3 ms·

Your Cato link is not a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies," it is a discussion of whether government interventions in energy markets benefit oil compa

by enoch_r 13y ago

Your Cato link is not a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies," it is a discussion of whether government interventions in energy markets benefit oil companies on net, and if you'd done a cursory google search for "Cato oil subsidies" you would have found that Cato has repeatedly argued against them[1][2]. This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. [1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/eliminating-oil-subsidies-two-cheers-president-obama http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/eliminating-oil-... [2] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/oil-subsidies-dock http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/oil-subsidies-do...

aasarava 13y ago
> This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. Because someone interpreted information differently than you, or did not do the same research as you? I think you'll tire quickly of political discussion anywhere, in that case. From my perspective, your reply to the parent's comment is exactly why HN works. Someone makes an assertion, and another person comes along and adds additional information to better round out the issue. (Thank you for that, btw.)
mncolinlee 13y ago
Cato: "The evidence indicates that, on balance, the oil industry is not a net beneficiary of government subsidies... The contention that oil consumers do not pay their fair share of the environmental and national defense costs they impose on society is dubious. There is little evidence to suggest that the environmental externalities imposed by oil consumption exceed the taxes and regulatory costs paid by consumers." That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies. They're not terribly popular in normal political discourse. The piece unveils a dubious argument that evades the fact that taxes on oil are used to finance the cost of roads and highways. They do not serve to mitigate national defense costs, environmental damages, or health costs caused by burning fossil fuels, extracting them, or refining them. These costs are borne mostly as hidden externalities paid by government and consumers.
- pod4369 13y ago
  How in the world is that a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies"? Also, claiming that "That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies" is quite laughable.
  - mncolinlee 13y ago
    If you have been in politics as long as I have, you would know that an argument which is designed entirely to downplay the risks and costs of a policy is an endorsement of the same policy.

by enoch_r 13y ago

aasarava 13y ago

> This sort of thing is why I'm tired of political news on HN. Because someone interpreted information differently than you, or did not do the same research as you? I think you'll tire quickly of political discussion anywhere, in that case. From my perspective, your reply to the parent's comment is exactly why HN works. Someone makes an assertion, and another person comes along and adds additional information to better round out the issue. (Thank you for that, btw.)

mncolinlee 13y ago

Cato: "The evidence indicates that, on balance, the oil industry is not a net beneficiary of government subsidies... The contention that oil consumers do not pay their fair share of the environmental and national defense costs they impose on society is dubious. There is little evidence to suggest that the environmental externalities imposed by oil consumption exceed the taxes and regulatory costs paid by consumers." That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies. They're not terribly popular in normal political discourse. The piece unveils a dubious argument that evades the fact that taxes on oil are used to finance the cost of roads and highways. They do not serve to mitigate national defense costs, environmental damages, or health costs caused by burning fossil fuels, extracting them, or refining them. These costs are borne mostly as hidden externalities paid by government and consumers.

pod4369 13y ago
How in the world is that a "full-throated endorsement of oil subsidies"? Also, claiming that "That's about as close as anyone has ever come to fully-backing oil subsidies" is quite laughable.
- mncolinlee 13y ago
  If you have been in politics as long as I have, you would know that an argument which is designed entirely to downplay the risks and costs of a policy is an endorsement of the same policy.