labour is cheapest. That is why right wing economists hate the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage means lower profits for the capitalist class.”
I see you have used an example from my country :)
The women and children you talk about were part of a mass migration of labour from subsistence farming to the cities, where opportunities to work and better themselves existed. They were able to afford better food, clothing, medicine and even basic education, all of which was previously non-existent to them. The capitalists certainly benefited from that, and so they should, but so did all their workers.

>”No, it was not the government. It was not the church or the aristocracy or the rich. All those nice buildings were built with working class hands. It was workers who set mortar to stone and who carved wood and marble. It was also the work of the working class that generated the wealth used to build those places. The rich and the church merely took that wealth and used it to build those monuments for themselves.”
Yes, I agree, they were built by the hands of workers who migrated from all over the country to carry out such work. Unskilled labourers, stone masons, carpenters, engineers, architects, etc. all paid for by private money for the benefit and good of all. This private money came about from enterprise, from these greedy capitalists!

>”You say that antiques are highly sought after. That is because even when there was no minimum wage people were skilled and worked hard. The argument that minimum wage increases discourages people from working hard or being skilled is an empty argument. Nobody can prove that with hard science or hard statistical data.”
Although I disagree, I will accept your assertion. However, I maintain that the minimum wage does effect the supply and demand for labour in a way that causes greater unemployment. This fact is irrefutable if you care to do a bit of research.

>”Today we have a minimum wage. Are we more or less skilled today than we were in the 19th century? We have technical developments like computers and cell phones, but then, in the past people built things by hand and made all those antiques.”
Not clear on what point you are trying to make. We are as skilled, but in different ways. The minimum wage effects mostly the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The minimum wage is dysfunctional to the market, the economy and the wealth of a nation and its people.

>”If decreases in minimum wage lead to greater competitiveness and a more skilled labour force, then countires with the lowest minimum wages would have the most skilled and most competitive labour market.”
Yes, this is true and as the Western economies shoot themselves in the foot with these social polices which hurt competitiveness, we can see other nations now starting to overtake on the huge head start we had. This head start of course achieved through minimal intervention in business and the economy.

>”But the economic reality proves otherwise. The lower the income of people in a country, the less competitive and the less skilled its labour becomes. If people have a very low minimum income, then they cannot afford to be educated. That means that their skill set will be lower because skills are learned, and it is education that teaches people those skills. Low minimum wages means a less skilled labour force.”
Now we are discussing factor endowment of nations and the national policies of these governments. Hong Kong, Ethiopia, Bangladesh are good examples of nations breaking the downward spiral of poverty. Indeed, it was not so long ago that the UK was exactly as you describe, and in only the space of 200-300 years has it developed to what we see today. Hong Kong is an example of subsistence living to 'modern' living in less than 50 years.

The reason why right wing economists say that higher wages are "less competitive" is because the capitalist class wants to pay the lowest possible wages for the same work. China's labour market is "more competitive" than the labour market of the USA because in China goods are manufactured by paying workers approximately 1/30th of what the average American worker earns. China is more "competitive" because the capitalist class has no problems at all shipping its production there and making much bigger profits by paying less in salaries. What you call "competitive market liquidity" is no more than cheap labour.”
Yes and look how China has progressed in the last 20 years.
Please watch this video, and compare it to the productivity of your country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogQRjGGxkZQ
I find this not only amazing, but very upsetting as we kill our economies on the false social benefits that we desire. I am not asserting that the minimum wage is the result of the disparity in productivity, but it is one of the many contributing factors.

SL-Mark:

Unfortunately, a sarcastic tone cannot be written down and only implied in typing. Of course, you are saying that increases in minimum wage are bad for the economy, competitiveness, etc.

If that is the case, I am sure there is econometric data to support that argument. Show me statistical data that shows that increases in the minimum wage have led to a decline in economic growth. There should be a graph that shows the correlation. Hard data, not some regurgitated "free market" economics.

> "These people you speak of took risk, provided opportunity to many and improved life for all."

Adam Smith might have spoken of the "invisible hand". That was nice of him and the rich in Scotland liked it as they amassed their wealth using women and children in textile factories in Scotland. Capitalists do things not for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of their own pockets. The only reason why capitalists ship jobs overseas is because profits are greatest when the labour is cheapest. That is why right wing economists hate the minimum wage. Higher minimum wage means lower profits for the capitalist class.

> "Look at any old city and ask yourself who built those magnificent houses, art galleries, theatres, universities, museums, railways, etc. etc. It was not government. "

No, it was not the government. It was not the church or the aristocracy or the rich. All those nice buildings were built with working class hands. It was workers who set mortar to stone and who carved wood and marble. It was also the work of the working class that generated the wealth used to build those places. The rich and the church merely took that wealth and used it to build those monuments for themselves.

You say that antiques are highly sought after. That is because even when there was no minimum wage people were skilled and worked hard. The argument that minimum wage increases discourages people from working hard or being skilled is an empty argument. Nobody can prove that with hard science or hard statistical data.

Today we have a minimum wage. Are we more or less skilled today than we were in the 19th century? We have technical developments like computers and cell phones, but then, in the past people built things by hand and made all those antiques.

The minimum wage might change, but human need and human skill remain the same. It is all a matter of how technical development modifies the necessary skills that satisfy human need. You can make a wooden chair by hand, or with computerized power tools.

If decreases in minimum wage lead to greater competitiveness and a more skilled labour force, then countires with the lowest minimum wages would have the most skilled and most competitive labour market.

But the economic reality proves otherwise. The lower the income of people in a country, the less competitive and the less skilled its labour becomes. If people have a very low minimum income, then they cannot afford to be educated. That means that their skill set will be lower because skills are learned, and it is education that teaches people those skills. Low minimum wages means a less skilled labour force.

The reason why right wing economists say that higher wages are "less competitive" is because the capitalist class wants to pay the lowest possible wages for the same work. China's labour market is "more competitive" than the labour market of the USA because in China goods are manufactured by paying workers approximately 1/30th of what the average American worker earns. China is more "competitive" because the capitalist class has no problems at all shipping its production there and making much bigger profits by paying less in salaries. What you call "competitive market liquidity" is no more than cheap labour.

Bwild:
Yes, I just managed to pick up on that, though he was using it (sarcasm) to argue for the minimum wage. Also doesn't change the fact that his arguement was poorly structured, sarcasm or not! Quite unusual for Ubergeek, whos posts are often some of the best and always well constructed and thought through.

SL-Mark:I'm sure his post was meant as sarcasm.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh dear, bit surprised at the quality of your argument, which are usually well formulated. Here you have resorted to emotive language to support your argument, there is no chronology, instead you jump around history, picking examples to support your case and mix up the argument by bringing the responsibility of other legislation into the frame.

If that is not clear, let me demonstrate some of the many fallacies in your argument.

>“The minimum wage damages the economy because those rich people who own business have to pay more to their workers and that means that the profits of the rich get a little bit smaller”
True, and I'm sure you don't need me to spell out the reasons why this is actually destructive in creating wealth for a nation.

>”We should go back to the 19th century and eliminate the minimum wage. In that way children will go back to work, women will get paid a lot less, older workers can be easily replaced by younger ones, and the rich business owners can "improve their economy" by keeping those wages for themselves.”
This is emotive and history conveniently starts in the 19th century for your argument. I suggest you look back to the two previous centuries and understand the situation and the transitions that were made from then to today. Hint, suggest you also look at population growth during these periods as well and the reasons behind this phenomenal growth.
Also, there is also no evidence to suggest that children etc. will go back to work if the minimum wage is abolished. This is the remit of other legislation, including health & safety, which has done much to ensure the safety of the work force.

>”On the plus side, those rich business owners will stop sending jobs by "outsourcing" overseas. Since there is no minimum wage, business owners don't have to open factories in poor countries. Everything can be manufactured cheaply right here at home”
Very true, and this increases the wealth of the nation. However, your terminology, “those rich business owners” is again emotive. These people you speak of took risk, provided opportunity to many and improved life for all. Look at any old city and ask yourself who built those magnificent houses, art galleries, theatres, universities, museums, railways, etc. etc. It was not government.

>”Let's face it. The minimum wage just leads to lazy, stubborn, unskilled workers.”
True, very well spotted!

>“That is why in the 19th century those handmade goods were made without skill or ability.”
False, 19th century goods are highly sought. They were made by very skilled craftsmen. What are you antique stores full of? Certainly not modern day dross.

>”By giving people a minimum wage there is just no "incentive" to learn and be productive.”
Again, well spotted, though I would say less incentive rather than no incentive. This is based on the degree that differentiation has been diminished.

>” Proof lies in the fact that in the 19th century when there was no minimum wage "soooo" many people were educated and literate as compared to today when the minimum wage allows the working class to pay for an education for their children.”
Proof of what? You have not made any assertion or hypothesis. What is the relationship between the minimum wage and education? Again, suggest you look at history without conveniently starting in a place that suits your argument. The industrial revolution did more for the health and education for the nation than any government.

>”We should get rid of the minimum wage, along with employment insurance, health care and universally available education. In that way we can go back to the good old days when the poor were so desperate that communism actually looked attractive.”
Employment insurance- What are you talking about?
Health Care- The best health care in the world is privately run. The UK state run health care is one of the worst in the world.
Education- Again, the best education is privately run. The Industrial revolution, however, provided more learning opportunities for more people than ever before in history. Oh yes, this only came about because of your greedy business owners, not government.

Like V, you need to try harder. Score 1/10. The 1 awarded, because even in your confusion you managed to get a couple of things right!

Übergeek 바둑이:  Thankyou

The minimum wage damages the economy because those rich people who own business have to pay more to their workers and that means that the profits of the rich get a little bit smaller. We should go back to the 19th century and eliminate the minimum wage. In that way children will go back to work, women will get paid a lot less, older workers can be easily replaced by younger ones, and the rich business owners can "improve their economy" by keeping those wages for themselves.

On the plus side, those rich business owners will stop sending jobs by "outsourcing" overseas. Since there is no minimum wage, business owners don't have to open factories in poor countries. Everything can be manufactured cheaply right here at home.

On the down side, since the wages of the working class will shrink, all those workers who buy all those goods will have less money to buy junk with. However, that can be partially offset by "lower manufacturing costs" since goods are manufactured cheaper due to "lower labour costs".

> "By introducing the minimum wage you effectively reduce the differentiation and reward, hence providing less encouragement for a skilled labour force."

Let's face it. The minimum wage just leads to lazy, stubborn, unskilled workers. That is why in the 19th century those handmade goods were made without skill or ability. By giving people a minimum wage there is just no "incentive" to learn and be productive. Proof lies in the fact that in the 19th century when there was no minimum wage "soooo" many people were educated and literate as compared to today when the minimum wage allows the working class to pay for an education for their children.

We should get rid of the minimum wage, along with employment insurance, health care and universally available education. In that way we can go back to the good old days when the poor were so desperate that communism actually looked attractive.

We need anything politically important rationed out like Pez: small,
sweet, and coming out of a funny, plastic head.

(V): Good, so now that you have stated your position and your (mis) understandingS, happy to answer your points.


“It does nothing to encourage a skilled and liquid labour market”
Quite the opposite.
Firstly skills are purchased at a premium. If there was no reward for learning a skill, then there would be no differentiation and all would earn the same amount.
By introducing the minimum wage you effectively reduce the differentiation and reward, hence providing less encouragement for a skilled labour force. Alternatively, if the differentiation is to be maintained, then the employer has to pay a higher cost for labour, resulting in diminished competitiveness and therefore eventual loss of business and unemployment. Simple economics.

A liquid labour market is not encouraged by the minimum wage, but instead creates an illiquid market. It results in less movement of labour as again differentiation and free market forces have been skewed by these populist but fallacious ideas. Regarding unemployment benefit, which you seemed to associate with this discussion, this too is another market aberration, again resulting in the increased cost of labour and reduction of liquidity. Simple economics.


“The lack of such a minimum wage is a tax on the income the government gets”
Duh, surely you can't be serious with this statement!?


“As such it is also exploitation”
Good, where people feel exploited, they will move on = increased liquidity. Simple economics.


“And has led to much civil unrest in the past. Which is another drain of public funds.. which, are raised on taxes.. as I'm sure you know”
Your reasoning is circular here. What you are effectively saying, is that the minimum wage provides a tax revenue which will enable government to afford the quelling of any uprising on its own citizens, but to prevent the uprising occurring in the first place we will introduce a tax on labour through means of a minimum wage, hence avoiding the uprising, but we will keep the tax receipts any way and make our nation less competitive. There is a real cost here, the government has again reduced the competitiveness of business and again the business fails and unemployment increases. Simple economics.


“I've seen (before minimum was introduced) companies staff changing rapidly, as people moved on quickly. It wasn't they didn't like the job, just they could not afford to live on the pay. The result being that new staff had to be advertised for and trained. When a decent wage was paid. People stuck at the job. “
These are commercial decisions to be made by a company. They are the best decision makers in these matters, not government.
Staff turnover = increased liquidity!
Skilled labour commands a reward and the company will pay a premium for this in order to retain this staff.
For unskilled labour, the wage will be optimised between the cost of retention and new hires.
All simple economics.




“As for higher costs. Shop around.. haggle.. ebay. Labour costs are a small % of the actual retail price usually, as I'm sure you know.”
Another bizarre statement, which also depends on the nature of the business. For most businesses, labour costs are one the largest, if not the largest operating cost of a business. And more so because of labour taxes.


Well, I can only give you a score of 1/10 (the 1 is awarded for your imaginative suggestion to use ebay to purchase items at a lower cost)

Try harder!

Artful Dodger: Most in the UK are against exploitation and slave labour. I thought it was the same in the USA.. or do people just turn a blind eye?

.. I know your military does.

SL-Mark: Or that there are various different opinions on economics that if you do know economics you'd know.

If you feel that no minimum wage is a great idea, I disagree. It does nothing to encourage a skilled and liquid labour market. if people see they are going to get less than peanuts for a job, less than they would unemployed.. why work? the lack of such a minimum wage is a tax on the income the government gets. As such it is also exploitation. And has led to much civil unrest in the past. Which is another drain of public funds.. which, are raised on taxes.. as I'm sure you know.

I've seen (before minimum was introduced) companies staff changing rapidly, as people moved on quickly. It wasn't they didn't like the job, just they could not afford to live on the pay. The result being that new staff had to be advertised for and trained. When a decent wage was paid. People stuck at the job.

As for higher costs. Shop around.. haggle.. ebay. Labour costs are a small % of the actual retail price usually, as I'm sure you know.

(V): You have not stated the basis of your question, your position, nor your knowledge on the subject. Hence communicating the answer in a way that you might understand is my challenge.

I can only surmise from your question that either:

a) You don't understand simple economics.
This is fine, just say so, and I'm sure I can explain this in lay-mans terms that you can understand, or

b) You disagree with me.
In which case you don't understand simple economics (see option a), or

c) You agree with me
In which case not sure why you asked.

Übergeek 바둑이:
1....." the US does not use its own oil because it does not have enough."
     yes and no. the majority of US consumption is imported,but not all. in the 80's my younger brothers drilled oil wells in Texas and Oklahoma (roughnecks). they'd strike oil...figure out how many barrels a day it would produce...then cap it. 1 in 10 wells were left to pump, and that pumped oil was sent to US refineries.

2....."Here in Alberta, Canada, we produce enough oil to supply about 15% of
American demand. We are the biggest supplier of oil to the US now."
    and when saudi finally taps out..canada finally caps out...brazil..etc. ...the US will still have a capped reserve.

3....." Oil is the biggest business in the world and suppliers (companies,
OPEC, etc.) are constantly trying to manipulate prices to maximize their
profits. Governments are corrupt and they sell their integrity to oil
companies. "

   oil runs this earth.

Mousetrap: Because the system is complicated that even those in the know have a hard time dealing with it. I saw on a prog one lady with a disabled son lose out due to not ticking a box that was in the small print. Luckily she was able to get what she was owed backdated. Yet a fraudster working full time for years and only getting caught through that he was selling dodgy DVD's at a market stall.. the one he had been working full time at for years!!

As to rent.. I know someone who got a letter saying they owed money after they moved, even though they had been paying via direct debit and had a letter saying all was in order. N' someone who was supposed to advice people on what to do when a landlord is slow on repairs.... not know that the tenant is within their rights to use the rent money to pay for essential repairs and just present the landlord with the receipt.

.. The lesson seems to be.. know your rights.

(V): It is a wonder they left it that long to ask for the money. I have only to go over a week late with the rent and there is a letter in the post. People who do things the right way are always the ones they demand money off first whereas people who do things the wrong way mostly seem to get left in peace. .

Mousetrap: I'm just glad I'm out of the system. Some of the horror stories that I have heard...

.. eg, a couple working claiming Working families Tax credit find that after some time thanks to the confusion of the red tape... they owe over £2K back. The only thing they did was to attempt the adoption of a teenager which went wrong. The news came over needing to repay a year after the event.

ScarletRose: Somewhat to do with limited oil reserves, somewhat to do with the cost of extracting the oil reserves you do have.

But with the cost of oil rising it's making some economically unviable reserves viable.

rod03801: Nope. I got a straight answer and just replied to it. That you can't or won't give one.....

SL-Mark: The minimum wage damages the economy and labour market!!... how in your view?

don't forget the transportation costs, how food and other things get to the stores...trucks..when the costs raise what happens?

ScarletRose:

> Okay.. so why don't we use our own oil?? Why refine it to send it off just to get oil from somewhere else??

In answer to your first question: the US does not use its own oil because it does not have enough. Even if the companies were to drill in Alaska and do deep sea drilling in the gulf of Mexico, the US still wouldn't have enough oil to meet the demand.

The US has approximately 5% of the people in the world. Yet it consumes about 36% of the crude oil in the world. Based on pure statistics, the average American citizen is consuming about 6 times the amount of oil that a person in a developing country (like China) would consume. This has to do with lifestyle. Americans like big cars (at least ehy did in the past. That trend is changing). Americans use a lot of electricity and energy for heating, air conditioning and illumination (consider all the Christmas lights in the street, for example).

It is this high demand that has moved the US to import most of its oil. Here in Alberta, Canada, we produce enough oil to supply about 15% of American demand. We are the biggest supplier of oil to the US now. We supply even more oil than Saudi Arabia. Both American and Canadian companies have pursued oil exploration and drilling in Canada because we are a friendly country to the US. We are a stable democracy and we share the largest undefended border in the world.

In reality the US refines most of its own crude oil, and exports little refined product. What the US exports is technology for exploration, drilling and refining.

A change in energy policy in the US (or around the world for that matter) will require not just a change in government attitude, but also a change in the attitude of suppliers (oil and energy companies) and a change in the attitude of consumers. Oil is the biggest business in the world and suppliers (companies, OPEC, etc.) are constantly trying to manipulate prices to maximize their profits. Governments are corrupt and they sell their integrity to oil companies. Consumers just want cheap, abundant energy and until recently they were not willing to change their consumption patterns. Now that oil is so expensive we are starting to see a shift in consumer attitude. People wants to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, appliances and vehicles. However, we forget that only 25 years ago most people didn't care much for saving energy.

Bwild   If we do use our own.. then why are we importing some from elsewhere??

ScarletRose:ummmm...we do

(V): NO answer that EVER disagrees with you is "straight" in your mind.

Bwild:  Okay.. so why don't we use our own oil?? Why refine it to send it off just to get oil from somewhere else??

And you forget my humor Bwild.. quit being so pissie.. ya turd..