"Trust Busting" bill would ban companies worth $100 billion from buying/merging other companies

AOC is an idiot w/r to the Environment ... and I am well aware of the tipping point - having posted that we need to do what needs be done in 10 years. What I did not say was the world was going to end in 10 years.

The problem is that AOC does not know what needs to be done - and in fact is supporting policies that do the reverse - such as her anti pipeline policy.. which serves to increase industrialization - which is the root cause of both CO2 and Ocean Pollution .. and in fact violates the New Green Deal "Thou Shalt not transfer our pollution problems to other nations" - and especially not 3rd world nations .. which is exactly what this policy does.

How is that not idiotic ?

 

Not answer a question with a question but how does not building a pipeline increase industrialization?

 

No, the right has walked off the cliff and are screaming someone pushed them

This is no more apparent than the election fraud being pushed by the right. Not only is there no evidence to support the claim, their is actual evidence to the contrary, yet they still push the lies. The right pushes one conspiracy theory after another, one lie after another, one falsehood after another, and when faced with insurmountable evidence (Jan 6th) still pushes lies ("it was Antifa"). Donald Trump VERIFIABLY lied over 10,000 times during his presidency, yet were supposed to just believe what he says without verification ? The right in this country fully expects that without question

To prove a lie, you must have facts that prove the lie wrong. Twitter does that. When it came to the election fraud being pushed by the right, all Twitter did was put a disclaimer out that said "their is no evidence to support these claims". When the lies become so blatant, and bold that they become a call to action (jan6th), we as a society have a DUTY to call them out, to STOP them, and/or not allow them to spread. "Free Speech" isn't free when it incites, and nowhere in the constitution does it allow that, or the right to lie. The RIGHT in this country fought to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, and it is now gone, and this is what you get. Hell Fox News fought all the way to the supreme court for the right to lie while calling it "news", and your focus on Twitter stopping those lies is where you want to hang your hat ? When the social media companies saw what was happening they actually picked america first.

Hell, we all know that Trump didn't have sex with Stormy, Trump didn't give campaign polling data to the Russians, Trump didn't incite the riots.........he's completely innocent and a true patriot of America right ? Twitter is the downfall of america because they chose truth ?

 

They were very aware of and very leery of political parties or factions messing up the processes. It was a major discussion point when they wrote the impeachment clause.

 

That is an excellent question - the one that AOC does not know the answer to "OR" - knows the answer and is acting simply on the basis of the political bandwagon - as many do - but then she is just Nasty/Evil .. so not a good choice. I am guessing a little of both combined with ambition.

Question w -Question - US consumption is roughly 21 million bpd - and roughly 45% of product to US refineries is imported - from 70 different nations - I will use "Nigeria" they are one of our larger suppliers. in this example.

So then -if we don't get this product from "Canada" or Domestic via pipeline .. then we have to get it somewhere else - as in by Tanker from Nigeria.

Getting oil from Nigeria - rather than Canada - financies and incentivizes a petro economy of all things - a non first world nation. If you want the macro picture - any analyst worth his/her salt looks at Capital flows .. if its coming your way - life is good .. Look at China .. if it is not .. look at Cuba - Venezuela - Russia prior to the end of the cold war.

So yeah .. if we don't get our oil Domestic (Canada US Mexico- who doesn't sell to us because they sell into the world market at the Brent price which is higher than WTI (west texas intermediate) which is higher than WCS - Western Canadian Select.) via Pipeline - then we have to get it from "Nigeria" - and no .. OH .. we could just get it all From Saudi Arabia - is not a valid answer - for a number of reasons . .. not a serious answer in a circle of subject matter experts .. of which I am one.

Getting it from somewhere else will both incentivizes and finances industrialization.

Thus - Not building Pipelines

1) Increases CO2
2)Massive increase to Ocean Pollution - which is arguably a more pressing issue than CO2 -although both are connected.
3) Transports our pollution problems to other nations
4) Pipeline is the most enviro friendly and energy efficient means of transport - Hands down .. Rail - Truck - and Tanker are all more enviro unfriendly.
5) Going completely the wrong direction - not addressing the root cause issues before us which - at least according to Michael Moores latest flick industrialization and population growth .. but something I have been preaching for decades.

100 Trillion - over 10 years .. 10T per year would do it - we need to take this money - we know where it is .. and deal with these two issues.. The world has to go on hold for 10 years - until we can industrialize these populations in a Green way - rather than on the back of a fossil fuel economy - in a dirty way - as these are far less able to deal with/ mitigate the pollution problems associated with fossil fuel production.

in the meantime - get a bowl of rice a day into every mouth .. food/security to these people - so they stop having children - as much contraception as they like .. and strict controls on immigration across class boundaries - meaning .. when you take someone eating a bowl of rice a day - and bring that person to the first world - their consumption increases by 36 times - and subsequent biproducts of that consumption = CO2 and Ocean Pollution

6) Ocean Pollution is not factored into the calculation ???????? .
7) Biofuel is not green - as pointed out in Moore's flick - every tree in the US would power us for a Year.

 

Crucial part of above is bolded.

WHY do we have to get it from somewhere else?

Why can't we just do without? That is how we have always handled shortfalls up until now. That DOES raise the price and yes, that does cause hardship but prices have always fluctuated and we have dealt with hardships before.

The crucial thing is not how we get MORE fossil fuels or even the same amount, it's how we use LESS of fossil fuels altogether and you don't use less of something by building a great huge device to get millions of more barrels where we need them more easily.

Root cause issue indeed. The REAL root cause is how do we use less fossil fuel, not how do we transport it more easily. If we make it more expensive then we will be forced to use alternatives, and the alternatives will become less expensive both relatively and quantitively as greater use develops their necessary infrastructure.

Sometimes nasty and evil is smart.

 

They would split the company up if this was ever going to go into affect.

 

Taking away market choice is not capitalism. No good comes from that.

 

The market is what made the choice. People have chosen to buy from the company over their competitors, and eventually the competitors die off

 

That's not necessarily true.

If one company dominates the options, nobody has any ability to make a secondary choice. Even if a company invents a technology and gets a patent protecting them, that patent is limited to 20 years.

Again, there is no good that comes from monopolies. The only people that would advocate in favor at those that desire to price gouge and force purchasing through their company by preventing competition from entering the market.

 

Every monopoly has stared with one customer and worked from there.

I am generally against government intervention in business.

 

You don't see the inherent danger of say, having one single utility company providing all the power to all Americans with no other choice?

 

How many choices do you have for power going to your house?

I have one. Which is the same for every state I have lived in.

There is no other choice. I do not think I have suffered because of it.

 

That's not what you wrote. You asserted that a company could never get this big to begin with. Did you unintentionally f up what you meant to write?

 

Actually, we have several.

https://www.saveonenergy.com/providers/


One company provides DELIVERY of power, and they are regulated by the government and for good reason. If they weren't they could charge whatever they wanted.

 

Are you nit picking semantics to feel like you won some type of internet trophy?

Actually what I said was:

I didn't even address existing companies that already exceed the size. You made that up to attempt your "gotcha" nonsense.

At the time the law would go into effect, those companies would already be split up.

Care to now argue the actual topic? The stupidity of a law like that?

 

According to your link we have two, but only one of them serves my address. Thus, I have one.

 

And Ill bet you pay around $.13 - $.18 cents a Kilowatt hour.

Why do you think it's so low?

 

Government oversight.

 

***This little rant is not exactly on topic, but I'll cut it loose here anyway...***

I have dozens of choices for power. Centerpoint gets a baseload fee to maintain the basic infrastructure. Aside from the exceptional 128 year freeze that blew through here, the TX Ercot grid is well run and well managed. We simply do not build for 10°F temperatures here on the gulf coast. We don't have engine block heaters. We don't have basements. My Calpine Champion Energy bill was $13 for 2/9/21 to 3/10/21.

I'll take Ercot and TX power over Cali power every day all day. We don't allow our energy providers to be sued over natural disasters like California does. Nothing to do with being a red state - we just have better sense than to go to court every time the wind blows like they do in Cali.

Oh, yeah, and we're allowed by law to use lethal force to protect our property! Imagine that!

 

Meaningless number without knowing the size of your house and the number of people in it and if you have gas heater.

Talk about being off topic...damn

 

Ok, so you didn't say, apparently, what you meant to say. Fair enough, it happens for all of us from time to time. I don't play gotcha games here brah, I was simply pointing out that you seem to have a problem stating what you mean.

Now, I've noticed this pattern with several of our members here and I'm going to try and be a bit more kind in my approach for the moment.

What do you think someone who reads this sentence you just wrote takes as its meaning?

"At the time the law would go into effect, those companies would already be split up."

Supposing Hawley's law goes into effect, how would "those" companies already be split up? Just magically Amazon would already be split up before Josh Seditionist Hawley's law goes into effect by virtue of what force of law, nature or act of God?

 

You agree the post I said was going to be off topic was off topic? We are aligned then apparently.

 

Well, there is off topic and then there is in an whole different continent.

Not sure why you needed to throw in **** about guns.

 

I'll grant you that. I'm not quite sure how that crept in there myself. But then again I'm not sure how you followed Jcarl down the rabbit hole of public utility options.