 In the November 2006 election in California, a proposition would have levied a tax on oil production and prohibited companies from passing on the tax to the buyers. This proposition was numbered 87 in the multi-election series of measures proposed to the voters. If passed, the revenues would have subsidized research and enterprise on alternative energy source such as wind and sunlight. Voters defeated this tax 55 to 45 percent.
What is special about oil, that it should be singled out for a tax? Oil in the ground is a natural resource, a type of land. The market value of the oil, after subtracting out the normal costs of exploration and production, is an economic rent, a surplus that can be tapped for public revenue just like other types of land rent. Tapping this economic profit does not hurt enterprise, production, and investment, and does not change the price or quantity of production. That is the nature of a surplus, which is in effect a "free lunch."
Yes, contrary to the popular saying that there ain't no free lunch, there really are free meals in the economy, various kinds of "surplus." There is a surplus to consumers when they buy stuff at lower prices than the most they would pay. There exists a surplus in production, the price minus the costs of producing that extra amount of stuff. Most of this surplus is land rent, so it should be called the "non-producer surplus," as the title holders did not produce this land. But economists don't want this to appear too obvious, so they turn it around 180 degrees and gleefully call it a "producer surplus." Some naive graduate economic students don't understand the joke, so they really do believe it is a surplus that goes to the actual producers.
|
|
|
9th November 2006, Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service If the world's growing water crisis remains unresolved -- depriving clean water to more than one billion of the world's six billion people -- it will jeopardise the U.N.'s longstanding battle to reduce global poverty, hunger and disease by its targeted date of 2015, the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) warned Thursday. |
|
|
29th october 2006, Heather Connon & Oliver Morgan, The Observer The international giants are in trouble, with reserves shrinking, taxes and costs rising, and producing nations reneging on deals or nationalising their assets. The answer to their problems could be massive mergers.
Multinational oil companies are having a tough time. Crude prices are falling, maintaining production is a struggle, yet taxes set by the world's resource-rich nations are rising - as are costs. Topping it all is a rising trend of energy nationalism stretching round the globe. |
|
|
It must be a thankless task being Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every man, woman and their dog gives advice on taxation to the person holding the hottest seat in Government. Every pub in the land has an “expert” who knows better than the Chancellor how to run the economy. Usually this advice is just a mask for special pleading.
|
|
Multinational oil companies have reaped record profits the last two years due to the high oil price. But behind the scenes, they are playing a longer game. Civil society should learn from their approach. Hovering around $70 per barrel – the highest level since the late 1970s[1]– the oil price has sparked focus on the theme of “energy security”, notably at this July’s G8 meeting. But this term is a misleading one, a cover for companies to take long-term control over oil and gas resources, at the expense of genuine security. What is needed is to replace it with a genuine concept of energy democracy. |
|
|
9th October 2006, Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute "Sometime this month, the U.S. population is projected to reach 300 million. In times past, reaching such a demographic milestone might have been a cause for celebration. In 2006, it is not," says Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute. |
|
Emira Woods points out that “Yet as in many communities in Nigeria’s oil rich Delta region, most people of Yenagoa live in mud huts. Some reside only a few feet away from the oil wells. But they lack electricity and indoor toilets. They have no hospitals, no running water, no schools. And there is unemployment too. Oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil bring in foreign workers for even the most menial jobs. ... Like many Africans, I fear that oil companies look to Africa for its resource wealth without seeing the people. Resource-rich communities are dehumanized and the color-line is ever present as the greatest profits flow steadily to wealthy white men who already control enormous wealth and power.” |
|
|