T
The Real Bob
Guest
rsc2a said:
So you are one of those people that let someone break into your house and kill your family members, because Jesus loves the robber killing your family?.....oh wait
So you are one of those people that let someone break into your house and kill your family members, because Jesus loves the robber killing your family?.....oh wait
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Bob L said:
Myself - I would defend my person using non-lethal means. I would defend my family using lethal force. My possessions...those aren't really mine, but God's and I'd rather let the thief take them than cause any type of real physical harm to said thief.
T
The Real Bob
Guest
rsc2a said:
R
redgreen5
Guest
I see a lot of misconceptions here.....
ITEM 1: Inflation, or nominal vs. actual
First, you need to understand the difference between actual price, and nominal price. Actual price is what you are paying for something, using inflation-adjusted dollars. Nominal pricing is whatever the price tag says.
Historically speaking, the price of gas mostly been increasing in name only. In other words, what we have been paying for gasoline has actually been falling, not rising, for most of the last 30 years. In actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, what has actually been happening is this:
So even today, we're actually paying about the same amount as we paid in 1981.
ITEM 2: The change since 2002
Things were quiet during the 1980s and 1990s; this was primarily due to the Iran-Iraq war. Both countries were pumping out furious amounts of oil, in an effort to gain foreign currency to fund their wars. This kept oil prices low during the 1980s, and was - in fact - the only real economic improvement for the country during the Reagan years.
Then around 2002, we started seeing a spike in the both the nominal and the inflation-adjusted price of oil. The causes were:
1. Bush Administration fiscal policy - the Bush adminstration did not want to raise taxes. So instead, they began borrowing money to pay for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. This was accomplished by selling US Treasuries abroad, principally to China and Japan. Money flowed into Washington to fund the wars, but this came at a cost: the US dollar was weakened. Currencies float. That means that the value of the US dollar changes all the time. So do other currencies. If your currency has lost 20% of its buying power since last year, then goods will be re-priced to reflect that. So to you (and anyone using your currency) it *appears* like - and *feels* like - a 20% price hike. But the absolute price of the item hasn't changed; only your currency's value has.
All told, this Bush fiscal policy caused a 43% devaluation of the US dollar's buying power between 2001 and 2007. Your dollar bought 43% less goods and services in 2006 than it did in 2001.
Since oil is one of the few commodities that is dollar-denominated (sold in dollars only), then producers reacted. When the dollar started falling, the oil producers simply adjusted the price per barrel upward so that they didn't lose anything. So any country unfortunate enough to be using dollars would see the price of oil jump way up. On the other hand, countries that used other currencies would only see a small jump.
Here is what this means in real terms:
On Bush's inauguration, you could have bought a barrel of oil for $30. In October of 2007, oil was $89 a barrel. Thus, of the $59 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil to a U.S. consumer, more than $30 is due to the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar and the fiscal and trade policies that have contributed to it.
2. Mideast instability - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran;
3. The rise of Chinese industrial and consumer demand - more factories producing goods and more people driving cars;
4. Market speculation in oil - Here is the a chart of the price of oil per barrel right after the 2008 banking crash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg
Notice the sharp drop in 2009. Oil plunged from $147.27 per barrel in July of 2008 to $30.28 a barrel by Jan of 2009. The majority of that fall happened in the summer and autumn, right after the implosion of Bear Stearns, the September crash of Lehman Brothers, the absorption of Merill-Lynch, etc. That represents a 79% decline in price in about six month's time. Worldwide demand did not fall by 79% in six months. This was the work of futures speculators.
ITEM 3: why drilling more oil / offshore / etc. is not the answer
Some people seem to think that oil drilled off the American coast has a nice shiny label on it, and must be sold in America. It doesn't work that way. Oil is a commodity - just like corn, soybeans, copper, coffee, cocoa, etc. As such, it gets traded on global commodities markets. All oil drilled offshore of the USA goes to the WORLD spot market (commodity market) for petroleum. It does not stay in the USA. Once on the world market, it gets sold to the highest bidder - China, India, Argentina, whoever. There are NO laws saying that the oil must stay in the USA for Americans to use.
So every time some oil executive or right-wing talking head tells you that we need to open up more drilling in the USA to achieve "energy independence", you can know right off the bat that they are lying to you. All they're trying to do is boost oil company profits - and sell the oil to the highest bidder. It does nothing for energy independence.
So until/unless we have a law that requires all oil drilled in the USA to be bought and sold here, then that oil will continue to be sold on the world spot market. The reason they're talking about "energy independence" is because they are preying on American patriotism - and counting on the American public to be stupid enough not to realize how commodities future markets operate. Don't let them fool you.
ITEM 1: Inflation, or nominal vs. actual
First, you need to understand the difference between actual price, and nominal price. Actual price is what you are paying for something, using inflation-adjusted dollars. Nominal pricing is whatever the price tag says.
Historically speaking, the price of gas mostly been increasing in name only. In other words, what we have been paying for gasoline has actually been falling, not rising, for most of the last 30 years. In actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, what has actually been happening is this:
So even today, we're actually paying about the same amount as we paid in 1981.
ITEM 2: The change since 2002
Things were quiet during the 1980s and 1990s; this was primarily due to the Iran-Iraq war. Both countries were pumping out furious amounts of oil, in an effort to gain foreign currency to fund their wars. This kept oil prices low during the 1980s, and was - in fact - the only real economic improvement for the country during the Reagan years.
Then around 2002, we started seeing a spike in the both the nominal and the inflation-adjusted price of oil. The causes were:
1. Bush Administration fiscal policy - the Bush adminstration did not want to raise taxes. So instead, they began borrowing money to pay for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. This was accomplished by selling US Treasuries abroad, principally to China and Japan. Money flowed into Washington to fund the wars, but this came at a cost: the US dollar was weakened. Currencies float. That means that the value of the US dollar changes all the time. So do other currencies. If your currency has lost 20% of its buying power since last year, then goods will be re-priced to reflect that. So to you (and anyone using your currency) it *appears* like - and *feels* like - a 20% price hike. But the absolute price of the item hasn't changed; only your currency's value has.
All told, this Bush fiscal policy caused a 43% devaluation of the US dollar's buying power between 2001 and 2007. Your dollar bought 43% less goods and services in 2006 than it did in 2001.
Since oil is one of the few commodities that is dollar-denominated (sold in dollars only), then producers reacted. When the dollar started falling, the oil producers simply adjusted the price per barrel upward so that they didn't lose anything. So any country unfortunate enough to be using dollars would see the price of oil jump way up. On the other hand, countries that used other currencies would only see a small jump.
Here is what this means in real terms:
On Bush's inauguration, you could have bought a barrel of oil for $30. In October of 2007, oil was $89 a barrel. Thus, of the $59 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil to a U.S. consumer, more than $30 is due to the depreciation of the U.S. Dollar and the fiscal and trade policies that have contributed to it.
2. Mideast instability - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran;
3. The rise of Chinese industrial and consumer demand - more factories producing goods and more people driving cars;
4. Market speculation in oil - Here is the a chart of the price of oil per barrel right after the 2008 banking crash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brent_Spot_monthly.svg
Notice the sharp drop in 2009. Oil plunged from $147.27 per barrel in July of 2008 to $30.28 a barrel by Jan of 2009. The majority of that fall happened in the summer and autumn, right after the implosion of Bear Stearns, the September crash of Lehman Brothers, the absorption of Merill-Lynch, etc. That represents a 79% decline in price in about six month's time. Worldwide demand did not fall by 79% in six months. This was the work of futures speculators.
ITEM 3: why drilling more oil / offshore / etc. is not the answer
Some people seem to think that oil drilled off the American coast has a nice shiny label on it, and must be sold in America. It doesn't work that way. Oil is a commodity - just like corn, soybeans, copper, coffee, cocoa, etc. As such, it gets traded on global commodities markets. All oil drilled offshore of the USA goes to the WORLD spot market (commodity market) for petroleum. It does not stay in the USA. Once on the world market, it gets sold to the highest bidder - China, India, Argentina, whoever. There are NO laws saying that the oil must stay in the USA for Americans to use.
So every time some oil executive or right-wing talking head tells you that we need to open up more drilling in the USA to achieve "energy independence", you can know right off the bat that they are lying to you. All they're trying to do is boost oil company profits - and sell the oil to the highest bidder. It does nothing for energy independence.
So until/unless we have a law that requires all oil drilled in the USA to be bought and sold here, then that oil will continue to be sold on the world spot market. The reason they're talking about "energy independence" is because they are preying on American patriotism - and counting on the American public to be stupid enough not to realize how commodities future markets operate. Don't let them fool you.
B
Bro Blue
Guest
Rg5, that was a very informative post. I was a little shocked about item 3...never thought about that before. Where did that information come from?
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
I've always loved the "Inflation" argument.....
Inflation rating/rankings are rather fluid. Inflation does not affect certain aspects of society as much as others. If you're going to make a "inflation" argument.... then you should present a proper graphs that matches "inflation" to wages/expenses.
Even your graph shows that gas held rather steady through the early 1970's..... while we know inflation had a dramatic impact on other commodities. Thus, this would reduce expendable income and tighten everyone's spending.
You failed to mention the primary driving force in reduced cost of oil. Bush announced expanded oil drilling and released some of the US's strategic reserves on the market. Future speculators then got out of the market fearing huge losses. This drove down the price oil.
The problem we have now is that future speculators have NO FEAR that Obama will do anything to lower prices. They KNOW his plan is to push alternative fuels and that alternative fuels are not cost affective. The "speculators" do not FEAR anyone.
I can assure you right now.... IF... we had a President with any "balls" to stand up to "Cartels/Speculators"...... they would stop driving up the futures market.
If I were the President. I would hold a press conference and announce that we would do everything within our power to reduce the price of oil. I would threaten to flood the market with ALL our strategic reserves. ALL OF THEM. We could then..... buy back the reserves at a reduced price and even save money.
I would then announce plans for the formation of a North American "Cartel" to combat the manipulation of prices by "OPEC".
I would call Saudia Arabia and threaten them with reducing the military/financial aid they receive. I would also "threaten" them by supporting democratic efforts to weaken their "royal family".
Our current "surplus" isn't a real "surplus". Our excess fuels from the warm winter are being sold "first come first serve". The manufactures or fuels are glad the prices are increasing.... and they want to sell it NOW... instead of working to building native supplies.
I firmly believe that "oil" should no longer be traded as a commodity. It is in our national interest to change the market. We have the technology to track oil shipments/production to the point that oil can become a true whole-sell/retail product whereby real cost can ascribed to "batches" of production.
This would create REAL competition in the oil industry. NOW there is really NO competition. NONE.
A couple years ago I had long discussion concerning this with a AP reporter who published an article similar to what you've written.
The answer isn't to do nothing and promote "alternative" fuels. The real answer is to fundamentally change the market altogether. Its obvious its not working. I thought it was hilarious how Obama talks of how "drilling" isn't a "real" plan.
Well.... that MORON has had almost 4 years with his "plan" and its not working. His problem is all politicians problem. They don't do ANYTHING until it becomes a problem. We need to fundamentally change our approach.
T
Top
Guest
Today, the price for gas is $4.15 per gal in my area.
R
redgreen5
Guest
Bro Blue said:
That's the way the markets operate. They always have.
For a long time, there was a commodities market in Chicago for agricultural goods. It was a natural location, because it was in the heartland of the country, and sit on the crossroads of many railroad lines. So corn, beef, pork bellies, soybeans, etc. were all bought & sold at the CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Board_of_Trade
You can read about the commodity markets for oil here, on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_market#Oil
R
redgreen5
Guest
I can see I'm going to have to do some Econ 101:
Then you don't understand inflation, even though you may think you do.
Inflation is not about the effect on a segment of society. Inflation is the change in nominal cost of goods and services in an economy as a result of changes in the money supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
Wages / inflation - if inflation is 10%, and a particular item jumps in price by 25%, then the additional 15% rise in price is not due to inflation, money supply, or currency issues. It's because that particular item really, truly has become more expensive. That 15% is not inflation. It's a real rise in the cost of goods.
The *trick* is to separate out the inflationary (money supply) effects from the background rise in actual pricing.
We do not "know" this at all. Moreover, your review of pricing in the 1970s is wrong.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp
1. Prices during the decade of the 70s were pretty flat until 1974 ($4.75/bbl, nominal), and the start of the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
2. In 1974, oil started to climb ($9.35/bbl) and continued to stay high ($14.95/bbl) until 1979, when it skyrocketd again ($25.10/bbl) due to (a) continued inflation and (b) the Iran hostage crisis.
3. So how much was the increase in the decade of the 1970s?
Nominal
1970: $ 3.39
1979: $25.10
640% increase
Inflation adjusted
1970: $19.71
1979: $77.31
292% increase
Depending on whether you go with nominal or inflation adjusted dollars, that is a 292% increase (infl-adj) or a 640% increase (nominal) in the price in less than a decade.
This is at *least* as bad as the inflation that was experienced through the overall economy during that decade.
christundivided said:
Then you don't understand inflation, even though you may think you do.
Inflation is not about the effect on a segment of society. Inflation is the change in nominal cost of goods and services in an economy as a result of changes in the money supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
Wages / inflation - if inflation is 10%, and a particular item jumps in price by 25%, then the additional 15% rise in price is not due to inflation, money supply, or currency issues. It's because that particular item really, truly has become more expensive. That 15% is not inflation. It's a real rise in the cost of goods.
The *trick* is to separate out the inflationary (money supply) effects from the background rise in actual pricing.
We do not "know" this at all. Moreover, your review of pricing in the 1970s is wrong.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp
1. Prices during the decade of the 70s were pretty flat until 1974 ($4.75/bbl, nominal), and the start of the Arab oil embargo after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
2. In 1974, oil started to climb ($9.35/bbl) and continued to stay high ($14.95/bbl) until 1979, when it skyrocketd again ($25.10/bbl) due to (a) continued inflation and (b) the Iran hostage crisis.
3. So how much was the increase in the decade of the 1970s?
Nominal
1970: $ 3.39
1979: $25.10
640% increase
Inflation adjusted
1970: $19.71
1979: $77.31
292% increase
Depending on whether you go with nominal or inflation adjusted dollars, that is a 292% increase (infl-adj) or a 640% increase (nominal) in the price in less than a decade.
This is at *least* as bad as the inflation that was experienced through the overall economy during that decade.
R
redgreen5
Guest
christundivided said:
Actually, this had nothing to do with it, for several reasons:
1. Timescale - the price of oil is short-term in nature. But increased oil supply from drilling is years away. It takes time to bring new wells online. Moreover, the real bottleneck is not a lack of oil wells. It's a lack of refining capacity.
2. Volume - the amount of oil expected from expanded drilling, and from the strategic reserves, was trivial. Compared to existing world production, neither one is more than a drop in then bucket. More about that later.
3. Magnitude - you seem to be totally missing the point of the graph I gave. The price fell by 79% in six months time. According to your argument, all that a president has to do to make gas prices fall by 79% is open oil drilling and flood the market with Strategic Reserve oil. Yet Barack Obama drew down some of the Strategic Oil Reserve last spring, as a result of the Arab Spring uprisings and disruptions in oil supply from the Gulf and from Libya. Yet even though he released Strategic Reserve oil, I don't recall gas falling to 84 cents a gallon (79% decrease) - do you?
4. Probably the most obvious reason why your comment is wrong: Bush never released any oil from the strategic oil reserve. He may have announced it, but it never actually happened. All that happened was a loan of oil to two refineries as a result of Hurricane Gustav. But that oil had to be repaid to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)#SPR_drawdowns
NO.
What pushed speculators out of the market was totally different. The economic crisis impacted them in two ways:
1. speculators use borrowed credit to conduct their speculation - this is what makes speculation so risky: you're gambling with other people's money, and LOTS of it. Huge credit lines are needed. But their credit lines were being withdrawn as global credit markets started locking up.
2. corporations, companies, consumers, and governments stopped buying petroleum - when the major consumers of petroleum suddenly stop placing orders, nobody wants to be stuck holding a bunch of futures contracts at high ($157/bbl) prices. But that is precisely what futures speculators do: they buy contracts now, with borrowed money. Then, they hope they can sell those contracts later, pay back the loan of borrowed money, and make a profit on the contract.
This is nonsense. You apparently know even less about alternative fuels than you know about the world petroleum market. You also don't seem to realize that there is actually more oil and gas exploration under Obama than under Bush.
More nonsense.
R
redgreen5
Guest
christundivded said:
1. Tracking the costs is not the problem. Whether costs are tracked to individual batches, or to aggregate productions, makes no difference.
2. Nobody - especially Republican administrations - is going to push for legislation to do this.
3. A lot of the oil that US companies drill is not actually produced in this country. It 's drilled in other regions of the world - Nigeria, Columbia, etc. The idea you propose could not be done, unless the host countries agreed to it. They will not. If you try to force them, they'll simply cancel the contracts with American companies and give them to Russian or Chinese or European countries.
Actually, alternative fuels are going to be part of the answer, regardless of what you think.
Look at this way: China is a no-nonsense place. Their investment in alternative fuels is staggering. Through a combination of directed investment, native (and stolen) technology, etc. they are now the world leader in wind power plants.
Would the Chinese be doing all this, if alternative fuels weren't the obvious direction of future growth?
To be fair, he's had a lot of other things on his plate, including an economic crisis inherited from the Republican administration and Congress that preceded him.
If we want to re-tool our national energy policy, it will take a decade or longer to do it. Business interests will have to take back seat to national priorities. Individual regional interests will have to take back seat. But do you *really* see that happening?
Let me give you an example: China currently drills oil inside its own borders. Their laws dictate that 100% of their domestic production must be sold and used in China. If they need more oil than that, then they go to the world spot market and buy it there, just like other countries do. But for that reason, we really don't know how much oil China is using or drilling; that information is a state secret and there are criminal prosecution for revealing it. But China is greatly insulated from fluctuations in world oil prices. Not totally insulated, but signficantly more than we are.
Here's another example: Brazil got stung badly by the rising price of oil. So they instead grow a vast amount of sugar cane. They convert this to ethanol, and it supplies half their domestic needs (sugar cane is far more effective at ethanol conversion than ordinary corn is, because it has more energy in it). So Brazil only has to buy half its gasoline from international markets.
But if we had laws like these here, that would be a huge step to true (not fantasy) energy independence. So what is blocking that approach?
1. The power of the energy lobbyists;
2. The politicians (especially Republican politicians) who rely on campaign donations, especially now after Citizens United;
3. A voting population that is too busy / too politicized / not educated enough to understand the situation; and
4. Current US law that treats corporations as individuals with constitutional rights.
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
Might I recommend dropping the idea you're going to "school" me on the "rudimentary" skills associated with economic study? There is no need to be arrogant.
This may be true to some degree but it doesn't change the fact that there are VARYING degrees of influence across products. At best... Inflation is still "fluid". In the "wiki" article.... did you notice the word "general"? Do you know what they English word "general" means?
Does the word "general" allow for any form of variance?
You complete misunderstood my comment. I wasn't speaking of the just the 70's. I was speaking of 1918 to 1972 on your graph. Did you notice the nominal line versus the inflationary line?
My point exactly.....
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
This is true but you don't understand why Obama's choice did not affect the market. No one really believed that Obama would do what it takes beyond his initial attempt to increase supply on the market. He has this problem on EVERYTHING he does.
NO ONE BELIEVES HIM. He can yell.... he can holler.... he can joke... but everyone knows he's nothing more than a wind bag. He makes ridiculous claims and never backs up anything. NEVER.
The market IGNORES HIM.
The market isn't driven by "actuals"... .It is primarily driven by intent. Case in point...
The ONLY reason that IRAN is causing the problem they are causing.... Is to increase OIL PRICES for their profit. The market BELIEVES THEM. They do not believe our moron of a PRESIDENT. Speculators WANT to see an increase. They jump at every opportunity to believe anything that would increase the price of oil.
It wasn't because of Obama. He didn't do ANYTHING to expand it.... and he couldn't stop it. The increase in exploration was due to previous permits issued by the Bush administration. Not the Obama administration. It was also due to expansion that is taking place on
PRIVATE LANDS in the DAKOTAS. Something the Obama administration can't touch. So get your facts straight before you PRAISE that moron of a president we have.
Do you think that typing the word "nonsense" is going to get you anywhere in this discussion? Am I suppose to run away and hind because you type the word "nonsense"?
Please.....
Problem solved: http://nation.foxnews.com/charles-krauthammer/2012/02/24/krauthammer-mocks-obama-s-algae-energy-plan
R
redgreen5
Guest
christundivided said:
My response was to your comment:
"If you're going to make a "inflation" argument.... then you should present a proper graphs that matches "inflation" to wages/expenses. "
That's pretty presumptuous of you. If you're going to try and tell me how to frame an argument, you had better know what you're talking about beforehand.
WRONG.
You still do NOT understand inflation. You seem to think that "inflation" means "price increase". IT DOES NOT.
Changes in the pricing of different products, even when they change at different rates, is NOT inflation.
Inflation: 5%
Bread rises by 8% - then 5% is inflation, 3% is an actual rise in the cost of bread.
Lumber rises by 15% - then 5% is inflation, 10% is the actual rise in the cost of lumber
Just because lumber rose more than bread does not mean that lumber experienced more inflation. The amount of inflation is the SAME, because inflation affects the currency in the economy. If you had a barter economy - an economy that didn't use money or any currency - then inflation would be impossible. Inflation can only occur when an economy uses some form of money.
In my example above, the only way that you would have different inflationary effects is if you used one currency to buy bread, and a different currency to buy lumber. But we don't do that.
If there are different amounts of relative price increase, then that's because things really, truly did get more expensive.
If a killing frost wipes out 95% of the strawberry crop, and prices for strawberries go through the roof, that is NOT inflation. That is a dramatic reduction in supply that causes a huge price spike.
Inflation is always fluid. That does not mean that it affects different segments of the economy differently.
It merely means that it fluctuates, just like the money supply and relative strength / weakness of currency fluctuates.
Does the word "general" allow for any form of variance?
Not in the way you are trying to imply.
But you can't mix the different fiscal periods of history.
Look: the USA was on a gold standard after WW2. The Bretton Woods agreement bound the entire world to a gold standard. This was to PREVENT inflation. So from 1945 to 1971 we operated under a different currency structure. And before 1945 we had another currency structure. And since 1971, we've been on a floating currency system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
You cannot simply mix and match parts of the graph, without understanding the macroeconomic and fiscal policy structures that were in place at the time.
FINALLY:
Contrary to your claim:
Even your graph shows that gas held rather steady through the early 1970's
The price of gas did *not* hold steady up to the 1970s. The red line showing inflation adjusted cost was actually FALLING from 1918 to 1974.
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
Libertarian? or Liberal democrat?
You don't know what the party is going to do. We are at a time in history were everything is going to be on the table at one time or another.
I hear you. Do you really think that they will magically create 25 percent of the global demand somewhere else?
Even if they do cancel... Someone will want the feed the "person" creating 25 percent of Global demand. Maybe you don't understand "supply" and "demand"
The US has too long failed to take advantage of their position. We have 25 percent of the demand and we act like we have 0. I can tell you right now.... If this was any other "product".... 25 percent demand would generate huge savings on the product.
The reason it doesn't.... it because the system is FIXED. We need to get the FIX out.
I'm going to use your word "nonsense" BUT I am tell you why its nonsense. First, rare earths that are needed in "wind turbines" and solar panels are produced in China. Its cost them alot less to produce such equipment. Its costs us.... a vast amount more. So its not an apples to apples comparison.
Even given the cost savings in rare earths being mined in China..... CHINA is still one of the worlds largest users of OIL.... and their demand is expected to increase at a greater rate than most any country in the world over the next decade. If what you say is true.... they demand would go DOWN... Not UP. Get a grip man... you're losing this debate very badly.....
The costs to manufacture alternative energy sources greatly out weighs the cost of using oil. The only way this is practical in the US.... is because the Obama administration is giving "grants" and tax breaks on those who use alternative energy sources. Even then.... if the oil remains at a relatively low cost.... Those who choose wind turbines... will never recoup their monies. NEVER. The on going maint. required for wind turbines is horrible. Every checked it out?
Maddog... is this you?
THE MORON didn't do anything for the first year but implement a health care system that no one wants.
He HASN'T been busy. The idiot has played more golf, basketball, and "suck rearend" than anyone in history that's held the office.
Can't grow sugar cane in the US like you can in Brazil. I agree that sugar cane is a better solution than corn... but still not up to "snuff".
1. Okay.
2. Nonsense. The oil industry loves Obama. He received almost 1 million dollars in donations in 2008 from the oil/gas industry.
3. The population isn't too busy to get MAD over 5 dollar gasoline. I think its hilarious that Obama wants the "poor" and "middle class" on his side... And he is allowing this to happen. There is more money being lost from over priced oil than anything else. I saw an estimate that high gas prices resulted in 92 billion dollars less money being spent from poor and middle class americans in 2011.
4. I got a suggestion for you..... MOVE. Corporation do have rights. Corporation are made up of REAL PEOPLE. Do you hate unions? What about Corporations that owned by members of unions? Do they have rights?
You're too easy.....
C
christundivided
Guest
qwerty said:
Charles is the only reason I watch Bret's show. I love his sarcasm. I was watching it yesterday when he went on his "rant". It was hilarious.
R
redgreen5
Guest
christundivided said:
Wrong. The reason it did not affect the market was what I already said: the volume wasn't enough, compared to the overall global production and consumption. You seem to have this idea that the SPR is some kind of vast ocean of red, white and blue oil that the USA can use as a weapon to control global oil prices. You couldn't possibly be more self-deluded.
The market reacts to supply and demand. According to your argument, the market should have reacted to the new amount of oil and dropped 79%. The markets *did* react somewhat; but not that much. It was a proportional reaction to the small amount of oil that was released.
christundivided said:
Another bogus argument driven by your own politics, and not by economics or any actual understanding of the topic.
If anything, the markets would not have believed Bush, since Bush actually did *not* release the Strategic Oil Reserve. So then back in the autumn of 2008 after it became clear that Bush wasn't going to release any oil, then oil prices should have shot right back up. But that didn't happen.
Oops. Looks like your argument doesn't hold water. Or oil, for that matter.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The commodities market is driven by actuals, regardless of what you may think. It's also true that you don't understand the relationship between futures contracts and actuals.
Also wrong.
1. Iran's ambitions in this area stretch back over 20 years, and have remained the same, regardless of the price of oil.
2. Iranian oil is sold at the same price as world oil. If they really wanted more money, they could just pump more.
3. Iran is currently under an oil embargo set to kick in next month. It's far more likely that they are trying to derail that embargo from taking effect, than they are trying to raise the global price of oil.
More politically driven nonsense.
Wrong on both counts.
Feel free to provide citations for your claims. Make sure they are valid, non-partisan sources that can be checked for accuracy. And stick around: I'll have many questions.
Again: feel free to provide citations for your claims.
As far as I can see, you have allowed your uneducated, right-wing partisanship to affect your viewpoint so badly that you can't untangle fact from reality.
You might do well to listen. If it's not apparent by now, I actually do have some training in this topic.
R
redgreen5
Guest
christundivided said:
Of course we can know what the GOP is going to do. Or the Democrats. History provides a guideline.
You are confused again about economics. The situation is not equal between buyer and seller. It is a seller's market for oil.
If the USA refuses to buy their oil, then they will simply sell to China, or India, or anyone else. That will be easy to do, since any hypothetical American embargo would be a reduction in demand. That will drive prices down, so suddenly a lot of new buyers will enter the market, and existing buyers will gobble up more.
On the other hand, they may simply remove an equivalent amount of oil from the market. Then the volume available for sale will be unchanged. And that will keep prices high.
If the USA refuses to buy their oil, then what will we do for energy? How long can the American economy hold out, by not importing any oil?
The US has no leverage in this situation.
Oh, I guarantee you that I understand it far better than you do.
Incorrect, for several reasons:
1. rare earths do NOT comprise a large portion of the cost of any wind turbine; in fact, a 400% increase in the cost of rare earths only equates to a 10% overall cost increase for a wind turbine;
2. the cost of the wind turbines themselves is only a fraction of the total overall cost of a wind generation system;
3. the actual largest cost is the engineering technology to make the energy conversion efficient - that is the part that the Chinese have stolen, primarily from European (French, German and Spanish) firms;
You don't know what you're talking about.
China's energy demand will still go up, even with wind power. For example, without wind power their demand might go up 60% over the next decade. With wind power, their oil demand would only go up 40%; the remaining 20% being satisfied by wind power. But their demand for oil will still continue to increase; only the rate of increase will change.
If you don't understand concepts like marginal increase, increase over time, then you really shouldn't be trying to discuss the impacts of different energy solutions. It isn't as simple as "add wind power, and oil demand starts trending negative."
Also wrong.