WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
596
Location
Montana
I've stayed out of it but this is one of the worst graphs in the history of graphs.

If you cut the tax rate then taxes are going to be a smaller percentage of GDP. It's a fact. How you could have it work otherwise I have no idea.

What that graph doesn't tell you at all is that GDP grew enough that revenues actually were up slightly overall.

What that graph actually does tell you is that government spending is completely out of hand and has actually gotten worse under Trump instead of better.
Far from the worst graph ever, but you notice the difficulty in measuring the impact of a change in the economy. GDP is simply a constant by which you are measuring the two variables. Revenues did increase last year by like 4% (about equal to nominal GDP growth) but you expect that in a growing economy. You don’t care so much about GDP or its growth, what you care about is you financial situation (revs vs expenses). As you pointed out, moving in opposite directions is bad. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging. Unfortunately every candidate regardless of party brings another shovel and promises to dig their way out. It’s insane.
 

ElkFever2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
1,874
Location
Iowa
A lot to wade through here, but could someone correct my 6th grade explanation of state government, if I’m missing something here:

State provides services for its residents, which carries a cost. Also, the bureaucracy itself carries a cost owed to its very existence. The state collects revenues in order to pay these costs. All of the above are governed by statute, or the state constitution.

Revenues include taxes, interest, fees, sales, loans, etc., and all is fungible, unless a particular revenue source is specified by statute to be earmarked.

After all financial obligations are met, any surplus funds (from revenue) may be spent, invested, allocated, or dispersed in any way the current government decides to do so, unless otherwise specified by statute or the constitution. These funds are simply funds collected by the government; they do not belong to the citizens of the state. If the citizens decide they don’t like what the government does with these funds, they can simply vote out the representatives out of office, ask their representatives to change the statues pertaining to the treatment of such funds, or (if applicable) submit a ballot initiative or constitutional amendment to change the rules.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
4,658
Location
Twin Cities
A lot to wade through here, but could someone correct my 6th grade explanation of state government, if I’m missing something here:

State provides services for its residents, which carries a cost. Also, the bureaucracy itself carries a cost owed to its very existence. The state collects revenues in order to pay these costs. All of the above are governed by statute, or the state constitution.

Revenues include taxes, interest, fees, sales, loans, etc., and all is fungible, unless a particular revenue source is specified by statute to be earmarked.

After all financial obligations are met, any surplus funds (from revenue) may be spent, invested, allocated, or dispersed in any way the current government decides to do so, unless otherwise specified by statute or the constitution. These funds are simply funds collected by the government; they do not belong to the citizens of the state. If the citizens decide they don’t like what the government does with these funds, they can simply vote out the representatives out of office, ask their representatives to change the statues pertaining to the treatment of such funds, or (if applicable) submit a ballot initiative or constitutional amendment to change the rules.
Your 6th grade teacher would be quite proud of this good summary. You are correct that a given citizen or even collection of citizens do not hold legal title to the cash funds held by a state government, just as the citizens of WY do not legally "own" the public lands of the state individually or in a group.

When I was referring to the "people's money" I was referring to a broader concept - the same concept we apply when we on this forum say "we are public land owners". It is the concept of, "of the people, for the people, by the people," "We the people" and "governments instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". It is that the state government is nothing more than the people, and that while we have set out processes to effect this governance by consent of the people (as well articulated in your remarks), I believe it is important we remember that our government is not some "other" power - it is in fact the people's power caretaking the people's assets (financial and land).

This may seem a trivial, trite or old fashioned distinction, but it is a key distinction at the heart of some of our greatest documents - The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and the masterful words of President Lincoln - words that reshaped the course of history. So when I consider how my state and my federal government spends money I do so through the lens of it spending the People's money, not spending its money.
 
Last edited:

bluespruce

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
65
Location
Illinois
The market has been in free fall the past couple weeks. That's probably the overall market drip and not so much how they feel about OXY individually.
Its more than overall market sentiment: the Anadarko acquisition is causing Occidental major issues. They outbid Chevron (can you say red flag?) and bit off more than they could chew. I only tangentially followed the story at the time but as I recall the CEO claimed the deal would be profitable with oil in the $40s but analysts and shareholders were mostly negative on the deal and thought oil needed to be significantly higher to make the acquisition profitable. In any case, oil at $33 means the deal does not work and they now have something like $38 Billion in debt. Basically if oil prices don't increase, OXY will be in financial trouble (if they aren't already). Hence needing to sell land and other assets.

I'm very interested to see how this plays out.
 

shootbrownelk

Active member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
973
Location
Wyoming
And for a 3rd time, money is fungible so doesn’t matter if you raise new taxes, borrow new funds or spend the rainy day it has the same effect, as if you don’t need your rainy day fund you could lower taxes or refund some of it. It’s the people’s money not the bureaucrats.
The rainy day fund is from oil/gas revenues from state owned school trust lands . Wyoming has no state income tax. Refund what taxes? Property taxes? Buzz is correct, you ain't a resident of Wyoming, butt out.
 

bullbugle307

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
225
I see two schools of thought right now. Take the opportunity to make the buy while prices are tanked, which could be a huge long term boon but is risky. Or go into a holding pattern and wait to see what happens with the economy/covid before committing to such a huge purchase. Oil prices tanking and the effect on our revenue obviously has to be taken into consideration.
 
Last edited:

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
596
Location
Montana
Sounds like they might still look at it, but details on the reason for the veto were lacking.

"There are more entities out there that are very interested in this land purchase," he said. "And I think to the extent that any of them do find it an interesting opportunity, they'll have a much easier time securing the financing in a rapid or immediate way, and closing the deal."

This part made me laugh. Who? I would love to hear the names of the companies that would have an "easier time securing the financing" given where financial markets are today.
 

trb

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
104
Location
Colorado
There are no O&G companies with the cash to make that purchase right now, and if they did, their board would sue them for gross mismanagement. Not a WY resident, but I don't understand why this wouldn't be a layup of a political win right now. Occidental is desperate for cash. Historicaly low prices, securing future revenue stream for schools, public land that provides recreational opportunities that adhere to CDC social distancing guidelines...
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,684
Location
Helena
There are no O&G companies with the cash to make that purchase right now, and if they did, their board would sue them for gross mismanagement. Not a WY resident, but I don't understand why this wouldn't be a layup of a political win right now. Occidental is desperate for cash. Historicaly low prices, securing future revenue stream for schools, public land that provides recreational opportunities that adhere to CDC social distancing guidelines...
Wyoming's revenue picture is miserable right now, and their revenue stream is largely dependent upon oil, gas & coal (trona and a few other minerals as well) on top of a sales tax for citizens. They'd be looking at busting their savings account to purchase this, likely at a higher price than appraisal, and it's no guarantee that these lands would produce revenue outside of some grazing, especially in today's massively depressed nat resource economy.

I love that part of the reasoning behind the veto is that it would set up a public process of vetting Gov't decisions. Wyoming is still Wyoming, after all. :)
 

mulecreek

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
663
Location
Rock Springs, WY
Sounds like they might still look at it, but details on the reason for the veto were lacking.

"There are more entities out there that are very interested in this land purchase," he said. "And I think to the extent that any of them do find it an interesting opportunity, they'll have a much easier time securing the financing in a rapid or immediate way, and closing the deal."

This part made me laugh. Who? I would love to hear the names of the companies that would have an "easier time securing the financing" given where financial markets are today.
Trona producers are looking at significant portions of this land deal. Trona is a seldom looked at commodity but given where much of this land is located they have a significant interest. Where it's at on their radar given everything else happening at the moment is anyone's guess. The trona producers definitely play a long game so I think this deal only gets more attractive for them as the value drops. People keep thinking this is an all or nothing deal. Its not. Oxy will carve this land up as much as needed to generate cash.
 
Top